‘I Fundamentally Believe That My Time at Reddit Made the World a Worse Place’

Alright, no more hunting then. I think most people will be fine with that.

> or protection

Not working that well in your mass shootings

> to swords and knives

How many people can I kill per seconds using knives?

> the sole purpose of a gun is killing people

I honestly don't care about all the other purposes, they do not need to exist. If we're talking about hunting and range shooting then people can take up on other hobbies like painting, playing the guitar, coding, etc..

> Not working that well in your mass shootings

The number of people killed in mass shootings is statistically insignificant. That said, they are horrible, and their impact can be lessened through good gun legislation. Outlaw (or make it very hard to get) automatic/assault weapons, or my preference, also outlaw hand guns.

> How many people can I kill per seconds using knives?

Are you actually defending the assertion that the only thing guns are for is killing by just noting that some guns can kill a lot more people a lot faster? A couple sticks of dynamite thrown into a crowded space will likely kill more than either, but dynamite has been used usefully commercially for over a century.

> I honestly don't care about all the other purposes, they do not need to exist.

Well, I guess it's good you think so. I'm sure all those people that view guns as an essential check on governmental power and a personal right will have no problem with you dictating what they can do. Problem solved.

Some guns are designed for military use, others are not. Anything designed for military use should probably be kept away from civilians.

> As for guns having other uses such as protection or hunting; well I view shooting animals as something only psychopaths do,

I have relatives that in the not too distant past (30 years or so), relied on hunting during portions of the year to have enough to eat because otherwise they couldn't afford both food and housing, and this is was in the continental U.S. People live in this state around the world. Dictating that that they shouldn't hunt because it makes them a psychopath when it's actually how they survive is fairly hypocritical.

> Most countries don't allow civilians to own guns

Are you sure about that? Perhaps you should research this. I just did. You might be surprised. You can get a license for a firearm in the UK, and the EU doesn't disallow firearms either (but individual member states might). Here's a handy table with comparison of laws by country.[1]

> yet those civilians are not coming to any harm as a result of not having a gun. In fact they are safer! People in developed countries outside of America are safer, did you know that?

Well, since it's not due to completely doing away with firearms, the question is where is the safety coming from? Is it from sane gun laws and license requirements? That's fine, let's do that. It's not really evidence that completely outlawing guns makes people safer though, since most these countries you are talking about allow people to obtain a gun that want one and show responsibility. To be clear, my position is for sane gun licensing requirements and restricting certain classes of guns, while the only way I can see to interpret "the sole purpose of a gun is killing people" is for a position to completely ban all firearms (why would you allow them if they are only for killing). So what position are you actually trying to advocate? Most your evidence doesn't really support a complete ban on guns, but your wording implies that's what you're arguing. And if it's not what you're arguing, that was my whole point. Purposefully inflammatory language doesn't help people come to an understanding.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...

So? If the only purpose of a gun is to kill people, why are you okay with any guns at all? Would you be okay with private citizens having access to small amounts of sarin gas? That is something which serves only the purpose of killing people, and it's rightly regulated away from private citizens completely.

> The police even have to get involved. More to the point, no one in UK wants to own a gun. They feel safe without them. America's obsession with guns and the delusion of thinking they are safer because of them, is insane.

That's entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You either believe the sole purpose of a gun is to kill someone, as your earlier statements implied, or you don't.

If you do believe that, why are you using your own government's stance where items whose only purpose is to kill someone are allowed in the possession of private citizens, even after stringent checks?

If you don't believe that, why make the statement at all? My whole point is that it's inflammatory and easily disproved, so if you don't believe it you are either being disingenuous or so loose with your assertions as to be actively disruptive to any greater discussion.