Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sarouan wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Does your right to self defense end on a college campus?

No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.

legislating on "feels" is a wee bit silly, especially for a constituionally protected right, and a college campus is a place to be taken out of your comfort zone, like, by definition.

Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.

I'm not a small person, and engage in 6-12 hours of close combat training and sparring every week. Granted most of it is with a sword, but I can probably put just about anyone onto the ground with relative ease if I have to, my grappling repertoire is pretty solid. All that said, a firearm is by far the most effective means of self defense in a life threatening situation and the one I would go to first and foremost if I was put in one. Yes, there are other options, but they come with a dramatically increased risk.

 Sarouan wrote:

You don't get my point. My point is this law is just making criminals' job easier, because what they will do first is, indeed, bring a concealed weapon at the place they intent to kill people. It's just a matter of fact that they don't really want to be stopped before doing the deed. The best way for that - and most simple as well - is not to catch attention and just hide the thing before it is needed. Also, surprise helps a lot to kill people before they get a chance to react.

On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.

I say that law is taking the problem in the wrong way. Bringing more guns inside will not make the place safer; it just increases a lot more the chances of a tragic event happening (be it by accident or intention, mind you).

That you keep saying it's not a big deal in itself just shows you don't think at all on the consequences of such an event, just because you want to keep your guns anywhere even if it isn't really necessary.

How many people do you think will be able to take advantage of this law? How many will actually do so?

Your argument of criminals using this law to their advantage strikes me as being fairly absurd.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

You don't get my point. My point is this law is just making criminals' job easier, because what they will do first is, indeed, bring a concealed weapon at the place they intent to kill people. It's just a matter of fact that they don't really want to be stopped before doing the deed. The best way for that - and most simple as well - is not to catch attention and just hide the thing before it is needed. Also, surprise helps a lot to kill people before they get a chance to react.

On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.

I say that law is taking the problem in the wrong way. Bringing more guns inside will not make the place safer; it just increases a lot more the chances of a tragic event happening (be it by accident or intention, mind you).

That you keep saying it's not a big deal in itself just shows you don't think at all on the consequences of such an event, just because you want to keep your guns anywhere even if it isn't really necessary.

How many people do you think will be able to take advantage of this law? How many will actually do so?

Your argument of criminals using this law to their advantage strikes me as being fairly absurd.

Especially since you have to get a background check to get a carry permit, so... no criminals will be able to get one. Then we go right back to, oh their going to illegally carry a weapon anyways, at which point there is zero difference from before.

 Frazzled wrote:

No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.

Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.

I love youngins who think they are invulnerable.
There is an old Texas saying. "Never mess with old guys. They are too tired too fight and might just kill you instead."

You have this shirt Fraz?



As for the point you replied to, my 5ft 3inch 130 pound wife has been threatened by a 6ft3inch 270 pound ass hat in an area where you cannot carry even with a permit. Trust me when I say that if you asked her about defending herself she would choose option Kimber every time over option MMA fight.

yes wife prefers the art of Beretta herself.

No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.

Disregard weapons that bad people carry on campuses NOW, law be danged, be scared of the folks with clean backgrounds who were checked out by the same people who eyeball our cops, that statistically commit crimes at a much smaller rate than the general population. That's the ticket.

On a campus, where most people are students, most of them not really prepared to a Crisis situation, let not speak about using their gun right? Because I don't remember people owning guns being forced to a full education course about that kind of things in America.

College is a continual, crushing, crisis situation in my experience. Secondly, you must have at least a modicum of shooting ability to get a CHL issued for to you, to say nothing of how many CHL holders shoot - a lot- because its fun. Thirdly, you ARE required to attend a class as part of your qualification for a carry license. You don't simply get to strap the pistol on and walk out your door in this state. If asked for your ID for whatever reason, should you not be able to produce your permit for the nice policeman, that is a no-no. If this was brought about because someone realized you had a weapon on you, guess where you go? HINT: You will not be continuing to class. Your sex life may greatly "improve" in the coming months.

