How do you regulate highly addictive substances? You can't. If people can't get it legally, they'll just get it illegally. Our current situation has already proven that. Making drugs legal and easy to obtain will only exacerbate the issues already caused by substances with similar effects (like alcohol). In 2010, over 10,000 people in the U.S. were killed in drunk driving incidents. Throw in PCP, cocaine, heroin, meth, etc, and those numbers will only rise.

It's easy to say "oh, just legalize and regulate it" but it's pretty obvious that regulation doesn't work when it comes to drugs or alcohol. People still get addicted, people still do whatever it takes to get more and lives are still destroyed as a result.

@SDGundamX

So you genuinely believe that make-up has nothing to do with sexuality? Make-up makes women look more attractive to men. That's why it exists. There is no distinction between "attractive" and "sexually attractive." They are one and the same. Society tells women that without make-up, they are unattractive. It's also a double-standard, as men are not expected to wear make-up (unless they're on TV).

And basic hygiene is not a valid analogy. Hygiene is a matter of practicality. If you didn't bathe or wear deodorant, you would stink and annoy those around you, increasing friction and reducing productivity in the workplace. Make-up, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic. It serves no purpose other than making yourself more sexually appealing. It's the same reason why women are expected to shave their legs and armpits and have slim but curvy bodies. It's the same reason why they wear high heels.

Idealized gender representations exist solely for the sake of increasing your sexual appeal. If you don't live up to these representations, society looks down upon you and makes you feel like shit. Women wear make-up because they are insecure about their appearance. They're insecure because society has created notions of beauty that are unattainable through natural means.

This is cruel and inhumane! The poor animal is terrified out of its mind. The humans should be arrested and executed without trial.

I cut my hair like once a year and only out of practicality. Long hair gets into my food when I eat, takes longer to wash and requires more shampoo (which means I have to spend more money). I make sure to cut my hair short enough that I don't need to comb it. As it grows out, I only manipulate it enough to keep it out of my eyes.

Seriously though, if you don't see the inherent issue with makeup, I'm not sure what to say. The very existence of makeup tells women that the only way they can achieve their idealized representation is by painting their faces.

I think the goal is ultimately to automate all transportation so that such incidents can be handled gracefully. If every vehicle on the road was automated, connected to a network and could track every other vehicle, traffic incidents would be reduced exponentially and traveling would be much safer.

If you want people to stop focusing on your appearance, it might help to not wear makeup. Makeup is the foundation of idealized gender representations. By wearing makeup, you're essentially saying that you're too ugly to show your real face.

It's amazing that so many would-be feminists preach about equality yet continue to foster inequality by wearing makeup.

Do you honestly believe that? In a couple of years, the rich will still be rich and living quite comfortably in the U.S.A.

You assume that he'd obtain the gun legally instead of just borrowing it, stealing it or buying it from illegal sources. Considering that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, that's a flawed assumption.

In the video, the ex doesn't just burst into the house immediately upon arrival and then shoot the woman. He stands at the door, pounding and shouting long enough for the woman to call the police. If she had a gun in her house, she would have had more than enough time to grab it and clearly state "I have a gun and will shoot you if you enter my house." That alone would have been an effective deterrent, most likely causing the ex to back off and reconsider his actions. The only reason he brazenly stormed into the house was because he knew the woman was unarmed and didn't pose much of a threat. Killing the woman wasn't even his goal either. He wanted to take the baby and only shot the woman because she physically tried to stop him.

Yikes, too much text to respond to specifically so here's an overall rebuttal to modulus:

Guns already exist. There are millions of guns out there. Guns last a long time and can be used repeatedly by many different people. Guns can easily be smuggled and distributed illegally. There will always be a demand for guns (for legal and illegal purposes) because they are very effective at what they do. The person holding the gun will always have power over the person holding nothing. Even if the U.S. banned all guns and the production of guns, gun makers would just continue manufacturing guns in other countries and guns would be smuggled into the country, just like narcotics.

Just as the ban on drugs has proven woefully ineffective, a ban on guns wouldn't accomplish anything either. D.C. has very strict gun laws and the lowest gun ownership (legal ownership, at least) in the country and yet their gun-related crime rate is by far the highest. I'm talking more than double the rate of the next highest state. Conversely, Vermont has very lax gun laws and more than ten times the gun ownership of D.C. yet it has the lowest gun crime rate in the country. Wyoming has the highest gun ownership in the country and extremely lax gun laws yet it has among the lowest gun crime rates. In fact, if you look at the states with the lowest crime rates, you'll notice that the vast majority of them have minimal gun control laws.

Finally, you say you've been robbed, mugged and assaulted on numerous occasions. Do you think that would have happened if you were clearly armed? When given a choice between robbing someone who's armed and someone who isn't, do you honestly think criminals would ever choose the armed candidate? When you ban guns, you're just letting criminals know that they can do what they want with minimal risk. Your personal experiences only convince me that guns are a more effective deterrent than being unarmed.

