Why are people for gun control?

[Juxtapose]

It literally doesn't work. The FBI literally says that guns save more lives than they take.

[hahahmm]

Because they know it's hard to force others to agree with their politics when those other people have guns. If they take everybody's guns away, except the cops, then they can pass laws to do whatever they wish with zero threat of what the founding father's of the US showed was the right way to fix out of control government.

The proof that it is only about political control is that the people calling for gun control don't want to ban/limit car ownership, no matter how many drunk drivers or actual terrorists use cars to murder people.

[goaded]

Funnily enough, it's the people with guns who are most interested in forcing people to conform to their politics. The rest of us try to convince people. Women are being forced to give birth, trans people are being demonised (the lies don't work on gay people any more, so they've moved on to using the same ones about trans people, instead).

[Juxtapose]

@goaded we literally have people in Congress testifying that transition makes them biologically females.

Meanwhile doctors have to know if you are biologically male or female for hormone treatment or they could fucking kill you by mistake. They need to know things like if you have a prostate and so on.

[Juxtapose]

And trying to restructure the whole of society around this pronoun nonsense is lunacy. It's eventually going to lead to compelled speech where you MUST refer to people by their preferred pronouns.

[goaded]

Nobody's "trying to restructure the whole of society", they're pointing out that it's an asshole move to intentionally misgender people, and there can be societal consequences. Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to pass laws to outlaw contraceptives and charge women and doctors with murder for abortions.

If you could be kept alive as a disembodied head, you'd still be a male, wouldn't you? It's what's in your brain that counts, not what's between your legs.

[Juxtapose]

If your people had their way there would literally be compelled speech laws like in Canada in the case of Jordan Peterson.

No, what makes me male is mostly my chromosomes and what happens because of them. You could test my skeleton hundreds of years later and still find out that I am male and whatever was in my brain is completely irrelevant.

You are not what you think, you are you simply are what you are.

[Juxtapose]

*you are simply what you are

[hahahmm]

@goaded You wrote, "it's the people with guns who are most interested in forcing people to conform to their politics. The rest of us try to convince people. Women are being forced to give birth, trans people are being demonised (the lies don't work on gay people any more, so they've moved on to using the same ones about trans people, instead)."

I know lots of gun owners. None of them have forced anybody to give birth or forced homosexuals to do something. However they do have opinions and every right to express their opinions. "Funnily" enough it is the US government that conspired with social media platforms to censor the views of conservatives on a wide range of topics. This censorship orchestrated by the government is illegal. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the government would do worse things if they were free from the threat of people saying, 'nope' like the founding fathers did. Now politics are a lot more extreme then when I was in my 20s. If someone really cared about nobody being forced to do something the best time to talk about it was decades ago. Now the things we say don't matter so much because there's zero trust.

[hahahmm]

@Juxtapose If we've learned anything over the last 8-10 years it's that the pro lgbtqa blah-blah crowd always say they only want 1 inch and then when you give it to them they take 10 miles. Only fools believe what they say.

[Juxtapose]

Yep, they do not represent ordinary people like me who just happened to be bisexual or whatever. They are fanatics who make their sexual identity the forefront of their identity and they engage in intersectionality and the woke mind virus.

They are absolutely lunatics who would put all children on puberty blockers and encourage them to mutilate their bodies. They are evil, they are sick and I stand against anyone who is willing to take down the woke mind virus.

[hahahmm]

@Juxtapose What I like about the "old days" is adults could do whatever they wanted in private but in public 99% of people were good role models for kids. I think that's a fair balance. Now we're in an age where people are told to do whatever feels good regardless of how it may impact culture/society/country. For example, hating your own country and being loud about it is considered a virtue. But these people will be in for a surprise when things collapse and they can't even go to the store to buy food.

[goaded]

"it is the US government that conspired with social media platforms to censor the views of conservatives on a wide range of topics"
When was that, exactly? What year?

If a vast majority of people want to say no to the government, they can say no, weapons or not. Strikes, mass protests, etc. work.

[goaded]

"They are absolutely lunatics who would put all children on puberty blockers"? Get real.

[goaded]

"good role models for kids". Would that include wearing what society demands, and not, for example, holding hands with someone of the same sex?

Forty years ago people would have been outraged seeing a same sex couple, now it's normal and accepted (61% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage), and nobody cares. But they had to fight like hell to be accepted in the first place and suffered from the same lies being told today about trans people.

[hahahmm]

@goaded Well there was the US court case that found the Biden administration illegally restricted 1st amendment rights of citizens by telling social media platforms who to censor on topics like voting and covid-19. You can also google how the US government launched a global censorship campaign to limit speech of people all over the world. And you can go investigate the documentation Elon revealed after he took over twitter that proves the FBI was deeply involved in censorship at twitter. Many active agents working directly with twitter, many ex agents coincidentally hired by twitter into six figure jobs. Facebook admitted to being involved in government directed censorship too.