If they are protesting against people who have guns, yes, you can say that. Because they could be shot.

Extremely insulting. The people they are protesting ARE NOT the sort to shoot them out of hand. This point deserves no further attention.

 Sarouan wrote:
No, but I think you also have the right to not feel threatened on a college campus. Knowing there are guns hiding around tend to give that feeling.

Also, you can defend yourself without using, carrying or showing guns. I can teach you, if you want. You just have to come in my country and leave your gun at home. It's not so scary, promise.

I'll keep using the most efficient tool for the job thank you.

These people feel threatened? That is unfortunate. For them. Rights do not end where feelings begin. If they are actually being threatened then that is illegal and should be reported to the appropriate authorities. Or they can find an educational establishment that caters to their sensitivity.

 Sarouan wrote:
Yes, but I believe the head of the campus had the right to change that policy. Not anymore with this law, it removes their right to do something they think in the best interests of their students.

You mean that unelected bureaucrats cannot deny people their protections under the law? Oh the humanity...

 Sarouan wrote:
Like I say lower, it's all about control. If concealed weapons are forbidden, people bringing some can be in trouble if they are found with some on them. And if they are bad people...you can act swifter. Better than just letting people pass with no question and then get surprised when another tragic event happen again - even with "good guys having concealed guns" being inside and totally unable to do anything - because most of them are civilians, anyway.

So on the basis of indistinct, vague, or otherwise unmade threats we should deprive people of their rights? And lawful gun owners are totally unable to do anything... like when the Principal of Pearl High School stopped a student intent on murdering others. Or a concealed carrier in New Life Church stopping an attack in which the assailant wielded an AR15? Or the New York Mills AT&T Store where an employee saved the lives of others from a disgruntled former co-worker? Or what about the Freewill Baptist Church where an assailant armed with a shotgun was stopped by a parishioner? The Clackmas Town Center Mall? Mystic Strip Club? A construction site on Rio Grande & MLK in Austin Texas? Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital? All of those are example of civilians with firearms who were able to stop an attack.

 Sarouan wrote:
Sure, nice work from you dodging the true point again. It's so handy, indeed.

You can't say it's not relevant in that case. Because, let's be honest, allowing concealed carry in more places makes it much more difficult to control people before the act happening (and thus preventing it). I think you know that very well.

OK, if you insist on making me address the point I will explain just why it was a bad point. In almost all cases the students involved were ineligible to legally carry their firearm on campus under the concealed carry law. So I am correct in saying that it is not relevant.

 Sarouan wrote:
This law just allows people to bring concealed guns inside a classroom. It thus makes criminals' job easier, because of the reason said just above.

Because a murderer will conceal his weapon anyway, so if he is checked before using it on his comrades, you can't say anything at all at him. After all, he didn't break the law by bringing one and hiding it, right? Of course, after his deed done...well, it will be too late anyway. You just count the bodies of the slain innocents.

Because criminals intent on murdering people (which is illegal) are going to follow the law preventing them taking their firearms on campus, right?

So far your circular logic isn't working. Neither is your appeal to emotion.

 Sarouan wrote:
A tool not needed on a campus. Keep them at home.

My right to self defense does not end at the gates of a college campus.

 Sarouan wrote:
And yes, criminals don't follow the law, but they sure gladly take advantage of those who make their task easier. Concealed carry allowed anywhere? How can't you see how much of a gift it is for them? You seriously count about "good guys able to defend themselves"? On a campus, where most people are students, most of them not really prepared to a Crisis situation, let not speak about using their gun right? Because I don't remember people owning guns being forced to a full education course about that kind of things in America.

If you want to bring your citizens to be really prepared to do the police's - or even the army's - job, you don't just pass laws allowing guns everywhere. You teach them what exactly they must do. This law will not bring anything good by itself. It's just a useless tool as it is, only to bring a false sense of security for gun owners too scared to get out without having one on them at all times.

