Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deadvolcanoes]

Maybe Russia was too mean? How about China, they don't allow them there either, and they share the Skroesec's view on government seizure of private industry.

That's the best you got? A poster writes a well thought out, coherent arguments as to why he wants a society free of guns, and all you can do is tell him to move to another country?

[breadisfunny]

That's the best you got? A poster writes a well thought out, coherent arguments as to why he wants a society free of guns, and all you can do is tell him to move to another country?

because calling in airstrikes on those who refuse to turn in their guns is a real well thought out and reasonable argument.

[lockedout]

because calling in airstrikes on those who refuse to turn in their guns is a real well thought out and reasonable argument.

I believe he wanted airstrikes on the companies themselves.
Also pretty funny that guns are bad but airstrikes are ok.

[Deadvolcanoes]

because calling in airstrikes on those who refuse to turn in their guns is a real well thought out and reasonable argument.

Illicite "unauthorized" factories would have to destroyed (airstrike?)

Yeah, he didn't advocate airstrikes on people who refuse to turn in their guns.

[Daerio]

Now Iraq was in many ways kind of the NRA's dream of America. Every household had a gun. It was a person's personal responsibility to defend their family. And important places - people's businesses, places of worship, markets, offices, in absence of police were similarly guarded by men with guns.

I'm going to have to just stop responding to you because you're so ridiculous, but I don't see any official NRA statements about how their organization's dream is that the US police force be dismantled and the law of the land becoming violence. Your comparison to Iraq's current situation and the US is obviously completely ridiculous.

The truth is that hiring more police has been proven to reduce crime, and it's one of the few things that has been proven to do that. Gun control laws have not been proven to do that. I do think that there's a thin line between hiring so many cops that crime drops to 'acceptable' levels, and hiring too many cops so that the US becomes a complete police state. I also think, for example, that police departments should not be funded by writing tickets to citizens in order to unlawfully tax the common man. That's how our current system works, and I can't imagine a worse design for encouraging abuse by authority.

[breadisfunny]

Yeah, he didn't advocate airstrikes on people who refuse to turn in their guns.

because its not like there wont be people in those buildings or in the surrounding area who cares about them?

[Daerio]

That's the best you got? A poster writes a well thought out, coherent arguments as to why he wants a society free of guns, and all you can do is tell him to move to another country?

His post was not "well thought out." It was ridiculous. And like I said, his point of view seems to mesh very well with the Chinese government. I don't think the majority of American citizens here would agree with his stance, but it's already in practice over there - so yeah, I think the best solution for him is to move over there.

[Deadvolcanoes]

because its not like there wont be people in those buildings or in the surrounding area who cares about them?

What does this have to do with your statement claiming Skrosec wants to bomb people who don't turn in their guns?

---------- Post added 2013-02-22 at 11:38 PM ----------

Here's a fun little ad in a newspaper from South Carolina. Why does the South get such a bad rep?

http://i.imgur.com/mUIrj0K.jpg

[Kasierith]

Immense problem. It would have to be attacked from so many angles. Here are some.

Your points are fairly reasonable and point towards a supply-side deprivation of guns that probably represents overall the greatest possibility of actually eliminating guns from the world.

That said, I reject every one of them. Completely disregarding rights that you disagree with with no actual proof beyond repetitive speculation that the absolute limitation of htem is worth it, bankrupting the economy, and leaving those that do follow the laws vulnerable to those who do not is simply not an acceptable option. Guns are now an established part of the modern world. Guns will never leave, unless weaponry moves upward.

[Skroe]

Basically you want the government to control everything?
In a free country the people control the government not the other way around.
Really airstrikes on american citizens and private companies in america?

I want government to have a monopoly of force. Yes absolutely. That is one of the characteristics of a legitimate government, that it, not any other party has the right to use force. If you think your guns protect your freedom, you are lying to yourself. Let me ask, how long do you think you'd last with your guns in the woods, against a drone?

And yes in a free country the people control the government, not the other way around. But guns play no role in that in a free country. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: lets say the US somehow passed a comprehensive ban of private gun ownership and repealed the 2nd Amendment. Lets say it required you to turn your guns in or face a felony. Would you do it? Or would you say "come and get them"? Would you go down to the state house with your gun?

