Obligatory gun control thread

[Kemal Ergenekon]

262 million "law abiding," people allowed themselves to be disarmed by their own governments in the 20th century. End result? I think you can guess. The simple truth is criminals will always find a way to commit their crime(s) of choice. You and the rest of your liberal ilk can call for full-blown gun control all you want. It isn't happening, get used to it. You'd also do well to remember only roughly 3% of American colonists (with French aid, of course) successfully drove the British back to their island (where they rightfully belong) in the 18th century. Assuming even 1% of the population showed similar resolve today, I don't care what technological innovations government agents bring to the battlefield this time around, overrun "tactics" still apply equally as well in the modern landscape. 

 

My point being, you can't reason with people who are hellbent on stripping their fellow men and women of their natural rights. Yourself included, apparently. At least the "pro-gun" crowd (of which I'm proudly a part of, obviously) are honest about being so stubborn. Send as many people as you want to disarm us, myself and millions of others would happily fight until our final breath to defend such a sacred-as well as inherent-right. 

 

Dio, what a load of bull.

[Abu Haddad]

Guns must be placed only in responsible hands.

[Tali]

Send as many people as you want to disarm us, myself and millions of others would happily fight until our final breath to defend such a sacred-as well as inherent-right.

[Tali]

Dio, what a load of bull.

I wish he would show a quote from the bible saying he has a sacred right to own a firearm.

[The Governor]

I don't really know, it's a difficult topic because some rural areas legitimately need guns to defend livestock. Some areas need hunters to control certain animal populations. And there might be an increase in crime if you implemented strong enough legislation that criminals felt they were safer breaking into houses... I don't know about that one but it's worth considering. It's a complicated issue that needs to be discussed by people with better perspective than me. I just despise the people who try to prevent that discussion, claim there isn't a problem, or say that more guns are the answer.

 

Guns should be addressed because something can be done about them and large majority of the country favors increased gun control in some form or another. We absolutely accept too much danger from, for instance, driving and auto-related stuff, but everyone needs transportation so until automatic cars are ready that's way harder to address. The fact that there are other problems isn't a reason to give guns a pass though.

 

It's also worth noting the political agenda from the other side. Guns do scare people... which is a valid problem. We're one large scale scary attack away from a Trump (or Cruz or whatever) presidency. A scared population is a dangerous thing, they can be manipulated and they want to do irrational things.

[WISD0MTREE]

WISD0MTREE, those graphs that you posted above were created by statisticians as tools to help people understand statistics.

No. My cousin sent me them. They are from 4chan. 

 

I wish he would show a quote from the bible saying he has a sacred right to own a firearm.

What is Luke 22:36? 

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Luke 22:51......context is everything. The reason for the verse you give us in verse 37. The disciples are told to take arms to fulfil a prophecy. Also Matthew's record of events demolishes your argument....

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rob Ap Ioan

[Kemal Ergenekon]

FYI, Luke 22:36 is talking about swords, not firearms.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

No. My cousin sent me them. They are from 4chan. 

 

What is Luke 22:36? 

Do you seriously have to include religion to defend your point?

 

That's kinda desperate if you ask me.

[Solomon]

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

 

We should probably ban black people.

If you want to consider banning a group of people, you should study the gender-based differences in that data.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Solomon

[Diocletian]

I wish he would show a quote from the bible saying he has a sacred right to own a firearm.

 

Who said anything about the Bible? Even if you lack knowledge about renaissance military history, which is clearly the case, even a red herring such as this falls flat on its face. You'd realize by doing just a tiny bit of research on the subject that Christian armies have been employing the use of firearms since the 15th century. It may not have been 'ordained' by Jesus himself, but firearm ownership and usage has been a mainstay practice in all major 'religious conflicts' as well as during periods of peace since a few hundred years after the discovery of gunpowder. So yes, whether whatever particular diety you may or may not believe in "willed it" - it was quite obviously a right that only a select few practitioners enjoyed in the early days (be it due to cost or government prohibition). 

