Guns don't kill, people do. And people this stupid shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

I don't need 30 round magazines. I "want" 30 round magazines. I am sure anyone that has been posting here has at least tried to load a magazine...if not, please try it out at a local gun shop. It is not easy. In fact, it is a pain in the arse.
So, when I want to take the AR-15 out to the range to shoot some targets, having to reload a magazine is a waste of my time.

In the case of the CT shooting, there was an argument that if the shooter hadn't had a large capacity magazine that there would have been time to intercept him as he reloaded. That is a bunch of bull. Anyone that has a gun can tell you that even with a 10 round magazine, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to eject and reload. The size of the magazine would not have saved the children or brave teachers - unfortunately nothing could save them once this deranged person made up their mind to kill them.
The argument was also incredibly misleading - while the assailant did have an AR-15 at the school, it was left in the car and never even used in the attack (from the reports that I have read). Not to mention, these guns belonged to his mother. The mother he murdered before coming to the school....
He planned on killing. It didn't matter the weapon he would have killed someone regardless. There will ALWAYS be people like this in the world, with or without guns.

There is a reason for people to own guns and high capacity magazines. It is our right to protect ourselves, our property and our freedom.
If President Obama were to say tomorrow that he decided he was going to be the dictator of this country, that he owns the military, the judicial and administrative branches of the government, and that he wasn't going anywhere in 4 years and was enacting laws to subdue the populace - how would we prevent this if we could not defend ourselves? If all we have are muzzle loaders, and bows and arrows, can we dismantle the armed forces?
There are countries where this has happened (remember the Holocaust?). This IS occurring in other countries (hello, anyone in N. Korea want to stand up and talk out against Kim Jong Un? Maybe you would appreciate an AK-47 in Syria where the civil war there has resulted in over 60,000 deaths?).

I personally believe that if drivers education and sex education can be taught in school, then gun education should be taught as well. There are schools that have archery as one of the electives, I don't see the difference in shooting a target with a bow or with a pistol.
I will keep my guns. I will fight to keep them. I will teach my children how to use them and use them safely and proficiently (as I will also teach them how to read, write, cook, sew, drive, and other useful and meaningful things).

Anyone who is scared of guns or doesn't like them and doesn't want them for themselves, fine, don't own one. But don't force your values and your fears on me.

Plain and simple: Yes

If anyones ever read on news sites the question "Should teachers be allowed to carry guns to school" I *facepalm*

--> NO just for obvious reasons

...I honestly think no. Guns have one purpose - hurting, and killing. If you have no bullets, what can you use a gun for? You can't eat it, you can't wear it... maybe it'd make a huge paper weight.

This being said, I understand that in our world, there are some people who need to carry guns to combat other people wearing guns and using bombs. But I think the world would be nicer if guns had never been invented.

No. you're wrong there. Guns, like any tool, are multipurpose. It's this sort of attitude that leads to polarization of the debate. Maybe if both sides could concede that the other has some truth on their side you could get somewhere.

I just think the real question is whether or not guns should be allowed to own stupid people o_o..

(I'll preface this by stating that it is late and I'm tired and so this may end up being a ramble that says nothing worth reading)

Interesting reply - I wasn't expecting to be presented with differing definitions of objective and subjective. Personally, I feel the fact that there is a need for the second definition proves my argument.

Nonetheless, I'll focus my reply on definition two, with its idea that personal beliefs are valid points by which to decide what is moral.

Most people will, I think, agree that it is immoral to bring harm to another person. Most will, I think, agree that almost every set of rules, laws or moral codes is based around that idea.

Imagine, then, a society formed with that as its guiding principal. Sounds great, but doesn't any action that helps one person ultimately harm another? Assuming that statement is accepted (if it isn't, please give an example of an action of consequence that proves this false), now we have to compromise our rules so our society can function. We have to decide that it is ok to harm people, but only in certain ways. This starts us down a slippery slope, doesn't it? That, to me, is the crux of the problem with morality - aren't we, in the end, just rationalizing our actions so we can feel good about ourselves?

Now, I don't worry over whether my helping somebody next to me will disadvantage somebody across the world. I know that it very well may, but I can't live trying to avoid that, it would be impossible. Perhaps it makes me a hypocrite, but I follow a moral code similar to most in the world. I don't fault people for trying to live in what they consider a moral manner - in the end, you have to be able to live with yourself.

The idea though that one set of morals is somehow more moral than another, when they're all just based off beliefs, seems to me absurd. If you can murder and steal and lie without hating yourself, and you can do it to your gain, I might despise your actions, but who am I to say you're wrong if there is no provably right or wrong way to live your life?

I'm willing to hear the other uses of guns.

Edit: Both willing and interested.

I suppose there's shooting contests, where you test your aim and skill and such. But... in comparison to a knife, which, while can be used to hurt and kill, can also be used to shape, cook, and all sorts of useful things... Guns seem redundant to me.

Well to be fair. I assumed you meant hurting and killing people.

Hunters use guns all the time to kill animals. Hurting them is considered unethical.
Farmers use guns to protect their livestock from predators and pests. I suppose hurting might be functional there since chasing off a predator or pest is nearly as good as making sure it never bothers your livestock again.

but all a gun does is throw a chunk of metal jacketed lead downrange. It doesn't have to be a tool for murder and terror. and putting it in those terms, demonizing it doesn't aid the conversation.

Well as i respect your argument i disagree in your views of psychological egoism. With your base principle being that all persons are motivated by self-interest and that there are no acts of altruism i can see that we come from very differing points of views.

The other problem with psychological egoism is that it only explains how things are and offers no claims as to how things ought to be, which i find to be a huge cop-out.

Edit: and as for the multiple explanations, just because there is a presence of multiple partitions does not make for a less valuable assertion.

i say yes because even if they out law guns people can still get them so all the bad people have guns and none of the good people will have them any more

and if u think other wise just look at all the outlawed drugs still going around

plus if guns are outlawed that means no more registered guns/bullets so that means when people get shot theirs no way to trace it back to them any more

Ah, I did actually mean for animals and such to be included in the "hurting and killing". But I get that people have to eat, and that farmers have to protect livestock if they want to eat. (I mean, that's why I here, so that the people who make anime can eat.) And I guess if there's no other way for them to achieve the same effect, for them, guns are a necessity.

You're right. It doesn't have to be a tool for murder and terror. It's dangerous, but so is a car.

But, I still think people, at least, most people, shouldn't have guns. When you hold a gun, you usually intend to do something harm. And while sometimes you have to protect yourself by harming someone, giving people guns with "if you have a gun you can protect yourself from someone with a gun" isn't the right idea. When you drive a car, you just don't usually intend to hit stuff, you just want to get from point A to point B.

its not about using the gun to defend yourself its about putting other people who might do harm to you that hey he might have a gun me personally i don't think i could ever shoot someone but i still think people should have guns

I see what you're saying about the swords and bow and arrow stuff. That is true. I respect your opinion, but something like a starter pistol has always been little dumb to me- you could use something else. And I guess in a way, guns are more scary than the other weapons you mentioned because guns are more instant with the bullets and such. But I guess we'll always need weapons if we need to kill animals for food. I guess even though I love eating meat, I will never be a violent person... I'm very against it. So thanks for the quote/reply. I appreciate another outlook about this.