Do you think we should ban guns?

Nope, I think just better gun control

Banning weapons does not solve the problem. In the US it is guns in London they want to ban knives since no one is allowed guns so they use knives. Early man used their fists, then rocks, then clubs, then spears( which have killed more humans than another weapon). The church banned the longbow. Now in modern times man uses guns. When laser weapons are developed it will be ban laser weapons. Do you see the pattern. It is not the weapons but man.

I am sorry you can't comprehend what the facts are and must stick to a narrative even when it is wrong. As I stated they have tough gun laws in England so the weapon of choice is a knife and they want to ban them, which goes to my point.

That counters your argument then.....gun laws work.

My point was man will kill man no matter how many laws we pass. It is like trying to pass a law repealing the law of gravity.

For who the Jews who had their guns taken when Nazi Germany outlawed gun ownership or the eighty million Chinese who didn't have guns during the communist take over of China, or the twelve million people in Russia under Stalin. Tell those people how gun laws worked for them.

If the guns were banned i only see one difference, and i am sure it would happen.

You don't just wake up and shoot up the school, everything builds up over the years, and if someone wants to do that so badly, they will find the way to get a gun.

Because it is easier to buy it in a legitimate way, guns used in the shootings are indentified as acquired from legal sources, numbered and issued officially.

If you ban the guns, they will just go to the secondary sources which are easy to acquire too. Deep web, darknet or whatever you call it, not even that, you can get any gun you want, even the military rifles from the less known internet sources. It's a common knowledge and anyone with computer literacy knows how to get anything off the internet. Now if the guns were banned, and someone just gets them off the internet, who will have guns to defend against them? No one. They will just buy them off the internet, unmarket guns, and do the same shooting, even more anonymously than before.

And the general public thinks oh let's ban the guns, then the shooters go away. No. Shooter is someone who will do the act regardless. We would have to fix the problem itself, not to patch things up and see the problem persist. Bans don't stop people from getting anything they want.

why not make nuclear weapons legal for all americans.

same logic and even the constitution reading it as the NRA does would suggest i can own a balasitc nuclear weapon.

That would proably have a negative effect. Just make it a lot, A LOT harder for people to get guns. And test these people regularly. People are very often mentally ill or just way too dumb to own a gun.

Uh...I'd like to see some evidence for that claim.

@MrGeezer: sure thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-duwe-rocque-mass-shootings-mental-illness-20180223-story.html%3foutputType=amp

And if LA Times isn't your thing, here is a third party study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

The problem seems to be a professional diagnosis done After the event occurs, so yeah it's easy to label one as a sociopath AFTER they gun down people in public, and someone who does atrocities like that would be nothing short of a sociopath.

1) Nowhere in there does it say that ALL SHOOTINGS are done by mentally ill people.

2) Even only talking about mass shootings, I still don't see any evidence that ALL OF THEM were committed by mentally ill people.

Maybe you misspoke earlier, and meant to say something different than "All shootings are from someone with some form of mental health that wasn't treated". If that's the case then I'd ask you to revise that statement and clarify what you actually meant. But as it stands, and assuming that you meant exactly what you said, you haven't provided ANY evidence that "All shootings are from someone with some form of mental health that wasn't treated."

@MrGeezer: Your eagle eye focus on my one statement seems to be the source of confusion. It's Mental Health is a major factor in what is going on (as the article I provided states.) My argument is that, yes, ALL the shootings going on DO have mental health as a bullet point because, like I said, nobody who plans and acts on those atrocities is in a normal mental state, hence why Soldiers have PTSD. Mass Shooters are sociopaths, they are labeled as such, and That's a mental illness. You have to have a screw loose to not feel anything while killing others.

Ban assault rubber bands immediately and outlaw trucks.

Legalize machine guns that shoot dildos on fire.

And again, I wasn't asking for "your argument". I was asking for ACTUAL EVIDENCE. Even the first link that you posted only goes so far as to state that mass shootings are more likely to be perpetrated by people with mental illnesses. If a mass shooting BY ITSELF was sufficient for a diagnosis of mental illness (even in the absence of any other evidence), then BY DEFINITION all mass shootings would be caused by mentally ill people and the article would have stated that.

Also, my understanding is that sociopathy still isn't recognized in the DSM as an actual mental illness. The closest actual mental illness would probably be anti-social personality disorder, but even then my understanding is that a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder isn't given out after one act of violence (and with no other evidence to back up the diagnosis). Can you provide evidence to me that ANY "mass shooting" (and let's go with the actual definition of "mass shootings") is AUTOMATICALLY sufficient to PROVE that the person has antisocial personality disorder, even in the absence of any other evidence leading to a diagnosis?

Banning guns will solve nothing.

Now, banning thumbs...

Thanks for making a new one bud.

@MrGeezer: I provided two articles talking about correlation to mental health and violence and told you I said that because I think anyone who who would be so cold blooded as to mass murder innocent people and feel nothing had mental issue. I don't know why you want evidence of my opinion, because I can provide you articles all day but if we can't agree a mass shooter is sick in the head in the first place then the foundation of this discussion is shattered.

I'm not asking you for evidence of your opinion, I'm asking for evidence of a concrete claim. You said, "All shootings are from someone with some form of mental health that wasn't treated." That's as much of an opinion-based statement as, "NASA faked the moon landings." In other words, either it's true or it isn't. Opinion isn't an issue here.

We weren't talking about a correlation between violence and mental health. We weren't talking about stuff like "I feel like a mass shooter must be sick in the head." You made a claim and either it's true or it isn't. Now, you can either admit that there's no evidence supporting your claim and retract your statement, or you can stand by your claim and show me some evidence supporting it.

@MrGeezer: I made no "concrete claim." I even started my comment with "I've always said" so one would be right in assuming what I'm about to say is my own opinion and I still stand by it.

The statement that I quoted made no mention that it's just what you suspect or believe, it flat-out stated that all shootings were caused by people with mental health problems. And since you admit that you don't have any evidence of that, we could have avoided this whole conversation if you'd simply admitted that you don't have any evidence when I asked you for some.

In any case, since you're now admitting that there isn't any evidence that all shootings are caused by people with mental health problems, then I don't see any reason to continue discussing this.

@MrGeezer: And you can continue to ignore the fact that I made the statement my opinion in the first sentence, and that fact was ignored entirely when I said it was my opinion the 2nd time. Your right, we could have avoided the coversation entirely if you paid attention to the first sentence in my statement. Stay mad Geezer.

Why not try it out?

Abraham Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal.

Only a firearm can make a petite woman the equal of a strong man.

When they ban guns, they'll get as many of my bullets as I can give them. They can pick up my guns, the shell casings and unspent ammo when they are done zipping up the last body bag.