Opinion Why gun control is...well...stupid

[TeaMMatE11]

So a little background before I kick this off.  This is a rant, and itms mostly focused on California's gun laws, not the country's gun laws.  I also encourage a FULL, THOROUGH READ before commenting.  Clear?  Ok, good.


California is a very gun restrictive state, only allowing 10 bullets in a mag, rifles have to be only semi-auto, etc etc.. Now, the Governor of California passed a law requiring guns to "micro-stamp" an id number on a bullet as it is being fired.  Let's just focus on this for a second before we continue.  Ruger and another gun company pulled out of California because it was getting too expensive to keep up with California's legislation.  On top of that, this is a rediculous claim, because we don't have the technology for that yet.


Yes, Sacramento passed a law that is not even FEASIBLE for the name of "gun control."


Number 2) Sacramento just passed another law saying that all magazine fed rifles are considered Assault rifles.  That is sincerely stupid.  Let's move on before I get too worked up about that.


Now we have gun control laws in general:


1) America is NOT the most violent country in the world, despite the "anti-gun" shit the media dances around on the TV.  It is THE PERSON, NOT THE GUNS.  If weapons WERE the problem, then we should have no SECOND AMENDMENT.  It's stupid, irresponsible gun users who pull stupid stunts.  On top of that, Russia is the MOST violent country in the nation, and guns are banned there.  


2) Banning guns not ONLY violates the 2nd Amendment, but it also takes away the potential safety from a person.  What do I mean by this?  I'm talking about home defense (after all, self defense is the MOST common reason to learn how to shoot a gun).  If a robber or a murderer comes into your home, and he has a firearm, and you only have a knife, who's gonna win?  The criminal.  Criminals don't care about laws, THEY HAVE ILLEGAL GUNS ANYWAYS.  The U.K. just banned knives and swords because gangs were using them.  Banning guns will do nothing more than to put people in danger MORE THAN THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY.  Then what's next?  Lots of stabbings.  Then the ban of knives.  then people would be best to death with fists and feet.  Is the government going to cut off our hands and feet as well?


3) The second amendment protects against the civilians rights to have guns.  According to Crash Course US History, when Hamilton wrote the 2nd amendment, he wrote it with the intent that the civilian should be as well armed as the military. Back in the 1800's, the only weapons were muskets.  Point is, guns are there to help protect us from a home invasion, an invasion force into the US, or a corrupt government.


4) in places where guns are banned, there is more violence.  Research has been done, and the places where guns are banned are the most violent.  I wouldn't want to live in a world where violence runs rampant.


I had to get this off my chest, and I realize that a lot of people are not going to agree with this list, but I encourage an open mind even if I was a little hostile.  Forgive me, and thank you for reading.

 

[Greenbriar]

I agree with a number of your points (not Russia being the most violent country in the nation mind you), but as an Aussie where gun control is in place, we have had a sharp drop in gun-related crime. Particularly mass shootings.


There are ways and ways to control violence, and you guys have some constitutional issues around the right to bear arms which shouldn't be disregarded, but gun control can work.


It's just moronic to put in laws that won't or can't be obeyed - at least unless the intent was to drive away the gun corporations.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

I agree with a number of your points (not Russia being the most violent country in the nation mind you), but as an Aussie where gun control is in place, we have had a sharp drop in gun-related crime. Particularly mass shootings.


There are ways and ways to control violence, and you guys have some constitutional issues around the right to bear arms which shouldn't be disregarded, but gun control can work.


It's just moronic to put in laws that won't or can't be obeyed - at least unless the intent was to drive away the gun corporations.

And yet this is exactly what California is doing.  The laws here are getting so stupid it's getting to the point, as you said, moronic and idiotic to even put these laws in legislation.  


When I was writing this, I don't mean that there SHOULD be no control, but control in moderation.  People having LMG's would be a huge disaster.  Yes, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, any type of "heavy" ordinance SHOULD be banned.  What I'm saying is, it is utterly stupid to limit the mag size of weapons, and on top of that, when the guns are stored away, the ammo and the gun have to be in separate bags.  this is a HUGE safety risk on the grounds of self-defense.


There has been a stupid argument that the second amendment only applies to militia groups such as police forces, etc. but that conservative argument is bullshit.  Again; Hamilton wrote it for the PEOPLE to have the weapons to form their own militia to take down a government that they believe is corrupt.  Gun control is, in my opinion, reverse psycology.  It's like saying "don't do drugs" yet people do it anyways.  They get guns that are not "california legal."  Again, if weapons were the problem, then what is considered a weapon?  Anything and everything can be considered a weapon.  

 

[norway]

I'm pretty annoyed with the whole thing too. Because if you analyze the current dem nominee's pursuit of gun control, it has as many loop holes and little thorns of restrictions as our tax situation. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaves the decent people entirely defenseless when a situation arises - as you said. And just like the restrictions on drugs, the reason it's such an issue isn't because everyone's an addict, but when deem something as 'off limits' the value sky rockets, the desire intensifies, and the strive to get 'it' has no limits, meaning an increase of whatever coming in illegally from other countries. It's just calling for trouble, especially around a time when thousands of refugees are pouring in, unaccounted for and dropped off at random, who pose as a potential threat against what's already a rising crime rate all over the country in America. Degrees aside, it's happening, and disarming the people is just wrong. Or, unconstitutional. 


Anything can be used as a weapon. All of your points are dead on - banning things just makes the morally corrupt more enticed to acquire them by another means. I look at open borders + gun restriction = catastrophe. 


