115 replies to this topic

[Tom]

Yes but banning guns does not mean people won't get them! Give one example where gun control has worked 100% it won't. It only disempowers the people and empowers the elite as well as makes crimes such as theft, bulgury and hostage taking easier. Disarming populations also makes it easier for governments to become tyrannical because they have a monopoly on weapons. Gun control is not about stopping crime, its usually always been because a government wants more power. They only use excuses that they are "protecting" perfectly capable adults from gun crime by banning it, when instead they are doing the opposite and empowering the state.



All genocide have been performed because people couldn't protect themselves from tyrannical elites. You seem to think the social aspects outway the threat from a tyrannical state, when its usually a state that gains more from gun control than the average people. Gun control is not about protecting the people from "themselves" as they claim, but protecting the state from the people in periods the elite know there will be resistance. Just like today with the new world order. How long before America implements harshed gun control laws to strip people of their weapons and soon later imposing martial law for the next step of the agenda. Not long.

All these school shootings should be looked into. Did you know in all cases they shooters were male, with a history of mental illness and all on SSRI's (anti depressants). Not that any of this will be looked into, however it will and is used for the case for "gun control." Maybe the community should focus more on those issues that gun control. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And ignorance is the biggest killer of them all.

[Banshee]

You always expect a 100% efficience at anything. In the real world, nothing is 100% efficient and of course, banning guns won't prevent people from getting them. The point is that if you reduce the ammount of people with guns, you still make crimes harder to be done. The current system still allows police, private security guards and few other authorities to use guns. I really think that for a gun banning system become more efficient, these people should also no longer be allowed use guns.

[Tom]

So we ban guns, give more power to the state to regulate weapons and then pay the state to do that. Seems pretty pointless and costing us pointless tax money when we could just own guns, be responsible and deal with our own problems ourselves.

[Sûlherokhh]

Arming and rearming a significant percentage of the pupulation is a lot more expensive than regulating weapons. It's just that anybody in the arms business would loose money/jobs. But then again not that much, since the U.S. spends most of it's budget on the military anyway. And that's many, many billions of dollars. That's basic economy.
Of course, military investments might drop a bit when a democrat becomes president.

[Tom]

Why would you "rearm" a population. If someone wants a gun, they go buy it. The government has no responsibility in allowing people to have guns, that comes from either private companies or sydnicates who make the weapons. The military industry complex is more about making mass profit from war than profit for selling average citizens guns.

Military investments won't drop when a democrat becomes president. The CFR is making sure that your country is going to be destroy economically and socially so they can form the north american union. You really still believe there is a difference between republicans and democrats? Research the CFR. Look at the members. Thats right, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Cheney, oh no not that fascist asshole Mccain.

http://en.wikipedia....reign_Relations

Take a look at the members and even the corporations involved.

[Banshee]

Hybrid, did you see what happened in Iraq right after the americans conquered Bagdah? The population was armed and they tried to make militias to stop people from stealing stuff, but it turned into a wild west. And that was just the beggining of what turned to be much worse.


To have a clear view of what you are suggesting, imagine all the n00bs from official C&C forums (EA forums) with guns. Imagine people like G10, Prime, Koma, Vlad06 and all those peoples who once gave problems to our forums with guns. Is it self defense? No way.. this is madness! This is Sparta!

[Sûlherokhh]

Why would you "rearm" a population. If someone wants a gun, they go buy it. The government has no responsibility in allowing people to have guns, that comes from either private companies or sydnicates who make the weapons. The military industry complex is more about making mass profit from war than profit for selling average citizens guns.

1. You are right. The government has no responsibility without implementing a ban. But that is one of the topics discussed.
2. My point was to refute your point. A ban on weapons wouldn't result in more taxes, only in shifting the tax base.
3. Of course, most of the money to be made from weapons is coming from the government. But still a significant part comes from civil weapons sales, inlcuding taxes on those.
4. Much more interesting is something else. How about considering the mindset behind all this. There not only is a difference in gun laws and crime rates among the different countries cited but also background of those countries and their government. The U.S. is a big country. It's also very powerful, which results in a somewhat political independence (contrary to for example any E.U. state.). The U.S. can pretty much go alone on certain issues. That makes the U.S. government pretty powerful, which is something to be feared not only by other countries but also by it's own citizens. Who'd come to rescue them if their King Kong broke loose?
I still don't think that having everyone carrying a gun around would help much. IF people would act responsibly with dangerous tools the matter would be different. But in the present climate of fear and hate somebody will always be trigger happy. A solution to that would only work if it reduces that atmosphere, which is basically in the hands of the government as well. But it has been a policy of the current presidency to establish and maintain that atmosphere as a political tool, much to the detriment of civilian health. And don't tell me the ... ( fill in the blank with any foreign power) started it all. Attitudes toward the U.S. are primarily the responsibility of the U.S.
With power there comes responsibility. No need to talk about jealousy toward economic success. Global economy is a game where wins and losses total each other out. Chuggin fairness overboard tends to sow a harvest of hate.

Military investments won't drop when a democrat becomes president.
...

I forgot to add a smiley on that one. I am too disillusioned to believe in gross differences between the two major american parties. It was meant as a sarcastic remark.

[Tom]

Hybrid, did you see what happened in Iraq right after the americans conquered Bagdah? The population was armed and they tried to make militias to stop people from stealing stuff, but it turned into a wild west. And that was just the beggining of what turned to be much worse.