[hahahmm]

@goaded Same sex couples -- and by that I am talking about ones raising kids -- is a horrible idea. First off, we know from history that marriage is the best structure for raising kids since you get long term stability. We know that 80% of the people in prison come form single mom/fatherless homes. It turns out that a male role model is very important for properly raising a kid. A fact denied by certain feminists and lesbians because it doesn't fit into their goals. We know that lgbqt get divorced at higher rates than heterosexuals. We know that there's evidence that most of the people today coming out as trans are making a CHOICE. It isn't biological based on the latest research which, of course, gets suppressed for political reasons. There is no evidence that same sex marriage/parenting is as good or better than hetero. There's probably a reason why ancient Romans had no problem with homsexuality but were smart enough to know that it takes a mom & a dad to raise a kid. Ha. My last post on this because I can see it's just going to go in circles.

[goaded]

The same US court decided that the Texas legislature has the right to force social media sites to publish things they want published. It was legal to take Jewish people's businesses away and give them to "real" Germans in the 1930's, too.

Why do you think same sex couples can't form long term relationships?

You: "We know that lgbqt get divorced at higher rates than heterosexuals."
No, we don't: "Globally, divorce rates of marriages with two men have the lowest rate of divorce, marriages with one woman and one man have a slightly higher rate of divorce and marriages with two women have much higher rates of divorce."

As to the thing about choice; that might be correct, despite your other assertions not being, but even assuming it is, there are physical differences in the brain that can be measured and it's not unreasonable to devote psychiatric help resources to those people for whom it might be a choice.
Some things you may not know about Transgenderism! ↗

"There is no evidence that same sex marriage/parenting is as good or better than hetero."
There are good families, there are bad families, and there's everything in between. The important think is that their children are loved and cared for. And you just said single mom families are bad.

[Avicenna]

Because the beautiful people tell them they have to be and they’re too stupid to read any differing opinions OR they are totalitarian ideologues.

[goaded]

Or, and bear with me here, we look at countries with serious gun controls (even those with lots of guns), and see they have fewer murders.

[Avicenna]

@goaded: As someone who isn't from the US and doesn't live there, you don't understand US society. What works in one society doesn't necessarily work elsewhere as your simplistic view indicates. And that's a general problem you have- it isn't limited to the issue of private firearm ownership.

[goaded]

Oh, I get it. You need guns to protect yourselves from people with guns. You're just too stubborn to see the obvious solution.

The US has more knife murders per capita than the UK. On top of that, 70% of murders are committed using firearms.

[Avicenna]

@goaded: Assuming your claims are accurate, it's obvious that there is a serious problem with crime in the US beyond any illegal firearm use (which is already banned and prosecutable under criminal laws), so merely telling law-abiding people that they cannot protect themselves with firearms anymore isn't the solution. And not only are the police under no legal obligation to protect you, leftist localities with the highest crime rates have also partially defunded their police departments and have seriously hamstrung law enforcement's ability to fight crime (see a lack of political support, no-cash bail, far left prosecutors refusing to prosecute violent crimes fully etc.).

Keep in mind that firearms are the only real way to protect yourself from a larger, physically stronger assailant who is armed with one or more weapons themselves.

Bearing all of that in mind, how will law-abiding people protect themselves if you take away all of their firearms? The criminals will know they have no way to defend themselves, and the criminals will still have illegal firearms, among other weapons.

[goaded]

Nobody said it would be easy in the US, but the claims that more guns mean more safety are clearly ridiculous, as is the idea that there should be few if any restrictions on who may own a gun. It's even more ridiculous to say that anybody wants to get rid of every gun in the country; the UK, Germany and Australia have quite a lot, they're used on farms and for hunting, even Japan has some

Why shouldn't a state determine that they don't want wife-beaters (for example) in their militia and exclude them from the people who are permitted to bear arms? They already exclude convicted felons (federal law), although some states allow for restoring their right to have them.

[Avicenna]

@goaded; You really love your straw men, don't you? And that's when you aren't being deliberately vague.

Militia is a really old-fashioned term, by the way. Like 19th Century old-fashioned.

Anyway, do you know what red flag laws are?

[goaded]

What straw man? Are you saying 2A supporters don't tell people the left is coming for their guns? Militia may be an old-fashioned term, but it has a specific meaning: fighting age men (people) who can be called on to fight for the legitimate civil government of the state. Yes, I know what red flag laws are; which party is for them, and which against, would you say? How about that bastion of responsible gun ownership, the NRA?

[Avicenna]

@goaded: You're all over the place, goaded, and you're ranting and raving in a partisan manner, which is even more pathetic considering you aren't a US citizen.

Concisely and clearly explain (without falling into your usual partisan tirades, which are useless), what changes to laws regulating firearm ownership you think should be enacted in the US and why.

[goaded]

LOL. Noting you didn't answer a single question I posed, I'd say allowing local governments to regulate firearms, improved background checks, and federal red flag laws, would be a start.

Dodge City forced people to check their weapons when entering. Why can't DC?

"For years, polls have shown a majority of Americans support gun background checks for all buyers. Some polls show overall support in the ballpark of 90%. Support is lower among Republicans, but polls still indicate majority backing." www.politifact.com/.../

Oklahoma literally has an anti-red-flag law.

Literally none of that was a "partisan tirade", just facts. Now, how about you answer one of my questions? Pick at least one.

