Gun control

[LeBron]

What's your take on the issue? I'm with this guy 100% and couldn't have said it better myself 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP3HJVp3n9c

 

He funny AF too!

[Botre]

Firearm-related death rates AND  total intentional homicide rates tend to decrease exponentially when gun control becomes more strict. So I'm all for it.

[Pain]

Lmao dude 

[Ycd518]

 I dont want it to be very strict but a little bit of effort to keep it under control is necessary. 

[Mysteryy]

Not gonna lie dudes funny as hell but..

COME GET EM MOTHER FUCKER

[AresScripts]

It seems to work for Australia, so anyone who argues that it wont work hasnt done their research

[Yakuza111]

Good ol Jim Jefferies the pissed up Aussie couldn't of said better haha.

 

Don't get me wrong a gun for HUNTING is fine, you don't need a gun on the streets just learn some judo or some shit

[LeBron]

Good ol Jim Jefferies the pissed up Aussie couldn't of said better haha.

 

Don't get me wrong a gun for HUNTING is fine, you don't need a gun on the streets just learn some judo or some shit

 

Why you need a gun for hunting? RS has proven us that all you need is a bird trap, butterfly net and a boxtrap  

 

But to be srs, yes, ofc, but it has to be managed. A ni*** from Brooklyn applying for a gun license to hunt, is most likely not hunting animals. 

[Master Chief]

We don't need gun control, we need retard control

[NoahTheWeebWolf]

Gun control requires the assumption that everyone follows the law and in turn would respect anti-gun policies. Criminals do not follow the law, and with a disarmed majority of criminals would basically become like lions hunting lambs(they already are in some cases). Whereas if most people were armed, and someone decided to rob a bank they'd be in for a very rude awakening. Same goes for a school, if teachers we're trained and authorized to have guns, so many tragedies could be avoided when the gunman is met with deadly force.

We don't need gun control; we need people starting at a young age to learn to respect rights of others to live their lives peacefully and only fight others in self-defense.

[Botre]

Gun control requires the assumption that everyone follows the law and in turn would respect anti-gun policies. Criminals do not follow the law, and with a disarmed majority of criminals would basically become like lions hunting lambs(they already are in some cases). Whereas if most people were armed, and someone decided to rob a bank they'd be in for a very rude awakening. Same goes for a school, if teachers we're trained and authorized to have guns, so many tragedies could be avoided when the gunman is met with deadly force.

We don't need gun control; we need people starting at a young age to learn to respect rights of others to live their lives peacefully and only fight others in self-defense.

 

Why would the average citizen need the right to own a fire weapon?

It's a dangerous, archaic right.

It's easier to make guns illegal than to make stupidity illegal.

 

Your "lions hunting lambs" analogy is extremely flawed and international comparative data shows the exact opposite.

 

Allowing teachers to have guns in the classroom just shifts the problem.

Take away the guns, that's it, sure some rednecks will whine but f them.

[NoahTheWeebWolf]

Why would the average citizen need the right to own a fire weapon?

It's a dangerous, archaic right.

It's easier to make guns illegal than to make stupidity illegal.

 

Your "lions hunting lambs" analogy is extremely flawed and international comparative data shows the exact opposite.

 

Allowing teachers to have guns in the classroom just shifts the problem.

Take away the guns, that's it, sure some rednecks will whine but f them.

It's the most powerful self-defense arm available to date. It's impossible to magically get rid of firearms, and criminals do not follow the laws as it is, so they'll just continue to own them(Prime example prohibition era 1930, s when alcohol was banned in America, all it did was put it in the hands of criminals and create a monopoly which allowed the mafia to rise to power and wreak havoc across the country). Whether or not there is a law that stops people from owning weapons doesn't quite change the fact that life is fundamentally unsafe; the moment you set outside your house you enter the external world and all of its uncontrollable forces(such as nature and the actions of other people). If it's not guns people will just go to knives and other weapons, and no one will ever hold accountable the wielder of the weapon who is the common denominator in this equation.

Perhaps the most critical problem with gun control is basically the flawed idea that it's better to trust those with power in contrast to your equals with their own free will. When, in reality, individuals have a much better chance defending themselves from another citizen with a gun then an over bearing corrupt government with much more powerful artillery and crime syndicates that benefit off of strict laws that strip law-abiding citizens of their rights.

Ideally, no guns would exist or better yet a world without violence, but this is fantasy. A life of freedom calls for an element of danger and unpredictability, and people must not be forced to rely on others for protection instead they must be able to stand on their own two feet unlike sheep waiting to be slaughtered at pasture.

Could you show me your source and proof of this comparative data? Also please keep in mind that there may very well be alternate explanations for the decrease in gun violence (for example, example people could switch to knives meaning the same level of violence still exists but shifted into a different form). This would of course mean that the fundamental issue isn't guns(shocker) it's that some people aren't taught the value of life/have severe anger that has been left unchecked and results in the loss/harm of innocent lives. That said the real solution is creating an environment where people can seek help before it's too late without being ridiculed and instead applauded for seeking help instead of hurting innocent people.

Again, you can't magically make guns disappear. If it were that simple weed wouldn't be sold illegally, neither would alcohol during the prohibition era. Fundamentally, Criminals by definition do not follow the laws and will continue not to that's what makes them criminals and not law-abiding citizens.

[Botre]

 It's the most powerful self-defense arm available to date.

 

It's the most dangerous killing tool available to date.

 

 

 

It's impossible to magically get rid of firearms, and criminals do not follow the laws as it is, so they'll just continue to own them(Prime example prohibition era 1930, s when alcohol was banned in America, all it did was put it in the hands of criminals and create a monopoly which allowed the mafia to rise to power and wreak havoc across the country). Whether or not there is a law that stops people from owning weapons doesn't quite change the fact that life is fundamentally unsafe; the moment you set outside your house you enter the external world and all of its uncontrollable forces(such as nature and the actions of other people). If it's not guns people will just go to knives and other weapons, and no one will ever hold accountable the wielder of the weapon who is the common denominator in this equation.

 

It's impossible to get rid of all of them.

It is very possible to get rid of the majority.

 

Both the knowledge and tools required to create alcohol are and have pretty much always been extremely available, I actually brewed my first liter of beer with my grandfather when I was 12.

How many 12 years old do you know are capable of engineering and producing a gun and bullets from scratch?

 

Criminals will still use guns, they'll probably sell some guns too, but keep in mind guns aren't consumables (well... I guess bullets are but let's just skip that one), they aren't supposed to be used for pleasure, and they aren't addictive. The prohibition argument doesn't make any sense here.

 

Life isn't fundamentally unsafe, especially for humans.

It becomes relatively unsafe when you give almost anyone the power to kill by pulling a trigger, there's actually data to prove this.

 

The fact that citizens are allowed to casually wear arms in America doesn't seem to frighten criminal into not committing crimes / murder at all, quite the opposite actually.

 

Stupidity + guns = tragedy.

The only way to solve the problem is to take away guns out of the equation.

 

 

 

Perhaps the most critical problem with gun control is basically the flawed idea that it's better to trust those with power in contrast to your equals with their own free will. When, in reality, individuals have a much better chance defending themselves from another citizen with a gun then an over bearing corrupt government with much more powerful artillery and crime syndicates that benefit off of strict laws that strip law-abiding citizens of their rights.

 

You shouldn't blindly trust those with power.

That club includes the Gun Lobby btw.

What you should trust is empirical data.

Again, take a look at the correlation between gun control strictness and murder rates / capita.

This clearly false feeling of safety you get for free when you buy a handgun is just plain dangerous.

 

 

 

Ideally, no guns would exist or better yet a world without violence, but this is fantasy. A life of freedom calls for an element of danger and unpredictability, and people must not be forced to rely on others for protection instead they must be able to stand on their own two feet unlike sheep waiting to be slaughtered at pasture.

 

A few sheeps getting killed by a few wolves.

 

vs.

 

Turning all sheeps into wolves.

 

The first option cost much less lives.

 

Could you show me your source and proof of this comparative data? Also please keep in mind that there may very well be alternate explanations for the decrease in gun violence (for example, example people could switch to knives meaning the same level of violence still exists but shifted into a different form). This would of course mean that the fundamental issue isn't guns(shocker) it's that some people aren't taught the value of life/have severe anger that has been left unchecked and results in the loss/harm of innocent lives. That said the real solution is creating an environment where people can seek help before it's too late without being ridiculed and instead applauded for seeking help instead of hurting innocent people.

 

BOTH homicides (any weapon) AND firearm related deaths decrease when gun policies are stricter, almost without exception.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20061104194222/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

 

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/

 

 

 

 

Again, you can't magically make guns disappear. If it were that simple weed wouldn't be sold illegally, neither would alcohol during the prohibition era. Fundamentally, Criminals by definition do not follow the laws and will continue not to that's what makes them criminals and not law-abiding citizens.

 

Again, weed is a plant you can easily grow, you can make alcohol with potatoes and water.

It's much easier to almost completely eradicate production and sale of guns (like in many Asian countries).

Edited February 25, 2015 by Botre

[idntbot]

Gun control is ridiculous. All it does is remove guns from law abiding citizens, while criminals still have access to firearms.  

 

"Stupidity + guns = tragedy.

The only way to solve the problem is to take away guns out of the equation."

 

Stupidity + knives = tragedy

Stupidity + hammers = tragedy

Stupidity + vehicles = tragedy

GUYS I THINK ITS ABOUT TIME WE ADD HAMMER CONTROL AND KNIFE CONTROL TOO! 

Edited February 25, 2015 by idntbot

[NoahTheWeebWolf]

It's the most dangerous killing tool available to date.

 

 

It's impossible to get rid of all of them.

It is very possible to get rid of the majority.

 

Both the knowledge and tools required to create alcohol are and have pretty much always been extremely available, I actually brewed my first liter of beer with my grandfather when I was 12.

How many 12 years old do you know are capable of engineering and producing a gun and bullets from scratch?

 

Criminals will still use guns, they'll probably sell some guns too, but keep in mind guns aren't consumables (well... I guess bullets are but let's just skip that one), they aren't supposed to be used for pleasure, and they aren't addictive. The prohibition argument doesn't make any sense here.

 

Life isn't fundamentally unsafe, especially for humans.

It becomes relatively unsafe when you give almost anyone the power to kill by pulling a trigger, there's actually data to prove this.

 

The fact that citizens are allowed to casually wear arms in America doesn't seem to frighten criminal into not committing crimes / murder at all, quite the opposite actually.

 

Stupidity + guns = tragedy.

The only way to solve the problem is to take away guns out of the equation.

 

 

You shouldn't blindly trust those with power.

That club includes the Gun Lobby btw.

What you should trust is empirical data.

Again, take a look at the correlation between gun control strictness and murder rates / capita.

This clearly false feeling of safety you get for free when you buy a handgun is just plain dangerous.

 

 

A few sheeps getting killed by a few wolves.

 

vs.

 

Turning all sheeps into wolves.

 

The first option cost much less lives.

 

 

BOTH homicides (any weapon) AND firearm related deaths decrease when gun policies are stricter, almost without exception.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20061104194222/http://www.unodc.org/unodc/crime_cicp_survey_seventh.html

 

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/firearms-death-rate-per-100000/

 

 

 

Again, weed is a plant you can easily grow, you can make alcohol with potatoes and water.

It's much easier to almost completely eradicate production and sale of guns (like in many Asian countries).

The fact that even one gun could remain existence means in the wrong hands it would be a very dangerous for all those without guns themselves. This is not acceptable and an important thing to remember is that most criminals are cowards who pick on the weak since they're much easier targets whereas those who can fight back effectively would be too much trouble to go after. Even in gun free zones like schools these shootings still happen because it all goes back to the fundamental fact that criminals by definition do not follow the law and those without guns are easy targets so why would they all of  sudden give up their guns?

Whether or not making alcohol is easy is not the point; the fact is criminals can still get a hold of prohibited guns(some can make guns too provided, they have the knowledge/materials required). Even in America there's a black market of prohibited guns, and these guns are obtained internationally where the laws of the US don't apply and such bans don't exist. Even if a government had the Manpower to take all the guns away from people that doesn't mean they will cease to exist elsewhere in the world and then criminals can smuggle them into the united states and other countries as is done currently for explicitly banned firearms and other types of contraband. The prohibition argument makes perfect sense that is law-abiding citizens will obey the law, and criminals will continue not to obey the law and find ways around it and in turn take advantage just as was done in prohibition era, which created very serious crime problems for many decades.

Of course, life is fundamentally unsafe; it may be unpleasant to think about, but the world is an extremely messed up and dangerous place(this may be less apparent in modern nations such as America and most countries of Europe but even then bad things happen in those places). When going outside suppose there's a drunk driver wreaking havoc on the street, aside from running away there's really not much that we as individuals can do to stop the car other than run away and hide. These are the external forces I speak about which for simplicity sake can be divided into two groups,  the environment(such as natural disasters) and the actions of other people. The only way life could be 100% safe is to either other abstain from living or gain absolute control over the world which is impossible as much as governments of the world would love that. I never said there was no crime in America as there most certainly is, however, there would certainly be less if citizens had legal access to the same level of weaponry criminals have (because then criminals would be far outnumbered and actually have to make an effort to fight). Furthermore, if those with severe maladaptive emotional issues were not shamed for seeking help before it's too late, then very likely they would instead seek proper treatment for their maladaptive traits as opposed to killing/harming innocent people. Sadly, most of those who do have those issues are too afraid to admit they do for fear of persecution before even actually hurting anyone which leaves them to take the easy way and cave into their negative emotions. This isn't limited to anger issues either sadly but generally speaking people do not like to identify as having any mental health disorders for fear of social rejection even if they're not maladaptive in nature and just harm the individual like an eating disorder or depression.

Nope even if you took guns away there's a vast array of other weapons available for those troubled individuals to cause trouble. It's not wise to go after symptoms of an issue, rather it's important to get to the source and neutralize it which is too many people with severe emotional issues going without proper mental health care to contain their negative emotions. If everyone lost the ability to feel  anger, no one would care weapons existed because no one would have the desire to kill in the first place.

Thank you for providing your sources however please keep in mind correlation doesn't exactly mean causation; just because violence in general has gone down in certain countries while at the same time strict gun control measures have been taken doesn't mean that just because of that legislation everyone is magically less violent. Besides who's to say the trend won't change in the future, and violence will go up even with strict gun control? There are so many other variables to consider and so many other possible explanations for example perhaps the people in those nations are more subordinate to their governments or those nations have better mental health care policies than countries with less gun control(that's not to say they got better by more gun control either). I, Furthermore, would like to point out just because something is easier doesn't automatically mean it's the right decision; furthermore, using very strict Asian governments like China as a model to follow especially when it comes to human rights and safety is a horrible idea given their track record for violating human rights.

 

Ps

 

just wanted to point out I have nothing against you personally. I also would like to thank you for being mature in your argument and not attacking me personally like so many other people may have done in your position.