# Gun Control



## SG854 (Oct 5, 2018)

Since usually when a mass shooting happens in the U.S. there’s usually a debate whether we should completely ban guns or how much restrictions there should be. So, I wanted to create this section to mainly focus on guns and have people debate this out. And bring some information I found. Should guns be banned? Or should guns be available and we should instead focus on having better restrictions and focus on people's mental health?

Gun control should not be an idealogical debate, it should be an empirical one. And the empirical question should be, does gun control increase or reduce violence.

In England murder rates rose after gun restrictions. And in England robbery and burglary surpassed the United States. Britains burglary rate is almost twice as high as the U.S.

40% of burglaries in Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands is when the home is occupied. In the United States its only 13%. All three of the latter countries have lower gun ownership.

Murder rates went up in England under severe gun control, while murder rates went down as more and more states in the U.S. allowed people to carry concealed weapons.

Most guns used to murder were not legally purchased in England.

After a school massacre, U.K. banned hand guns in 1998. A decade after hand gun crimes doubled.

After Atlanta Suburbs of Kennesaw passed a law requiring heads of households to keep firearms in their homes burglaries dropped 89%.

In 1954 in London there was a dozen armed robberies. By 1990’s it increased to 100 times as many.

Switzerland has lower murder rates then Germany, but gun ownership with Swiss is 3 times higher. Israel, New Zealand, Finland all have high rates of gun ownership but low murder rates.

In the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder. Whites have higher rates of gun ownership then Blacks but lower rates of murder. For the entire United States had hand gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century but overall murder rates went down.
Gun availability and it's deterrence of violent crime does not enter statistics because the crime never happens. But there are areas where guns becomes more available and crime rates drop. And while people compare homicide rates and gun ownership with United States and England, people make their case that high gun ownership is bad by ignoring all the other countries that have high rates of gun ownership and lower rates of crime.



Spoiler: United States and England Historical Comparisons



United States always had a history of higher murder rates then England because of culture. So it has nothing to do with having or not having guns laws. New York has had a murder rate that was 5 times of London for two centuries. And for most of these two centuries neither of the two cities had gun control laws.

In 1911 New York made very strict gun control laws, but still had a higher murder rate than London during a time when guns were freely allowed in London. Gun control in England didn’t happen till a decade after New York restricted guns.

Making comparisons that England has a lower murder rate then the U.S. today and say it's because of gun control is not a fair example because U.S. always had higher homicides rates even when both countries had guns widely available. And after gun bans an increase in crime in England happened.





Spoiler: Incarceration



In U.S. legal changes reduced the fact the people committing a crime will go to jail. After this change crime skyrocketed. In 1974 it was twice as high then in 1961. From 1960 to 1976 people becoming victims of a violent crime tippled. Crime peaked in 1980’s then went down as incarceration went up.

Same happened in Australia from 1964 to 1999. Crime went up as incarceration went down. And Crime went down as incarceration went up. Graphs for England, Wales, United State and New Zealand are also the same. Crime peaked in England and Wales in the 1990’s then went down when incarceration went up.

People that criticize U.S. incarceration rates need to take this into account. Gun restrictions plus low and lax criminal incarceration rates creates a disaster.





Spoiler: Videos



Video about the history of the 2nd amendment and crime rates rising in England after gun control


John Stossel video about guns and violence







Spoiler: Sources



Guns and Violence by Joyce Lee Malcom
The Thomas Sowell Reader by Thomas Sowell
Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control


----------



## Xzi (Oct 5, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Gun availability and it's deterrence of violent crime does not enter statistics because the crime never happens. But there are areas where guns becomes more available and crime rates drop. And while people compare homicide rates and gun ownership with United States and England, people make their case that high gun ownership is bad by ignoring all the other countries that have high rates of gun ownership and lower rates of crime.


Eh, there are also plenty of countries with very low gun ownership and very low crime rates, such as Japan.  I think a high rate of gun ownership may decrease crime in certain parts of the US, but then you've got other parts like Chicago where introducing a lot more guns would only increase the crime rate.  Also I think a high rate of gun ownership corresponds to higher rates of gun suicide, mass shootings, and accidental shootings, so even if overall crime statistics drop, the casualties continue to hit close to home.

I don't think we need to add a whole lot in terms of gun control, just universal and slightly more thorough background checks.  We also need a full-auto/bumpstock ban, because IMO there's essentially no civilian use for these weapons other than mass murder.

Mental health is a different issue that's always gone with too little attention in this country, but there's no easy fix at this point without a massive monetary investment from the top down.  It's certainly not going to come from the people that suggest mental health always plays a bigger role in a crime than easy access to a gun.  After all, they don't really care about the former, and they're basically walking advertisements for the latter.


----------



## spinal_cord (Oct 5, 2018)

The problem with all of the pro-gun arguments, seems to focus on the fact that even countries with tight gun control still have increasing gun crime. But it is rarely taken into account things like increasing population and population density. I have no doubt that here in England if it were easier to get a gun (legal or otherwise), there would be more gun crime. For a start, the events that trigger these debates are almost always mass shootings, something we just don't have here anymore. In my mind, that aught to be enough for any government to clamp down. BUT it HAS to be a national effort. Just having one or two states tightening their gun control will do nothing because people can still travel freely between states carrying guns, and they will.

With population density continually increasing, you are more and more likely to bump into someone, who for whatever reason, is angry/scared enough to violently harm someone else. The difference is, if that person finds it easier to get hold of a gun, they can do more harm faster and from a greater distance away. Apparently England's population density is about 12 times that of the U.S. so in theory, if the same percentage of citizens owned guns, you'd be about 12 times more likely to get shot based entirely on how many people you will contact.

The basic advice from countries with tight gun control is - is someone doesn't have a gun, no matter how angry they are, they can't shoot you.
A big issue that seems to be picked up on about U.S. shootings when reported here in England is that they often involve some sort of automatic weapon. There simple is no need for ANY private individual to own one of these, not one person can justify it. If you wan't to defend yourself, shooting someone 20 times a second should not even be a consideration.

But the issue, seem to be a cultural issue, more than a gun control issue. People in the U.S. seem to be continually told that violent crime is on the up and you NEED a gun to protect yourself. Which in turn, increases the chances of getting shot.

However, my opinions come from the perspective of an individual who was raised in a country where they do not need to worry about getting shot, and sees no reason to own a hand gun, let alone a military grade machine gun.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2018)

I think it really needs to be a state/local issue. In general, I'm very pro gun, but there are exceptions that need to be addressed. In some areas, the problem isn't so much guns as it is the culture. Just because you made guns easier to access doesn't necessarily mean that people will actually pick them up and start using them either way.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



spinal_cord said:


> A big issue that seems to be picked up on about U.S. shootings when reported here in England is that they often involve some sort of automatic weapon. There simple is no need for ANY private individual to own one of these, not one person can justify it. If you wan't to defend yourself, shooting someone 20 times a second should not even be a consideration.



