Thoughts on gun control?

[stconquest]

Yeah. 

 

Funny how ppl are referring to pipe bombs and same time preempt amoks with concealed weapons.

 

It gets annoying how they blow smoke in each other's butt... intensifying their retarded beliefs.

 

I can cite another recent story regarding a police officer called into a non-violent situation.  He ends up trying to shoot the 25 pound dog, misses and hits a four year old girl in the leg.

 

This guy is supposed to be trained in firearm safety.  Imagine the regular yokel populace running around with guns... oh wait... that is the USA. =/  (sorry to the responsible gun owners).

[Kalle Hänninen]

It gets annoying how they blow smoke in each others butt... intensifying their retarded beliefs.

To be honest, most likely it won't be our problem. They think that force solves every problem and recognizing ppl like that is easy and so they get killed more often than others.

 

It's horseshoe theory. They attract each other. (They accommodate same space and are equally prone to violence. Bad experiences are the only separating factor, but they're too stupid to understand it.)

[Guest trucker2]

The government school system in NY had the same topic in the late 70's. Back then we didn't have mass shooting cause very few people got help for mental health issues making over-prescription of SSRI's an impossibility. We were asked to do a class report, mine was on gun control.

   My teacher was a flaming liberal. Back then libs pretended to believe in free speech. He was shocked that one of his lib hero's, Sen Frank Church (famous for the Church commision) was not only against gun control but wrote a great book showing gun laws did not work and was loaded (no pun intended) with facts to prove it.

   In the 1943 my dad was 16. He and his friends would bring their shotguns, ammo and a few decoys and keep them in their school lockers(unlocked) for duck hunting when class got out. No one locked their doors at night. People left there keys in the ignition. Duck hunting was important cause they were poor and meat was hard to come by. They went through the Great Depression then strait into War time rationing. Poverty NEVER causes violence.

  What book did children read in school that could create such a society. What could we learn from such times. Why, in the midst of such poverty and deprivation did people not act like they do today? The school even had a rifle class! It was on my dads report card (only good grade besides phys ed).

   There was another subject on my Dad's report card that was shocking to see. Something now banned by US law in the public schools. Bible class  

[stconquest]

To be honest, most likely it won't be our problem. They think that force solves every problem and recognizing ppl like that is easy and so they get killed more often than others.

 

It's horseshoe theory. They attract each other.

 

I can only hope.    (a bit too far? )

[Kalle Hänninen]

I can only hope.    (a bit too far? )

Sadism is universally so wrong, yet general, that it needs justification, and is justifiable, so you can do more than hope. The irony is that more you build, more justifiable their actions become.

[stconquest]

Sadism is universally so wrong, yet general, that it needs justification, and is justifiable, so you can do more than hope. The irony is that more you build, more justifiable their actions become.

 

You kind of lost me =).

 

I just meant that if all the dimwits that want to use their firearms when it feels justified could just shoot each other, it would eventually solve a good part of the violence problem... BUT, wishing people's deaths is not something I like doing.  I believe people can learn/adapt to new evidence, when they are open to real learning.

[Kalle Hänninen]

You kind of lost me =).

 

I just meant that if all the dimwits that want to use their firearms when it feels justified could just shoot each other, it would eventually solve a good part of the violence problem... BUT, wishing people's deaths is not something I like doing.  I believe people can learn/adapt to new evidence, when they are open to real learning.

You should study about dual process theory. Ofc we could breed more tamed population, but that would be so self-centered (and harmful) that I would by a gun. You have to think outside the box and influence inside the system, or just belong to the middle-class and just enjoy the ride.

[vXhanz]

The government school system in NY had the same topic in the late 70's. Back then we didn't have mass shooting cause very few people got help for mental health issues making over-prescription of SSRI's an impossibility. We were asked to do a class report, mine was on gun control.

   My teacher was a flaming liberal. Back then libs pretended to believe in free speech. He was shocked that one of his lib hero's, Sen Frank Church (famous for the Church commision) was not only against gun control but wrote a great book showing gun laws did not work and was loaded (no pun intended) with facts to prove it.

