niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: You still have to prove that gun control equals crime control and your admission that it does not is proof that it is about control and dependency on government to protect you when they have no obligation to do so.
 Sent2: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
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: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some people who want to ban guns try to use simplistic arguments to suggest that murder rates are tied to the number of guns available for criminal misuse; and they suggest more guns = more crime and less guns = less crime.
 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 haters if the 2nd amend did not protect the right to bear arms then all guns in America would be banned.
 Sent2: I've been told by gun activists that the second amendment protects a limited right and therefore people can be banned from owning WMD's.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
 Sent2: Other felons, such as car thieves, burglars and whomever else can be convicted of felonies without the use of guns might be considered for a reprieve or a complete release from the ownership ban.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You say that gun control must not be effective because the study's conclusions about gun control were inconclusive.
 Sent2: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
 Sent2: We know that Bloomberg is convinced that guns are the reason his city is such a mess.
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: 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: We could hypothesize that if guns are banned then law abiding citizens who usually didn't carry or own guns before the ban will be less likely to face armed opponents.
 Sent2: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Earlier this decade, the NRA persuaded virtually every legislature in the country to permit gun owners to carry concealed firearms ��� only Illinois and Wisconsin still completely forbid concealed guns.
 Sent2: Lott's More Guns, Less Crime is the bible of the national movement to persuade state legislatures to pass so-called "concealed carry" laws, which permit citizens to carry concealed firearms.
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: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
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: 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: The reality is that in developed nations with stricter gun laws than the US there are less outlaws owning and using guns.
 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: You didn't address that since we have started adding more and more gun control that violent crimes have gone up and how even though America is #1 in gun ownership it tanks only 107th in homicide rates.
 Sent2: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun hater pilot's lack of logic is to not allow law abding citizens the right to bear arms, and do nothing to protect the unarmed law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Gun hater pilot logic is for companies and governments to deny a person the right to bears arms to defend ones self then not be held responsible when these companies and governments fail to protect the unarmed citizens!
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: 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: Similar
Sent1: They specifically said that a complete and total ban on an entire class of firearms was alright.
 Sent2: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If today we were to ban guns all the law abiding citizens would give up their firearms and protection.
 Sent2: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We support letting people who already have guns actually being allowed to carry them, but I haven't seen anyone saying that we have to get hundreds of thousands of more guns bought up and distributed.
 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: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: I believe in gun control (and wrote this piece to satirize pro-gunners) because I hate guns and want to see them all banned, which is why I own guns and also enjoy reading firearms-related literature.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The criminal homicides almost always include illegally gotten guns- so that's not relevant either as gun control laws won't change that.
 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: Even though gun clubs at school are not the problem this anti gun/gun control advocate defends no guns at school.
 Sent2: The anti gun/gun control advocate way at dealing with deaths caused by guns is to limit the right to bear arms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun hater Sarah Brady like al gun hater blame the right to bear arms for the crimes committed with guns.
 Sent2: Ok, so are the gun haters claiming the police department are giving the guns criminals use for crime back to the criminals?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
 Sent2: So an article that is entitled "Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies" is not claiming that gun control is ineffective?
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: My point was that the theory that more gun control leaves people defenseless does not explain the lower murder rates in other developed nations.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 Sent2: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even if today's well-regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: However, I can understand that people can use guns for recreation, hunting and sport.
 Sent2: Many people who would never dream of shooting a person can own a gun simply for the artistry of a well made machine, people hunt with guns as well.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
 Sent2: My point was that the theory that more gun control leaves people defenseless does not explain the lower murder rates in other developed nations.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I implied that there are people with guns that are nuts, not that all gun owners are nuts...
 Sent2: It amasses me how many anti-gun nut activists have armed guards.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even if today's well-regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: THE SECOND 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.PERIOD.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Some people will argue that there should be little or no gun regulation, while others will argue that there should be as much regulation as the courts will allow.
 Sent2: Is your point that citizens should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves from the government or that citizens should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from other citizens?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Furthermore, as I am sure you are aware, the British police do not carry firearms, and they defend themselves equally well against attacks from criminals armed with lethal weapons.