This is just untrue. The vast majority of mass shootings are done with a handgun.
And besides all that, the number of violent crime has been steadily decreasing. So I think we're doing something right.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 5, 2018)

SG854 said:


> And the empirical question should be, does gun control increase or reduce violence.


I disagree. The empirical question should be "do guns increase or reduce violence".

The answer to that is much easier, and doesn't need clarification because we all know that guns don't. This whole "but control has all these side effects!!!" doesn't do away that more guns simply mean more violence.

Some nice bullet points you've got there, but I find them more hilariously bad than worthy of discussion. Let me invent me a couple statistics as well:


in 1954, Oklahoma had 15'670 counted guns and had 67 incidents of people falling of ladders. In 1998, gun ownership has increased five times. Incidents with ladders also increased up to 352.
the first reported gunshot problem was Wesson getting accidentally shot by Smith in 1858. Since then, accidents with guns have increased with a factor 314159200%.
the murder of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 led to the most bloody gang war the world had known at that time, with well over a million gun-related murders
the burglaries in Burgundy might be higher than the assaults in Durdanshire, new England, but because guns were not allowed in Central Asia during the legislation of horses in the industrial age, the increase in violence in the US region of Florida is not caused by the non-correlated rise of the black population in Burgundy (hah! I bet you didn't think of THAT!!!)

So...basically: if the discussion is about throwing random facts around: bring them on!


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I disagree. The empirical question should be "do guns increase or reduce violence".
> 
> The answer to that is much easier, and doesn't need clarification because we all know that guns don't. This whole "but control has all these side effects!!!" doesn't do away that more guns simply mean more violence.
> 
> ...



Wut about kennesaw

Dude, youre not accounting for the bandits dilemma. Which town is he going to hit? The known gun enthusiast town where it's illegal to not own a gun in most cases? Or the extreme gun controlled city?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 5, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Eh, there are also plenty of countries with very low gun ownership and very low crime rates, such as Japan.  I think a high rate of gun ownership may decrease crime in certain parts of the US, but then you've got other parts like Chicago where introducing a lot more guns would only increase the crime rate.  Also I think a high rate of gun ownership corresponds to higher rates of gun suicide, mass shootings, and accidental shootings, so even if overall crime statistics drop, the casualties continue to hit close to home.
> 
> I don't think we need to add a whole lot in terms of gun control, just universal and slightly more thorough background checks.  We also need a full-auto/bumpstock ban, because IMO there's essentially no civilian use for these weapons other than mass murder.
> 
> Mental health is a different issue that's always gone with too little attention in this country, but there's no easy fix at this point without a massive monetary investment from the top down.  It's certainly not going to come from the people that suggest mental health always plays a bigger role in a crime than easy access to a gun.  After all, they don't really care about the former, and they're basically walking advertisements for the latter.


There is already a push to make the legal age for owning a gun 21. So, yeah, I basically agree with this.


----------



## guicrith (Oct 5, 2018)

Ban guns, you can buy a gun with no restrictions, but doing drugs is illegal.

There is absolutely no logic to this, you have the right to have a dangerous weapon that can kill others but not to have some fun while only risking your own life(when used responsibly/no heavy machinery)!

Also there is no need for guns, they are weapons designed to kill, there is no other use for them, just killing animals, killing yourself(which should be a right, but there are far better less messy ways of doing this) and killing others, if you want to shoot things play a video game.


----------



## Flame (Oct 6, 2018)

one failed attempt at shoe bombing and we take off our shoes off at airports around the world.

mass shooting every day in the U.S. and no body bats an eye.

the world we live in.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 7, 2018)

My views on this topic are probably pretty extreme to most people. I feel like the main purpose of the second amendment was as a deterrent to to tyranny. I personally feel that every step taken for more gun control is leaving us open and vulnerable to total government control. Dark times over in Europe. There is no free speech. People are getting arrested for things said on Facebook. Citizens are left with very little to defend themselves from governments who have a monopoly on violence. I don't want to see the same thing happen here. 

Seems like ever since 9/11, people seem to think that even casually uttering the word "revolution" is going to get them thrown into Guantanamo Bay, or maybe even one of those new concentration camps they've put up on the Mexican border. If the government stooges were correct in saying that the terrorists' goal was to "take away r freedums!" then they've already won, and governments all over the world played rigjt into their hand. People now are probably too afraid that joining their local militia is going to put them on some government watch list or something. Oh, and I'll pre-empt a bunch of people by reminding everyone that militia is not the same as the military, so no the second amendment is not saying the government can have a military.


----------



## guicrith (Oct 7, 2018)

Subtle Demise said:


> My views on this topic are probably pretty extreme to most people. I feel like the main purpose of the second amendment was as a deterrent to to tyranny. I personally feel that every step taken for more gun control is leaving us open and vulnerable to total government control. Dark times over in Europe. There is no free speech. People are getting arrested for things said on Facebook. Citizens are left with very little to defend themselves from governments who have a monopoly on violence. I don't want to see the same thing happen here.
> 
> Seems like ever since 9/11, people seem to think that even casually uttering the word "revolution" is going to get them thrown into Guantanamo Bay, or maybe even one of those new concentration camps they've put up on the Mexican border. If the government stooges were correct in saying that the terrorists' goal was to "take away r freedums!" then they've already won, and governments all over the world played rigjt into their hand. People now are probably too afraid that joining their local militia is going to put them on some government watch list or something. Oh, and I'll pre-empt a bunch of people by reminding everyone that militia is not the same as the military, so no the second amendment is not saying the government can have a military.


The second amendment is obsolete and provide no protection, the government can just drone strike you.
Its like if we gave everyone penicillin today, all the bacteria are immune, just because it worked 300 years ago doesnt mean is still does.
You would have better luck with 3 carfentanyl(a reallllly potent form of heroin, used to sedate elephants) gas canisters, one on each branch of government, theres no way in hell you will win a ground war with the US government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Evacuation


----------



## SG854 (Oct 7, 2018)

spinal_cord said:


> The problem with all of the pro-gun arguments, seems to focus on the fact that even countries with tight gun control still have increasing gun crime. But it is rarely taken into account things like increasing population and population density. I have no doubt that here in England if it were easier to get a gun (legal or otherwise), there would be more gun crime. For a start, the events that trigger these debates are almost always mass shootings, something we just don't have here anymore. In my mind, that aught to be enough for any government to clamp down. BUT it HAS to be a national effort. Just having one or two states tightening their gun control will do nothing because people can still travel freely between states carrying guns, and they will.
> 
> With population density continually increasing, you are more and more likely to bump into someone, who for whatever reason, is angry/scared enough to violently harm someone else. The difference is, if that person finds it easier to get hold of a gun, they can do more harm faster and from a greater distance away. Apparently England's population density is about 12 times that of the U.S. so in theory, if the same percentage of citizens owned guns, you'd be about 12 times more likely to get shot based entirely on how many people you will contact.
> 
> ...