"What straw man? Are you saying 2A supporters don't tell people the left is coming for their guns? Militia may be an old-fashioned term, but it has a specific meaning: fighting age men (people) who can be called on to fight for the legitimate civil government of the state. Yes, I know what red flag laws are; which party is for them, and which against, would you say? How about that bastion of responsible gun ownership, the NRA?"

[Avicenna]

@goaded: Those aren't questions, they are rants.

The US is a big country, and no one is familiar with every law at the local, state and federal level, however, don't you think some localities have their own regulations? They do, if their state legislatures permit them to.

You are aware of the principle of federalism and the supremacy of state law over local law, right? Let legislatures address these things to the extent that the federal and state Constitutions allow them to. Now that is going to mean a public debate, including voices being heard that you don't like.

As for calls for federal red flag laws, I think you're going to run into a reserved powers problem since firearms licenses for private individuals are done by the states. Imagine how difficult it would anyhow be to pass such legislation at the federal level- it's better addressed by the states anyway.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are people that do want to ban all firearm ownership in the US. Some even want to take them away from cops.

I'm not familiar with Oklahoma's law, but it's within the purview of a state legislature to pass such legislation.

[goaded]

Yes, they are questions. We can start with the first one. You claimed I was making straw man arguments, what were they?

I understand that federal law > state law > local law, but in this case states have been passing laws restricting what local municipalities can do regarding firearm regulation (and things like mask wearing) that will lead to more deaths. They may be entitled to, but it is right?

Of course some people want to ban all firearm ownership in the US, but they're not particularly powerful or sensible, are they? There are also people who want to ban all contraception, and while they're not sensible, really are getting powerful support right now.

[Avicenna]

@goaded: That is how democracy works, but you're also making a lot of assumptions and missing the big picture.

If no law-abiding person can have a firearm, it's open season for criminals. Imagine the home invasions and other terrifying forms of violence that would occur. Quite likely, there would be more homicides total than under current laws. But as I said, that is a matter to be debated where both sides get to make their points, not have something forced on them, which is what you want to do.

You're still making straw man arguments...

What I'm not seeing from you are measures to keep firearms SOLELY out of the hands of criminals and other people who should not have them, like the mentally ill, which aren't already on the books. You're assuming everyone is a potential criminal.

And there are good reasons for state legislatures to preempt localities from regulating firearms on their own- a person could be criminalized just for driving through the locality with the firearm even though the person was driving from one locality that doesn't prohibit firearm ownership to another locality that doesn't prohibit it and not even stopping in the locality that does. How do you comply with a crazy patchwork of laws like that?

[goaded]

Oh, and I "Concisely and clearly explain[ed], what changes to laws regulating firearm ownership you think should be enacted in the US and why.", and you ignored it.

[goaded]

That was posted before I saw your last. Wait a mo...

[goaded]

"Imagine the home invasions and other terrifying forms of violence that would occur"

Don't you think they could also occur in countries with reasonable gun control? Why do you think they don't?

Imagine people being arrested and imprisoned for being in possession of a firearm. Imagine law enforcement being allowed to ensure that people carrying firearms are entitled to do so.

"Quite likely, there would be more homicides total than under current laws."
Then why aren't there in Germany, the UK, Japan, Australia, or pretty much any other OECD country?

"You're still making straw man arguments..."
Like saying "Quite likely, there would be..."?

"And there are good reasons..."
Take a detour, or leave your useless weapon at home. "But I might need to shoot someone in the next county!", FFS.

[Avicenna]

@goaded: Since we're talking about the US, data from another country which is a very different society from the US isn't comparable. Seriously, goaded, Japan? Are you completely unaware of the differences between Japan and the US? You yourself have stated that there is a huge problem with violent crime in the US, including with knives. Do you want to try to wrestle a 20-year-old knife-wielding assailant when you're 60 or 70?

Detours aren't always possible, and in a democratic society, people aren't going to accept being told they have to drive hundreds of miles out of their way. That's some totalitarian stuff there, goaded, and it shows you don't understand the issue. Take a look at where US highways go through- big cities and other areas run by far-left Democrats. And we're talking about legally owned firearms!

No one is going to take you seriously if you tell them that the US has to enact the same laws as Japan or any other low-crime society. You've also cited three island nations. And people forced to drive out of their way by totalitarian laws? You are embarrassing yourself.

[goaded]

OMG. What should I compare the US with if not another country?

Nobody has to "drive hundreds of miles out of their way", they could just leave their guns at home (which is the place they're supposed to be protecting). You can't legally carry a firearm into DC, that's why the Oath Keepers stashed theirs in Virginia.

You're lying when you say I'm saying "the US has to enact the same laws as Japan or any other low-crime society". (I'm not even sure Japan is a "low-crime" society.) You ignored Spain, Germany and France that aren't "island nations",

What was my supposed "straw man" argument?

[Avicenna]

@goaded: Again, you keep citing very different countries than the US, which is a very invalid comparison. And Mexico is in the OECD and is a neighboring country, although, granted, it's also a different society.

LOL, Japan's crime rates are what, half of Germany's? You can't possibly be unaware of Japan being a low-crime society.