 Sent2: Therefore, if you avoid gangs (those who tend to have guns - they are still criminals), there is little point in carrying a gun yourself.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 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: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
 Sent2: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun hater pilot's lack of logic is to not allow law abding citizens the right to bear arms, and do nothing to protect the unarmed law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
 Sent2: He is also someone who dislikes guns and has mostly written on the side of gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns are more advanced now, then that's all the more reason we should have the right to defend ourselves against them, not less.
 Sent2: It is legal to own weapons in this country, they are just tightly controlled, and as a result we have far less gun crime (particularly where it's not related to organised crime).
Output: Not 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: Again, I don't think anybody will argue that owning a gun prevents crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Are you saying that trying to avoid being murdered isn't a good enough reason for owning or using a gun?
 Sent2: And (I'm going to use the high estimate this time) would you say 972,000 incidents per year that someone saves a live or prevents a murder with a gun means guns are "not effective for protection?"
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
 Sent2: We support letting people who already have guns actually being allowed to carry them, but I haven't seen anyone saying that we have to get hundreds of thousands of more guns bought up and distributed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Second, the only reason that you would bother notifying the police is if you think there is some possibility that the person will be charged with trying to illegally obtain a gun.
 Sent2: The only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
 Sent2: You are pulling the same XXXX Doc did in thinking that because I don't think more guns equals less crime that I automatically must think it means MORE crime and that gun control laws are effective and needed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if it were not read to protect individual rights as well.�۝
 Sent2: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In the dicta from a maritime law case the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment."
 Sent2: Attorney General John Ashcroft, for example, says that the second amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, but he has also stated that he supports the extension of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Gee, maybe if the law abiding had guns they could defend themselves?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
 Sent2: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
Output: Not 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: So...you want laws dictating everything we can do with a gun...but when the laws spell out that we can't drink while armed, you're claiming that nobody will obey the law and drink anyway?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Civilians with other types of gun should be shot on sight by them.
 Sent2: all guns are used for is killing, they are weapons.
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: If people are going to carry guns for protection, they should be encouraged to put lots and lots of rounds through the gun.
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: This is just as unrealistic a view that saying gun laws will prevent all crime- of course some criminals will not obey the law- that is what makes them criminals!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Similar
Sent1: As far as guns, it is difficult to say because currently as in the past, you are not allowed to carry a gun on board an aircraft.
 Sent2: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You still have to prove that gun control equals crime control and your admission that it does not is proof that it is about control and dependency on government to protect you when they have no obligation to do so.
 Sent2: This is just further proof that gun control does not equal crime control and there are no "reasonable" nor "responsible" gun control laws.
Output: 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: 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.
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: Not only will the criminals still have access to guns, but they will also have the added knowledge that either the person they intend to rob does not have a gun or they are breaking the law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: NATO, Galileo has claimed that these laws are designed to reduce criminal use of guns (which would have to mean that they target the people, not the guns).
 Sent2: By that brand of logic, any gun law is specifically aimed at reducing criminal use of guns, including a complete ban.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are zones where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to have guns because law-abiding citizens obey the law about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I would support any law that target criminals, but I will not support you as long as you target lawfull gun owners.
 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: But is the answer to take down the gun free zones...and just allow kids to carry guns to school?
 Sent2: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Using a shotgun or an AK-47 will get the job done, so I don't see the need to ban assault weapons.
 Sent2: And as far as carrying in public, as long as I have commited no crime, then why should anyone need know I have my gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: First, the ruling was that the Second Amendment only applied to firearms that had a militia purposes and that the sawed-off shotgun in question didn't have any evidence of being suitable for a militia.
 Sent2: Especially since one of your arguments is that the Second Amendment only protects arms suitable for militia duties, which would be all semi-automatic firearms in existence!
Output: 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: So guns kept in a home appear to attract criminals rather than deter them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The higher rate of gun ownership by criminals is far outweighed by the threat of citizens owning guns.