Banning guns in the Country will do nothing because South America exists.

There is no evidence that gun ownership decreases crime in the U.S based on Fire Arms and Violence a Critical Review. And since United States has a lower population density then doesn't that mean less likely to get shot according to what you said. You present the population density argument and increase in gun murder, did you just make that up or do you have evidence for it. It sounds like a good argument but you need evidence for it, many things sounds like a good arguments but end up turning out to be false.

Your population density argument doesn't really hold up. I mentioned in my OP that Switzerland had higher gun ownership compared to Germany but lower rates of homicide. Looking at population density per square mile, for Switzerland its 490 and for Germany its 235 based on U.S. census Bureau data. By your theory Switzerland with its more gun ownership and higher population density should be more dangerous but its not. Israel has a population density of 319, United States has density 84. Israel also has high gun ownership. Again if it was population density increases more murder then it should be true for Israel but its not. Its lower in Israel then U.S.

Australia enforced stricter gun laws and after the buyback program in 1997 didn't have much effect. By 2008, which is not enough time for population density to grow that much, Homicides decreased a small 9%, while assaults increased 40% and sexual assaults by 20%.

After the 1998 hand gun ban and confiscation, based on British government crime reports gun crime was not a serious problem in the past, it now is. British police use pride that they didn't need to carry guns, but now they started to carry guns because of increased in armed street gangs. I mentioned in my OP that hand gun crimes doubled. It doesn't seem like the strict gun laws in Australia and Great Britain have made people safer, or prevented massacres. And none of your points hold up.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> I disagree. The empirical question should be "do guns increase or reduce violence".
> 
> The answer to that is much easier, and doesn't need clarification because we all know that guns don't. This whole "but control has all these side effects!!!" doesn't do away that more guns simply mean more violence.
> 
> ...


The point is does increased gun ownership increase violence, and my points is that it doesn't. Does banning guns decrease gun crimes, and I stated facts that it didn't in the U.K. and hand gun crimes doubled. They aren't just random facts thrown around. None of your points to attempt to debunk makes sense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Flame said:


> one failed attempt at shoe bombing and we take off our shoes off at airports around the world.
> 
> mass shooting every day in the U.S. and no body bats an eye.
> 
> the world we live in.


A lot of it from Black on Black crime. No one wants to bat an eye because its apparently racist to call it out. If you take Blacks out of statistics and only look at Whites we are on par with some of the safer countries. White murder rates is comparable to Norway, Belgium and Canada. Its not all of U.S. that is violent either. Its only specific pockets that are. Gun murders overall has gone down as gun ownership went up, as population size and density went up. Except the last few years there has been an uptick in inner cities since Ferguson, no surprise there since cops are called racist and are backing off policing to avoid criminal charges.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Eh, there are also plenty of countries with very low gun ownership and very low crime rates, such as Japan.  I think a high rate of gun ownership may decrease crime in certain parts of the US, but then you've got other parts like Chicago where introducing a lot more guns would only increase the crime rate.  Also I think a high rate of gun ownership corresponds to higher rates of gun suicide, mass shootings, and accidental shootings, so even if overall crime statistics drop, the casualties continue to hit close to home.
> 
> I don't think we need to add a whole lot in terms of gun control, just universal and slightly more thorough background checks.  We also need a full-auto/bumpstock ban, because IMO there's essentially no civilian use for these weapons other than mass murder.
> 
> Mental health is a different issue that's always gone with too little attention in this country, but there's no easy fix at this point without a massive monetary investment from the top down.  It's certainly not going to come from the people that suggest mental health always plays a bigger role in a crime than easy access to a gun.  After all, they don't really care about the former, and they're basically walking advertisements for the latter.


In Australia as suicide by firearms went down after gun restrictions, suicide by other means went up. Japan and South Korea has higher rates of suicide and low gun ownership then the United States. Looks like gun ownership doesn't have an effect on suicide and people will find other ways to kill themselves. Five years After Australian buy back massacres (four or more homicides) went only modestly down, but only for knives, gas, and arson rather then fire arms.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> In Australia as suicide by firearms went down after gun restrictions, suicide by other means went up. Japan and South Korea has higher rates of suicide and low gun ownership then the United States. Looks like gun ownership doesn't have an effect on suicide and people will find other ways to kill themselves. Five years After Australian buy back massacres (four or more homicides) went only modestly down, but only for knives, gas, and arson rather then fire arms.


Most people will probably have suicidal thoughts at some point in their life, briefly or not, but easy access to guns makes it that much easier to act on those thoughts.  I'm sure it makes first attempts far more fatal on average.  Obviously there are other factors that influence the number of suicide attempts in a given country, like social or career pressure in the case of Japan and South Korea.


----------



## Monado_III (Oct 7, 2018)

> completely ignores Australia in OP


----------



## Monado_III (Oct 7, 2018)

guicrith said:


> The second amendment is obsolete and provide no protection, the government can just drone strike you.
> Its like if we gave everyone penicillin today, all the bacteria are immune, just because it worked 300 years ago doesnt mean is still does.
> You would have better luck with 3 carfentanyl(a reallllly potent form of heroin, used to sedate elephants) gas canisters, one on each branch of government, theres no way in hell you will win a ground war with the US government.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Evacuation


Honestly, the entire US civilian population (not like more then half the US population could ever actually be on the same side....) wouldn't stand a chance against the US armed forces (with >2 million active and reserve personnel), like wtf do you think you're gonna do to a jet or a drone before it launches a missile at you? Nevermind a freaking nuclear submarine that could strike you from thousands of km away. And who says when said government becomes tyrannical anyways? It's not like they'll one day just say, "So yep, we're going to be tyrannical now, k thx bye". The second amendment was created in a different time for a different time.


----------



## Flame (Oct 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> A lot of it from Black on Black crime. No one wants to bat an eye because its apparently racist to call it out. If you take Blacks out of statistics and only look at Whites we are on par with some of the safer countries. White murder rates is comparable to Norway, Belgium and Canada. Its not all of U.S. that is violent either. Its only specific pockets that are. Gun murders overall has gone down as gun ownership went up, as population size and density went up. Except the last few years there has been an uptick in inner cities since Ferguson, no surprise there since cops are called racist and are backing off policing to avoid criminal charges.



