Not mass shootings, just a rebellion. No targeting of innocents.

Then exemplify, you're defending violence to keep politicians at bay? Like a terrorist attack on the capitol for example?

I strongly disagree, especially depending on the situation. If you're in a crowd, than a knife can kill people much faster and easier than a pistol. If you are trying to kill armed people than it's difficult either way.

Now, I strongly disagree. Try pulling a knife in a crowd, you have no space to use properly your knife, there's no room and no margin of move for you. Having a knife is a bad weapon when you're surrounded. Having an uzi in a crowd is way better then a knife, a grenade is even better. I can go even further and say that a gas attack would kill more!

Specific examples to specific situations can't overtake a rule. The easier way to kill people is by using a gun, not a knife,...

Then exemplify, you're defending violence to keep politicians at bay? Like a terrorist attack on the capitol for example?

No, more like an armed march with loaded AK's right into the chamber. Tell them to get their shit together. If they shoot, shoot back. And surround the Pentagon, a few other bases, maybe bring some artillery/mortars...you get the picture.

Edited 4/19/2016 00:02:10

Ethnic violence was boiling over. The west needed to act fast.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/27/balkans17
The Taliban was an unethical country that needed to be removed.
According to Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), "no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment from showing their faces, seeking medical care without a male escort, or attending school."
Just because the CIA aided the mujahideen, the precursor to Al-Qaedia, does not mean the CIA is Al-Qaedia.
Conditions are improving for the Saami.
Assault rifles can be used for self-defense, sport and hunting. Very legitimate use.
Who uses an assault rifle for hunting? Seems like overkill. For self-defense, any other gun should do you enough justice. Sport seems like a legitamite use, so a loophole could be made for gun lodges to own them IF it were used for sport or education. Also, if people are commenting that the gun's use is for armed rebellion, then there is a pretty sensible reason for banning (revolution is not good for stability).
The minimum wage keeps unskilled folk from working, no one would pay them more than they're worth.
The minimum wage keeps the unskilled, those learning important skills or those with some skill from living homeless in most cases.
Public School is about creating a loyal citizenship , not education. Folk were educated more cheaply before public education and better than now.
What public school were you at? At our school, opinions flow freely and education is a big point. Also, with public education, parents don't have to spend time at home teaching their child and can spend much more time working. Also, if an idea worked in the past doesn't mean it will work in the future in the same way.

Even though the idea might seem pleasant, I wouldn't support such a thing against those fuc*ers. People would die in vain. Gvt wouldn't let you march to the capitol and a blood bath would occur, be certain of it.

Also, if people are commenting that the gun's use is for armed rebellion, then there is a pretty sensible reason for banning (revolution is not good for stability).

Stability is not good for freedom.

Letting people massaracre will lead to civil war.
Civil war is not good for living in general.

Also, just because you don't agree with someone's policy doesn't mean you go slaughter the leadership.

Would the world have been better if people had rebelled against Hitler, or Mao? Sometimes rebellion saves lives. however, that isn't the point. In the words of Patrick Henry: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

1) "Would the world have been better if people had rebelled against Hitler, or Mao? Sometimes rebellion saves lives." Sometimes rebellions cost lives and lead to more oppressive regimes than before. Just because some examples are true doesn't mean all are true.
2) "No, more like an armed march with loaded AK's right into the chamber. Tell them to get their shit together. If they shoot, shoot back. And surround the Pentagon, a few other bases, maybe bring some artillery/mortars...you get the picture." A horrible idea, since many far right and left groups would take the initiative to either help or hurt your movement, and after fighting begins, let the bloodbath commence. Don't think that this would help your liberties, as both fronts would trample on the freedom of the other groups in order to establish their ideology. Does this sound like freedom?

^People rebelled against both lol. They've got all merciless slaughtered and chased down.

No room to use a knife in a crowd? I don't know how to argue against that without sounding like a psychopath, congratulations, you used a good arguing strategy as opposed to a good argument.

Anyways, Guns are the right of the people. Now I don't care what the founding fathers said, even me being an American, I think Switzerland is the perfect example of how guns can both be a part of a countries culture, as well as reduce crime.

Switzerland had 14 gun-related homicides in 2014, giving it a gun-related homicide rate of 0.23 per 100,000.

Let's take for example your country, Brazil. It has very, very strict gun laws, a 30 second research says no having guns outside a house or something, yet it has gun homicide rates almost 5 times as high as the United States. Most of the gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides.

tl;dr what you hear on the media and what you hear from people on this forum (including me), are nowhere near the truth.

I don't think it does. People who have money and are really willing to buy guns always will. But the low tier thugs and normal citizens won't be able to.

