TV reporter and cameraman shot dead live on the news.

Aug 28, 2015 1:03:05 GMT -5 nWo_Sentinel said:

First of all America is not a democracy, it's a republic.

Second, you're right. Gun control IS about freedom. A freedom that has worked for over 250 years and a freedom that I am NOT willing to give up in the face of every wack job and dips#it that holds a gun just because someone else finds it expedient to blame that object or situation instead of holding that person accountable. Was anyone talking about gun control after that church shooting in South Carolina? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO They were talking about the GD confederate flag which had so very little to do with what that vile disgusting waste of human flesh was about but, it was an opportunity, and people jumped on it.

To people who knew this "Bryce Williams" he was a trouble maker and had a history of making racial charged statements and allegations that were always dismissed. The guy was a race baiter that admitted in his manifesto that South Carolina was a major reason for him deciding to kill......And what do YOU want to talk about? Gun control.....

I dont use the excuse that owning a gun for 'my own protection' is worth the death of so many innocent people. I have never killed anyone with my gun or anyone else's. I own because i'm an american citizen, a father, recreation, protection, to piss you off.

And to quote you: "And the argument of 'criminals will just use something else' is stupid as well."

NOBODY that's sane is saying that....nobody. Criminals will ALWAYS use guns.....ALWAYS! Your little gun laws wont stop them....Go Visit South Chicago for a weekend I hear its fun!

First of all America is a democracy, in form of a Federal Republic.

The reason we want to talk about gun control is because once again innocent people have died due to a batcrap crazy person shooting them. Does this case have to do with racism? Absolutely. But you know what it also had to do with: guns.

As I've said before: I get that people like you don't want to give up your freedom of owning a gun. Why would you want to give it up? 250 years ago it made sense to give people that constitutional right. But the founding fathers didn't (and probably couldn't) know the consequences this would cause.

You see, I live in Germany, I'm a German citizen and we (as regular citizens) don't have the right to own a gun. Shootings like this one or the many school shootings don't occur as regularly here. There's a correlation which is undeniable.

Comparing Germany and USA is a good example. The main difference regarding guns is that US citizens have the right to bear arms and Germans don't, everything else is fairly the same: Both countries are established democracies, both are rich, political leaders and mostly functioning (outside a few problems which are small if you compare them to those of countries like Syria, Iraq, Libya and so on).

We don't nearly have as many massacres as the US. There's no massacres of people using knives, an ax, a hammer or anything like that.

Also we don't need guns to protect us because the possibility of an intruder attacking with a gun is very slim. The US and Germany are modern, western countries and not some sort of 'zone of anarchy'. The need to own a gun for protection comes because of the right to own a gun. You as a father protecting your family need a gun because the right to bear arms makes it possible that an intruder could carry out his attack on you with a gun. It's a vicious circle.

The US has got a problem which is almost unfixable at this point. There's way too many guns already circulating. Banning them now would probably accomplish nothing. My point is that guns should have been banned in the first place because this is a system that works well (Germany & the UK come to mind). Obviously though that ship has sailed and we're now stuck with this situation of shootings being a regular occurrence. Banning assault rifles and other guns like those would be a step to reducing this number but of course it's not gonna happen.

Aug 28, 2015 1:17:50 GMT -5 Nivro™ said:

Aug 28, 2015 0:23:13 GMT -5 0,Y said:

The thing with this whole gun control debate is that it's not about guns, it's about freedom. I totally get that the Constitution gives Americans the right to bare arms and after nearly 250 years of having this right it's hard to change it. It's freedom vs. safety and it has nothing to do with guns themselves. The thing that pisses me off is that the pro-gun side acts like it is about guns when it's really not. One of the great things about modern democracies is their ability to change for the better whenever something proves to be ineffective or otherwise negative. Doesn't apply for the US and guns however.

I don't get how owning a gun for 'your own protection' is worth the death of so many innocent people. And the argument of 'criminals will just use something else' is stupid as well. What's easier to commit mass murder with: An assault rifle or a baseball bat or a knife or your own 2 fists?
And let's be real: How many times were you in such a situation that you had to use a gun for your own protection in order to save your life? Some people act like the US are some kind of zone of anarchy and without a gun your life would be in danger everyday.

This is where you are wrong. Anti-Gun advocates are all about guns...guns kill, guns shoot people, guns are evil. If you outlawed guns then there would be no shooting deaths! (Which is false criminals would just use illegal guns). Pro-Gun advocates are about freedom, safety, anti-totalitarianism and having individual rights. While I personally dont own a gun, I believe that someone has their constitutional right to own one for their protection. If Im married & have kids and someone breaks into my house whether to just rob me or to do more harm. I have the right to protect my family to the fullest extent.

No one is saying that banning guns means no more shooting. They're saying it will make them less likely which is simple math really. 

Remember the reactions after Sandy Hook? Pro-Gun advocates actually wanted more guns, even at elementary schools. How is that about having individual rights or anti-totalitarianism?

And this scenario of somebody breaking in to rob people is what I meant with 'zone of anarchy'. Is that a possibility? Sure but it's highly unlikely, this is the US, a modern democracy with functioning laws and a monopoly of power by the State. This isn't Libya or Syria or any other politically unstable country where there's anarchy.

