Is banning weapons such a good thing?

[Oxstone]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:

-Pros

• Lower murder rate because knife are less deadly
• Less or even no mass shootings and no accidents like "4 year old killed brother playing with dad weapon"
• Less police kills because policemen don't have to be paranoid as 99% of criminals don't have guns

-Cons

• You're completely at the mercy of your government. You can't do anything against it as angry as you can be
• You have to rely solely on state police, which can be great but only if it's efficient

Problem to me is that the submissive state of the population is really a huge red flag. When I see how powerless European citizens are currently...
When you got riots government just increase number of policemen...

Would you support freedom of weapons trade in a European country without weapons? Considering freedom of trade doesn't mean without huge regulations of course.

[1715429525]

1715429525

[1715429525]

1715429525

[1715429525]

1715429525

[1715429525]

1715429525

[1715429525]

1715429525

[Spendulus]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see....

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

[Wananavu99]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment, with that being said, we need to at least shore up some loopholes that currently exist, especially for people that have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, these people should not have access to a weapon.  I believe there are laws already in place to address this, but the authorities at the Federal and at many State levels are just incompetent or do not enforce the current laws.  

Boggles my mind that many on the left want to ban certain weapons like the Armalite AR-15, its a semi-auto rifle, which means there is no selective fire, thus it's not an "assault weapon".  I have an AR-15 that fires the 5.56 and 223 calibers and an AR-10 that fires the 308 and also the 7.62×51 NATO, (the 7.62x51 can chamber into a 308 rifle, but technically they're slightly different and I'm not gonna go into the details here).

I also conceal carry where I can, but lawfully and I never intend on breaking any laws such as conceal carrying on a university campus (state law) or at a post office (federal law).  When going to the post office, I always park across the street and never on postal property and leave my weapon in my car and then go mail my boxes or whatever.  My guns are always locked away in safes and ammo in gun cabinets.  These are in two separate rooms, and the only guns that are chambered are the ones in my bedroom safe.  

Freedom shouldn't be subverted because the collective says so! No sir, freedom is born out of free will, and free will is the greatest gift our creator endowed us with.  It's how we use our free will that will determine our destiny and future.  At present, we should continue to have guns to defend ourselves and our families until the time where human consciousness rises to the next level.

[cizatext]

Freedom of weapons is just like total liberty to man oppression and the rate of killing will increase because any one can have access to weapons but once there is regulations of weapons the government can now do their regulations work to minimize the rate of crime in the society.

[Flying Hellfish]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment, with that being said, we need to at least shore up some loopholes that currently exist, especially for people that have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, these people should not have access to a weapon.  I believe there are laws already in place to address this, but the authorities at the Federal and at many State levels are just incompetent or do not enforce the current laws.  

Boggles my mind that many on the left want to ban certain weapons like the Armalite AR-15, its a semi-auto rifle, which means there is no selective fire, thus it's not an "assault weapon".  I have an AR-15 that fires the 5.56 and 223 calibers and an AR-10 that fires the 308 and also the 7.62×51 NATO, (the 7.62x51 can chamber into a 308 rifle, but technically they're slightly different and I'm not gonna go into the details here).

I also conceal carry where I can, but lawfully and I never intend on breaking any laws such as conceal carrying on a university campus (state law) or at a post office (federal law).  When going to the post office, I always park across the street and never on postal property and leave my weapon in my car and then go mail my boxes or whatever.  My guns are always locked away in safes and ammo in gun cabinets.  These are in two separate rooms, and the only guns that are chambered are the ones in my bedroom safe.  

Freedom shouldn't be subverted because the collective says so! No sir, freedom is born out of free will, and free will is the greatest gift our creator endowed us with.  It's how we use our free will that will determine our destiny and future.  At present, we should continue to have guns to defend ourselves and our families until the time where human consciousness rises to the next level.

Now I need to have a flamethrower, grenades, land mines and I might as well get a few RPG's in case you get a gunship or drone or something cool to defend myself against someone as armed as you are.  eventually we all need nukes to protect ourselves!  I am 99.9999% sure you are not a threat to me but what if the guy coming to get me IS that well armed, I need to be better armed.  You only need to look at the cold war to see that arms escalation on a global scale leads to a metric fuck ton of wasted money and time, on top of producing thousands of nukes that need to be maintained and eventually disposed of...

[Spendulus]

....
Now I need to have a flamethrower, grenades...

FAIL at attempt using logical error, reducto ad absurd.

Want to actually try to support your position, or is it simply ridiculous?

[darklus123]

It is really very hard to justify if to either ban weapons or not. It is because not banning weapons can really help in a situation that you did not expect to as your protection.

My take on this is that since there are really license gun owners that are responsible enough. It only means that the rule should really have to be critical in this. All type of tests should be performed for all the applicants because what is really happening now is there are a lot of corruption and that was really causing the real problem

[hardhardy]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:

-Pros

• Lower murder rate because knife are less deadly
• Less or even no mass shootings and no accidents like "4 year old killed brother playing with dad weapon"
• Less police kills because policemen don't have to be paranoid as 99% of criminals don't have guns

-Cons

• You're completely at the mercy of your government. You can't do anything against it as angry as you can be
• You have to rely solely on state police, which can be great but only if it's efficient

Problem to me is that the submissive state of the population is really a huge red flag. When I see how powerless European citizens are currently...
When you got riots government just increase number of policemen...

Would you support freedom of weapons trade in a European country without weapons? Considering freedom of trade doesn't mean without huge regulations of course.

US States with gun control have slightly worse gun crime stats than states with no gun control laws.
Data shows that even the most obvious PRO in your list is actually all that real.
Maybe it works for some European countries, but now that everyone in the States already has guns, it would lead to nothing good.

[Lanzer]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see....

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

3d printing ? you mean 3d printing module ? its likely toys maybe

[bitmover]

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

The issue is that some people, maybe even most of them,  try to be correct and right, and don't wanna print a fire weapon at home if it is illegal to have one.

If guns are banned in a country, only criminals will be allowed to have them . If you have one, yo are a criminal.

That's the situation in Brazil now, and many other countries, like Venezuela.

[Spendulus]

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

The issue is that some people, maybe even most of them,  try to be correct and right, and don't wanna print a fire weapon at home if it is illegal to have one.
...

I think you mean, that statement is true except when it isn't true.

Any number of cases can be cited. Rampant ethnic cleansing in a country torn apart would be one example.

[bitmover]

I think you mean, that statement is true except when it isn't true.

No, I am saying its not true. It's the same as buying an illegal weapon.

[Spendulus]

I think you mean, that statement is true except when it isn't true.

No, I am saying its not true. It's the same as buying an illegal weapon.

Fine. Now we understand your position, and you are wrong. You replied to this statement of mine...

I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required.

... with a misdirection to the LEGALITY of 3d printed weapons.

The reason you are wrong is that a population with general purpose 3d printers can literally overnight possess a massive number of firearms.

Having said that, I understand your point, but you are still not correct. For example, in the USA, there are specific exemptions to federal firearms licensing for firearms a person has manufactured himself.

Going back to the original question, let's review it again. Post #1.

I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

And I replied "I support 3d printing of weapons making the issue obsolete, since they could be produced when and if required."

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment, with that being said, we need to at least shore up some loopholes that currently exist, especially for people that have been diagnosed with mental illnesses, these people should not have access to a weapon.  I believe there are laws already in place to address this, but the authorities at the Federal and at many State levels are just incompetent or do not enforce the current laws.   ....

Those laws are incompetently vague and useless. There is a specific issue regarding the prescription of certain psychoactive drugs for treatment of certain illness. People that take these, the risk of their going ape if and when they miss their meds literally skyrockets.

I don't think there are any laws in place that covers this issue.

[jjjfff]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment

Random off-topic comment here: the traditional meaning of "liberal" is that you do not want regulation.

Being socially liberal means you do not want religion and  tradition to tell you how you should behave socially (sexuality, marriage, religion and so on).

Being financially liberal means you do not want the State telling you how to spend your money.

So liberalism is the ideology of less control.

Strangely though this does not apply to guns.

When you say you're a liberal in the context of gun control, it means you want State control of guns.

Just a random observation.

[Spendulus]

I'm liberal on many things except for the 2nd amendment and a handful of issues. I'm very pro 2nd amendment

Random off-topic comment here: the traditional meaning of "liberal" is that you do not want regulation.

Being socially liberal means you do not want religion and  tradition to tell you how you should behave socially (sexuality, marriage, religion and so on).

Being financially liberal means you do not want the State telling you how to spend your money.

So liberalism is the ideology of less control.

Strangely though this does not apply to guns.

When you say you're a liberal in the context of gun control, it means you want State control of guns.

Just a random observation.

That definition of "liberal" has not applied in the USA since the 1960s. It's progressively moved toward control, and now is attempted minute control of every aspect of life. Speech, sexuality, yes including "approved" religions or not. Guns was one of the first things they went for starting in the 1980s.