I talked about mass shooting... you talked about "Black on Black crime"


o....k


----------



## ThoD (Oct 7, 2018)

Let's see now because this is a topic people consider too touchy even though the answer is extremely simple... Here in Greece, literally anyone can purchase a weapon freely without any sorts of checks other than age (18+ and you are clear) and (sometimes) criminal record. However, that's for air guns (any sort, pistol with compressed air ampule or carbines, etc.), which while they can be fairly lethal with a single shot, are mostly meant to simply damage the target, so great for non-lethal self defense almost all of the time. That way people who need protection can easily get it, while for firearms (that can be lethal with a single shot almost all the time), you have to go through extensive checks and get permits, but even with permits, only law enforcers are allowed to carry guns that aren't concealed. This all basically means, you can easily get something for personal or home protection without any troubles, while getting something heavier the normal citizen shouldn't have is much harder. On top of that, instead of having the stupid mentality that everyone is out to get us like some other places (mainly US) do, most people don't even choose to have any sort of weapons, they have the option to, but it's not made a big deal of and while crime can be moderately high at times, people feel safe, they have more important things to care about (plus males have conscription so plenty can defend themselves too). That's a nice system overall if you think about it and the vast majority of crimes as a result mostly only use knives (be it muggers or burglars).

Then you got the US which is a literal mess, mostly because it is too big to be controlled and regulated properly, so people are paranoid because of how many issues there are and just think having a gun will keep them safe should the government decide to declare martial law or something... My opinion is this, allow everyone to have guns that are mostly non-lethal (eg: low power airguns, tazers, etc.) for self protection, then for anyone that needs something stronger, have them go through extensive background/psychological checks and even then they must have a proper and valid reason for wanting it. Another important thing that needs to be done, in the US especially, have the gun owner face trial too should their gun be used in a crime, as most of those school shootings you hear about are basically kids taking someone else's gun to use, so definitely neglect and irresponsibility on the owner's part, which should be a crime honestly, at least that can be a deterrent. Past that, it should just be tweaked only slightly to fit each country a bit better, with things like max number of weapons one can own and so on.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 7, 2018)

ThoD said:


> Let's see now because this is a topic people consider too touchy even though the answer is extremely simple... Here in Greece, literally anyone can purchase a weapon freely without any sorts of checks other than age (18+ and you are clear) and (sometimes) criminal record. However, that's for air guns (any sort, pistol with compressed air ampule or carbines, etc.), which while they can be fairly lethal with a single shot, are mostly meant to simply damage the target, so great for non-lethal self defense almost all of the time. That way people who need protection can easily get it, while for firearms (that can be lethal with a single shot almost all the time), you have to go through extensive checks and get permits, but even with permits, only law enforcers are allowed to carry guns that aren't concealed. This all basically means, you can easily get something for personal or home protection without any troubles, while getting something heavier the normal citizen shouldn't have is much harder. On top of that, instead of having the stupid mentality that everyone is out to get us like some other places (mainly US) do, most people don't even choose to have any sort of weapons, they have the option to, but it's not made a big deal of and while crime can be moderately high at times, people feel safe, they have more important things to care about (plus males have conscription so plenty can defend themselves too). That's a nice system overall if you think about it and the vast majority of crimes as a result mostly only use knives (be it muggers or burglars).
> 
> Then you got the US which is a literal mess, mostly because it is too big to be controlled and regulated properly, so people are paranoid because of how many issues there are and just think having a gun will keep them safe should the government decide to declare martial law or something... My opinion is this, allow everyone to have guns that are mostly non-lethal (eg: low power airguns, tazers, etc.) for self protection, then for anyone that needs something stronger, have them go through extensive background/psychological checks and even then they must have a proper and valid reason for wanting it. Another important thing that needs to be done, in the US especially, have the gun owner face trial too should their gun be used in a crime, as most of those school shootings you hear about are basically kids taking someone else's gun to use, so definitely neglect and irresponsibility on the owner's part, which should be a crime honestly, at least that can be a deterrent. Past that, it should just be tweaked only slightly to fit each country a bit better, with things like max number of weapons one can own and so on.



While it sounds nice in theory, I really don't trust the practicality of a system like that? Who does the background checks? Etc, etc.

You also have to understand that it's just as much a cultural deterrent as it is active home defence.

*cough*Kennesaw*cough*


----------



## ThoD (Oct 7, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> While it sounds nice in theory, I really don't trust the practicality of a system like that? Who does the background checks? Etc, etc.
> 
> You also have to understand that it's just as much a cultural deterrent as it is active home defence.
> 
> *cough*Kennesaw*cough*


What are you even talking about? The retailer selling the gun does the checks, it's already applied here to great effect, so you are basically looking for problems where there aren't any, at least not in the sense you are talking about. I don't get what you mean by the "cultural deterrent" though...


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 7, 2018)

I don't agree with gun control at all. Law abiding citizens who use guns to protect themselves and their families shouldn't have to fear having their guns taken away due to criminals who use the guns for all the wrong reasons.
I think law abiding citizens should own guns also in case their government becomes tyrannical so that they may be able to preserve their freedoms.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Oct 7, 2018)

I think it has less to do with gun control and more with the lack of proper access to two things:
- (free) education: Kinda common sense, but more educated people are more likely to get better jobs (and defend their situation for said job better) and making classes like philosophy class mandatory could really help with some... other dividing topics 
- (free, government supported) healthcare. Basic, common sense level of safety nets that let families and individuals be safer in life.
You simply don't have that many people with mental issues in other (modern/developed) countries... and not nearly as many "disorders" either. Not counting terrorism into that, it's a whole other issue.

Now yes you can find the counter-example of the shooter with no such problem in life who still committed a crime.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 7, 2018)

ThoD said:


> What are you even talking about? The retailer selling the gun does the checks, it's already applied here to great effect, so you are basically looking for problems where there aren't any, at least not in the sense you are talking about.



I've gone to foreign countries with regulations similar to what you suggest. Maybe it's different in Greece, but where I've gone, it's become a biased bag of carp. Certain political parties are restricted access from obtaining guns and there are 'regional coordinators' etc, etc.



ThoD said:


> I don't get what you mean by the "cultural deterrent" though...



Kennesaw made it a law for the majority of eligible households to have a firearm.

Soon after, general crime dropped by more then 50%.

This isn't rocket science. Criminals avoid pro-gun zones for good and obvious reasons.


