In an America with strict gun control....

[MagickMan]

I thought you owned the guns for safety...

No, one of the reasons you own a gun is for self-defense, self-defense doesn't automatically mean "safety".

 

[MagickMan]

Or option C: Fewer and fewer people are willing to admit even to a survey that they have a gun. You never know what list that puts you on.

I tell all the surveys that I don't own firearms, but I support their ownership. It's none of their business.

 

[Chiropteran]

Anyone who thinks that any American state has strict gun control laws should try going ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD.

Yeah, like Mexico. Where violent crime is about 5X as common in the USA.

Gun control is working wonders there.

 

[jackstar7]

No, one of the reasons you own a gun is for self-defense, self-defense doesn't automatically mean "safety".

No shit? You serious?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Yeah, like Mexico. Where violent crime is about 5X as common in the USA.

Gun control is working wonders there.

Literally the only difference between the USA and Mexico is our gun policy. That's it. Unlike, say, Britain. Sure, they have no guns, and they've got a startling low number of gun-related assaults, but those things are completely unrelated; they also have a monarchy. Everyone knows it's fear of royal reprisal that keeps the would-be murderers from coming out of the woodwork and terrorizing England's mountains green.

Shit, maybe what America needs is a Queen?

 

[Blackjack200]

Having gay sex is strongly positively correlated with getting HIV/AIDS, do you plan to use your same "logic" to support homosexual control?

Wrong.

Leaving aside the fact that rights aren't guaranteed safe to exercise (ask in the Middle East about freedom of speech or religion) and sometimes may alarm others who witness them being exercised, are you really suggesting that we should cede rights for safety and/or peace of mind?

So all these gun owners are going to protect us from tyranny?

You've got the federal government spying on Americans, seizing their private property without due process, and incarcerating them in unprecedented numbers. Gun owners are doing a pretty shitty job of protecting our rights. Ed Snowden did more than every gun owner in this country combined and he didn't need a damn bullet.

Yeah, like Mexico. Where violent crime is about 5X as common in the USA.

Gun control is working wonders there.

Definitely what Mexico needs is more guns.

 

[MagickMan]

No shit? You serious?

You aren't. G'bye.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Wrong.



So all these gun owners are going to protect us from tyranny?

You've got the federal government spying on Americans, seizing their private property without due process, and incarcerating them in unprecedented numbers. Gun owners are doing a pretty shitty job of protecting our rights. Ed Snowden did more than every gun owner in this country combined and he didn't need a damn bullet.



Definitely what Mexico needs is more guns.

Good point

 

[fskimospy]

So all these gun owners are going to protect us from tyranny?

You've got the federal government spying on Americans, seizing their private property without due process, and incarcerating them in unprecedented numbers. Gun owners are doing a pretty shitty job of protecting our rights. Ed Snowden did more than every gun owner in this country combined and he didn't need a damn bullet.

Think of all the real examples of tyranny by the US that have come in the modern era.

Japanese internment camps
Jim Crow
War on Drugs,
Government predation on the people of Ferguson,
Mass surveillence (arguable),
etc.
(feel free to add your own!)

In every single one of these cases the portion of the population most likely to be armed have generally been enthusiastic supporters of tyranny, not against it. You think gun toting people in the Jim Crow South were against the tyranny of institutionalized segregation? You think gun owning Americans were battling against the Japanese internment camps? You think gun owning Americans have been against the mass incarceration of the War on Drugs? Please.

No, when do those people come out to battle the government for freedom? When the courts tell a rancher he can't freeload off government land anymore. A real shocker, there. Where were those people in Ferguson, where real government tyranny was underway? On the side of the government.

 

[jackstar7]

You aren't. G'bye.

You gotta silence the opposition.

Enjoy!

 

[MagickMan]

You gotta silence the opposition.

Enjoy!

You report me, then accuse me of silencing you? Hypocrite. :\

 

[jackstar7]

You report me, then accuse me of silencing you? Hypocrite. :\

Report you?! HA!

Best get some facts to back that up, kiddo.

 

[FrankRamiro]

It is possible. Not at all easy, but entirely possible.

You must be kidding? then how the parties and Politic vultures go get their funds for their politic campaigns,keep dreaming.

 

[Chiropteran]

Literally the only difference between the USA and Mexico is our gun policy.

Tell that to the control advocates who think that the US gun policy is the cause of all of our problems.

