niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Sent1: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: If we look at D.C. we can see that people who had registered their guns before the gun ban were allowed to keep their guns after the ban took effect.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: I don�۪t buy that idea that gun control is about having an affect on the 2nd Amendment.
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: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
Output: Not 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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 Sent2: If we look at D.C. we can see that people who had registered their guns before the gun ban were allowed to keep their guns after the ban took effect.
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 laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Unarmed law-abiding citizens are victims of gun crimes because criminals do not obey the gun ban in that gun free zone.
 Sent2: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe that some of my gun control friends know in their hearts they are unable to debunk the overwhelming historical evidence which proves the Second Amendment was intended to recognize an individual right.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Aren't you the one who used to complain that airlines can't choose to allow private citizens to carry guns on planes because of government regulations?
 Sent2: When an airline decides not to have passengers carry firearms, then I will find another airline, or take another option.
Output: Similar
Sent1: First you say no law will ever stop criminals from getting guns but now youre saying that criminals are never gun owners.
 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: Therefore, we should not allow anyone to carry a gun on a plane, because these people may either be law abiding or not.
 Sent2: Since civilian marksmanship programs commonly hold civilians to a higher standard than law enforcement officers, would't that mean that in all propreity we should be working to ban cops carrying guns on planes as opposed to law abiding citizens?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But I do not believe that a gun ban will make us any safer.
 Sent2: Though I think we're gun obsessed in our culture, and a lot of times, we can defend ourselves more effectively without guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: I worry that the reduction of gun ownership will increase crime rates even in households with a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only way the person would get the gun back is if the person was found not guilty.
 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: 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: 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: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 Sent2: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
 Sent2: To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit).
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I only support common sense gun control measures, thing such as no guns in schools, no guns on airplanes, background checks for the sale of all firearms, tougher sentences for crimes in which guns are used, etc.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 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: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
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: 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: It is intended to require registration of all firearms in the hopes that it will either deter or prevent felons and others who cannot have a gun in the first place from having one.
 Sent2: The first is whether a mandatory law would deter home burglaries to begin with, and the second is whether they would help prevent or deter gun theft in the event of a burglary.
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: 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: Criminals enter gun free zones with guns to commit crimes against unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 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: In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
 Sent2: The Miller Court said that the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment should be read with the militia end in view.
Output: Similar
Sent1: To inact a law that makes a crime of illegal gun ownership has no effect on criminal ownership of guns.
 Sent2: A law-abiding gun nut who uses their gun in committing a crime, is a criminal, and not law-abiding.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: #NAME?
 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: Similar
Sent1: In fact, in kanada, suicides increased with stricter gun laws...another failed experiment.
 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: You can not buy a gun for your son, legally that is called a strawman purchase and is the most common way criminals obtain guns.
 Sent2: But if you can legally buy a gun for that purpose, it means that your attacker is that much more likely to be armed as well.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens are not going to misuse their firearms and those with criminal records are already banned from owning guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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?
 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: If somebody fails the background check they go buy a gun elsewhere.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: You claimed that the Supreme Court gave the green light to all kinds of bans and restrictions on guns and ammunition, something that never took place.
 Sent2: They never said anything about allowing bans on commonly owned firearms, or ammunition, or allowing for heinous restrictions that wouldn't be considered constitutional when applied to other rights.
Output: 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: Law abiding citizens are not going to misuse their firearms and those with criminal records are already banned from owning guns.
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: That will take the criminals off the street and with them off the street there are no gun control concerns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The gun control mentality that a felon is too dangerous to be allowed to legally buy a gun, yet they're not dangerous enough to take out of the public no matter how heinous a crime they've committed.
 Sent2: If more guns present means that more criminals will be able to commit more killings and violent criminals, wouldn't they have allowed the ban to remain in place?
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'm willing to bet that the main reason for America's crime rates is the fact that we have too much diversity in gun laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now that said, one has to wonder why people for gun control or anti gun types keep telling people that defend the right to bear arms that they could not win a fight.
 Sent2: Some gun control advocates try to say that the word ���people�۝ here refers to a collective body of people, (a state) meaning there is no personal right to keep and bear arms.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Since that ruling most lower federal courts have continued to reject the argument that the second amendment protects an indivual right to own a gun.
 Sent2: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Or, to put it another way, more guns = more crime, and if we could stop the illegal gun running then we would have less guns = less crime.