Hilariously poor attempt at anti-gun propaganda. If the woman had a gun, the ex probably would have thought twice before barging in and stealing the baby.

Also, why is the message so incredibly specific? "Stop gun violence against women"? Really? Shouldn't it just be "Stop violence against anyone"?

There are many parts of the U.S. that essentially are the wild west. Head out to Compton, Detroit, St. Louis, Oakland, Baltimore or any other number of cities with high poverty rates and you'd be crazy not to carry a gun with you.

As for New Zealand gun crime rates, sure, they are lower than U.S. gun crime rates. But then, New Zealand's overall crime rate is five times lower to begin with. The disparity isn't limited to just gun crimes.

Like I said before, there's no clear correlation between gun control and crime rates. For every area that has strict gun laws and low crime, there's another area that has stricter gun laws and more crime. Conversely, there are areas with lax gun laws and lower crime rates than areas with strict gun laws. The data simply doesn't show any consistent trends other than the fact that poor areas have higher crime rates than prosperous areas.

1) As I mentioned earlier, implementing border control for each state is never going to happen. As I also mentioned, border control has already been proven ineffective at stopping both drugs and illegal immigrants so why would guns be any different?

2) My drug analogy is perfectly valid. Drugs are banned yet they are still smuggled into the country. And no, people aren't growing cocaine or heroin in their backyard. And yes, smuggling a small packet of cocaine by hiding it in your ass is easier than smuggling a gun through the same means but guns don't have be smuggled intact. They can easily be disassembled and the individual parts smuggled separately. Many of these pieces would be small enough to hide in your ass. But this is all largely irrelevant because the bulk of drugs are not transported via anus.

3) The motivations of mass shooters is highly debatable. I'd argue that they want to feel empowered and the easiest way to do that is in schools which are undeniably the least likely places for people to be armed. If they tried to go on a shooting spree in a police station or military base or gun convention, they probably wouldn't get many kills. Instead, they'd be shot and killed by someone else and that's something no shooters seem to want (hence the reason why they always commit suicide after the spree instead of letting themselves be arrested or killed by the police). In fact, if you look at the history of school shootings in the U.S., many of the shooters were adults. The Sandy Hook shooter was 20 years old and he primarily targeted first-graders who obviously weren't his peers. When it comes to mass shootings, it's all about quantity and targeting people who can't defend themselves is the most effective way of achieving that.

4) Do you have any statistics to support your claim? I seriously doubt suicide rates plummeted in countries or states where guns were banned. Japan and South Korea both have extremely strict gun laws yet they also have some of the highest suicide rates in the world (South Korea is #3, Japan is #8, the U.S. is #33). If you weren't serious about killing yourself and just wanted attention, you wouldn't use a gun in the first place. You'd stand on the ledge of a building and wait for the news vans to appear. Like you said, guns are the quickest way to kill yourself so you wouldn't use them if you had any doubts or hesitations.

Do you really think individual states will ever have that degree of border control, if any? Let's be realistic here. And if border control hasn't been able to stop the flow of drugs from other countries, why do you think they'll be able to stop a flow of guns?

Except that's not the truth at all. Massachusetts passed strict gun control laws in 1998 and its crime rates (including gun-related crimes) have increased significantly since then. D.C. has the strictest gun laws in the country but also has (by far) the highest rate of gun-related crime. Conversely, Vermont has the lowest rate (about 59 times lower than D.C.) while also having extremely lax gun control laws.

So no, the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you seem to suggest. There is no consistent correlation between gun control and gun crime rates. Banning something doesn't make it magically disappear and considering the fact that the majority of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally, gun control really only affects people who obey the law (i.e. not criminals). Guns already exist. Criminals already have guns. Criminals already sell and distribute guns illegally. Gun control laws are completely irrelevant to these people.

The irony in all this is that the people calling for gun control are often the same ones calling for the legalization of drugs. We all know how effective the ban on drugs has been. Why would you think that a ban on guns would be any different?

What we do know is that guns are a deterrent and an equalizer. It's the reason why 9 out of 10 mass shootings take place in schools or other places where people are least likely to be armed. It's the reason why a robber is less likely to rob someone he believes to be armed than someone he believes to be unarmed. Strict gun laws only bolster a criminal's confidence that he can get away unscathed because he's the only one with a gun.

Finally, are people seriously including suicide-by-firearm as a relevant statistic? If somebody wants to commit suicide, there a multiple ways they can go about it. Hanging, slit wrists, drug overdose, jumping out the window, etc. If a gun is unavailable, they'll just use another method.

True, but the murder rate would be even higher if the Judges weren't around.