niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: A criminal with a gun will feel a lot more confident in committing a crime than a criminal without a gun will just as a criminal will avoid those who have guns and target those who don't.
 Sent2: I do not believe OTHERS should not have guns, I think criminals and psychos who are yet to convict a gun crime should not have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control makes criminals lives much easier, because they can keep their guns, while they don't have to deal with armed citizens.
 Sent2: I see, so banning guns just stops law abiding citizens from having them, yet your family of criminals buys them from people who legally obtained them, or has them legally obtained for them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Not really, because my argument is that banning guns doesn't make anyone safer.
 Sent2: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Your attempt to use rates of BJS to prove gun deaths, which have actually gone down despite huge increases of guns, fell flat as it has remained flat or decreased while other weapons were used in 2/3rds of the crimes.
 Sent2: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe the MAIN reason we should all support the 2nd amendment is to keep the power of gun ownership in our hands and not in the hands of the government.
 Sent2: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
 Sent2: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe the MAIN reason we should all support the 2nd amendment is to keep the power of gun ownership in our hands and not in the hands of the government.
 Sent2: We may therefore conclude that, any reason or purpose for an individual owning a gun, OTHER THAN for a militia, is not provided for under the 2nd Amendment, and that current gun laws for private ownership of guns is mistaken.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites.
 Sent2: It took the 14th amendment for them to get the right to keep and bear arms and still today the gun grabber agenda is based on denial of rights, all rights and not just Second Amendment rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So now you're saying that just because somebody owns a gun, they're somehow more likely to start killing people than somebody who doesn't own a gun?
 Sent2: You people fail to realize if someone is intent on committing a crime they will most likely GET A GUN, stopping the selling of guns will just restrict civilians from protecting themselves.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: and who commits crimes, Criminals, so if you take guns away from law abiding citizens insuring that criminals will still be able to get weapons will have more targets to attack because people don't have any defense against criminals.
 Sent2: Would the simple fact that criminals and terrorist knowing that law abiding citizens can defend themselves with guns force the criminals and terrorist to not attack people?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
 Sent2: It is these small time criminals that allow others to commit school massacares and liquior store shootings by selling firearms to these criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
 Sent2: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
 Sent2: If a person does not want to own or carry a gun then so be it, and if an individual does own guns then like wise.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Once we disarm law abiding citizens, the only armed civilians around will be criminals who would never willingly give up their weapons.
 Sent2: gun control doesent solve anything in fact it makes crime go up because the criminals will always get their guns and your only disarming the law abiding citizens thus making them easy victims from the criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Are you saying that the only reason there are criminals armed with guns is because we're not willing to accept gun prohibitions as the answer?
 Sent2: Seeing as we are saying would having a gun have stopped the 9/11 attacks you have to assume that you have smuggled one on.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also once you become an agent of the government you stop having right, you have authorities and you're controlled by the people the Constitution is supposed to protect you against.
 Sent2: But now if you mention that you want to defend yourself against unfair actions by the government, it wouldn't ever hold up.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Guns are becoming more easier to purchase and people are becoming more insane.humans are killing more innocent people everyday!
 Sent2: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: Similar
Sent1: IF you want them armed, why not let law abiding citizens who have passed a background check, a firearms safety check, and a marksmanship test carry their guns?
 Sent2: Which gun right laws do you support?The right to ban them?you are as anti-gun as they come.Galileo no offense, because you make no pretense about it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Simple if gun haters want people defending the right to bear arms to be in militias, why would you want the militias to have lesser weapons then the enemies they are defending against?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
 Sent2: Are you saying that since all guns have been banned for civilian use in Countries like England, that murders by guns and gun crimes have gone to absolute zero there?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun Control does not work, well unless you mean by working that crime sky rockets in which case I would have to agree with you and then question your motives as to why you would want it here.
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Private citizens can never hope to acquire firearms when gun control laws exist, but all 'criminals' have instant connections to black-market arms dealers.
 Sent2: If this is the case, then gun laws have a provable effect on how 'armed' criminals are - more gun control = less gun-carrying criminals, fact.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those who admit to being a firearms owner are unlikely to admit to binge drinking, and those who admit they engage in binge drinking are unlikely to admit to owning a firearm.
 Sent2: There has been no legitimate study presented to show that those who own firearms are more likely to engage in binge drinking than any other person.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 Sent2: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The higher rate of gun ownership by criminals is far outweighed by the threat of citizens owning guns.
