The general gun control thread

[Washington Resistance Army]

no im my opinion guns should not be allowed take America for example [no offence] there have been so accidents involoving little kids it is not funny, people are killed everyday because of these monster's [guns]

People die every day from plenty of things.

[Imperializt Russia]

no im my opinion guns should not be allowed take America for example [no offence] there have been so accidents involoving little kids it is not funny, people are killed everyday because of these monster's [guns]

God, I hope you never learn about this thing called the Army.

[Llamalandia]

Event The study you cite said it couldn't fully account for all of the myriad variables on the I individual level. In the hands of a mentally stable, well trained gun owner who properly stores and maintains his weapon a gun is a very safe tool. You don't punish the masses because some people, or even the majority of people are stupid and or misuse their rights.

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk.

We don't ban alcohol entirely, but we do restrict its use. Even when its use is far more likely than not to be harmless.

Most drunk drivers never kill anyone. Should drunk driving be legal?

Actually yes it should be legal to drive drunk. What should matter is actual harm not potential or perceived harm. If you can drive fine with a .16 bac (for which there is anecdotal that at least some individuals can) then good for you. We should likewise pull over all erratic drivers because erratic driving poses an actual imminent threat of harm to other road users.
Plus, ok, well we let people keep freaking kegs in their house, I mean in gun terms that would be like owning a freaking tank.

Plus ok the masses are not the individual. The individual has no real legitimate need or use for a thermonuclear device, hence we don't allow them to be privately owned. Guns do in an individual level sometimes prove useful. More important in terms of recreation they seem to generate a lot of happiness for millions of people.

[Imperializt Russia]

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk.

We don't ban alcohol entirely, but we do restrict its use. Even when its use is far more likely than not to be harmless.

Most drunk drivers never kill anyone. Should drunk driving be legal?

Actually yes it should be legal to drive drunk.

What the shit, son?

[Llamalandia]

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk...

This seems difficult to justify as a claim considering the statistics surrounding the defensive use of firearms, particularly when compared to those injured/killed by firearms (which is less than aforementioned defensive uses by most estimates, including one by the DOJ that seems safest to run with without inviting calls of 'bias!').

Really which doj? Plenty of people are going to rip apart anything from the holder admin, on the grounds of bias. Best to go with an ngo really and one without an agenda.

[Diopolis]

Event The study you cite said it couldn't fully account for all of the myriad variables on the I individual level. In the hands of a mentally stable, well trained gun owner who properly stores and maintains his weapon a gun is a very safe tool. You don't punish the masses because some people, or even the majority of people are stupid and or misuse their rights.

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk.

We don't ban alcohol entirely, but we do restrict its use. Even when its use is far more likely than not to be harmless.

Most drunk drivers never kill anyone. Should drunk driving be legal?

I notice that we don't ban alcohol, or drinking, but just drinking and driving.
In other words, it's only the explicitly irresponsible behavior that's banned. Taking the same approach to guns seems like a smart option.

[Llamalandia]

Actually yes it should be legal to drive drunk.

What the shit, son?

Really this is a whole other thread in itself. But as long as you harm no one sure why not? I'm not advocating people do it, but hey, if you can and can do it safely good for you.

[Llamalandia]

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk.

We don't ban alcohol entirely, but we do restrict its use. Even when its use is far more likely than not to be harmless.

Most drunk drivers never kill anyone. Should drunk driving be legal?

I notice that we don't ban alcohol, or drinking, but just drinking and driving.
In other words, it's only the explicitly irresponsible behavior that's banned. Taking the same approach to guns seems like a smart option.

No shooting while drunk perhaps?

[Imperializt Russia]

What the shit, son?

Really this is a whole other thread in itself. But as long as you harm no one sure why not? I'm not advocating people do it, but hey, if you can and can do it safely good for you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... wrong.html
That incident is indicative of that mindset.

Drunks drivers are a danger to the public. Do it on their own property, fine. Not on the public highways where they drive their tonne or three of deadly weapon at speeds of fifty, seventy miles an hour against hundreds of others of similar objects at similar speeds.
Or a fucking pedestrian.

[Tigeria]

I believe the people should be armed, not just as a nice surprise for ISIS or common criminals, but for the government as well.

[Llamalandia]

Really this is a whole other thread in itself. But as long as you harm no one sure why not? I'm not advocating people do it, but hey, if you can and can do it safely good for you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... wrong.html
That incident is indicative of that mindset.

