niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
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: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output: Similar
Sent1: To inact a law that makes a crime of illegal gun ownership has no effect on criminal ownership of guns.
 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: Similar
Sent1: The numbers above tend to indicate that fewer gun-related homicides is a direct result of stricter gun control laws.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Felons are not allowed to buy guns.....terrorists would not be allowed to take guns on planes.
 Sent2: The argument of Lautenberg and others is that if somebody is deemed too dangerous or suspicious to board an airplane, they shouldn't be permitted to buy a weapon.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: You might be correct in your claim that willful compliance is the better decision to remain alive, (Although, I disagree) but what gives you the right to decide that this is the mandated way to respond for me?
 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: 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: One such person who is prohibited by federal law from having a firearm at all is the convicted felon:
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun ownership is a protected right, and the fact that criminals use guns in the commission of crime will never change this fact.
 Sent2: This broader definition is used to cover general crimes committed with firearms (like possession by felons, armed career criminal violations, etc.)
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
 Sent2: Unarmed law-abiding citizens are victims of gun crimes because criminals do not obey the gun ban in that gun free zone.
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: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The Second Amendment isn't a gun control law, it's an individual right, independent from militia service.
 Sent2: What you've been doing isn't a debate about gun control, it's criticism of the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for legal purposes.
Output: 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: Right now all the police can do is try and match bullets against other bullets in an attempt to determine which gun was used.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All one can reasonably conclude is that more firearms does not increase the homicide rate, nor does less guns reduce it.
 Sent2: That said, the idea that non gun homicides dont increase does not show causation between high gun ownership and increased murder rates.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The only people that obey gun control laws that prevent people from taking guns any where are law abiding people.
 Sent2: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: What you've been doing isn't a debate about gun control, it's criticism of the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for legal purposes.
 Sent2: You're right that gun control isn't about guns, however, but 'control' is a secondary matter, a means to an end.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: with regard to the fact that most gun crime is from illegl guns, in that case why not make all guns illegal.
 Sent2: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted.
 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: 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: Machine guns are not in common use so I see no reason to believe restrictions on them would be lifted based on the ruling.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 Sent2: I understand that banning guns will not stop criminals from accessing them, but it will surely drop the crime rate and make it much harder to get a gun.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: I for one do not say that registration of all privately held firearms would violate the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If guns would be made illegal, then only criminals would have them.
 Sent2: If guns are banned, the only people who will surrender them are those who commit nearly no gun crime at all.
Output: Similar
Sent1: To inact a law that makes a crime of illegal gun ownership has no effect on criminal ownership of guns.
 Sent2: The criminal homicides almost always include illegally gotten guns- so that's not relevant either as gun control laws won't change that.
Output: Similar
Sent1: IF you want them armed, why not let law abiding citizens who have passed a background check, a firearms safety check, and a marksmanship test carry their guns?
 Sent2: They do not have the expressed, enumerated power to pass any law regarding guns in the constitution.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Common sense gun control laws the gun haters want will only affect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals.
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Similar
Sent1: I do see the sense in some measures such as restricting access to guns for people who have committed violent crimes.
 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: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its right to keep and bear arms!
 Sent2: Please respond to your opponents comments that you have taken "the right to keep and bear arms" statement and used it without the context specifically "the well regulated militia".
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: The fact that you like cars is why you will tolerate the fact that more kids are killed by cars then guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
 Sent2: We must be doing something right because our violent crime rates are dropping while your native country keeps rising in spite of gun and knife bans.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Should guns be controlled, that would give people the right to demand that you surrender your weapons, just as the state currently demends that you hand over all terrorists, drugs and illegal material.
 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: One private individual asking another if they have guns in the home and then offering them a pamphlet on firearms safety if they say yes has nothing at all to do with gun control or the second amendment.
 Sent2: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Screw "putting more guns on the street", how about we give gun owners more rights and more legal opportunities to use them and stop pandering to the criminals.
 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 laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
 Sent2: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Knives are used almost as often if not more so in crimes than are guns, the reason nobody is pushing to ban knives is because knives don't have the same negative cultural association guns have.