You make apples-to-watermelon comparisons, don't be surprised if someone points it out.
At the end of the day, as usual, you only target law-abiding people with your draconian proposals, so you think they're potential criminals. Nothing you have proposed would target criminals, but it sure would criminalize a lot of law-abiding people.

[goaded]

What I see is you avoiding every question I asked of you. What was my supposed "straw man" argument?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/crime-and-guns/

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Interesting. It says:

29% of gunshot victims had never been arrested.
36% had never been convicted of a crime
37% of victims had no criminal histories and 64% of those didn't know their assailant
74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns; roughly the same as homicides not during the commission of a felony (I assume they don't count the murder itself as a felony, although considering the quality of the research...)

By the way, that list is full of shit. For example: "Fact: 0.7% of seized guns in Detroit in 1991-92 were machine guns." - J. Gayle Mericle, 1989, Unpublished report of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad, Will and Grundy Counties

I guess they had access to a time machine.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded congratulations, you found a typo. That doesn't invalidate the other facts. You would have to go through each and every source and disprove those sources.

[goaded]

Will and Grundy Counties aren't even in the same state as Detroit. What it does show is that the list isn't well researched and probably never gets corrected.

"Fact: Washington DC has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000."
It just reached a peak in 2021 of 30, after a decade of being between 14 and 24.

Louisiana and Mississippi's murder rates aren't all that far behind, in the 20's.

en.wikipedia.org/.../index.php

[Juxtapose]

@goaded Russia has also essentially banned guns and look at how much crime they have.

[Juxtapose]

But then you look at Japan which is somewhat similar and they have lower crime. It's clearly the culture and not the guns.

[goaded]

Yeah, Russia's murder rate is terrible. It's 6.8 per 100,000; so much worse than 6.4 in the US.

Russia is currently freeing murderers and even cannibals from prison as long as they fight in Ukraine for a few months. There's no way guns aren't coming back from the front into the country, either.

[Juxtapose]

It's still a country without guns that has a high crime rate so it blows your argument right out of the water regardless if you like it or not. Facts don't care about your feelings.

[goaded]

Russia is "without guns". Yeah, right. Only 6.6 million registered guns, probably twice as many unregistered.

[nightdrot]

We accept, with any right, the potentiality that it may conduce to evil as much as it may conduce to good. The method by which a right is exercised is less consequential then the social context and intellectual suppositions in which it is exercised.

The real issue with the Second Amendment is that rights are viewed by Americans in absolutist terms. As Burke pointed out, such "natural rights" do exist, but "their abstract perfection is their practical defect." Such rights are applied with too little regard to the cultural context in which they exist.

There is much to suggest that the culture is incapable of prudently and sensibly managing the rights it abstractly attributes to itself. Alexander Hamilton made the point that if you have a Bill of Rights you extend to the government the authority to regulate those rights.

Indeed, the regulation of those rights is actually routine. Free speech is limited by slander, perjury, defamation and copyright laws, among others. Freedom of religion is allowed consistent with public order - if a religion calls for human sacrifice, it is prohibited. There are other examples and the list is long.

However, in the matter of the right to bear arms, in part, guns are woven into the culture in various ways. An emphasis on self-defense - particularly in urban areas where crime tends to be high - rural areas where hunting is an important sport, gun collectors and gun clubs, and, as you noted, an ethic rooted in America's libertarian traditions of resistance to tyranny. (Though the notion that the government is a threat to liberty at this interregnum in the nation's life is patently absurd. So supine is the government that it cannot even balance its budget lest it ask the public to pay for what they buy.)

The segment of the population that tends toward absolutism on the Second Amendment is actually quite small, but is extremely intense. Whereas those who take a more nuanced view of gun rights tend to be less intense and more ambivalent. It is not generally their top priority and so the country tends, on the whole, to give both culturally and legally a wide scope to gun rights.

However, it is not at all clear that the culture, as it devolves into a populist tone and an abstract libertarianism with an emphasis on individualism at the expense of community standards, that the society can handle responsibly the rights it has accrued to itself. Including gun rights.

Burke said "men have no right to that which is not reasonable," and rights must be defined through the prism of the context in which they are exercised. What the nation has in the Second Amendment is a right that presupposes an ethic of community standards that are at this moment in the nation's life, at best, fraying. In short, that presupposition needs to be re-examined and, pace Hamilton, the right needs to be regulated in the light of such a re-examination.

In short, what matters is not the method, but the ethical and social context in which rights are defined and exercised. Americans are, in this time in history, inclined to view freedom as an end in itself and not a means to an end and thus rights are defined in absolutist terms. Here is where the problem begins.

[Juxtapose]

"Though the notion that the government is a threat to liberty at this interregnum in the nation's life is patently absurd."

1. In 2026 they are going to put kill switches into cars.

https://youtu.be/gNHb9MCrA7E?si=hWA0EYFPeWiT2WYk

2. When currency becomes all digital, discent can be shut down very easily.

3. Civil asset forfeiture is a thing. Other countries will literally warn about that in travel brochures.

4. The Patriot Act is a thing.

5. MK Ultra is real (it's literally in public records). The CIA experimented with LSD to try and achieve mind control. If they had succeeded we would all be enslaved.