Drunks drivers are a danger to the public. Do it on their own property, fine. Not on the public highways where they drive their tonne or three of deadly weapon at speeds of fifty, seventy miles an hour against hundreds of others of similar objects at similar speeds.
Or a fucking pedestrian.

Obviously his party trick wasn't as safe as he thought. Sucks for him and his victim. But yeah, let's stick with discussion guns, I don't want to thread jack this.
But hey, lots of stupid people out there.

[North Calaveras]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

[Tule]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

It's called Monopoly on violence. It's the very foundation and a vital aspect of any functioning state.

[Llamalandia]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

In fairness we all know what they mean.

Ag all private non government gun ownership should be banned.

You how woould this be enforced?

Ag lawfully armed cops come confiscate all private guns.

[Llamalandia]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

It would be more persuasive if such a monopoly actually existed. But isn't the real world the govt isn't the only one who makes use of violence.

[New Genoa]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

[North Calaveras]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

In fairness we all know what they mean.

Ag all private non government gun ownership should be banned.

You how woould this be enforced?

Ag lawfully armed cops come confiscate all private guns.

They think cops are differen't than regular people

they are human like everyone else(this is coming from someone in the military police), nobody is special and we all should be able to possess weapons to defend ourselves.

[North Calaveras]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

that's funny cause the anti-gun crowd is NEVER satisfied

passes anti-gun law, shooting happens

" OMG we need more gun laws"

Shooting happens again and more laws are passed with NO EFFECT.

[Llamalandia]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

Ok fair enough, but how do they differ and how is there not a slippery slope from restriction of firearms to out right ban?

[Llamalandia]

In fairness we all know what they mean.

Ag all private non government gun ownership should be banned.

You how woould this be enforced?

Ag lawfully armed cops come confiscate all private guns.

They think cops are differen't than regular people

they are human like everyone else(this is coming from someone in the military police), nobody is special and we all should be able to possess weapons to defend ourselves.

What but these are many of the same people who decry the police shooting in ferguson and the tray on Martin case etc etc. yeah, the cops who liberals claim, target and shot black people with no cause, are the same people they would have disarm ALL law abiding citizens .

[Sociobiology]

no it isn't, see Switzerland.
again american culture is no different from a random European countries culture than they are from one another, you are begging special pleading, there is no reason to expect that what works in literally dozens of very different cultures would not work in the US.

Seeing as gun control will disarm the peaceful, law-abiding citizens, It is likely to embolden the criminal element,

and yet the homicide rates of every other developed country disagrees. Also gun control does not disarm law abiding citizens, it disarms violent criminals.

leading to an increase in crime (at least over a short term). Right now we are in a good place.

no we are not, High homicide rates are not a good thing

Crime is decreasing,

as it is in every developed nation, still high, not helping your point.

gun laws are loosening in many places,

and becoming stricter in others.

Really, we do not need any more gun control.

the homicide rate disagrees

[New Genoa]

Quit the strawman. Pro-gun control is not equivalent to banning guns.

that's funny cause the anti-gun crowd is NEVER satisfied

passes anti-gun law, shooting happens

" OMG we need more gun laws"

Shooting happens again and more laws are passed with NO EFFECT.

Uh huh. Just like the pro gun won't be satisfied until we have toddlers armed to the teeth.

[Diopolis]

I notice that we don't ban alcohol, or drinking, but just drinking and driving.
In other words, it's only the explicitly irresponsible behavior that's banned. Taking the same approach to guns seems like a smart option.

No shooting while drunk perhaps?

A decent start, at least.

[Tule]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

It would be more persuasive if such a monopoly actually existed. But isn't the real world the govt isn't the only one who makes use of violence.

legitimate violence.

Only the government can use violence. Self defence is merely an exception to the rule granted by the government under the right circumstances.

No absolute monopoly can ever exists, but that's not what a monopoly generally refers to. Some countries have government monopolies on alcohol sales and most have a monopoly of the printing of currency, yet there are always people that will try to violate those monopolies and will even gain limited success in their attempts.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Anti-Gun crowd

Anti-Gun Crowd:Guns need to be banned!

Me: I completely disagree but plz explain how you would enforce this.

Anti-Gun Crowd: By sending other people with guns to take them.

It's called Monopoly on violence. It's the very foundation and a vital aspect of any functioning state.

The people have a legitimate reason to use violence themselves: self-defense.