----------



## Deleted-401606 (Oct 7, 2018)

Very well thought out post. Unfortunately most people on GBAtemp are younger and have been heavily brainwashed by liberal propaganda that dominates pretty much all the "nerd" sources of entertainment(tv,internet,videogames). Once you realize that most individuals are feeble minded and just nod the head up and down,life begins to make a lot more sense.If people believe that their thoughts are "their own" and "unique",they are more likely to fall in line.

People need to use abstract thought when thinking about these things and being completely objective.For the most part you can figure out what is manipulation by those in higher power,and what is legitimate by using this basic strategy to weed out misinformation.If it is a *Politically Correct *answer,the truth is usually the *complete* opposite.For example,let's say that propaganda tells you that sharks are safe to play with.You know that sharks bite so you need to learn to block out the MSM's manipulation.  Remember that no one needs to tell you what color the sky is.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Oct 7, 2018)

guicrith said:


> The second amendment is obsolete and provide no protection, the government can just drone strike you.
> Its like if we gave everyone penicillin today, all the bacteria are immune, just because it worked 300 years ago doesnt mean is still does.
> You would have better luck with 3 carfentanyl(a reallllly potent form of heroin, used to sedate elephants) gas canisters, one on each branch of government, theres no way in hell you will win a ground war with the US government.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#Evacuation


Well duh, ground operations would be suicide. The war would have to be fought with information and technology first. Gain a bunch of allies, get a billionaire or two onboard. We pretty much live in a cyberpunk world, why wouldn't a rebel group use that to their advantage? Cryptocurrency, hacking, counter-intelligence; it's all there. Now that most likely won't win by itself, but a full-blown war isn't necessary. Just need several coordinated strike teams to break the chain of command. Even if it did come to battling in the streets, the military is spread so thin overseas. The logistics of bringing all 2 million of those troops home at once is mind-boggling. Not to mention how many would either desert or outright rebel, shooting their CO in the back instead of attacking their fellow countrymen. Let's not forget the US is a nation that is fighting two wars against its own citizens and losing both of them. Yes, the government has better military technology than the citizens, but that's an argument against gun control in my eyes. A militia is only effective if it is armed just as well as the actual military. Doesn't matter too much. Anything not obtained legally can be stolen, hijacked, or sabotaged.


Monado_III said:


> And who says when said government becomes tyrannical anyways? It's not like they'll one day just say, "So yep, we're going to be tyrannical now, k thx bye". The second amendment was created in a different time for a different time.


In my eyes, most developed countries, USA included (maybe especially), are either already there or just on the edge. There are so many unelected bodies here with the power to create laws at will, and they are immune from checks and balances. USA has entered into international treaties that directly affect the liberties of its people without any input from them. I'd say the second amendment is more relevant now than it ever has been. Why exactly is it less relevant than the rest of the Bill of Rights? Words have a lot of power to cause harm too, so maybe we should just repeal the first amendment while we're at it. Which state-mandated religion do you want? Christianity or Islam? With the first 2 amendments gone, there's literally nothing stopping that from happening.

I shouldn't have to say this, but a lot of the things I'm writing about are purely hypothetical worst-case scenarios. An armed revolution at this point probably would be met with failure, but I feel the possibility is a good deterrent. But I mean if you're comfortable with things like people going to jail over Facebook posts, then by all means, give up your rights for some false sense of security, but just know that the further you try to push something underground, it eventually becomes more prolific in the long term. Just look at the war on drugs and the war on terror. What have we achieved with those? More drugs and more terror. What have we lost? Tons of liberties and lives.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 7, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> I don't agree with gun control at all. Law abiding citizens who use guns to protect themselves and their families shouldn't have to fear having their guns taken away due to criminals who use the guns for all the wrong reasons.
> I think law abiding citizens should own guns also in case their government becomes tyrannical so that they may be able to preserve their freedoms.


Gun control is not the same as "taking guns away."  No president in history has suggested doing that except Trump, and we know to ignore him because he's a moron.



Maluma said:


> People need to use abstract thought when thinking about these things and being completely objective.For the most part you can figure out what is manipulation by those in higher power,and what is legitimate by using this basic strategy to weed out misinformation.If it is a *Politically Correct *answer,the truth is usually the *complete* opposite.For example,let's say that propaganda tells you that sharks are safe to play with.You know that sharks bite so you need to learn to block out the MSM's manipulation.  Remember that no one needs to tell you what color the sky is.


On the opposite end of the spectrum you've got the NRA telling people what to think and how to think about every political issue.  Redneck zombies everywhere.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 7, 2018)

i do agree with the mental illness part to an extent for paranoia owning guns but you forget SOME PPL who are high on anger from political views can snap (though a extremely low possiability) but i heard of some pissing each other off to the point of death threats being made police are fucking usless sometimes as they cant do anything unless an imanate threat to ones life is made (god forbid an attempt) also i agree with XZI om the automatic weapons if you go deer hunting with an AR-15 you have serious issues


----------



## Xzi (Oct 7, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> i do agree with the mental illness part to an extent for paranoia owning guns but you forget SOME PPL who are high on anger from political views can snap (though a extremely low possiability) but i heard of some pissing each other off to the point of death threats being made police are fucking usless sometimes as they cant do anything unless an imanate threat to ones life is made (god forbid an attempt) also i agree with XZI om the automatic weapons if you go deer hunting with an AR-15 you have serious issues


To be fair, an AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon.  As long as bumpstocks remain legal it is easily modified to be full-auto, however.  I'll also grant you that AR-15s to some degree have become the poster child for mass shootings and school shootings.


----------



## kingfrost (Oct 7, 2018)

I just want to weigh in generally. Gun control is not what it's made out to be by partisan groups. I would never support taking everyone's gun, but I would support testing to make sure that you know how to use it and all about safety. I'm aware that this exists to an extent in some places, but they need to be more through. You should have to go through every so many years and they should have the ability if you fail or show disregard to safety to have your guns removed.

If you have mental problems, anger issues, suicidal or homicidal thoughts you shouldn't have a gun. Pysch tests need to become a regular part of gun ownership, especially when hoarding starts.

I'm perfectly aware of how easy it is to be an illegal gun, trust me, but that doesn't mean we should make it easy to do so legally. We also don't go after the illegal gun trade nearly as hard as you think we would, and some goverment agencies are even involved in selling and running then.

I don't support taking all your guns away. I personally like the safety I feel having a personal arsenal at my disposal, especially if anything does go wrong. If you want to say I believe I'm special, well I do. I know that I'm safe with them and wouldn't easily harm another person.


