Sometimes a solution can be worse than the problem. I mean what kind of things have guns in civilian hands actually fixed?

You can actually draw a really great parallel here to the middle east. Remember when shipping lots and lots of guns to a fragile region did not solve anything and instead fucked up everything for everyone forever? Same can be seen in the US.

Notice how the effort currently is to de-arm everyone to fix the problem that was introduced by guns? The US hilariously gets really furious when it doesn't manage to de-arm other countries. But yeah, self reflection and noticing big fat irony is not a strong suit of the men in power.

So you're saying the weak should pay reparations to everyone who's died from a man made weapon? Are the weak to blame for all this, since it's they who created weapons in the first place so they had a more equal chance, if not advantage, to defend themselves?

The problem I think a lot of the gun haters don't understand is that many would give up their guns if there was a reasonable plan that would guarantee their safety as well as the safety of others. No plan comes close to accomplishing that though, and simply saying less people will die isn't good enough when it comes to each individual person and their own safety. If less people die, but one of those who dies is a past gun owner, who now was defenseless against the weapon used against them, then why give up their gun in the first place?

So you're saying the weak should pay reparations to everyone who's died from a man made weapon? Are the weak to blame for all this, since it's they who created weapons in the first place so they had a more equal chance, if not advantage, to defend themselves?

The problem I think a lot of the gun haters don't understand is that many would give up their guns if there was a reasonable plan that would guarantee their safety as well as the safety of others. No plan comes close to accomplishing that though, and simply saying less people will die isn't good enough when it comes to each individual person and their own safety. If less people die, but one of those who dies is a past gun owner, who now was defenseless against the weapon used against them, then why give up their gun in the first place?

The US isn't a lawless wasteland. It's a developed country, or at least it pretends to be one.

How is it possible that literally every other developed country does not have citizens so afraid of their surroundings that they feel the need for self protection? Could it be that when I walk out side that I can be 100% sure that I won't encounter anyone armed with a gun? Could it be that the lack of guns in civilian hands actually makes people feel safer? Could it be that it's a lot more useful to attack the cause of a problem instead of trying to find a solution to a self made problem that literally only a single developed country on this planet has?

It's funny that you bring up the weak because they are the ones who disproportionally suffer from gun violence and also the ones less likely to be able to afford protection. And please define "weak" to me because from where I stand every single person is "weak" when confronted with a gun. So you create weak people by giving guns to people who shouldn't have them and then you try to solve the issue by giving the weak you just created also guns to create even more weak people? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Of course you don't.

If guns actually fixed a safety issue then you wouldn't need guns anymore because everyone feels safe. But how would anyone ever feel safe in a country where everyone else is armed to the teeth ready to murder you at any time. I know I wouldn't feel safe and that's why I would never set a food in that backwater place that pretends to care for the safety of its citizens but at the same time profits greatly by keeping them in constant fear. 

Well isn't that what happened? Not just within America, either. Weaker people of other nations also created stronger weapons to defeat the people of strong nations.

Your nation likely wouldn't have got to where it is without it, and yet people still flock to your nation for some odd reason, even though there are many other developed nations who've solved this issue apparently.

Our conversation right here should be explanation enough. People are different, so you can just imagine 100's of millions of people arguing about it and where it would lead. Who is a problem and who isn't? Where do you draw the line? If those people are borderline and aren't aloud to have a gun, yet get gunned down while being left unequally defenseless, is that ok?

The problem when it comes to safety is people don't really care about the greater good in that aspect. People are very selfish when it comes to safety, and naturally so. It's a rarity to find someone who would risk or give their life to save some people they don't know and never will. It's also not fair to give someone an advantage over another when it comes to life or death, because you don't know the future, just the odds, and the odds are far from guaranteed.

Fixing people is something people have been working on for thousands of years, and we have no idea if we truly have made things better or worse. All we have is our perspective and that doesn't prove right from wrong unfortunately.

The US isn't a lawless wasteland. It's a developed country, or at least it pretends to be one.