   In the 1943 my dad was 16. He and his friends would bring their shotguns, ammo and a few decoys and keep them in their school lockers(unlocked) for duck hunting when class got out. No one locked their doors at night. People left there keys in the ignition. Duck hunting was important cause they were poor and meat was hard to come by. They went through the Great Depression then strait into War time rationing. Poverty NEVER causes violence.

  What book did children read in school that could create such a society. What could we learn from such times. Why, in the midst of such poverty and deprivation did people not act like they do today? The school even had a rifle class! It was on my dads report card (only good grade besides phys ed).

   There was another subject on my Dad's report card that was shocking to see. Something now banned by US law in the public schools. Bible class  

 

A lot of this also depends on where you're at in the country.

 

As a child I used to live in Southern California and the thought of leaving anything unlocked wasn't heard of at all. I would routinely go to bed with police helicopters in the air at night with their search lights on looking for a suspect. Fast forward many years later as a young adult living in North Dakota and people would leave their cars running and unlocked in the parking lot of the mall in the middle of winter. You never heard about people stealing cars from the parking lot, and this was just 15 years ago. 

[Kalle Hänninen]

A lot of this also depends on where you're at in the country.

 

As a child I used to live in Southern California and the thought of leaving anything unlocked wasn't heard of at all. I would routinely go to bed with police helicopters in the air at night with their search lights on looking for a suspect. Fast forward many years later as a young adult living in North Dakota and people would leave their cars running and unlocked in the parking lot of the mall in the middle of winter. You never heard about people stealing cars from the parking lot, and this was just 15 years ago. 

Midwest is a bit like Fennoscandia.

 

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/your-town-is-a-paradise-lahti

[vXhanz]

Fuckin' hero complex.  You ain't stopping shit with with your concealed carry firearm.  Stupid fantasy driven arguments.

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/woman-in-michigan-charged-after-shooting-at-fleeing-shoplifters.html?_r=0

 

In this instance the lady was clearly wrong. The was no threat of physical violence towards her, and the suspect was running away with the "goods". If the facts are correct the guy never pulled a firearm on her or threatened her. Even the fact that she shot out the rear tire didn't do anything to slow the suspects down and they still go away. From the article:

 

"Under most circumstances, officers are allowed to use deadly force only if there is imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to themselves or someone else. A licensed concealed weapon holder is held to a similar standard, said Rick Ector, a firearms trainer at Rick’s Firearm Academy of Detroit."

 

You can't blame or lump the entire population of the US into one group due to this ladies actions. She was trying to stop a thief, and her actions were way over the top. If the thief did threaten her though, tried to run her over with the vehicle, shot at her, etc, then yeah... she may have had a reason to shoot, but again... in a crowded parking lot with a lot of innocent people around? Probably not. 

[stconquest]

In this instance the lady was clearly wrong. The was no threat of physical violence towards her, and the suspect was running away with the "goods". If the facts are correct the guy never pulled a firearm on her or threatened her. Even the fact that she shot out the rear tire didn't do anything to slow the suspects down and they still go away. From the article:

 

"Under most circumstances, officers are allowed to use deadly force only if there is imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to themselves or someone else. A licensed concealed weapon holder is held to a similar standard, said Rick Ector, a firearms trainer at Rick’s Firearm Academy of Detroit."

 

You can't blame or lump the entire population of the US into one group due to this ladies actions. She was trying to stop a thief, and her actions were way over the top. If the thief did threaten her though, tried to run her over with the vehicle, shot at her, etc, then yeah... she may have had a reason to shoot, but again... in a crowded parking lot with a lot of innocent people around? Probably not. 

 

I 100% agree with that.

[Albatross]

Fuckin' hero complex.  You ain't stopping shit with with your concealed carry firearm.  Stupid fantasy driven arguments.