Because here is the quandary you face my friend. If you REFUSE to give up your guns, you are saying that the RULE OF THE GUN should win out over the RULE OF LAW, and that those with guns should make the law, even when your guns have become illegal. Furthermore a country where LAW and the PROCESS of MAKING LAW is supreme was the dream of the founders of our country. To hold onto your guns would be to betray the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution. On the other hands, if you GIVE UP your guns, you are compromising what you believe is your right even though, due to the process of passing a new Amendment, the majority of the country via our republican form of government disagree. So which is it?

As for airstrikes, I was pretty clearly referring to third world unauthorized, illegal factories, obviously not a gun factory in any country where the rule of law is strong and obviously not American citizens.

[Daerio]

Here's a fun little ad in a newspaper from South Carolina. Why does the South get such a bad rep?

I grew up hunting. When I was 12 years old, I had a shotgun in my hand, and went dove hunting. I was taught a deep respect for guns, and was mature enough not to screw around with them and accidentally hurt somebody. I was also taught not to be scared of a gun - as there's no more reason to be scared of a gun than there is to be scared of a car, or a knife, or a brick, or a step I could stub my toe on, or any other inanimate object that has the possibility of causing harm or death.

I feel like it's probably a valid assumption that people like you grew up with zero education or knowledge of guns, and are simply scared of what you don't understand, much like a child is afraid of the dark. You want to depend on our government to 'take care of you', as you apparently cannot take care of yourself. I feel that this is not the role of government, and that the motivation to make government into this kind of entity can be nothing more than intrusive and destructive. I feel that your child-like wish that the government "take care of everyone" and be in complete control of all force in our society has a complete lack of understanding of where that will lead.

[lockedout]

I want government to have a monopoly of force. Yes absolutely. That is one of the characteristics of a legitimate government, that it, not any other party has the right to use force. If you think your guns protect your freedom, you are lying to yourself. Let me ask, how long do you think you'd last with your guns in the woods, against a drone?

And yes in a free country the people control the government, not the other way around. But guns play no role in that in a free country. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: lets say the US somehow passed a comprehensive ban of private gun ownership and repealed the 2nd Amendment. Lets say it required you to turn your guns in or face a felony. Would you do it? Or would you say "come and get them"? Would you go down to the state house with your gun?

Because here is the quandary you face my friend. If you REFUSE to give up your guns, you are saying that the RULE OF THE GUN should win out over the RULE OF LAW, and that those with guns should make the law, even when your guns have become illegal. Furthermore a country where LAW and the PROCESS of MAKING LAW is supreme was the dream of the founders of our country. To hold onto your guns would be to betray the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution. On the other hands, if you GIVE UP your guns, you are compromising what you believe is your right even though, due to the process of passing a new Amendment, the majority of the country via our republican form of government disagree. So which is it?

As for airstrikes, I was pretty clearly referring to third world unauthorized, illegal factories, obviously not a gun factory in any country where the rule of law is strong and obviously not American citizens.

I would hate to live in your world.

[Kivimetsan]

You support gun control - you support enslavement and tyranny.
Think before you support knee jerk reactionary solutions.
The problem isn't guns; its the violent American culture that exists because your government has sold you out to the New World Order.
How do you expect to take back your country? Protesting in a park!? Yeah sure that will totally work *sarcasm*.
The only way the USA will change is through a violent revolution... without guns where will you stand?

[Kasierith]

And yes in a free country the people control the government, not the other way around. But guns play no role in that in a free country. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: lets say the US somehow passed a comprehensive ban of private gun ownership and repealed the 2nd Amendment. Lets say it required you to turn your guns in or face a felony. Would you do it? Or would you say "come and get them"? Would you go down to the state house with your gun?

Which means that if the people want the right to have guns, as is expressed by the continued existence of the 2nd amendment, than the government should not have the power to remove this right. You're engaging in double standards here by establishing the assumption that the the greater part of the country is on your side.

[Spectral]

I grew up hunting. When I was 12 years old, I had a shotgun in my hand, and went dove hunting. I was taught a deep respect for guns, and was mature enough not to screw around with them and accidentally hurt somebody. I was also taught not to be scared of a gun - as there's no more reason to be scared of a gun than there is to be scared of a car, or a knife, or a brick, or a step I could stub my toe on, or any other inanimate object that has the possibility of causing harm or death.