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I think what is also important is that nobody to my knowledge is saying that a law abiding citizen shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
 Sent2: I think law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry conceled weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
 Sent2: Criminals will not be stopped from taking guns into gun free zones because criminals do not obey laws!
Output: 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: And several states have recently passed laws allowing gun owners to carry firearms in more places ��� bars, restaurants, cars and parks.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I implied that there are people with guns that are nuts, not that all gun owners are nuts...
 Sent2: Her: I don't think people should be allowed to carry guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: THey also believe that ALL guns can XXXX people apart and even an untrained person with a gun can shoot as accurately as the military.
 Sent2: 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: 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.
 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: You can debate that without guns there would be more deaths to other weapons although you can't debate it would be to the same extent as gun murders and crimes would be.
 Sent2: 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: In order to have a 'well regulated' militia you can not bar the civilian populace of its 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: Then we should ban so stupid people can't kill people with guns.
 Sent2: Also: More people are killed in car accidents than are killed by guns.
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: Gun haters are like the dangerous criminals the gun haters want to keep guns away from.
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: Just to be clear, you're saying that only gun laws, somehow, are unable to deter criminal acts?
Output: 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: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun haters must attack people defending the right to bear arms by calling them fanatics.
 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: I also say that when people commit a crime with a gun these people need to be punished not the law-abiding citizens!
 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: I think what is also important is that nobody to my knowledge is saying that a law abiding citizen shouldn't have the right to own a gun.
 Sent2: Wow I think we must just be confused by the fact you openly abuse those who support guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Output: Similar
Sent1: On average, the states that have done the most to regulate private gun sales appear to have lower firearm death rates and lower firearm homicide rates.
 Sent2: 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: If my kid encounters a gun while playing at another's home I'll get involved in gun safety education.
 Sent2: Gun locks are designed to keep kids from playing with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The higher rate of gun ownership by criminals is far outweighed by the threat of citizens owning guns.
 Sent2: states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates for children, and for women and men.States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you understand that any proposed gun control law must pass the strict scrutiny test due to the Second Amendment being recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The only gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
 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: Gun haters must attack people defending the right to bear arms by calling them fanatics.
 Sent2: Gun haters are the extremist hate group demanding to ban the right to bear arms!
Output: Similar
Sent1: On average, the states that have done the most to regulate private gun sales appear to have lower firearm death rates and lower firearm homicide rates.
 Sent2: That said, the idea that non gun homicides dont increase does not show causation between high gun ownership and increased murder rates.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They argue that the second amendment allows the people the power of weapons so that if the government intrudes on their rights they can defend themselves.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: However although our constitution needs exceptions (no yelling "fire" in a movie theater, and background checks for guns), no rights in the bill of rights should be outright banned.
 Sent2: there are too many gun deaths and while there will never be a ban in America i find it appalling that so many fight to prevent gun restrictions and background checks.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: But the argument that stricter gun laws in areas with more people from minority groups shows that gun control is racist is also entirely circumstantial.
 Sent2: But it appears that support for gun control is higher when people are asked about specific gun laws rather than just a general question about stricter gun control.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: They're claiming the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a person's house, not the rest of their property, like the front yard, back yard, porch or garage.
 Sent2: If the right to keep and bear arms applies within a privately owned structure designated as a dwelling then it must apply outside as well.
Output: 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: Someone caught red-handed robbing or murdering someone with a firearm could get out on bail and immediately go replace the weapon taken from them by police.
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: We border two countries one of which is quite corrupt, what makes you think that criminals can't get guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not deprive gun ownership for those who do not follow laws.
 Sent2: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: We have a right to use a gun to defend ourselves and others.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I believe the MAIN reason we should all support the 2nd amendment is to keep the power of gun ownership in our hands and not in the hands of the government.
 Sent2: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
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've yet to explain anything that would support your position of the Second Amendment being out of date.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I implied that there are people with guns that are nuts, not that all gun owners are nuts...
 Sent2: I think it is interesting that gun nuts always claim that when guns are banned people will just use knives instead, yet we find that with guns prohibited there are still only 200 deaths a year from knife like weapons.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Anybody else in American history able to lend credibility to your belief that the Second Amendment was all about gun control and how gun ownership was never intended to be an individual right?