----------



## dAVID_ (Oct 8, 2018)

Maluma said:


> Very well thought out post. Unfortunately most people on GBAtemp are younger and have been heavily brainwashed by liberal propaganda that dominates pretty much all the "nerd" sources of entertainment(tv,internet,videogames). Once you realize that most individuals are feeble minded and just nod the head up and down,life begins to make a lot more sense.If people believe that their thoughts are "their own" and "unique",they are more likely to fall in line.
> 
> People need to use abstract thought when thinking about these things and being completely objective.For the most part you can figure out what is manipulation by those in higher power,and what is legitimate by using this basic strategy to weed out misinformation.If it is a *Politically Correct *answer,the truth is usually the *complete* opposite.For example,let's say that propaganda tells you that sharks are safe to play with.You know that sharks bite so you need to learn to block out the MSM's manipulation.  Remember that no one needs to tell you what color the sky is.









/s


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 8, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> /s



While extreme, this is politics in a nutshell, lol. Way too many people are zombies, intaking massive amounts of propaganda.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 8, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Since usually when a mass shooting happens in the U.S. there’s usually a debate whether we should completely ban guns or how much restrictions there should be. So, I wanted to create this section to mainly focus on guns and have people debate this out. And bring some information I found. Should guns be banned? Or should guns be available and we should instead focus on having better restrictions and focus on people's mental health?
> 
> Gun control should not be an idealogical debate, it should be an empirical one. And the empirical question should be, does gun control increase or reduce violence.
> 
> ...



When I see things about gun control, makes me want to go buy an AR-15 before they take them away. For most of us, why shouldnt we. I'm sure they won't make us turn in guns we already own.


----------



## lexarvn (Oct 8, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Gun control is not the same as "taking guns away."  No president in history has suggested doing that except Trump, and we know to ignore him because he's a moron.



This. It seems like to me that the majority of people for gun control just want better regulations around how easy it is to obtain a gun, not an all out gun ban of any kind, but most pro-gun people seem to interpret anything people for gun control say as "I want a gun ban".

Also, most pro-gun people don't seem to like to address the fact that the US seems to have a rather high gun accident rate (considering gun accidents should be completely preventable and it is really hard to find examples outside the US of gun accidents) which could be curbed really easily with some gun control (which it has as least with gun related accidental deaths in the last couple decades http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-20180101-story.html). One thing I personally think would help is requiring someone to have some sort of license to prove they actually know how to properly use and store a firearm (I think it's kinda insane that we don't require any kind of gun training for safety reasons). This also would incidentally probably help with when someone *impulsively *goes to buy a gun to commit suicide or commit a crime as they probably won't have a license unless you already planned on getting a gun.


----------



## Olmectron (Oct 8, 2018)

Problem: "My 10 year old daughter, who was sat inside our car, just got a stray bullet to her head because of a gang gunfight two blocks away. She's dead. We had parked here waiting for her mom to come out of her work."

Answer A: "The problem was the mental health of the bullet. Not the guns."

Answer B: "You should have used your own gun to stop the bullet."

Answer C: "You were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's none's fault. Let my guns alone."

Answer D: "It's not the gun's fault. Pretty sure a knife would have flied and broken your car windows the same way the bullet did."


----------



## ThoD (Oct 8, 2018)

Olmectron said:


> Problem: "My 10 year old daughter, who was sat inside our car, just got a stray bullet to her head because of a gang gunfight two blocks away. She's dead. We had parked here waiting for her mom to come out of her work."
> 
> Answer A: "The problem was the mental health of the bullet. Not the guns."
> 
> ...


I know you are trying to be funny or something, but the answer is just that nothing is done about educating people better, resulting in a lot of ghettos and whatnot where violence runs rampant and so do guns.

A very good solution to gun violence is actually what a comedian said some years back, don't regulate the guns, regulate the bullets, make them like 500€ for each bullet and you will see gun crime go down significantly


----------



## Olmectron (Oct 8, 2018)

ThoD said:


> I know you are trying to be funny or something, but the answer is just that nothing is done about educating people better, resulting in a lot of ghettos and whatnot where violence runs rampant and so do guns.
> 
> A very good solution to gun violence is actually what a comedian said some years back, don't regulate the guns, regulate the bullets, make them like 500€ for each bullet and you will see gun crime go down significantly


I was not trying to be funny. I'm serious.

The death of a10 year old is not funny. Stupid pro-gun people is not funny. I'm very extremist with these subjects, and I'm the most anti-guns people you'll know. Nothing will change my mind.

I was just trying to state stupid things some pro-guns people I know actually have said (not literally, but something as stupid in similar situations). And no, I'm not saying all pro-gun people is stupid, but some are. The same way many anti-gun people are just outright stupid.

Sorry to say _*stupid*_ that much, but in my opinion, there shouldn't be a valid reason for a government not to do anything when kids are dying in places they are supposed to feel safe. I've lived several wrong things in my life; and for sure I can say now that kids being shot is simply not right. This should be common sense, don't you think?

I respect pro-gun people, and I get some of their reasons for owning guns. But it hurts a lot whenever a new shooting takes place and there's nothing I can do about it.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 8, 2018)

Olmectron said:


> I was not trying to be funny. I'm serious.
> 
> The death of a10 year old is not funny. Stupid pro-gun people is not funny. I'm very extremist with these subjects, and I'm the most anti-guns people you'll know. Nothing will change my mind.
> 
> ...


You can be anti-gun all you want but if anybody ever tries to threaten you or your family with a weapon, you're pretty much done. The police won't always be there in time to protect you. We have these guns to protect ourselves from people who use guns to harm others and to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Maybe you like to be defenseless but I sure as hell don't.

"To disarm the people... i_s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason_


----------



## Olmectron (Oct 8, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> You can be anti-gun all you want but if anybody ever tries to threaten you or your family with a weapon, you're pretty much done. The police won't always be there in time to protect you. We have these guns to protect ourselves from people who use guns to harm others and to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Maybe you like to be defenseless but I sure as hell don't.


I have lost many cousins bacause of bad people with guns.

I nearly lost some of my children to guns. Because of stupid cops with guns.

I live in a country with no law. I know what it feels to be assaulted with a gun just for the sake of it. I don't trust in the local police at all, they are more likely to use their weapons on me than on the bad guys.

But, I live in fear that my country could start having school shootings as frequently as you do (yeah, even here, shootings inside schools are rare); I would make me stop sending my kids to school. That's what I fear the most.

We live mainly locked indoors all the time, except when working or in school. I wouldn't survive the call where some policeman tells me my kid is dead while being where he was supposed to be. I don't know how would people can carry on living after that. It should be the most painful feeling.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 8, 2018)

Olmectron said:


> I have lost many cousins bacause of bad people with guns.
> 
> I nearly lost some of my children to guns.
> 
> ...


