Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,653
Location: Reading, England

06 Sep 2019, 2:05 pm

There's a few big problems with this line of reasoning.

Firstly, if we take the argument at face value, there were a lot of genocides in the 20th century. It shouldn't surprise anyone that some of them happened within twenty years of gun control laws being passed.

Secondly, there are a lot of countries that experience genocide but not gun control, or gun control but not genocide. Is there actually a link? There doesn't seem to be.

I also think there are some basic historical errors in your argument. For example, the dates of "gun control" for China and Cambodia are entirely fictional. Germany also made it much easier to own a gun in the run-up to the Holocaust. The Ugandan gun law passed in 1970 again made it easier to own a gun. Armenian Turks were never allowed to own guns except briefly when they were allowed into the military; the law referred to confiscated a small number of weapons from veterans.

Take Guatemala for example. There, while guns might legally have been controlled, in practical terms they weren't especially - armed guerillas patrolled the countryside during the civil war.

Or Germany. In the inter-war period, gun control actually lessened dramatically - the Nazis were in favour of gun ownership. To say that the issue that the Jewish people had was their access to guns is to spectacularly miss the point. By 1938 (when they passed a law which made it easier for everyone except Jews to own guns) the Nazis had a strong grip on power and were not going to be overthrown by a few Jews with guns.

The particular purges you reference in Russia and China also targeted huge numbers of individuals rather than groups, for the most part. If the government decides it is going to arrest you then you're probably getting arrested, regardless of whether you have a gun in your house. In China there was a civil war and a revolution between the "implementation of gun control" and the start of the disappearings. In Russia, the government in power were the rebels with guns; the availability of guns was what made the disappearings, gulags, and engineered famines possible. Guns can't stop famines, which is what killed most of the quoted figure.

I did a quick check to see if anyone had debunked this copy-paste before. It turns out it is over 20 years old, dating from Australia's gun control programme, and originally predicted an imminent genocide in Australia. That obviously didn't happen.

Here is the truth. In summary:

- Many of the numbers quoted in the copy-paste are wrong.
- Many of the countries quoted didn't enact gun control at the time.
- Many of the genocides are mischaracterised.
- While gun confiscation played a role in some of the genocides, there is a difference between "gun control" and "gun confiscation", and no evidence that increased gun ownership would have made any difference.



jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,275
Location: Indiana

06 Sep 2019, 9:37 pm

The_Walrus, you made some good points. The original list

Quote:
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered.
1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated.
1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated.
1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated.
1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated.
1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated.
1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated.
In the 20th Century more than 56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated by people using gun control.


This list was originally published in the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1995, Vol. 15, pages 355-398. It was published by David B. Kopel in 1995. [David Kopel, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, is research director at the Independence Institute and adjunct professor of Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University, Sturm College of Law.]

Another version of the list with more explicit data is available in this link: Gun Control & Genocide

Since this list is over 20 years old, I reviewed it against current information. And I agree with you that some of the information is incorrect. I used Wikipedia as the main source. For other sources I provided links. I only reviewed the main genocides where deaths exceeded 1 million.

Soviet Union
On December 12, 1924 the Central Executive Committee of the USSR promulgated its degree "On the procedure of production, trade, storage, use, keeping and carrying firearms, firearm ammunition, explosive projectiles and explosives", all weapons were classified and divided into categories. Now the weapons permitted for personal possession by ordinary citizens could only be smoothbore hunting shotguns. The other category of weapons were only possessed by those who were put on duty by the Soviet state; for all others, access to these weapons was restricted to within state regulated shooting ranges. Illegal gun possession was severely punished. Since March 1933 the manufacture, possession, purchase, sale of firearms (except for smoothbore) hunting weapons without proper authorization was punishable by up to five years in prison.