[3acaga]

I believe that every creature on our planet protects itself and its loved ones - therefore I am negative about the law on the prohibition of weapons.
There are many cases when the state cannot protect in time ...

[criza]

Weapons are undeniably deadly. And if its deadly, should it automatically and necessarily needs to be banned? Well, personally, I believe that we must have the right to protect ourselves but what is more important is the safety of many more than some. I think that the government should not totally ban the possession of weapons but should only control and regulate the ownership of those weapons. Criteria and qualifications should be cleared out for those who are in need with the weapon possesion and ownership. But more than this issue, one thing that the govenrment should give emphasis and focused on is the security and safety pf the whole, as a whole, so that people will not be in argue regarding banning of weapons since they feel that they are all living in a safe community.

[Spendulus]

Weapons are undeniably deadly. ...the govenrment should give emphasis and focused on is the security and safety pf the whole, as a whole, so that people will not be in argue regarding banning of weapons since they feel that they are all living in a safe community.

I think we can show easily many cases where a government looked the other way instead of doing it's job and protecting the people.

Rape of women in India has been a continuing issue, hasn't it?

They go to the police department to report it and then get it a second time, gang raped by the police officers.

[mOgliE]

That definition of "liberal" has not applied in the USA since the 1960s. It's progressively moved toward control, and now is attempted minute control of every aspect of life. Speech, sexuality, yes including "approved" religions or not. Guns was one of the first things they went for starting in the 1980s.

Yeah but it's not the fault of the rest of the world if USA speaks American and not English 

In the whole world liberal qualifies people not wanting regulation. That's more an economical term most of the time but whatever the subject liberal = deregulation.

[ClockworkTrader]

You can`t ban guns completely, there is always black market - is a person wants to get a gun, he or she will manage to do it regardless.
More measures shall be implemented to regulate it, for example improved and regular psychological testing.
But even if it is effective, more and more people will raise to protest: it is a threat to their freedom, they won`t be consent with more regulations.

[F3L1X]

Banning weapons wouldnt mean almost zero murder rates, remember when a terrorist in Paris ran over people with a van?

[BADecker]

The only way you might be able to completely ban weapons, is to place every person into a strait jacket, and let the robots spoon feed him and wipe his but.

[BADecker]

Banning guns does just the opposite of lowering the murder rate. Making and enforcing a law that requires all people to wear at leas a 38 cal. pistol when in public, would reduce all kinds of crime. Why? Because a crook would be too scared to use his gun, not knowing how prepared his victim might be. The simple show of a gun would scare the bejeebies out of him.

[Spendulus]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:....

There's only one eventual outcome of people banning weapons, and that is as the weapons get smart, and decide to ban people.

[SCheek]

It also worth noting how the murder rate would increase during the time period where guns were banned. Also worth noting that banning guns doesn't get rid of guns. Just the guns that law abiding citizens hold.

[Artemis3]

My country has weapons banned. Its also the country with the highest violent (by guns) death rate per capita of the hemisphere. Only state armed forces are legally allowed to have weapons (it used to be possible to obtain a permit for civilians a couple of decades ago, now void).

Where do criminals get weapons and ammo now? From the black market and... said state forces either by corruption or by killing them.

I'm not going to say anyone should be allowed to buy guns, but banning them altogether doesn't appear to be the answer either, neither forcing everyone to wear one (that's absurd from all points of view).

Currently criminals have it easy: the civilians can't defend themselves. And the police has it worse, the criminals often outgun them, so they resort to bully tactics such as confront a gang of 10 with 500... (while tragically leaving half the city undefended in the process, where the other gangs take opportunity to act). You can imagine the collateral...

As the saying goes: "When weapons are outlawed, only outlaws wear weapons". There is also a lot of crime committed by members of state forces. Remember the corruption part? That doesn't make the situation any easier...

[CoinCube]

My country has weapons banned. Its also the country with the highest violent (by guns) death rate per capita of the hemisphere. Only state armed forces are legally allowed to have weapons (it used to be possible to obtain a permit for civilians a couple of decades ago, now void).

Where do criminals get weapons and ammo now? From the black market and... said state forces either by corruption or by killing them.

...

My sympathies to your and your unfortunate countrymen.

Disarming the population leaves it helpless against government tyranny.
Those who support such things are either useful idiots or groups who wish to force their "vision" on others without worrying about the possibility of revolt.

The following article should be is required reading for the useful idiots.

Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'
https://www.foxnews.com/world/venezuelans-regret-gun-prohibition-we-could-have-defended-ourselves.amp

[BADecker]

There is no such thing as banning weapons. Having weapons is natural in the world the way it exists.

Consider the USA. Most average people want peace. Few want real confrontation. Sure, they like to go to football games and other sports where there is competition. But nobody wants to go around bloodying his neighbor or getting bloodied by his neighbor. And it is like this for the average people of all countries, until... their leaders stir them up so that they go to war. Just watch some of Hitler's speeches on Youtube.

Along with freedom of speech in the USA, freedom of religion and freedom to own weapons are two of the biggest freedoms we have. Hear is what is really happening regarding weapons. The war-minded leaders in the previous paragraph, are turning some people into weapons by talking them into laying down their weapons, and fighting against people who won't lay down their weapons.

Why do they do this? So they don't have any resistance when they send their armies in to take over the people of their own country to make slaves of them.

Take a look at what the 2nd Amendment really means:
Reality Check Rewind: The True Meaning of the Second Amendment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhC9DcKM0hc

[squatz1]

You can`t ban guns completely, there is always black market - is a person wants to get a gun, he or she will manage to do it regardless.
More measures shall be implemented to regulate it, for example improved and regular psychological testing.
But even if it is effective, more and more people will raise to protest: it is a threat to their freedom, they won`t be consent with more regulations.

Harping back on an old thread here, but yes this is true -- you can't ban ALL weapons. Stopping criminals is always the end goal though, and getting guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them -- such as people who have a mental illness, prior felony convictions, domestic violence charges, etc -- is something that both sides of the aisle can agree on.

At least I would hope so.

[TECSHARE]

You can`t ban guns completely, there is always black market - is a person wants to get a gun, he or she will manage to do it regardless.
More measures shall be implemented to regulate it, for example improved and regular psychological testing.
But even if it is effective, more and more people will raise to protest: it is a threat to their freedom, they won`t be consent with more regulations.

Harping back on an old thread here, but yes this is true -- you can't ban ALL weapons. Stopping criminals is always the end goal though, and getting guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them -- such as people who have a mental illness, prior felony convictions, domestic violence charges, etc -- is something that both sides of the aisle can agree on.

At least I would hope so.

The problem is who gets to decide who gets rights? Oh the government? What could go wrong

[BADecker]

The real reason for weapons is to "Shoot The Shit About American Politics." This is one great reason not to ban weapons.

[MoonCrypt]

The Gun banning issue has been going on and on, let me ask has banning of cocaine reduced the distribution of the substance?
or it has become another political plug?

In the world today you can only control the use of arms. Having guns distributed responsible help in a way reduce sect arising they know for sure they will have to be ready for a gunfight.

all I can say guns are emotional subject to government and banning it won't be a better option for them

[BADecker]

Banning anything is called control of it. Banning guns is called "gun control."

When any person or any group bans something for some other people, they are not controlling the thing they banned. Rather, they are controlling the people. It's called slavery.

[MoonCrypt]

Banning anything is called control of it. Banning guns is called "gun control."

When any person or any group bans something for some other people, they are not controlling the thing they banned. Rather, they are controlling the people. It's called slavery.

with your propose logic of baning = control, it then defines cocaine is not banned but controlled and the country that spends so much to fight it still remains one of the highest users.

[BADecker]

Banning anything is called control of it. Banning guns is called "gun control."

When any person or any group bans something for some other people, they are not controlling the thing they banned. Rather, they are controlling the people. It's called slavery.

with your propose logic of baning = control, it then defines cocaine is not banned but controlled and the country that spends so much to fight it still remains one of the highest users.

First, banning is people control, not substance control. The substance grows wild in many places in the banned country(ies).

Since the substance grows wild, the "banners" who are trying to control the people, will never be able to control it. They have long ago figure out how to make money off the people's substance use, without necessarily promoting the sale or use of the banned substance. That is all you are seeing - some people controlled (prison), with a massive number of people left to control. In other words, lots of ways to make more money. All it needs more creative thinking to do it.

However, why would America be loosening their bans on the substance... a thing that they are doing? Might it be that they know they will be able to control the people in the future through 5G microwave broadcasting?

Consider. The chemtrails being sprayed, are tons of nano aluminum oxide and barium... into the atmosphere. This is being consumed in the food it contaminates, and being breathed in by the people. It gets into their brains, and makes them susceptible to microwave radiation. Soon, zombie control of the people by the "banners," via 5G cellphone radiation. Loosening the substance bans is simply another way to keep the people from focusing on the far greater 5G removal of their freedom.

[MoonCrypt]

Banning anything is called control of it. Banning guns is called "gun control."