As said above: You obviously have the right to protect your family, even with guns and shooting the intruder but (!) the only reason you need to own a gun for protection is the Second Amendment giving people like intruders the right to bear arms and therefore making armed robberies possible and more likely.

Aug 28, 2015 1:36:08 GMT -5 screech said:

Aug 28, 2015 0:23:13 GMT -5 0,Y said:

The thing with this whole gun control debate is that it's not about guns, it's about freedom. I totally get that the Constitution gives Americans the right to bare arms and after nearly 250 years of having this right it's hard to change it. It's freedom vs. safety and it has nothing to do with guns themselves. The thing that pisses me off is that the pro-gun side acts like it is about guns when it's really not. One of the great things about modern democracies is their ability to change for the better whenever something proves to be ineffective or otherwise negative. Doesn't apply for the US and guns however.

You're right that it doesn't apply for the US. Here in the US, in terms of democracy, we live under a constitutional republic. That means that any majority opinion against gun ownership cannot trump the Constitution without the proper procedures to amend or abolish the Second Amendment. Regardless of any foreigner's opinion on our Constitution, most Americans respect it tremendously and consider it essential in maintaining the freedoms we enjoy in our country. The debate absolutely is about guns and a right to own one but it transcends that when it comes into the topic of Constitutional rights being diminished in general. The best part about this is that gun violence has actually been steadily declining for years in the US yet the whole world seems to have an opinion about our right to protect ourselves from criminals. It's all for the sake of "the children" that are rarely victims of gun violence besides in urban gang-filled neighborhoods like in Chicago that has gun control measures in place already. Weird. 

I don't get how owning a gun for 'your own protection' is worth the death of so many innocent people. And the argument of 'criminals will just use something else' is stupid as well. What's easier to commit mass murder with: An assault rifle or a baseball bat or a knife or your own 2 fists?
And let's be real: How many times were you in such a situation that you had to use a gun for your own protection in order to save your life? Some people act like the US are some kind of zone of anarchy and without a gun your life would be in danger everyday.

    Your statement seems to suggest that anyone who owns a gun for protection is somehow guilty when other people are irresponsible with their (most likely illegally obtained) gun. Someone owning a gun for their own protection isn't provoking the deaths of innocent people. It's actually the other way around. The deaths of innocent people provokes law-abiding citizens to want to own guns to protect themselves from becoming another innocent dead victim. Criminals illegally obtain guns and use them to kill people. In response, this triggers law-abiding people to want to obtain a gun as well in case they were ever faced with such a problem.

    To answer your questions: an "assault weapon" could be the easiest depending on a few factors such as how big the weapon is, how much ammo it holds and the proximity and environmental conditions where this incident were to occur. Guns aren't as easy to operate as some people seem to think. Aiming and shooting a powerful weapon can be a hard task for some while hitting someone in the head with a hammer 4 or 5 times could be relatively easy depending on the struggle of the person. Either way, maniacal people exist and we already have a lot of measures in place that prevents these people from obtaining guns from legal sources. Since the black market for guns isn't going to be drying up any time soon, law-abiding citizens aren't about to relinquish their weapons that they safely maintain and are usually trained to operate. You point out arguments you believe are "stupid" but then ask a completely irrelevant question like "How many times were you in such a situation that you had to use a gun for your own protection in order to save your life?" Just because someone can't name a specific time they had to use their gun for protection doesn't void their reasoning for owning it when there are plenty of examples of people who have had to rely on their gun for protection. (usually from home invaders.) It's not ridiculous for someone to take pre-cautious measures even though they haven't yet been so unlucky to encounter that specific situation in which they are preparing for. I don't know what type of people you're talking to that claim the US is some big violent zone where their gun is needed for daily protection against enemies. Nobody is claiming to use their gun to ward off the enemy on a nightly basis but the reality is we do live in a crime-ridden society and it is not stupid to prepare and be cautious. Home invasions happen quite frequently but statistically not very often in areas that have a high gun ownership rate. There's a correlation there. The last thing I'm going to bring up is the mall shooter in Oregon. After he shot 3 people (killing 2 of them) he was faced with a citizen that carried his gun on him. The mall shooter cowered down and retreated in fear of being shot by the law-abiding citizen. He then cowardly took his own life after his rampage was put to an end. If he wouldn't have been met by the opposition of that man, it's possible he wouldn't have stopped with those three victims. 

As I've said before. I fully understand where people like you are coming from. Your Constitution is a great accomplishment and you have every right to be proud of it. That being said criticism of the Constitution is and should be allowed as well.

To that second part. As I've explained before it's a vicious circle and a broken system at this point. However the deaths of innocent people is a bigger possibility due to the right to own guns. The circle started with the Second Amentment giving people the right to bear arms and that is the root of the problem.

Just imagine this right wouldn't have made it into the Constitution. 250 years later and gun violence wouldn't be such a huge problem as can be seen with countries like the UK or Germany.

The question I bolded was rhetorical because the protection argument makes it seem like you need to watch your back at all times because the possibility of getting attacked and robbed is incredibly high even though it isn't. That's just how it seems to me as a German citizen who doesn't have the right to bear arms and is doing incredibly well without it.

You might be living in a crime-ridden-society but after all there's still many measures against crimes. Like the police and a working justice system and laws.