"Gun Free Zones" around the President! Sign the petition.

[Mormolyce]

But I have seen more rational arguments from the pro-gun side than the anti-gun side.

I'm also on the fence, and I see the opposite.

Also, gun rights people are much more fun because when you pick apart their arguments they get increasingly angry and irrational. Which is kind of disturbing when you think that people with this mentality are more likely to own guns!

[Veyne]

How many limbs have you lost so far to this common knife attacks you keep getting put through? Question two, why are you fighting the robber? Question three do you think life is a movie and robbers aren't interested in taking your money and getting away but to horribly maim you for no reason?

How many times have you been shot so far to these common shootings you keep getting put through? The reason a robber would be interested in "horribly maiming" you is to prevent you from making a positive identification that leads to their arrest. You know, most criminals don't enjoy prison. You hear about a lot more muggings (at least I do) than you do someone, like in the movies, walking up to you, pointing a gun at your face, and shouting "GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!"

[nnelson54]

And you "gun nuts" act as if the higher rate of gun ownership in the US has lead to lower instances of gun related deaths and crime than nations that have firearm bans or very heavy regulations on civilian gun ownership.

Two can play that game.

You can't take crime statistics at face value. Any crime statistic website worth it's bandwidth has a disclaimer on the page that elevated crime statistics often just mean a better police force and a citizen base that reports crime. And if you DO want to take them at face value, violent crime in the US has been on a steady(aside from 2-3 years in the early 90s where it briefly spiked) downward trend for over 20 years now(while media sensationalism about crime has been skyrocketing). And those countries with strict gun control have more crime with other weapons.

And even then, people act like the US is some lawless wasteland because we can own a gun. We average less than two more murders per 100,000 people than Canada(and are still well, well under the world wide average), who everyone wants to seem to compare our crime rates to.

[Wells]

You can't take crime statistics at face value. Any crime statistic website worth it's bandwidth has a disclaimed on the page that elevated crime statistics often just mean a better police force and a citizen base that reports crime. And if you DO want to take them at face value, violent crime in the US has been on a steady(aside from 2-3 years in the early 90s where it briefly spiked) downward trend for over 20 years now(while media sensationalism about crime has been skyrocketing). And those countries with strict gun control has more crime with other weapons.

"better reporting" really doesn't account for the discrepancy.

[hakujinbakasama]

I disagree with limiting all guns, but civilians do not need a goddamned assault rifle like the legally owned AR-15 and Smith & Wesson M&P15 used in the two most recent massacres.

Again the question is "why not?" Because bad people used them? Because something that is owned by a volume we can't even imagine was used by two assholes?

I don't get the rationalization. If we say that 500,000 people legally own an AR15 currently (which hell if I know if that is above or under) and out of those people 3 people in one year have used one illegally, that some how justifies the removal of them off the market?

Don't get me wrong. I'm against this for several reasons, but I've just not understood the connect. Hand guns kill more people in total every year. This means they are a greater problem. I believe part of the fight comes from this. They are targeting things which are used in an EXTREMELY low number of crimes. So if it passes, what is preventing everything that IS used in most other crimes.

The real fight comes from the lack of agreement on subject ideals as I and others have tried to express. Guns are equally for protection as they are for anything else. Used inappropriately they are extremely dangerous. Turns out, Alcohol isn't created for anything beneficial much like Tobacco. Both are substances which kill more people each year in the USA instead of guns. Both do not have uses of self protection. Bother are not protected under the Constitution, and yet I think more people would be against giving them up or doing away with them than guns. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me.

[Last Starfighter]

For those rare moments where a crime is deterred with a weapon, there are thousands of cases where a gun being around goes horribly around. People have a gun, they're going to end up using it at the wrong time and place, or have someone find it and use it with bad results.

[Veyne]

How so?

I wanted to make sure I spelled his name correctly so I put Obama into google and his profile is to the right, and I copy/pasted it.

Something wrong with the middle name "Hussein"?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, fanatical right-wing, anti-Obama people tend to try and deliberately point out his middle name because they feel the name "Hussein" carries a certain weight to it on behalf of Saddam Hussein. You know, an all-around pretty bad dude.

[nnelson54]

"better reporting" really doesn't account for the discrepancy.

That is such a weird comment that I don't even know how to respond. While you can make the assumption that there's just more crime(which is often wrong), I don't see how more people reporting crime doesn't mean more crime is being reported.

[RicardoZ]

When there is a reasonable expectation for every citizen in the US to be intimidated or assassinated, than you might have a slightly reasonable point.

It's actually infinitely more likely that you as an average citizen will be murdered vs. if you were the president.

[IIamaKing]

If you outlaw weapons everyone found with one can be arrested thus preventing the crime from ever taking place.

If they are caught with the weapon the crime has already taken place, illegal possession of a weapon. 1 thing I know about criminals is they give 2 wet farts about the law. Gun laws only make it harder for lawful citizens to get guns. As there are BOAT loads of guns available criminals will have no issues getting them.

I would take a longer look at the causes of an event rather than a tool used in an event.

Guns are not like the One Ring, a corrupting force in the hands of any one holding one.

[MossMonster]

Bring reddit and 4chan to this petition lol.

[blib]

How many times have you been shot so far to these common shootings you keep getting put through? The reason a robber would be interested in "horribly maiming" you is to prevent you from making a positive identification that leads to their arrest. You know, most criminals don't enjoy prison. You hear about a lot more muggings (at least I do) than you do someone, like in the movies, walking up to you, pointing a gun at your face, and shouting "GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!"