The release of previously secret reports from the Soviet archives in the 1990s indicate that the victims of repression in the Stalin era were about 9 million persons. Some historians claim that the death toll was around 20 million based on their own demographic analysis and from dated information published before the release of the reports from the Soviet archives. American historian Richard Pipes noted: "Censuses revealed that between 1932 and 1939—that is, after collectivization but before World War II—the population decreased by 9 to 10 million people. In his most recent edition of The Great Terror (2007), Robert Conquest states that while exact numbers may never be known with complete certainty, at least 15 million people were killed "by the whole range of Soviet regime's terrors". Rudolph Rummel in 2006 said that the earlier higher victim total estimates are correct, although he includes those killed by the government of the Soviet Union in other Eastern European countries as well. Conversely, J. Arch Getty, Stephen G. Wheatcroft and others insist that the opening of the Soviet archives has vindicated the lower estimates put forth by "revisionist" scholars. Simon Sebag Montefiore in 2003 suggested that Stalin was ultimately responsible for the deaths of at least 20 million people.

These figures should also include Stalin's mass starvation of Ukraine (the breadbasket of the Soviet Union) from 1932 to 1933. This was a man-made famine. The famine’s devastation was so great that Ukrainian émigré publications coined a new word to describe its barbarity: “Holodomor,” a combination of the Ukrainian words for hunger (holod) and extermination (mor). It began when Stalin enforced collectivization policy. It began with land confiscation. In 1929–30, peasants were induced to transfer land and livestock to state-owned farms, on which they would work as day-labourers for payment in kind. The first five-year plan changed the output expected from Ukrainian farms, from the familiar crop of grain to unfamiliar crops like sugar beets and cotton. These forced policies produced an extreme crisis and contributing to the famine. At least 5 million people died from starvation in the Soviet Union between 1931 and 1934—including 3.9 million Ukrainians. And, despite the contentions of certain historians of the Soviet Union, Applebaum argues that these deaths were no accident. It has been proposed that the Soviet leadership used the man-made famine to attack Ukrainian nationalism, and thus it could fall under the legal definition of genocide. Sources: Wikipedia and Why Stalin Starved Ukraine

Germany
Gun Control in Germany was really a fallout of Germany losing the First World War. The 1919 Treaty of Versailles, Article 177, banned all civilian use of firearms. During the Third Reich, Germany passed the 1938 German Weapons Act. On the whole, gun laws were actually made less stringent for German citizens who were loyal to Nazi rule. The 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons, which came into force the day after Kristallnacht, effectively deprived all Jews living under the Third Reich within the occupied Sudetenland and Austria of the right to possess any form of weapons, including truncheons, knives, firearms and ammunition. Before that, some police forces used the pre-existing "trustworthiness" clause to disarm Jews on the basis that "the Jewish population 'cannot be regarded as trustworthy'". Associate professor of criminal justice Dyan McGuire wrote in his 2011 book: "It is frequently argued that these laws, which resulted in the confiscation of weapons not belonging to supporters of the Nazis, rendered the Jews and other disfavored groups like the Gypsies, homosexuals, Poles, and their potential allies defenseless and set the stage for the slaughter of the Holocaust that followed."

The number of deaths in the Holocaust is estimated as:
Jews: up to 6 million
Soviet civilians: around 7 million (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figure for Jews)
Soviet prisoners of war: around 3 million (including about 50,000 Jewish soldiers)
Non-Jewish Polish civilians: around 1.8 million (including between 50,000 and 100,000 members of the Polish elites)
Serb civilians (on the territory of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina): 312,000
People with disabilities living in institutions: up to 250,000
Roma: 196,000–220,000
Jehovah's Witnesses: around 1,900
Repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials: at least 70,000
German political opponents and resistance activists in Axis-occupied territory: undetermined
Homosexuals: hundreds, possibly thousands (possibly also counted in part under the 70,000 repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials noted above)
Source: Documenting Numbers of Victims of the Holocaust & Nazi Persecution

China
Firearms are very tightly controlled in China. Firearms control has been in place for most of the history of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Only about twenty months after the formal establishment of the PRC, the Provisional Measures on Firearms Control were published on June 27, 1951 (Provisional Measures). Many of the articles in the Provisional Measures were designed to identify and gain control of the large number of firearms that were within the territory of China at the time as a result of the long period of civil war that ended with the Chinese Communist Party’s victory in 1949. For example, there was a provision authorizing public security organs (police) at all levels to take an inventory of all the firearms in the area, and permits could then be issued to those authorized to have firearms. The “firearms” regulated in the Provisional Measures were rifles, carbines, pistols, and all other kinds of long or short guns, with the exception of hunting rifles. Source: Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: China

The Peoples Republic of China conducted the following campaigns:

Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries 1950-1953 700,000 – 2 million deaths
Sufan Movement 1955 770,000 deaths
Great Leap Forward 1958-1960 36 to 45 million deaths
Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 1966-1976 500,000 to 2 million deaths

So the number of dissident deaths in China range from 38 million to 50 million.