 Sent2: In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: I still think the term commoner is a better definition when applied to non-members of the political caste, particularly when it comes to gun legislation.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States America states that, ���A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.�۝
 Sent2: In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
 Sent2: Some studies used against gun have been ones showing that over 50% of homicides in the US are committed with guns, while in countries with gun bans or very strict gun control have a lower amount of gun homicides.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You're saying that an unarmed man can't have intent to cause violence since he's unarmed?
 Sent2: He says that you can't judge the intent of others to make a life or death decision, but if you see somebody stabbing another person, then it's likely not a Sunday greeting that means nothing.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: �ۢ Trafficking in new firearms, interstate and intrastate, including by federally licensed firearms dealers, large-scale straw purchasers or straw purchasing rings, or small-scale straw purchasers from gun stores, gun shows, or other premises;
 Sent2: The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates.
 Sent2: A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They looked at gun ownership, drug use and a history of physical fights and found that each of these factors is associated with a higher homicide rate in the home.
 Sent2: Presumably, the cops knew if there was a gun in the homicide house since they searched it (even if it was not used in the homicide.)
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
 Sent2: I realize that these anti-gun rights historians need to impress upon the 2nd Amendment a militia regulating action but there is no legal evidence of the 2nd being inspected or held to inform upon any aspect of militia powers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A criminal with a gun will feel a lot more confident in committing a crime than a criminal without a gun will just as a criminal will avoid those who have guns and target those who don't.
 Sent2: Gun ownership is a protected right, and the fact that criminals use guns in the commission of crime will never change this fact.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
 Sent2: If a person does not want to own or carry a gun then so be it, and if an individual does own guns then like wise.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: To suit the people that believe guns should be completely illegal....I do feel that stricter laws need to be enforced to acquire such equipment.
 Sent2: I feel like existing laws need to actually be enforced and new ones targeted at those they are created for and not at legal law abiding gun owners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the precedent set by Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right but judges can still do the mental gymnastics to justify the gun control laws they like.
 Sent2: And I don't think that the second amendment is a good argument against gun control since the federal courts have not recognized gun-control as being offensive to the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If we allow banning of AP bullets, big bullets will be next, then shotguns, then pistols, then hunting rifles, then bows and arrows, then knives, then nail-clippers, then bats.
 Sent2: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So if you want to ban guns, 1,531,764 people will get killed or injured, and you'll only take guns out of the hands of those who don't even commit gun crimes.
 Sent2: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Right now it is against the law for the government to keep a database of gun owners, that that law would have to be changed, and I think you also know this.
 Sent2: I for one do not say that registration of all privately held firearms would violate the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So an article that is entitled "Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies" is not claiming that gun control is ineffective?
 Sent2: You say that gun control must not be effective because the study's conclusions about gun control were inconclusive.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The only rights at risk in this entire thing are first amendment rights.
 Sent2: The second amendment is the smoke detector of the bill of rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Although I still think that certain regulations need to be set in place in order to control the distribution of guns, complete gun control is not the answer; however, something still needs to be done.
 Sent2: While their by no means should be an outlaw of guns, I do believe restrictions should be put in place.
Output: Similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 Sent2: This is the same logic the gun control supporters apply to people exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can debate that without guns there would be more deaths to other weapons although you can't debate it would be to the same extent as gun murders and crimes would be.
 Sent2: I see you always use gun crime rates as an argument, are you totally uninterested in other types of violent crimes, what happens when all guns are banned and we only have knife crimes?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only problem with gun hater pilot�۪s common sense bs is that the dangerous criminals these laws are meant to keep guns away from do not obey gun control laws!
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns are banned, the only people who will surrender them are those who commit nearly no gun crime at all.
 Sent2: The only gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If there were a certain number of cases involving concealed carriers having their guns stolen right off of their person, then it might be worth noting.
 Sent2: For instance, if something was written that says Gun owners should be skilled with their own firearms, but someone leaves off the s.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I'd love to know what firearms are made and sold but have no constitutional protection for ownership.
 Sent2: I fail to see how asking about gun ownership is any different.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Can you show me any proof that the 50% you refer to actually have or did buy guns before committing a crime?
 Sent2: What the Court is saying, at least to me, is that if you can prove the firearm you have has some usefulness for militia service then the 2nd.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All of the Gun control you call for has been tried in other countries and the Criminals Still import guns in with their drugs.
 Sent2: Try as you might, you've done nothing except go on and on and on about how criminals use guns more than honest people, and how having a gun is no guarantee of surviving a violent encounter.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.