When any person or any group bans something for some other people, they are not controlling the thing they banned. Rather, they are controlling the people. It's called slavery.

with your propose logic of baning = control, it then defines cocaine is not banned but controlled and the country that spends so much to fight it still remains one of the highest users.

First, banning is people control, not substance control. The substance grows wild in many places in the banned country(ies).

Since the substance grows wild, the "banners" who are trying to control the people, will never be able to control it. They have long ago figure out how to make money off the people's substance use, without necessarily promoting the sale or use of the banned substance. That is all you are seeing - some people controlled (prison), with a massive number of people left to control. In other words, lots of ways to make more money. All it needs more creative thinking to do it.

However, why would America be loosening their bans on the substance... a thing that they are doing? Might it be that they know they will be able to control the people in the future through 5G microwave broadcasting?

Consider. The chemtrails being sprayed, are tons of nano aluminum oxide and barium... into the atmosphere. This is being consumed in the food it contaminates, and being breathed in by the people. It gets into their brains, and makes them susceptible to microwave radiation. Soon, zombie control of the people by the "banners," via 5G cellphone radiation. Loosening the substance bans is simply another way to keep the people from focusing on the far greater 5G removal of their freedom.

this is another interesting insight you have shared!! now let the people feed on the habit and give us the power in the future!! so are you saying laws won't protect the people anymore?

[Adegbem]

The intention is what really counts, but banning may not be the best way to curtail the havoc that it poses. Since weapon have there own advantages in that it helps in defending  one's self. It can't be totally ban, there should be a way around it.

[Spendulus]

The intention is what really counts, but banning may not be the best way to curtail the havoc that it poses. Since weapon have there own advantages in that it helps in defending  one's self. It can't be totally ban, there should be a way around it.

I always thought that along with a weapon, one should have perhaps a thousand rounds of ammo for it.

How about we compromise, and ban ammo beyond five hundred rounds per pistol or rifle?

[BADecker]

First, banning is people control, not substance control. The substance grows wild in many places in the banned country(ies).

Since the substance grows wild, the "banners" who are trying to control the people, will never be able to control it. They have long ago figure out how to make money off the people's substance use, without necessarily promoting the sale or use of the banned substance. That is all you are seeing - some people controlled (prison), with a massive number of people left to control. In other words, lots of ways to make more money. All it needs more creative thinking to do it.

However, why would America be loosening their bans on the substance... a thing that they are doing? Might it be that they know they will be able to control the people in the future through 5G microwave broadcasting?

Consider. The chemtrails being sprayed, are tons of nano aluminum oxide and barium... into the atmosphere. This is being consumed in the food it contaminates, and being breathed in by the people. It gets into their brains, and makes them susceptible to microwave radiation. Soon, zombie control of the people by the "banners," via 5G cellphone radiation. Loosening the substance bans is simply another way to keep the people from focusing on the far greater 5G removal of their freedom.

this is another interesting insight you have shared!! now let the people feed on the habit and give us the power in the future!! so are you saying laws won't protect the people anymore?

Physical laws of metal contaminated brains being bombarded by controlled microwave radiation will protect the people as slaves for the microwave controllers. I mean, what good are you by yourself? Think of all the work you would have to do in nature if you lived alone. You would have to build your own house, plant your own garden, make your own clothes, hand-dig your own well, etc.

Masters protect their slaves while keeping them in slavery... so that the slaves can do the heavy worked for them.

What laws are protecting the people? Microwave/nano-metal physical laws are enslaving the people.

Here's a business to get into. Activate your cellphone so that it is lit up, and so that you can see how many bars of connectivity it has. Then, while the screen is lit up, stick your cellphone into your microwave oven. ABSOLUTELY DON'T TURN THE MICROWAVE ON! Look through the oven door window. Watch the connectivity bars go down, and the cellphone turn itself off, or enter a low-power mode, because of no connectivity.

The business is to design microwave window sheathing for houses, and microwave-proof clothing for people... suits they can wear like "spacesuits," but a lot less clumsy, to protect people from microwaves. Later, your business can grow into protection for gardens and fields so that crops can grow without all that microwave energy affecting them.

I mean, the current cubesats that they are sending up are only the tip of the iceberg regarding the future. The whole earth will be bathed in microwave radiation, a thousand times greater than what exists now. Check the studies on the Net for how dangerous some people have found microwaves to be.

[MoonCrypt]

First, banning is people control, not substance control. The substance grows wild in many places in the banned country(ies).

Since the substance grows wild, the "banners" who are trying to control the people, will never be able to control it. They have long ago figure out how to make money off the people's substance use, without necessarily promoting the sale or use of the banned substance. That is all you are seeing - some people controlled (prison), with a massive number of people left to control. In other words, lots of ways to make more money. All it needs more creative thinking to do it.

However, why would America be loosening their bans on the substance... a thing that they are doing? Might it be that they know they will be able to control the people in the future through 5G microwave broadcasting?

Consider. The chemtrails being sprayed, are tons of nano aluminum oxide and barium... into the atmosphere. This is being consumed in the food it contaminates, and being breathed in by the people. It gets into their brains, and makes them susceptible to microwave radiation. Soon, zombie control of the people by the "banners," via 5G cellphone radiation. Loosening the substance bans is simply another way to keep the people from focusing on the far greater 5G removal of their freedom.

this is another interesting insight you have shared!! now let the people feed on the habit and give us the power in the future!! so are you saying laws won't protect the people anymore?

Physical laws of metal contaminated brains being bombarded by controlled microwave radiation will protect the people as slaves for the microwave controllers. I mean, what good are you by yourself? Think of all the work you would have to do in nature if you lived alone. You would have to build your own house, plant your own garden, make your own clothes, hand-dig your own well, etc.

Masters protect their slaves while keeping them in slavery... so that the slaves can do the heavy worked for them.

What laws are protecting the people? Microwave/nano-metal physical laws are enslaving the people.

Here's a business to get into. Activate your cellphone so that it is lit up, and so that you can see how many bars of connectivity it has. Then, while the screen is lit up, stick your cellphone into your microwave oven. ABSOLUTELY DON'T TURN THE MICROWAVE ON! Look through the oven door window. Watch the connectivity bars go down, and the cellphone turn itself off, or enter a low-power mode, because of no connectivity.

The business is to design microwave window sheathing for houses, and microwave-proof clothing for people... suits they can wear like "spacesuits," but a lot less clumsy, to protect people from microwaves. Later, your business can grow into protection for gardens and fields so that crops can grow without all that microwave energy affecting them.

I mean, the current cubesats that they are sending up are only the tip of the iceberg regarding the future. The whole earth will be bathed in microwave radiation, a thousand times greater than what exists now. Check the studies on the Net for how dangerous some people have found microwaves to be.

now you making the future to be over thought now by me!! i will just move away from any enabled 5G country to an underdeveloped region don't want to be living in fear

[Artemis3]

now you making the future to be over thought now by me!! i will just move away from any enabled 5G country to an underdeveloped region don't want to be living in fear

5G is only the first harmonic of water resonance, the true terror lies in 2.4G 

Wait, are we talking about microwave weapons now?

[MoonCrypt]

now you making the future to be over thought now by me!! i will just move away from any enabled 5G country to an underdeveloped region don't want to be living in fear

5G is only the first harmonic of water resonance, the true terror lies in 2.4G 

Wait, are we talking about microwave weapons now?

that is what it looks like it because the wave can be used to fire up individual if used in a certain way the directional wave can burn the individuals its set on!! so it can be weaponized

[BADecker]

Banning weapons would make them all gooey.



 

[emilanea56]

Banning weapons is a good thing at all. We can reduce rate of volution, murder politics, and the high fund for them,... Peaceful is life.

[BADecker]

^^^ Banning all weapons is a good thing. But why is this idea not realistic? Because nobody can ban all the weapons.

If someone has weapons, he will use them. If he can use a few, he will make more. If he makes enough, how can you stop him from harming you if you don't have any?

Not having weapons is an idealistic dream that will make you into a slave.

If you and some others legislate weapons bans, will that make the weapons go away?

Homemade Slam Fire 12 gauge shotgun EP: 1

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

You can't stop people from making weapons without making them slaves.

After you watch the video, look in the sidebar for more like it.

Note that, if you make one of these guns, you better be careful. Why? Because if you restrict the barrel opening in any way, the shell will explode the pipes. The shrapnel from the explosion will blind you.

[Johnzky]

First i wanna clarify that when we mention ‘weapon’ it wasnt just a Gun because Bladed weapon also considered as weapon same as thoe arrows etc,so the Pros are questioned

But in totality i believe that weapons are part of the human lives since politics had been created and this is a sign of power and strength so for me banning weapon is not a good thing

[mayo2u]

One thing you need to account for is that there where far more guns in the US (percent of population) 60 years ago - and less crime and far fewer mass murders and school shootings.  So, we know it's not the guns. It's something else.

So, what happened? Why the change.

Second there are more guns in the US now than 20 years ago but fewer murders. Why?