 

Regardless of whether or not a religion's holy book explicitly endorses or prohibits the masses from owning a firearm is irrelevant; natural law prevails above all else. The Second Amendment, and indeed the Bill of Rights in its entirety, is considered natural law. Indeed the supreme law of this land (written by man and not by alleged gods) grant every American citizen, amongst other rights, the right to keep and bear firearms. Trolls such as yourself and "liberals" alike love worshipping so-called "legal rights," which are dictated by the state and typically revoke rights, not grant new or even additional liberties to existing statutes. I should not have to explain how and why that belief is to the detriment of mankind. Every responsible adult has every right to protect him or herself from harm by whatever means necessary. The earliest humans used crude bows, spears, slings, swords and fisticuffs. Defense happens to be hallmarked by firearms in the modern age. The tools of defense change throughout history; the right and necessity to secure oneself and their family does not. 

[Spite]

Automatic weapons have always been banned..

 

Right, black males.

It was an example, and the least important part of my post.

 

 

House: traditionally when a group is threatened by an external group, the tribe come together to fight. As time went on this evolved into the concept of a defence force, and ultimately a professional standing army. Owning a gun does not make you a member of an army anymore than owning a car makes you a F1 driver.

 

I always wondered if the people who believed they own guns to protect themselves from invading forces were smart enough to use the Internet, I guess my question is answered.

[Diocletian]

It was an example, and the least important part of my post.

 

 

House: traditionally when a group is threatened by an external group, the tribe come together to fight. As time went on this evolved into the concept of a defence force, and ultimately a professional standing army. Owning a gun does not make you a member of an army anymore than owning a car makes you a F1 driver.

 

I always wondered if the people who believed they own guns to protect themselves from invading forces were smart enough to use the Internet, I guess my question is answered.

 

Have you ever heard of a militia? Oh, right, you're British.  Also, kudos on reverting straight to trolling vs addressing anything with any substance. I also particularly enjoyed you ignoring the argument of natural vs legal rights. 

[Spite]

Yes I've heard of militias, the last time they were effective at actually stopping an invading army was in the days when you loaded a gun down the barrel and the biggest killer in war was diarrhea. Full on armies like that of Iraq with modern equipment got rolled by the US army in weeks, your militia would last about ten seconds. In any case, you're assuming any of your fellow citizens would be on your side, which I strongly doubt.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35095998?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

 

Imagine if this guy had been able to walk into a shop and buy a gun.

[Diocletian]

Yes I've heard of militias, the last time they were effective at actually stopping an invading army was in the days when you loaded a gun down the barrel and the biggest killer in war was diarrhea. Full on armies like that of Iraq with modern equipment got rolled by the US army in weeks, your militia would last about ten seconds. In any case, you're assuming any of your fellow citizens would be on your side, which I strongly doubt.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35095998?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

 

Imagine if this guy had been able to walk into a shop and buy a gun.

 

Assumptions are a !@#$, aren't they? You seem to be doing more then your fair share as well! Even assuming you're correct that none of my fellow citizens would be on "my side," it only takes one person to spread an ideological revolution. I can confidently assure you that my humble views are far from an isolated event. Are most of these so-called "three percenters" talking the talk, but refusing to walk? Absolutely. You still fail to realize, much less accept the fact, that history has been vastly altered by small and determined groups on countless occasions. Your very own [former] British Empire is perhaps the crown jewel in terms of historical examples of the fact. Does your so-called Queen enjoy such a vast dominion nowadays? No? Awww

 

Nevermind your red herring about some guy inspired by ISIS, knife attack, blah blah blah. He could of acquired a firearm just as quickly in Britain as in America assuming A.) that was his intention and B.) the fact that firearms are banned for even the majority of the police force, let alone civilian populace. Why go "the extra mile" and wait all that added time when he could still "kill for Allah" at that moment without fear of being countered by an equally deadly force?

 

Speaking of which, how well is your guy's ban on knives working? 

[Solomon]

 

Speaking of which, how well is your guy's ban on knives working? 

