Gun Control

Against heavily militarized police? Please!

I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. Any violent revolution would produce bad conditions for Anarcho-capitalism and would also produce a "vanguard of the folk" situation where the vanguard would turn into a new state.

I suppose for whatever your ideology is though, it might work.
 
I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist. Any violent revolution would produce bad conditions for Anarcho-capitalism and would also produce a "vanguard of the folk" situation where the vanguard would turn into a new state.

I suppose for whatever your ideology is though, it might work.
Keep in mind that the US military has done military war games in American urban settings. Hmmm...
 
That's because all they have to do is drive across state lines to get weapons, or to transport weapons into Chicago or DC.
Which rendered the gun ban useless, and once law abiding citizens were able to carry them crime dropped. thank you making my point for me.
Gun violence is very high in Chicago and DC. That's a fact, what you say about legalizing isn't a fact.
Posted facts apparently don't fit in your narrative best ignore that shit right quick, yo.
And then there was that crazy Uber driver who shot a bunch of folks.
Oh shit, crazy person did crazy thing. BAN UBER DRIVERS NAO! :roll:
 
But that's wrong. Chicago and Washington DC had some of strictest gun laws in the nation and an outright handgun ban but it didn't deter crime one bit. you know what did? legalizing handgun ownership and carry licenses.

http://truthinmedia.com/crime-rates-in-chicago-plummet-after-il-implements-concealed-carry/
This would only work if time travel was involved. Concealed carry licenses were not sent out until late February 2014 but they retroactively reduced crime in Q1 2014? Yeah, right.
The winter of 2013/2014 was the coldest in Chicago history and it is known that cold weather lowers crime rates.
 
Here's what they do prove: Gun laws have little impact on the murder rate.
You have misunderstood what the article is saying. The article contends that handgun laws have little impact on the murder rate, not gun laws as a whole.
Anyway, its most irrelevant, nobody has suggested a handgun ban. What needs banning in America is Semi Automatic Rifles, Automatic Rifles and hunting rifles that use above 22.lr ammunition.

Lets have a look at countries homicide rates that have tight gun laws and compare them with America's.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-Kingdom/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Italy/United-States/Crime
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Spain/United-States/Crime

So as we can see, intentional homicide rates, murder rates and murders per million people are much lower in countries with tight gun controls. This shows that tight gun control lowers intentional homicide rates and murder rates.

There are clear links between firearm regulation and homicide rates, as this article says:
http://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-powerful-evidence-that-gun-control-works
 
Last edited:
Your view on the need for strict or loose guns laws highly depends on how you view your fellow citizens and what your priorities are. No debate will change your views. It's almost like religion, really. Chances of you breaking away from your original point of view is fairly small. Strangely enough, you are not born into it like is the case with most religions. So what makes people pro or anti? I have no clue.

An interesting documentary which somewhat ties into the subject.
Care to elaborate? Because it's unclear what you're trying to say with that docu.

What needs banning in America is Semi Automatic Rifles, Automatic Rifles and hunting rifles that use above 22.lr ammunition.
Are you trolling? Rifles are used in an almost irrelevant numbers of murders. Yes, there are a few high profile mass shootings, but statistically they are exceptions and make up only a small part of murders. The largest killers are handguns (pistols & revolvers). So what exactly makes you want to ban rifles specifically. Hell, hunting rifles are especially rare in crime. So why are you focusing on these.

Also, how exactly are you going to hunt anything larger than a small varmints with a .22LR? The kill shots would highly unreliable. You might not like hunting as a whole, but if you allow hunting you better allow hunting with a reliable cartridge. Most large animals are harder to kill than humans.

There are clear links between firearm regulation and homicide rates, as this article says:
http://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-powerful-evidence-that-gun-control-works
For every research paper which proves a link, there's another which proves the opposite or says the effect is neutral.
 
Which rendered the gun ban useless, and once law abiding citizens were able to carry them crime dropped. thank you making my point for me.

Posted facts apparently don't fit in your narrative best ignore that shit right quick, yo.

