It’s not your topic since you lack the ability to lead a conversation.
Guns didn’t protect nor prevent the school shooting. The shooter, using guns, caused the damage. Therefore guns are part of the cause.
The police and military have the authority to use guns. Average people, and below-average people, like you, shouldn’t necessarily have access to guns.
Spree-shooters and those willing to massacre lots of innocent or random people, shouldn’t necessarily have access to guns. Although your argument, in your own words, is that they should be armed and allowed.
Well as bad as the USA is, its homicide rate of 4.88 per 100 thousand people annually is still better than the global average of 6.2.
It’s better than places like Argentina (6.53), Brazil (26.74), Lithuania (5.98) and Russia (11.31), all of which have significantly tougher gun laws.
And while spree killings may be on the rise, which make up an extremely low percentage of homicides, the overall homicide rate has been declining in the US since the early 90s.
Perhaps they are part of the effects, but this would hold for allowing private citizens - or worse corporations - having small nukes. Any move to ban this could be responded to with nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. But then people are fucking morons and I don’t want them to have small nukes. Now the truth is I am against banning personal possession of guns. But I don’t think this argument works. And I hate the fact that since I trust governments so little and not enough people are skeptical about them, it is probably good that so many citizens have guns, even though I think most of those people are morons and now they are more dangerous morons.
For those interested in discovering the cause of crime, here is an insightful presentation where Stefan finds a .96 correlation with divorce rates and property crime from 1960-2012 (at 30:00) and a .85 correlation between divorce rates and violent crime (31:00). He also finds -.59 correlation with poverty and property crime (16:00) among other stats.
I can protect my home with a 12 ga shotgun that will clear a hallway, but not penetrate walls. I can protect my property with a .22LR and a bolt action 30.06 is about all I’d need in reality. I couldn’t make a strong case for needing an AR or a nuke, especially in the house.
Unless you felt like part of the reason citizens need guns is to protect against tyranny, then perhaps AR or nukes would be handy. They are very democratizing, at least potentially. Even elites with access to bunkers don’t want to live their all the time and a nuke carrying citizenship can lash back at a coup or martial law set up prior to tyranny in a much scarier way than they can with a few long guns. Again, not that I want people running around with nukes, just drawing out the example. I see the widespead gun owning as a horrific compromise that would be best dealt with long term by finding ways for power to have less control over information. Right now people are so poorly informed, and that includes in the police and military, that resistence to tyranny can easily be called terrorism and marginalized. But honestly the whole thing makes me rather sick. I suppose when it comes to the US I see the most powerful military in the world with a collapsing economy and that is a bad combination both domestically and internationally. Gun ownership seems like a least evil balancing there, aaaagh. And what you said was very sensible also.
It’s funny how the homicide rate of the District of Columbia (24.2 per 100 thousand people in 2015) is nearly 5 times higher than homicide rate of the USA as a whole (4.88 per 100 thousand people in 2015).
Not only do politicians take us to war, but I guess they’re more likely to murder you on a one to one basis.
This graph appears to indicate that if anything, more guns make you safer.
Perhaps that’s because guns even the playing field, people are naturally unequal, some people are strong, others are weak, some people are many, others are few, and the more guns the more people have, the less the strong and the many can oppress the weak and the few, or in other words: guns deter bullies.
Kind of like how nuclearly armed nations don’t go to war with one another, because it’d be mutually assured destruction, which’s why Iran and North Korea are desperately trying to arm themselves, meanwhile the US is doing everything within its power to make sure that doesn’t happen, because it wants to maintain its monopolize on force, so it can continue bullying people.
Just so you all know laws or no laws it is pretty damn easy getting your hands on a gun in the United States, most of the criminals living here know this as well. If you really want a firearm with lots of cash you can get one unregistered pretty easily on the underground black market.
You could just go to Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles, St Louis, Philadelphia, or Phoenix for instance and buy one with no questions asked. There are illegal gun runners all over the United States for the right price and they make a lot of profit with their collection of armaments selling them.
These are known as hot weapons with the serial numbers removed.
Yep. Gun control isn’t targeted at criminals because everyone knows you can’t stop criminals from getting guns. Gun control is targeted at law-abiding citizens with the intent to eventually remove the second amendment and disarm the people.
Same logical paradox operates with respect to gun free zones: these places are not meant to protect anyone, they are meant to turn human beings into cattle that cannot defend themselves and then advertise his fact to the world with a sign on the front door “No firearms beyond this point”.
Because yeah, a criminal is obviously going to give a shit about that. Lol.
The left has everyone fooled. Well most people anyway. Some of us actually do have brains, and use them.
Another of your stupid inanities and inability to think?
If a citizen with a concealed carry permit is pulled over by the cops then he will be allowed to go. A criminal with a gun, would be arrested.
Therefore, you’re wrong again. When are you going to say something relevant? Everybody is still waiting. Please, say something intelligent or some type of evidence your brain can reason.
Smart criminals don’t get pulled over to begin with and have on them all the right legal documentation to not warrant a search/seizure or if they are have secret storage compartments in their vehicle that can even elude a veteran experienced highway patrol officer.
The whole point and purpose of “Gun Control (Laws)” are to identify criminals and take guns away from them, like spree-shooters, or retards like Urgod, who shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun in the first place.
There are ways around all laws and regulations that is called loopholes where if you have the purchasing power requires very little work or effort. Right now if you have the mechanical ability and money you can buy the parts for an AK-47 essentially assembling it in your garage. You can even buy ammunition creator kits for the bullets.
If you have a 3D printer you don’t even need to order the parts but instead make the components yourself. You can even make silencers or compressors out of you garage.
All you need is firearms blue prints specifications easily attained on the internet.
.png){kind=link}