Gun Control Is Bad (BROAD)

I want to make it clear that my argument isn't about banning all guns, it's about better control on who is able to obtain them. Mexico doesn't restrict all guns, individuals may still buy guns, and if the Mexican people truly wanted to overthrow their government through bloodshed they could, however it's not like the civilians are dissatisfied where their government completely, and when they are they have overthrown past leaders without guns. America has corruption problems just like Mexico(not the exact same one but the problems are just as bad if not worst), yet we are more heavily armed. So how come we still have corruption problems? Guns definitely have not solved that problem. And I'll give you a brief news flash, Corps like Comcast bribe the hell out of politics enforcing laws that protect their own interest while hurting citizens. Anyways back on topic now Can you stop referring to all of Europe as one big country? There are literally dozens of different countries on that continent. Are you serious? Have you ever been in a firefight? "It wasn't pitch black and the terrorist saw enough to easily pinpoint people" You do realize the terrorist had no specific target? You also realize with the mass panic it is easy to get confused with a crowd running around. How would you be able to indenting the target from another civilian trying to be a hero? Trained - as in practicing working in high stress, high intense situations so that you can quickly identify the correct target and perform the duty you set out to do. Anyone can pull a trigger yes but being in a firefight situation is completely different than a shooting range where the targets do not shoot back and civilians can run right in front of your target. What if you get attacked by civilians trying to be a hero? You have no uniform it'll be easy to confuse you for the enemy even breaking apart a gun you can indenting those parts as well as the essentials for it, in the end it still takes longer for the guns to enter the hands of the criminal, so you proved my point there why gun control is useful. Accidental firearms doesn't just happen with people under the age of 18, just because you turn 18 doesn't mean you magically become mature/intelligent enough to properly hand a gun. Gun violence in the heavily senses populated cities compared to states with small populations? That's like comparing apples to oranges, being white doesn't mean you can properly handle a gun, do you forget that most mass shooting was done by a white male? I should have been more clear when I said "yea I definitely would not give that guy a gun" I didn't mean literally just look at a person, I mean have had a conversation with them, they weren't deemed mentally incompetent however I still would not want them to have a gun. There are plenty of people with an IQ over 70 or isn't severely mentally ill that you still wouldn't want to have a gun. So the notion that a mental health check would only apply to a small portion of the population is completely false, there are those with an anger problem, alcohol problem, drug problem, etc the list can go on. Even a mentally competent person can break down, from a loss of work, or figuring out their significant other has cheated on them. Most of the other points you address about the 15 yo being able to put a gun together and what not. My point there is that it still takes time. Meaning it slows down criminal activity. You say "you are also giving me the idea that you think everyone is stupid and can't look after themselves" See there's this thing called Paternalism and the definition is "Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm. The issue of paternalism arises with respect to restrictions by the law such as anti-drug legislation, the compulsory wearing of seatbelts, and in medical contexts by the withholding of relevant information concerning a patient's condition by physicians. At the theoretical level it raises questions of how persons should be treated when they are less than fully rational." So these would apply why gun control laws would benefit law abiding citizens and to make them go through such rigorous testing. It's the reason why there are seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, alcohol limits, and hard drug laws, as well as driving laws/license. Does it not make sense that you have to get tested to operate a 2 ton vehicle that could be easily used to kill people when mishandled and prove you know how and promise to use it properly just like gun? After all you never did answer why 80% of mass shootings gun have been obtained legally as well as the decline of Australia's gun violence after their stricter gun control. At this point you shouldn't even focused on how people can still obtain guns with stricter laws, because you prove my point by showing the extra steps and measures it takes to get around those laws, because my premise isn't that banning guns completely should be done but having stricter laws to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns is actually better. And a bonus, if you are competent the extra few days or paperwork it takes to obtain a gun shouldn't bother you, as there is literally no reason why you "must have a gun right at the moment" because if you aren't committing any crimes you should be able to plan your purchase out accordingly just as when you set up dates to get your drivers license.