 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/good-guy-with-gun-shoots-carjacking-victim-in-head-runs-off/article/445111

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/woman-in-michigan-charged-after-shooting-at-fleeing-shoplifters.html?_r=0

 

I'm sorry, was that directed at me? Please, at least, quote me so I know you are talking to me or directing my post.

 

An idiot with a gun isn't going to stop anything, sure, you are 100% correct there, but if you think someone with a gun that has been properly trained (majority) can't prevent a murder or massacre, you are being delusional. You pass off links for your opinion with stories of murder or accidental deaths by gun as if it makes it definite, but then you refuse to acknowledge other people's links and opinions by straight out calling it bullshit because it disagrees with you? Proves you wrong? Makes you uncomfortable? Childish.

 

Crime stopped by armed citizens:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/europe/france-train-shooting/

http://mrconservative.com/2013/09/24534-caught-on-tape-armed-citizens-take-down-criminals-with-guns/ (eleven minutes worth of video proof—and that isn't of just once instance)

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/05/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

(^ feel free to google the stories listed in this link)

 

The importance of armed citizens is even recognized by the FBI. If just one person was armed during a massacre, the chances everyone survives increases. Read the previous report, where it details how many incidents were stopped by armed citizens, as well as the following link acknowledging the importance of armed citizens by an agency of our government.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents

 

Any there are many more incidents that the news stations like CNN doesn't even cover, because that wouldn't fit their "Kingdom of Caring" Liberal agenda.

 

But sure, let's stop giving these people the ability to defend themselves and potentially others (like family) because of a minority and because of naive, unrealistic expectations that removing the guns (or must of) from civilian hands will somehow stop gun crime—because it is complete fantasy that armed citizens have saved lives before or that governments or leading powers have tried to ban weapons and then murder their citizens by the millions. We're all just so paranoid and crazy...! :rolleyes:

 

 

The solution isn't to ban weapons or most weapons, or even to enforce stricter laws against legal owners. The proper way to deal with gun law violations and those who violate it is to go to the source...that is the people who sell the weaponry (as attempting to rid crime through the criminals' markets is impossible). They don't do background checks, and if they do, it is after already selling the weapon (which is illegal of course). Gun merchants should be forced to follow the law with regular inspections and there should be heavy penalties for selling to a criminal or a mentally unstable customer. If they are caught to have been doing it on purpose/to their knowledge, the punishment should be so harsh that it discourages others from attempting to make more money by selling illegally.

 

edit

 

Also, in order to be able to purchase a gun, that person should have to undergo psychiatric evaluation at least once a month before buying his weapon and should be reevaluated when purchasing another weapon.

[stconquest]

I'm sorry, was that directed at me? Please, at least, quote me so I know you are talking to me or directing my post.

 

 

Nope. 

 

TLDR

[Thunderpup]

Two ways: First, he was a convicted criminal (of several crimes). Second, he was (is) a drug addict. Both those violate a person's right to carry in California. 

 

BTW I read an article today you might be interested in.  CA is looking to add more gun control measures as a ballot initiative.

 

One of which would require CA to actually provide data to the national registry, like the 49 other states do, for those prohibited to purchase a firearm.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/15/california-looks-to-take-another-big-swipe-at-second-amendment-with-new-gun-control-proposal/

[LAwLz]

The importance of armed citizens is even recognized by the FBI. If just one person was armed during a massacre, the chances everyone survives increases. Read the previous report, where it details how many incidents were stopped by armed citizens, as well as the following link acknowledging the importance of armed citizens by an agency of our government.

 

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents

 

Any there are many more incidents that the news stations like CNN doesn't even cover, because that wouldn't fit their "Kingdom of Caring" Liberal agenda.

 

But sure, let's stop giving these people the ability to defend themselves and potentially others (like family) because of a minority and because of naive, unrealistic expectations that removing the guns (or must of) from civilian hands will somehow stop gun crime—because it is complete fantasy that armed citizens have saved lives before or that governments or leading powers have tried to ban weapons and then murder their citizens by the millions. We're all just so paranoid and crazy...! :rolleyes:

I don't see anything in that link to fbi.gov which indicates that the chances of everyone surviving increases when other people are armed as well. I haven't read the entire 47 page report but all I can find is that in 5 of the incidents they studied, armed non-law enforcers opened fire. Out of those 5 incidents only 3 actually resulted in the criminal being shot and killed. So armed civilians killed the criminal in 3 out of 160 incidents. 21 incidents on the other hand were ended by unarmed civilians (page 11 of the document you linked).