 Sent2: The language and historical intent of the Second Amendment mandates recognition of the individual right to keep and bear firearms and other personal weapons.
Output: 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: do you mean a gun should not be the fall back defensive???
Output: Not similar
Sent1: We must be doing something right because our violent crime rates are dropping while your native country keeps rising in spite of gun and knife bans.
 Sent2: Then why do nations which ban guns have a much lower gun crime rate than the US?
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: In the Miller case, the court essentially ruled that the second ammendment does indeed convey an individual right, but that the right in question is dependant on the type of weapon (i.e must be suitable for military use).
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: Keeping violent criminals in prison would do far more to reduce gun crime than banning guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: If you want to end gun deaths you can eliminate the guns and in the US that saves a lot of lives on paper.
 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: Even back in the 60's gun owners were saying that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, and gun safety being stressed, and maybe even mandatory for children will produce benefits.
 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: In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.
 Sent2: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
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: So if someone wants to protect themself from a wild animal do they need a gun?
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you understand that any proposed gun control law must pass the strict scrutiny test due to the Second Amendment being recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Constitution?
 Sent2: So, no, I wouldn't say there was any "gun control" as you (Galileo) tried to pass off as early gun control laws.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Those who would remove our freedom to defend ourselves always seem to link the number of guns to the high rate of gun crime.
 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: 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: 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: 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: Should guns be controlled, that would give people the right to demand that you surrender your weapons, just as the state currently demends that you hand over all terrorists, drugs and illegal material.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: When you compare the number of gun-related deaths of each country, factoring in population size, rates of legal gun ownership, and number of suicide instances, you'll see that America is very much safer than everywhere else.
 Sent2: The figures for the number of gun related deaths in the US should be evidence enough that 'the people' cannot be trusted with guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ,   and I was being kind when I say there was no change in the murder rate, The Anti-gun argument was that at least England�۪s gun control will stop mass shootings.
 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 gun control law that is needed is the law that prohibits a person from committing a crime with a gun.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: (or, for those who favor the alternative collective right view, ���the right of militia members to keep and bear their militia arms when called for by the state for militia service?�۝)
 Sent2: Amendment protects the right of the states to arm their militias.
Output: Similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: Surely it would help keep guns from going into illegal circulation if individual guns were registered to owners, and any change of ownership also had to be registered, like we do with cars in the UK.
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: Gun control laws only control the guns in the hands of people who follow laws.
Output: Similar
Sent1: You're saying that guns should be allowed into school in order to allow some students (or teachers) to defend themselves if they were attacked.
 Sent2: Seeing as we are saying would having a gun have stopped the 9/11 attacks you have to assume that you have smuggled one on.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
 Sent2: If anything, cops will come to where you live to take your guns, seeing as they work for the government.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Georgia's concealed carry law has recently been modified to allow permitted gun owners to carry concealed weapons into restuarants, on mass transit, in state parks and other venues previously off limits to any non-law-enforcement weapons.
 Sent2: In some states, some guns are just not allowed and it sticks as a law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns.
 Sent2: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
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: Criminals kill people so gun haters like gun hater pilot want to pass gun control laws that only law abiding citizens obey!
Output: Similar
Sent1: Do you think that it is a huge coincidence that nations in which fewer law abiding citizens own guns such as Australia and the UK also have much lower rates of gun crime?
 Sent2: If more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens were the answer then it would be logical to expect the US to have one of the lowest rates of mass shootings in the world instead of the highest.
Output: Similar
Sent1: also, a gun is only dangerous if its used by the wrong person.
 Sent2: 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.
Output: Not 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: 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.
Output: Similar
Sent1: ,   and I was being kind when I say there was no change in the murder rate, The Anti-gun argument was that at least England�۪s gun control will stop mass shootings.
 Sent2: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
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: Therefore you feel more guns is the solution to stopping gun crime.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Criminals don't care about gun bans, so a gun ban only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 'Gun control' does not mean a ban on all self-defence
 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: Not similar
Sent1: Now tell me, how is gun control going to stop people from making their own?
