NationStates

Personally, I am against gun control, but I want to know what NS thinks. Here's my argument against it:

1) The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence

2) Rifles in general only account for 1% of gun murders.

3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

*rips out eyeballs*

Cosara wrote:3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

Ban Everything, Legalize Anything, Republicans 2020.

I don't think any weapons should be necessarily banned, but a Magazine Limit (Amount of Rounds) and an amount of Magazines you can purchase a year limit should be put.

Divair wrote:

Cosara wrote:3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

Ask the Infantry.

How are we not commenting on this being the 61st gun thread this week?

Hungry wrote:Ban Everything, Legalize Anything, Republicans 2020.

I don't think any weapons should be necessarily banned, but a Magazine Limit (Amount of Rounds) and an amount of Magazines you can purchase a year limit should be put.

Why?

Big Jim P wrote:

Divair wrote:Not going to take a side, but this is just BS. How will a tyrannical government take over the US? And how would a rifle help against a trained army, an air force, tanks, and a navy?

Ask the Infantry.

Ask them what? How unrealistic fantasies become reality? Do they have experience in that?

Cosara wrote:Personally, I am against gun control, but I want to know what NS thinks. Here's my argument against it:

1) The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence

2) Rifles in general only account for 1% of gun murders.

3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

No they should'nt be banned. They are semi-automatic sporting rifles intended for civilians and not the military. Banning cosmetic features does not make the weapon less dangerous and that is a well known fact.

Divair wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Ask the Infantry.

Ask them what? How unrealistic fantasies become reality? Do they have experience in that?

You KNOW I meant ask them about how a rifle helps against a trained army etc.

Banning assault wepons won't stop gun violence criminals can just buy them illegaly anyway the only thing it would do is make the law abiding citizens more vunarable to them.

Cosara wrote:Personally, I am against gun control, but I want to know what NS thinks. Here's my argument against it:

1) The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence

2) Rifles in general only account for 1% of gun murders.

3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

I guess if you can't beat them, join them. So:

1) source?

2) source?

3) source?

Divair wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
Ask the Infantry.

Ask them what? How unrealistic fantasies become reality? Do they have experience in that?

He means ask the infantry how rifles can be of good use against an army. Which it is pretty effective.

Thafoo wrote:How are we not commenting on this being the 61st gun thread this week?

2013 Year of the gun control thread.

Big Jim P wrote:

Divair wrote:Ask them what? How unrealistic fantasies become reality? Do they have experience in that?

You KNOW I meant ask them about how a rifle helps against a trained army etc.

I'm sure a trained army having a better rifle than another trained army is great. But a bunch of civilians having rifles against the entire armada of the USA?


lolwat

That's all that can be said.

Divair wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
You KNOW I meant ask them about how a rifle helps against a trained army etc.

I'm sure a trained army having a better rifle than another trained army is great. But a bunch of civilians having rifles against the entire armada of the USA?


lolwat

That's all that can be said.

The armada? What are you refering to the navy or just all of our wepons?

Big Jim P wrote:

Thafoo wrote:How are we not commenting on this being the 61st gun thread this week?

2013 Year of the gun control thread.

But how do we turn this into a gender issue?

Thafoo wrote:

Cosara wrote:Personally, I am against gun control, but I want to know what NS thinks. Here's my argument against it:

1) The United States Department of Justice said that the Clinton Gun Ban did not reduce gun violence

2) Rifles in general only account for 1% of gun murders.

3) We need guns so that we can defend ourselves against a tyrannical government.

I guess if you can't beat them, join them. So:

1) source?

2) source?

3) source?

For number 2:
"Total
murders"
2007 14831
2008 14180
2009 13636
2010 12996
2011 12664

"Total
firearms"
2007 10086
2008 9484
2009 9146
2010 8775
2011 8583

Handguns
2007 7361
2008 6755
2009 6452
2010 6009
2011 6220

Rifles
2007 450
2008 375
2009 348
2010 358
2011 323

Shotguns
2007 455
2008 444
2009 418
2010 373
2011 356

"Firearms
(type
unknown)"
2007 1820
2008 1910
2009 1928
2010 2035
2011 1684

"Knives or
cutting
instruments"
2007 1796
2008 1897
2009 1825
2010 1704
2011 1694

"Other
weapons"
2007 2095
2008 1938
2009 1864
2010 1772
2011 1659

"Hands, fists,
feet, etc."
2007 854
2008 861
2009 801
2010 745
2011 728

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html

Forget banning guns, let's ban gun control threads instead.

Was there some sort of gun thread overstock at the internet discussion warehouse, leading to them all being shipped here? Did NSG purchase a bulk discount package at ThreadCo? Has every other well run completely dry? Why are there so many of these fucking threads lately, can we not talking about something, anything else? I can't believe it's come to this, but I'm actually starting to miss evolution and abortion threads. The "G" stands for "general" not "guns", so pick a new fucking topic already!

*deep breaths*
Ok, ok, it's cool. I just needed to get it all out of my system.

The united imperial sector wrote:

Divair wrote:I'm sure a trained army having a better rifle than another trained army is great. But a bunch of civilians having rifles against the entire armada of the USA?


lolwat

That's all that can be said.

The armada what are you refering to the navy or just all of our wepons?

It's a gun control thread. Mis-information is standard.

Nadkor wrote:Forget banning guns, let's ban gun control threads instead.

YES

Big Jim P wrote:

Thafoo wrote:I guess if you can't beat them, join them. So:

1) source?

2) source?

3) source?

For number 2:
"Total
murders"
2007 14831
2008 14180
2009 13636
2010 12996
2011 12664

"Total
firearms"
2007 10086
2008 9484
2009 9146
2010 8775
2011 8583

Handguns
2007 7361
2008 6755
2009 6452
2010 6009
2011 6220

Rifles
2007 450
2008 375
2009 348
2010 358
2011 323

Shotguns
2007 455
2008 444
2009 418
2010 373
2011 356

"Firearms
(type
unknown)"
2007 1820
2008 1910
2009 1928
2010 2035
2011 1684

"Knives or
cutting
instruments"
2007 1796
2008 1897
2009 1825
2010 1704
2011 1694

"Other
weapons"
2007 2095
2008 1938
2009 1864
2010 1772
2011 1659

"Hands, fists,
feet, etc."
2007 854
2008 861
2009 801
2010 745
2011 728

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html

Thanks for this. I see a trend. Guns go down and so do murders.

The price of ignoring the chance of a tyrannical government can be as high as six million dead Jews. So yeah, I'm not going to take my chances. Remember, Germany was a democracy right before Hitler came to power.

Desperate Measures wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
2013 Year of the gun control thread.

But how do we turn this into a gender issue?

We could point out that women need self-defensive weapons ,ore than men do.