Different countries are different. You can't blame gun violence on gun rights alone- Mexico should serve as a case study proving that banning guns isn't an immediate solution.

 

[Chiropteran]

In every single one of these cases the portion of the population most likely to be armed have generally been enthusiastic supporters of tyranny, not against it.

So what? Free speech didn't prevent those cases of tyranny either, are you also arguing that free speech should also be abolished?

 

[realibrad]

I have read nothing in this thread and will not. But, this picture belongs here for sure.

 

[momeNt]

Think of all the real examples of tyranny by the US that have come in the modern era.

Japanese internment camps
Jim Crow
War on Drugs,
Government predation on the people of Ferguson,
Mass surveillence (arguable),
etc.
(feel free to add your own!)

In every single one of these cases the portion of the population most likely to be armed have generally been enthusiastic supporters of tyranny, not against it. You think gun toting people in the Jim Crow South were against the tyranny of institutionalized segregation? You think gun owning Americans were battling against the Japanese internment camps? You think gun owning Americans have been against the mass incarceration of the War on Drugs? Please.

No, when do those people come out to battle the government for freedom? When the courts tell a rancher he can't freeload off government land anymore. A real shocker, there. Where were those people in Ferguson, where real government tyranny was underway? On the side of the government.

An excellent point (I mean it) but what does that really have to do with disarming civilians? I understand that it makes one of the main arguments moot, but that's a highly romanticized vision anyways.

There are no more American revolutionaries. Being born in a stable democracy seems to make a population very docile.

To test your point, would you find the argument you were refuting to be valid if southern white gunowners actually traveled to Ferguson and began using their guns against the police?

 

[blankslate]

So the latest two arguments are that others should give up rights to be safer from suicide and death by cop.

Actually no see my post number 201

....the U.S. would have about as many firearms related deaths as Switzerland or Australia per capita. However, we also probably all recognize that won't happen so the point is rather moot.

My point or argument if you wish is that firearms may make you safer or they may not at all. Depends on the situation. That is actually factual because you can point to cases where yes having a firearm saved the person with it from potential harm and you can find cases where having a firearm didn't prevent a person from being injured or killed.

That contradicts people who say when enough people have firearms the problem will be solved.


Like I said the gun control that 2A worshipers fear will not happen why? Well this quote I came across explains it best

“The sad fact is, Sandy Hook marked the end of the gun debate in America. Once we decided that the slaughter of children was an acceptable price to pay to maintain our radical misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it was over. See you next slaughter.” Dana Gould

Don't worry the big bad Gov't isn't coming to take your firearms away... but just don't do anything that makes them think you might have drugs.



.....

 

[blankslate]

So what? Free speech didn't prevent those cases of tyranny either, are you also arguing that free speech should also be abolished?

Aside from someone yelling fire in inappropriate places or something similar it's hard to find examples of sound waves coming from someone's mouth hitting another persons ears is as lethal as firearms but please enlighten us and expand on your dumb idiot analogy.


....

 

[MagickMan]

“The sad fact is, Sandy Hook marked the end of the gun debate in America. Once we decided that the slaughter of children was an acceptable price to pay to maintain our radical misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it was over. See you next slaughter.” Dana Gould

Ahh yes, the emotional blackmail. Again, if gun-related homicides were spiraling up out of control, there might be a point to that, but they aren't. In fact the rate is at an all-time low, despite there being 2x more guns sold in America each year than there were just 10 years ago. Bad things happen, that's life, are they happening more often? Not with relation to firearms.

 

[blankslate]

Ahh yes, the emotional blackmail. Again, if gun-related homicides were spiraling up out of control, there might be a point to that, but they aren't. In fact the rate is at an all-time low, despite there being 2x more guns sold in America each year than there were just 10 years ago. Bad things happen, that's life, are they happening more often? Not with relation to firearms.

Call it whatever the hell you want but the quote clearly illustrates a change in attitudes about firearms before in the 90s it was possible to ban automatic and semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. (it's debatable of course on how effective that was in curtailing crime but it was possible) And we didn't afaik have any mass shooting involving children.

Now it's pretty much not possible. Even after preteen children were killed at Sandy Hook. We know this because we are repeatedly having shootings there is no outrage or people in the media dismiss anyone who is outraged a lot of the time.

The quote is accurate even if you don't like it. The gun debate, other than outrage by individuals or politicians talking about it, is essentially over. There is no danger of a "gun ban" or any legislation. Don't worry. Be happy.