Cambodia

Cambodian gun control was a legacy of French colonialism. The first law, in 1920, dealt with the carrying of guns, while the last law in the series, in 1938, imposed a strict licensing system. Only hunters could have guns, and they were allowed to own only a single firearm. These colonial laws appear to have stayed in place after Cambodia was granted independence. The Khmer Rouge enacted no new gun control laws, for they enacted no laws at all other than a Constitution. Cambodia was a poor country, and few people could afford guns. On the other hand, the chaos that accompanies any war might have given some Cambodians the opportunity to acquire firearms from corrupt or dead soldiers. There is no solid evidence about how many Cambodians, with no cultural history of firearms ownership, attempted to do so. As soon as the Khmer Rouge took power, they immediately set out to disarm the populace. The Cambodian genocide was unique in the twentieth century, in that its target was not a single ethnic, religious, or political group, but rather the entire educated populace. [Gun Control & Genocide

The Cambodian genocide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge regime under the leadership of Pol Pot, and it resulted in the deaths of approximately 1.5 to 2 million people from 1975 to 1979, nearly a quarter of Cambodia's 1975 population. The Khmer Rouge emptied the cities and forced Cambodians to relocate to labor camps in the countryside, where mass executions, forced labor, physical abuse, malnutrition, and disease were prevalent. This resulted in the death of approximately 25 percent of Cambodia's total population.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
One of your comments was "By 1938 (when they passed a law which made it easier for everyone except Jews to own guns) the Nazis had a strong grip on power and were not going to be overthrown by a few Jews with guns." But perhaps that is not the point. The point is that if they had guns, they could try and defend themselves from the onslaught that was coming their way. One of the lessons of WWII was the Malmedy massacre.

The Malmedy massacre was a war crime committed by members of Kampfgruppe Peiper (part of the 1st SS Panzer Division), a German combat unit led by Joachim Peiper, at Baugnez crossroads near Malmedy, Belgium, on December 17, 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge. As the German spearhead approached the Baugnez crossroads, two miles southeast of Malmedy. an American convoy of about thirty vehicles was approaching the crossing. Peiper’s group spotted the American Convoy and opened fire. Armed with only rifles and other small arms, the Americans surrendered to the German tank force. According to numerous eyewitness accounts, 84 American prisoners of war were massacred by their German captors: the prisoners were assembled in a field and shot with machine guns. News of the massacre greatly affected the American combatants in Europe.

In my opinion after this massacre, the American combatants no longer considered surrender when confronted by overwhelming odds but rather chose to fight to the death. And if the Jews possessed the right of gun ownership, and if they could read the writing on the wall, they might not have been led like sheep to the slaughter in the gas chambers in concentration camps.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Could genocide ever come to the United States? The world is a crazy place. But in my opinion the only way it would happen is if the Second Amendment Right guaranteed in the Constitution is destroyed, and if gun control is allowed to expand into gun confiscation. The Small Arms Survey stated 393 million firearms are held by civilians in the United States. This amounts to "120.5 firearms for every 100 residents." We have a right to self defense.



StarThrower
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59

07 Sep 2019, 2:51 pm

Despite the fact that we in the US have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world ,120.1 per 100 ppl , we have one of the lowest murder rates when expressed in deaths per 100,000 ppl . Countries with the highest rate ( El Salvador , Venezuela , Guatemala , Columbia ) fall in the 30-40 deaths per 100,000 while here at home , our death rate per 100,000 is 10.6 ppl . Given that 60% of these deaths are self inflicted , if you remove them from that statistic then our death rate per 100,000 drops to about 4-5 per 100,000 , one of the lowest in the world . If you were to include gang violence , police shootings and accidents then it would drop further still .
As despicable as these mass shootings are , are guns and gun owners the problem or is the way the media sensationalizes them to create an emotional response that demonizes guns and gun owners as a pretext to over regulate and eventually confiscate them , the problem . Last weekend in Chicago 7 people were murdered with guns yet there is scarcely a word about it on the national news , why ? The largest mass shooting ( Las Vegas ) has basically been ' memory holed ' , why ? When people protect themselves or prevent a crime with a gun , it rarely makes the news , why ? But when someone shoots up a schoolyard or a church , the media whips itself into feeding frenzy with anti-gun rhetoric . Whether we agree with the statistics or not , or whether gun confiscation can be a slippery slope or not , I think that confiscating them from the public would be like confiscating cars to combat drunk driving .



Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,854

07 Sep 2019, 2:55 pm

StarThrower wrote:
Despite the fact that we in the US have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world ,120.1 per 100 ppl , we have one of the lowest murder rates when expressed in deaths per 100,000 ppl . Countries with the highest rate ( El Salvador , Venezuela , Guatemala , Columbia ) fall in the 30-40 deaths per 100,000 while here at home , our death rate per 100,000 is 10.6 ppl . Given that 60% of these deaths are self inflicted , if you remove them from that statistic then our death rate per 100,000 drops to about 4-5 per 100,000 , one of the lowest in the world . If you were to include gang violence , police shootings and accidents then it would drop further still .
As despicable as these mass shootings are , are guns and gun owners the problem or is the way the media sensationalizes them to create an emotional response that demonizes guns and gun owners as a pretext to over regulate and eventually confiscate them , the problem . Last weekend in Chicago 7 people were murdered with guns yet there is scarcely a word about it on the national news , why ? The largest mass shooting ( Las Vegas ) has basically been ' memory holed ' , why ? When people protect themselves or prevent a crime with a gun , it rarely makes the news , why ? But when someone shoots up a schoolyard or a church , the media whips itself into feeding frenzy with anti-gun rhetoric . Whether we agree with the statistics or not , or whether gun confiscation can be a slippery slope or not , I think that confiscating them from the public would be like confiscating cars to combat drunk driving .


^


_________________
"There is no love of living without despair of life." - Albert Camus

"Ain't nothing but a stranger in this world
I'm nothing but a stranger in this world" -Van Morrison

AQ-43 (32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism).
EQ-14 out of 80
Rdos: Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 173 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 39 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,275
Location: Indiana

22 Nov 2019, 12:43 am

Last week there was another school shooting. This time in Santa Clarita, California.

It highlighted a major weakness in gun control. The mass shootings were done with a ghost gun.

The 16-year-old who shot five classmates last week at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita, Calif., before turning the weapon on himself, used an unregistered, untraceable "ghost gun" assembled by hand from various parts, according to Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva.

It was unclear who assembled the weapon and authorities did not rule out Nathaniel Berthow, the gunman, as the architect of the .45 caliber handgun.

Ghost guns are a growing problem for law enforcement. The parts are relatively easy to obtain and the guns do not take much expertise to build. So even though California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, they are only based on traditional firearms made by manufacturers where ownership can easily be traced.

In Southern California, one-third of all firearms seized are ghost guns.

Under current law, anyone can purchase gun kits and assemble them. Without the background checks needed to purchase a fully assembled weapon from a licensed dealer, minors or those otherwise prohibited from carrying a weapon see it as a convenient alternative.


Source: California HS shooter used untraceable 'ghost gun,' sheriff says



Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,564
Location: Everville

22 Nov 2019, 6:16 am

sly279 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I really believe restricting access to guns for people with known violent records, and being thorough and vigilant about this, might help at least somewhat.

Yes, of course people who desire to perpetuate crime can get a knife---but a knife has far less range than a gun.

We already do that and with due process. Now the democrats are gutting the constitution.
It really is a slippery slope. It’s alswahs “ this is all we want ....... for now” and once they get one law they immediately push for another.
We won’t stop til all guns are banned, as those kids say.


Very true... the next step will be redefining what it means to have a mental health problem. I believe now, you must be declared crazy by a doctor and specifically unable to buy a weapon. Next, anybody on antidepressants will be unable to buy/bear arms legally. They'll connect it to driver's licenses, the same way they do narcotics. And to hell with HIPPA laws and privacy, after all it's for the greater good. :roll:


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.


Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,804
Location: Houston, Texas

22 Nov 2019, 12:11 pm

While any weapon can be used in a mass violence spree, I think the fact that guns are often associated with rednecks, and that the most pro-2nd Amendment states tend to be in the South, could be a factor as to why guns are condemned more than other weapons.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


jimmy m
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2018
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,275
Location: Indiana

22 Nov 2019, 12:42 pm

I have read that another major component of gun violence in the U.S. relates to gangs.

So looking at some statistics provided by the government: Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

Their findings are:
* The FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides [annually] across the United States.
* Gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
* Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 17 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2012.
* Among agencies serving rural counties and smaller cities that reported gang activity, around 75 percent reported zero gang-related homicides. Five percent or less of all gang homicides occurred in these areas annually.
* In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS [National Youth Gang Survey] from 2011 to 2012.

So from my perspective, if you want to impose gun control it should be focussed on high population centers such as New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles and those cities should impose very strict gun control on all members of their gangs within the city. Perhaps a no tolerance approach.



Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,564
Location: Everville

22 Nov 2019, 10:18 pm

jimmy m wrote:
I have read that another major component of gun violence in the U.S. relates to gangs.

So looking at some statistics provided by the government: Measuring the Extent of Gang Problems

Their findings are:
* The FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides [annually] across the United States.
* Gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
* Highly populated areas accounted for the vast majority of gang homicides: nearly 67 percent occurred in cities with populations over 100,000, and 17 percent occurred in suburban counties in 2012.
* Among agencies serving rural counties and smaller cities that reported gang activity, around 75 percent reported zero gang-related homicides. Five percent or less of all gang homicides occurred in these areas annually.
* In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for approximately one in four gang homicides recorded in the NYGS [National Youth Gang Survey] from 2011 to 2012.

So from my perspective, if you want to impose gun control it should be focussed on high population centers such as New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles and those cities should impose very strict gun control on all members of their gangs within the city. Perhaps a no tolerance approach.



Glad I live in podunk


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,303
Location: Brisbane, Australia

22 Nov 2019, 10:42 pm

Just popping in to say that Australia has heavy gun regulation, and almost no shootings, or genocide for that matter. I want to make it clear that control over firearms does not mean mass murder, correlation does not mean causation. Also, what would you be planning to do, have a gun fight with the police/army?

Saying that you need more guns is stupid, especially when the shooter really does not care about their life as much that they might turn it on themselves. All the horrible large amount of deaths from shootings you can attribute to making so many. You even made things worse in other countries where violent criminal groups get a hold of all the guns. Guns in the general public does not make you safer.


_________________
Blast Reality! Burst it into shreds! Vanishment... this world!


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,564
Location: Everville

22 Nov 2019, 10:53 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Just popping in to say that Australia has heavy gun regulation, and almost no shootings, or genocide for that matter. I want to make it clear that control over firearms does not mean mass murder, correlation does not mean causation. Also, what would you be planning to do, have a gun fight with the police/army?

Saying that you need more guns is stupid, especially when the shooter really does not care about their life as much that they might turn it on themselves. All the horrible large amount of deaths from shootings you can attribute to making so many. You even made things worse in other countries where violent criminal groups get a hold of all the guns. Guns in the general public does not make you safer.



The guns were never meant to be turned on each other. Except in instances of personal peril, they were meant to prevent the government from becoming too overreaching. In a country full of guns, who wants to be the first dumbass to be unarmed? It's too late for your idea to work. There were something like 40 million more guns than people in 2013. There are many unregistered weapons. There is no way to ever track down every single weapon in the US.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,303
Location: Brisbane, Australia

22 Nov 2019, 11:33 pm

Persephone29 wrote:
The guns were never meant to be turned on each other. Except in instances of personal peril, they were meant to prevent the government from becoming too overreaching.


So the plan was to start shooting at the members of the overreaching government? At what point would everyone decide that you can now threaten the government? And when would that not make you a terrorist? Should the people who had their land taken from them to build the border wall start shooting government employees?

There are probably better stronger ways you can insure your government does not repress everyone, and it would be through information and communication that is available in the current age and not when the rules were made.

Persephone29 wrote:
In a country full of guns, who wants to be the first dumbass to be unarmed? It's too late for your idea to work. There were something like 40 million more guns than people in 2013. There are many unregistered weapons. There is no way to ever track down every single weapon in the US.