 

 

If you really care about safety then it is actually, statistically safer to not have a gun at all.

If we ignore the fact that the states with more guns has significant more unintentional deaths involving guns (remember, correlation does not imply causation) we are still left with a disproportional amount of accidents compared to self defense cases.

In this study the conclusion was that for every case of self defense involving a gun, there were four unintentional shootings. That means that if you have a gun in your house, you are 4 times more likely to accidentally shoot someone than you are to intentionally shoot someone.

 

 

 

 

 

And yes you are crazy if you believe that armed citizens stand any chance against a government who decide to go to war against their own people. You do realize that the US government has nuclear weapon, drones, tanks and big fleets of aircrafts, right?

You are bringing a gun to a drone fight... If the government wanted they could literally wipe out your entire city before you even had the chance to load your puny little pistol.

[Thunderpup]

And yes you are crazy if you believe that armed citizens stand any chance against a government who decide to go to war against their own people. You do realize that the US government has nuclear weapon, drones, tanks and big fleets of aircrafts, right?

You are bringing a gun to a drone fight... If the government wanted they could literally wipe out your entire city before you even had the chance to load your puny little pistol.

 

Then explain to us why those resources were unable to squash the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Insurgents largely armed with only small arms and improvised explosives.

[Albatross]

I don't see anything in that link to fbi.gov which indicates that the chances of everyone surviving increases when other people are armed as well. I haven't read the entire 47 page report but all I can find is that in 5 of the incidents they studied, armed non-law enforcers opened fire. Out of those 5 incidents only 3 actually resulted in the criminal being shot and killed. So armed civilians killed the criminal in 3 out of 160 incidents. 21 incidents on the other hand were ended by unarmed civilians (page 11 of the document you linked).

 

 

If you really care about safety then it is actually, statistically safer to not have a gun at all.

If we ignore the fact that the states with more guns has significant more unintentional deaths involving guns (remember, correlation does not imply causation) we are still left with a disproportional amount of accidents compared to self defense cases.

In this study the conclusion was that for every case of self defense involving a gun, there were four unintentional shootings. That means that if you have a gun in your house, you are 4 times more likely to accidentally shoot someone than you are to intentionally shoot someone.

 

 

 

 

 

And yes you are crazy if you believe that armed citizens stand any chance against a government who decide to go to war against their own people. You do realize that the US government has nuclear weapon, drones, tanks and big fleets of aircrafts, right?

You are bringing a gun to a drone fight... If the government wanted they could literally wipe out your entire city before you even had the chance to load your puny little pistol.

 

Obviously the amount isn't going to be as significant to the crimes happening, but the point is that armed citizens can higher the chances of someone or some people making it out of a situation alive. Do you think people's chances of survival is better with a lot of people completely disarmed or with someone who has a gun? It was also posted for the statistics.

 

I disagree. It isn't safer to not have guns. Just look at states that have enforced stricter gun laws, or crimes that happened on property that doesn't allow weapons of any sort. Or hell, even the majority of crime committed without a gun. In the aforementioned states the gun violence has gown up significantly in direct response to it (been cited multiple times in this thread I do believe). I'm aware that there are a lot of unintentional deaths involving guns by the hands of their owners (or out of accident regardless), but they are the minority. In large, guns have allowed millions of Americans to save and protect themselves. Are we supposed to ignore the greater good for a minority of incidents or people?