6. Obama literally had a kill list and would kill Americans outside of the USA without trial.

7. Jeffrey Epstein was murdered in one of the highest security federal prisons when the cameras were conveniently cut off.

8. Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs are being blocked by Congress because let's face it, the upper crust of society is filled with psychotic pedophiles.

9. Julian Assange is being pursued because he is a whistleblower. When pointing out a crime is a crime than you are being ruled by criminals.

10. We start wars for profit without the consensus of the American people.

[Juxtapose]

Given how corrupt and evil the government is I am not giving up guns for literally anything or for any reason that would be any less threatening than a full scale tyranny we are under.

Go ahead and try and tackle the deep state, they will JFK you.

[nightdrot]

Well, the public gets to vote for the officials who approve these policies, do they not? If they choose to elect them, then the consequences that follow can only be blamed on them.

In that connection, of course, there is a bureaucracy that has a certain degree of autonomy. This because it is simply not possible to control from Washington every micro-decision that needs to be made in the regulation of government.

Here again, though, that bureaucracy is the product of a welfare state that the public affects to detest. That public having the following profile:

1 in 6 who works, works for government. 1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient. 1/3 of ALL families, this year, will receive some form of government transfer payment. Less that half pay ANY Federal income tax at all.

They talk a good game against the regulatory state against which you wish to bear arms, but when the data is looked at, their actions show something very different. They have a ferocious appetite for extensive government, but a negligible willingness to pay for it or make the necessary trade-offs for it.

In any case, if your solution to government is armed violence, it begs the question of what difference there is between your vision of government and that of most Third World banana republics. As the old saying goes, be careful of what you wish for...

In any case, if government is the problem go to the inner city. There the absence of government is profound, as people sleeping in the streets and robbing stores and murdering and all the rest amply demonstrates.

[Avicenna]

nightdrot, I have the utmost respect for you, but you have a naive view of the extent of voter power and the ability of voters to monitor what their elected officials, and more importantly, elected officials are allowing faceless unelected bureaucrats and faceless, unelected lobbyists to do. The federal government is far to opaque for voters to be able to do that, and the aforementioned have all run amuck.

[nightdrot]

@Avicenna Elected officials have no real way of monitoring 24/7 what the faceless bureaucrats do. That is part of the problem of large government. The more things you want government to do, the more things require specialists to run it and this is typically beyond the competence of the elected officials.

To wit, the bureaucracy is able to aggregate to itself much authority - some of it unintended. Yet attempt to cut the government and to thereby reduce the sway of the bureaucracy and the presumably anti-government public will howl.

Thus the situation we face. The law of unintended consequences and all that. (As to lobbyists, what they do is protected under the 1st Amendment. They are not really the problem accept insofar as they effectively represent the public that affects to dislike government and yet insists on a government that cares for the elderly, keeps the air clean, regulates health care and on and on and on.

The public wants what it wants but is then appalled at the consequences of what it wants.

Try this - the largest bureaucracy in the government is for Medicare. Run for office on a platform of cutting Medicare - and signify by saying "I do not choose to run again."

Besides, as noted, if you are THAT opposed to government, move to the inner city of San Francisco. The crime, the homelessness, etc. All the results of a government that said, "We have no right to clear you off the streets. We have no authority to punish the criminal - and to do so is to oppress him."

It is, as you see, a balancing act and not the simple either/or you have portrayed it as being. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not with our stars, but within ourselves..."

[Juxtapose]

There is a very deliberate attempt to destroy Western Civilization in order force a great reset by the deep state. They want people to be obedient worker drones and not question anything, that's why they are trying to kill Julian Assange.

When reporting a crime is a crime, you are being ruled by criminals.

[Juxtapose]

act.represent.us/.../usa-oligarchy-research-explained

We literally live in an oligarchy and our votes do not matter.

[nightdrot]

No, actually we don't. You are simply - and I do not mean to offend - repeating the populism that is the currency of BOTH political parties at the moment.

In a democracy, properly understood, the people do not decide. They decide WHO will decide. The general public simply lacks the education and experience necessary to run the state. What they DO have is the capacity to judge if they are content with how they are being governed.

The problem at the moment is that A) as I already noted, the public wants what it wants when it wants it but wants contradictory things. B) They are under the impression that the simple fact of their wanting a thing means that they ought get it.

The net result is a state that is at once paralyzed and at the same time captive to its' own delusions because the public cannot - or more accurately - make reasoned distinctions about the things they want and their practicability. The result is what you see now, a public whose profile I showed you above - 1 in 3 who works, works for government, 1/3 of all families, this year, will receive some form of transfer payment, 1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient - and they think the government is an oligarchy. Hmmmm.

To quote Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

To which should be added the words of Alexander Hamilton, "When constructing a government you must FIRST (emphasis added) oblige it to control the governed and in the NEXT instance oblige it to control itself."

To repeat, you need only go to San Francisco, LA, Chicago, etc. if you want to see what humanity absent government looks like.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

All political parties got to work in order to approve gun control.

