It's always the case that a group which comes together who think they are independent thinkers and all think alike are absolutely group thinkers.

So funny how you guys didn't get it.

I will walk you through it.

1. A large group of people here think the same, and I named the qualities of that thinking. We now have a group.

2. A significant subset of that group labels others who don't hold those beliefs trolls.

3. That second group, the subset, is composed, obviously, of fuckheads, precisely because they like to ostracize those who don't hold their beliefs by calling them trolls.

4. If you're a member of that subset, then you're a fuckhead.

There's just a lot of stubborn groupthink fuckheads in this forum who think one doesn't belong if you're not a government hating anarchist libertarian gun lovin' steven molywhatever worshipping conspiracy believing Atlas Shrugged promoting I put fancy latin sayings under my avatar I like to call everyday people statists I talk about fiat currency problems as if I was some academic and knowledgeable kind of person type of people in this forum.

Simple as that.

The NSA, and other organizations, are composed of two things: databases and people. The people don't know you, nor do they care about you. The databases are harddrives. The people don't actually look at the harddrives until something happens, or the harddrive coughs up something interesting.

If you're a normal person, then nothing you do is interesting. If the algorithms cough up something that it thought was interesting, then the people look at it. Then, again, if you're normal (i.e not some Boston bomber), then the person dismisses it.

In the end, what the NSA, or other organizations collect are bits which do nothing.

Furthermore, and this is very important, if they're collecting massive amounts of data on everyone, then it stands to reason that you're not special. Just go on about your life.

However, perverts, blackmailers, people you've wronged, tweeters, identity thieves, and neighbors have a different modus operandi. They have you in their sights, and then take action to collect data on you. Those are the ones you should be worried about.

I'm so scared.

It's not the governments that will be your ruin. It's your curious neighbors, people you pissed off, corporations, marketers, social networks, criminals, crooks, malicious types, perverts, gossip spreaders, blackmailers, and identity thieves. Your privacy is gone, and it's not the government that's taking it.

You're the one ignoring the simple fact that adding to an already large base of 300 million guns in circulation is not a plan. If you can get past your fetish for guns you might see that. You also might want to look at real world data regarding nations and gun metrics that aren't published with the backing of the NRA.

But we went through all this in another thread. Remember?

Actually, it all works quite well.

An increased risk of losing your gun to theft means you're less likely to be careless about it. You won't carry it on your person. You'll lock it up in a safe. You definitely wouldn't want to lose your gun, or be careless about it, because with limited permits being issued, you might not get another for a long time.

Criminals will be less likely to afford them, given the prices. Sure, they'll attempt to steal them, but the reality is, stealing them will be really hard, because those who possess guns just won't let them get stolen.

And finally, criminals will be tempted by the high prices to get rid of the ones they do have, hopefully to sting operations and/or gun buy back programs.

In the end, culturally, the gun nut crowd will realize that guns are not trivial things that should so easily be lost, misplaced, exposed, left inside a drawer or a car, but instead properly locked up in a safe. Given time, gun culture can fade away, which is ultimately what is necessary.

Because the very basic facts of the current situation is there are entirely too many guns out there, and adding more to the mix only makes the probability of criminals being in possession of them more likely.

Both of your statements here fail to acknowledge the path a gun takes from the manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, the reason a criminal can get a gun so easily is because there are 300 million of them. That number needs to be reduced, which is what I advocate. Not increased, which is what you advocate.

Regardless of who has them, the more there are, the more criminals will have them. Maybe you're the one who should be thinking hard about the path a gun takes from manufacturer to criminal. Furthermore, maybe you should think about why each one of those paths was initiated.


Gun permits are issued at the federal level only, where one new gun permit is issued for every three guns confiscated, or received in gun buy back programs. Nothing else. Nothing more. No exceptions.

You were going to answer how many guns would reduce crime in the U.S. since you stated that you believe 300 million guns are not enough. But you can't answer it, can you? I believe less guns (much less than 300 million) is more appropriate, so I can't speculate as to what absurd number you think is appropriate, thus I asked you to provide the number.

Instead, all you can do is resort to insults.

If you need that number to answer the question, then hunt down the number and then answer the question.

Stop engaging in the pointless cliched meme driven drivel and think for yourself.

Do cars get crashed into people while driven by drunks when cars aren't driven by drunks?

Answer the question in my last post.

So it's only the criminal and not the tool which determines crime?

Answer this question: if 300 million guns in this country are not enough, how many will it take? 500 million? One billion? 5 billion?

Did I say they commit crimes? No, I did not. Thus another pointless remark on your part.

Regarding their effect: since you argue that it's the person and not the gun, then the gun must not be an important part of the equation. That is indeed what you're arguing. Thus, you don't need the gun.

I see you're back to derailing the argument by trying to correlate the fact that the object known as a gun is mentioned in the discussion, and thus the argument made by the one you're debating can't have any validity.

How about this: if guns don't have any effect, then you don't need any.

Ah. Finally you've made a coherent statement. But not a coherent case.

You're brainwashed and deluded if you think that after allowing 300 million guns in this country, raising that number even higher (and higher), will solve the problem.

No. I just don't see anything of value in your posts here. You have an opinion, but no coherent argument.

I will stop, because you haven't presented anything that makes any sense, and which does not need to be refuted.

Funny how those who can't support their position with strength, conviction, facts, data and sensibility must resort to arguing about whether one should discuss a thing when discussing a subject.

Dude. What part of my quoted statement do you not understand?

There is a simple truth here. Guns, an object, which there are 300 million of in this country, need to be reduced significantly in number, not increased. People and culture, which affect laws, policies, and lobbying, are the cause of so many guns in this country. Gun rights nuts continue to exacerbate that issue, because of people like you, and because you are influenced and deluded by others.

Increasing guns in this country will not decrease gun crime. I think you need to understand that.