You lost me there. Which guy are you talking about?

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Have you ever heard of a militia? Oh, right, you're British.  Also, kudos on reverting straight to trolling vs addressing anything with any substance. I also particularly enjoyed you ignoring the argument of natural vs legal rights. 

 

You do realise that technically Britain still has a militia, it has just been controlled by the Army for several hundred years, it's called the Territorial Army. The oldest regiment in the British Army is actually a Militia unit, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers if your interested - the only regiment to have two Royals in it's title. The next question is why were Militias brought under Army control......the reason is pretty simple - Militias aren't very effective when compared with a real Army, the discipline is lacking and the men become a liability to their own side. There is one militia that is not under Army control and that is the Duke of Atholl Highlanders, look at pictures of them and my point is made. When your country was founded things were very different to how they are now, that is why it has been necessary to amend your constitution. Times and attitudes change, it might be a good time for America to change it's attitude on Guns. The whole developed world looks on in flabbergasted speechlessness at the collective stupidity of Merica.....

 

Assumptions are a !@#$, aren't they? You seem to be doing more then your fair share as well! Even assuming you're correct that none of my fellow citizens would be on "my side," it only takes one person to spread an ideological revolution. I can confidently assure you that my humble views are far from an isolated event. Are most of these so-called "three percenters" talking the talk, but refusing to walk? Absolutely. You still fail to realize, much less accept the fact, that history has been vastly altered by small and determined groups on countless occasions. Your very own [former] British Empire is perhaps the crown jewel in terms of historical examples of the fact. Does your so-called Queen enjoy such a vast dominion nowadays? No? Awww

 

Nevermind your red herring about some guy inspired by ISIS, knife attack, blah blah blah. He could of acquired a firearm just as quickly in Britain as in America assuming A.) that was his intention and B.) the fact that firearms are banned for even the majority of the police force, let alone civilian populace. Why go "the extra mile" and wait all that added time when he could still "kill for Allah" at that moment without fear of being countered by an equally deadly force?

The Queen is still the head of the Commonwealth, she might not have much power but she does still hold massive respect. She also holds the allegiance of the British Army, if she wanted to cause a constitutional crisis she could call the Army to her will. So we lost control of the Empire, big deal, we still have a pretty loud voice on the world stage. Oh and by the way the Monarchy has not held much power since the Civil War period - back around the days of the Pilgrim Fathers for the Americans. The British Empire is no big loss and caused us more problems in the long run than we gained, apart from the cup of Tea - the one good thing of Empire.

 

I'm guessing you don't know about the raids on the black market gun shops and how effective anti-smuggling operations have been in recent years in the UK. If you have been to London you will have seen Red police cars driving about, they belong to the DPG and contain firearms officers, we do have cops with guns and I have heard them practicing when I was in college. They are well trained and have a formidable set of resources available to them - similar weaponry to SWAT and such. The truth of the matter is that we don't need the majority of the cops to carry firearms and there has been outrage at the prospect of Police routinely carrying firearms in the UK. We don't live in a warzone, I believe the PSNI routinely carry pistols in Ulster, but I haven't been there in person.

 

Speaking of which, how well is your guy's ban on knives working? 

What ban? When I am working I always have a knife at hand, along with a billhook and other nice hand tools that can do a lot of damage. We do have a ban on lockable blades, but that is a different matter.

[Spite]

Assumptions are a !@#$, aren't they? You seem to be doing more then your fair share as well! Even assuming you're correct that none of my fellow citizens would be on "my side," it only takes one person to spread an ideological revolution. I can confidently assure you that my humble views are far from an isolated event. Are most of these so-called "three percenters" talking the talk, but refusing to walk? Absolutely. You still fail to realize, much less accept the fact, that history has been vastly altered by small and determined groups on countless occasions. Your very own [former] British Empire is perhaps the crown jewel in terms of historical examples of the fact. Does your so-called Queen enjoy such a vast dominion nowadays? No? Awww

 

Nevermind your red herring about some guy inspired by ISIS, knife attack, blah blah blah. He could of acquired a firearm just as quickly in Britain as in America assuming A.) that was his intention and B.) the fact that firearms are banned for even the majority of the police force, let alone civilian populace. Why go "the extra mile" and wait all that added time when he could still "kill for Allah" at that moment without fear of being countered by an equally deadly force?