 Sent2: This should be a clear indicator that legal ownership of guns in no way has increased potential criminality for law abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I guess you either didnt see or chose to ignore the part about a gun on its own being no more dangerous than popsicle sticks, hence the words on its own.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
 Sent2: Especially since one of your arguments is that the Second Amendment only protects arms suitable for militia duties, which would be all semi-automatic firearms in existence!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We could hypothesize that if guns are banned then law abiding citizens who usually didn't carry or own guns before the ban will be less likely to face armed opponents.
 Sent2: Therefore, we should not allow anyone to carry a gun on a plane, because these people may either be law abiding or not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Founders had in mind guns that were much less powerful when they wrote the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: Furthermore, the Founders envisioned people being armed with much less powerful weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Cars kill people everyday just the same as guns, but nobody is trying to ban cars.
 Sent2: A gun ban would make guns on the same level as drugs....
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Thus the federal government had no power to correct these violations, rather the citizens had to rely on the police power of the states for their protection from private individuals.
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You are pulling the same XXXX Doc did in thinking that because I don't think more guns equals less crime that I automatically must think it means MORE crime and that gun control laws are effective and needed.
 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 already have more than enough gun Laws and Although I haven't personally checked the statistics I would be willing to bet that most of these Laws that were passed haven't made a big difference in stopping crimes.
 Sent2: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
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: All that does is imply that crime rate depends on more than just the presence/absence of guns - it disproves 'more guns = more crime' about as much as it disproves 'more guns = less crime'.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Law abiding citizens are not going to misuse their firearms and those with criminal records are already banned from owning guns.
 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 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.
 Sent2: Of course, nothing in the text of the Second Amendment places location-based limits on the right to keep and bear arms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Your advocating total violation of the constitution to prevent criminals from stealing guns from law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Please tell the murder victims in these other countries that gun control works.
 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: Guns are dangerous even though when they are banned people will still make them people think that they will still use them less people will use them less deaths will be by guns.
 Sent2: NATO, Galileo has claimed that these laws are designed to reduce criminal use of guns (which would have to mean that they target the people, not the guns).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
 Sent2: I think the concerns are less in my corner of the globe, because there's only a few people who are permitted to carry guns here, usually uniformed people like the Police, Armaguard people and a number of other exceptions.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: What it seems like you are claiming is that if the owner would otherwise let you in if you didn't have a gun, you have a right to go in by the 2nd amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 'Gun control' does not mean a ban on all self-defence
 Sent2: It's just that on these forums, the words 'gun control' usually refer to extremely tight gun laws, or outright banning of guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
 Sent2: All that I point out is that Canada, which has very strict gun control laws, also has a much lower murder rate than does the USA.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: WE AGREE THAT CRIMINALS SHOULDN'T BE ARMED, and the laws already exist on the books to punish them when convicted criminals are caught with guns.
 Sent2: CRIMINALS WHO HAVE BROKEN BOTH GUN LAWS AND MURDER LAWS, not just 'criminals', we have plenty of people in jail for things other than murder by gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Your advocating total violation of the constitution to prevent criminals from stealing guns from law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: This should be a clear indicator that legal ownership of guns in no way has increased potential criminality for law abiding citizens.
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: Also if both points are true, would you sacrifice you right to protect your rights with guns (rather than politically) for a crime rate low enough where you don't feel you need a gun for protection?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters must attack people defending the right to bear arms by calling them fanatics.
 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: Loose control of his firearm to a person who does not have the right to be in posession of the firearm.
 Sent2: But that does not change the fact that the law has made the individual into a prohibited person, so that her gun possession is, in itself, a federal felony.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
 Sent2: So guns kept in a home appear to attract criminals rather than deter them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment isn't a gun control law, it's an individual right, independent from militia service.
 Sent2: Here's the thing...the Second Amendment and the right to be armed for your own defense isn't just a right, it's a fundamental, human, and individual right.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: If we're going to ban guns,we might as well bans knives,fireworks,and even computers.
 Sent2: Another bill that we would like to see go in the trash is the ban on manufacture of machine guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: WE AGREE THAT CRIMINALS SHOULDN'T BE ARMED, and the laws already exist on the books to punish them when convicted criminals are caught with guns.