Iiii basically repeated everything you said at the end of that paragraph, I missed what you stated at the end there. lol. Basically, I agree. My opinion is a little irrelevant, maybe, but I think we should go into communities and clean them up, instead of just targeting the people that're expected to follow the rules. That's a whole lot of predictable rebellion right there. There're gangs clogging the streets of Chicago, NYC, nasty parts of Southern CA, so bad they're a secured movie stereotype! 

 

[TeaMMatE11]

I'm pretty annoyed with the whole thing too. Because if you analyze the current dem nominee's pursuit of gun control, it has as many loop holes and little thorns of restrictions as our tax situation. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens leaves the decent people entirely defenseless when a situation arises - as you said. And just like the restrictions on drugs, the reason it's such an issue isn't because everyone's an addict, but when deem something as 'off limits' the value sky rockets, the desire intensifies, and the strive to get 'it' has no limits, meaning an increase of whatever coming in illegally from other countries. It's just calling for trouble, especially around a time when thousands of refugees are pouring in, unaccounted for and dropped off at random, who pose as a potential threat against what's already a rising crime rate all over the country in America. Degrees aside, it's happening, and disarming the people is just wrong. Or, unconstitutional. 


Anything can be used as a weapon. All of your points are dead on - banning things just makes the morally corrupt more enticed to acquire them by another means. I look at open borders + gun restriction = catastrophe. 


Iiii basically repeated everything you said at the end of that paragraph, I missed what you stated at the end there. lol. Basically, I agree. My opinion is a little irrelevant, maybe, but I think we should go into communities and clean them up, instead of just targeting the people that're expected to follow the rules. That's a whole lot of predictable rebellion right there. There're gangs clogging the streets of Chicago, NYC, nasty parts of Southern CA, so bad they're a secured movie stereotype! 

It's just so idiotic to try to control guns when guns aren't the problem.  I was just thinking about this, and it's like all the issues with Pokemon go when it first came out.  Millennials don't have common sense, at all.  Unfortunately, all of us are essentially screwed because of the poor choices these people make.  It's like that girl who sued Niantic for HER OWN ACCIDENT.  If you don't know this story, you're in for a treat.


Essentially a girl got hit by a car and sued Niantic because she was trying to catch Pokemon.  [Insert fail music here].  REALLY?  Are you that stu.... *sighs* I...don't even.... *flips table*


Taking away guns is essentially like suing a company for making a product that you yourself bought, and lets say, kicked the machine and it stopped working.  Then you go to the company and sue them for selling you a broken machine when you broke it yourself.  It's not the companies, it's not the choice of weapons, again, it is the problem of the PEOPLE and how they respond to things with RESPONSIBILITY.  If you're going to commit a stupid act, OWE YOURSELF TO IT and admit you made a mistake.

 

[norway]

It's just so idiotic to try to control guns when guns aren't the problem.  I was just thinking about this, and it's like all the issues with Pokemon go when it first came out.  Millennials don't have common sense, at all.  Unfortunately, all of us are essentially screwed because of the poor choices these people make.  It's like that girl who sued Niantic for HER OWN ACCIDENT.  If you don't know this story, you're in for a treat.


Essentially a girl got hit by a car and sued Niantic because she was trying to catch Pokemon.  [Insert fail music here].  REALLY?  Are you that stu.... *sighs* I...don't even.... *flips table*


Taking away guns is essentially like suing a company for making a product that you yourself bought, and lets say, kicked the machine and it stopped working.  Then you go to the company and sue them for selling you a broken machine when you broke it yourself.  It's not the companies, it's not the choice of weapons, again, it is the problem of the PEOPLE and how they respond to things with RESPONSIBILITY.  If you're going to commit a stupid act, OWE YOURSELF TO IT and admit you made a mistake.

I heard she got hit, but I didn't know she was the one suing in them. lol. it's not the fault of the company, no, but sadly human beings just have to ruin things. The majority can just enjoy a nice pass time while keeping common sense and their own well being in mind, but there's always that minority that is practically asking to get killed because of some sort of stupidity. They're the ones that ruin the game for everyone else. As are the people who abuse every gun fatality story by pushing gun control right behind it, ignoring the morality of individuals and the fact that an inanimate object cannot be held accountable.   


We have a government that caters to stupid, though. We're trying to ban things left and right, and will eventually just be grey. 

 

[mammon.]

As someone who lives in California and is all for guns, I have to agree with you there!!

 

[ii Miku]

America isn't the most violent country on earth, no. But what good does it do to compare ourselves to warn-ravaged countries like Venezuela, Nigeria or the Sudan? Cause compared to the rest of the modern, western world we do indeed have gun violence rates that are off the charts. The United States has 10 gun related deaths for every 100,000 citizens. Compare that to 1 for Sweden, 2 for France, 0.99 for Germany, 0.93 for Australia, 0.23 (!!) for the UK. Clearly these countries are doing something better than we are.


No one in this country needs an automatic gun. No one in this country needs military grade weapons. No one in this country needs a gun capable of shooting 50 rounds in 10 seconds. The sole purpose of these types of weapons is to cause as much destruction and death as possible in as little amount of time as possible. You don't hunt with these types of weapons and you most certainly don't defend yourself with these types of weapons.


Now. It's unrealistic to think that we can become like other countries and get rid of most guns. American culture is simply too obsessed with them and they're too ingrained in our populace. I accept that. America is unique when it comes to this issue, - and the vast majority of gun owners I am sure are responsible, sane adults. However actions like the NRA fighting against keeping guns off school grounds, fighting against keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally insane, fighting against closing the gun show loophole where anyone can buy a gun without any sort of background check whatsoever is ridiculous.


