Wall of text incoming. Here goes. [spoiler]Before I get into this, I want it made clear that I am completely impartial about this. I'm posting this for two reasons - to satisfy my curiosity on a subject I have no experience with, [b]and to generate good, honest, open, clear debate.[/b] I'm not looking to start flame wars. Anyone who goes too far with insults and/or harassment, either to me or another user, will be muted and/or blocked. Keep it clean, people. We're all friends here.[/spoiler] I was watching an interview recently, between Piers Morgan and a pro-gun campaigner named Dan Roberts, the link to which is above. The topic of discussion was the tragic shooting in an Orlando gay nightclub, where 49 were killed and 53 were injured. In this interview (linked above, for your viewing (dis)pleasure), Morgan was asking Roberts' opinions regarding the incident and how the American gun market could be to blame for the tragedy, seeing how easily accessible they are, and if they should be restricted. It was closer to an interrogation than an interview. First things first, let me explain how guns work in Britain. If you want a gun,, you need a good reason for it. If you have a good reason, you need a license for it. Once you have the license, you can have the gun. I shan't go into the whole interview point-by-point. I'm just going to cover the main ones that I think sum up the interview as a whole. Again, for those who want to watch the full thing, link is the above. The first point Morgan made was that the US banned the sale of Kinder Surprise chocolate eggs because they were deemed "unsafe", but can buy a semi-auto rifle. Personally, I find this argument to be laughable, due to the fact that the two are completely unrelated in nature. It's a childish argument. I'm also pretty sure this ban was lifted in recent years, but I could be wrong about that. Nonetheless, Roberts backs this fact with statistics that "choking on candy is one of the top five causes of childhood mortality in the US". As fair an accessment as that is, it didn't need to be brought up. Moving on. Morgan's co-host Susanna made the argument later on that "if you take away the means, you restrict the number of people who are murdered". Roberts' response is, in my opinion, laughable. Dodging the question completely, he instead points out the UK's violent crime rates, our knife crime problem and gun crime violations. I'm not saying that these aren't serious issues; they are. But dodging the question entirely instead of tackling it head-on comes across as a weak defence. It's easy for people like Piers Morgan, Susanna and indeed myself to make all of these claims that if America got rid of it's guns, it'd be all the better for it. But what do we know? Surprise surprise, [b]we don't.[/b] Some American families have grown up with guns around them their entire lives. Some have never touched a gun and never plan to. Both are are equally okay. As I've said before, I'm an outsider. The extent of my gun knowledge comes from an American man who pretends to be Russian on the internet. I want to learn more. I want to see other opinions and views. A popular argument is, I believe, "The second amendment". I have [i]no earthly idea what that is.[/i] So humour me, if you will, one and all. I want to hear your thoughts and feelings regarding guns, their use and their control. Because, and I'll say it again, I am woefully uneducated about it. EDIT 1: I can't spell for shit. EDIT 2: I now know what the second amendment is. Thanks to user Monsieur Azazel for explaining it to me.