Yes because they are defending their country. Are you mad? So technically under your view the US military should disarm as well and weapons should never be produced. Never gunna happen.

Sûlherokhh I'll give you a response tommorrow mate. A little drunk now so a bit difficult to concentrate.

[some_weirdGuy]

If we are going to pull random scenarios out of our asses for fear mongering purposes then lets do this:

A bank robber runs into a bank and holds everybody up. Beause no one is armed and he is they are forced to comply. The police turn up and the back robber is trapped. Now he is holding everyone hostage in ransom for some demands. Innocent people could get killed if the police make a mistake.

Now lets reverse that. Bank robber runs into a bank. Everybody has a weapon. 1 against 20 people? Who will win?

Just because everybody has a gun, it doesn't mean a shot will be fired. A responsible person knows you can diffuse a situation without even firing a shot.

and how often would this scenario happen if there were no guns?

a hell of a lot less then if everyone has guns, and then the robbers would probably do drive by shooting, and come in after the confusion and the people have died

or then robbers would just come in wearing a whole lot of bullet proof armor, or in large mobs of 50 people or something


you keep saying that 'we are responsible adults', but thats not true, you may be, your friends may be, but lots of people are not

lots of people are idiots, also, you act like "we need guns! our government is oppressing us, they are evil and trying to enslave us all, if we have guns we can fight back", What are you, a freaking terrorist?, last i checked America was a democracy, with freedom, and rights, the government isn't making you slaves, or killing you in the streets...

stop trying to make out like it is

also, this was suppose to be about guns on Campus, not guns in the whole of America

i think the laws should stay how they are, with police, and people with a gun license being allowed to have a gun(but locked up at all times unless being used for hunting or whatever)

and not having them in cities and other populated places(police can though, it makes sense they have them), cause you don't go hunting in the city(security guards could keep them though as well, as its part of their job)

[Casen]

What are your people's opinions on people who own guns and use them responsibly (THE MAJORITY OF GUN OWNERS IN THE U.S.A.)? Whether you THINK they need them or not, using your own logic and pre-conceived beliefs and point of view, is irrelevant. Is it right to take guns away from those people, who don't commit crimes with them? No it's not. It simply isn't. It's generalizing to solve a problem, which while it MIGHT be effective (it really depends on the culture and other variables), it is not necessarily the right thing to do.

Eh, not to seem like I'm playing for the wrong team, but a bad paradigm to put forward. I mean, Hitler also had a nose, I guess we should chop off our noses... *cough*

Not defending anything but logic and the truth.

[some_weirdGuy]

I'm saying that guns should be banned from all except experienced people, with gun licenses, who have an actual use for one(profession, etc), besides, no mater how resposible you are, you don't need a gun on campus...

[CodeCat]

Treason.

Or Republikflucht? You choose.

To go back to Banshee's example of Iraq: do you think Saddam actually let his citizens have guns? No way. But they got them soon enough when they needed to defend their country.

[Casen]

I'm saying that guns should be banned from all except experienced people, with gun licenses, who have an actual use for one(profession, etc), besides, no mater how resposible you are, you don't need a gun on campus...

Oh, well I agree with that.

Confusing.

[Casen]

Treason.

Or Republikflucht? You choose.

If analogies meant anything, then that image Hybrid posted is a viable argument.

[CodeCat]

False dichotomies are never an argument. 'You either agree with me or you support mass-murdering dictators' is a false statement and you know it.

[Casen]

I never said I didn't know it.

Clearly you should notice I was arguing against such things, against Hybrid's image. I know you don't just have to be on one of two sides.

Actually you know what this argument is becoming confusing.

[duke_Qa]

I'm saying that guns should be banned from all except experienced people, with gun licenses, who have an actual use for one(profession, etc), besides, no mater how responsible you are, you don't need a gun on campus...

pretty much what i've said. although i see the loophole in "gun licenses", which i believe the states already got a system on.

In my opinion there should be a license on the same difficulty level as a drivers license(not 16 years, 18, and a minimum cost of 1000-2000$ in training hours, minimum 15hours, though more focus on psychology, lawful places to bring your gun.), double that if you are going for handguns. No matter if you only use it for competition shooting, because they aren't meant for hunting but self defense/shooting people.


it shouldn't be impossible to get a gun, but it shouldn't be laughable easy.

[Paladin58]

I can agree with that. Well, except for the handgun portion. But I won't get into that now. And, some_wierdGuy, I can go with yours, too. A place of education should be just that, except in the case of boot camps and police academies. That is, unless there was a course that was based around competitive shooting/gun use and safety. But, that could be accomplished with an airsoft gun, all the same.

[some_weirdGuy]

yep

and yeah, they should have a rigorous testing regime before you can get a gun license
and you would have to re-do it after a while(including getting a psycho-evaluation thing or whatever its called, so that we can know that you aren't going to go crazy on us...)

[duke_Qa]

the gun of power should not rest in the hands of the malleable race of humans, for they will be tainted by its malice

Well, except for the handgun portion

the handgun is practically the part that actually needs testing. hunting equipment shouldn't be too hard, but it should demand a bit of work(if someone wants to kill a guy with a hunting rifle, i guess that can be done, but it takes a hell of a lot more planning than a urge-of-the-moment shootout. and not getting spotted while moving out, doing it, and moving back in is even harder). handguns is not a hunting weapon, its a killing weapon, and the consequences of killing and the risks of unnecessary killings should be a part of getting a handgun.