And no. A good guy with a gun does not stop a bad guy with a gun. Almost never, ever, ever. So don't bring that up. America has had more shootings over the past couple years than any other country on earth and common sense gun control even if it wouldn't have stopped these terrible massacres could certainly have reduced the chaos and causalities.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

America isn't the most violent country on earth, no. But what good does it do to compare ourselves to warn-ravaged countries like Venezuela, Nigeria or the Sudan? Cause compared to the rest of the modern, western world we do indeed have gun violence rates that are off the charts. The United States has 10 gun related deaths for every 100,000 citizens. Compare that to 1 for Sweden, 2 for France, 0.99 for Germany, 0.93 for Australia, 0.23 (!!) for the UK. Clearly these countries are doing something better than we are.


No one in this country needs an automatic gun. No one in this country needs military grade weapons. No one in this country needs a gun capable of shooting 50 rounds in 10 seconds. The sole purpose of these types of weapons is to cause as much destruction and death as possible in as little amount of time as possible. You don't hunt with these types of weapons and you most certainly don't defend yourself with these types of weapons.


Now. It's unrealistic to think that we can become like other countries and get rid of most guns. American culture is simply too obsessed with them and they're too ingrained in our populace. I accept that. America is unique when it comes to this issue, - and the vast majority of gun owners I am sure are responsible, sane adults. However actions like the NRA fighting against keeping guns off school grounds, fighting against keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally insane, fighting against closing the gun show loophole where anyone can buy a gun without any sort of background check whatsoever is ridiculous.


And no. A good guy with a gun does not stop a bad guy with a gun. Almost never, ever, ever. So don't bring that up. America has had more shootings over the past couple years than any other country on earth and common sense gun control even if it wouldn't have stopped these terrible massacres could certainly have reduced the chaos and causalities.

Again, Criminals already HAVE military-grade weapons.  Again, it is the user of the weapon that has to be held accountable.  It's not going to be a simple "let's ban guns and everything is going to be nice."  


1) this is unconstitutional.


2) Criminals WILL STILL HAVE GUNS.  It doesn't matter that GUNS WILL BE BANNED.  We give up our weapons for what purpose?  To give criminals even MORE of an opportunity to cause damage.  Again, you never, EVER bring a knife to a gun fight.  That is a guaranteed death.


3) people who are mentally unstable have guns.  Yes, they do. Again, it's not the WEAPONS fault for doing the damage, it is SOLEY THE USER AND ONLY THE USER.  Yes, mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns.  


Again, there has to be limits, but when those limitations get out of hand like it is in California, it is REALLY upsetting.  

 

[ii Miku]

Again, Criminals already HAVE military-grade weapons.  Again, it is the user of the weapon that has to be held accountable.  It's not going to be a simple "let's ban guns and everything is going to be nice."  


1) this is unconstitutional.


2) Criminals WILL STILL HAVE GUNS.  It doesn't matter that GUNS WILL BE BANNED.  We give up our weapons for what purpose?  To give criminals even MORE of an opportunity to cause damage.  Again, you never, EVER bring a knife to a gun fight.  That is a guaranteed death.


3) people who are mentally unstable have guns.  Yes, they do. Again, it's not the WEAPONS fault for doing the damage, it is SOLEY THE USER AND ONLY THE USER.  Yes, mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns.  


Again, there has to be limits, but when those limitations get out of hand like it is in California, it is REALLY upsetting.  

When did I mention that guns should be banned? Simply that common sense gun control should be put into place. Criminals by definition do not follow laws. Any law could be refuted with that kind of argument. Laws against rape, murder, and theft are rarely followed by rapists, murderers, and thieves, but the fact that such people exist in society is the reason behind such regulations in the first place.


 If we were to accept that a law is justified only if it has a 100% compliance rate (this is the logical extension of that line of argument), then we could systematically dismantle every existing law until nothing remains but the state of nature. Not to mention that there are already plenty of weapons that have been banned which criminals aren’t using– RPGs, machine guns, anti-tank weapons, surface-to-air missiles, and so on. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean that criminals automatically have a desire to use said weapons, or have access to a black market that could supply them. If we were to impose a blanket ban on high capacity weapons and military grade weapons not used for self defense or hunting then like many other countries the ease of access to such weapons would plummet. This isn't up for debate -- it's fact in most of the western, civilized world.


The point of law has nothing to do with its adherence; that’s the point of law enforcement.

 

[Swindle]

Well the problem with laws is that they're really just band-aids that will only deter people who probably never intended to do criminal acts in the first place. You've got to target the source of the problems, but it's a lot easier and takes less time to think about to just smack a law on something and call it a day. A lot of countries with stricter gun control do have less gun-related deaths, but they typically also have less income gaps, more social security and the like. So, it's a lot more complicated than people on the news like to make it out to be. The object of "gun" definitely isn't the core problem though, although I'd one day like to see a future where we don't need such things for, well, anything. 

 

[norway]

Gun restrictions are just a way for the government to have more power. It's the most basic plot line ever, but everyone's just shrugging it off because we're all tossing around statistics and the names of foreign countries that are better/worse than here. Bringing the focus to the American people alone, there needs to be more attention given to communities of all diversities - as stated before, there's issues with the people, not the weapon. We'll always have fatalities, people could just use their fists if they wanted to - it's unfortunate, but tightening laws on abiding citizens will only lead to their defenselessness as our government is full of it to stand up to anyone seen as the bad guys. The issues in the failing government, gangs, illegals & lack of vetting, trafficking, diversified frustrations - failing government. Aside from common sense procedures like background checks, you can't always know if someone is sane. Pushing for processes will only lead to tighter restrictions, meaning more protocol, less right, and ultimately a constitution so strangled with red tape it won't even be of use anymore. 


