What's your opinion of gun control?

[zenitzz]

people have right to have arm in their home and defend themselves in case of attack. But also must be some register who own weapon

First registration then when they know where all the legal guns are, well we all know what happens next.

[1714213195]

1714213195

[jak1]

Big problem is that a lot of attacks happen, lot of criminals wondering around. But police also often go above authorization.

[BADecker]

There are those people, often in government, who are trying in every way that they can to control other people and make slaves out of them.

Gun control, and all the talk both for and against, is only another way that government is trying to divide the people to make slaves out of them.

Will guns ever be outlawed in America? Probably not... at least not for some time. So, what good is all the talk? It is there to divide the people, so that they can more easily be conquered in whatever ways they can be conquered in. Divide and conquer.

[jak1]

all governments want people that can control. And with daily life you slowly become a slave. Thinking about loan, mortgage for house, job..you think only local and don't have time or are to tired t think on other like what is happening around you..

[BADecker]

all governments want people that can control. And with daily life you slowly become a slave. Thinking about loan, mortgage for house, job..you think only local and don't have time or are to tired t think on other like what is happening around you..

Absolutely right. It really isn't gun control. It is attempted people control.

[TECSHARE]

It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way

What happens if the police are criminals, or other criminals get a hold of this list? What if the government becomes genocidal killing people for whatever reasons they deem "the law". History shows firearm registration leads to confiscation. A background check is run on every person who buys a gun from a gun dealer. In the vast majority of states this is also required for all private sales as well. This supposed "loophole" doesn't really exist as any actual gun owner in the US would know.

Meh. You seem to forget that the government = the people.
The government can't "kill everyone". The government is only merely a few hundred persons.
By the government you really mean the army. Which are citizens.

So it's not going to be the government against the people. It's going to be a part of the population against another part of the population. So civil war.

You can play semantic games all day if you like, but lets not forget about the millions of people dead in Russia, China, and Germany before and during the first world wars. Most of those people were killed by their own government/people/citizens/othermeaninglessdistinctionhere. The fact is dozens of millions of people died, and it wouldn't have been so easy if the general population was armed. This is a fact regardless of your nitpicking.

[Spendulus]

It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way

What happens if the police are criminals, or other criminals get a hold of this list? What if the government becomes genocidal killing people for whatever reasons they deem "the law". History shows firearm registration leads to confiscation. A background check is run on every person who buys a gun from a gun dealer. In the vast majority of states this is also required for all private sales as well. This supposed "loophole" doesn't really exist as any actual gun owner in the US would know.

Meh. You seem to forget that the government = the people.
The government can't "kill everyone". The government is only merely a few hundred persons.
By the government you really mean the army. Which are citizens.

So it's not going to be the government against the people. It's going to be a part of the population against another part of the population. So civil war.

You can play semantic games all day if you like, but lets not forget about the millions of people dead in Russia, China, and Germany before and during the first world wars. Most of those people were killed by their own government/people/citizens/othermeaninglessdistinctionhere. The fact is dozens of millions of people died, and it wouldn't have been so easy if the general population was armed. This is a fact regardless of your nitpicking.

I don't even see the point of the nit picking.  We know a few with rifles can control thousands, so forth and so on.  We know the presence of firearms in the population affects police behavior, largely for the better. 

We know it's a good thing for the government to fear the people.  Not too much, but at least a bit.

[yugo23]

It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way

What happens if the police are criminals, or other criminals get a hold of this list? What if the government becomes genocidal killing people for whatever reasons they deem "the law". History shows firearm registration leads to confiscation. A background check is run on every person who buys a gun from a gun dealer. In the vast majority of states this is also required for all private sales as well. This supposed "loophole" doesn't really exist as any actual gun owner in the US would know.

Meh. You seem to forget that the government = the people.
The government can't "kill everyone". The government is only merely a few hundred persons.
By the government you really mean the army. Which are citizens.

So it's not going to be the government against the people. It's going to be a part of the population against another part of the population. So civil war.

You can play semantic games all day if you like, but lets not forget about the millions of people dead in Russia, China, and Germany before and during the first world wars. Most of those people were killed by their own government/people/citizens/othermeaninglessdistinctionhere. The fact is dozens of millions of people died, and it wouldn't have been so easy if the general population was armed. This is a fact regardless of your nitpicking.

And why it wouldn't have been this easy?