 Sent2: They didn't shoot someone because they were criminals, they because criminals because they shot someone, Your point boils down to 'Laws do not work because people disobey them-we should have no laws'.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: If gun control will not affect criminal ownership of guns and people will always be able to get a firearm if they want, why should a government make the effort to ban firearms as a precursor to atrocities?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Crash resistant car designs are created to save lives, guns (though they may occasionally save lives) are primarily weapons, designed to hurt or kill.
 Sent2: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In such cases you are protecting against a violent felony offense which endangers your life and anyone else in the home, and you are then allowed to use deadly force to defend your home.
 Sent2: You're not allowed to assemble your gun, not even in event of a break in, you're not allowed to load it, or take it from one room of your house to another.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
 Sent2: 1) Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun registration schemes have been disabled for criminals because requiring them to register a gun they are forbidden to own would violate their 5th Amendment rights.
 Sent2: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The problem is that widespread guns means greater criminal access to guns which means greater criminal gun use which means bad things.
 Sent2: Finally it mentions that Swiss "gun control" is not the reason for the low crime rates and, granted, it also mentions that this system is not proof that more guns means less crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 Sent2: Which would be worthless because you could just repeal that amendment and then repeal the 2nd.
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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
 Sent2: And as far as carrying in public, as long as I have commited no crime, then why should anyone need know I have my gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You can't be a man unless you're swinging a gun, and no matter how many guns you buy, it's still missing for you .
 Sent2: The fact that you've committed murder is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is if a person has a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gun control will not affect criminal ownership of guns and people will always be able to get a firearm if they want, why should a government make the effort to ban firearms as a precursor to atrocities?
 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: 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?
 Sent2: Most violent crime with guns occurs at knife fighting range.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
 Sent2: In sum, we hold that the District�۪s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.
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: The fact that you've committed murder is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is if a person has a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: #NAME?
 Sent2: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That pretty much boiled down to laws against felons having weapons, laws against the mentally defective having weapons, and laws against carrying weapons in sensitive places.
 Sent2: Criminals will always find ways to get around gun laws which is why there are a lot less criminals who own and use guns in places like the UK and Australia.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns
 Sent2: Lott's More Guns, Less Crime is the bible of the national movement to persuade state legislatures to pass so-called "concealed carry" laws, which permit citizens to carry concealed firearms.
Output: Similar
Sent1: That is exactly what will happen with new gun control, the people who break the existing laws will mere just scoff at the new ones.
 Sent2: For that matter, why not arrest people for breaking any gun law, not just those relating to handguns?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Think you are missing the point, there is no way that you can really argue a gun ban within the constitution as is (whether the thing is really valid is another discusion entirely).
 Sent2: You've made the argument that registration of firearms is perfectly legal and constitutional, despite the fact that the Firearm Owners Protection Act forbids any and all type of database of guns or gun owners.
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: How can a people defend themselves from the government, unless they are able to maintain the same weapons as the government has?
Output: Not 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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
 Sent2: 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.
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: You have been shown the facts that most criminals get their guns from family members or they steal them, even from cops.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If people are going to carry guns for protection, they should be encouraged to put lots and lots of rounds through the gun.
 Sent2: If it was just a gun thing then they could go from internation flights from countries with no guns, but it isn't.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Explain exactly how the judges ruling that the Second Amendment is truly an individual right, how DC's ban on handgun ownership and their trigger lock requirements being unconstitutional, would in any way suggest that one-gun-a-month laws pass constitutional muster.
 Sent2: Scalia's analysis of whether or not handguns are a type of weapon protected by the Second Amendment was necessary to reach a decision on the Constitutionality of D.C.'s handgun ban.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are zones where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to have guns because law-abiding citizens obey the law about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
 Sent2: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However, in doing so, people also found out that the AR series were more accurate for hunting and target shooting, and a much more reliable design than previous hunting rifles.
 Sent2: Many people who would never dream of shooting a person can own a gun simply for the artistry of a well made machine, people hunt with guns as well.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: First you argued that the Second Amendment was a collective rights tool designed to ensure that each state had its own private militia.