 

You say that if I don't possess any gun, I'd be safer, but what if someone breaks into my house (huge problem where I live) and tries to rob me, kill me or rape me and he doesn't have a gun (like most of them)? Sure we're equal in the fact that neither of us possess a firearm, but I'm a physically weaker woman. I have no hopes of holding someone off (especially a hulk of a man), but with a gun I could protect myself. But you think it would be safer to leave people weaponless? In hopes that maybe I won't be the victim or at least then I wouldn't be a victim of a "gun crime"?

 

 

But that's how America came to be. We fought against our leading power that had all sorts of advantages against us. So it isn't crazy at all. :lol: Rebellion of armed citizens has led to governments or leading powers to shatter. Just look at the Syrian Rebel Army (whether or not the replacement was good) or what the Lakota managed to do at Wounded Knee! All you have to do is look at the history of revolution to see just how effective an armed citizen is against their government or leading power. Wikipedia itself has hundreds of listings, both old and modern, where armed citizens brought on a successful revolution. 

 

You think the U.S government would use a nuclear weapon against itself? No, too much in damages and loss. But you have a point about the tanks and drones and aircrafts (though insurgents in Iraq etc managed to destroy our military tanks etc with improvised explosives and other crap, so it isn't impossible), but I don't see your point in the fact that we shouldn't be able to have the right to fight them back. You would have us lay down and die (or be horribly mistreated) because some idiot somewhere accidentally shot himself or some moonbrain illegally purchased a firearm and killed someone? :huh:

[stconquest]

Then explain to us why those resources were unable to squash the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Insurgents largely armed with only small arms and improvised explosives.

 

It could have something to do with the 150,000 Iraqi soldiers they decommissioned early in the campaign.  Take that number with a grain of salt unless I can source it.  It is from memory.

 

In the days leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the following Iraq War, the Army consisted of 375,000 troops, organized into five corps.

 

During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Iraqi Army was defeated in a number of battles, including by Task Force Viking in the north, and the Battle of Nasiriyah and the Battle of Baghdad. The Iraqi Army was disbanded by Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2 issued by U.S. Administrator of Iraq Paul Bremer

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army

 

More to the point:  Do you really see your government as capable of turning on it's own citizens?  (I actually do on a very small level).  Your small arms and IEDs would not stop the US government's military.  In reality, the population would suffer massive casualties, while the military would not.  Your best defense is training your military to think, to use intelligence.  Able to realize their purpose within a combat zone beyond what they are ordered to do.

 

Arming the population because of this notion that it could happen is a ploy that perpetuates a cycle of violence in the USA.  Fascist elements within official government bodies are rampant and distractions are of great priority.  "More guns!" is a distraction, from real solutions.  How does a gun prevent your politicians from being bought by lobbyists?  How does a gun fix systemic police corruption in many, many precincts throughout the country?  How does a gun prevent professional organizations from convincing the populace to be divisive, preying on their ignorance?

 

A good example of fascist tendencies, coming right out of the democratic party, is the Lawrence Lessig situation in the run for president.  He met the requirements to compete, yet his agenda is not "corporation friendly".  He was blocked out of debates.

 

A lot of US citizens need to stop thinking the US Government is after their guns, they are not.... but some people profit from convincing you that is the case.

 

 

 

Another example:  Here in Canada a guy retweeted some ISIS crap.  They arrested him, and eventually released him under 19 conditions... including not being able to access the internet.

 

Just 30 minutes from where I am (according to my cousin), a KKK element was freely handing out flyers in a public space without fear of persecution. 

 

Do you see the problem here?

[Samfisher]

When are people going to realize that criminals don't obey gun laws.

 

What are laws without enforcement?  If guns are hard to come by legally or illegally there would be no need to ever worry about gun violence cos there won't be any going around.  The root problem is the ease of access to guns legally or not.  Laws don't matter if nobody enforces it.  Every other country in the world has tough gun laws AND enforcement.  Come to my country and tell people on the street "Criminals don't obey gun laws, there's a chance you might be shot some day somehow", you'd get laughed off the streets.