I keep hearing the same discredited argument that this makes mass shootings easier - yet no evidence is provided. You are making assumptions and ignoring the fact that most mass shooters avoid places that allow firearms because it defeats their intended purpose, to cause as much damage as possible while encountering the least resistance.

No one is saying that civilians should be doing the job of the army or police. Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

 Sarouan wrote:
If they are protesting against people who have guns, yes, you can say that. Because they could be shot.

But I have another word for that.

Apparently, the only good right is the right to bring guns anywhere, no matter the situation or without restraint. Others rights like protesting against a law you don't feel right as a non gun owner? These aren't true "rights", are they?

Who said that the only good right is the Second Amendment? I fully support the right of the students and professors to protest and use their First Amendment rights. That does not give them carte blanche to strip the rights of others.

As for the claim that they "could be shot" for protesting that is wholly irrational and without merit.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
Please try harder to look up the laws you bash.

Dunning-Kruger writ large

 Sarouan wrote:
So, in your opinion, it is necessary to allow concealed carry in campus? The very places where people gather to study, and have nothing to do with protecting your home by the way, and where you absolutely don't need to bring more means for violence inside?

And you don't understand some young people don't feel exactly safe while knowing one of their comrades next to them may be carrying a hidden weapon and use it whenever he wants, just because he snaps or something?

Because, let's be clear, some of the most tragic events made in American schools were made by students bringing concealed weapons inside and fire at will on their unaware comrades before usually dying.

And now, there is a law allowing them to do so? You really don't see where is the problem in that?

If you think the intent is helping "western heroes ready to kill the crazy ones with their holy guns", well to me, that just makes easier the job of criminals and would be murderers to do their job. Because they will shoot first and use surprise to their full advantage.

You really don't see where is the danger in that? To me, it's quite understandable these students and teachers would protest. Calling it "stupidity" is, IMHO, the true mark of irresponsibility.

There are people who don't feel safe with opposite sex in their bathroom or locker room either. Should we bar them from going into those places even if they say they identify as the opposite sex?
Your position seems a lot like that. People exericising their rights make others uncomfortable, so we should abridge those rights.

 CptJake wrote:
Perhaps reading what I wrote would help. I said 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.'

If you understand our constitution, you understand it has an amendment process, and that the whole Bill Of Rights amendments are historically pretty important. Understanding that will (or maybe should) explain why valuing guns is not silly.

Yes, you did say 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution'. You said that in response to someone who commented that a thing was lawful but stupid. Whether or not the thing is actually stupid, the fact that it is in the constitution does not decide whether the thing is silly or not.

Consider if another country had in their constitution a clause that read "A well lubricated dildo, being necessary to the happiness of a free person, the right of the people to keep and bear dildos, shall not be infringed." That would be lawful. It would also be silly. If a person were to comment that that was silly, it would be a total fething nonsense to respond that it wasn't silly, because it was in the constitution.

Just because a thing is the law, it doesn't mean people can't believe it is a silly thing. This is a basic, obvious thing.

 Frazzled wrote:
Society permits nothing. Its people forcing their society to recognize their rights that is something.

That's nonsense. People only 'force something' by taking some form of collective action. By acting as part of society.

 Sarouan wrote:


You don't get my point. My point is this law is just making criminals' job easier, because what they will do first is, indeed, bring a concealed weapon at the place they intent to kill people. It's just a matter of fact that they don't really want to be stopped before doing the deed. The best way for that - and most simple as well - is not to catch attention and just hide the thing before it is needed. Also, surprise helps a lot to kill people before they get a chance to react.

On the other hand, keeping guns - concealed or not - out of the campus territory (taken there are control points, of course) won't make it easier. Because if they get checked and concealed weapons were found, there would be immediate suspicion. With this law? Well, it's just another student following the law, nothing to see citizen! Of course, when they start shooting a bit later, it will be too late.