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
 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: 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: So I think gun control on the magnitude you want would effect it, how could it not?
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: Even "If criminals keep their guns",(if we were to confiscate all guns) " they wont be able to use them.
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: It is asserted, therefore, that the D.C. gun control laws irrationally prevent only law abiding citizens from owning handguns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We should protect gun laws because of crazy people who go out of control with them and guns these days are getting more advanced and easier to get
 Sent2: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 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: In America, every state that has enacted restrictive gun control has seen an increase in crime, police brutality, questionable law enforcement practices such as violations of 4th amendment rights and so on.
 Sent2: Even the police forces are saying that the law is pointless as it would only serve to increase the smuggling of handguns from the US, and would likely not have any impact on the rate of handgun use in crimes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
 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: To generalize gun owners in this way must mean you're either a complete dick or that your government likes to keep you ignorant.
 Sent2: Once again you make stupid, asinine comments about gun owners based on your ignorance and hatred.
Output: 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: For instance I don't think that eliminating gun control is the only answer crime control is also needed.
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: Gun control should be left to the person holding the gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun haters will do any thing to ban the right to bear arms!
 Sent2: Anybody that wants gun control laws that infringe on the right to bear arms is a gun haters!
Output: 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: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
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: The states with the higher numbers of minorities have the higher rates of gun control because they claim they have more crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right to have an armed militia or to carry arms in the militia, Congress can assume total control over that armed body and grant that control to the President (See Article II section 2).
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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!
 Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
 Sent2: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
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: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: My point was that the theory that more gun control leaves people defenseless does not explain the lower murder rates in other developed nations.
 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: I could easily point out how many people are killed by criminals because they aren't armed and able to fight back, and that could be seen as grounds for removing the restrictive gun laws we have in this country.
 Sent2: That most people can't be trusted, so we should have more laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The number of guns owned by civilians is around 25 million, or 30.3 firearms per 100 people.
 Sent2: Sticks and stones, lions and spears, swords, telephone cords, screwdrivers, cannons, canyons, burning them alive, cement shoes, pillows, pens, guns... The methods may change, but the fact remains - some people will kill, (or harm) other people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: People that defend the right to bear arms that demand laws that punish criminals by keeping them in prison thus keeping guns away from them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
 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: 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: While their by no means should be an outlaw of guns, I do believe restrictions should be put in place.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This appeared to me to be an argument that self defense cannot exist if a gun is used.
 Sent2: The question is whether or not it really matters if guns were used less for self defense and more for aggression.
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 will give a list of the most restrictive states and the least restrictive states and arrange them by the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: It doesnt say you have the right to shoot arms so it would be okay to ban bullets.
 Sent2: Also, you must note that politicians own guns themselves, and have armed bodyguards.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: People like Brady blame the gun and say because one man uses a gun to harm someone then no one can be trusted with guns.
 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: now imagine if no criminals could get hold of a gun, you wouldn't need a protection, as no criminals have guns.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Now when you rightfully talk about how the 2nd amendment grants me the right to own a gun people won't take you seriously because you think the 2nd amendment cannot be repealed.
 Sent2: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: School district employees should not be carrying weapons on campus, just as students should not be carrying weapons."
 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: Since that ruling most lower federal courts have continued to reject the argument that the second amendment protects an indivual right to own a gun.
 Sent2: Basically, The US Curcuit Court upheld that the Second Amendment didn't apply to weapons that couldn't be carried by an individual.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I could easily point out how many people are killed by criminals because they aren't armed and able to fight back, and that could be seen as grounds for removing the restrictive gun laws we have in this country.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
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: 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: 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: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
 Sent2: children are people and nukes are arms so people supporting the second amendment support children having nukes
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Muggings, burglaries, rapes, assault and battery are all examples of violent crimes that don't require a gun.
 Sent2: It is just a case of prevention, remove guns being so easily accessible and you then decrease the gun crime and remove the need for guns to defend yourself.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If anything, it has ruled in favor of gun control, saying in the Miller case that "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
 Sent2: In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Feel free to present the evidence that shows that we're allowing criminals to freely buy guns and that we have no laws in place to stop this from occurring.
 Sent2: There's not a single piece of evidence to support your claim that gun owners want the police to leave the criminals alone, or that we want gun traffickers to remain free on the streets.