Saying something is too late can be said at any time. Is it too late to stop the next school shooting because it would be too much effort? The plan is to just keep making and selling tools that can quickly kill several people at a distance with minimal effort, and just hope it does not happen near you. Nothing really amazing can be done super quickly, if you want to stop people from being killed by guns, with police afraid that anyone could be packing, you need to start doing something, not listening to the NRA that is only interested in selling more, and the politicians in their pockets.

You act like things can't be any other way, but ignore the places where it is different and is fine. Just focusing on a few places where it went bad.


_________________
Blast Reality! Burst it into shreds! Vanishment... this world!


Catlover5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 May 2015
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,894
Location: Norfolk, UK

23 Nov 2019, 12:14 am

In my country, the gun laws are pretty strict, I think. Knives are now much more popular among violent criminals. If I type "stabbing" into Google, a recent news article about someone being stabbed in my country comes up almost every time.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,303
Location: Brisbane, Australia

23 Nov 2019, 6:54 am

sly279 wrote:
The founding fathers and every single American were terrorist.

French resistance fighters were deemed terrorist by the nazis.
When it’s a evil corrupt government calling you terrorist it doesn’t mean it’s true.

The plan is the same plan used to defeat the British. The militia(the people) gather together with their arms and form an army. It worked quiet well at bunny ranch, the government backed down and ran away. Happen again at a mine in Oregon.
And it’ll happen again next time government try’s to overstep. Thousands of people gathered from all across the nation and that was just for small overstep. It’ll be Millions if they try to take guns or any other right.


Do you understand how crazy that sounds. Say for example your dad was a police officer, ordered to remove a bunch of squatters from someone else's land? You think those squatters would allowed to gun down your father for simply following laws that the squatters did not recognise? You should allow a bunch of people to form their own militia army and do whatever they want because they have guns? Why do you think it would be the good guys who would join together and impose their will? Maybe it could be the KKK swell with numbers and decide to start killing all African Americans. Or a bunch of bigger and stronger men decide that women are suddenly property again.

sly279 wrote:
How’s that working in China? North Korea? Is technology and information stopping their government from killing them with guns? No it’s not? How’d it work out in Venezuela, what their military slaughtered them too you say, hmm. So a unarmed population has no ability to stop a armed evil government, who’d have thought.

Guess we can all huddle together in camps while we wait to be murdered and think hey we didn’t resort to violence at least we have the moral high ground.

You can’t stop mass killings. You can’t stop evil. There will always be mass killings there will always be evil as long as humans populate the planet it will continue as it has continued for thousands of years since existed. Evil people will seek to kill others. I’d rather be armed and have a chance to defend myself then watch as people get killed hoping either the person runs out of ammo or the police finally Decide to act before they get to me. Cause a lot of times the police spend 20ish mins outside before going in to do anything. They more concerned with preventing any escape route and their own safety then stopping it. S a group is in a building killing people one by one. What worse can happen from going in immediately?
Police don’t have to help us. Their job is to punish criminals not stop crime.
So don’t strip my ability to defend myself for imaginary safety

Society is broken and it needs fixed but thst takes time and effort so let’s ignore it and ban hands. If people don’t have hands they can’t use weapons.
That’s what I’ll come to. Ban guns, knives, bats, hammers, etc. they use cars so we ban cars, they use sticks so we burn all the trees. It’s not the tool that’s the problem it’s humans. That guy who killed his friend and raped her as she died didn’t use a gun banning guns won’t stop people like him. Maybe we should figure out why kids don’t see others as humans and care about their lives. That’s why mass shootigs happen. They don’t see others as living beings so they don’t care about killing them, hey have no compassion or empathy. We’ve become disconnected. Other humans might as well be NPCs. That disconnect is what we do to soldiers so they can kill easier. And that’s why mass killers can kill easier. That’s why it’s happening more we’ll thwt and we publish them we make them int household names, it drives the next one to kill more to be more famous. But let’s ignore all that. If we just ban alcohol people won’t drink. If we just ban fast food people won’t over eat. If we just strip away objects it’ll somehow change people.