 Sent2: The opposite of "more guns = less crime is not true" is not "more guns = more crime".
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
 Sent2: Name me one gun control law that has been effective as crime control!!!!!!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Only why would you need gun registration if guns were illegal?
 Sent2: Which gun right laws do you support?The right to ban them?you are as anti-gun as they come.Galileo no offense, because you make no pretense about it.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia service they would be obligated to perform for the state.
 Sent2: It did nothing to prohibit the required militia arms from being used in private concerns (such as hunting) so long as the arms were kept in a state of constant readiness for emergency militia use.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I realize that these anti-gun rights historians need to impress upon the 2nd Amendment a militia regulating action but there is no legal evidence of the 2nd being inspected or held to inform upon any aspect of militia powers.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 Sent2: I see you always use gun crime rates as an argument, are you totally uninterested in other types of violent crimes, what happens when all guns are banned and we only have knife crimes?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
 Sent2: Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save lives, the statistics back this up from EVERY country EVER to introduce gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In sum, I think it makes more sense that the second amendment applies to right to form a militia, and even when interpreted as an individual right, doesn't appear to prohibit any regulation.
 Sent2: The organized militia is equivalent to the well regulated militia of the second amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Yes, that must be the reason why in other developed nations where there are more restrictions on guns less defenseless people are being murdered by criminals.
 Sent2: A much higher gun ownership rate than other developed nations could explain this- that although crime occurs less frequently in the US crime is more likely to involve guns in the US so someone is more likely to die.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Less gun control probably means more criminals will have guns, however it also means more civilian lives will be saved.
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
 Sent2: Supporting gun control to stop violent criminals, is like supporting a ban on cameras to stop child pornography.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Notice not one of the common sense gun control laws gun hater pilot is demanding is to punish dangerous criminals by keeping them in prison to keep guns away from them!
 Sent2: Rationing guns doesn't stop gun dealers, it makes them invisible to the police.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 'Gun control' does not mean a ban on all self-defence
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: THey also believe that ALL guns can XXXX people apart and even an untrained person with a gun can shoot as accurately as the military.
 Sent2: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I like how anti gun people say we need to protect everyone from the rare gun events by banning guns, but when someone suggests banning the more frequent hammer and club attacks, they can justify those deaths.
 Sent2: I think it is interesting that gun nuts always claim that when guns are banned people will just use knives instead, yet we find that with guns prohibited there are still only 200 deaths a year from knife like weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You've accepted the first posit - that less guns will result in less gun killings.
 Sent2: Let's be honest, it won't result in any more or less gun deaths and even if it resulted in more gun deaths it would be worth having the amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Their argument is hardly valid, they want to stop the selling of firearms to people because they think it will decrease the crimes and school shootings along with other dangers that are caused by guns.
 Sent2: So if its cause people in high crime areas want to buy guns for protection then why do they only want protection against gun murders but not other crimes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun ownership is a protected right, and the fact that criminals use guns in the commission of crime will never change this fact.
 Sent2: If a gun used to commit crimes isn't found in the registry, then the registry isn't much of a valuable crime fighting tool is it?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Would you want your children to go to a school where everyone was allowed to have a gun?
 Sent2: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even in Japan, the nation with the most absolute strictest gun laws in the world, criminals are still getting their hands on banned guns and killing people with them.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you take away the civilian's only right to self defense, how are they suppose to defend themselves from the criminals who buy weapons and drugs from the black market illegally.
 Sent2: So anybody who has a gun for self protection is now dead because they dont have guns, just the criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
 Sent2: I feel like existing laws need to actually be enforced and new ones targeted at those they are created for and not at legal law abiding gun owners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment was never about individual gun ownership, it's only purpose was proper case of a government organized and controlled militia."
 Sent2: What you've been doing isn't a debate about gun control, it's criticism of the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for legal purposes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
 Sent2: So gun hater pilots goal is to treat all people like criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
 Sent2: Right now it is against the law for the government to keep a database of gun owners, that that law would have to be changed, and I think you also know this.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We may therefore conclude that, any reason or purpose for an individual owning a gun, OTHER THAN for a militia, is not provided for under the 2nd Amendment, and that current gun laws for private ownership of guns is mistaken.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
Output: Similar
Sent1: When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden?
 Sent2: In particular, does the reader feel that the worthy law enforcement goal of eliminating gun crime justifies the sacrifice of the individual right to keep and bear them?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You're saying that guns should be allowed into school in order to allow some students (or teachers) to defend themselves if they were attacked.