Good guys don't use guns on the bad guys because the good guys usually don't expect to be in that situation, having a license is a safety precaution. It also never happens because our courts are screwed up all to hell, and let the murderers get off easy with light bails and short sentences, if you shot someone out of genuine self defense I guarantee people would spend more time mourning the loss of a convict and ultimately hinting it'd have been better for everyone if the real victim had been killed.   

 

[TerrorKitty]

As someone who lives in California and is all for guns, I have to agree with you there!!

Everyone here is terribly biased and I get it, but there are few things to consider


1. The government isn't a corrupt overlord of power


Yeah, sometimes there can be corruption, but not all of it. The government is huge and not all of it can be corrupt not to mention those who are shady usually get put in jail. Usually, the smaller, less monitored departments can get corrupted but not the higher up as most think.


2. NO ONE IS FUCKING TAKING YOUR GUNS. They are simply making it slightly harder to get MORE, and possibly ban high-powered rifles because honestly as my Commander put it, "If you shoot an intruder with a pistol bullet they're dead. If you shoot them with a high-powered rifle, like an AK-47, that bullet will keep going, through the next house and the next and the next and possibly through a child room." High-powered rifles are not needed for defense, neither are shotguns, a simple pistol will do the job fine. You can KEEP the ones you ALREADY own.


3. If you want to shoot at a range, it would be easier to keep the guns at the range.


4. My Commander also told me about gun training. That most people take it once, get their gun for self-defense or what not and never train again. Some may but most who own one household gun don't. Police train every few weeks, and they use guns (( hopefully not )) all the time! So if a person who may only have to use the gun once, trains once, seems right? But what if that moment when they actually have to use the gun is like a year later, is it really that effective? People who own a gun intended for use should at least go through gun safety a few times a year just to make sure people know what they're doing.


4. It's not banning guns, just making it slightly harder to get them. That may be annoying but deal with it, your a big kid.


5. The right to bare arms was written over 200 years ago, then guns were a very different technology, and the nation was really small. I'm not saying that the 2nd amendment should be ignored, but I think it should be ignored but at least thought about differently. 


6. It's true, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but people use guns to kill people more effectively and on a wider scale. 


7. The gun show loophole, my Commander explained this to me as well "If a teen has $500 and goes to a gun show and sees a guy with a truck who is selling guns, the kid gives the guy the money and takes home a loaded shotgun and some shells. That night, everyone in the kids household is dead, killed by the shotgun. That teen/kid had anger disorders and association with violence. That kid, who has mental illness, now killed his family without a background check." Simple as that.

 

[Swindle]

1. The government isn't a corrupt overlord of power


Yeah, sometimes there can be corruption, but not all of it. The government is huge and not all of it can be corrupt not to mention those who are shady usually get put in jail. Usually, the smaller, less monitored departments can get corrupted but not the higher up as most think.

I don't really disagree with anything else you said, but considering the USA is a capitalist economy whose bottom line is profit and has had a long history of corporations sticking their hands in the government to make things better for themselves. It may not always be bribery, but I don't believe under any circumstances should one trust an entity that is paid by entities that only need you and the rest of us for a workforce to make their goods so that they can make money. 


Besides that, federal officials have been convicted of bribery as early as 2009. 

 

[Grey]

Swindle beat me to most of the points I would have made. The problem of gun violence is sort of exacerbated by this weird cultural inclination to view the causal factors of criminality as irrefutable signs of an intrinsic moral deficiency. 


The treatment of the constitution as some kind of sacred and immutable ideal also doesn't help. Here in Ireland, a constitutional amendment is essentially killing people and it was only added in the 80s. Government is oddly resistant to the calls for repeal - they don't make any money off keeping it on the books.

 

[The Gunrunner]

This is a pretty fun thing to watch on the topic.

 

[TeaMMatE11]

Swindle beat me to most of the points I would have made. The problem of gun violence is sort of exacerbated by this weird cultural inclination to view the causal factors of criminality as irrefutable signs of an intrinsic moral deficiency. 


The treatment of the constitution as some kind of sacred and immutable ideal also doesn't help. Here in Ireland, a constitutional amendment is essentially killing people and it was only added in the 80s. Government is oddly resistant to the calls for repeal - they don't make any money off keeping it on the books.

The US bill of rights was created to help preserve the rights from a tyrannical government.  This is why the US bill of rights can not be muted, because of the 1st Amendment, and it would be a double standard.  Anything infringing on the Constitution infringes on the people's rights.  You have to understand, the US bill of rights protects me and American citizens from the government getting too big.  And even if they do infringe, we the people have the right to tear down the government and set up a new government.

 

[MedievalMethods]

Everyone here is terribly biased and I get it, but there are few things to consider


1. The government isn't a corrupt overlord of power


Yeah, sometimes there can be corruption, but not all of it. The government is huge and not all of it can be corrupt not to mention those who are shady usually get put in jail. Usually, the smaller, less monitored departments can get corrupted but not the higher up as most think.


2. NO ONE IS FUCKING TAKING YOUR GUNS. They are simply making it slightly harder to get MORE, and possibly ban high-powered rifles because honestly as my Commander put it, "If you shoot an intruder with a pistol bullet they're dead. If you shoot them with a high-powered rifle, like an AK-47, that bullet will keep going, through the next house and the next and the next and possibly through a child room." High-powered rifles are not needed for defense, neither are shotguns, a simple pistol will do the job fine. You can KEEP the ones you ALREADY own.


