Thread: So let's talk about gun control

Good strawman. No one, not even Alex Jones, believes the government is going to mow down cities. They might, however, kidnaps citizens and hold them in work camps. The legislation already exists, the facilities already exist, and the slave labor already exists (imprisoning people and having them work through prison is a great way to circumvent minimum wage laws effectively creating sweatshop labor). If this were to happen, which is quite possible, then we would need guns and stuff in order to launch assaults on these internment camps and other points of interest.

I, personally, am under the belief that the next great American war will be fought not with guns, but with information. We live in a time where a majority of people have no problems with giving up their personal, social, and business lives to the internet, not realizing that that same information can be accessed any time by anyone with a knowledge of computers; government employee or otherwise. It would be completely possible, and actually quite easy, for a totalitarian government (or group of individuals seeking to impose tyranny) to silence the voices of influential people who disagree with their views and twist/outright change the words of government officials attempting to inform the public of what is happening. The power of the people as well as the power of the government can be completely nullified by anyone with a fat wallet and college education in computer sciences, all without firing a single bullet.

How do you shoot a tyrant you can't see?

I think you need to look up the definition of strawman, OP.

Originally Posted by tommo

If you don't think the government is going to wage all out war on the citizens - " Do you really think that if there was an uprising, that the government would order an all out assault on entire cities - mowing down both their dissidents as well as supporters? That would just fan the flames for anti-gov't sentiments, and exasperate matters to the point of a full on revolution. Support for the gov't would start dropping rapidly, among both the citizenry as well as many within the gov't as well."

The "we need to own guns so the government doesn't get totalitarian on our asses" argument is moot.

I don't get it.

What don't you get about it? .-. In that very post that you quoted, it says that even though there isn't much chance of an all out assault on the citizenry, we would still need weapons to defend ourselves in the case of raids, tactical strikes, black ops, and lock downs.

Originally Posted by SnowyCat

I, personally, am under the belief that the next great American war will be fought not with guns, but with information. We live in a time where a majority of people have no problems with giving up their personal, social, and business lives to the internet, not realizing that that same information can be accessed any time by anyone with a knowledge of computers; government employee or otherwise. It would be completely possible, and actually quite easy, for a totalitarian government (or group of individuals seeking to impose tyranny) to silence the voices of influential people who disagree with their views and twist/outright change the words of government officials attempting to inform the public of what is happening. The power of the people as well as the power of the government can be completely nullified by anyone with a fat wallet and college education in computer sciences, all without firing a single bullet.

How do you shoot a tyrant you can't see?

An information war is already being waged. Just look at what's going on with Bradley Manning - he leaked a few revealing documents and was (is being?) tortured. Or Aaron Swartz - co-creator of Reddit and RRS, and notable internet activist - who "committed suicide" after gaining access to a myriad of classified articles from MIT. Or the countless others who have met the same fate for speaking out against corruption.

Leaking documents to the public only does so much, it won't end corruption on it's own. Just look at the bank of HSBC - guilty of money laundering and knowingly doing business with terrorist groups and factions... but was declared "too big to prosecute." The information's out there, HSBC is rotten to the core, but what now? It's been given a pass, they're free to continue with their illegal business. Their wallet is fat enough to keep the government off their backs - a government that doesn't really have to do anything about it because they don't stand to lose anything. It's not like they risk being overthrown, right? So what's to stop them from letting this shit slide? Nothing.

An "information war" can only go so far.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

An "information war" can only go so far.

But it CAN go pretty damn far.

Originally Posted by tommo

I think you need to look up the definition of strawman, OP.

This is the definition of a strawman

Originally Posted by tommo

Do you really think that if there was an uprising, that the government would order an all out assault on entire cities - mowing down both their dissidents as well as supporters?

Guns are not needed. Period. Too many "accidents" happen with them

Originally Posted by Majestic

Guns are not needed. Period. Too many "accidents" happen with them

Sure, as long as gun control also applies to the government. Oh wait...you don't really want gun control, do you?

Originally Posted by Majestic

Guns are not needed. Period. Too many "accidents" happen with them

Majestic, I don't think any of that mud is going to stick.

Originally Posted by Majestic

Guns are not needed. Period. Too many "accidents" happen with them

How do you plan to make them vanish?

Originally Posted by Majestic

Guns are not needed. Period. Too many "accidents" happen with them

By that logic, Cars are not needed either. It is a verifiable fact that there are more fatal accidents with Vehicles, than Murders, Suicides, and Accidents with Firearms combined. According to a CDC Report in 2007, vehicles were responsible for over 10 THOUSAND more deaths than firearms.

Well I'm going to use emotion on this one. When I said accidents I didn't mean literally..