 

Speaking of which, how well is your guy's ban on knives working? 

 

It is actually really hard to get hold of firearms in the UK. Really really hard. If he had a pistol he could easily have killed a bunch of people. If he had some sort of rapid fire weapon with a big magazine, even more. As it is he had to go to a department store and buy a kitchen knife. Even if he hadn't been caught by police (and arrested to stand trial - yay for not shooting people on sight) then he would be very limited in the damage he could do.

 

I don't think many Americans buy guns to take part in a "militia". I doubt many people would identify with your views in that regard. As I said, comparing events of 250 years ago to the present is foolish in the extreme. There were a million factors present in the American revolution which would not be present in any rebellion against the current US government.

- Popular widespread desire for independence from Britain

- Extremely long and overstretched supply lines for the oppressing force

- Supply of the rebels by another world power equal or arguably greater in strength than Britain at the time

- A very small "oppressing" army (around eight thousand, spread over a huge area)

- Relative equality of equipment (flintlock) - actually American weapons were better for the most part

- Political support for the Americans in mainland Britain- conveniently forgotten is that many "Americans" were British born. Britain itself had a whole party which was sympathetic to the rebellion.

 

Compare that to the situation now:

- Deeply divided states make the idea of an entire-US rebellion unthinkable

- American army the best supplied army in the world and fighting on "home" soil

- Air superiority allows instant resupply almost anywhere

- No outside support for rebellion- American rivals lack the capacity to support a rebellion like the French did

- A very large US based army - 2m including reservists

- Huge disparity in equipment- the army is a lot better armed than even the most crazy gun nut

- No political support for secession/rebellion

 

Now let's look at the other option- another country invades the USA and somehow defeats the US military. If they manage that, the usefulness of a militia is almost non-existent. Would you really shoot a soldier if it meant that your entire family would be taken and tortured to death? I doubt it.

 

 

I can't believe I'm arguing about how stupid militias are seriously in 2015...

Edited December 14, 2015 by Spite

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Norn Iron is our version of how we view the USA. Mad and backwards, with a history and culture of violence that needs sorting out.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Rob Ap Ioan

[Kemal Ergenekon]

If you want to defend your country, go join the US Army. Militias, lol.

[Wayne]

Northern Ireland doesn't count though, does it? I could rent a handgun for 15 quid within a day if I wanted to. And they practically gave directions on how to build a bomb when they taught us about the Trouble.

 

You can quite easiy get a handgun in England if you are dedicated enough and wish to run the risk.  Most people ain't daft enough or desperate enough though, thankfully.  Ain't quite as easy as popping to WalMart or opening a bank account in order to get ya hands on one.  As for bomb making... A mates older brothers copy of The Jolly Roger Cookbook on floppy disc taught me all I need to know about blowing shit up!  Those that want to, will often find a way regardless.  Doesn't mean that you should make it easier for em.

[Robert Ap Ioan]

You can quite easiy get a handgun in England if you are dedicated enough and wish to run the risk.  Most people ain't daft enough or desperate enough though, thankfully.  Ain't quite as easy as popping to

WalMart or opening a bank account in order to get ya hands on one. 

 

Nicely put! Most people don't want to either have their door replaced after a heavy handed knock on the door at dawn, or have to chat to St, Peter  on the gates as it were. I know people who own air pistols for competition shooting, but they are always kept under lock and key, unless being used on a range. The british system always seems common sense to me.

 

 As for bomb making... A mates older brothers copy of The Jolly Roger Cookbook on floppy disc taught me all I need to know about blowing shit up!  Those that want to, will often find a way regardless.  Doesn't mean that you should make it easier for em.