3. If you want to shoot at a range, it would be easier to keep the guns at the range.


4. My Commander also told me about gun training. That most people take it once, get their gun for self-defense or what not and never train again. Some may but most who own one household gun don't. Police train every few weeks, and they use guns (( hopefully not )) all the time! So if a person who may only have to use the gun once, trains once, seems right? But what if that moment when they actually have to use the gun is like a year later, is it really that effective? People who own a gun intended for use should at least go through gun safety a few times a year just to make sure people know what they're doing.


4. It's not banning guns, just making it slightly harder to get them. That may be annoying but deal with it, your a big kid.


5. The right to bare arms was written over 200 years ago, then guns were a very different technology, and the nation was really small. I'm not saying that the 2nd amendment should be ignored, but I think it should be ignored but at least thought about differently. 


6. It's true, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but people use guns to kill people more effectively and on a wider scale. 


7. The gun show loophole, my Commander explained this to me as well "If a teen has $500 and goes to a gun show and sees a guy with a truck who is selling guns, the kid gives the guy the money and takes home a loaded shotgun and some shells. That night, everyone in the kids household is dead, killed by the shotgun. That teen/kid had anger disorders and association with violence. That kid, who has mental illness, now killed his family without a background check." Simple as that.

1. Government is inherently a mechanism of control. Merriam-Webster defines it as:

the act or process of governing; specifically authoritative direction or control

You do admit, to your credit, the possibility of corruption in government. But I think you take the possibility of such corruption too lightly. Does that just make me a pessimist? If so, then pessimists founded the United States, and issued our Constitution with the Bill of Rights.  


You seem to believe that government is a positive force, with instances of bad. I believe, it is a negative force, with instances of good. A "neccesary evil", to use a cliche. As focal points of power, institutions with legislative, executive and judicial power over millions of people naturally become targets for unsavory groups and characters, who seek that power. When should such a band of unscrupulous persons ever manage to gain a foothold, our benign neccesary evil becomes a rather active, actual evil. I need not mention the giants of history (Nazi Germany, the USSR, the Roman Empire), because there are still many modern examples out there, large (the PRC, Russian Federation, the DPRK) and small (Saudi Arabia, Laos, Mexico). To sum my point, government is neutral, with an natural inclination towards corruption, unless created by ethical men, muzzled by principled laws, and watched over by an informed and armed citizenry.


2. Its interesting that you say "No ones taking your guns", yet condemn shotguns and high-powered rifles with a "well, maybe except these, but anything else is okay".


The fact of the matter is, the government has no business limiting the law-abiding, average citizen from acquiring whatever he wants to defend himself. There is nothing criminal with owning a shotgun, or a high-powered rifle. I myself own 3 high-powered, large capacity magazine rifles (a Ruger, a Marlin, and a Mosin-Nagant), as well as a shotgun (Winchester 20-gauge) and a handgun (.38 Colt Official Police). I like to shoot, I like to hunt, I like to be defended against criminals, and I like to have the tools to begin guerrilla war or underground revolt in  the case of an invasion of mainland America, or a corrupt Federal government. I am also completely no threat to you, society, or the Federal government. Unless you attempt to cause me, my family, or my property harm. In which case.. things get interesting   


3. No, actually. While range costs differ, depending on place, fees for renting guns from the establishment or storing your own guns at the establishment, are a pretty penny. For $250 dollars a month, I can store all the weapons mentioned above, with ammunition, at the local range I frequent. For $25, you can get a wall mount gun rack for your home at Academy, a sporting goods store where I live. Again, range guns and storage units may be cheaper where you are, but for me, its just waste money when I can safely lock up my guns in a place I know they will always be. 


4(a). On this, you and I are in complete agreement on. I believe it is imperative that citizens of any country, who choose to arm themselves according to their countries laws, must be educated and personally invested in learning about their arms. In fact, I would promote that even people who don't own firearms, go and educate themselves on the tools and the subject. One of the biggest obstacles faced by gun owners is the vast majority of people who don't own guns, yet have a vague and usually incorrect or incomplete opinion about them. Its a lot easier to be sacred of the unknown, then it is of something you are intimately familiar with. 



4(b)Theres nothing here other than a blurb statement of "gun ownerships status needs to be more difficult to achieve!" You should make yourself more clear, otherwise, this is just a shallow statement. 


5.This is a common argument used to dissuade people against the 2nd Amendment, and the belief in baring arms in general. However, the 2nd Amendment, which includes the right to bear arms, is very much timeless. Allow me to explain: Many people believe that the 2nd Amendment should be used solely in the context of the times it was written. This has created the Musket's Only myth, that propagates the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to blackpowder, low-tech firearms. That, whether the Founders were ignorant of what future weapons would be like, or that they specifically meant this to apply to period weapons, it only applies to weapons from that time period, and not the beloved and coveted AR-15. 


This is untrue, since to accept this argument would mean that the Founding Fathers were completely ignorant of the technological advances happening in their time, and too dense to make logical conclusions. In the year 1787, when the Constitution and the Bills of Rights were accepted by Congress, many "assault weapons" were already being used. Among these are the Belton Flintlocks, which could fire 20 rounds in the pull of 1 trigger, and 5 seconds to reload. See also, the Girardoni Air Rifle, where a 22-high-capacitiy-round-magazine could be fire in 30 seconds. Other examples are the Puckle gun, an early heavy machine gun and was around  years before the Revolutionary War. Even hand-carried revolvers like the Duckfoot or Pepperbox pistols could carry more than 20-rounds in them, and were developed hundreds of years before the Constitution. Further evidence of the Founding Fathers awareness of advance weaponry were grenades, self-propelled artillery, and submarines. The latter which was actually made and used in an attempt to destroy British blockades at American ports. We can look further back in history, to the times of Leonardo Di Vinci, to see concepts and plans for early tanks and even areoplanes. 200 years before the 2nd Amendment. 