 Sent2: Exactly how many shootings took place in these settings when students were allowed to not only bring their legally owned guns with them to school, but could also store them in their lockers inside the school?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
 Sent2: Please note that the argument is that the reason people shall have the right to keep and bear arms is in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: Who can believe that the right to keep and bear arms could survive "community storage," with gun owners needing to ask government bureaucrats for permission to obtain access to their own guns?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: There is no debate as none of you have offered evidence that in Australia it's illegal to use your firearms in self-defense.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Simple if the gun haters did not want your guns why do gun haters only want gun control laws that law abiding citizens obey and criminals do not?
 Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: if one wants to own a gun i have no qualms with them but if they wish to own guns such as a AK47 and AK74u they should be dealt with in a more civilized manner to protect the people.
 Sent2: People constantly trumpet about how having a gun means that they can protect themselves, but first they must be able to fire the gun on another human being, something that most people find hard to do.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Criminals, predators, and thugs are going to be here weather we want them to be or not.
 Sent2: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We don't have to choose between total regulation of guns or total denial of the problem of gun crime.
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The embraced anti-gun rights interpretation of the 2nd was that it was a provision that had but one function and intent, to protect the "state right" to organize and control their militia from federal interference.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the rights to own a gun, not the Militia Act.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Concealed carry laws put more legal guns on the street, in stores, etc. the is More Guns on the street for defensive use.
 Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
 Sent2: The people that want gun control laws are the ones using the militia lie.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The reality is that in developed nations with stricter gun laws than the US there are less outlaws owning and using guns.
 Sent2: No, but they might like to challenge the conclusion that states with less strict firearm laws are more often the source of guns used in crimes, in other states, than guns from states with stricter gun laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: with regard to the fact that most gun crime is from illegl guns, in that case why not make all guns illegal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Countries that ban guns or implement stricter laws concerning firearms have lower crime rates.
 Sent2: If the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states then there is no Second Amendment legal protection against state gun laws (which would include any state laws that ban guns in school areas).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you want any protection for your rights, you have to be able to present an argument outlining how they are being violated.
 Sent2: The gun lobby likes to give lip service to the idea of rights and freedom but every time they oppose reasonable safety measures intended to protect people's rights they show where they really stand.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think what is also important is that nobody to my knowledge is saying that a law abiding citizen shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
 Sent2: As said,I think the people of the USA are quite capable of deciding about their own gun laws without a Brit getting involved but to make guns freely available to British citizens would be a bad, bad idea.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: (After having several family members get killed by being shot from those with ILLEGAL guns you realise LEGAL guns aren't the problem)
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, people kill people: absolutely true, but guns allow people to kill people with greater efficiency, which is not necessarily a good thing outside of the battlefield.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The second amendment says MILITIAS have the right to carry guns, not private citizens, and that is why the militias are there to protects us and are composed of....private citizens.
 Sent2: At the time the constitution was written, the militia, which was to be armed with privately owned weapons, was supposed to be our nations primary military force.
Output: Similar
Sent1: While their by no means should be an outlaw of guns, I do believe restrictions should be put in place.
 Sent2: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Innocent people were butchered where no guns were permitted, while nobody is being shot full of holes in the schools where carrying a gun is permitted.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, people kill people: absolutely true, but guns allow people to kill people with greater efficiency, which is not necessarily a good thing outside of the battlefield.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, even though there were less deaths, there was a surge in gun crime, death and non-death related, after the ban on guns.
 Sent2: The vast majority of gun crimes do not end in a death.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: (i.e. restrictions on concealed carry, laws against brandishing) but we can not ban the carrying of arms altogether since that would violate the second amendment.
 Sent2: Why can a state attach limits "in their own individual RKBA" (such as prohibited concealed carry) that supercede the second amendment- unless the second amendment does not protect concealed carry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even though gun clubs at school are not the problem this anti gun/gun control advocate defends no guns at school.
 Sent2: The gun right people demand that they be allowed to hand out pamphlets defending the right to have guns if the school allowed anti gun/gun control advocates to pass out pamphlets vilifying guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We must be doing something right because our violent crime rates are dropping while your native country keeps rising in spite of gun and knife bans.
 Sent2: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: Thus, people do not turn to knives and other potententially lethal weapons less often when more guns are available, but more guns usually means more victims of homicide and suicide."