 

My father is a former chemist, I had a good chemistry teacher in school. Explosions is easy! Most of us don't see the need to hurt people when we make things go boom and go to places where people won't get hurt. Personally I prefer burning bamboo, as part of my job!

 

[Moon Man]

to whoever said that a civil war would be impossible, here is an example. I am also majoring in cyber security, and I have an analytics class taught by a retired USMC colonial. We had some talks about this very subject in one of our red team clubs. well less than 1% of the guns are used to commit criminal homicides, and I can tell you that having a gun deters robbers. You dont even necessarily have to kill them, often times the sight alone or the pump of a shotgun will have them gtfo. Even when they are shot, they can often survive if they receive medical attention and the shot does not hit a vital organ. Especially with less than lethal rounds becoming more available (like rubber ball shotgun rounds and whatnot). Also funny thing is of the thousands of automatic weapons legally available to civilians (pre 86'), there were only two cases where they were used for criminal purposes.

[Tali]

 

Who said anything about the Bible? Even if you lack knowledge about renaissance military history, which is clearly the case, even a red herring such as this falls flat on its face. You'd realize by doing just a tiny bit of research on the subject that Christian armies have been employing the use of firearms since the 15th century. It may not have been 'ordained' by Jesus himself, but firearm ownership and usage has been a mainstay practice in all major 'religious conflicts' as well as during periods of peace since a few hundred years after the discovery of gunpowder. So yes, whether whatever particular diety you may or may not believe in "willed it" - it was quite obviously a right that only a select few practitioners enjoyed in the early days (be it due to cost or government prohibition).

 

Regardless of whether or not a religion's holy book explicitly endorses or prohibits the masses from owning a firearm is irrelevant; natural law prevails above all else. The Second Amendment, and indeed the Bill of Rights in its entirety, is considered natural law. Indeed the supreme law of this land (written by man and not by alleged gods) grant every American citizen, amongst other rights, the right to keep and bear firearms. Trolls such as yourself and "liberals" alike love worshipping so-called "legal rights," which are dictated by the state and typically revoke rights, not grant new or even additional liberties to existing statutes. I should not have to explain how and why that belief is to the detriment of mankind. Every responsible adult has every right to protect him or herself from harm by whatever means necessary. The earliest humans used crude bows, spears, slings, swords and fisticuffs. Defense happens to be hallmarked by firearms in the modern age. The tools of defense change throughout history; the right and necessity to secure oneself and their family does not.

LOL. Christianity wasnt founded during that time, dipshit.

 

Nobody gave you the sacred right to own a deadly weapon, which primary function is to kill.

 

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Yes, that does indeed mean regulated. Background checks on a federal level should be required, not left to the states decision. Im not asking for people to ban guns, I'm asking for a !@#$ federal background requirement to determine if someone is even capable mentally to be able to buy a gun.

 

Also don't throw the "Only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." bullshit line. A panicked regular civilian is more dangerous than the armed assailant(s).

Edited December 15, 2015 by Olivier Mira

[Tali]

Assumptions are a !@#$, aren't they? You seem to be doing more then your fair share as well! Even assuming you're correct that none of my fellow citizens would be on "my side," it only takes one person to spread an ideological revolution. I can confidently assure you that my humble views are far from an isolated event. Are most of these so-called "three percenters" talking the talk, but refusing to walk? Absolutely. You still fail to realize, much less accept the fact, that history has been vastly altered by small and determined groups on countless occasions. Your very own [former] British Empire is perhaps the crown jewel in terms of historical examples of the fact. Does your so-called Queen enjoy such a vast dominion nowadays? No? Awww

 

Nevermind your red herring about some guy inspired by ISIS, knife attack, blah blah blah. He could of acquired a firearm just as quickly in Britain as in America assuming A.) that was his intention and B.) the fact that firearms are banned for even the majority of the police force, let alone civilian populace. Why go "the extra mile" and wait all that added time when he could still "kill for Allah" at that moment without fear of being countered by an equally deadly force?

 

Speaking of which, how well is your guy's ban on knives working?