There is more involved here than the weapon itself.

[drumamat]

My opinion to carry weapons to civilians prohibited.I'm just sure that by issuing a permit for carrying a weapon, the person receiving it passes a superficial check.And in fact, you need to undergo an individual more thorough testing.I am an ordinary civilian and I would not want the passage of the game GTA on the streets of my city.

[mayo2u]

Are you referring only to carrying on the street? If so, I agree that different local jurisdictions can limit conceal (or open) carry.

But the role of having firearms is to be able to defend yourself from criminals and from an over reaching government.

Look at the evil done by governments against unarmed populations over the last 100 years. The  millions dead by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and others.

[BADecker]

Arizona and some other States have conceal carry without a license. AZ also has unlimited open carry.

At the same time, Arizona has some of the strictest laws regarding punishment for dangerous use of a weapon. If you are attacked, and you have a gun but the other guy doesn't, you dare not use your gun except if you can prove that it really was a life threatening situation. If you can't prove it, shoot him dead without any witnesses, get away from the scene fast, and melt the gun down so there isn't any evidence.

[Rizqi]

I agreed on the use of weapons to protect myself and my family and relatives, but we must understand that weapons are tools and can be used by anyone, thus the potential for misuse by some people is abandoned without rules.
indeed life is free with freedom but the freedom we have does not interfere and take one's freedom. then we as good citizens already have armed rules, with specifications that are in accordance with the state.
we have been given a tool to protect ourselves so do not hurt and carelessly put the tool, because from some cases dangerous tools are made for games and this is very dangerous with other residents.

[Chikitita2004]

Well, there is always good and bad side in both. Allowing weapons can somehow be good to the person holding it, it gives feeling of security for them but sometimes problems arise when other people holding them are not responsible enough which also cause problem to other people. The abuse of use is often the problem that arise from this situation.

[emulsifryer]

Well, there is always good and bad side in both. Allowing weapons can somehow be good to the person holding it, it gives feeling of security for them but sometimes problems arise when other people holding them are not responsible enough which also cause problem to other people. The abuse of use is often the problem that arise from this situation.

Having a gun is not actually a problem for as long as the owner has its own license and not abusing having an authority of using the gun. The purpose of a gun is for security protection but many of us are being irresponsible about it because they are using it for evil intentions and causing a problem to other people especially when they got drunk.

[Pagoda.to]

Like others say, always a good and bad side, and it will always be abused. I guess that can be said about the crypto world, as much good as it can be used for, the bad will always be the first thing people think of first. Having both extremes will help our case.

[BADecker]

What about the weapons that our bodies use naturally, to kill off microbes? I mean, how mean can we get? Maybe we should commit suicide en masse so that we truly lay down all our weapons.

[mayo2u]

Why would we want to regulate them even more. You do realize that places where guns are de facto illegal (Chicago) crime is higher than in places where guns are readily available.

If guns were the cause of violence then more guns would equal more violence - and yet the numbers don't bear that out.

[mayo2u]

Banning weapons is a good thing at all. We can reduce rate of volution, murder politics, and the high fund for them,... Peaceful is life.

Why is banning weapons a good idea?

How would a 120 pound woman defend herself against a 200 pound man?

As the saying goes: "God created man but Sam Colt made them equal."

[BADecker]

You can't ban weapons. Even if you try, the regulators who enforce the ban need weapons to do the enforcing.

If you are the kind of person who would trust the enforcers, you can trust me with your $10,000 just to prove your trust, right? I'd like it in Bitcoin. Ask me for my Bitcoin address where to send it.

[700G]

Banning weapons is a good thing at all. We can reduce rate of volution, murder politics, and the high fund for them,... Peaceful is life.

Why is banning weapons a good idea?

How would a 120 pound woman defend herself against a 200 pound man?

As the saying goes: "God created man but Sam Colt made them equal."

Exactly, brutes and gangs of criminals would love to see total gun control because they do not need guns to commit crime. They will always prey on the weak and will always make sure they have the greater strength or greater numbers.
Gun restrictions only hurt the innocent. Why so many people cannot understand this is beyond me.

[BADecker]

It makes them dangerous.


Easy Rider - Freedom spoken by Jack Nicholson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACUCVTH6f0g

[MidKnight]

People who have plans to murder someone or to get revenge will always find a weapon of their choice to make it happen. They can make improvised guns and other bladed weapons so your advise is useless at all. There are also chemicals that are much dangerous than guns that can kill hundreds of people or damage them permanently.

[BADecker]

^^^ The point isn't taking freedom away from people, to keep them from doing wrong if they want. The point is to be armed so that they think twice about it, and to have courts that actually execute the guilty person.

Most of us aren't all that bad. So, scare the bad ones into changing, or get rid of them through execution.

But if you are scared of dying, you don't have any choice. Go take a look at the few 80 and 90 year olds that are in the hospitals, etc. Keep your house in order, so to speak, at all times, 'cause you never know when it is going to happen to you.

[Sarastiche]

I feel it is better to ban weapons in our society , in order to guard against abuse of it use, crime rate can be minimize, as arm robbers to will be weary of using the weapon for the fear of been caught, the advantage outweigh the disadvantage, Trust is good but control is better.

[BADecker]

I feel it is better to ban weapons in our society , in order to guard against abuse of it use, crime rate can be minimize, as arm robbers to will be weary of using the weapon for the fear of been caught, the advantage outweigh the disadvantage, Trust is good but control is better.

The only way to ban weapons in society, is to ban freedom. Why? Because there will always be people who will find/make/use weapons... even if they are only meal utensils... forks, spoons and table knives.

When we make really good AI robots, we can wrap all people in straitjackets, and the robots will feed us, wipe out rear ends, and do everything else for us that we need. And none of us will be able to harm anyone else.

Or we can put everybody on LSD so that they are too high to make weapons (or anything else) and society will stagnate. Dig out the 1968 movie Wild in the Streets to see what happened when this was done.

But it will take weapons to force everybody into the robot system or the LSD system. Will the people who use the weapons to force everybody into subjection, lay down their weapons after it is done? Check out the history of Stalin, Hitler, and especially Mao Tse-tung, to see if this is what would happen, and how things played out when the weapons were gone from the masses.

[MeEsH BaCcA]

In a country such as the UK where police are not routinely armed I don’t think relaxing restrictions on firearms is a wise idea. Culturally the UK is vastly different to the USA and with an unarmed police force the vast majority of crimes are committed without firearms and those that are happen between gangs without affecting the general public.

If the general population were armed, the police would also have to be armed leading to an arms race with criminals stemming from the fear of armed confrontation where currently there is no real fear of being killed. As a population in the UK there is no real want or need for relaxation of gun laws. Anyone can own a shotgun and the police firearms officer has to have a reason not to issue one, usually a criminal record or history of mental health issues, obvious red flags. Yet the vast majority wouldn’t ever concider applying for a shotgun certificate. Single shot bolt action magazine fed rifles of any calibre or .22 rim fire semi auto are available to anyone who can show good reason for owning one i.e member of a rifle club and have signatures from club chairs supporting your application or pest control with restrictions on what you plan on using for example you won’t get a .308 for rat control. A strange difference between USA laws and UK laws is suppressors, where in the UK they are freely available and encouraged as to keep noise disruption down.

Handguns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane massacre  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre which in all honesty was a good decision as despite the illegal holding of guns and import of weapons by gangs from Eastern Europe defenceless children have not been killed by a nutcase by firearm since, something the USA collectively should hang its head in shame about. I understand as a country the USA is too far gone in terms of gun ownership as the cat is out of the bag in terms of being able to control it. However if criminals did not fear getting shot then they wouldn’t carry guns and the UK and Europe are living proof of that regarding public saftey.

Gun control in the USA as most posters in here seem to be residents then, probably your only way forward are your current rights with maybe stricter checks on mental health although from what I understand most sales are not retail. You’re in a very fucked situation, a situation I couldn’t even begin to think of how to resolve and I’d assume neither does anyone else. All I can say with absolute certainty is an armed population does not make you safer despite how it may fee subjectively.

Edit, just a little extra view on the death penalty:  I think for certain crimes the death penalty should be concidered although I’m of the opinion there are fates worse than death. However, the scary thing about the death penalty and crime is, if you commit a crime where you stand a chance of being put to death what do you have to lose by potentially ending lives that could convict you in the chance you can get away?

Edit 2:Regarding an unarmed population and being able to resist control of the government, in the UK the armed forces swear allegiance to the Queen not any political party largely removing the need for armed insurrection, even so, I have a fair few soldiers as close friends and given orders to turn their weapons on their own country men it just wouldn’t happen and the ones that did would rapidly be turned on. Regardless weapons wouldn’t stop your financial assets being removed from you by a malevolent government and the united populations weapons would rapidly be turned on each other when it comes to survival.

[BADecker]

The idea of having weapons or not in the USA, doesn't stem from focusing on the weapons or having weapons. It focuses on the right to private property.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't really mean anything. It exists as a double check on government messing with people's rights to this specific kind of property. But even if the 2nd Amendment wasn't there, the people would still have the right to their private property, be it weapons or anything else.