Sure, they can. It's not either rich folk all the time or guns falling out of the air for every gun murder. They will find a market, thugs and normal denizens, too, or potentially make their own. And normal citizens if they fear for their life, live in a bad town, they can buy legally buy a gun in America, but in France, they just illegally buy it.

They can, but it is HARDER. Guns used on the Paris attacks were all from contraband. To acquire those, they needed funding from ISIS, contacts and places to hide their guns. It offers many chances for the intelligence agencies to find them, as well as it forces less organized terrorists to make attacks with knives for example.

In France alone, there are estimated to be 17,000,000 illegal guns out of the 19,000,000 total guns. If you see a civilian with a gun, you can assume that it is illegally gotten. That goes to a 26% ownership rate of illegal guns. And it's not that hard to get guns. You either can get them from another country and smuggle them in at an unchecked border, or get one from a friend who has one, and like with drugs, it challenges folk to disobey the law, and this happens more.

I doubt it... Freer gun laws reduce other genre murders and transfer it to guns. It's easier to kill with a gun then a knife for instance. In the US, the vast majority of murders is commited by guns. In the UK it's the opposit.

Ok, after reading a bit, I see I've gotten it wrong, the actual conclusion is that gun regulations have no definite corelation to murder rates. Still no grounds to ban guns.

So you want to support the bombing the country trying to stop separatists from leaving while destroying industry across that country and the seperatists' wanted land, while supporting the separatists who later ethically cleansed the area of Roma and Serb Kosovars while still committing atrocities against the remaining Serb and Roma folk there? The Taliban did not have complete control of Afghanistan, yet you feel no remorse subjecting the folk of all of Afghanistan to martial law and a government that's as bad as Saudi Arabia plus years of warfare and destruction of economic assets destroying the lives of folk there. Obama and Bush had no right as the leaders of the "free" world to go and kill thousands of people.

Ox, that's the most pathetic justification for government tyranny I've heard in a long time. "Well everyone was doing it!". Are you saying that Germanization efforts against the Poles and Ukraines and outright extermination of Jews and Russians were justified because other folk were doing it? The US, Latin American and European massacres and ethnic cleansings against American Aborigines were justified? Tsh and you only get mad about killings when I rightly state that Great Britain's (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with Ireland at some points) government was involved in dozens of mass killings and atrocities because you didn't like me not saying that the English did it (even though these atrocities were done under the , not English, but British government).

Also another thing: If you folk want to be the leaders of the "free world" then institute some more freedoms at home and lead by example not by war. If not, just admit you're imperialists and don't try stepping around that.

Define

some freedoms at home

(Basically, what do you want?)

wat are ur thoughts on the fact that this year is at its most peaceful compared 2 history

Actual freedom of speech and privacy (no KGB style monitoring and controlling of the media) , no attacks on voluntary exchanges between folk (a man working for 3 dollars a hour is, guess what, a win-win for both folk), no infringement on the right of folk to have weapons (except maybe nuclear weapons, I think I can give you that) , no government favoring of certain companies and corporations that create monopolies and raise prices, the significant reduction (or removal) of tariffs on foreign goods (you know why soda and sweet companies use corn syrup instead of sugar? Sugar tariffs) , no passports or at least accept world passports, making bitcoin legal currency, getting rid of the NSA , FBI and CIA, demilitarizing the police, let businesses reject who they don't like (folk hate businesses that do that, let the folk of America get it done) , and as a non-freedom related extra, stop being the average dictators' arms dealer.

Edited 4/19/2016 03:01:13

I like the last one in particular.

wats wrong with selling arms to dictators

Government needs to do three things, in my opinion: shield your

*health
*stuff
*life

And a few other things are ok, too (like building roads and bridges), but don't do too much.

Edited 4/19/2016 03:57:16

@Benjamin628

There's a lot of contraband of guns, but not only. Brazilian borders are very badly protected. Plus when government raised the gun restrictions a few years ago, they didn't really care to really remove those that were already in circulation.

Therefore the ban isn't really in place at all lol. Plus it isn't that hard to acquire legal guns, just like the US, hardly gun owners go through all checkings when selling a gun.


@Жұқтыру

Please correct your statistics, they're really weirdly put on when it comes to percentages. Plus I'm pretty sure you don't need to register your guns as a mandatory thing, so many unregistered guns aren't illegal. Just new guns are registered, many old world war and hunting guns aren't registered.

And I have to say something, I feel way safer in France then I did in the US where theres more guns then people in the country. That feeling is proved by statistics. Also, most gun related murders in France are in relation to mafia or other kind of special crime tiers. The normal citizen will hardly by killed by a gun, it's more likely he's killed by any other thing really.

Edited 4/19/2016 04:02:43