So go ahead and try to trivialize that quote by calling it "emotional blackmail" or by labeling me some SJW who fears firearms.

I have a couple and I do enjoy "plinking" every so often. I however don't let myself get complacent about them by storing them in a potentially unsafe manner or by being careless in handling them.



.....

 

[BoberFett]

Aside from someone yelling fire in inappropriate places or something similar it's hard to find examples of sound waves coming from someone's mouth hitting another persons ears is as lethal as firearms but please enlighten us and expand on your dumb idiot analogy.


....

I could be mistaken, but Hitler himself never actually killed anybody. Those words though...

 

[Fenixgoon]

Call it whatever the hell you want but the quote clearly illustrates a change in attitudes about firearms before in the 90s it was possible to ban automatic and semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. (it's debatable of course on how effective that was in curtailing crime but it was possible) And we didn't afaik have any mass shooting involving children.

Now it's pretty much not possible. Even after preteen children were killed at Sandy Hook. We know this because we are repeatedly having shootings there is no outrage or people in the media dismiss anyone who is outraged a lot of the time.

The quote is accurate even if you don't like it. The gun debate, other than outrage by individuals or politicians talking about it, is essentially over. There is no danger of a "gun ban" or any legislation. Don't worry. Be happy.


So go ahead and try to trivialize that quote by calling it "emotional blackmail" or by labeling me some SJW who fears firearms.

I have a couple and I do enjoy "plinking" every so often. I however don't let myself get complacent about them by storing them in a potentially unsafe manner or by being careless in handling them.



.....

an FBI study showed that the 1994 AWB had little to no effect on violent crime.

in the last 20 years, 10 of which the 1994 AWB was present, and 10 where it has not been present, violent crime has decreased.

media coverage of events as increased, leading to a perceived dramatic increase in violent crime rates when, ironically, we've never been safer.

 

[MagickMan]

Call it whatever the hell you want but the quote clearly illustrates a change in attitudes about firearms before in the 90s it was possible to ban automatic and semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. (it's debatable of course on how effective that was in curtailing crime but it was possible) And we didn't afaik have any mass shooting involving children.

Now it's pretty much not possible. Even after preteen children were killed at Sandy Hook. We know this because we are repeatedly having shootings there is no outrage or people in the media dismiss anyone who is outraged a lot of the time.

The quote is accurate even if you don't like it. The gun debate, other than outrage by individuals or politicians talking about it, is essentially over. There is no danger of a "gun ban" or any legislation. Don't worry. Be happy.


So go ahead and try to trivialize that quote by calling it "emotional blackmail" or by labeling me some SJW who fears firearms.

I have a couple and I do enjoy "plinking" every so often. I however don't let myself get complacent about them by storing them in a potentially unsafe manner or by being careless in handling them.



.....

I will trivialize it, because what you're saying isn't reasonable, it's emotionally driven and irrational. I'd rather stick with data and facts. Again, the homicide rate is at an all-time low, despite there being 2x more guns sold in America each year than there were just 10 years ago.

Removing firearms, or the right to purchase them, from lawful citizens isn't going to drop the rate, there's no proof that decreasing the size of magazines dropped the rate, the only thing we do know is that rates are much higher in places that have the strictest gun laws, and those places also have the highest crime rates overall. The states that have the steepest drops in crime, especially violent crime, are the states that have introduced or extended CWP (Concealed Weapon Permit) programs.

Essentially, want your state or city to be a shithole? Take the guns away from law-abiding people, leaving crooks and cops as the only ones armed.

 

[soundforbjt]

I will trivialize it, because what you're saying isn't reasonable, it's emotionally driven and irrational. I'd rather stick with data and facts. Again, the homicide rate is at an all-time low, despite there being 2x more guns sold in America each year than there were just 10 years ago.

Removing firearms, or the right to purchase them, from lawful citizens isn't going to drop the rate, there's no proof that decreasing the size of magazines dropped the rate, the only thing we do know is that rates are much higher in places that have the strictest gun laws, and those places also have the highest crime rates overall. The states that have the steepest drops in crime, especially violent crime, are the states that have introduced or extended CWP (Concealed Weapon Permit) programs.

Essentially, want your state or city to be a shithole? Take the guns away from law-abiding people, leaving crooks and cops as the only ones armed.

Isn't Texas pretty much a haven for gun owners? Yet Houston's violent crime rate is up 50%. Explain how that happened.