[DJB72]

As a marksman I'm in favour of registration and having to pass a proficiency test to own a firearm, no different than for a car, truck or motorcycle. I've seen what can happen when someone who has no idea what they're doing uses a handgun for the first time. There's plenty of videos out there of people firing a Desert Eagle or a Wilby Magnum the first time when they think they're Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood and the recoil breaks their nose.

I used to teach firearms safety when I was in the cadets at school.

I have no problem with people who hate the government owning guns. Believe it or not they're more likely to be the ones saving lives statistically.

Almost every mass shooting in the last 25 years was committed using firearms that were registered and legally owned by a member of the killer's family.

The issue isn't guns. It's basic respect for the life of others. From the movies and TV America exports around the world the idea of the antihero who doesn't think twice about killing has replaced the concept of the morally stable guy who knows he's going to be haunted if he takes a life but does what has to be done to protect his family.

John Wayne's last movie showed the gunfighter who regretted his choices. Clint Eastwood's movie "Unforgiven" showed the aged gunfighter telling the young guy what a terrible thing it is to take away everything from the guy you kill.

Compare that with John Wick. A man who kills without remorse because a thug stole his car and killed his dog. And he doesn't stop after he finally gets the thug. There's another 3 movies.

Why are people "for" gun control?

Because indiscriminate violence only breeds more violence and the cycle has to stop somewhere.

Most of the people "for" gun control just want to feel safe. They think taking guns away from the people most likely to help them will do that.

It's because people are dumb.

[nonyabeez-wax]

Mostly due to ignorance on not just the topic, but about guns in general.

They think "gun go boom, so gun scary" - or along those lines.

I have rarely met someone who actually knows how guns work, AND still supports gun control.

When I do, they are either ignorant about the statistics, OR, are knowingly malicious in their support of gun control, going so far as admitting a historically fascist or communist government is their preferred system of governance.

Otherwise it's an example of the definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

We've been restricting gun owners since 1920, gun violence has only gone up with every attempt. "But maybe, just maybe, this time..."- says the Naïve young voter who doesn't understand that this insanity has been happening since 1920.

[goaded]

Can you get any more stupid than saying "Guns save millions more lives than they ever take, according to the FBI."?

Colour me surprised that there's no link to the FBI saying that.

If you didn't have guns, you'd have tens, hundreds of thousands MORE murders than you do now? Murder rates in the US are already many times higher than in most western European countries. Hell, the sharp object murder rate in the US is higher than in the UK, and the UK doesn't have anything like the number of gun murders.

You'll believe anything you want to, if it's said loudly enough by someone you admire.

[goaded]

Did you read even the abstract of the paper you've repeatedly referenced?

The Social Costs of Gun Ownership
Phillip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig
"This paper provides new estimates of the effect of household gun prevalence on homicide rates, and infers the marginal external cost of handgun ownership. The estimates utilize a superior proxy for gun prevalence, the percentage of suicides committed with a gun, which we validate. Using county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun prevalence as between +.1 and +.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates. Under certain reasonable assumptions, the average annual marginal social cost of household gun ownership is in the range $100 to $600."

[goaded]

In case you missed my posts that were deleted. "We've been restricting gun owners since 1920, gun violence has only gone up with every attempt" is untrue. In reality, the murder rate halved by the mid 20th century, peaked again in 1980 (lead poisoning leading to violence) and dropped again since then.

[NamerOfStars]

Because they're in favor of abortion. The logic behind that is that making something illegal doesn't make it go away, and so you'll ultimately save more lives by making it safe and legal.

But you're not allowed to publicly comment on American politics without a minimum level of hypocrisy, so they go after guns.

[jshm2]

You love a good lie, so why change your tune?

Guns and crime are on the up. You're too scared of crime, so you take up your gun, for which criminals take up two guns,

You are a disgrace of a nation, so you don't really matter as you divide yourselves and fall.

[Juxtapose]

No actually the statistics bear out that guns make you safer.

[Kingofkings1992]

@jshm2 we’re a nation that will always be better than you fucks

[Joshydavid25]

Well, it's the same people who rely too much on the government and most likely live in safe areas where they never had to worry about getting robbed or anything for that matter.. Those of us, who know the dangers and want a way to at least protect ourselves know what's up. And they also listen to the extension of the government (the mainstream media) fear mongering about guns and focusing on every school shooting..

[Dargil]

Because they are ignorant and ruled by emotion. They live in a world of "Somebody do SOMETHING" because they feel helpless, useless and afraid of reality. They should be sure to vote their consciences on November 6, 2024.

[AaronKrieger]

If someone does not have much experience shooting guns or any at all, then I can very easily see why. I think once you become familiar with them and it's community, then you do not feel that way.

[Exterminatore]

Because they are unfamiliar with the histories of disarmed people.

[AviatorTom]

Reasonable limits on guns makes sense. Does an average citizen really need a machine gun, for example?

[HappyWoman34]

The crime rate might be lower in the USA if people didn’t own so many guns.

[Juxtapose]

Russia has more crime than the USA and they have largely eradicated guns.

[HappyWoman34]

Russia is a second world country and many Russians are less affluent than many Americans.

[Juxtapose]

In America has three guns for every person. If guns were the problem then we would be blowing Russia out of the water.