The thing is, you are ignoring all the countries in the world which are doing perfectly fine without giving guns to everyone. We want to play the name countries game then lets go: Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Sweden, and I could go on. They have stricter gun laws, and we are not being mascaraed by our government. And you think things would be going better in Hong Kong if they had looser gun laws, and mainland China could just start mowing down protestors by saying they had to it to stop the protestors from killing police?

Here is the deal, about a year ago I was in the nearby city and was pulled over to be questioned by a police officer. I could tell from his ascent that he was American, and although I was never questioned like this before I was not really afraid, the officer even seemed surprised when I told him this was a first time thing and I was so calm. The reason is that not everyone has a gun here, so police are not terrified some random will get spooked and shoot them, causing an officer to shoot first because they felt threatened. You don't realise it, but your loose gun laws are actually making you more at risk from your govern such as police, and more fascist.

sly279 wrote:
Also it’s the 100 million gun owners who fight and stop gun control not the nra. The nra pushes for gun control you can thank them for every single federal gun law on the books. They were behind it. Helps them fund raise to line their pockets, buy another private jet or mansion.


:lol: Wow, that is hilarious, you actually think your NRA fights for gun control. Why do you think that your president several months ago was talking was talking about tougher laws until he met with the NRA? The NRA wants to make it easier to sell guns to anyone, and all the politicians they donate to always intercept any substantive regulation. They want money.

sly279 wrote:
It’s so funny the left goes on and on about the nra and other gun lobbies who represent millions of people but don’t bat an eye when one man single handily runs the whole anti gun side and spends billions to get his way, buying off politicians left and right and threatening those who go against him. He’s bought my state he owns our governor and senate. Oregon is controlled by a rich New Yorker. Screw him and his money.
No money from out of state people should be able to control state governments.


Now, I don't know all the facts with these claims. But do you think that maybe you could literally be repeating propaganda that the NRA has spread to make you think there is some big scary guy you need to have guns to fight against?

I don't think you understand how the rest of the world sees USA for things like its school shootings. You have no idea how out of the ordinary it is, how we see the people fighting for your rights to own instruments of death, by sacrificing innocent people. Entire lives can be cut short because one unstable person turned a gun on school children. You could look at all the countries that are doing fine without so much guns, then look at the crying parents on the news and say that it is worthwhile. And the worst part is, doing this rants about needing so much guns, you are showing that Americans don't care, you have deluded yourselves into think that you alone have the answer, and it is at the end of a gun.


_________________
Blast Reality! Burst it into shreds! Vanishment... this world!


Persephone29
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2019
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,564
Location: Everville

23 Nov 2019, 7:45 am

Bradleigh wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
The guns were never meant to be turned on each other. Except in instances of personal peril, they were meant to prevent the government from becoming too overreaching.


So the plan was to start shooting at the members of the overreaching government? At what point would everyone decide that you can now threaten the government? And when would that not make you a terrorist? Should the people who had their land taken from them to build the border wall start shooting government employees?

There are probably better stronger ways you can insure your government does not repress everyone, and it would be through information and communication that is available in the current age and not when the rules were made.

Persephone29 wrote:
In a country full of guns, who wants to be the first dumbass to be unarmed? It's too late for your idea to work. There were something like 40 million more guns than people in 2013. There are many unregistered weapons. There is no way to ever track down every single weapon in the US.


Saying something is too late can be said at any time. Is it too late to stop the next school shooting because it would be too much effort? The plan is to just keep making and selling tools that can quickly kill several people at a distance with minimal effort, and just hope it does not happen near you. Nothing really amazing can be done super quickly, if you want to stop people from being killed by guns, with police afraid that anyone could be packing, you need to start doing something, not listening to the NRA that is only interested in selling more, and the politicians in their pockets.

You act like things can't be any other way, but ignore the places where it is different and is fine. Just focusing on a few places where it went bad.



The word 'terrorist' was not a part of the idea of the Constitution. That became a thing later. The early settlers knew what it meant to have an overreaching government, that's why they fled here. They had been disarmed. Disarming the people has been going on for centuries.

My last question: Tell me how to find a gun that does not have a paper trail? It may have started out with one, but it's been sold (cash sale, no record), handed down (a gift), stolen, etc... How will you find it? And the people you investigate aren't going to be forthcoming either, they don't trust you.


_________________
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you, it just means we disagree.