I feel like it's probably a valid assumption that people like you grew up with zero education or knowledge of guns, and are simply scared of what you don't understand, much like a child is afraid of the dark. You want to depend on our government to 'take care of you', as you apparently cannot take care of yourself. I feel that this is not the role of government, and that the motivation to make government into this kind of entity can be nothing more than intrusive and destructive. I feel that your child-like wish that the government "take care of everyone" and be in complete control of all force in our society has a complete lack of understanding of where that will lead.

This is some spectacularly condescending shit.

[Daerio]

This is some spectacularly condescending shit.

Sorry, but I can't see the viewpoint of, "Government will take care of us" as anything other than completely childish. Also, he confirmed this was his viewpoint in #11708.

[breadisfunny]

I want government to have a monopoly of force. Yes absolutely. That is one of the characteristics of a legitimate government, that it, not any other party has the right to use force. If you think your guns protect your freedom, you are lying to yourself. Let me ask, how long do you think you'd last with your guns in the woods, against a drone?

And yes in a free country the people control the government, not the other way around. But guns play no role in that in a free country. Let me ask you a hypothetical question: lets say the US somehow passed a comprehensive ban of private gun ownership and repealed the 2nd Amendment. Lets say it required you to turn your guns in or face a felony. Would you do it? Or would you say "come and get them"? Would you go down to the state house with your gun?

Because here is the quandary you face my friend. If you REFUSE to give up your guns, you are saying that the RULE OF THE GUN should win out over the RULE OF LAW, and that those with guns should make the law, even when your guns have become illegal. Furthermore a country where LAW and the PROCESS of MAKING LAW is supreme was the dream of the founders of our country. To hold onto your guns would be to betray the philosophical underpinnings of the constitution. On the other hands, if you GIVE UP your guns, you are compromising what you believe is your right even though, due to the process of passing a new Amendment, the majority of the country via our republican form of government disagree. So which is it?

As for airstrikes, I was pretty clearly referring to third world unauthorized, illegal factories, obviously not a gun factory in any country where the rule of law is strong and obviously not American citizens.

because those people obviously are less important than american citizens and therefore their lives must mean less. who cares if 500 foreigners die because someone decided to put an illegal gun making factory in the middle of a third world city.

[lockedout]

because those people obviously are less important than american citizens and therefore their lives must mean less.

Guns are bad, air strikes ok!

[Skroe]

What like police and military work? It works both ways friend. Guns can be used for good, bad, or neutral reasons. You keep going on about the evils caused with guns but never mention everything else.


Because bombings don't happen right?

Again. Not all forms of violence are guns. Its just that, as my link showed, 90% of civilian casualities in conflicts around the world are from small arms. Thus invalidating your point.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/21-ye...192475271.html

Force multipliers work both ways.

Even home-invaders have rights, and do not deserve to be killed on sight. It's crazy to suggest they should be.

So guns are more of a factor in destabilizing a region than famine, poverty, education, and disease? You seem to be going to great lengths to justify killing this goat.

More? That relative argument is complicated to make. Are another form of destablization? Absolutely. If anything I think any smart person would say famine, poverity, lack of education, disease, guns, political instability all feed off each other.

My right to own my self-defense weapon is not a hobby.

No it's a hobby. It isn't making you safe.

See that AK47 clone. I don't have to justify owning it to you.

If you want to stop global instability then you should go after the causes of it. Not just just slapping your pet issue on it and giving yourself a pat on the back.

I think it's disgusting you own one. I'm actually legitimately repulsed. Why would you own a firearm clone of the weapon that has killed countless US Service members in Iraq and Afghanistan? That was designed by the Soviet Union's state controlled arms manufacturers to be the weapon of choice for third world anti-western insurrection and the main infantry weapon of the Army that would conquer Western Europe?

You don't have to justify it. But I think the fact you have one is distasteful, embarrassing and you should be ashamed of yourself. I judge you for owning it. I see it as an object of weakness and fear, not a symbol of strength and confidence. I think it shows lack of education. I think it shows backwardness. Looking upon it is offensive, and the fact you are proud of it I find incredibly sad. In all the universe, that piece of metal, plastic and wood, designed for the purpose of killing other human beings, is what you're proud of? I'm proud of being published before I was 25. You're proud of that? I pity you.

No you don't have to justify it. But make no mistake, god willing, one day it will be taken from you.

[xylophone]

Hey, with Fused MIA someone had to pick up the torch.