How is it possible that literally every other developed country does not have citizens so afraid of their surroundings that they feel the need for self protection? Could it be that when I walk out side that I can be 100% sure that I won't encounter anyone armed with a gun? Could it be that the lack of guns in civilian hands actually makes people feel safer? Could it be that it's a lot more useful to attack the cause of a problem instead of trying to find a solution to a self made problem that literally only a single developed country on this planet has?

It's funny that you bring up the weak because they are the ones who disproportionally suffer from gun violence and also the ones less likely to be able to afford protection. And please define "weak" to me because from where I stand every single person is "weak" when confronted with a gun. So you create weak people by giving guns to people who shouldn't have them and then you try to solve the issue by giving the weak you just created also guns to create even more weak people? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Of course you don't.

If guns actually fixed a safety issue then you wouldn't need guns anymore because everyone feels safe. But how would anyone ever feel safe in a country where everyone else is armed to the teeth ready to murder you at any time. I know I wouldn't feel safe and that's why I would never set a food in that backwater place that pretends to care for the safety of its citizens but at the same time profits greatly by keeping them in constant fear. 

What you describe is America.  The constant fear that someone else is armed with a gun.  So if you go to a club, walmart, concert you are in constant fear some Ahole wants to take out as many people as they can.  Now you have to arm yourself based on that constant fear but now, we have these aholes wearing armor so that they can continue to kill longer since they also believe others are armed.  On top of that, if you are a person of color, definitely do not let the police believe you are armed because you can be killed just by moving, getting your registration or license or blowing your nose.  Simple moving violations can then be deadly.  All in the name of having the freedom of guns.  With everyone armed simple situations where maybe people would fight, get some bruises but still be alive turn into deadly confrontations where multiple people get injured or dead.  That is America today and it will only get worst.

The US isn't a lawless wasteland. It's a developed country, or at least it pretends to be one.

How is it possible that literally every other developed country does not have citizens so afraid of their surroundings that they feel the need for self protection? Could it be that when I walk out side that I can be 100% sure that I won't encounter anyone armed with a gun? Could it be that the lack of guns in civilian hands actually makes people feel safer? Could it be that it's a lot more useful to attack the cause of a problem instead of trying to find a solution to a self made problem that literally only a single developed country on this planet has?

It's funny that you bring up the weak because they are the ones who disproportionally suffer from gun violence and also the ones less likely to be able to afford protection. And please define "weak" to me because from where I stand every single person is "weak" when confronted with a gun. So you create weak people by giving guns to people who shouldn't have them and then you try to solve the issue by giving the weak you just created also guns to create even more weak people? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Of course you don't.

If guns actually fixed a safety issue then you wouldn't need guns anymore because everyone feels safe. But how would anyone ever feel safe in a country where everyone else is armed to the teeth ready to murder you at any time. I know I wouldn't feel safe and that's why I would never set a food in that backwater place that pretends to care for the safety of its citizens but at the same time profits greatly by keeping them in constant fear. 

What you describe is America.  The constant fear that someone else is armed with a gun.  So if you go to a club, walmart, concert you are in constant fear some Ahole wants to take out as many people as they can.  Now you have to arm yourself based on that constant fear but now, we have these aholes wearing armor so that they can continue to kill longer since they also believe others are armed.  On top of that, if you are a person of color, definitely do not let the police believe you are armed because you can be killed just by moving, getting your registration or license or blowing your nose.  Simple moving violations can then be deadly.  All in the name of having the freedom of guns.  With everyone armed simple situations where maybe people would fight, get some bruises but still be alive turn into deadly confrontations where multiple people get injured or dead.  That is America today and it will only get worst.

So the weak started the weapon creation war and now they are losing so the strong should stop it and 'fix it' and hope for the best?

It's better to feel safe in a club and get shot dead than to feel scared and get shot dead, or have a chance because you can also have a gun?

Guns don't totally fix the issue, everyone knows this. The problem is that people seem to think getting rid of guns will completely solve the problem and it won't either. So if nobody has figured out a way for everyone to truly BE safe, then why change if you're a person who feels safe because you have a gun?