Additionally, not only were the Founding Fathers aware of these guns. They were fans of these guns! So much so, that they drafted the 2nd Amendment so broadly to not only include private personal weapons, but full-on artillery. James Madison, American president and signer of the Constitution,  signed letters of marque to allow individuals to obtain privately owned ships, armed with cannons, that was authorized to attack enemy shipping. So, to the contrary, I think there is a strong argument for the 2nd Amendment here. 


6. Statistically this is true. Gun violence can be the premier cause of death. However, like you said, people kill people. And in an enviorment without guns, the murder/death  rate itself is still substantially higher. So while doing away, or limiting the ability, of people to legally by and own guns does do away with gun violence, the underling violence, still remains and actually grows. For example, the Crime Prevention Research Center has published a poll that shows the rate of homicides in  192 countries. 

As can be seen, the United States rates at under 10 murders, per 100,000. More accurately about 4-5 murders per 100,000. It is also a country with a large gun-owning population, over 41% as stated by Statista, many of whom have more than one gun. That said, the nation of the UK has roughly 2-3 murders per 100,000. It is a country with a very limited, gun-owning population. Apparently under .07% of the population are gun-owning, using figures from GunPolicy.com. Now at surface, this looks like a graph that supports gun control. However you must, if you havn't already, take into account the relative population of both nations. 64.1 million in the UK, versus 318.9 million in the USA. Through my own calculations, which you an do as well, you'll notice that the by relative population size, more murders are committed in the gun-safe UK, than in the gun-totting USA. 


7. I don't have a lot of information on gun shows at hand, so I can't approve or disprove this point. Personal experience at gun shows tells me that you'll always have good shows that do their homework and check up on the people buying their hardware. And then there are others that are a little bit more shady and lassie-faire with who they give guns too. In any case, this is a small and expensive niche market that caters to gun collectors primarily. While the average joe can go to one of these to but firearms, it isn't as prevalent as incidents from illegally obtained weapons. 


Thats it for tonight guys, I'm out. Looking to see some rebuttals to my points tomorrow. 

 

[TeaMMatE11]

1. Government is inherently a mechanism of control. Merriam-Webster defines it as:


You do admit, to your credit, the possibility of corruption in government. But I think you take the possibility of such corruption too lightly. Does that just make me a pessimist? If so, then pessimists founded the United States, and issued our Constitution with the Bill of Rights.  


You seem to believe that government is a positive force, with instances of bad. I believe, it is a negative force, with instances of good. A "neccesary evil", to use a cliche. As focal points of power, institutions with legislative, executive and judicial power over millions of people naturally become targets for unsavory groups and characters, who seek that power. When should such a band of unscrupulous persons ever manage to gain a foothold, our benign neccesary evil becomes a rather active, actual evil. I need not mention the giants of history (Nazi Germany, the USSR, the Roman Empire), because there are still many modern examples out there, large (the PRC, Russian Federation, the DPRK) and small (Saudi Arabia, Laos, Mexico). To sum my point, government is neutral, with an natural inclination towards corruption, unless created by ethical men, muzzled by principled laws, and watched over by an informed and armed citizenry.


2. Its interesting that you say "No ones taking your guns", yet condemn shotguns and high-powered rifles with a "well, maybe except these, but anything else is okay".


The fact of the matter is, the government has no business limiting the law-abiding, average citizen from acquiring whatever he wants to defend himself. There is nothing criminal with owning a shotgun, or a high-powered rifle. I myself own 3 high-powered, large capacity magazine rifles (a Ruger, a Marlin, and a Mosin-Nagant), as well as a shotgun (Winchester 20-gauge) and a handgun (.38 Colt Official Police). I like to shoot, I like to hunt, I like to be defended against criminals, and I like to have the tools to begin guerrilla war or underground revolt in  the case of an invasion of mainland America, or a corrupt Federal government. I am also completely no threat to you, society, or the Federal government. Unless you attempt to cause me, my family, or my property harm. In which case.. things get interesting   


3. No, actually. While range costs differ, depending on place, fees for renting guns from the establishment or storing your own guns at the establishment, are a pretty penny. For $250 dollars a month, I can store all the weapons mentioned above, with ammunition, at the local range I frequent. For $25, you can get a wall mount gun rack for your home at Academy, a sporting goods store where I live. Again, range guns and storage units may be cheaper where you are, but for me, its just waste money when I can safely lock up my guns in a place I know they will always be. 


4(a). On this, you and I are in complete agreement on. I believe it is imperative that citizens of any country, who choose to arm themselves according to their countries laws, must be educated and personally invested in learning about their arms. In fact, I would promote that even people who don't own firearms, go and educate themselves on the tools and the subject. One of the biggest obstacles faced by gun owners is the vast majority of people who don't own guns, yet have a vague and usually incorrect or incomplete opinion about them. Its a lot easier to be sacred of the unknown, then it is of something you are intimately familiar with. 



4(b)Theres nothing here other than a blurb statement of "gun ownerships status needs to be more difficult to achieve!" You should make yourself more clear, otherwise, this is just a shallow statement. 


5.This is a common argument used to dissuade people against the 2nd Amendment, and the belief in baring arms in general. However, the 2nd Amendment, which includes the right to bear arms, is very much timeless. Allow me to explain: Many people believe that the 2nd Amendment should be used solely in the context of the times it was written. This has created the Musket's Only myth, that propagates the idea that the 2nd Amendment only applies to blackpowder, low-tech firearms. That, whether the Founders were ignorant of what future weapons would be like, or that they specifically meant this to apply to period weapons, it only applies to weapons from that time period, and not the beloved and coveted AR-15. 