Private property is an instictive thing among Americans. Guns are simply an important part of private property.

Get off my property. Check out private membership associations to see that the people are showing government all their own laws and court cases that state right in government that government is to keep hands off my private property.

[MeEsH BaCcA]

I understand and get where the American culture and identity of firearms comes from but you’re not living on the frontier now, and the times of having a armed civilian militia for the benefit of invasion defence has long passed since at the very latest August 6 1945.

There is no denying firearm ownership on the scale of the USA is detrimental to society and public saftey, the issue is, the opportunity to have reasonable discourse on the subject has long passed. Defence of property or family is not a valid argument to have a firearm if firearms are not commonly held (which they are in the USA) Because you defend your property with firearms anyone willing to rob or steal will have to be armed themselves which creates lethal conflict in a shoot first of get shot scenario, and in states with the death penalty if you’re the one getting shot first your family’s future could be pretty bleak.

There is absolutely no reasonable argument for almost unrestricted firearm ownership when that freedom means more school children have been killed in mass shootings in the USA than any mass killing including terror attacks in the whole of Europe in the last decade. How can one begin to defend that?

[BADecker]

^^^ By suggesting living on the frontier, it seems that you don't really understand where I am coming from. Your following paragraph shows that you don't understand the whole idea behind weapons in the first place.

Implement over a 5-year period, the requirement that every adult must wear a firearm in the open when off his residence property, and crime will dry up... because criminals fear guns... or will be dead

It's the chickenhearted people, being pushed by people who want to take over America and the world, that are pushing for gun control. The last thing we need is to lose our gun rights, because we will become slaves of the police, the military, and the government if we do.

Check out the history of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao for proof of what happens.

[MeEsH BaCcA]

Just my opinion but I feel that’s an incredibly naive and over simplistic view, criminals aren’t just going to be scared of guns or dead they’ll just tool up for the job and shoot first. Don’t get me wrong I’m certainly not against firearm ownership as that would be hypocritical just the more guns the safer you are is a provable fallacy.

Edit, just for a successful recent European resistance against govenment “slavery”: The absolute fuckery caused by the yellow vest movement without a shot fired beginning 2018 France. If that population was armed imagine the bloodshed, it only takes one ND or unstable person to result in armed conflict.

[mayo2u]

I feel it is better to ban weapons in our society , in order to guard against abuse of it use, crime rate can be minimize, as arm robbers to will be weary of using the weapon for the fear of been caught, the advantage outweigh the disadvantage, Trust is good but control is better.

Rather than banning self-defense. How about, when you catch someone using weapons in a robbery, that you give them tougher sentences. Wouldn't that accomplish your goals?  As you said "fear of being caught" will curtail armed crime.

Now, let's go further. The US is going through a cultural revolution analogous to what happened in China during the 1960s.  The left has these periods of insanity and we're seeing it play out here in the US.

Why should I disarm?

[coolcoinz]

Just my opinion but I feel that’s an incredibly naive and over simplistic view, criminals aren’t just going to be scared of guns or dead they’ll just tool up for the job and shoot first. Don’t get me wrong I’m certainly not against firearm ownership as that would be hypocritical just the more guns the safer you are is a provable fallacy.

Just like they aren't scared of anything else, but at least owning a gun gives you a chance. When you get assaulted by a psychotic maniac he will try to kill you anyway. If he finds a rock he'll keep hitting you with it until you're dead. What would you rather have for defense? A knife or a gun?

Edit, just for a successful recent European resistance against govenment “slavery”: The absolute fuckery caused by the yellow vest movement without a shot fired beginning 2018 France. If that population was armed imagine the bloodshed, it only takes one ND or unstable person to result in armed conflict.

It's estimated that there's about 20 guns per 100 people in France. This means that 20% of yellow vests have access to guns. That's a lot. Why aren't they shooting? Why aren't they killing the police? It is your understanding of the situation that is wrong.
For instance, that migrant who chopped off a guy's head in the street didn't have a gun. He didn't need one.
Or that guy:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/766184/migrant-attack-germany-berlin-beheading-ritual-killing

[BADecker]

Most of the focus is a mistaken understanding about the word "banning."

If everybody banned weapons, we would have relative peace around the whole world.

"Banning" weapons really means that some people (usually government) are trying to use weapons to force other people to not have them.

Good people will try to obey government. Bad people will always thwart government as much as they can.

Aren't the people self governing? Let people who want to ban guns ban them for themselves. Let people who want to ban the banning keep their guns. The people are self governing.

[Tramle091296]

Instead of using a weapon that can people just make a tranquilizer weapon to avoid crime and also it can protect you if your life is in danger there are many tools now a days and Im sure that Deadly weapon is not the key to prevent crime. Banning the weapon in country will help the community and lower the crimes.

But even stopping the transaction of weapon in a country in depends on the people how they face it democratic or bloody to solve they're own problems.

[baobao2000]

The law should fit the situation depend on society. If a high educate society, and most people are mental stable and less chance use weapon to harm other people, then might be weapon introduce doesn’t matter, but if a sociality with low education, high percentage violent and aggressive behaviour, then allow weapon flow around and easy to access would lead to chaos and dangerous. there should be mental financial and many test before own a dangerous weapon, if there a good reason and the person can pass all the test, then they could have gun for a year, the test need to repeat after a year time, gun in good people hand can protect us, but in bad people hand can kill us.

[mayo2u]

The law should fit the situation depend on society. If a high educate society, and most people are mental stable and less chance use weapon to harm other people, then might be weapon introduce doesn’t matter, but if a sociality with low education, high percentage violent and aggressive behaviour, then allow weapon flow around and easy to access would lead to chaos and dangerous. there should be mental financial and many test before own a dangerous weapon, if there a good reason and the person can pass all the test, then they could have gun for a year, the test need to repeat after a year time, gun in good people hand can protect us, but in bad people hand can kill us.

So, you don't have a right to defend yourself.  And, in order to be safe from weapons you are willing to be at the mercy of criminals and the government. And, you're of the opinion that the government always has the interests of individuals citizens at heart.

I think that people are safe in many countries.

But we have witnessed horrors inflicted by governments in the very recent past.

The Russian revolution, the starvation of the Ukrainians, the gulags.
Hitler
The Chinese cultural revolution.
Pol Pot
The Kim family in NK
The Iranian ayatollahs
...

And the list goes on.

Sorry. I'm not willing to disarm.

[saffira]

Weapon is for responsible individuals only. We all know that we are using weapons for good purposes. It depends on the society on how laws are implemented regarding weapon handlings. Banning depends on the situation such as during elections and other events wherein security is a must.

[Dumont31]

Weapons have a multifaceted character. Weapons can, for example, be considered as a method or as an objective itself. It could be cool to hold a weapon, this is as an objective, because it is a passion. As a mean, you can hold a weapon for killing or to defend yourself against others.

As statistics we can see

• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents

• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents

• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents

These statistics show the following idea that as an pragmatic effect, indeed, mass shooting has been reduced. I consider the law of arms to be influenced by the tradition of the place where the law is implemented. The number of weapons-related crimes is 25 times higher in the US than in any other developed country.

[mayo2u]

Weapons have a multifaceted character. Weapons can, for example, be considered as a method or as an objective itself. It could be cool to hold a weapon, this is as an objective, because it is a passion. As a mean, you can hold a weapon for killing or to defend yourself against others.

As statistics we can see

• 1984 to 1994: 19 incidents

• 1994 to 2004 (ban is in effect): 12 incidents

• 2004 to 2014: 34 incidents

These statistics show the following idea that as an pragmatic effect, indeed, mass shooting has been reduced. I consider the law of arms to be influenced by the tradition of the place where the law is implemented. The number of weapons-related crimes is 25 times higher in the US than in any other developed country.

It's not as simple as you make it sound. The law banned:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash hider or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

The weapons ban did NOTHING of any importance except to be a pain in the a$$ to law abiding people.

So, if you were intent on killing people with a gun you were still able to buy a semi-automatic rifle.

Secondly quite a few of those incidents did not include banned weapons so should not be considered as part of the statistics for or against the ban.

[markdario112616]

Yes and No.

Typical generalization:

Yes, *generic comment* *to avoid lost of life, prevent war, contribute to peace and etc.*
No, (Since it's so impossible to ban these things) It will only create a much more chaotic underworld trading. (Man is born greedy), if this weapons are banned technically there would be people or group people will took advantage of the situation. Given that even the police and military will be useless, without these weapons.

Realistic view, if this is pushed in the present year. Then terrorists/bad guys can definitely annihilate a country, why? These people will not abide any law/s, rule/s, policies and etc. (whatever it's called).

[BADecker]

^^^ Sounds like the government.     

[Balthazar]

We have a guns regulation here in Russia, but it's still possible to buy Kalashnikov without license and in some areas it's not even punished anyhow. In southern or eastern regions almost any family has at least one unlicensed gun in posession.