[Bearded4Glory]

People who don't live in the US or have never been here have such an over exaggerated idea about guns/crime here.  There are small pockets of very high violence within the US, usually gang and/or drug related.  The overwhelming majority of us don't live in these kinds of areas so out experience is similar to other developed countries as far as violence is concerned.  I don't know anyone who has been killed.  I don't know anyone who has ever been shot (outside of war at least).  I don't know anyone who has shot anyone (outside of war again).

 

Also, we have bigger problems than a few Mass Shootings.  While I agree they are horrible tragedies they are statistically insignificant vs. the other reasons people here die.

 

For example:

 

Gun Deaths: 10,448 (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)

 

Mass Shooting Deaths: 567 (http://www.mintpressnews.com/police-killed-more-americans-in-2014-than-all-u-s-mass-shootings-combined/206862/)

 

Traffic Accident Deaths: 32,719 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

 

DUI Deaths: 10,076 (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

 

Medical Malpractice: Estimated at 440,000 (http://www.medicalmalpracticelawyer.center/2014/05/new-study-confirms-440000-deat.html)

 

 

So lets just look at those.  You are 57 times more likely to die in a car accident than a Mass Shooting.  You are just over 3 times more likely to get killed by a traffic accident than a gun (that gun deaths stat includes police killing people as well, actually that's about 1/3 of the whole number).  And to top it off, roughly 17% (by these estimates) of the total deaths in the US in 2014 (both natural and unnatural BTW) were because of Medical Malpractice.   IMO the low hanging fruit here are the Traffic Accident (specifically DUI) Deaths as well as the Medical Malpractice.

 

 

First of all, driving is not a right it is a privileged so its a lot easier (legally at least) to remove a persons ability to do that then to own firearms.  My solution, get a DUI you don't get to go home and sleep in your bed you go to jail and hang there for a bit.  When you get out you never get to drive again and if you get caught driving without a license (most offenders keep driving even without a license) you go right back to jail.  As it is now its mostly fines and in some cases you can even keep a provisional license to drive to and from work.  How cute!

 

 

Medical Malpractice.  These medical professionals need to take accountability for their mistakes.  I'm sorry but even the lowest estimates I could find of 100k is 10x more than gun deaths and these are just mistakes that kill people in hospitals.

 

 

Fix those and we can talk.  Otherwise, leave my constitutionally protected (not granted BTW) rights out of it.

[Bearded4Glory]

Oops DP. 

[LAwLz]

Obviously the amount isn't going to be as significant to the crimes happening, but the point is that armed citizens can higher the chances of someone or some people making it out of a situation alive. Do you think people's chances of survival is better with a lot of people completely disarmed or with someone who has a gun? It was also posted for the statistics.

I didn't read the entire report so I might have missed that in the FBI report, but I did not see anything like the things you are claiming (higher chance of survival) in it. If it is in the there then please post the page number.

 

 

 

I disagree. It isn't safer to not have guns. Just look at states that have enforced stricter gun laws, or crimes that happened on property that doesn't allow weapons of any sort. Or hell, even the majority of crime committed without a gun. In the aforementioned states the gun violence has gown up significantly in direct response to it (been cited multiple times in this thread I do believe). I'm aware that there are a lot of unintentional deaths involving guns by the hands of their owners (or out of accident regardless), but they are the minority. In large, guns have allowed millions of Americans to save and protect themselves. Are we supposed to ignore the greater good for a minority of incidents or people?

Well it doesn't really matter if you disagree because it's a fact. You can disagree that the sky is blue and water is wet as well but it doesn't make it any less true.

You can't just look at states with gun laws and then go "well it still happens there so therefore they are ineffective" because like I have said over and over, correlation does not imply causation. The average temperature on Earth has gone up at roughly the same pace as pirates has died out, but you can't claim the decline of pirates are causing global warming either.

 

You are just factually wrong when you say the unintentional deaths involving guns is in the minority because it is just factually wrong. Like the study I linked earlier proves, there are 4 times as many unintentional deaths in homes with guns as there are intentional deaths. Statistically speaking, you are 4 times as likely to get shot if you have a gun in your house as if you don't have one. The people killed unintentionally by guns is in the majority, not the minority.