This is untrue, since to accept this argument would mean that the Founding Fathers were completely ignorant of the technological advances happening in their time, and too dense to make logical conclusions. In the year 1787, when the Constitution and the Bills of Rights were accepted by Congress, many "assault weapons" were already being used. Among these are the Belton Flintlocks, which could fire 20 rounds in the pull of 1 trigger, and 5 seconds to reload. See also, the Girardoni Air Rifle, where a 22-high-capacitiy-round-magazine could be fire in 30 seconds. Other examples are the Puckle gun, an early heavy machine gun and was around  years before the Revolutionary War. Even hand-carried revolvers like the Duckfoot or Pepperbox pistols could carry more than 20-rounds in them, and were developed hundreds of years before the Constitution. Further evidence of the Founding Fathers awareness of advance weaponry were grenades, self-propelled artillery, and submarines. The latter which was actually made and used in an attempt to destroy British blockades at American ports. We can look further back in history, to the times of Leonardo Di Vinci, to see concepts and plans for early tanks and even areoplanes. 200 years before the 2nd Amendment. 


Additionally, not only were the Founding Fathers aware of these guns. They were fans of these guns! So much so, that they drafted the 2nd Amendment so broadly to not only include private personal weapons, but full-on artillery. James Madison, American president and signer of the Constitution,  signed letters of marque to allow individuals to obtain privately owned ships, armed with cannons, that was authorized to attack enemy shipping. So, to the contrary, I think there is a strong argument for the 2nd Amendment here. 


6. Statistically this is true. Gun violence can be the premier cause of death. However, like you said, people kill people. And in an enviorment without guns, the murder/death  rate itself is still substantially higher. So while doing away, or limiting the ability, of people to legally by and own guns does do away with gun violence, the underling violence, still remains and actually grows. For example, the Crime Prevention Research Center has published a poll that shows the rate of homicides in  192 countries. 





As can be seen, the United States rates at under 10 murders, per 100,000. More accurately about 4-5 murders per 100,000. It is also a country with a large gun-owning population, over 41% as stated by Statista, many of whom have more than one gun. That said, the nation of the UK has roughly 2-3 murders per 100,000. It is a country with a very limited, gun-owning population. Apparently under .07% of the population are gun-owning, using figures from GunPolicy.com. Now at surface, this looks like a graph that supports gun control. However you must, if you havn't already, take into account the relative population of both nations. 64.1 million in the UK, versus 318.9 million in the USA. Through my own calculations, which you an do as well, you'll notice that the by relative population size, more murders are committed in the gun-safe UK, than in the gun-totting USA. 


7. I don't have a lot of information on gun shows at hand, so I can't approve or disprove this point. Personal experience at gun shows tells me that you'll always have good shows that do their homework and check up on the people buying their hardware. And then there are others that are a little bit more shady and lassie-faire with who they give guns too. In any case, this is a small and expensive niche market that caters to gun collectors primarily. While the average joe can go to one of these to but firearms, it isn't as prevalent as incidents from illegally obtained weapons. 


Thats it for tonight guys, I'm out. Looking to see some rebuttals to my points tomorrow. 

I think you shut them down.

 

[Swindle]

1. Government is inherently a mechanism of control. Merriam-Webster defines it as:


You do admit, to your credit, the possibility of corruption in government. But I think you take the possibility of such corruption too lightly. Does that just make me a pessimist? If so, then pessimists founded the United States, and issued our Constitution with the Bill of Rights.  


You seem to believe that government is a positive force, with instances of bad. I believe, it is a negative force, with instances of good. A "neccesary evil", to use a cliche. As focal points of power, institutions with legislative, executive and judicial power over millions of people naturally become targets for unsavory groups and characters, who seek that power. When should such a band of unscrupulous persons ever manage to gain a foothold, our benign neccesary evil becomes a rather active, actual evil. I need not mention the giants of history (Nazi Germany, the USSR, the Roman Empire), because there are still many modern examples out there, large (the PRC, Russian Federation, the DPRK) and small (Saudi Arabia, Laos, Mexico). To sum my point, government is neutral, with an natural inclination towards corruption, unless created by ethical men, muzzled by principled laws, and watched over by an informed and armed citizenry.

I'd say that it's not really a necessary evil assuming that the populace is moved to be educated to be able to self-determine and operate autonomously through voluntary association (and honestly, people will work to keep communities up and such regardless of the lack of governmental/corporate incentive). The idea that government as we understand it (top-down legislature) is necessary is a sad thing to think of - sure, the governments you listed as modern examples of bad government certainly are pretty repressive, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. I'd actually say that government is not neutral at all, and even in the best-case scenarios it is simply only less repressive than those governments mentioned. Governments maintain a certain false necessity that the borders and nationalities which divide us all through education and indoctrination. The "democratic" and "free" governments of the western world may not be as domestically oppressive (racism and poor-shaming notwithstanding), but they still don't pull any punches when it comes to oppressing others worldwide or economically. 

Also, for your statistic on murders in the US and UK, I think this is an interesting article for all to read. 

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

 

[TeaMMatE11]

I'd say that it's not really a necessary evil assuming that the populace is moved to be educated to be able to self-determine and operate autonomously through voluntary association (and honestly, people will work to keep communities up and such regardless of the lack of governmental/corporate incentive). The idea that government as we understand it (top-down legislature) is necessary is a sad thing to think of - sure, the governments you listed as modern examples of bad government certainly are pretty repressive, but that's only the tip of the iceberg. I'd actually say that government is not neutral at all, and even in the best-case scenarios it is simply only less repressive than those governments mentioned. Governments maintain a certain false necessity that the borders and nationalities which divide us all through education and indoctrination. The "democratic" and "free" governments of the western world may not be as domestically oppressive (racism and poor-shaming notwithstanding), but they still don't pull any punches when it comes to oppressing others worldwide or economically. 