Banning weapons simply doesn't work.

[Vaskiy]

We have a guns regulation here in Russia, but it's still possible to buy Kalashnikov without license and in some areas it's not even punished anyhow. In southern or eastern regions almost any family has at least one unlicensed gun in posession.

Banning weapons simply doesn't work.

Yes said, banning of weapons won't go good in short or in the future. There are few countries that are highly into the restriction of gun. Till date what we see in using weapons is big, mostly on the western nations it has made a big destruction to human life.

[bhadz]

Weapon is for responsible individuals only. We all know that we are using weapons for good purposes. It depends on the society on how laws are implemented regarding weapon handlings. Banning depends on the situation such as during elections and other events wherein security is a must.

It is why there's a licensing for those people that wanting to have it. But illegal use can't be stop, there are people that keeps on putting the law on their hands and don't even want to obey what does the rule of law says. If the crimes are heinous on specific place, it must be put on a state of emergency and that place should be isolated by this kind of ban. It's hard to depict what will be the potential result of it, there's always good and bad side of it.

[xxkaiwaxx]

Its not the weapons that are good or bad or need to be banned.

Its the immoral subliminal brainwashing that is sprayed out on the masses that needs to be put to an end.

Greed, sex, drugs, power, money, ME ME ME - Its these messages that are causing the chaos in this world. Not weapons.

[markstivn98]

It's hard to apply. But if that happens, it's good.
 Countries that make laws that will reduce the rate of murder.

[BADecker]

Not all law enforcement people are tied into the gun control mob.


Rural Sheriff’s Ominous Warning To Citizens: “LOCK YOUR DOORS, LOAD YOUR GUNS AND GET YOU A BARKING, BITING DOG”

Is this a sign of what is coming for the rest of the nation?  In Martin County, Kentucky times are very tough right now.

Thanks to severe budget cutbacks, there are only two paid law enforcement officers covering a deeply impoverished 231-square-mile area that sits right in the heart of America's raging opioid crisis.  Needless to say, Martin County Sheriff John Kirk feels greatly outnumbered by the thieves, sexual predators and drug dealers that he has to contend with on a daily basis, and he recently issued a very ominous warning to the citizens of his county…

Before making a wave of cutbacks across his department, Martin County Sheriff John Kirk delivered a grim warning to residents of this hardscrabble Appalachian community.

"Law enforcement as we have known for the last four years will not exist," he posted on Facebook last month. "WE ARE BROKE… LOCK YOUR DOORS, LOAD YOUR GUNS AND GET YOU A BARKING, BITING DOG. If the Sheriff's office can't protect you, WHO WILL?"

I'm thinking that this is the way it will be for the rest of the country when the collapse comes. We might have a short window of opportunity between the crash and the actual phasing out of the dollar. bitcoin will go wild for a few days or weeks. Get several exchange accounts to trade bitcoins fast... now while you still have time. Then buy fertile land that has good water.

[zhekinsp]

In my country having gun and our world is restricted to the personal who are in need of security in the emergency condition,normal citizen is not allowed to hold any of weapons like gun or fire powder.So it doesn't feel any bad if I am not having weapon,if there is a need just use knife.

[Johnzky]

We have a guns regulation here in Russia, but it's still possible to buy Kalashnikov without license and in some areas it's not even punished anyhow. In southern or eastern regions almost any family has at least one unlicensed gun in posession.

Banning weapons simply doesn't work.

For me banning must not be only in written as a Law but by action also,if the governments are truthful in every rules they created then the action should be implemented by using full force and resources to dismantle all the lose firearms from the regions.though we cant really have it all but atleast big percent will be taken from the people specially those irresponsible in having deadly wealon like guns

[BADecker]

We have a guns regulation here in Russia, but it's still possible to buy Kalashnikov without license and in some areas it's not even punished anyhow. In southern or eastern regions almost any family has at least one unlicensed gun in posession.

Banning weapons simply doesn't work.

For me banning must not be only in written as a Law but by action also,if the governments are truthful in every rules they created then the action should be implemented by using full force and resources to dismantle all the lose firearms from the regions.though we cant really have it all but atleast big percent will be taken from the people specially those irresponsible in having deadly wealon like guns

But who is going to do the banning and enforce the taking? Government people, right?

This means that you are trusting government people implicitly, because you are giving them the absolute control, right?

And there absolutely isn't any corruption in government, right? Especially the police when you can Google "police brutality" and get millions of hits, right?

[sheenshane]

snip-

I think you are right because as what I have known the reason why the weapon is getting ban because of the people who possess a gun could pull the trigger because of their emotions often feels. Without thinking of the outcome of what they do, they could kill people. Some also commit crimes and because of guns, they can dominate the people they want to scare or kill.

Banning weapons will be considered but if the person has the rights to own one, there must be an examination that will test their capabilities to use the gun properly. For example, is an examination for their psychological capacity and Emotional Intelligence, before they can own a gun, they must have a strong EIQ.

[Daniel91]

I don't think that we should ban weapons but have to regulate and control it.
Just compare Europe and USA, for example.
In America anybody can have weapons, without any control, and as results we have so many mass killings and shootings there.
In Europe we have much strict rules and laws about weapons.
People can have weapons but after some legal procedure, medical checking etc.
As result, there is no much problems with mass killings and shootings like in America.

[omonuyak]

The killing of both human and animals through gun is high and I am in favor of banning the used of weapons like gun and bum as this will drastically reduce the killing rate.

[okala]

The Leviathan is the sole authority that protect the right of everyone in the society so at that the ban of weapons from the general public is the best because it will reduce crime rate to it lowest minimum, if if everyone is allowed to carry weapon in the society there will be anarchy and crimes and manslaughter will be the other of the day.

[BADecker]

Banning weapons won't work. Why? Because making weapons is too easy. The only way to stop all other people from making weapons, is to use weapons to do it. So, weapons can never be banned until 100% of people change from bad to good in their hearts.

[Sylanda]

It doesn't go well with me. Its a damaging tool

[merchantofzeny]

Note that crime syndicates tend to not be bothered with bans since they'll break the law anyway. I'm fine with people owning guns, so long as there are strict requirements on acquiring them (psychiatric exam, background check, etc), not what they have in the US where they buy it like candy.

Maybe other countries can look at how the Swiss handle their guns?

[af_newbie]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:

-Pros

• Lower murder rate because knife are less deadly
• Less or even no mass shootings and no accidents like "4 year old killed brother playing with dad weapon"
• Less police kills because policemen don't have to be paranoid as 99% of criminals don't have guns

-Cons

• You're completely at the mercy of your government. You can't do anything against it as angry as you can be
• You have to rely solely on state police, which can be great but only if it's efficient

Problem to me is that the submissive state of the population is really a huge red flag. When I see how powerless European citizens are currently...
When you got riots government just increase number of policemen...

Would you support freedom of weapons trade in a European country without weapons? Considering freedom of trade doesn't mean without huge regulations of course.

I still own guns in 9 mm and .308 calibers.  And to be frank, I don't need them.  The chances I would have to use them are pretty slim.

The only reason you would want to own a handgun or shotgun is for self-defense.  But in Canada, self-defense using a handgun would at minimum get you firearms storage violations plus a manslaughter charge. So I don't even think about using them in that situation.
Most likely you will get a 1st-degree murder charge if you kill an intruder in your home.

Long arms can be used for hunting.  Which I did when I was younger.  I killed many animals unnecessarily, I ate them all.  Skinning an animal is a very gruesome process and for what?  Meat that tastes like shit?  I think hunting is for idiots who just want to kill something.  Some 'hunters' don't even eat the animals they kill.  They just want the head trophies to compensate for their small appendages.

What guns are useful for is target shooting.  You can do that with air or 22lr handguns, no need for .45ACP handguns or 0.50 revolvers.
Rifle long range target practice can be fun and challenging as well.

I participated in IPSC and PPC competitions, reached top classifications in both, after that it was boring, the only change was the level of lead in my blood.  One of the reasons I had to stop the hobby.

So I can honestly tell you you don't need guns.

If you dream about defending yourself against the government, you might as well kill yourself with your own gun.  You stand no chance against SWAT or Navy Seals teams.  These people train constantly, are physically, mentally fit and can shoot better than most when shot back.
When 25-50 of such guys swarm your house and you point a gun at them, you will have 3 seconds to drop it or you are dead.

So forget about using guns for self-defense.  It is ok to shoot paper when the paper does not shoot back, just monitor your blood lead levels.

[BADecker]

^^^ There are loads of former military men and cops who, if they saw an armed attack on freedom, would fight the military in a way that the military wouldn't like.

In addition, there are many influential people - CIA, FBI, NSA, military - who wouldn't go along with a military takeover. The military would be shooting itself in the foot (or head) if they tried to take over the people.

In addition, the military needs the people to manufacture their arms, and continue to advance military science, for them. Watch the movie, "Colossus: The Forbin Project" - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064177/. Read the book. They are different - the book and the movie. But the result is the same. The military needs us... and we need them.

