What's your opinion of gun control?

[RodeoX]

Both of those can be true at the same time though.

Also, why would the press release photoshopped photos?

Original Images:

3 images in 1

Bedroom with a flag with pole


You can go to http://fotoforensics.com and input any image, and see where changes have been made. They usually show up as very bright. You can look up how to tell the difference and start checking out photos yourself.

Notice there is no pole in the mirror?

[pictures]

I really see no evidence of photoshoping. But of course there is a bias present in the editors choice of photos. If this kid had been perceived to be a victim then they would use an older photo of a smiling child.

Who is this?


Why it's Michale Brown. You know him from a years old picture that fits the narrative of an innocent victim.

[1714971437]

1714971437

[1714971437]

1714971437

[1714971437]

1714971437

[1714971437]

1714971437

[1714971437]

1714971437

[1714971437]

1714971437

[blablahblah]

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

 
Another American idiot...
First, answer the actual points I made, then post a link for 3d printer technology that makes fucking TOOL STEEL.

And then explain -- for posterity -- why you're so opposed to actually making your country safer.
It's always fucking "we can't do this, we can't do that". Well, fuck you and your selfish, oppositional attitude.

[TECSHARE]

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

 
Another American idiot...
First, answer the actual points I made, then post a link for 3d printer technology that makes fucking TOOL STEEL.

And then explain -- for posterity -- why you're so opposed to actually making your country safer.
It's always fucking "we can't do this, we can't do that". Well, fuck you and your selfish, oppositional attitude.

All of your arguments rely on fallacies. Straw man seems to be your favorite. No one is "opposed to actually making your country safer", we are arguing your plan of action is idiotic and will not prevent crime and violence, but instead increase it. You ASSUME that your idea of safety is better. Furthermore as some one who doesn't even live here, where the fuck do you get off dictating to us what our internal laws should be?

Hey, since you know where all of us are from, why don't you tell us what utopian part of Earth you are from?
Not quite fair you criticize our country and culture being completely ignorant of it from outside its borders and just pretending you live in some magical unnamed land that is "better".

As usual, the guy conveniently ends up dead which is all kinds of convenient.

Almost without exception these days, these 'mass shootings' are staged psychological operations.  That I am quite confident of.

In terms of the disposition of the perp, it varies.  Sometimes it was 'obvious to all who knew him' that the guy was dangerous.  Sometimes 'nobody would have guessed.'  The goal is to have the population understanding that they are always in danger and these things could happen anywhere at any time unless TPTB has the appropriate monitoring tools to protect the masses.  Also, of course, all people need to be surveillance because anyone could be a threat.

Just as is the case with Islamic terrorism, the problem with gun violence is that there is no where near enough of it to achieve the promised benefits so it needs to be synthesized, and that is mostly what we see these days.

Put yourself in a situation where the night before you had been in a theater or whatever and witnessed a mass shooting and injured or people.  Can you think of any possible scenario where you were in front of a news camera the next morning and found anything to grin and smirk about?  I cannot imagine doing so personally, and I tend to be able to find humor in even the darkest things.  The observations of the witnesses alone act so bizarre is strong enough evidence to me to be fairly sure that most of these events are pure psychological operations targetting domestic populations.  Further analysis of most of these events by independent citizens only add weight to my suspicions about these things.

I do not believe anything like that is happening. It's always fun to think up some conspiracy. But the evidence points to a very banal, unsexy and expected truth. We turn the insane out on the street, they go off their meds, then they split from reality. It happens all the time and been this way throughout human history.
In fact (despite a spike this year) the murder rate is at historic lows. You have to go back 50 years to find a lower rate.

Is it really that far fetched to believe that some one within the government found a series of simple, mentally unstable people, abducted them, pumped them full of drugs, wound them up, handed them weapons and dumped them at the target site? The FBI has been doing this for a LONG TIME to make it look like it is preventing terrorism. Some times they even provide the money, plan, supplies, even LIVE EXPLOSIVES! It is just a coincidence that a lot of them are "a little slow".

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-fbis-history-of-supplying-live-explosives-to-terror-suspects/5331517

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/fbi-federal-reserve-bomb-plot

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2015/3/19/part_two_how_the_fbi_created

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/13/another-terror-arrest-another-mentally-ill-man-armed-fbi/

http://tbo.com/news/crime/agents-chatter-in-osmakac-sting-skirts-line-between-protection-entrapment-20150321/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515


These "busts" just so happen to provide a lot of people with job security as well as provide pretext for unconstitutional totalitarian laws.

[the joint]

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

 
Another American idiot...
First, answer the actual points I made, then post a link for 3d printer technology that makes fucking TOOL STEEL.

And then explain -- for posterity -- why you're so opposed to actually making your country safer.
It's always fucking "we can't do this, we can't do that". Well, fuck you and your selfish, oppositional attitude.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zJyf1IrHtcE

Any remotely significant criminal enterprise could afford one of these.

[TECSHARE]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwRtll3jjU4

Are we going to start making drill presses and CNC mills illegal now?

[Spendulus]

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

 
Another American idiot...
First, answer the actual points I made, then post a link for 3d printer technology that makes fucking TOOL STEEL.

And then explain -- for posterity -- why you're so opposed to actually making your country safer.
It's always fucking "we can't do this, we can't do that". Well, fuck you and your selfish, oppositional attitude.

Um, why would you want tool steel?  Look, here gangs have a history of making one shot guns from a piece of pipe, a nail and a rubber band....

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

So what's with YOUR attitude?   I'm just pointing some things out - they defeat the argument you made, yes - but they are not a selfish or oppositional attitude - I did not cause or create these realities, or the impediments to safer societies....

PS Unrelated, but I found this somewhat amusing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI60Fx0gCaE

[Spendulus]

.....

Is it really that far fetched to believe that some one within the government found a series of simple, mentally unstable people, abducted them, pumped them full of drugs, wound them up, handed them weapons and dumped them at the target site?

Yes it is that far fetched.

That does not happen.

[blablahblah]

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

 
Another American idiot...
First, answer the actual points I made, then post a link for 3d printer technology that makes fucking TOOL STEEL.

And then explain -- for posterity -- why you're so opposed to actually making your country safer.
It's always fucking "we can't do this, we can't do that". Well, fuck you and your selfish, oppositional attitude.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zJyf1IrHtcE

Any remotely significant criminal enterprise could afford one of these.

Maybe they could afford it, in theory. And? Could you spell out what you were trying to suggest from pointing out the existence of alternative manufacturing options?

If my guess is correct and what you're trying to say is "regulation won't work because people will just make their own guns", then I have several arguments to bust that criticism.

• The pricing and availability of weapons is connected between ALL of the different manufacturing methods. The existence of alternatives doesn't matter. If for example, a hefty sales tax is slapped on mass-produced guns coming out of factories, people still won't bother with the high cost and inconvenience and skill required to make their own weapons, unless it becomes economically viable for them to do so.

• One-off proof-of-concept devices, costing $1000s in tooling-up + time and skill, are no match for commercial guns that are properly made and cost a small fraction of that. There's plenty of scope to reduce the overall quantity, weeding out an easy 50%~80% (at a guesstimate) of the cheapest weapons on the market, thus making the remaining ones harder to obtain for the poorest buyers. And the vast majority of the remaining buyers still wouldn't consider 3d printing technology to be a realistic option.

• Being able to make your own guns involves marketable skills, and it's obvious that you can make a lot of other stuff as well. This immediately provides a person with legal options for making a living, and they're unlikely to be involved in criminal behaviour in the first place.

• "But oppressive taxes will drive buyers underground and illegal manufacturing will increase", you may cry.
  Doesn't matter, and it would only be temporary. A simple $100 tax on legal weapons will add up to $100 (possibly more if there's overshoot) to the bottom line on any CNC machinist making black market weapons. Therefore the total supply will still decrease. It's basic economics. There are countless real-world examples where supplier X encounters problems, therefore the unrelated supplier Y puts their prices up. RAM production was a classic case a few years ago, where problems at Korean plants meant that prices spiked everywhere.

• "This will reward criminals while punishing legitimate manufacturers!"
  Incorrect. Criminal behaviour is still black-listed as criminal behaviour, at least proportional to the amount of crime committed. Therefore, if a black-market manufacturer increases their output because of supply problems elsewhere, they also become a bigger fish in the eyes of the law. The increased risk balances out the money.

[/list]

[tvbcof]

.....

Is it really that far fetched to believe that some one within the government found a series of simple, mentally unstable people, abducted them, pumped them full of drugs, wound them up, handed them weapons and dumped them at the target site?

Yes it is that far fetched.

That does not happen.

Mostly true.  No need for dead bodies and all that with today's technology and mass gullibility of the sheeple.

When dead bodies and the witnesses to genuine in-the-flesh state sponsored terrorism do start showing up, we who are calling bullshit on these soft psyops will have to share some of the blame.  If we'd have kept our mouths shut and played along like the MSMS. the softer variety virtual implementations would have stayed viable for longer.

[blablahblah]

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

 
Another American idiot...
First, answer the actual points I made, then post a link for 3d printer technology that makes fucking TOOL STEEL.

And then explain -- for posterity -- why you're so opposed to actually making your country safer.
It's always fucking "we can't do this, we can't do that". Well, fuck you and your selfish, oppositional attitude.

Um, why would you want tool steel?  Look, here gangs have a history of making one shot guns from a piece of pipe, a nail and a rubber band....

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.

So what's with YOUR attitude?   I'm just pointing some things out - they defeat the argument you made, yes - but they are not a selfish or oppositional attitude - I did not cause or create these realities, or the impediments to safer societies....

The biggest impediment I'm seeing is this:
Gun proponents keep coming up with half-baked excuses as to why society can't be made safer, why tax won't work, why you shouldn't even try, and dismissing vital social concerns like countless murders, deaths and injuries...

And all for what? For selfish reasons like a personal desire for cheap, tax-free toys. Or your cultural Voodoo about "potentially defending yourself" against your flesh-and-blood peers in the government sector.

Are you seriously suggesting that your Voodoo beliefs are more important than deaths that could even affect you or your family? That's utterly delusional. And selfish like I already mentioned several times.

[blablahblah]

Guns should be used only by the army and SWAT. I think that such restriction would make life much easier for all.

In america it's seen as a hobby. You can see videos of people testing out guns and shoting out watermelons outdoors in some places that sometimes look like their backyard. It's pretty insane to anyone not living on there. I mean you can walk in on that area without knowing someone is shoting shit up and get shoot... pretty crazy.

Most terrorist have this "hobby" too. Americans will have to let that go. For most cases a pepper spray is just enough.

Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.

Challenge accepted. Regardless of intellect, reasoning, or political/religious beliefs, their life experience will provide them with one simple fact that Pavlov could have tested on his dogs:

Where there are guns, there is more potential for pain.

Anyone with an IQ of 70 can make that epiphany. Or even if they don't 'think' it, they still have the correct biological reaction with a bit of adrenaline or fear to help them prepare for violence upon having a weapon come into view. Neighbours are far more likely to be foolish, naive, or stupid and irresponsible, compared to any professional who has actually seen or experienced suffering in conjunction with guns.

Don't tell me you're another paranoid type who has fallen for that partisan nonsense about the population versus the government? Blue team versus Red team? Freedom lovers versus bureaucrats? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that. Wait for the late harvest, more CBD, less paranoia, or so they say.

[Spendulus]

Let me see if I understand this.

Blahblablah argues for restricting availability of guns by increasing their prices.

Meanwhile 3d printers can make them on demand.

Something does not compute there.

 
Another American idiot...
First, answer the actual points I made, then post a link for 3d printer technology that makes fucking TOOL STEEL.

And then explain -- for posterity -- why you're so opposed to actually making your country safer.
It's always fucking "we can't do this, we can't do that". Well, fuck you and your selfish, oppositional attitude.

Um, why would you want tool steel?  Look, here gangs have a history of making one shot guns from a piece of pipe, a nail and a rubber band....

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.   Therefore you have a sort of "retro" gun control argument, not one that is oriented toward the world we are moving into.

Further, you show ignorance of basic issues such as "what is a firearm?" 

Is it the barrel?  The trigger?   What is it, exactly, that you think by banishing from the world or decreasing in quantity, the world will suddenly become a better place?

[TECSHARE]

Maybe they could afford it, in theory. And? Could you spell out what you were trying to suggest from pointing out the existence of alternative manufacturing options?

If my guess is correct and what you're trying to say is "regulation won't work because people will just make their own guns", then I have several arguments to bust that criticism.

• The pricing and availability of weapons is connected between ALL of the different manufacturing methods. The existence of alternatives doesn't matter. If for example, a hefty sales tax is slapped on mass-produced guns coming out of factories, people still won't bother with the high cost and inconvenience and skill required to make their own weapons, unless it becomes economically viable for them to do so.

Bullshit. It IS already economically viable to make your own guns. If you taxed all of the machinery to make guns, you would be making EVERYTHING more expensive because these basic tools are used to make all kinds of legal parts we need to keep society running, and you STILL wouldn't stop it from happening.

• One-off proof-of-concept devices, costing $1000s in tooling-up + time and skill, are no match for commercial guns that are properly made and cost a small fraction of that. There's plenty of scope to reduce the overall quantity, weeding out an easy 50%~80% (at a guesstimate) of the cheapest weapons on the market, thus making the remaining ones harder to obtain for the poorest buyers. And the vast majority of the remaining buyers still wouldn't consider 3d printing technology to be a realistic option.

Bullshit. There is fundamentally no difference between a receiver milled at home and a professionally produced one. Additionally by ridding the markets of the cheapest weapons, you deny the segment of the population at most risk the ability to defend themselves, the poor. The poor are the ones that live in high crime areas, and that are most likely to need a firearm to protect themselves. Of course you don't give a shit about any of that as long as your utopian ideologies are satiated.

• Being able to make your own guns involves marketable skills, and it's obvious that you can make a lot of other stuff as well. This immediately provides a person with legal options for making a living, and they're unlikely to be involved in criminal behaviour in the first place.

You assume that there are manufacturing jobs just sitting waiting for these people. There are not. Additionally not all crime is a result of poverty, some times people just lose their fucking minds.

• "But oppressive taxes will drive buyers underground and illegal manufacturing will increase", you may cry.
  Doesn't matter, and it would only be temporary. A simple $100 tax on legal weapons will add up to $100 (possibly more if there's overshoot) to the bottom line on any CNC machinist making black market weapons. Therefore the total supply will still decrease. It's basic economics. There are countless real-world examples where supplier X encounters problems, therefore the unrelated supplier Y puts their prices up. RAM production was a classic case a few years ago, where problems at Korean plants meant that prices spiked everywhere.

Temporary? You are completely ignorant of economics. A permanent added cost isn't some how magically not as expensive over time. It will always be more expensive, thus there will be MORE incentive to buy from underground sources, and the supply of illegal weapons will only increase.

• "This will reward criminals while punishing legitimate manufacturers!"
  Incorrect. Criminal behaviour is still black-listed as criminal behaviour, at least proportional to the amount of crime committed. Therefore, if a black-market manufacturer increases their output because of supply problems elsewhere, they also become a bigger fish in the eyes of the law. The increased risk balances out the money.

[/list]

Again, you are completely ignorant of reality. Do you think these kingpins give a shit if a handful of their mules go to prison? They don't. If the money is there there will ALWAYS be an ENDLESS SUPPLY of people willing to break the law, and the more you enforce the law, the more they can charge for the weapons, increasing profits and motivation for supplying more weapons. Remember how well the drug war worked? There is functionally no difference between a restriction and a ban if there is economic incentive to violate it.

The biggest impediment I'm seeing is this:
Gun proponents keep coming up with half-baked excuses as to why society can't be made safer, why tax won't work, why you shouldn't even try, and dismissing vital social concerns like countless murders, deaths and injuries...

And all for what? For selfish reasons like a personal desire for cheap, tax-free toys. Or your cultural Voodoo about "potentially defending yourself" against your flesh-and-blood peers in the government sector.

Are you seriously suggesting that your Voodoo beliefs are more important than deaths that could even affect you or your family? That's utterly delusional. And selfish like I already mentioned several times.

Half baked excuses? How about your half baked gun control idea like above. It is obvious you haven't spent more than a few minutes examining the subject otherwise you would realize all of your strategies are completely flawed and would only increase incentives for trafficking illegal weapons. You claim we are just making excuses to not have gun regulations that make us safer, but what we are saying is these gun regulations will make us LESS SAFE. Where do you get off putting us in danger to test your little half baked social experiments?

Guns should be used only by the army and SWAT. I think that such restriction would make life much easier for all.

In america it's seen as a hobby. You can see videos of people testing out guns and shoting out watermelons outdoors in some places that sometimes look like their backyard. It's pretty insane to anyone not living on there. I mean you can walk in on that area without knowing someone is shoting shit up and get shoot... pretty crazy.

Most terrorist have this "hobby" too. Americans will have to let that go. For most cases a pepper spray is just enough.

Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.

Challenge accepted. Regardless of intellect, reasoning, or political/religious beliefs, their life experience will provide them with one simple fact that Pavlov could have tested on his dogs:

Where there are guns, there is more potential for pain.

Anyone with an IQ of 70 can make that epiphany. Or even if they don't 'think' it, they still have the correct biological reaction with a bit of adrenaline or fear to help them prepare for violence upon having a weapon come into view. Neighbours are far more likely to be foolish, naive, or stupid and irresponsible, compared to any professional who has actually seen or experienced suffering in conjunction with guns.

Don't tell me you're another paranoid type who has fallen for that partisan nonsense about the population versus the government? Blue team versus Red team? Freedom lovers versus bureaucrats? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that. Wait for the late harvest, more CBD, less paranoia, or so they say.

Speaking of terrorists, you are 55 times more likely to be killed by police than a terrorist.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/youre-55-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-a-terrorist/5434934

You are right though, it is just some voodoo belief that we would ever need to defend ourselves against our kind, loving, benevolent government. Because after all the government is not composed of people, people who are just as able as being criminal as anyone else. Also anyone with an IQ of 70 knows that you have an epiphany, you don't make them.

The first act of every tyrant and dictator is ALWAYS finding a way to disarm the population to put them in a position where they can not resist abuse and the disposal of rule of law. Freedom is not a partisan issue. Just because you live in some fairy tail land where genocide and mass murder is erased from your mind does not mean the rest of the world is so naive. Speaking of which... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE? Only a coward criticizes others while hiding details about themselves so as to avoid criticism. It is easy to point out all the flaws of others from a dark corner where no one can make the same critical examination of you and your culture.

You are the worst case of confirmation bias I have come across in a very long time. You take an idea you have concluded upon, then you attempt to make your argument fit around your premise. The rest of the educated world studies the premises to find which one has facts supporting it, THEN makes a conclusion. You are in a constant fight to try to make reality fit your world view. Sorry, but that is not how it works. Can you make that epiphany?

[the joint]

Guns should be used only by the army and SWAT. I think that such restriction would make life much easier for all.

In america it's seen as a hobby. You can see videos of people testing out guns and shoting out watermelons outdoors in some places that sometimes look like their backyard. It's pretty insane to anyone not living on there. I mean you can walk in on that area without knowing someone is shoting shit up and get shoot... pretty crazy.

Most terrorist have this "hobby" too. Americans will have to let that go. For most cases a pepper spray is just enough.

Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.

Challenge accepted. Regardless of intellect, reasoning, or political/religious beliefs, their life experience will provide them with one simple fact that Pavlov could have tested on his dogs:

Where there are guns, there is more potential for pain.

Anyone with an IQ of 70 can make that epiphany. Or even if they don't 'think' it, they still have the correct biological reaction with a bit of adrenaline or fear to help them prepare for violence upon having a weapon come into view. Neighbours are far more likely to be foolish, naive, or stupid and irresponsible, compared to any professional who has actually seen or experienced suffering in conjunction with guns.

Don't tell me you're another paranoid type who has fallen for that partisan nonsense about the population versus the government? Blue team versus Red team? Freedom lovers versus bureaucrats? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that. Wait for the late harvest, more CBD, less paranoia, or so they say.

1a)  I agree, where there are guns, there is more potential for pain regardless of who has them.

1b)  Where there are restrictions on freedom, there is more potential for rebellion.

2)  Believing that a professional will necessarily act professionally is just as absurd as thinking that a non-professional will necessarily act unprofessionally.

3a)  Why do soldiers take 2nd and 3rd tours when their experience includes the suffering of war?  Why do police use guns to combat not only gun violence, but violence from knives, bats, cars, fists, etc.?  Why do professionals in governments around the world continue to commence wars despite the countless millions who have died in past ones?  

3b)  Violence and wars stem from a self vs. other paradigm.  People identify with that with which they are familiar, and have fear/uncertainty/doubt about that with which they are not familiar.  The minute you start splitting people up into groups like "professionals" vs. "non-professionals" or "cops" vs. "citizens" or "government" vs. "populous" and give one side more rights than others, you're going to get problems.  Bottom line, people are people, and there is absolutely zero concrete basis upon which to conclude that a so-called "professional" has any more or less ethical aptitude in applying use of their freedoms.  Maybe it's the use of the word "professional" that prohibits one from recognizing this, because it leads one to falsely assume that the person necessarily matches the description.

3c)  The bell curve is present everywhere.  You will always have a few crazy people, both in the general population and in the "professional" population, who will do some pretty horrible things.  But in general, most people professional-or-not will be just fine if they have a gun.

4)  There is a general set of personality characteristics applicable to those who become police or soldiers.  These people are more likely to want to be in charge, to want to apply authority over others, and to apply it forcefully if necessary.   In other words, there is a greater likelihood that this group of people granted with unequal power will perpetuate and make it known this inequality.  If you deduce this is a good thing because you axiomatically believe anyone called a professional will act professionally, therein lies the problem.  In the USA, it's estimated over 1,000 civilians (whether criminals or not) are killed by law enforcement annually.  If there were as many law enforcement officers as there are US civilians and we extrapolate the kill rate linearly, there would be over 300,000 kills committed annually by law enforcement, far surpassing the number committed by the general population.  Sure, you can explain this disproportionate number by pointing to the fact that a large number of those killed provoked it in some way.  Or, maybe it's also a symptom of a larger problem in which many criminals become criminals as a result of living in a society in which some groups have disproportionate rights and authority, the byproducts of which trickle down into virtually all aspects of societal interaction.

[Spendulus]

Guns should be used only by the army and SWAT. I think that such restriction would make life much easier for all.

In america it's seen as a hobby. You can see videos of people testing out guns and shoting out watermelons outdoors in some places that sometimes look like their backyard. It's pretty insane to anyone not living on there. I mean you can walk in on that area without knowing someone is shoting shit up and get shoot... pretty crazy.

Most terrorist have this "hobby" too. Americans will have to let that go. For most cases a pepper spray is just enough.

Again, I propose the challenge: Name one good reason why armymen or SWAT team members should automatically be granted more trust with a gun than your neighbors.

Challenge accepted. Regardless of intellect, reasoning, or political/religious beliefs, their life experience will provide them with one simple fact that Pavlov could have tested on his dogs:

Where there are guns, there is more potential for pain.

Anyone with an IQ of 70 can make that epiphany. Or even if they don't 'think' it, they still have the correct biological reaction with a bit of adrenaline or fear to help them prepare for violence upon having a weapon come into view. Neighbours are far more likely to be foolish, naive, or stupid and irresponsible, compared to any professional who has actually seen or experienced suffering in conjunction with guns.

Don't tell me you're another paranoid type who has fallen for that partisan nonsense about the population versus the government? Blue team versus Red team? Freedom lovers versus bureaucrats? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that. Wait for the late harvest, more CBD, less paranoia, or so they say.

1a)  I agree, where there are guns, there is more potential for pain regardless of who has them.

1b)  Where there are restrictions on freedom, there is more potential for rebellion.

2)  Believing that a professional will necessarily act professionally is just as absurd as thinking that a non-professional will necessarily act unprofessionally.

3a)  Why do soldiers take 2nd and 3rd tours when their experience includes the suffering of war?  Why do police use guns to combat not only gun violence, but violence from knives, bats, cars, fists, etc.?  Why do professionals in governments around the world continue to commence wars despite the countless millions who have died in past ones?  

3b)  Violence and wars stem from a self vs. other paradigm.  People identify with that with which they are familiar, and have fear/uncertainty/doubt about that with which they are not familiar.  The minute you start splitting people up into groups like "professionals" vs. "non-professionals" or "cops" vs. "citizens" or "government" vs. "populous" and give one side more rights than others, you're going to get problems.  Bottom line, people are people, and there is absolutely zero concrete basis upon which to conclude that a so-called "professional" has any more or less ethical aptitude in applying use of their freedoms.  Maybe it's the use of the word "professional" that prohibits one from recognizing this, because it leads one to falsely assume that the person necessarily matches the description.

3c)  The bell curve is present everywhere.  You will always have a few crazy people, both in the general population and in the "professional" population, who will do some pretty horrible things.  But in general, most people professional-or-not will be just fine if they have a gun.

4)  There is a general set of personality characteristics applicable to those who become police or soldiers.  These people are more likely to want to be in charge, to want to apply authority over others, and to apply it forcefully if necessary.   In other words, there is a greater likelihood that this group of people granted with unequal power will perpetuate and make it known this inequality.  If you deduce this is a good thing because you axiomatically believe anyone called a professional will act professionally, therein lies the problem.  In the USA, it's estimated over 1,000 civilians (whether criminals or not) are killed by law enforcement annually.  If there were as many law enforcement officers as there are US civilians and we extrapolate the kill rate linearly, there would be over 300,000 kills committed annually by law enforcement, far surpassing the number committed by the general population.  Sure, you can explain this disproportionate number by pointing to the fact that a large number of those killed provoked it in some way.  Or, maybe it's also a symptom of a larger problem in which many criminals become criminals as a result of living in a society in which some groups have disproportionate rights and authority, the byproducts of which trickle down into virtually all aspects of societal interaction.

Although Blahblahblah can be debated on the merits or lack of of each of his points, what I fail to see is how and why a person would attempt to make very broad, sweeping generalizations - in particular across cultures and societies.

Invariably such a thing will be wrong - in fact, a sweeping generalization is a logical error.

[TECSHARE]

I still want to know what utopian lands he resides in.

[Spendulus]

I still want to know what utopian lands he resides in.

Well, ya.

There have been some sincere posts on this forum from people in (day to day) peaceful places that could not imagine why people would want firearms and why governments would allow them to have them.

I do not think they err in what they say about where they live.  I do think they err in extending that to a global truth.

And it's ridiculous.  NOBODY is going to say the average man or woman in Alaska shouldn't have firearms. 

I've been about ten feet from a bear in New Mexico and didn't exactly feel too great about it.  A great many people have firearms and never dream of point them at a human being.

[cmthompson22]

No, gun control laws are not constitutional. We have a right in the Bill of Rights to carry arms. We should be allowed to take the gun with us into any place we wish. Unfortunately, guns falling into the wrong hands makes the government happy because they can take guns away as much as possible and charge outrageous fees on anything that is left.

I do not think gun laws are needed that much. Just maybe a better screening system. I am not sure how these kids with a huge mental history, going to doctors and shrinks for years and having issues in the past, are getting guns though. My husband was in a fight with someone once over ten years ago, and the last time he tried to get a gun to go hunting with his family in Minnesota, it took like a month to complete and verify is background. Apparently he was an exception or some people are not following the right procedures.

I do not think we need to punish the people who are following the rules though. We have a right in the constitution to have a gun. But of course, we really don’t seem to follow the constitution any longer.

[Spendulus]

No, gun control laws are not constitutional. We have a right in the Bill of Rights to carry arms. We should be allowed to take the gun with us into any place we wish. Unfortunately, guns falling into the wrong hands makes the government happy because they can take guns away as much as possible and charge outrageous fees on anything that is left.

I do not think gun laws are needed that much. Just maybe a better screening system. I am not sure how these kids with a huge mental history, going to doctors and shrinks for years and having issues in the past, are getting guns though. My husband was in a fight with someone once over ten years ago, and the last time he tried to get a gun to go hunting with his family in Minnesota, it took like a month to complete and verify is background. Apparently he was an exception or some people are not following the right procedures.

I do not think we need to punish the people who are following the rules though. We have a right in the constitution to have a gun. But of course, we really don’t seem to follow the constitution any longer.

http://www.political-humor.org/the-police-should-be-here-any-minute-until-then-lets-talk-about-jesus.shtml

[blablahblah]

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

3d printers enable anyone to make stuff, the nature of what is to be made follows from the device doing the making.  If it's plastic, then the apparatus is designed for that material - if it is sintered metal, then the design is for sintered metal.  Additive manufacturing is not going to be tool steel.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.
.....

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk, as I already mentioned.

For example:
a black market producer makes $50k worth guns or gun parts per month, for their ring or their paying customers or whatever. Meanwhile, a new tax is applied on the legal market, significantly affecting the price. The black market producer now has a serious problem:
The same quantity is now worth $1M.
It's a completely different "tax bracket", making them a much more appealing target in the eyes of both law enforcement who would do more chasing, and the courts, which would now impose bigger penalties.
Therefore, to reduce their risk exposure, the obvious thing to do would be either produce less to get back to the original $50k plan, or invest in more expensive security/tactics/bookkeeping, and hope that they don't get caught while they're out of their league.

The problem applies whether it's one guy in his garage doing cash jobs on the side, or an extensive crime syndicate.

   Therefore you have a sort of "retro" gun control argument, not one that is oriented toward the world we are moving into.

Why retro? You provided zero evidence that it was practical or competitive. It's like you're telling me that I can make colour printouts from my B&W laser printer, just by purchasing 3 different toner cartridges, swapping them out and manually turning the paper upside down and placing it on the in-tray. "It can be done!"