[Juxtapose]

*And America

[Juxtapose]

Blowing them out of the water in terms of crime rates.

[HappyWoman34]

I still think it’s scary that people own guns casually in the USA. If they weren’t allowed to, then there’d be fewer people in shopping malls and high schools being massacred. It very rarely happens in Australia and it’s because we don’t all own guns.

[HappyWoman34]

America and Russia are super powers. They won’t ever be fully blown apart. That’s got nothing to do with everyone being allowed to own guns, though.

[Juxtapose]

The media likes to pretend that Americans are constantly being massacred by firearms but that is simply not the case. I will link you some things.

[Juxtapose]

"Is there evidence that gun owners have saved more lives using their weapons in defense of themselves or others than the number of lives lost to innocents via guns?
Presumably, you will consider anything issued by the Obama administration to be authoratative.

This is from the “gun violence” study commissioned by Obama as part of his 23 executive actions:

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use,” Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.

Yeah, it would appear that there are more instances of defensive gun use SAVING lives than are lost."

www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-that-gun-owners-have-saved-more-lives-using-their-weapons-in-defense-of-themselves-or-others-than-the-number-of-lives-lost-to-innocents-via-guns

[Juxtapose]

"Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime
Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. 16 Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

Fact: Property crime rates are dropping (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) relative to the property crime rate. 17

Fact: Every year 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.

Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 18

Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. 19"

[Juxtapose]

"Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” 20 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U. S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%. 21

Fact: Washington DC has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 22 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, DC rate. 23

Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control. 24

Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. 25

Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following: 26

74% of felons agreed that, “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”
57% of felons polled agreed, “Criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

www.gunfacts.info/.../#note-93-16

[HappyWoman34]

I don’t like guns. I still don’t think people should be allowed to own them.

[Juxtapose]

Then you would deny my ability to defend myself if 5 dudes broke into my house.

[HappyWoman34]

No, you could call the police. That’s what they’re for.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, the police will come minutes later when seconds count and I am already dead.

[Juxtapose]

And that's being very generous with the arrival time of police which is typically far longer.

[HappyWoman34]

But I’d deny your ownership of a gun, yes.

[Juxtapose]

Then you would condemn me to death if I was ever outnumbered.

[Juxtapose]

And you would also completely strip away the ability of the elderly to defend themselves.

[HappyWoman34]

There aren’t regularly 5 dudes breaking into someone’s house, unless they live in a bad area and even then, a lot of criminal types have a code of conduct where they don’t attack their own. I’ve worked in bad neighbourhoods as a carer.

[HappyWoman34]

The elderly have the police.

[HappyWoman34]

Do you not think you’re a bit paranoid about people attacking you? Crime rarely happens here. We have a good police force and no one I know has ever used or needed to use a gun.

[Juxtapose]

It doesn't need to be regular, it only needs to happen once. I know people who have had their homes broken into by multiple men and they had to watch their family get raped.

[HappyWoman34]

I still am against guns. I’ve also been raped by the way. It’s terrible, but you get through it. They were an unlucky exception. It’s not something that happens everyday. As much as I feel for them, I still would ban guns.

[Juxtapose]

If you had a gun and awareness of your surroundings you may have been able to prevent that awful thing from happening to you.

Oh and not to mention that allowing the government to monopolize force is a recipe for tyranny.

[Juxtapose]

Words are pretty cheap but my condolences for what happened.

[HappyWoman34]

Oh at least it wasn’t forcible. It was a few men who wouldn’t stop when I wanted them to and a guy who said he’d drive me home and I had no money and had to have sex with him to get home, as I had no money and I was in a bad neighbourhood.

[Juxtapose]

If they wouldn't stop when you wanted to isn't that force?

[HappyWoman34]

Yeah, I guess. I’d call about 2 situations I’ve been in rape. But I mean I wasn’t damaged internally or mentally.

[Juxtapose]

Everyone has a right to be able to defend themselves, even if they are old or small. You may be fine after what happened to you but most people are not and I have lived with a woman who have had severe trauma from rape.

[HappyWoman34]

I feel sorry for her but I don’t like guns.

[HappyWoman34]

I have to be fine. Lots of women are raped and can’t prove it.

[Juxtapose]

And I don't like being unnecessarily vulnerable or allowing the government to monopolize force.

[Juxtapose]

I guess we will agree to disagree.

[HappyWoman34]

They’ll never tell you but it’s quite common.

[HappyWoman34]

So I’d say unless it’s violent, just as many aren’t traumatised.

[Juxtapose]

Oh yeah, I know. I literally lived with a rape victim.

[Juxtapose]

No, you don't get to speak for other people and their trauma. That's fucked.

What about the people that were screwed when they were a kid and didn't know better? That's the whole reason why pedophilia is illegal dude.

[HappyWoman34]

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I am not without sympathy for the victims you know.

[HappyWoman34]

Or for you, who had to hear about and live with it

[HappyWoman34]

I get to speak from experience and in hearing from others

[nonyabeez-wax]

National average response time for police is 7 minutes.

In Rural areas you can get response times of 45 minutes to 2 hours.

In the inner city, you can easily have a response time of 45 minutes depending on how busy the police are that day, and how high on the priority list you are. Break-ins assaults, etc, are likely to still take 15 minutes.