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: 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: 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: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Guns are used in friendly and legal competitions, guns put food on peoples table through means of hunting, guns save lives through defensive uses.
 Sent2: Instead, the benefit of defensive gun ownership that would be parallel to innocent lives lost to guns would be innocent lives saved by defensive use of guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
 Sent2: All gun control laws do is stop law abiding citizens from having guns!
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: You can not use this as evidence that the reduction in crime is due to the gun ban.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: In my view I think that complete gun control helps solve a major problem in crime and it would allow people to feel safer because they wouldn't need to have a gun to protect themselves.
 Sent2: Making guns illegal wouldn't solve anything except to take them away from people that want to defend themselves.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: where gun control laws prohibit good law abiding citizens from carrying a gun to protect themselves and others.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In England, where currently the private ownership of hand guns by the law abiding is absolutely prohibited, crimes involving the use of guns are rapidly increasing: only the criminals have access to them.
 Sent2: These laws are all part of the gun grabbers` wholesale attack on private gun ownership.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: We didn't ban all guns, just most of them, because our farmers need them and our police need them.
 Sent2: Of course if a hate groups such as the gun haters want to ban a right they will claim this!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Which would be worthless because you could just repeal that amendment and then repeal the 2nd.
 Sent2: If you repealed the 2nd amendment or any "incorporated" amendment than that amendment would no longer be law thus not "incorporated" (obviously since there is nothing to incorporate).
Output: Similar
Sent1: Guns are becoming more easier to purchase and people are becoming more insane.humans are killing more innocent people everyday!
 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: We don't have to choose between total regulation of guns or total denial of the problem of gun crime.
 Sent2: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
Output: 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: Gun control in the U.S. does not equal crime control.
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: The manufacturer tells them who the gun was shipped to, the dealer is contacted, and the dealer informs the ATF or the police of who the gun was sold to and when.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You will go to your grave trying for more and more and even more gun control.
 Sent2: VoR you keep saying that your for reasonable gun control but yet all your false idols keep chiming in here on a TOTAL gun ban, government confiscation, and allowing elitists to continue to carry.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Another point that isn't taken in consideration in the stats that I've seen is that guns are used in self-defense but it still goes down as "gun violence."
 Sent2: I'd love to see how gun rationing, ammunition documentation, ending private sales, gun registration, and restriction of right to carry, has helped reduce violence crimes and make things difficult for criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws!
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: In addition to ORGANIZING the militia, and while congress has the power to ARM the militia, they have no responsibility to do so, and they have NEVER provided personal weapons.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 Sent2: Making a gun free zone does nothing to prevent guns from entering it.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Most violent crime with guns occurs at knife fighting range.
 Sent2: Muggings, burglaries, rapes, assault and battery are all examples of violent crimes that don't require a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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'.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Gun laws and bans are put in place that only affect good law abiding free citizens.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
 Sent2: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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).
 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: Now the gun haters that do not believe the 2.5 million lives a year saved by guns.
 Sent2: So even if 2.5 million crimes are prevented by firearms each year then that would be less than 25,000 lives saved by guns each year.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We measured firearm protection as an attempted or completed crime in which the victim reported using a gun to attack or threaten an offender.
 Sent2: We have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Muggings, burglaries, rapes, assault and battery are all examples of violent crimes that don't require a gun.
 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: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
 Sent2: Gun control laws do not affect criminals because criminals do not obey these laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
 Sent2: By that brand of logic, any gun law is specifically aimed at reducing criminal use of guns, including a complete ban.
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: I don't even carry a gun concealed nor openly, but I have to defend what is right, just because it is right!
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: If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any of the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution are to be abridged, they must ne done so by legal means, i.e. constitutional amendment.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm.
 Sent2: As I think some people who wuv their guns would just XXXX the ignorant politician away with their newly illegal gun.
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: 1) Protection - The argument suggests that guns protect us from dangerous individuals.
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 they cannot do without abandoning the more guns = more crime myth.
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: 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: 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.
 Sent2: Guns don't kill people, if they did, they would go to jail for murder- not the murderers.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: If that means gun control then so be it, but it does not.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns by law.
 Sent2: Gun free zones are areas that criminals enter with guns because they know they are no armed law-abiding citizens there to stop them.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun haters think banning guns will make criminals stop being criminals.