This is absolute nonsense. Your argument is that prohibiting legal concealed carry will negate mass shootings. Give me a SINGLE case where a mass shooter has been checked for weapons, determined to be OK to have that weapon as a concealed carry permit holder, and then carried out a mass shooting.

Provide me with numbers, concede that you're wrong, or join the Ignore train.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Give me a SINGLE case where a mass shooter has been checked for weapons, determined to be OK to have that weapon as a concealed carry permit holder, and then carried out a mass shooting.

OK.

 Ouze wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Give me a SINGLE case where a mass shooter has been checked for weapons, determined to be OK to have that weapon as a concealed carry permit holder, and then carried out a mass shooting.

OK.

He was checked for weapons, determined to be permitted to carry that concealed weapon, then carried out his mass shooting?

Reading is fundamental.

Legislating based on feelings is silly, except when I feel I need a gun to protect myself, then it's completely valid!

FWIW the gun-genie is, in my opinion, out of the bottle in the US. There's too many weapons and not enough will to remove them from society.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Legislating based on feelings is silly, except when I feel I need a gun to protect myself, then it's completely valid!

FWIW the gun-genie is, in my opinion, out of the bottle in the US. There's too many weapons and not enough will to remove them from society.

Defense against aggressors with firearms has the best chance of success when the defenders also have firearms. That's not feeling, that's fact.

Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Legislating based on feelings is silly, except when I feel I need a gun to protect myself, then it's completely valid!

FWIW the gun-genie is, in my opinion, out of the bottle in the US. There's too many weapons and not enough will to remove them from society.

Defense against aggressors with firearms has the best chance of success when the defenders also have firearms. That's not feeling, that's fact.

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

 sebster wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Perhaps reading what I wrote would help. I said 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution.'

If you understand our constitution, you understand it has an amendment process, and that the whole Bill Of Rights amendments are historically pretty important. Understanding that will (or maybe should) explain why valuing guns is not silly.

Yes, you did say 'not in the eyes of folks who understand our constitution'. You said that in response to someone who commented that a thing was lawful but stupid. Whether or not the thing is actually stupid, the fact that it is in the constitution does not decide whether the thing is silly or not.

Consider if another country had in their constitution a clause that read "A well lubricated dildo, being necessary to the happiness of a free person, the right of the people to keep and bear dildos, shall not be infringed." That would be lawful. It would also be silly. If a person were to comment that that was silly, it would be a total fething nonsense to respond that it wasn't silly, because it was in the constitution.

Just because a thing is the law, it doesn't mean people can't believe it is a silly thing. This is a basic, obvious thing..

And again you are arguing against a point not made. I again never said it wasn't silly because it was in the constitution. I explained if you understand OUR constitution (not the one in StrawMan Land that protects the rights to own dildos) including the fact it has an amendment process and the reasons we have a Bill of Rights including this amendment you would understand why valuing guns is not silly. Because it isn't. Our country had (and has) plenty of very valid reasons to protect the right, and valuing the tool that enables that isn't going to be silly. Show me the StrawMan Land constitution and the history as to why they value dildos, and then maybe we can make a reasonable comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Legislating based on feelings is silly, except when I feel I need a gun to protect myself, then it's completely valid!

FWIW the gun-genie is, in my opinion, out of the bottle in the US. There's too many weapons and not enough will to remove them from society.

Defense against aggressors with firearms has the best chance of success when the defenders also have firearms. That's not feeling, that's fact.

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Really, the 'defend against gun' part is irrelevant. Defending against a threat (knife, bat, big guy intent on beating you to death) is a lot easier with a gun than without.

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?

And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

So basically, people feel the need to carry a weapon because of fear of something that is really unlikely. Makes them look silly, much like Sheldon Cooper in his disaster preparation drills...

