Aah, an argument from a more reasonable person. I'm sorry I accused you of plagiarism last time. I was still new to the site and hadn't realised how unreasonable the original debate creator was.

Now I've joined the proud ranks of the banned, I will offer my actual true opinion and not the answer I gave to satirise FromWithin's comment on one of my debates.

Obviously, as someone who isn't American, guns are not something I've grown up with. But I can't see why gun control would do any actual harm. Gun control isn't banning guns, it's not even necessarily taking guns away from people who already have them.

As far as I'm aware, there are some gun controls already in place. You can't buy a gun if you're underage, and you can't buy one if you're not a US citizen. (Would someone please correct me on this if I am wrong?)

I don't think adding in an extra step to gun ownership would be a huge issue. If it's your first gun, why not have to undergo a short compulsory safety session? Read through a document before you get it?

What about undergoing a criminal record check? You could get a background check done online and if you don't have a violent criminal history, and don't have any serious mental disabilities which could cause harm to yourself and others, you can have the gun.

A lot of shootings are spur-of-the-moment things. For example, a man walks in on his wife having an affair and shoots her. Or an angry lone wolf picks up his gun one day, wanders into a school and shoots a number of children. A lot of the time, this was not planned in advance. The shooter has normally acquired the gun through legal means, because they're not some hardcore gang member in the inner city.

The sort of gun control I'm advocating can't necessarily stop all shootings. But if you don't give guns to people with a history of mental illness or a violent criminal record, you can potentially reduce the amount of casualties. And if you do that, fewer people will carry guns around, because they know there are likely to be fewer unstable characters who might start shooting at them.

I think the police should be provided with bulletproof vests and Tasers except when there's a callout for a violent crime. In that case, I don't see a problem with having guns loaded with live ammunition locked in a safe in the police station. When it's something as simple as pulling someone over for a faulty taillight, the police should be trained to pull the person over calmly and use the Taser or pepper spray if a gun gets pulled.

With regards to this being "the only answer", I think FromWithin actually has a point here. I don't agree with the solution he gave, but I think decision-makers from all political leanings tend to focus on the symptoms rather than the root cause.

The USA is the most unequal of the Western countries; people live in both fabulous wealth and abject poverty. The divide between rich and poor is extreme. Rather than "Christian values", I think the best thing to do is to invest in the poor areas.

People tend to turn to crime because they have little money, little hope and low education, which makes it difficult to get a job. There are other reasons, such as certain mental issues, but those problems can be reduced by the screening process I suggested.

My solution would be to introduce more schools in inner-city Chicago. A slight rise in taxes for the Chicago wealthy could help fund it, and / or charity projects funded by public donation. Each school would be relatively small with a good teacher-to-pupil ratio.

Pupils would be encouraged to aim high and perhaps there could be funds set up to help them go to college. They would receive guest speakers like former gang members to talk to them about crime not being the answer. Teachers would adapt the teaching to the pupils' circumstances, and if there was enough funding, after-school tuition could be a thing.

Apprenticeships could be offered by the school. For an hour a week, these would teach children trades to help them set up a business on their own. Those of a more academic persuasion could be coached by volunteers to help them get into college.

I don't know exactly how all this would work, but in theory? I think that's the best, and least extreme, way forward.

Now get ready to hear about supposed atrosities from Christians thousands of years ago.

To demonize Christians they must try to find something from the past that some person did in the name of God, and then paint Christians today as being the same.

Or they will take some verse from Old testament Jewish law out of context to judge Christians.

It's truly sad the biggoted hate from the Left towards Bible believing Christians.

-FromWithin

FromWithins double standards are amazing to behold at times.

Here is the local story:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-july-4-weekend-shootings-violence-20170705-story.html

Basically most of this happened very late in the day or wee hours of early morning, after extensive drinking, and were petty arguments which escalated because guns were readily available. All of that feeds the pro gun-control position, not the anti-gun-control position. In fact enouraging more people to have guns ready to defend themselves would NOT remove the triggers of drunken behavior and idiots too quick to pull their guns out, it just would raise the total body bag count.

Ahem. The only answer cons have is make guns easier to come by. Chicago is the new Dodge City, and Marshal Dillon has gone to the Happy Hunting Ground. Dodge City became a peaceful city when it was illegal to carry guns on the street without a GOOD reason, and stiff regulations! Today, 100, tomorrow...?

The people WILL wake up after they lose enough friends and relatives, like they did when peace came to Dodge.