Most of the school shooters were on prescription psychiatric drugs and I'm not gonna blame the gun when it falls into the hands of a maniac. You have to understand that without guns to protect yourself anybody can harm you or your government enslave you. I understand that there are terrible people out there who harm others with guns but you can best believe they are in the minority of gun owners. Most gun owners like myself are very responsible and know to use it only as a way to protect themselves, family, or others as a last resort.


----------



## Olmectron (Oct 8, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> Most of the school shooters were on prescription psychiatric drugs and I'm not gonna blame the gun when it falls into the hands of a maniac. You have to understand that without guns to protect yourself anybody can harm you or your government enslave you. I understand that there are terrible people out there who harm others with guns but you can best believe they are in the minority of gun owners. Most gun owners like myself are very responsible and know to use it only as a way to protect themselves, family, or others as a last resort.


Again, I'll be able to kind of understand why you say that.

But I won't ever support the actual gun laws in USA. It's simply wrong not to improve the laws for more control (deeper people checking) after all those shootings. I'm not saying to ban them completely, but some more laws for making them harder to get wouldn't hurt.

And, not trying to be rude, sorry if I am, but how will you defend against killer drones armed with guns and missiles, once your government goes nuts? Will you have a full convoy of guns to protect against them? And missiles too?


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 8, 2018)

Olmectron said:


> Again, I'll be able to kind of understand why you say that.
> 
> But I won't ever support the actual gun laws in USA. It's simply wrong not to improve the laws for more control (deeper people checking) after all those shootings. I'm not saying to ban them completely, but some more laws for making them harder to get wouldn't hurt.
> 
> And, not trying to be rude, sorry if I am, but how will you defend against killer drones armed with guns and missiles, once your government goes nuts? Will you have a full convoy of guns to protect against them? And missiles too?


You don't have to support the laws since you aren't a citizen of this country. I'm not worried about that but what I am worried about are people with your mentality to try to make them harder to buy. I'll be honest because most people won't say it but most shootings are done by minorities and most of the people who did the school shootings were Jewish. That's just factual.

We will defend ourselves the best we can and figure that out if the time ever comes.


----------



## Olmectron (Oct 8, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> You don't have to support the laws since you aren't a citizen of this country. I'm not worried about that but what I am worried about are people with your mentality to try to make them harder to buy. I'll be honest because most people won't say it but most shootings are done by minorities and most of the people who did the school shootings were Jewish. That's just factual.
> 
> We will defend ourselves the best we can and figure that out if the time ever comes.


Alright. I hope everything improves then. Let's hope the world doesn't shoot itself soon.

I wish you the best. I really do.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 8, 2018)

Olmectron said:


> Alright. I hope everything improves then. Let's hope the world doesn't shoot itself soon.
> 
> I wish you the best. I really do.


Thanks. I appreciate it. c:


----------



## zacchi4k (Oct 8, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Since usually when a mass shooting happens in the U.S. there’s usually a debate whether we should completely ban guns or how much restrictions there should be. So, I wanted to create this section to mainly focus on guns and have people debate this out. And bring some information I found. Should guns be banned? Or should guns be available and we should instead focus on having better restrictions and focus on people's mental health?
> 
> Gun control should not be an idealogical debate, it should be an empirical one. And the empirical question should be, does gun control increase or reduce violence.
> 
> ...




It's.. _interesting _how specific your arguments are, and how you're not taking in consideration more "generic" statistics


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 9, 2018)

zacchi4k said:


> It's.. _interesting _how specific your arguments are, and how you're not taking in consideration more "generic" statistics


The issue with generic statistics is that you can say stuff like "US has the highest gun _death_ rate" and refer to suicides as well as murders.

Anyways my opinion on guns is that the USA would've never happened with such large regulations on them, same with the French Revolution. The Enlightenment caused people to get angry at how they were treated, and they took up arms and threw out the dumb monarchs who decided to mess with them. Banning guns is one of the most anti-American and anti-freedom things I can think of, because you're essentially saying that you are not allowed to take up arms against the monarchs, or in this case, the bloated and unconstitutional federal government of the USA or Canada.

Also by banning guns you're saying that the average person can't be trusted with a weapon, and that we need to end up trusting the police, the same people who are accused of racial profiling and all that other good stuff. The average person is not bad, and if you ban guns, the bad people will end up either buy their guns illegally or make them themselves, which is more common in places like the Philippines where guns aren't so common.

3D printed guns will usher in a new era of freedom, and the only way the "monarchs" will be able to stop it is if they slow down the flow of information even more, which in this information based world, will cause catastrophic consequences.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 9, 2018)

Most people here seems to be asking/hoping for better regulations, not the banning of guns.

As for 3D printed guns, as if they wouldn't arrest people for having illegal guns.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 9, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Most people here seems to be asking/hoping for better regulations, not the banning of guns.
> 
> As for 3D printed guns, as if they wouldn't arrest people for having illegal guns.


But these regulations could make it to the point where it would be very hard for the everyday citizen to buy a gun, like in New York. No thanks.

People who do things illegally don't care about the law and the 3D printed guns could be a way for the innocent to defend themselves against it.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 15, 2018)

Im pro-2nd Amendment. Similar to my argument with you about regulations in the banking industry, I wholeheartedly believe the problem simply comes down to people being garbage. What hasn't been turned into a tool for murder by mankind? That's the first thing our species does with innovative technology, find out how to kill with it. But now the gun is the problem?


----------



## Smoker1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Look at Chicago. Think they have strict Gun Laws like California, but they have so many Shootings........but you never hear about it. LOL
Always, after a Shooting, there are idiots thinking there need to be MORE Laws. They seriously think a Criminal, WITH A RECORD, can magically Pass a Background Check. Dianne Feinstein actually thinks that if everyone turned in their Weapons, Criminals will follow. LMFAO. Also, she thinks Vets who have been Diagnosed with PTSD should be prevented from Owning or even Applying for a Weapon.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 15, 2018)

Smoker1 said:


> Look at Chicago. Think they have strict Gun Laws like California, but they have so many Shootings........but you never hear about it. LOL
> Always, after a Shooting, there are idiots thinking there need to be MORE Laws. They seriously think a Criminal, WITH A RECORD, can magically Pass a Background Check. Dianne Feinstein actually thinks that if everyone turned in their Weapons, Criminals will follow. LMFAO. Also, she thinks Vets who have been Diagnosed with PTSD should be prevented from Owning or even Applying for a Weapon.


Look at her name and you will find the answer. c:


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 15, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> Look at her name and you will find the answer. c:


Are you implying/promoting anti-Semitism?


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 15, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Are you implying/promoting anti-Semitism?