Output: Similar
Sent1: Just because if you hang upside down and squint sideways, you can read the wording of the Second Amendment as protecting no one from anything, this does not void other places the Right to keep and bear Arms were guaranteed.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment reads ���the right of the people to keep and bear arms��_.�۝
Output: Similar
Sent1: I don't believe guns are good for anything, and I see no use in having them, but I believe it is everybody's right to produce or keep one, as it is just a weapon like anything else.
 Sent2: Machine guns are not in common use so I see no reason to believe restrictions on them would be lifted based on the ruling.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It is not the legal gun doing the crime it is the illegaly owned guns, so if you take my guns the criminals have no one to stop them since they have guns we don't.
 Sent2: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you choose to not be prepared and not own a gun, that is your choice, you do not however have the right to tell me that I may not.
 Sent2: So if you support every amendment made to the constitution pertaining to guns, than I submit your not to interested in owning a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
 Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: Similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment is about legal and lawful activities, not fulfilling some duty to the government, or serving in the military.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment isn't about a right to serve in the militia as a government owned slave.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If so, they need to explain why they would leave some firearms, handguns say, in the hands of the people which are involved in more officer deaths than the ones they recommend banning.
 Sent2: HE was saying that every man needed a gun, but that they shouldn;t go overboard because providing every man with 2 guns would be too expensive.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A criminal with a gun will feel a lot more confident in committing a crime than a criminal without a gun will just as a criminal will avoid those who have guns and target those who don't.
 Sent2: and who commits crimes, Criminals, so if you take guns away from law abiding citizens insuring that criminals will still be able to get weapons will have more targets to attack because people don't have any defense against criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You're the one who has to explain why the US crime rates are so high when other countries manage to have guns and not go nuts.
 Sent2: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For every one crime gun that California exports, we get more than two crime guns imported back into our state."
 Sent2: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those are all the government, if it has gotten as far as the people, and the government (the president, the congress, the supreme court) has decided on gun control, who's going to arrest them for it?
 Sent2: If anything, cops will come to where you live to take your guns, seeing as they work for the government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
 Sent2: Two weeks ago, concerning a case out of Chicago, the justices agreed to rule on whether the Second Amendment gives Americans a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that is enforceable against local and state gun laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While it may be true that more illegal acts than protective measures are associated with guns, the extension to the average law abiding gun owner's habits is invalid.
 Sent2: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That said, the idea that non gun homicides dont increase does not show causation between high gun ownership and increased murder rates.
 Sent2: It shows a % of the homicides that were committed with guns, but nowhere is there an indication of gun ownership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: So guns kept in a home appear to attract criminals rather than deter them.
 Sent2: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: When you compare the number of gun-related deaths of each country, factoring in population size, rates of legal gun ownership, and number of suicide instances, you'll see that America is very much safer than everywhere else.
 Sent2: Canada, Switzerland, Finland and scores of other countries allow for legal gun ownership but don't have a higher number of gun deaths than countries where guns are illegal.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The second amendment says MILITIAS have the right to carry guns, not private citizens, and that is why the militias are there to protects us and are composed of....private citizens.
 Sent2: We may therefore conclude that, any reason or purpose for an individual owning a gun, OTHER THAN for a militia, is not provided for under the 2nd Amendment, and that current gun laws for private ownership of guns is mistaken.
Output: Similar
Sent1: On average, the states that have done the most to regulate private gun sales appear to have lower firearm death rates and lower firearm homicide rates.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Similar
Sent1: I think the government has taken responsibility for the law abiding citizens by ensuring that nobody can carry a gun or other dangerous weapon on board a plane.
 Sent2: I seriously cannot believe that someone out there really thinks that we should allow EVERYBODY to carry weapons onto an airplane!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Usually it is 'oh look out look out, them gun nuts are going to do something.
 Sent2: If anything, cops will come to where you live to take your guns, seeing as they work for the government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
 Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens save lives, the statistics back this up from EVERY country EVER to introduce gun control.
 Sent2: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms believe criminals will obey a law stating criminals cannot have guns?
 Sent2: Which is why the ban is a bit of a poor compromise, they've banned guns for law abiding people but they've not done enough to make sure criminals don't have them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: All one can reasonably conclude is that more firearms does not increase the homicide rate, nor does less guns reduce it.
 Sent2: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You are arguing in favor of charging someone with a crime after they were shown to be a victim of crime by having their private property stolen.