So... since all the protesting against CCL holders in college is in fear of something even more unlikely... you'd think that should be the first target of ire, right?

 Frazzled wrote:

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?

But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?

Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.

And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.

And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.

A) Whether you look silly or not has nothing to do whether something is legal or not.

B) Most situations like that that happen in college, having a gun won't help as they are taken by surprise or by someone they know...Or they're drunk/drugged.

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?

But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?

Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.

If the bad guy has a gun and you don't then yes its much more safe for the bad guy. I agree completely.

@Ouze- He was not checked for weapons as even concealed carriers are not allowed to carry weapons into a night club. He had a permit yes, but that permit did not permit him to go there since there is a state law against carrying in bars and night clubs

I am absolutely lost on the whole why would you defend against someone with a gun thing. Do you just plan on taking the shot like cow in line at the slaughterhouse or something? Sorry, Americans are brought up to stand up for themselves against threat, not just take it like some pansy muppet. There is no honor in dying without resistance.

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.

And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.

A) Whether you look silly or not has nothing to do whether something is legal or not.

B) Most situations like that that happen in college, having a gun won't help as they are taken by surprise or by someone they know...Or they're drunk/drugged.

CCs are like protection-it is better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.
More importantly who are you to tell others what they can or cannot do to protect themselves? You're a college age male. Pfft.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.

And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.

And I found 2 news stories from deaths in 2016 at UT. Out of 50k students enrolled. That is 0.004%. Feeling the need to carry a gun to 'combat' a chance that small of anything happening to you...It's basically being a coward. living in fear is no way to live. Really shows how silly the people that feel the need to carry are...

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?

But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?

Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.

By people using illegal firearms, in an illegal manner. Not sure why this has to keep getting explained...

The criminal use of firearms is what drives that number so high. All these laws do is level of the playing field for the law abiding citizens.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
And the chance of that being something you have to worry about is incredibly low...And the chance of having a gun helping you in the situation isn't all that high either.

Irrelevant comrade. My chance of needing the amendment to protect against the quartering of British troops is low too, but we still have it.

And it wasn't statistically low to the college freshman dragged off, raped and killed (by being beaten to death) behind a building at UT in the last 12 months, which is where this is at.

A) Whether you look silly or not has nothing to do whether something is legal or not.

B) Most situations like that that happen in college, having a gun won't help as they are taken by surprise or by someone they know...Or they're drunk/drugged.

CCs are like protection-it is better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

So you always carry a week's worth of food and water and clothes with you every where you go? Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right? Always carry a flashlight with you? Really, this is Sheldon Cooper levels of silliness about needing to be prepared for something that is extremely unlikely.

More importantly who are you to tell others what they can or cannot do to protect themselves? You're a college age male. Pfft.

And that is basically the argument and really shows why people who feel the need to carry look like idiots.

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?

But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?

Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.

Actually, that's not quite the case. The US appears to be more dangerous than it actually is. There is no standard definition of what "murder" is between nations, and what is compared is what nations self report. The US simply has, by a large margin, the broadest definition of what murder actually is. In addition to this the US is a vastly diverse nation. While diversity has it's benefits one of the drawbacks is added conflict.

 djones520 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And why do people feel the need to defend themselves from someone with a gun? After all, the risk of getting shot is rather low, no?

Is this a serious question? Because they don't want to be raped, or have their head cut off on TV, because they don't want to die by said guy with gun?

But does guns make that less likely? Why then US has far bigger chance of getting killed than countries with less guns...If guns make country safer why is US one of the unsafest 1st world countries?

Hint: Guns don't create safety. More like reverse.

By people using illegal firearms, in an illegal manner. Not sure why this has to keep getting explained...

The criminal use of firearms is what drives that number so high. All these laws do is level of the playing field for the law abiding citizens.

Why don't we get rid of all the laws about rape? After all, only criminals engaging in illegal manner do it...Why not level the playing field for the law abiding citizens?