Haha I am implying that most Jews tend to have a very strong anti gun and pro immigration stance in this country while promoting the complete opposite in Israel. c:


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 15, 2018)

[QUOTE=" and making classes like philosophy class mandatory could really help with some... other dividing topics 
[/QUOTE]
Many if not all schools already skip important topics, another thing is your post seems to maybe, I might be wrong, say that higher education = better jobs = less violence, to an extent I will agree for SOME people, but it's pretty much been proven some people are just mentally unstable and violent. Instead of philosophy why not force kids to take more STEM classes.... I don't know about now, but about 10 years ago many kids could graduate just by taking minimal math/science, and just doing art classes, not saying you shouldn't aspire to be a actor or artist(graphic design is a real job but you gotta know how to use a computer still, and programs like Maya/3dsmax need some math/programming skills to be proficient), but have a backup, it should be considered the same like sports, you shouldn't think 100% your going to get into the NBA/NFL....

Now as far as my thoughts on gun control? Just tell me before they ban guns so I can buy a AR-15 before theyer illegal


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 15, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> Haha I am implying that Jews tend to have a very strong anti gun and pro immigration stance in this country while it's the complete opposite in Israel. c:


I personally find most Jewish communities to be quite closed off from outsiders. They typically gentrified their neighborhoods and created a familiar atmosphere similar to the Irish, Italian, and especially oriental neighborhood patterns. They are very anti-immigration. Most I know are indifferent to gun control laws. I'd say a few even qualify as heavy conservative. I suppose it's different depending on where you are though. You can't really put people in a box based on their ethnic background imo.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 15, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> I personally find most Jewish communities to be quite closed off from outsiders. They typically gentrified their neighborhoods and created a familiar atmosphere similar to the Irish, Italian, and especially oriental neighborhood patterns. They are very anti-immigration. Most I know are indifferent to gun control laws. I'd say a few even qualify as heavy conservative. I suppose it's different depending on where you are though. You can't really put people in a box based on their ethnic background imo.


There's a reason that certain stereotypes exist. Just to let you know... the whole accusing me of antisemitism thing doesn't scare me. I tell it like it is no matter what race a person may be, including my own.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 15, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> There's a reason that certain stereotypes exist. Just to let you know... the whole accusing me of antisemitism thing doesn't scare me. I tell it like it is no matter what race a person may be, including my own.


 I simply asked if that was what your implication/intent was. I never accused you. I asked for clarification precisely to avoid it actually. And yes, most stereotypes have roots in common observations. That doesn’t mean that they reflect an entire ethnic/racial background though. There are broke Jews, Blacks that hate chicken, and Whites with great rhythm and soul.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 15, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> I simply asked if that was what your implication/intent was. I never accused you. I asked for clarification precisely to avoid it actually. And yes, most stereotypes have roots in common observations. That doesn’t mean that they reflect an entire ethnic/racial background though. There are broke Jews, Blacks that hate chicken, and Whites with great rhythm and soul.


Bravo. The majority is what matters in these types of cases. Of course there are some who differ but that is usually slim in my observations.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 15, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> Bravo. The majority is what matters in these types of cases. Of course there are some who differ but that is usually slim in my observations.


I hate being judged slightly more than judging others. But if I do, I’d prefer it to be a case by case basis. For example, not all Trump supporters are “white supremacist neo-Nazis” just like not all Sanders supporters were “Uber Socialist college soyboy jobless losers.” At the end of the day I think we all just want to be a little happier in this madness.


----------



## PanTheFaun (Oct 15, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> I hate being judged slightly more than judging others. But if I do, I’d prefer it to be a case by case basis. For example, not all Trump supporters are “white supremacist neo-Nazis” just like not all Sanders supporters were “Uber Socialist college soyboy jobless losers.” At the end of the day I think we all just want to be a little happier in this madness.


I'm just a white guy who loves guns, loves freedom, loves his country, loves the countryside, and loves his people. I would use my guns to defend myself, my family, my friends, and innocent people from danger if need be.


----------



## Smoker1 (Oct 15, 2018)

Everyone has the Right to be able to Defend themselves. Not to mention, only the Police, Military and Gov Agents only having access to Weapons........yeah......Germany, all over again. The reason why it is in the Constitution, is to prevent the Government from abusing their Authority and Power over the People........who are supposed to be the ones running our Country and be represented. Also, if ever a Invading Force showed up, the People can Defend the Nation along side the Military, instead of the Military getting swamped.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 16, 2018)

PanTheFaun said:


> But these regulations could make it to the point where it would be very hard for the everyday citizen to buy a gun, like in New York. No thanks.
> 
> People who do things illegally don't care about the law and the 3D printed guns could be a way for the innocent to defend themselves against it.


Idk about NY, but that doesn't mean other places don't need better regulations.

Doesn't stop the law from being enforced. Ill intentions or no, you will still be arrested for illegal guns or gun ownership.  In that case, it just better to get a gun legally.


----------



## CORE (Oct 25, 2018)

Disarm All Military and Police and Criminals Worldwide. Then People can Give up theirs.


----------



## Captain_N (Oct 25, 2018)

I believe that lawful citizens have the right to protect themselves. The criminals are going to get their guns anyway they can. they will always be able to get them. Not allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves against these carrying criminals makes them easy targets. The criminal will have all the power because they know no one has a gun but they do. The police cant be everywhere at once unless you want it to be like Nazi Germany.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Oct 26, 2018)

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 11, 2018)

So here's actor Ashton Kutcher admitting to multiple gun crimes while ironically shilling for more gun control. Should he be prosecuted and jailed for these crimes in accordance with California law? Will he be?????? Or is he 'special?'


----------



## x65943 (Nov 11, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> So here's actor Ashton Kutcher admitting to multiple gun crimes while ironically shilling for more gun control. Should he be prosecuted and jailed for these crimes in accordance with California law? Will he be?????? Or is he 'special?'


He is above the law. 

Gun control is for us regular people.


----------



## Viri (Nov 12, 2018)

x65943 said:


> He is above the law.
> 
> Gun control is for us regular people.


This. Most celebrities are above law, unlike the normal Joe. Celebrities will get a slap on the wrist, or at worst, a cushy jail cell, with protection from the scary scary inmates that might harm them.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 12, 2018)

Anyone here know anything about what happened in Maryland recently? A man was stripped of his first, second, fifth, and fourteenth amendment rights and summarily executed in his own home without a case even going to trial. Wanna know why the confiscation order was issued? Because he was strongly opinionated. You can be legally murdered for wrongthink now. Let this serve as proof that gun control requires gun violence to enforce. We are on the edge of martial law in this country, which is why the second amendment was created in the first place. A couple images I found that should give the gun control advocates to think about:


----------