They were taken by force when they were vulnerable, at work, drunk, just in the street...
If they were armed it wouldn't have changed a thing. Police wasn't coming to you and ask you to come. They were seeing you, getting you in range of fire and threatening you with a rifle then asked you to kneel and they controled you and maybe deported you.
You took your gun you would be dead before able to fire.

My point isn't nick picking.
It's that armed population wouldn't change a thing because when the dictator is in control it's too late. The people have to fight BEFORE. When dictatorship is here the only solution is revolution. And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

[yugo23]

It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way

What happens if the police are criminals, or other criminals get a hold of this list? What if the government becomes genocidal killing people for whatever reasons they deem "the law". History shows firearm registration leads to confiscation. A background check is run on every person who buys a gun from a gun dealer. In the vast majority of states this is also required for all private sales as well. This supposed "loophole" doesn't really exist as any actual gun owner in the US would know.

Meh. You seem to forget that the government = the people.
The government can't "kill everyone". The government is only merely a few hundred persons.
By the government you really mean the army. Which are citizens.

So it's not going to be the government against the people. It's going to be a part of the population against another part of the population. So civil war.

You can play semantic games all day if you like, but lets not forget about the millions of people dead in Russia, China, and Germany before and during the first world wars. Most of those people were killed by their own government/people/citizens/othermeaninglessdistinctionhere. The fact is dozens of millions of people died, and it wouldn't have been so easy if the general population was armed. This is a fact regardless of your nitpicking.

I don't even see the point of the nit picking.  We know a few with rifles can control thousands, so forth and so on.  We know the presence of firearms in the population affects police behavior, largely for the better. 

We know it's a good thing for the government to fear the people.  Not too much, but at least a bit.

And you really think that a few with guns can't control another thousands also armed?
If you don't then you're not aware of the fact that people will always prefer to secure their family and don't try to help their neighbor because they know their family would be dead for sure.

You know what happened in China when population revolted against a bad arrestation? When the thousands resisted the few?
They burnt down the entire village.
You know what would happen if the USA were a dictatorship and a few men resisted an arrestation and killed the police?
They would just bombard the village with artillery.

That doesn't change anything.

[TECSHARE]

And why it wouldn't have been this easy?

They were taken by force when they were vulnerable, at work, drunk, just in the street...
If they were armed it wouldn't have changed a thing. Police wasn't coming to you and ask you to come. They were seeing you, getting you in range of fire and threatening you with a rifle then asked you to kneel and they controled you and maybe deported you.
You took your gun you would be dead before able to fire.

My point isn't nick picking.
It's that armed population wouldn't change a thing because when the dictator is in control it's too late. The people have to fight BEFORE. When dictatorship is here the only solution is revolution. And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

Just because you imagine it in your pacifist mind doesn't make it reality. The fact is that armed populations are not only less likely to be attacked by totalitarian governments, but YES, it would have changed something. Some of those people coming to round up civilians would be killed and they would be forced to consider if it is worth giving their life for a dictatorship. Not everyone is drunk, sleeping, or otherwise vulnerable all at the same time. It has already been well established people will give their life for freedom, so this is not a question.

BTW exactly how are unarmed people's supposed to have a revolution? Revolutions do NOT always work, why would you even say such an idiotic thing? What is stopping that artillery from being placed upon unarmed revolts? Nothing. At least if the people are armed they have the ability to RESIST, and make some of the people perpetrating the abuse pay with their lives.

[gregyoung14]

all governments want people that can control. And with daily life you slowly become a slave. Thinking about loan, mortgage for house, job..you think only local and don't have time or are to tired t think on other like what is happening around you..

Absolutely right. It really isn't gun control. It is attempted people control.

Yea, I have to say.. First it's this advocacy platforms, raising awareness etc. And then they will use that against people. And before you know it, you have been restricted of every free decision you want to work with.

But yea, gun control can work out. This, i actually believe.

[yugo23]

And why it wouldn't have been this easy?

They were taken by force when they were vulnerable, at work, drunk, just in the street...
If they were armed it wouldn't have changed a thing. Police wasn't coming to you and ask you to come. They were seeing you, getting you in range of fire and threatening you with a rifle then asked you to kneel and they controled you and maybe deported you.
You took your gun you would be dead before able to fire.