 Sent2: I really do not care particularly what gun control laws states or cities pass.
Output: Not 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: �ۢ Trafficking in new firearms, interstate and intrastate, including by federally licensed firearms dealers, large-scale straw purchasers or straw purchasing rings, or small-scale straw purchasers from gun stores, gun shows, or other premises;
Output: Similar
Sent1: Gun free zones are areas where law-abiding citizens are forbidden to carry guns.
 Sent2: Criminals do not obey the laws about gun free zones.
Output: 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: Doesn't hold together, though - you have no evidence that criminal arms supply is unaffected by gun control.
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: Screw "putting more guns on the street", how about we give gun owners more rights and more legal opportunities to use them and stop pandering to the criminals.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: sure you can kill with other things, but most homicide weapons are guns.
 Sent2: You somehow seem to think that getting rid of guns will stop people from killing each other.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Do you have anything to offer from King on guns, or for that matter, the 2nd.
 Sent2: You're right that gun control isn't about guns, however, but 'control' is a secondary matter, a means to an end.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Of course, nothing in the text of the Second Amendment places location-based limits on the right to keep and bear arms.
 Sent2: The right to bear arms is explicit and clear in the second amendment.
Output: Not 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: The gun show review found that firearms were diverted at and through gun shows by straw purchasers, unregulated private sellers, and licensed dealers.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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: If guns are banned, there will obviously be less guns in circulation.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Presumably, the cops knew if there was a gun in the homicide house since they searched it (even if it was not used in the homicide.)
 Sent2: Police do not know how many guns are in the state or where they are.
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: Federal law doesn't give them authority to require sale reports of multiple shotgun and rifle sales, only handguns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: All of the gun control laws the gun haters want will only be obeyed by the law abiding citizens!
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That is why current federal law specifically forbids registration of gun owners and guns and gun transactions: "any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions.
 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: The only way to prevent guns from falling in the hands of criminals is by law abiding people buying every gun that is manufactured and thus leaving no guns available for criminals to buy.
 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: Well, owning handguns for personal home protection is different that carrying guns in a concealed fashion for protection.
 Sent2: It wouldn't protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.]
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The 2nd Amendment is not there to entitle you to all of the gun control you want!
 Sent2: Simply put, you should have to prove that the gun control you seek will do what you say it will do before burdening the Constitution with a load up of Liberal wishes and hopes!
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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: What you've been doing isn't a debate about gun control, it's criticism of the Supreme Court for saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun for legal purposes.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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: I think we recognize that gun control laws can reduce the number of criminals owning guns although not disarm every criminal.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Even without this preamble the second amendment would still only protect a right in connection with militia service.
 Sent2: The organized militia is equivalent to the well regulated militia of the second amendment.
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: 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.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Similar
Sent1: Any further laws on the right to keep and bear arms by State, municipal or any other government is out the window.
 Sent2: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
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: 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: Not similar
Sent1: And that assumes that gun control will have no effect on illegal firearm ownership.
 Sent2: To inact a law that makes a crime of illegal gun ownership has no effect on criminal ownership of guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: So, no, I wouldn't say there was any "gun control" as you (Galileo) tried to pass off as early gun control laws.
 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: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: 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: In short, Norway has more guns, yet less people killing each other.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Why do people that want what they call reasonable limits on the right to bear arms demand laws that only law abiding citizens will obey?
 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: Similar
Sent1: 1) Does having laws regulating the the ability to carry concealed weapons violate the 2nd amendment of the constitution?
 Sent2: IF you previously had laws that made openly carrying weapons illegal, and you then pass a concealed carry law, if somebody is carrying a gun and it is not concealed, they are breaking the law.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: One of the reason we are the country we are is because of our right to own guns.
 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: Criminals that do not obey gun control laws will be able to obtain guns and use them on the unarmed law-abiding citizens.
 Sent2: Gun control will not work because criminals do not obey gun control laws.
Output: 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: 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: (or, for those who favor the alternative collective right view, ���the right of militia members to keep and bear their militia arms when called for by the state for militia service?�۝)
 Sent2: It did nothing to prohibit the required militia arms from being used in private concerns (such as hunting) so long as the arms were kept in a state of constant readiness for emergency militia use.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns.