I mean shit like the travon martin situation or where police end up shooting people ( mostly us blacks ),

In all of these cases, people were shot or killed because of fear

Guns are made for killing/hurting someone or something. So if you don't plan on killing or hurting someone..what do you need a gun for????

I just noticed that this forum is mostly conservatives lol

Originally Posted by Majestic

Well I'm going to use emotion on this one. When I said accidents I didn't mean literally..

I mean shit like the travon martin situation or where police end up shooting people ( mostly us blacks ),

In all of these cases, people were shot or killed because of fear

Guns are made for killing/hurting someone or something. So if you don't plan on killing or hurting someone..what do you need a gun for????

I just noticed that this forum is mostly conservatives lol

It's the same reason that police carry firearms. They don't delude themselves into thinking everyone is going to be nice. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people feel entitled to take what is yours, and will do harm to you to do so. I keep a gun because if someone decides to break into my house, or harm me or my family, I will have a means to defend myself.

I hope I never need to use it, but I feel better knowing that if the situation ever arises, I do have a means within reach.

You have to remember:

There are over 80 million registered gun owners in the USA alone. What you see happening, even with mass shootings, that represents less than 1% of 1% of all gun owners. We're talking fractionally insignificant. I see no reason to punish the 99.9999% of people, because of the actions of 0.0001% of the total Gun Owners.

To put it into perspective, it's like stubbing your toe, and getting your whole foot amputated to try to solve the problem of stubbing it.

Originally Posted by Majestic

Well I'm going to use emotion on this one. When I said accidents I didn't mean literally..

I mean shit like the travon martin situation or where police end up shooting people ( mostly us blacks ),

In all of these cases, people were shot or killed because of fear

Guns are made for killing/hurting someone or something. So if you don't plan on killing or hurting someone..what do you need a gun for????

I just noticed that this forum is mostly conservatives lol

It's not actually. I'm not conservative, and I wouldn't claim that my view on the second amendment is a conservative one anymore than universal mind would claim his religious views are liberal. I'm making a rational argument. I think it's terrible what happened to Travon Martin and my honest opinion on gun control is that we need more legislation targeting the police than the people. I believe cops should be fined for removing their guns from their holsters without probable cause, for example.

But making guns illegal won't make them go away. I like the idea of background checks, but I don't think any other limitations should be put in place, and I'm not afraid to say New York was being fucking retarded when they passed that law to ban concealed weapons from schools after Sandy Hook. A concealed weapon can prevent those tragedies. The NRA is being equally retarded by calling for armed guards in schools. The last thing schools need are more cops, and the last way to prevent violence is by removing concealed weapons. It just baffles me to think that only cops should get guns and one should be stationed at every school when all you need is a pistol locked away in the principle's car, or even their office.

Originally Posted by Majestic

I just noticed that this forum is mostly conservatives lol

It's really not. Americans are just fucking obsessed with following the constitution (or bill of rights? whatever) to a T.
So many liberals still want gun rights.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

It's not actually. I'm not conservative, and I wouldn't claim that my view on the second amendment is a conservative one anymore than universal mind would claim his religious views are liberal. I'm making a rational argument. I think it's terrible what happened to Travon Martin and my honest opinion on gun control is that we need more legislation targeting the police than the people. I believe cops should be fined for removing their guns from their holsters without probable cause, for example.

The Trayvon Martin killer was not a cop.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

But making guns illegal won't make them go away. I like the idea of background checks, but I don't think any other limitations should be put in place, and I'm not afraid to say New York was being fucking retarded when they passed that law to ban concealed weapons from schools after Sandy Hook. A concealed weapon can prevent those tragedies. The NRA is being equally retarded by calling for armed guards in schools. The last thing schools need are more cops, and the last way to prevent violence is by removing concealed weapons. It just baffles me to think that only cops should get guns and one should be stationed at every school when all you need is a pistol locked away in the principle's car, or even their office.

YEAH, great idea let more people conceal weapons!
No.

You won't stop a shooting by allowing people to conceal weapons.
Remember that thing in NY where the guy started firing, injured a couple of people, and then the cops came, tried to blast him and ended up severely injuring about 20 people?
And cops are trained with guns, regular people probably aren't. Especially not children (generally).

Armed guards are completely useless, the fact is school shooting are not a big problem, it's goddamned distraction from real issues.
The money it would cost is ridiculous to prevent a tiny amount of deaths.

I'll just copy and paste this post from another thread.

Thing is, with all the guns around in America, there's no way to get rid of them.
And if you look at this graph

hmmm.jpg

You will see what the real problem is.
Hmmmm..... what happened to cause those peaks I wonder?
For the slow, it's the drug war and alcohol prohibition

I have no doubt that they know this. But they want to keep their private prison labour camps going, it's the most profitable business they have
and if they legalised drugs, they'd lose 90% of it.