My point isn't nick picking.
It's that armed population wouldn't change a thing because when the dictator is in control it's too late. The people have to fight BEFORE. When dictatorship is here the only solution is revolution. And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

Just because you imagine it in your pacifist mind doesn't make it reality. The fact is that armed populations are not only less likely to be attacked by totalitarian governments, but YES, it would have changed something. Some of those people coming to round up civilians would be killed and they would be forced to consider if it is worth giving their life for a dictatorship. Not everyone is drunk, sleeping, or otherwise vulnerable all at the same time. It has already been well established people will give their life for freedom, so this is not a question.

BTW exactly how are unarmed people's supposed to have a revolution? Revolutions do NOT always work, why would you even say such an idiotic thing? What is stopping that artillery from being placed upon unarmed revolts? Nothing. At least if the people are armed they have the ability to RESIST, and make some of the people perpetrating the abuse pay with their lives.

What's fun is how what I say is just "idiotic opinion" and what you say is the truth while non of us having anything to support our claims. I don't think it would help the population because an authoritarian government comes into power thanks to the support of the population then can be thrown out only if a massive part of the population revolts and if they do then the military (which are PART of this population) supports them. Not saying I have the truth, just giving my point of view on this subject.

Anyway you're really a tiring person. Because I say Bible is as violent as Coran you assume I'm just crying and defending Islam. Because I say I don't think weapons would help to defend against the government you assume I'm a pacifist.
Well if you're so good at assuming, no need to even come here to debate, just assume someone is discussing with you.

[Spendulus]

And why it wouldn't have been this easy?

They were taken by force when they were vulnerable, at work, drunk, just in the street...
If they were armed it wouldn't have changed a thing. Police wasn't coming to you and ask you to come. They were seeing you, getting you in range of fire and threatening you with a rifle then asked you to kneel and they controled you and maybe deported you.
You took your gun you would be dead before able to fire.

My point isn't nick picking.
It's that armed population wouldn't change a thing because when the dictator is in control it's too late. The people have to fight BEFORE. When dictatorship is here the only solution is revolution. And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

Just because you imagine it in your pacifist mind doesn't make it reality. The fact is that armed populations are not only less likely to be attacked by totalitarian governments, but YES, it would have changed something. Some of those people coming to round up civilians would be killed and they would be forced to consider if it is worth giving their life for a dictatorship. Not everyone is drunk, sleeping, or otherwise vulnerable all at the same time. It has already been well established people will give their life for freedom, so this is not a question.

BTW exactly how are unarmed people's supposed to have a revolution? Revolutions do NOT always work, why would you even say such an idiotic thing? What is stopping that artillery from being placed upon unarmed revolts? Nothing. At least if the people are armed they have the ability to RESIST, and make some of the people perpetrating the abuse pay with their lives.

What's fun is how what I say is just "idiotic opinion" and what you say is the truth while non of us having anything to support our claims. I don't think it would help the population because an authoritarian government comes into power thanks to the support of the population then can be thrown out only if a massive part of the population revolts and if they do then the military (which are PART of this population) supports them. Not saying I have the truth, just giving my point of view on this subject.

Anyway you're really a tiring person. Because I say Bible is as violent as Coran you assume I'm just crying and defending Islam. Because I say I don't think weapons would help to defend against the government you assume I'm a pacifist.
Well if you're so good at assuming, no need to even come here to debate, just assume someone is discussing with you.

If someone took our guns away, we wouldn't be able to do fun stuff like this anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx66ys4JG5o

[designerusa]

If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.

Right! Military and police are people. The only difference they have is, they have better training in using guns, and they have more guns.

If military and police who are people just like us have guns, why not the rest of us? Military and police kill more people than the rest of us could ever think of killing.

i dont agree with you.. armed forces that you have mentioned before  are educated on using guns professionally so they can control  their using of gun better than an ordinary person thats why only armed forces must have right to carry a gun or something...

[BADecker]

If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.

Right! Military and police are people. The only difference they have is, they have better training in using guns, and they have more guns.

If military and police who are people just like us have guns, why not the rest of us? Military and police kill more people than the rest of us could ever think of killing.

i dont agree with you.. armed forces that you have mentioned before  are educated on using guns professionally so they can control  their using of gun better than an ordinary person thats why only armed forces must have right to carry a gun or something...

If we gave all the people, police and military training with guns, we wouldn't need police, and the military could remain outside of the country.

[Spendulus]

If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.

Right! Military and police are people. The only difference they have is, they have better training in using guns, and they have more guns.