 Sent2: You guys have willed yourselves just as retarded as the people who claimed (And still claim) that the second amendment only conveys a right for the national guard to have weapons.
Output: Not 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: 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 free zones are zones where criminals will have guns because criminals will not obey the laws about gun free zones.
 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: Illegal firearms can be identified and linked to other firearms and to crimes and criminals.
 Sent2: Gun ban = No civilians can protect themselves using a firearm = Criminals can illegally purchase guns, like tons already do.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: All gun free zones can do, is keep law-abiding citizens from having guns.
 Sent2: Unarmed law-abiding citizens are victims of gun crimes because criminals do not obey the gun ban in that gun free zone.
Output: Similar
Sent1: I'd love to know what firearms are made and sold but have no constitutional protection for ownership.
 Sent2: I wouldn't mind it as much if there was a law that required some level of training for guns to be purchased, so we know that whoever buys these will no how to defend themselves.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The anti gun/gun control advocate way at dealing with deaths caused by guns is to limit 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: Not similar
Sent1: I seriously cannot believe that someone out there really thinks that we should allow EVERYBODY to carry weapons onto an airplane!
 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: Similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 Sent2: Law abiding citizens obey the law, there can surely be no reason to prohibit them form having guns.
Output: Similar
Sent1: Since there are gun deaths in countries that have banned guns, the gun bans did not work.
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
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: The problem is that widespread guns means greater criminal access to guns which means greater criminal gun use which means bad things.
Output: Similar
Sent1: "to keep and bear Arms" - this would include any gun
 Sent2: The laws the gun haters want will keep the right to bear arms from the law abiding citizens!
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: 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: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the 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: 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: Gun haters if the 2nd amend did not protect the right to bear arms then all guns in America would be banned.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: People who follow laws, aren't causing problems with the guns they own.
 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: Even without this preamble the second amendment would still only protect a right in connection with militia service.
 Sent2: The Second Amendment isn't a gun control law, it's an individual right, independent from militia service.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 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?
 Sent2: If a gun owner knowingly sells to a prohibited felon who commits a murder with the gun, then the felon alone is responsible for the murder.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: This is needed to prevent gun owners from covering up sales to prohibited purchasers by later claiming ��� when those guns are traced to crime ��� that their guns were stolen.
 Sent2: Many thousands of Guns are stolen and used in GUN CREATED CRIME because most legal gun owners
Output: Not similar
Sent1: also, a gun is only dangerous if its used by the wrong person.
 Sent2: Do not ban guns when guns are the tools of man.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: That would theoretically work except the fact that more knife murders may occur then and perhaps guns will be brought in illegally to murder people.
 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: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
 Sent2: The 2nd amendment only protects a states right to own a Militia.
Output: Similar
Sent1: The crime comes from using the gun (or any other weapon) to violate the rights of others.
 Sent2: Civilians with other types of gun should be shot on sight by them.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: ********* 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: Second of all, I wholeheartedly believe in the thinking that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
 Sent2: I'm more concerned with the concept of why the individual that committed the murder was able to kill in the first place.
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: Perhaps if other types of firearms were as strictly regulated as machine guns
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 Sent2: Burglars do not use guns, muggers do not use guns.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: The claim by the anti gun lobby that guns are used more often in crime than in self defence is and old one.
 Sent2: Reports show that a small percentage of gun owners actually use a gun to defend themselves, there are more killed with a gun, than those using a gun to protect themselves, they cain't say it's used for selfdefense.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: 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.
 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: Would you want your children to go to a school where everyone was allowed to have a gun?
 Sent2: You propose to abolish gun free zones, and allow people to carry guns into schools.
Output: Similar
Sent1: 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be INFRINGED.
 Sent2: 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: I'm more concerned with the concept of why the individual that committed the murder was able to kill in the first place.
 Sent2: I was using it simply to illustrate society's right to be protected from someone commiting the same crime again before they can be prosecuted for the first offence.
Output: Not similar
Sent1: I do not believe OTHERS should not have guns, I think criminals and psychos who are yet to convict a gun crime should not have guns.
 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