Also, for your statistic on murders in the US and UK, I think this is an interesting article for all to read. 

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

Wait...I never said that.  that wasn't my quote lol.  That was @MedievalMethods

 

[Swindle]

I know, I just quoted the first one I saw. 

 

[Sizniche]

There are very few things in life that I hate, HATE, more than when people make the argument in politics that "(insert country name other than the United States here) is doing it, and it's working for them, we should follow their lead". The needs of every nation vary greatly. The United States has 5 times as many people as the United Kingdom, and over 40 times as much land territory to defend, and in the event of war the ability of the civilian militia to defend the nation where the army fails can be the difference between success or failure in the war. War aside, however, the purpose of the 2nd amendment, however old the Bill of RIghts is, is still valid. The checks and balances between the three branches of government are what prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, and are imperative to the success of the democratic government in the United States. Guns are the unspoken part of American checks and balances; the means by which the authority of the people and the federal state are balanced. Many of you argue that we're paranoid and that 'the government isn't out to get us'. Of course they aren't. That isn't our point in the slightest. However, that means you're asking us to trust all of our leadership implicitly for the foreseeable future. The fact of the matter is that the United States is one of, if not THE MOST powerful first world country in the world, one many would probably give anything to rule. We elect our politicians on lies as is, so clearly it would not be difficult for the wrong men to get into office and take over the government. It might be a hundred years, maybe a thousand if the United States lasts that long, before anyone tries, but it is ultimately an inevitability that someone will try eventually. "That's never going to happen" is not a valid excuse when it has happened in history multiple times before. Our guns are, and have always been, the only constitutionally guaranteed tool to protect our own freedom with. "Peaceful assembly" won't do much good in the face of a dictatorial power, especially one that would be the size of the United States, but a few hundred million men and women with guns will.


But no, I see your point. Violence has obviously never been the kind of entity to find its way no matter what in humanity's several thousand year history, least of all in the past hundred, and of course guns are the only things anyone ever uses for violence. After all, what does the freedom of a few hundred million people matter, as long as those guns are taken off the street! 

 

[TeaMMatE11]

There are very few things in life that I hate, HATE, more than when people make the argument in politics that "(insert country name other than the United States here) is doing it, and it's working for them, we should follow their lead". The needs of every nation vary greatly. The United States has 5 times as many people as the United Kingdom, and over 40 times as much land territory to defend, and in the event of war the ability of the civilian militia to defend the nation where the army fails can be the difference between success or failure in the war. War aside, however, the purpose of the 2nd amendment, however old the Bill of RIghts is, is still valid. The checks and balances between the three branches of government are what prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful, and are imperative to the success of the democratic government in the United States. Guns are the unspoken part of American checks and balances; the means by which the authority of the people and the federal state are balanced. Many of you argue that we're paranoid and that 'the government isn't out to get us'. Of course they aren't. That isn't our point in the slightest. However, that means you're asking us to trust all of our leadership implicitly for the foreseeable future. The fact of the matter is that the United States is one of, if not THE MOST powerful first world country in the world, one many would probably give anything to rule. We elect our politicians on lies as is, so clearly it would not be difficult for the wrong men to get into office and take over the government. It might be a hundred years, maybe a thousand if the United States lasts that long, before anyone tries, but it is ultimately an inevitability that someone will try eventually. "That's never going to happen" is not a valid excuse when it has happened in history multiple times before. Our guns are, and have always been, the only constitutionally guaranteed tool to protect our own freedom with. "Peaceful assembly" won't do much good in the face of a dictatorial power, especially one that would be the size of the United States, but a few hundred million men and women with guns will.


But no, I see your point. Violence has obviously never been the kind of entity to find its way no matter what in humanity's several thousand year history, least of all in the past hundred, and of course guns are the only things anyone ever uses for violence. After all, what does the freedom of a few hundred million people matter, as long as those guns are taken off the street! 

Guns are the only thing used for violence?


What about our fists for those in abusive relationships?  What about stabbings?


On my local freeway, a guy was walking down on the freeway brandishing a knife, threatening to kill people.  The police shot him because the suspect brandished his knife at the police.  So no, guns are not the ONLY things to be used for violence.  


Also, suicide is another factor to look into the murder rate, as you are murdering yourself.  It's not likely the 10 deaths per 100,000 are homicides, but a part of it is suicides as well.


As said above, the 2nd Amendment tells us that, from history, that we should be as well armed as the military.  This was the original intent.


Another thing, the whole "more guns equals more deaths" is a myth.  I don't need to debunk that again.  


Gun control isn't as simple as it seems.

 

[Sizniche]

Guns are the only thing used for violence?


What about our fists for those in abusive relationships?  What about stabbings?


On my local freeway, a guy was walking down on the freeway brandishing a knife, threatening to kill people.  The police shot him because the suspect brandished his knife at the police.  So no, guns are not the ONLY things to be used for violence.  


Also, suicide is another factor to look into the murder rate, as you are murdering yourself.  It's not likely the 10 deaths per 100,000 are homicides, but a part of it is suicides as well.


As said above, the 2nd Amendment tells us that, from history, that we should be as well armed as the military.  This was the original intent.


Another thing, the whole "more guns equals more deaths" is a myth.  I don't need to debunk that again.  


Gun control isn't as simple as it seems.

The last part of my post was sarcasm. I figured my first paragraph would make that clear enough.