I thought it was to protect against tyranny. If that were actually the case then there could be some societal compromise where people can have whatever as long as they remained locked away behind a key pad gun vault required at purchase, only taken out for maintenance or whatever. That way the risk to children and others could be minimized while still protecting against some imaginary future tyranny.

I suspect you'll just to another rational though like you already have. None of the particular rationals are the true one though which is that guns should be an unfettered consumer right. That's something unique to America as well as American's uniquely high violent crime rate and suicide rate. The two are inextricably linked.

The US doesn't have a uniquely high suicide rate.

Pretty low in all three. Nowhere near 50%, I'd say. Hell, might be something extraordinarily low, like 10%.

Problem is, people such as yourself constantly go from a person who doesn't hurt anyone else to someone who does detrimentally affect others after their guns end up being used in some chaotic incident. Nancy Lanza was probably blasting away at her keyboard the night of 12/13/12 on gun forums telling anyone who would listen how her guns would never hurt anyone.

Wasn't the latest mass shooter a safe responsible gun owner three days ago?

Yep. Bingo

SOME DRUNK DRIVER JUST KILLED SOMEONE WAS HE A MURDERER BEFORE TONIGHT HE WAS PROLLY AN ALCOHOLIC BEFOREHAND THO MAYBE JUST A SOCIAL DRINKER BAN BOOZ

If it wasn't for your other posts ITT I would not know if that was satire if my statement or gunnits statements.

HAHA YOU WOULDN'T KNOW YOU LOSE :/

This post is frightening and says a lot about the hopelessness of this issue in the US.

Everything this poster says makes sense but who in the hell even thinks about this sort of shi t other than US citizens?

Thanks... Yeah its sad/scary. I'm sure I'm not alone in eyeballing exits and sources of cover when I get into a movie theater or other public gathering.

My gym is open 24/7 and when I'm there late I worry sometimes. I know it's "never going to happen," but that's what everyone thinks. The front windows are weird - in the daytime you can't see in very easily but at night you can't see out well at all but you can see in. Someone could come all the way across the parking lot with a gun and you'd never see them.

It's sad that we have to think about these things in America, but when we haven't gone a calendar week without a mass shooting since at least the start of 2013, it's hard to ignore the possibility.

YOU HATE OUR FREEDOM MUSLIM

These are the people who want guns themselves yet don't want them in the hands of those other mentally disturbed people. Gun nuts literally cannot understand that they're mentally disturbed and therefore separate themselves from mass shooters, as if mass shooting is the ex post facto standard bearer.

Yep as is every future one

The idea that the Responsible American gun owner is stopping genocides must be the ****tiest and most ignorant power trip fantasy I have ever heard of.

TIL the rest of the world lives in a prison too.

Oh I know Americans aren't immune from genocide. The native Americans proved that. Their guns didn't help and your guns won't help you if the cavalry comes rolling up to your door either.

America's military is about as good as any military could and will ever get on fighting insurgents. They can also use drones to kill people from the other side of the planet whilst being almost undetectable. They racked up a huge body count along the learning curve. If the will was there then the ovens would be working overtime, owning a gun won't make a difference.

It's not funny haha but I did chuckle at how the military trained CCW guys just ignored the active shooter. But sure some chuckle **** Internet tough guys think they will run at the danger like they are John McClain, ignoring their lifetime trend of cowardice and pussitude.

A real-life tough guy named Chris Mintz did run at the shooter, on his kid's birthday. No artificial hand-courage required.

Yeah, BUT WHAT IF HE HAD A GUN????

I am not worried that the US will turn into a totalitarian regime, at least not along the lines of what exists elsewhere. I am concerned that it is already turning towards a police state (i.e., police with military equipment, police not consistently held by the courts, or by their "oversight" to obeying the law, police not punished when they mistakenly kill, etc.) and I do believe -- mainly because history has shown -- that weapons in the hands of the citizenry go a long way toward minimizing abuses of power.

If it's already turning toward a police state, why haven't all these guns in the hands of the public thwarted that?

This is the crux of my argument for guns in the hands of citizens.

If all guns could be eliminated, no one would have a need for a gun, and I would be fine with not having one. Unfortunately, it is not possible to eliminate guns. Even in countries with outright bans, guns still exist and crimes with guns are permitted. Fewer and less, to be sure, but I don't carry hurricane insurance because I expect to need it on my home in Florida, but because the consequences of not having it the 1 time in life I might need it are enormous.

In the case of a gun, the consequences of not having it when I need it are irrevocable.

I'd love to hear some examples of this.

Second amendment scoreboard dot gif

Would you carry hurricane insurance in Maine too, just in case?