Another gun control debate? You 'Muricans are really making a huge deal out of this.

I know all countries are different but you should start looking at how European and other developed countries handle their "gun issues", most civilians don't have any firearms nor have the license to bear one for it.

"But all the criminals have handguns and stuff?" Well, don't let them have one then. If you see thugs hanging around the street with those death bringers then it's a problem with Police not doing it's job properly, changing gun control will do very little for criminals when they are determined to get a gun, legal or otherwise.

"But what about muh security? What if the government tries to kill us?" I hate to break the news to you, but such event is very unlikely to happen and even if it did, you can easily make home-made molotov cocktails, shooting nail guns and even assemble a goddarn flamethrower if you have some basic knowledge of chemistry and physics, you don't necessarily have to buy a firearm to have a killing machine at your disposal. In the very least of such shitty events you could take example from Turkey and hijack an army tank, lol.

Edited 7/28/2016 23:22:19

^ American Army wouldn't shoot at civilians. Can you imagine a Texan soldier shooting people at his hometown?

I can imagine a Texan shooting everything at anywhere actually, but I'm just stereotypical :P

if the army revolted remember its the US fucking army

Edited 7/28/2016 23:53:53

stewie there purging every body now politicions still want to live there

Yes but countries with less guns have less murders, aside from that conservatives also make stupid arguments like guns dont kill people, people kill people. also guns do more harm then good

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_firearms_and_ammunition_referendum,_2005

^ After the results were in, gun control was increased anyway in here.

And this is what happened:

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/28/472157969/brazil-has-nearly-60-000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-laws

That's not entirely accurate, look at the UK. They restricted guns, so yes gun related crime went down, but look at how high their stabbings and stabbing death rates are compared to the US.

Doesn't matter. When the US has double the homicide rate of the most murderous part of the UK (Scotland ofc), and almost 6 times the homicide rate of the most peaceful part of the UK (Wales), you know there's a problem.

But, guess who is improving and guess who is getting worse hmmm? :p

Pfff another gun control debate. That's uterly useless, pro-gun ppl will claim that guns arent evil and show you graphs that proove their point ignoring a huge ammount of other factors, and anti-gun will do somewhat the same thing but reverse.


1) It's impossible to get rid of all guns, basic supply and demand laws will always force them to exist in our society.

2) It is however possible to limit gun violence with laws ensuring that guns aren't sold like candy, and mostly limit the spread of military grade assault weapons.

3) Arming the population isnt the solution for the raise of gun related problems. It's quite often the opposite and banal things like a bar fight can end with much worse ends than it should have.

4) Taking stands like "let's ban all guns" or "if they were armed" after mass shootings are uterly improductive and ugly to watch. I believe that no action should be taken out of hot blood, be it for guns or any other thing.

5) Believing government conspiracies to take out your guns because a multi millionnaire lobby or a News Channel told you is not only stupid in regards of trusting people that obviously don't have your best interests in mind but also pathetic.


Accepting these would probably not solve the hole gun problem, but it's already a fucking start.

Edited 7/29/2016 00:59:24

holy shit. This is the second time today I have said this, but +1 anonym. Even if your argument for guns is so you can use one on the infidel, I still agree

5) Believing government conspiracies to take out your guns because a multi millionnaire lobby or a News Channel told you

HISTORY has told us. Disarming the general population is always one of the top priorities of tyrants. I'll concede there are benevolent reasons for wanting disarmament, but how can you really know whether a government's endgame is benevolent or not?

+1 Anonym and i agree with General PE, i don't want this good goy anonym, bring me back the quran spammer jihadist!

Pfff another gun control debate. That's uterly useless, pro-gun ppl will claim that guns arent evil and show you graphs that proove their point ignoring a huge ammount of other factors, and anti-gun will do somewhat the same thing but reverse.

Sure, and then we have condescending anti-gun people who list out a bunch of their absurd opinions with the assumption that they are somehow true and nobody could possibly have anything to say about them (and even if they do, they're just "pro-gun people who ignore a whole bunch of facts").

I believe that no action should be taken out of hot blood, be it for guns or any other thing.

+5

HISTORY has told us. Disarming the general population is always one of the top priorities of tyrants. I'll concede there are benevolent reasons for wanting disarmament, but how can you really know whether a government's endgame is benevolent or not?

War and killings by governments kills roughly 50k folk each year. Murders kill 500k each year. If there's a way to lower common kill rates, at the cost of greatening government killrates, do it. Some governments known to be oppressive.

China (civilian gun ownership near-banned; heavily regulated): civilian kills (~12k) 6x higher than government kills (~2k at a high estimate)

Iran (civilian gun ownership regulated): civilian kills (~3000) 2x higher than govenrment kills (~1.5k at high estimate)

Arabia (civilian gun ownership regulated): civilian kills (~200) 2x higher than government kills (~100).

Meantime in Japan or Norway, government executions are fully ended. So even by the most free estimates, it's still worth it to curb civilian killings - that is, if possible (the main problem with gun regulation).

Sure, and then we have condescending anti-gun people who list out a bunch of their absurd opinions with the assumption that they are somehow true and nobody could possibly have anything to say about them (and even if they do, they're just "pro-gun people who ignore a whole bunch of facts").

Please don't be so hostile.

Please don't be so hostile.

I mean there's not really too much hostility here. The strongest words I used were "Condescending" and "absurd", which honestly are pretty weak terms to describe the content and tone of his post (I can think of a few dozen stronger words which would probably get me banned if I used them).

If there's a way to lower common kill rates, at the cost of greatening government killrates, do it.

I'm not sure if you're advocating for strict gun laws here or for capital punishment, but if it's the former I think it's worth mentioning that Saudi arabia actually has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, despite any sort of gun laws they may have.

http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/03/iib_death_wellcome_collection_fullsize.png

303M killed by government (it had genocide under murder, so I'm removing that and suicide)

58M killed by murder

Note: The estimates for losses to government are fairly conservative in this graphic.

Edited 7/29/2016 03:31:03

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seH3bsymNJ4

There isnt a way to keep guns away from bad people entirely but I think keeping them away from the bad as much as we can is worth doing.

People with certain mental issues : No Gun

Criminal History : No Gun

Edited 7/29/2016 03:51:48

The strongest words I used were "Condescending" and "absurd", which honestly are pretty weak terms

TeamGuns was saying that another gun controle debate is going to get nowhere, and even if not, there's no grounds for you to be rude, anyway.

Also, to that chart: this isn't 1914 nor 1937 (in which guns were less regulated) In the 2000s, it has roughly stayed at 50k to 100k killed by war each year, while 500k to 700k killed by murder each year (despite almost the whole world having gun regulation of some kind - including America).

You can't compare government killings vs murder in a time span as short as fifteen years. Government killings aren't like murders in that they vary wildly depending on the political situation. While the governments of the world might be at some peace right now, that does not mean they couldn't ratchet up conflict in the future to world war levels of killing.

It's like comparing the world between 1900 and 1911 and determining with only a decade of evidence that governments will be much more peaceful than they used to be.