If military and police who are people just like us have guns, why not the rest of us? Military and police kill more people than the rest of us could ever think of killing.




i dont agree with you.. armed forces that you have mentioned before  are educated on using guns professionally so they can control  their using of gun better than an ordinary person thats why only armed forces must have right to carry a gun or something...

Bah.  Most police shoot one box a year for practice.  That's not much training.

Soldiers, the greatest number of them never touch a gun after basic training.  Others carry one for years and never use it. 

Some of the antics of these  "trained professionals" are priceless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6UvNgbqIA

[TheButterZone]

LMFAO, thinking a bunch of "spray and prayers" in costumes and with effectively full immunity for any actions, are the only ones who can be trusted with guns... To do what, exactly? Violate the 4 rules of firearm safety, hit a bunch of innocent bystanders and fail to stop the aggressor (unless aggressor suddenly has an attack of conscience and surrenders just so the innocent bystanders won't have to bleed out)?

[TECSHARE]

And why it wouldn't have been this easy?

They were taken by force when they were vulnerable, at work, drunk, just in the street...
If they were armed it wouldn't have changed a thing. Police wasn't coming to you and ask you to come. They were seeing you, getting you in range of fire and threatening you with a rifle then asked you to kneel and they controled you and maybe deported you.
You took your gun you would be dead before able to fire.

My point isn't nick picking.
It's that armed population wouldn't change a thing because when the dictator is in control it's too late. The people have to fight BEFORE. When dictatorship is here the only solution is revolution. And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

Just because you imagine it in your pacifist mind doesn't make it reality. The fact is that armed populations are not only less likely to be attacked by totalitarian governments, but YES, it would have changed something. Some of those people coming to round up civilians would be killed and they would be forced to consider if it is worth giving their life for a dictatorship. Not everyone is drunk, sleeping, or otherwise vulnerable all at the same time. It has already been well established people will give their life for freedom, so this is not a question.

BTW exactly how are unarmed people's supposed to have a revolution? Revolutions do NOT always work, why would you even say such an idiotic thing? What is stopping that artillery from being placed upon unarmed revolts? Nothing. At least if the people are armed they have the ability to RESIST, and make some of the people perpetrating the abuse pay with their lives.

What's fun is how what I say is just "idiotic opinion" and what you say is the truth while non of us having anything to support our claims. I don't think it would help the population because an authoritarian government comes into power thanks to the support of the population then can be thrown out only if a massive part of the population revolts and if they do then the military (which are PART of this population) supports them. Not saying I have the truth, just giving my point of view on this subject.

Anyway you're really a tiring person. Because I say Bible is as violent as Coran you assume I'm just crying and defending Islam. Because I say I don't think weapons would help to defend against the government you assume I'm a pacifist.
Well if you're so good at assuming, no need to even come here to debate, just assume someone is discussing with you.

Your statement itself was idiotic, because it violates common rules of logic.

...And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

You used an inclusive word, "always", so by definition of your own standards you are automatically wrong. That is in fact idiotic.

I have produced information to support my claims, just because you haven't bothered to read the entire thread does not negate that fact. Totalitarian governments get into power regardless of the population's resistance or support, they are totalitarians, by definition they couldn't give a fuck less what the opinions of the populace are.  I called you a pacifist because you prefer to leave people defenseless rather than allow them to be capable of defending themselves. If the population is unarmed and the totalitarian government is armed, then how exactly will this imaginary unarmed revolution take place? You claim the military will not stand for it, but Obama has been cleaning house in the military quite a bit placing people in the military who are obedient to him. Even if for the sake of argument lets say half of the domestic military forces resist, you still are not accounting for the possibility of armed contractors like Blackwater/Xe, NATO, the UN, Russian, Chinese, or other coalition forces being deployed on US domestic soil to quell any revolt. This amount of manpower could easily overwhelm any resisting domestic military force without the population being armed.

I am glad I am wearing you down, maybe it will make you think twice before spouting your mindless nonsense in the future. You are putting peoples lives at risk preaching disarmament for common people. BTW try to keep it on topic, no one is talking about religion here.

[yugo23]

And why it wouldn't have been this easy?

They were taken by force when they were vulnerable, at work, drunk, just in the street...
If they were armed it wouldn't have changed a thing. Police wasn't coming to you and ask you to come. They were seeing you, getting you in range of fire and threatening you with a rifle then asked you to kneel and they controled you and maybe deported you.
You took your gun you would be dead before able to fire.