The police are not adequate to protect you.

Everyone, even you, have a right to defend yourself.

Would you be okay with someone breaking into your home, murdering your husband, raping you, killing and raping your children, then escaping? The police never finding the culprit?

If you say you're okay with your children being harmed, you are, or would be, a failure as a parent.

Just because you don't like firearms, doesn't mean other people have to give them up to make you feel better when there is a very real possibility of something like this happening.

"Paranoid"- do you keep a fire extinguishers in your house or car? If you do, you must be paranoid. Your house isn't likely to burn down.

The point is to have it when you need it. Not, need it and not have it.

[nonyabeez-wax]

Speaking for other people's traumas is unhinged. No two experiences are exactly the same. And clearly you have no sympathy, or else you wouldn't be telling other people that gun should be banned and people will just have to deal with taking great bodily harm, or death.

Not mentally ill after being raped? Clearly your responses say otherwise. You should seek therapy.

Added point; two rapes you can't prove. Get a rape kit. If there is a next time, go to a hospital immediately, don't shower, request a rape kit. You are wearing the evidence, inside and out. That's how you prove it.

You don't have to be a victim nor does anyone else, and its up to YOU to make sure that you're not victimized.

Read the facts Juxtapose posted. Properly educate yourself. Go to a range and ask the staff about the firearms. Try shooting one. Break out of this mentality of victim hood you have put yourself in.

I refuse to be a victim, and so should you.

[HappyWoman34]

@nonyabeez-wax I have as much right to my opinion as you do to yours and I stand by my opinion. I think you’re both wrong. Especially you.

[AlexEfron]

Because there is no "need" for civilians to own arms. It is particularly America that feels "unsafe" without a gun and the Second Amendment.

[StirredNotShaken]

Democrats are buying up tons of guns, they just won't talk about it. We could learn a lot from Democrats.

[OddBeMe]

Please link to that bullshit FBI claim.

Also the entire country of Australia is on line 1.

[Juxtapose]

I don't know if this is the exact FBI claim but I tried to get you stuff that was as close to it as possible.

"Is there evidence that gun owners have saved more lives using their weapons in defense of themselves or others than the number of lives lost to innocents via guns?
Presumably, you will consider anything issued by the Obama administration to be authoratative.

This is from the “gun violence” study commissioned by Obama as part of his 23 executive actions:

“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use,” Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.

Yeah, it would appear that there are more instances of defensive gun use SAVING lives than are lost."

www.quora.com/Is-there-evidence-that-gun-owners-have-saved-more-lives-using-their-weapons-in-defense-of-themselves-or-others-than-the-number-of-lives-lost-to-innocents-via-guns

Harvard sjw land has a study that agrees with me.

theacru.org/.../

[Juxtapose]

"Myth: Guns are not a good deterrent to crime
Fact: Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day. 16 Most often, the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.

Fact: Property crime rates are dropping (especially burglaries). The chart shows the legal handgun supply in America (mainly in civilian hands) relative to the property crime rate. 17

Fact: Every year 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.

Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed. 18

Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot. 19"

[Juxtapose]

"Fact: 59% of the burglaries in Britain, which has tough gun control laws, are “hot burglaries” 20 which are burglaries committed while the home is occupied by the owner/renter. By contrast, the U. S., with more lenient gun control laws, has a “hot burglary” rate of only 13%. 21

Fact: Washington DC has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 22 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, DC rate. 23

Fact: 26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control. 24

Fact: In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year. 25

Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following: 26

74% of felons agreed that, “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime.”
57% of felons polled agreed, “Criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

www.gunfacts.info/.../#note-93-16

[OddBeMe]

You are falling for classically stupid “gun facts” that are easily disputed. Britain for instance had 8.4 million criminal offenses and only 6300 gun offenses.

Your Harvard study was disputed and disowned by Harvard itself as not being scientifically founded.
www.hsph.harvard.edu/.../Kates-Mauser.pdf

And multiple polls conducted since 1990s have found few if any gun owners admitting to using their firearms for defense.
www.wral.com/.../

But nothing can disprove an obvious: more guns = more gun deaths.

[OddBeMe]

And still no proof to your dumbass FBI claim. Just bullshit.

[Juxtapose]

You conveniently ignore the Obama study and you did not come close to disputing every single fact I put out there that blows your argument out of the water.

Russia has more crime than the USA and they have all but eradicated firearms.

[OddBeMe]

What Obama study? You linked nothing.

Meanwhile Obama did lift the ban on studying gun crimes. And thus we have:
www.scientificamerican.com/.../

[Juxtapose]

*facepalms*

[OddBeMe]

Facepalm Scientific American whilst you link to “wannabe right wing ACLU” bullshit.

I’ve asked for links to your fbi claim like five times now. And nuthin….

[Juxtapose]

Look it up yourself then. This is like when I talk about evolution and people keep asking me for evidence when it's out there.

[OddBeMe]

I have and got nothing. Just commentary, which you do have issues discerning…

[jjj101010]

No point trying to explain, your obviously pro guns

[Pterodon]

Gun control is hitting where you aim

[spiritGirl13]

Dummies