Oh shit, crazy person did crazy thing. BAN UBER DRIVERS NAO! :roll:

And where is the proof for you claim besides inside your head?

Again, show teh proof, bro.

You're the one who started bringing up unsubstantiated individual cases and using them to make a 'point'.
 
Your view on the need for strict or loose guns laws highly depends on how you view your fellow citizens and what your priorities are. No debate will change your views. It's almost like religion, really. Chances of you breaking away from your original point of view is fairly small. Strangely enough, you are not born into it like is the case with most religions. So what makes people pro or anti? I have no clue.
Everyone can add his points to it, without the need to experience it or do any research. I mean you're not seeing discussions about quantum mechanics or mathematics poping up a lot here. Because that requires actuall knowledge.

On the other side, weapons and their responsible use, are a hot topic because well, it makes good stories for the evening news when a psycho kills children with his rifle or handgun. I think that people should keep a sense of proportionality, because there are a lot worse issues but no one cares to talk about those. However it is still worth to talk about the culture that can form around weapons. And seriously ... saying that you own weapons because you want to defend the constitution? Almost no one believes that ... and that for a reason.
 
Any psycho can kill with less than a gun if they are decided to do it... bare hands are enough, playing cards are enough; certainly a trip to any hardware store is enough ~not just for weapons, but poisons also. The obvious (and ignored) flipside to this is that an armed populace is far better equipped to survive the encounter, or save someone else that's about to be crippled or killed.

*It boils down to a bully with a bat, verses an unarmed crowd ~or a crowd most of whom are armed with their own bats... Who would the bully more likely assault?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but don't you find some of the images that you see in the US at least a little bit disturbing? Even if you absolutely LOVE(!) your hobby, you must acknowledge that there are nutjobs who take it simply to far. See, I was for I think 10 years in the firebrigade. I loved it, I made a lot of friends and it was a lot of fun. But one thing, that is interesting, is how some, a small minority, got a real bonner from fire fighting. When ever there is a fire somewhere, they get so excited, that you could almost think they wish for a fire to happen. And subsequently ... you find slightly more pyromaniacs in the firebrigade.
As Sua said, it sometimes feels like people make a religion out of something ... and if you even DARE to talk about problems, you're treated like a herretic. But just because you mention some issues, doesn't mean that you're against the subject. I am pretty sure that even most of the gun lovers, see those people among their ranks as nutjobs, but they defend them, because that's what people do. I know this becuse I defended everyone in the firebrigade, because we have been a special bunch. You simply don't shit on each other in the public.
 
I have never owned a gun; but what I see in the US, tells me that I probably should.

Right now, in New Orleans, there is an organization offering free firearm lessons to the public. It's even advertised on commercial radio here.
 
I own one but I'm responsible with it and around here you never know what will happen. Glad to have a CCW. Besides Gizmojunk is right, psychos don't need a gun to murder or attempt to murder someone and if guns were banned people would smuggle them and sell them in black markets I'm sure.
 
Right now, in New Orleans, there is an organization offering free firearm lessons to the public. It's even advertised on commercial radio here.
There's fully fledged civil military training offered by government here in Slovakia. Three months long training, including gun practice and maintenance, with a couple of hundreds € paid to the volunteers monthly! The numbers of applicants far exceeded the capacities of this program in 2016:
http://spectator.sme.sk/c/20098491/volunteers-can-enrol-for-military-training.html?piano_t=1
 
*It boils down to a bully with a bat, verses an unarmed crowd ~or a crowd most of whom are armed with their own bats... Who would the bully more likely assault?
Yet somehow America has one of the highest amounts of gun related homicide... hmm, I see a problem there.
 
I like Ice-T, still listen to his songs. However, it's really interesting that the guy who wrote the song "Cop Killer" is now quoted by the NRA-GOP'ers. :lol:
I haven't seen any of them quote him, but it is kind of interesting. I think he really shocked the interviewer; almost like the thought had never even occurred to him until Ice-T mentioned it.
 
Back
Top