Are you suppose to ignore the greater good for the minority of times where guns are helping?

 

 

 

You say that if I don't possess any gun, I'd be safer, but what if someone breaks into my house (huge problem where I live) and tries to rob me, kill me or rape me and he doesn't have a gun (like most of them)? Sure we're equal in the fact that neither of us possess a firearm, but I'm a physically weaker woman. I have no hopes of holding someone off (especially a hulk of a man), but with a gun I could protect myself. But you think it would be safer to leave people weaponless? In hopes that maybe I won't be the victim or at least then I wouldn't be a victim of a "gun crime"?

If you want the greatest chance of survival during a break-in then you comply with the robbers demands.

People do not break into houses to kill people. They do it to steal your TV and other valuable possessions. That it's. The more you fight the more likely that you end up injured.

 

 

 

But that's how America came to be. We fought against our leading power that had all sorts of advantages against us. So it isn't crazy at all. :lol: Rebellion of armed citizens has led to governments or leading powers to shatter. Just look at the Syrian Rebel Army (whether or not the replacement was good) or what the Lakota managed to do at Wounded Knee! All you have to do is look at the history of revolution to see just how effective an armed citizen is against their government or leading power. Wikipedia itself has hundreds of listings, both old and modern, where armed citizens brought on a successful revolution. 

You got to be joking. Either that or you are lying to yourself. Do you not understand that you can't compare historical revolutions against how the US looks today?

Having firearms in your home and then rally up a mob to fight against a corrupt government might have worked back in 1789 when both sides of such a fight had access to roughly the same firepower.

Do you have a surface-to-air missile system in your backyard? If you don't then you are completely defenseless against the government if they did decide to attack you. You can't shoot down a drone with a pistol. They are literally so high up in the air that you can't even see them, and they could destroy your entire house in the blink of an eye if they wanted.

Are you going to fight a tank or bomb plane with your handgun?

 

Get real...

 

 

And if you are going to bring up "but tanks have gotten destroyed with home made bombs before"... Yes it might have happened a few times but:

1) the US army has about 10,000 tanks and over 40,000 AFVs. Plus about 14,000 aircrafts. Taking down a handful of them won't help.

2) Are you really going to advocate that people have home made bombs in their homes because some day the government might decide to attack you? Because you do realize that's what you are saying, right?

[MrDynamicMan]

More guns =! More safety

That being said, outlawing guns won't help, people will just aqquire them in illegal ways.

At the same time.

[Guest trucker2]

Saddam Hussain (no relation to B. Hussian Obama) opened up his amories to the general population. Ak-47's (30 dollar POS's) in the hands of average arabs killed more more sevicemen then the Army did. If they were raised in Americas "gun culture" and got there first BB gun at 5 yars old it would have been MUCH MUCH worse.

   Probably why there are more Jews in America then in Isreal or ALL of Europe. Why so few Jews in europe? Oh yea.......German gun control worked. In one ghetto where the jews got a few obsolete firearms the uprising required 2 combat divisions be pulled off the western front to quell it.

When the goverment lives in fear of the people thats liberty, when the people fear the government thats tyranny.

 

The most desired weapon the terrorist in Iraq wanted to get a hold of(besides the 50 cal) were American bolt action hunting rifles. Armed Americans stops many crimes every day, only media that reports this is www.theblaze.com. The newsite ignored by the common sheeple

[Slash003]

More guns =! More safety

That being said, outlawing guns won't help, people will just aqquire them in illegal ways.

At the same time.

This. Criminals dont follow the law though. Thats kind of their job. All you are doing with making more laws is making it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain them.

 

I can relate this. You go in a videogame and need to loot someone. You see someone. They have a weapon, you are generally even matched with the person and could die if not careful. You see someone else without a weapon. What are you going to do? Go to the unarmed target. Its just a no brainer. If something is not gonna put up a fight you attack them first, be it virtual or physical.

 

If you really care about safety then it is actually, statistically safer to not have a gun at all.