I have been shot twice.

May I ask for relevance?

And if he cuts of your finger you can't id the man? I wasn't aware of the magical identifying powers of a finger, arm or toe.

Newsflash most robberies is non violent, even in the US where the criminal are more likely to turn to violence knowing their victims is likely armed.

[Netherspark]

American presidents seem to have a habit of being shot... I wonder why that is? Plenty of other countries need no armed guards to follow the leader around.

[Veyne]

I'm also on the fence, and I see the opposite.

Also, gun rights people are much more fun because when you pick apart their arguments they get increasingly angry and irrational. Which is kind of disturbing when you think that people with this mentality are more likely to own guns!

I see the same thing happening with anti-gun people.

As I said, a debate like this generally doesn't accomplish anything. Apart from maybe a very small handful of people, neither side is going to sway the other. That's not to say it's not worth debating, it's just a matter of the mentality of the people doing the debating. It's just a bunch of "no, you're wrong, I'm right."

[Wells]

That is such a weird comment that I don't even know how to respond. While you can make the assumption that there's just more crime(which is often wrong), I don't see how more people reporting crime doesn't mean more crime is being reported.

Well let's look at intentional homicide rates. Our rate is as much as 4 times higher than other comparably wealthy nations. While reporting and the like has its effect, attributing a 400% difference to reporting strains credulity.

[Linkedblade]

So, what do we have here?

Liberal/Statist: To protect the people we need to control the environment in which they live in. We do what we can for the better good. In order for this to happen we need to have systems that protect groups from certain threats. For the innocent we must protect them using as many laws, resources, and programs as possible.

Conservative/Libertarian: Each individual has the right to defend one's self. The innocent will be protected by those individuals who see to it to take responsibility for the greater good.

See the difference there? The Libertarian focuses on the individual's right to defend himself or herself.

Whenever you are threatened which situation would you rather be in? A) You can help yourself. Response time: 1 second OR B) Help is on the way. Response time: 10 minutes.

This petition does have quite a bit of sarcasm. However the point remains: Does creating laws that remove the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons better protect them from harm? Or rather does creating a law that removes the right of law-abiding citizens stop those who do not abide by the law from doing harm? Let me repeat and bold that previous question:

Does creating a law that removes the right of law-abiding citizens stop those who do not abide by the law from doing harm?

And from that if it does not help citizens then how would it help the president?

[hakujinbakasama]

For those rare moments where a crime is deterred with a weapon, there are thousands of cases where a gun being around goes horribly around. People have a gun, they're going to end up using it at the wrong time and place, or have someone find it and use it with bad results.

Assumption not fact. The FACT is that there is no known way of collecting the data to challenge this. I linked someones account of drawing their weapon as a deterrent earlier. There is an unknown number of those sorts of incidents because the criminal isn't going to report it and the defender doesn't want the hassle.

[Wells]

So, what do we have here?

Liberal/Statist: To protect the people we need to control the environment in which they live in. We do what we can for the better good. In order for this to happen we need to have systems that protect groups from certain threats. For the innocent we must protect them using as many laws, resources, and programs as possible.

Conservative/Libertarian: Each individual has the right to defend one's self. The innocent will be protected by those individuals who see to it to take responsibility for the greater good.

See the difference there? The Libertarian focuses on the individual's right to defend himself or herself.

Whenever you are threatened which situation would you rather be in? A) You can help yourself. Response time: 1 second OR B) Help is on the way. Response time: 10 minutes.

This petition does have quite a bit of sarcasm. However the point remains: Does creating laws that remove the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons better protect them from harm? Or rather does creating a law that removes the right of law-abiding citizens stop those who do not abide by the law from doing harm? Let me repeat and bold that previous question:

Does creating a law that removes the right of law-abiding citizens stop those who do not abide by the law from doing harm?

And from that if it does not help citizens then how would it help the president?

Who is trying to remove your right to own a weapon?

[blib]

If they are caught with the weapon the crime has already taken place, illegal possession of a weapon. 1 thing I know about criminals is they give 2 wet farts about the law. Gun laws only make it harder for lawful citizens to get guns. As there are BOAT loads of guns available criminals will have no issues getting them.

I would take a longer look at the causes of an event rather than a tool used in an event.

Guns are not like the One Ring, a corrupting force in the hands of any one holding one.

BUT THAT IS THE POINT! IF GUNS ARE ILLEGAL AND SOMEONE GETS CAUGHT WITH IT THE CRIME THEY WERE GOING TO COMMIT WITH IT WONT HAPPEN!!

Whether or not they care about the law is irrelevant. If someone is caught with a gun you get that person of the street. How easy is it to run a gang if you get frisked and every time one of your members have a gun he goes away.

Someone is stalking someone, frisk him, does he have a gun? Yes? Arrest him. As opposed to now where the police could do fuck all.

There are a boat load of guns available to criminals because there is a boat load of guns around. If the common man didn't have one it would be a lot harder for criminals to get and a lot easier to notice when they tried to get them and when they did you could arrest them for it.

A gun enables one man to have the power over many, a unarmed man does not have the same power. A gun enables a coward to attack. A gun enables you to take a life with the squeeze of your finger.

[Grizzly Willy]

Bring reddit and 4chan to this petition lol.

It doesn't matter how many people you get to sign the petition, it won't get anything done, just like the Death Star petition.