If we don't work for them voluntarily, they will end up like the U.S.S.R., dead. And then all kinds of other countries will attempt to take them and us over. They don't want that. Neither do we.

[dippididodaday]

Its not the weapons that are good or bad or need to be banned.

Its the immoral subliminal brainwashing that is sprayed out on the masses that needs to be put to an end.

Greed, sex, drugs, power, money, ME ME ME - Its these messages that are causing the chaos in this world. Not weapons.

Actually, these are some basic building blocks of civilizations, as long the drugs are mild and not too addictive i would add (concerning the drug aspect) and the greed limited in some way or another. As for ME ME ME - it's absolutely essential for a well greased society.

What is sad though, is when a government starts thinking of banning weapons, because the weapons the citizens use, are used almost twice as much to fatally self-inflict, rather than fatally inflicting the life threatening adversary (other than self).

[BADecker]

^^^ But the idea that government thinks at all, is what government people want us to think.

What is government? Isn't government really just some paperwork?

Consider a State. All governments are called States by other governments at times. What is the state of the State? Isn't it only a state of mind of the people who are in government? This state of mind is written down, because people would forget what it was if it wasn't written.

So, Governments are States of mind of the people in the Government.

What this means regarding guns and weapons is, if Government wants to ban them, it is a State of mind of government people to ban them. And if we don't ban together and maintain a state of mind that we want, then we are not a self governing people.

[LUCKMCFLY]

I think that the conditions for the possession or carrying of weapons in people, their demands must be very high, among them, study very well the whole life of the individual and at least pass some very strict psychological tests.

The latest events of a terrorist nature, have greatly aroused worldwide commotion, I believe that some prohibitions will be equivalent to saving many lives, if we see it from that point of view, it is worth doing.

Nor can we lose sight of the fact that weapons are used as means of protection, whether for the individual or the family, therefore, new ways should be created to reduce the acquisition of weapons, because something that must be respected is the life of the innocent people.

[Daniel91]

Well, in the countries where we have statistically more crimes and killing usually is much more easy to get weapons legally.
Other example are Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway or Finland  where people can't get so easily weapons and they don't have so much crimes or killing like America.
Something to think about.
Of course, other factors are also important here.

[BADecker]

^^^ But you have to consider why gun controlled countries are safer than the USA regarding weapons. It's because of weapon freedom in the USA. What do I mean?

Governments are people ruling over their citizens. People love to get rich off other people. Government people would love to make their people into slaves. But the USA stops them. How does the USA stop other government people from making slaves of their own citizen people? Through USA gun freedom.

The people in Scandinavian countries see two things. They see the gun freedom in the USA. And they see the gun violence in the USA. But the Scandinavian governments see it as well. This is why they keep their people free. They know that if they tried to enslave their people, the people would make guns. Why would the people make guns? Because they know how much freedom there is in America, and they want such freedom.

Right now ME people are waking up to USA freedom. All the people want freedom like the USA. Part of the reason why ISIS is dying is that the people are fed up with not having any guns like ISIS. They are helping the USA destroy ISIS from within.

Be glad that you have freedom from the need to own guns. But recognize that your freedom is being promoted by the USA freedom to own, and the American people's ownership of... guns.

[ASHLIUSZ]

Well, in the countries where we have statistically more crimes and killing usually is much more easy to get weapons legally.
Other example are Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway or Finland  where people can't get so easily weapons and they don't have so much crimes or killing like America.
Something to think about.
Of course, other factors are also important here.

Agreed, even when there is restrictions for gun people find some way to get it for their safety. The same needs to be more perfect when it comes to implementation. Banning of weapons around the world is under effect, but the same at times go uncontrollable. Those results in massive loss of lives.

[TECSHARE]

^^^ But you have to consider why gun controlled countries are safer than the USA regarding weapons. It's because of weapon freedom in the USA. What do I mean?

Governments are people ruling over their citizens. People love to get rich off other people. Government people would love to make their people into slaves. But the USA stops them. How does the USA stop other government people from making slaves of their own citizen people? Through USA gun freedom.

The people in Scandinavian countries see two things. They see the gun freedom in the USA. And they see the gun violence in the USA. But the Scandinavian governments see it as well. This is why they keep their people free. They know that if they tried to enslave their people, the people would make guns. Why would the people make guns? Because they know how much freedom there is in America, and they want such freedom.

Right now ME people are waking up to USA freedom. All the people want freedom like the USA. Part of the reason why ISIS is dying is that the people are fed up with not having any guns like ISIS. They are helping the USA destroy ISIS from within.

Be glad that you have freedom from the need to own guns. But recognize that your freedom is being promoted by the USA freedom to own, and the American people's ownership of... guns.

Everyone wants to see evil people stopped, but no one ever wants to look at the blood. You want to enjoy your bacon but you don't want to slaughter the pig. You want to be free, but you don't want to hold a dangerous scary gun. Society is turning into a bunch of helpless infants begging to be put in a Earth sized playpen, and demanding any remaining adults are forced to join them so they are never reminded how infantile they are in comparison.

[Spendulus]

...
Everyone wants to see evil people stopped, but no one ever wants to look at the blood. You want to enjoy your bacon but you don't want to slaughter the pig. You want to be free, but you don't want to hold a dangerous scary gun. Society is turning into a bunch of helpless infants begging to be put in a Earth sized playpen, and demanding any remaining adults are forced to join them so they are never reminded how infantile they are in comparison.

However if I slaughter the pig, I've got the bacon. If you want it, you'll have to meet my price for it. And you can't take it away because I've got that dangerous scary gun.

Today is another great day...

[Daniel91]

^^^ But you have to consider why gun controlled countries are safer than the USA regarding weapons. It's because of weapon freedom in the USA. What do I mean?

Governments are people ruling over their citizens. People love to get rich off other people. Government people would love to make their people into slaves. But the USA stops them. How does the USA stop other government people from making slaves of their own citizen people? Through USA gun freedom.

The people in Scandinavian countries see two things. They see the gun freedom in the USA. And they see the gun violence in the USA. But the Scandinavian governments see it as well. This is why they keep their people free. They know that if they tried to enslave their people, the people would make guns. Why would the people make guns? Because they know how much freedom there is in America, and they want such freedom.

Right now ME people are waking up to USA freedom. All the people want freedom like the USA. Part of the reason why ISIS is dying is that the people are fed up with not having any guns like ISIS. They are helping the USA destroy ISIS from within.

Be glad that you have freedom from the need to own guns. But recognize that your freedom is being promoted by the USA freedom to own, and the American people's ownership of... guns.

Everyone wants to see evil people stopped, but no one ever wants to look at the blood. You want to enjoy your bacon but you don't want to slaughter the pig. You want to be free, but you don't want to hold a dangerous scary gun. Society is turning into a bunch of helpless infants begging to be put in a Earth sized playpen, and demanding any remaining adults are forced to join them so they are never reminded how infantile they are in comparison.

I really think that our security should be protected by the police and army, not the individuals without any control.
In the case of the war government can mobilize ordinary people but otherwise security should be job of trained individuals and organization prepared for such job.
It works if you compare USA and Swiss or Scandinavian countries, for example.

[BADecker]

I really think that our security should be protected by the police and army, not the individuals without any control.
In the case of the war government can mobilize ordinary people but otherwise security should be job of trained individuals and organization prepared for such job.
It works if you compare USA and Swiss or Scandinavian countries, for example.

The police and military have control. The private is controlled by the corporal, who is controlled by the sergeant, who is controlled by the lieutenant, who is controlled by the colonel... all the way to the top. Who is the top? The country dictator who has made slaves of his people.

Certainly, if you don't know how to control yourself, you shouldn't be messing with guns.

However, the fact that you can think and write in logical ways in this forum, leads me to believe that you probably have enough control to at least learn how to control a gun. So, it is your own voluntary doing to live as a slave.

[Xenrise]

Banning of weapons all over the world might result to the world peace many people believed and dreamed of. However, no country will be able to agree in this thing. Why? It's because different country have already allotted money for their defense in case of an attack from different country. Not only that, but also if they have terrorist in their own country. Second thought is that weapons are also technology. And since we are in the age in which we are experiencing great development of almost everything, technology are developing, thus weapons are developing also. Imagine what a person that put a lot of money in the development of a thing and then a person with authority will ban that thing. They'll feel bad and that'll result into chaos.

The only thing we can do is to have peace talks if there is a developing chaos.

[Artemis3]

Banning of weapons all over the world might result to the world peace many people believed and dreamed of. However, no country will be able to agree in this thing. Why? It's because different country have already allotted money for their defense in case of an attack from different country. Not only that, but also if they have terrorist in their own country. Second thought is that weapons are also technology. And since we are in the age in which we are experiencing great development of almost everything, technology are developing, thus weapons are developing also. Imagine what a person that put a lot of money in the development of a thing and then a person with authority will ban that thing. They'll feel bad and that'll result into chaos.