 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: In my view I think that complete gun control helps solve a major problem in crime and it would allow people to feel safer because they wouldn't need to have a gun to protect themselves.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun bans simple ban law abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We should protect gun laws because of crazy people who go out of control with them and guns these days are getting more advanced and easier to get
 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: Gun owners don't drive into crowds of people simply because they had a gun in their car.
 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: Therefore, while most people are hindranced by the laws, criminals will still obtain weapons illegally.
 Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people that will be affected will be the people that buy guns for protection from criminals, who get their guns illegally anyway.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts.
 Sent2: Plus, if all firearms are illegal, and if one were to illegally obtain a gun, why not own and use automatic weapons, just like the gangs in England are using?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
 Sent2: You somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Making a gun free zone does nothing to prevent guns from entering it.
 Sent2: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The numbers above tend to indicate that fewer gun-related homicides is a direct result of stricter gun control laws.
 Sent2: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 Sent2: For that matter, why not arrest people for breaking any gun law, not just those relating to handguns?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: because I've made a legitimate point that not all gun owners abide by the law?
 Sent2: Well let me first get to this just so everyone will know which side of the gun issue im on, I am an avid gun owner and I support any laws that target criminals while unafecting lawfull gun owners.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 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: Gun control laws, like handgun rationing, mandatory reporting standards, ammunition registries, secondary background checks, trigger lock and storage requirements, etc. are limited in their reach, sticking to only certain states.
 Sent2: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think the 2nd Amendment does apply to modern guns.
 Sent2: I'm not guessing what the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment meant, it is very clear in the Militia Act.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 Sent2: ...Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed.
Output: Not 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: Guns are used in friendly and legal competitions, guns put food on peoples table through means of hunting, guns save lives through defensive uses.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Ian brought up the point that guns make you more likely to kill a person.
 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: 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 somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I only support common sense gun control measures, thing such as no guns in schools, no guns on airplanes, background checks for the sale of all firearms, tougher sentences for crimes in which guns are used, etc.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 Sent2: Criminals and terrorist are going to have all the guns they want no matter how many security measures enacted to disarm the law-abiding citizen by people such as you.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
Output: 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: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I could easily point out how many people are killed by criminals because they aren't armed and able to fight back, and that could be seen as grounds for removing the restrictive gun laws we have in this country.
 Sent2: I am not attacking anyone, I am just pointing out that if there were armed citizens on board, and again, we do not know if there were, they did not use their guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 Sent2: I think a better debate would be when should gun control start?
Output: Not 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: 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: I do not support more funding for law enforcement + gun restrictions on the same bill before Congress.
 Sent2: The only law I even somewhat support is banning guns in certain areas like schools and colleges.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
 Sent2: Rationing guns doesn't stop gun dealers, it makes them invisible to the police.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 Sent2: I already said children could tote around their parents guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Well let me first get to this just so everyone will know which side of the gun issue im on, I am an avid gun owner and I support any laws that target criminals while unafecting lawfull gun owners.
 Sent2: I would support any law that target criminals, but I will not support you as long as you target lawfull gun owners.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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).
 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: Well the Supreme Court has specifically stated that the Second Amendment is about self-defense and other lawful purposes, and a sports gun is a poor choice for a self-defense weapon.
 Sent2: The Supreme Court has determined that the Second Amendment is directly linked to personal defense, not anything like hunting, and therefore a "sporting only" prerequisite for owning a firearm would never pass constitutional muster.
Output: Similar
Sent1: We have guns and we still have crime and lots of gun deaths.
 Sent2: We have more crime than fully armed countries not because we don't have guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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."
 Sent2: it isn't guns that kill people, is the mentality these people carry around in their heads that kill other people.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Then compare it to areas with less gun control laws, such as Texas and Arizona (where concealed carry permits are fairly easy to obtain).
 Sent2: Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed 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: 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: Government does not possess the authority to enact a total ban on firearm owners actually transporting their firearms, it violates the "bear" of the "keep and bear" provision of the second amendment.
 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: 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: All of the Gun control you call for has been tried in other countries and the Criminals Still import guns in with their drugs.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The gun wont kill you without someone behind it, not all people have the right reasons for haveing a gun, but does that mean people who do have the right reasons will be punished and left unarmed, and defensless?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Of course if a hate groups such as the gun haters want to ban a right they will claim this!
Output: Not similar