My point isn't nick picking.
It's that armed population wouldn't change a thing because when the dictator is in control it's too late. The people have to fight BEFORE. When dictatorship is here the only solution is revolution. And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

Just because you imagine it in your pacifist mind doesn't make it reality. The fact is that armed populations are not only less likely to be attacked by totalitarian governments, but YES, it would have changed something. Some of those people coming to round up civilians would be killed and they would be forced to consider if it is worth giving their life for a dictatorship. Not everyone is drunk, sleeping, or otherwise vulnerable all at the same time. It has already been well established people will give their life for freedom, so this is not a question.

BTW exactly how are unarmed people's supposed to have a revolution? Revolutions do NOT always work, why would you even say such an idiotic thing? What is stopping that artillery from being placed upon unarmed revolts? Nothing. At least if the people are armed they have the ability to RESIST, and make some of the people perpetrating the abuse pay with their lives.

What's fun is how what I say is just "idiotic opinion" and what you say is the truth while non of us having anything to support our claims. I don't think it would help the population because an authoritarian government comes into power thanks to the support of the population then can be thrown out only if a massive part of the population revolts and if they do then the military (which are PART of this population) supports them. Not saying I have the truth, just giving my point of view on this subject.

Anyway you're really a tiring person. Because I say Bible is as violent as Coran you assume I'm just crying and defending Islam. Because I say I don't think weapons would help to defend against the government you assume I'm a pacifist.
Well if you're so good at assuming, no need to even come here to debate, just assume someone is discussing with you.

Your statement itself was idiotic, because it violates common rules of logic.

...And weapons don't change a thing because when it's revolution time it always works, cause soldiers are always too few.

You used an inclusive word, "always", so by definition of your own standards you are automatically wrong. That is in fact idiotic.

I have produced information to support my claims, just because you haven't bothered to read the entire thread does not negate that fact. Totalitarian governments get into power regardless of the population's resistance or support, they are totalitarians, by definition they couldn't give a fuck less what the opinions of the populace are.  I called you a pacifist because you prefer to leave people defenseless rather than allow them to be capable of defending themselves. If the population is unarmed and the totalitarian government is armed, then how exactly will this imaginary unarmed revolution take place? You claim the military will not stand for it, but Obama has been cleaning house in the military quite a bit placing people in the military who are obedient to him. Even if for the sake of argument lets say half of the domestic military forces resist, you still are not accounting for the possibility of armed contractors like Blackwater/Xe, NATO, the UN, Russian, Chinese, or other coalition forces being deployed on US domestic soil to quell any revolt. This amount of manpower could easily overwhelm any resisting domestic military force without the population being armed.

I am glad I am wearing you down, maybe it will make you think twice before spouting your mindless nonsense in the future. You are putting peoples lives at risk preaching disarmament for common people. BTW try to keep it on topic, no one is talking about religion here.

Ok does it suit you better if I say "most of the times" or "often" or something like that?

When 80% of the population revolts, it works.

And you maybe produced some bullshit for your claims or some informations, but it doesn't change how partial and cherry picking you are. You most of the time just use semantic arguments, not really convincing.
I'm glad you speak a better English than me. Well done. Can we talk about something else?

And seriously wtf is this argument?
If after a totalitarian government emerges in the USA and manages to take power while 80% of the people want their destitution, you think about the possibility of a foreign intervention on US soil? xD
First that's not an argument, we can talk about how useful weapons could be in alien or zombie invasion if you want too! Second what could you do against a world coalition with your untrained population? Resist until death? Wow so much better ^^

If NATO, UN and China plus Russia make an alliance with the US government to "oppress the people" it's the end of the US. With or without guns. Doesn't change a thing.

[valta4065]

If someone took our guns away, we wouldn't be able to do fun stuff like this anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx66ys4JG5o

Meh.

I think there is just a too big cultural difference between USA and EU. I don't feel the fun in the video, not at all. It's rather horrible in fact.

Anyway, this thread was about opinion, and I have this opinion as a European and I think most of Europeans do have the same opinion.

But hey, times change everything. We now have a Patriot Act in France too, we eat more and more like you and watch the same stupid shit than you now.

You know when I look back, I wonder if it was really a good thing that Lafayette was sent with French army to help the USA. Maybe if we had done nothing you would still be part of the UK. Maybe you wouldn't have started to colonize us like you're doing. USA owns Europe now, our politicians are too corrupted to resist.