Gang violence causes the massive spikes. And by gangs I mean opportunistic people who see a demand and try to fill it.
But their trade is illegal, so they can't take disputes to court, they have to kill people.

End the drug war and gun violence/violence in general will go back to around the same level as any other country.

It's really not. Americans are just fucking obsessed with following the constitution (or bill of rights? whatever) to a T.
So many liberals still want gun rights.

Yeah, it's crazy to want to follow the very thing our country was founded on... I know. Having rights and all that is pretty crazy.

The Trayvon Martin killer was not a cop.

There's also more and more proof that has come out corroborating Zimmerman's version of what happened.

YEAH, great idea let more people conceal weapons!
No.

You won't stop a shooting by allowing people to conceal weapons.
Remember that thing in NY where the guy started firing, injured a couple of people, and then the cops came, tried to blast him and ended up severely injuring about 20 people?
And cops are trained with guns, regular people probably aren't. Especially not children (generally).

Clackamas mall shooter faced man with concealed weapon | kgw.com Portland
Pearl High School shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (specifically, the principle who confronted the shooter with his .45)

Yes, you will stop shootings when people are in a position to defend themselves and others. Yes, there are incidents when cops get a little nuts, but that doesn't justify disarming EVERYONE. Cops are not as trained with firearms as people believe. Typically they only need to qualify for their firearm once every 6 months to a year, sometimes longer. There are a great many police who go their entire career without ever having to fire a single shot. Hell, I've probably fired more shots and had more practice with my firearm than many cops in my area.

The idea that if we just disarm people, they'll somehow be safer is ridiculous. You know who will follow those new gun laws? The law abiding citizens. You know who won't? The criminals. There's a reason a great many of these shootings such as Sandy Hook happen in Gun Free zones.

End the drug war and gun violence/violence in general will go back to around the same level as any other country.

This however, I completely agree with. The biggest issue we face is gang violence stemming from the "drug war". If we solve that, we might finally get around to reducing the overall death rate surrounding firearms. It's estimated that anywhere from 50-60% of our overall gun violence stems from Gang on Gang activity.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

I also believe that prohibiting guns is the same as ignoring the major illness behind the recent massacres. We are being desensitized to violence and violent people are being glorified by the media.

The fact that distracting from that with debates about gun control makes for Good TV™ is a nice bonus for them, too.

I confused Trayvon Martin with a different guy. Cops have still shot a shit load of unarmed people over the last few years, and that's an issue that should definitely be addressed, as well as Florida's stand your ground law.

And Tommo, you're attacking concealed weapons on the grounds that cops, which should be better trained than civilians, ended up shooting people. You do realize without concealed weapons, people are defenseless, right? But yeah I have no idea what you're referring to. Also I never said children should get concealed weapons. New York banned concealed weapons from school, period. And that's just dumb.

"If guns are outlawed by governments, only governments and outlaws will have guns."

"Gun control is not about guns; it is about control."

I wish I could quote some famous philosophers on those, but they are just bumper sticker slogans, as true and profound as they are.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"If guns are outlawed by governments, only governments and outlaws will have guns."

"Gun control is not about guns; it is about control."

I wish I could quote some famous philosophers on those, but they are just bumper sticker slogans, as true and profound as they are.

I think bumper stickers should be outlawed since they contribute to polarization of views in the public. Actually that won't happen since they're probably a weapon in the information war.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"If guns are outlawed by governments, only governments and outlaws will have guns."

I agree. Outlawing guns isn't going to stop people from acquiring them. It's not like the shooter would have given a crap if guns were outlawed, and good luck getting rid of them completely because then there would be a black market for them, and as someone else mentioned "closing the gates after the cows [guns] got out" I agree with that as well.

I use to be for a little more gun control until these shootings happened last year. If it was more easy and legal for people to carry weapons, could the Aurora shooting have ended with fewer deaths?

734266_188291964650279_1612451670_n.jpg

Can we please keep this thread clear of stupid, fallacious propaganda? I'm so sick of these sorry excuses for arguments. It's practically all I see on facebook. How would you feel, UM, if you liked a bunch of pages on facebook that generally agreed with your conservative outlook then had to witness their massive loads of BS dissing evolution in favor of intelligent design after it became newsworthy? Here are some examples of what I've been seeing lately.

Spoiler for anti-gun propaganda:

Let's keep pretending a captioned picture makes an argument true and credible.

Just because both sides of an argument don't listen to each other, that doesn't mean one side isn't correct.