 Sent2: Yeah, thing is that the second ammendment makes the point that guns should be allowed because a _well organised militia_ is an important tool for a nation.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It is the right of the people (not of persons) that shall not be infringed, the right stated in the Virginia Constitution to train the body of the people in arms in order to defend the free state.
 Sent2: THE SECOND 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.PERIOD.
Output: 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: people who want to kill, will kill if you ban guns, they will kill with knives, or something else.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Something else you must keep in mind is that if we outlaw guns, the only people with guns will be outlaws, this leaves no defense for law abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Or that the Second Amendment only keeps the federal government from passing new gun control laws?
 Sent2: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
 Sent2: Making a gun free zone does nothing to prevent guns from entering it.
Output: Similar
Sent1: It also give the right to equipment with which you could execute murders, armed robberies and other violent crime.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Unless the second amendment is recognised as an individual right, and given the full protection of law as other rights are, there is nothing to say that a law could not be passed tomorrow banning all weapons in this country.
 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: It doesn't appear that gun control laws nor a strong government can stop gang nor criminal activity in any country, India nor Mexico.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Second 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: I don't care about the number of people who buy guns or how many they buy per day or per month.
 Sent2: We support letting people who already have guns actually being allowed to carry them, but I haven't seen anyone saying that we have to get hundreds of thousands of more guns bought up and distributed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: I think laws stating that you should not be allowed to carry guns onto airplanes or into schools are examples of common sense gun control laws meant to protect people.
 Sent2: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
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: 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 gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Confession from the criminal or videotaping the transaction, or someone providing testimony that you, in fact, knew that he was a criminal, prohibited from owning a firearm, and you intended to break the law.
 Sent2: But that does not change the fact that the law has made the individual into a prohibited person, so that her gun possession is, in itself, a federal felony.
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: And now that these facts have been established, why are you guys ONLY calling for more and more restrictions, all of the time, doing your level best, to try and demean people who are trying to protect the Constitution?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ATF then obtains the sale records which every FFL dealer is required to maintain for every firearm and learns when the gun was received by the dealer and when and to whom the particular gun was sold.
 Sent2: To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You keep claiming that you're not of the anti-gun camp, that you actually support the Second Amendment.
 Sent2: You're wrong that the second amendment is an induvidual right but, you will soon see that in the supreme court ruling that upholds the d.c gun ban.
Output: Not 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: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
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: I pointed out that the US has higher levels of gun crime than most developed nations while you tried to focus on a few tragedies in response to someone questioning the claim that criminals will always get guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
 Sent2: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The homicide rate has climbed drasticaly with every gun control measure.
 Sent2: With gun control, murders will probably go down just a little, but violent crimes, such as Rape, sexual assult etc, robbery, burglary, and assult will skyrocket.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
 Sent2: Ok, so are the gun haters claiming the police department are giving the guns criminals use for crime back to the criminals?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The criminals already have plenty of guns, that means that ending gun ownership will play no real part in ending gun possession by criminals.
 Sent2: Therefore, the clichet term "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" comes into play.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I haven't seen anyone explain how another gun control law will fight crime, how it'll make anyone safer, how it'll put criminals away longer, etc.
 Sent2: And as far as carrying in public, as long as I have commited no crime, then why should anyone need know I have my gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control should be left to the person holding the 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: Similar
Sent1: Do you think that a gun-ban in the long run would mean that more criminals get their hands on guns or that less criminals get their hands on guns?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not 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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: The founding fathers built the government so that it could not become so powerful as to strip us of our rights.
 Sent2: This 'flimsy' piece of paper guarantees our rights as citizens, it protects us from our own government and it protects us from foreign governments.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The first part indicates the importance of the militia, the second part illustrates that the people may be part of that well regulated body or not without infringement of their right to keep and bear arms.
 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: An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars.
 Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Similar
Sent1: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
 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: Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
 Sent2: The fact that governments around the world have killed their own citizens after disarming them does not mean that they should not be armed, it means that the citizens should not be disarmed.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If gun bans worked there would be no gun deaths in the countries that have banned guns.
 Sent2: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
Output: Not similar