 Sent2: The first thing you need to do when someone is charged with a crime is understand what the charge is and what must be proved.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you want how it relates to guns, there is clear evidence (gun crime) that many people use guns irresponsibly... I think a different thread put the figures at about 0.2% of guns used irresponsibly (criminally) per year.
 Sent2: I see you always use gun crime rates as an argument, are you totally uninterested in other types of violent crimes, what happens when all guns are banned and we only have knife crimes?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: Sure you say guns don't kill people but people kill people, but the gun is only a tool or a means to that end.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The bill would also protect gun manufacturers and dealers that have allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals through their own negligence.
 Sent2: FACT: Because it is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns, the Fifth Amendment protects felons from being forced to incriminate themselves by registering their guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
 Sent2: You're right that gun control isn't about guns, however, but 'control' is a secondary matter, a means to an end.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Your advocating total violation of the constitution to prevent criminals from stealing guns from law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: gun control doesent solve anything in fact it makes crime go up because the criminals will always get their guns and your only disarming the law abiding citizens thus making them easy victims from the criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It also give the right to equipment with which you could execute murders, armed robberies and other violent crime.
 Sent2: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If this is the case then gun control laws will have no effect on who carries melee weapons, so you argument falls apart because 'the law abiding' can remain armed.
 Sent2: IF you previously had laws that made openly carrying weapons illegal, and you then pass a concealed carry law, if somebody is carrying a gun and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You're the one who has to explain why the US crime rates are so high when other countries manage to have guns and not go nuts.
 Sent2: Look at any country that has significantly tighter gun control laws than America, go far enough back and you'll eventually see that gun control was very simple at first.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
 Sent2: So anybody who has a gun for self protection is now dead because they dont have guns, just the criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We tell them what was meant when the law passed, but even these gun owners do not care what was meant, they only care what the law says!
 Sent2: Screw "putting more guns on the street", how about we give gun owners more rights and more legal opportunities to use them and stop pandering to the criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the precedent set by Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right but judges can still do the mental gymnastics to justify the gun control laws they like.
 Sent2: Please show me what law prevents amending the constitution to repeal another amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates.
 Sent2: That said, the idea that non gun homicides dont increase does not show causation between high gun ownership and increased murder rates.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Innocent people were butchered where no guns were permitted, while nobody is being shot full of holes in the schools where carrying a gun is permitted.
 Sent2: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The right to bear arms is explicit and clear in the second amendment.
 Sent2: It was felt by many (not all) at the time that such weapons were not military weapons and thus did not fall under the protection of the Second Amendment or the right to bear arms in their own state constitutions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since animals can operate them, gun owners obviously need sufficient training to make sure they are used safely.
 Sent2: So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: now imagine if no criminals could get hold of a gun, you wouldn't need a protection, as no criminals have guns.
 Sent2: If you take away the civilian's only right to self defense, how are they suppose to defend themselves from the criminals who buy weapons and drugs from the black market illegally.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: A gun haters is a person that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms or wants to ban the right to bear arms.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Simple if the gun haters did not want your guns why do gun haters only want gun control laws that law abiding citizens obey and criminals do not?
 Sent2: Now if you want gun control laws that limit or ban the right to bear arms you are a gun haters.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: No it's federal law that you have to run background checks in order to keep your FFL (federal firearms license) which allows you to legally sell guns.
 Sent2: It's pointless people with criminal backgrounds aren't buying guns from gun stores (all of which already run background checks) there are no background checks on the black market and laws won't change that.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 Sent2: Try as you might, you've done nothing except go on and on and on about how criminals use guns more than honest people, and how having a gun is no guarantee of surviving a violent encounter.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Gun hater Sarah Brady like al gun hater blame the right to bear arms for the crimes committed with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
 Sent2: Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: That right there is reason enough not to give government absolute control over firearms.
 Sent2: Are you saying that trying to avoid being murdered isn't a good enough reason for owning or using a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.
 Sent2: Most gun owners are just ordinary people who happen to own a firearm.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Making a gun free zone does nothing to prevent guns from entering it.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If a criminal steals a legally purchased gun from a law abiding gun owner, we are still faced with a situation where the criminal's actions and intent are to blame, not the gun itself.
 Sent2: Once again, there is a curious drive to blame the legal firearm owner vs the criminal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: org gun grabber groups, they are ashamed to admit they are gun grabbers and anti Second Amendment.
 Sent2: Gun grabbers are criminal because they advocate eliminating the Second Amendment.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The bill would also protect gun manufacturers and dealers that have allowed their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals through their own negligence.
 Sent2: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 Sent2: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar