Should guns be banned?

[Big Brother]

Yeah, because obviously the only solution to all of those things is arming yourself 

Thank you for your flawless wisdom, I'll be sure to write it down on a piece of paper and put in my bathroom just in case I run out of toilet paper later.

[WISD0MTREE]

Yeah, because obviously the only solution to all of those things is arming yourself 

Mental illness - Actually have a mental health system

Other nations with their own interests - One world government (Orwell would disapprove) 

Jealousy - No way to prevent. Even under communism, sewage workers and other people with shit jobs will be jealous of others with better jobs. They could easily kill others out of jealousy with knives or blunt weapons. 

Limited resources - One world government (Orwell would disapprove)

Tyranny - Lots of other governments (1984 had 3 which couldn't reasonable end Oceania's tyranny because the cost would outweigh the gain)

Other deadly weapons - No way to prevent. 

Deadly animals - No (reasonable) way to prevent

Lack of food - No (reasonable) way to prevent 

Fun activities with guns - Prevent people from having fun

[Lan]

Yeah, because obviously the only solution to all of those things is arming yourself 

Thank you for your flawless wisdom, I'll be sure to write it down on a piece of paper and put in my bathroom just in case I run out of toilet paper later.

It's the only fair way unless guns disappear one day. Banning guns means only the government and criminals will have guns. And just because you live in a western country doesn't mean the government won't use it's guns on you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park_%28Berkeley%29#May_15.2C_1969:_.22Bloody_Thursday.22

 

Another thing I want to add is how stupid it is that people point out the US as the shining example of violent crime, when there are plenty more nations with higher homicide and/or gun violence rates. Like Brazil, Mexico, the Bahamas, Jamaica, outer lying French territories, outer lying British territories, Russia, Greenland, etc, etc (and those aren't even the worst offenders).

 

Guns are not the issue when it comes to murder. The issue is entirely cultural. When you live in a culture that promotes violence, don't be surprised when violence happens. IDK where you're from, but in America, we sell toy guns to kids. We have numerous music scenes that promote violence. Countless movies and TV shows (even kids stuff) that promote violence. We have military recruiters in high schools lying to kids about the military. We basically make violence a common theme for kids growing up and even have a fabulous group of idiots who go around preaching that men have to be aggressive in order to be real men. Like you can't have a desk job or be an intellectual without being a "whoosy".

The inequality, segregation of minorities through poverty and casual racism are also contributing factors.

 

Ban all the guns you want, but if you ever feel like you really want to address the issue, I'd start by addressing the aspects I just pointed out.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Lan

[Diocletian]

You are like, the worst person. You're really just trying to push your gender roles on me, trying to claim I'm less of a man because I don't want to arm myself and shoot people, which is completely ridiculous. As a free human being, I can do whatever the hell I want within the boundaries of the law, and I don't have to care about or conform to anyone else's thoughts about what a man should be or what a man should do. Relying on your government does not make you weak, and you're a complete idiot for thinking so. Seriously, that's just plain stupid. Your post is the most ignorant mass of words I have ever seen and I honestly feel a little sorry for you. Just a little.

 

In a good society, you shouldn't need guns as an insurance or deterrent. You shouldn't have to worry about people coming to kill you or your family, and you shouldn't have to worry about government tyranny. The fact that you do in yours, and that people with your nonsensical views even exist, is a sign that your society needs a lot of fixing and arming yourself isn't going to do the trick.

Yep, and in a "perfect society" criminals would obey every law ever issued by a group of lying, thieving and extorting body of politicians known as "government." You call my post ignorant and that I'm evidently an idiot because I simply can't jive with that utopian talk of unicorns and coexisting with people bent on controlling literally every aspect of everything? Talk about delusion, little man.

 

You can go on living your life believing that an authoritarian body of crooks will magically correct all ills we've experienced as a species for thousands of years, that's fine. Likewise, you can continue believing that America will somehow become the new age Atlantis or whatever if police and government agents are the only groups allowed to possess "heavy firepower." I'm not trying to spoil your delusions of higher grandeur or anything, but my God dude at least call a spade a spade. We've all learned in history class what those "utopias" always morph into to (I.e, fascism, communism, military junta, etc)

 

You're free to live your life the way you choose and believe what you will, but some real-world experience just may help you yet. This country isn't perfect, not by a long shot obviously. Banning gun rights has literally only one end game: embolden criminals and government. Tell ya what man, when whoever (if in our lifetime, anyway) invents a time machine do yourself a favor and head back to the USSR. Lenin and Stalin were mega advocates of gun control and an insanely bloated military and police force. Make sure to send word ahead of paradise please? Hell, I just may move there too!

Edited July 29, 2015 by Robert House

[WISD0MTREE]

Since most of the anti-gun arguments here in America are based on "think of muh childun", I thought that I'd post this. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGBgH5_wcs0

 

Around 5:30, I thought that I'd explain something from the video since you have most likely never shot a gun. "I have to go get the bolt." The bolt takes a considerable amount of time to put into the gun. 

[Lan]

Yep, and in a "perfect society" criminals would obey every law ever issued by a group of lying, thieving and extorting body of politicians known as "government." You call my post ignorant and that I'm evidently an idiot because I simply can't jive with that utopian talk of unicorns and coexisting with people bent on controlling literally every aspect of everything? Talk about delusion, little man.

 

You can go on living your life believing that an authoritarian body of crooks will magically correct all ills we've experienced as a species for thousands of years, that's fine. Likewise, you can continue believing that America will somehow become the new age Atlantis or whatever if police and government agents are the only groups allowed to possess "heavy firepower." I'm not trying to spoil your delusions of higher grandeur or anything, but my God dude at least call a spade a spade. We've all learned in history class what those "utopias" always morph into to (I.e, fascism, communism, military junta, etc)

 

You're free to live your life the way you choose and believe what you will, but some real-world experience just may help you yet. This country isn't perfect, not by a long shot obviously. Banning gun rights has literally only one end game: embolden criminals and government. Tell ya what man, when whoever (if in our lifetime, anyway) invents a time machine do yourself a favor and head back to the USSR. Lenin and Stalin were mega advocates of gun control and an insanely bloated military and police force. Make sure to send word ahead of paradise please? Hell, I just may move there too!

I actually wish I could have lived in the USSR (post Stalin) like my parents and grandparents. Not a perfect place, but not as bad as the west makes it sound and America isn't perfect either. Sure I'd disagree with a lot of their policies, but I don't support a whole lot of American policies either.

 

"I have to go get the bolt." The bolt takes a considerable amount of time to put into the gun.

 

I don't have a whole lot of gun knowledge but I have a few in my home and I know how to use them. No bolt action rifles, but I remember my girl showing me how to take apart a bolt action rifle one day (someone elses gun that she was fixing). As I remember, placing the bolt into the rifle took about 1/2 a second. You just made sure things were positioned right and it slides right in.

But that's the only time I've seen a bolt action taken apart and put back together. IDK what exact type of gun it was either, so this whole response might be a bit ignorant.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Lan

[WISD0MTREE]

I don't have a whole lot of gun knowledge but I have a few in my home and I know how to use them. No bolt action rifles, but I remember my girl showing me how to take apart a bolt action rifle one day (someone else gun that she was fixing). As I remember, placing the bolt into the rifle took about 1/2 a second. You just made sure things were position right and it slides right in.

But that's the only time I've seen a bolt action taken apart and put back together. IDK what exact type of gun it was either, so this whole response might be a bit ignorant.

It depends on the gun. Some guns are made with these types of laws in mind, so it is really easy. The one I have is really hard and usually takes me 30 seconds. 

[Alice Lune]

Banning guns out of safety concern is just a matter of logic.

 

The scenario:

Mike has a kitchen knife.

James has a Glock 17.

Alice has Uzi.

Henry has some kind of assault rifle.

 

During wars:

Mike will run away to the nearest refugee camp or enlist in the army.

James will save his friends and family with his gun as his safety

Alice will run away, probably stealing some supplies from people by aiming her Uzi at their heads.

Henry will act like Rambo and try to rally his assault rifle friends for a charge. But they will die from either artillery, sniper or grenades.

 

During periods of depression or insanity.

Mike will try to stab people, and will probably succeed killing ONE before those around him run away and the cops come to arrest him.

James will shoot someone, then when others try to run away, he will shoot them again, potentially causing the death of SEVERAL people.

Depressed Alice will just walk into a mall or college, take out her easily concealed Uzi and opened fire without a word, causing the death of SCORES of people, if she happens to start shooting in a crowded place.

Henry will likely not go to a public place but to a neighbourhood or apartment complex and start opening fire indiscriminately. Walls won't be much of a barrier. Depending on the level of insanity, A LOT of people can die in the first 10 minutes.

 

So conclusion, guns don't kill people, but giving guns to people allows them to kill people more effectively when they do go insane, which happens a lot nowadays.  Personally I like guns. My dream is to own one of those beautiful guns with silver chassis. But as to whether I think guns should be banned, I agree.

[Lan]

Banning guns out of safety concern is just a matter of logic.

 

The scenario:

Mike has a kitchen knife.

James has a Glock 17.

Alice has Uzi.

Henry has some kind of assault rifle.

 

During wars:

Mike will run away to the nearest refugee camp or enlist in the army.

James will save his friends and family with his gun as his safety

Alice will run away, probably stealing some supplies from people by aiming her Uzi at their heads.

Henry will act like Rambo and try to rally his assault rifle friends for a charge. But they will die from either artillery, sniper or grenades.

 

During periods of depression or insanity.

Mike will try to stab people, and will probably succeed killing ONE before those around him run away and the cops come to arrest him.

James will shoot someone, then when others try to run away, he will shoot them again, potentially causing the death of SEVERAL people.

Depressed Alice will just walk into a mall or college, take out her easily concealed Uzi and opened fire without a word, causing the death of SCORES of people, if she happens to start shooting in a crowded place.

Henry will likely not go to a public place but to a neighbourhood or apartment complex and start opening fire indiscriminately. Walls won't be much of a barrier. Depending on the level of insanity, A LOT of people can die in the first 10 minutes.

 

So conclusion, guns don't kill people, but giving guns to people allows them to kill people more effectively when they do go insane, which happens a lot nowadays.  Personally I like guns. My dream is to own one of those beautiful guns with silver chassis. But as to whether I think guns should be banned, I agree.

You say that like cops and governments are not made of people....

[WISD0MTREE]

Depressed Alice will just walk into a mall or college, take out her easily concealed Uzi and opened fire without a word, causing the death of SCORES of people, if she happens to start shooting in a crowded place.

Henry will likely not go to a public place but to a neighbourhood or apartment complex and start opening fire indiscriminately. Walls won't be much of a barrier. Depending on the level of insanity, A LOT of people can die in the first 10 minutes.

 

My dream is to own one of those beautiful guns with silver chassis. 

Concealed carry can stop them. At that drawing event, a fat cop killed 2 terrorists with a Glock. And you have to have a permit from the ATF to have full-auto firing guns higher than a certain caliber. 

 

Any idea what gun you want? 

[Odin]

Hm... the main problem is that the sheer possibility of someone carrying a gun leads to higher alertness and more aggressive behaviour of especially policemens.

To be sure to survive they tend to shoot faster then to talk. If gun ownership would be limited to hunters and government (police/army/security services), they would tend to be more relaxed in their dealing with the general citizen.

 

I don't know what you mean with defending against the government, is it because Police tends to act aggressively, that you wouldn't mind to shoot at government members?

Damn, they are your own folks with family etc.. Some talk here is so damn crazy. 

 

Of course it's the person who at the end is the killer, and the weapon is his tool. But having better tool makes better opportunities. If i would like to go on a killing spree i'd prefer an own minigun or ...tank instead of a kitchen knife. If i were to play strategy games i'd prefer pc over consoles. The difference is the reduced difficulty of your Intentions.

 

I think you're the best country in the world, why do you want to shoot your government employees then, who made your country into that what it is now?

[WISD0MTREE]

Hm... the main problem is that the sheer possibility of someone carrying a gun leads to higher alertness and more aggressive behaviour of especially policemens.

 

To be sure to survive they tend to shoot faster then to talk. If gun ownership would be limited to hunters and government (police/army/security services), they would tend to be more relaxed in their dealing with the general citizen.

 

I don't know what you mean with defending against the government, is it because Police tends to act aggressively, that you wouldn't mind to shoot at government members?

Damn, they are your own folks with family etc.. Some talk here is so damn crazy. 

 

Of course it's the person who at the end is the killer, and the weapon is his tool. But having better tool makes better opportunities. If i would like to go on a killing spree i'd prefer an own minigun or ...tank instead of a kitchen knife. If i were to play strategy games i'd prefer pc over consoles. The difference is the reduced difficulty of your Intentions.

 

I think you're the best country in the world, why do you want to shoot your government employees then, who made your country into that what it is now?

Which can be fixed by police training. This is mostly a problem in the big cities up north, however. There are very few police shootings down here because the police actually know about guns. I tried to have a gun-related conversation with an off-duty NYPD officer and he didn't know what a firing pin was. 

 

So collectors are bad? Really right now the only reasons you can put on any state or local permit are target practice, hunting, or collecting. Any other reason will guarantee a denied stamp. 

 

The police could be used as the dogs in Orwell's Animal Farm. The police is what people are usually paranoid of. See Alex Jones' insane rants around the Boston Bombing. "The police state is habbenin nao!"

 

Tanks and miniguns are banned. This isn't GTA. 

 

Because we fought a somewhat oppressive (compared to modern tyranny, it really wasn't) government to create our nation. Later, we fought against a government that killed it's own people (Nazi Germany). Then we fought the Soviet Union and Communist China. 

[Lan]

Hm... the main problem is that the sheer possibility of someone carrying a gun leads to higher alertness and more aggressive behaviour of especially policemens.

To be sure to survive they tend to shoot faster then to talk. If gun ownership would be limited to hunters and government (police/army/security services), they would tend to be more relaxed in their dealing with the general citizen.

 

I don't know what you mean with defending against the government, is it because Police tends to act aggressively, that you wouldn't mind to shoot at government members?

Damn, they are your own folks with family etc.. Some talk here is so damn crazy. 

 

Of course it's the person who at the end is the killer, and the weapon is his tool. But having better tool makes better opportunities. If i would like to go on a killing spree i'd prefer an own minigun or ...tank instead of a kitchen knife. If i were to play strategy games i'd prefer pc over consoles. The difference is the reduced difficulty of your Intentions.

 

I think you're the best country in the world, why do you want to shoot your government employees then, who made your country into that what it is now?

Americans don't want to shoot their politicians (most of them at least), but we don't want them sending soldiers after us either. The Berkeley Massacre happened because of Ronald Reagan and his decision to try to silence free speech. American authorities murdered and assaulted people in a conflict that would have never happened if Reagan would have allowed free speech and peaceful rallies.

As for cops, have you really not noticed how trigger happy our police are? Unarmed people being murdered by police is pretty common place here. It doesn't matter what title you have in society, you're always human. Assuming that a police officer is more responsible with a firearm just because he's a police officer is silly. Reagan was a governor and probably about as responsible as a five year old. 

There's also the Kent State massacre where US soldiers opened fire on college students, whom like at Berkeley, were protesting the Vietnam war.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Lan

[WISD0MTREE]

If guns cause crime, then I need a refund on mine. They seem to be defective. 

 

Americans don't want to shoot their politicians (most of them at least), but we don't want them sending soldiers after us either. The Berkeley Massacre happened because of Ronald Reagan and his decision to try to silence free speech. American authorities murdered and assaulted people in a conflict that would have never happened if Reagan would have allowed free speech and peaceful rallies.

As for cops, have you really not noticed how trigger happy our police are? Unarmed people being murdered by police is pretty common place here. It doesn't matter what title you have in society, you're always human. Assuming that a police officer is more responsible with a firearm just because he's a police officer is silly. Reagan was a governor and probably about as responsible as a five year old. 

You forgot about Ruby Ridge.

[Lan]

If guns cause crime, then I need a refund on mine. They seem to be defective. 

 

You forgot about Ruby Ridge.

Never knew about that one.

[Kyoko]

In the US banning firearms would almost certainly only be really enforced against Black and Brown communities, and maybe isolated leftist dissident groups, while white supremacist and other right wing paramilitary groups would not likely suffer much attempts by the hands of the white supremacist state to take away firearms. Any attempt to strengthen the state monopoly on violence should be totally opposed.

[Thalmor]

In the US banning firearms would almost certainly only be really enforced against Black and Brown communities, and maybe isolated leftist dissident groups, while white supremacist and other right wing paramilitary groups would not likely suffer much attempts by the hands of the white supremacist state to take away firearms. Any attempt to strengthen the state monopoly on violence should be totally opposed.

 

I would hope it would be enforced upon black and brown communities, because that's where most shootings occur.

 

Also, what ''white supremacist state'' are you talking about? The United States has a democratically elected black president and a black attorney general.

[Kyoko]

I would hope it would be enforced upon black and brown communities, because that's where most shootings occur.

 

Also, what ''white supremacist state'' are you talking about? The United States has a democratically elected black president and a black attorney general.

Ah yes a singular non-white president in a sea of nothing but white presidents. This still doesn't change the fact that non-white communities are targeted by state violence and exploitation, dehumanization, mass incarceration, smear campaigns and defacto second-class citizenship.

[Thalmor]

Ah yes a singular non-white president in a sea of nothing but white presidents. This still doesn't change the fact that non-white communities are targeted by state violence and exploitation, dehumanization, mass incarceration, smear campaigns and defacto second-class citizenship.

 

I personally believe plurality is the future. So I will entertain your thought process some.

 

Can you provide examples of what exactly your talking about?

 

I mean, a few of your points I can take apart. For example, we are all subjected to state violence and I suppose state exploitation. But I believe those are necessary (to an extent) to keep a society healthy- similar to how a parent would ground their child if they sneak out one night against their parent's permission.

 

Mass incarceration occurs because african-american commit a lot of crimes than white people do.

 

But as for dehumanization, smear campaigns, and de facto second-rate citizenship, I'm not seeing it. Nevertheless, I am open to the possibility that could be the case simply because, as I stated above, plurality is the future.

 

Make your case with me, Emily, I'm all ears.

 

I'm serious not trying to be condescending either, I'm actually serious.

 

EDIT: Going to bed right now, won't be back on for 12 hours.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Thalmor

[Kyoko]

I personally believe plurality is the future. So I will entertain your thought process some.

 

Can you provide examples of what exactly your talking about?

 

I mean, a few of your points I can take apart. For example, we are all subjected to state violence and I suppose state exploitation. But I believe those are necessary (to an extent) to keep a society healthy- similar to how a parent would ground their child if they sneak out one night against their parent's permission.

 

Mass incarceration occurs because african-american commit a lot of crimes than white people do.

 

But as for dehumanization, smear campaigns, and de facto second-rate citizenship, I'm not seeing it. Nevertheless, I am open to the possibility that could be the case simply because, as I stated above, plurality is the future.

 

Make your case with me, Emily, I'm all ears.

 

I'm serious not trying to be condescending either, I'm actually serious.

 

EDIT: Going to bed right now, won't be back on for 12 hours.

Firstly let it be known you are the one saying state sanctioned violence and exploitation are a good thing.

 

The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

 

Mass Incarceration occurs because the united states heavily relies on cheap prison labor, police vastly disproportionately target non-white communities to find bodies to fill the prison systems. (Which they have become extremely good at, The United States has the most slaves both in percentage to its population and in terms of sheer numbers)

 

The second class citizenship non-whites face manifests itself in many ways, from illegal and unethical human experimentation on non-consenting uninformed civilians, Bombing wealthy black communities, mass lynchings,  introducing dangerous health hazards to nonwhite communities. massive numbers of police summary executions since lynching fell out of style which I shouldn't even need to cite, Massive land theft a number of forced migrations cultural genocide and kidnappings that continues to this day.

 

Sometimes this manifests in more mundane ways though like the denial of cc permits to those that meet all the qualifications (except being white it seems) mysteriously being unable to buy a home in the newly created white suburbs, and sudden unexplained cutting of funding to predominately non-white urban areas.

 

I just realized its now 4am here and while I have tomorrow off I could be getting very non-sober instead of pointing out loads of blatantly obvious shit some white nationalist was already well aware of.

[The Governor]

Found this photo, thought it was amusing and relevant to this topic.

[Sailor Jerry]

@Emily....so what country are you from then? It must be so much better than the U.S. with no evil atrocities of it's own. I mean no other country in the world has ever had slavery or treated certain groups of people as second class citizens denying them rights that they might otherwise be quilified for if it weren't for the color of the skin or their religious believes. Also, all news articles on-line are 100% completely unbiased and accurate......how do I know this.....I read it on the internet...duh!

[Kyoko]

@Emily....so what country are you from then? It must be so much better than the U.S. with no evil atrocities of it's own. I mean no other country in the world has ever had slavery or treated certain groups of people as second class citizens denying them rights that they might otherwise be quilified for if it weren't for the color of the skin or their religious believes. Also, all news articles on-line are 100% completely unbiased and accurate......how do I know this.....I read it on the internet...duh!

Where on gods green earth did you get the impression that I was cool with other empires? I'm opposed to that shit everywhere. It just so happens right now the American empire is the most powerful one right now.

[Wayne]

Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

 

Ban the Bullet.

[Sailor Jerry]

Where on gods green earth did you get the impression that I was cool with other empires? I'm opposed to that !@#$ everywhere. It just so happens right now the American empire is the most powerful one right now.

So you're saying if America was no more, you'd be !@#$ing about whoever the top country would be at that time? So basically you're !@#$ing for the sake of !@#$ing. I bet you hate pitbulls too....until they are all gone, then you'll turn on Rotties. Pathetic really....not happy unless you can complain about something I guess.