The only thing we can do is to have peace talks if there is a developing chaos.

No, it just doesn't work. Some form of control, with with a permit or license is ok, but outright ban is useless..

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws carry guns, which means its meaningless. Furthermore, as seen in my country, the outlaws will start killing the last remaining people legally carrying them (ie. Police, military, etc), to obtain more.

Lets talk school shootings. Imagine every teacher has a gun, next time a shooter comes they will be shot quickly. Of course metal detector should be at all entrances with armed guards. This should work as a deterrent, like in a lawless society everyone carrying a gun in itself deters others from doing wrong.

When you ban weapons, the killer would go to the school armed anyway, and without any resistance cause a large amount of deaths.

You could ban military grade weapons from the hands of civilians, but that doesn't stop civilians from getting them, it just increases the price and the risks for lawful persons to posses one. The unlawful won't care. In that case your police/military forces better be ready to deal with those owning one...

Here? They get military weapons in prison, let alone in the street... Of course guns are "banned", but as i said, the wrongdoers don't care...

Wasn't Swiss or somewhere every family does in fact keep at least a rifle (to deter invaders)? Yet their society is very peaceful?

[Malsetid]

Banning of weapons all over the world might result to the world peace many people believed and dreamed of. However, no country will be able to agree in this thing. Why? It's because different country have already allotted money for their defense in case of an attack from different country. Not only that, but also if they have terrorist in their own country. Second thought is that weapons are also technology. And since we are in the age in which we are experiencing great development of almost everything, technology are developing, thus weapons are developing also. Imagine what a person that put a lot of money in the development of a thing and then a person with authority will ban that thing. They'll feel bad and that'll result into chaos.

The only thing we can do is to have peace talks if there is a developing chaos.

No, it just doesn't work. Some form of control, with with a permit or license is ok, but outright ban is useless..

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws carry guns, which means its meaningless. Furthermore, as seen in my country, the outlaws will start killing the last remaining people legally carrying them (ie. Police, military, etc), to obtain more.

Lets talk school shootings. Imagine every teacher has a gun, next time a shooter comes they will be shot quickly. Of course metal detector should be at all entrances with armed guards. This should work as a deterrent, like in a lawless society everyone carrying a gun in itself deters others from doing wrong.

When you ban weapons, the killer would go to the school armed anyway, and without any resistance cause a large amount of deaths.

You could ban military grade weapons from the hands of civilians, but that doesn't stop civilians from getting them, it just increases the price and the risks for lawful persons to posses one. The unlawful won't care. In that case your police/military forces better be ready to deal with those owning one...

Here? They get military weapons in prison, let alone in the street... Of course guns are "banned", but as i said, the wrongdoers don't care...

Wasn't Swiss or somewhere every family does in fact keep at least a rifle (to deter invaders)? Yet their society is very peaceful?

I agree. Ban it or not, people will have access to guns. You just make more lawbreakers if such law is implemented. Proper law enforcement would be a more likely solution. There are already laws about gun ownership but the government must be clear on it's stand  and regulate the proper use of firearms firmly with fair monitoring to both registered and non registered owners.

[BADecker]

I agree. Ban it or not, people will have access to guns. You just make more lawbreakers if such law is implemented. Proper law enforcement would be a more likely solution. There are already laws about gun ownership but the government must be clear on it's stand  and regulate the proper use of firearms firmly with fair monitoring to both registered and non registered owners.

Right! Just check out the below video, and then the rest of the videos in the sidebar.

diy pipe shot gun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkLD3SSfJQ8

[jjbanks994]

I think we should ban mass destruction weapons... protection weapons need heavy regulation

[BADecker]

Such a thing as banning all weapons is impossible. The closest thing would be to make something like the Matrix movie for real, where we could only dream that we had weapons.

[Pasos100]

At this point in time with the incidences of mass shooting going on these days, I think it's germane that weapons are banned .
This will go a long way in taking weapons aways from the hands of lunatics who commit these crimes and make the society a safer place for citizens.

[raymondspeaks]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:

-Pros

• Lower murder rate because knife are less deadly
• Less or even no mass shootings and no accidents like "4 year old killed brother playing with dad weapon"
• Less police kills because policemen don't have to be paranoid as 99% of criminals don't have guns

-Cons

• You're completely at the mercy of your government. You can't do anything against it as angry as you can be
• You have to rely solely on state police, which can be great but only if it's efficient

Problem to me is that the submissive state of the population is really a huge red flag. When I see how powerless European citizens are currently...
When you got riots government just increase number of policemen...

Would you support freedom of weapons trade in a European country without weapons? Considering freedom of trade doesn't mean without huge regulations of course.

You know, I've debated this SO many times with myself but I think we're not really looking at this deep enough.

I'm from the UK and it's easy for me to dismiss Americans and their guns because I, as a citizen of the UK, feel safe to walk out at night. If someone knocks on my door at 3am my first thought is - wow, who needs my help? Rather than get out my 50 Cal to create some huge massive holes in someone because I'm scared for my family's safety. But it's easy for me to do this because our culture is so anti gun that if you polled us you'd probably see at least an 80% swing in anti-gun laws.

When Dunblane happened here they did a voluntary knife and gun giveback without prejudice and the country was so overwhelmed by what happened the Police couldn't cope with everything they got back. But it's in our culture to not need/want a gun. We generally live in safety, and if you're not dodging bullets in a big-city slum then the chances are you're probably going to live out your natural life as best as you can.

It's our culture.

Now I've only visited America once. I can't comment on the culture but as far as I'm aware of it guns are an integral part of society there. So much so that it's written in your most freeing of laws. Can I judge? Perhaps not. But then again you can't judge me for not wanting a gun, because you don't know what it's like either.

Personally I'd like to see guns banned in America, but that's just me. The whole small militia to overthrow government is never going to happen. That stuff all ended with drone strikes, guided missiles and nuclear warheads. I doubt there will ever be a violent overthrow of government.

[Indamuck]

Yes the government does have the upper hand now with drones and other advance technology but there is power in numbers.  The government knows that a population with guns is still a very real threat.

I know people personally that have guns and are severely mentally unstable.  Its unfortunate but people like this will always find a way to get their hands on guns no matter what.

[Idrisu]

For now it might be very difficult to ban weapons and human being are not mature enough to keep weapons out of place.  But a time is coming when it will be done away and we would have a righteous judge then.

[Cryptotina]

Considering the current events I'm beginning to question the ban of weapons in the population...
I'm not talking about a country where there are weapons and you ban them, cause that doesn't work (bad guys don't just hand out their weapons) but about a country where weapons are banned and could be unbanned.

Here are the pros and cons I see in a country with ban on weapons:

-Pros

• Lower murder rate because knife are less deadly
• Less or even no mass shootings and no accidents like "4 year old killed brother playing with dad weapon"
• Less police kills because policemen don't have to be paranoid as 99% of criminals don't have guns

-Cons

• You're completely at the mercy of your government. You can't do anything against it as angry as you can be
• You have to rely solely on state police, which can be great but only if it's efficient

Problem to me is that the submissive state of the population is really a huge red flag. When I see how powerless European citizens are currently...
When you got riots government just increase number of policemen...

Would you support freedom of weapons trade in a European country without weapons? Considering freedom of trade doesn't mean without huge regulations of course.

Maybe the very first recommendation is to "Ban assault-style firearms." You know, those type of guns lawfully possessed by many people in a country for legitimate purposes like self-protection among others. However won't this affect the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms?"

[BADecker]

Attempting to ban weapons is one of the best ways to promote them.

Consider Hitler. He banned weapons among the Jews. And after he was successful at that, he attempted to ban weapons in the rest of the world. It destroyed him, but look at all the weapons we have today because of it.

    

[Juggy777]

Attempting to ban weapons is one of the best ways to promote them.

Consider Hitler. He banned weapons among the Jews. And after he was successful at that, he attempted to ban weapons in the rest of the world. It destroyed him, but look at all the weapons we have today because of it.

    

Hey while that’s one perspective to look at it, the other one is to hear the cries of innocent victims and family members who lost their loved ones due to illegal guns being sold and purchased. I feel banning weapons is a good idea as that’ll reduce these weapons on the street, and ensure all citizens are safe. Also I understand it’s a risky move and one that won’t be implemented easily, but I feel it can be implemented if the government receives enough public support.

[BADecker]

Attempting to ban weapons is one of the best ways to promote them.

Consider Hitler. He banned weapons among the Jews. And after he was successful at that, he attempted to ban weapons in the rest of the world. It destroyed him, but look at all the weapons we have today because of it.

    

Hey while that’s one perspective to look at it, the other one is to hear the cries of innocent victims and family members who lost their loved ones due to illegal guns being sold and purchased. I feel banning weapons is a good idea as that’ll reduce these weapons on the street, and ensure all citizens are safe. Also I understand it’s a risky move and one that won’t be implemented easily, but I feel it can be implemented if the government receives enough public support.

Banning weapons across the board is the thing we call peace. But so far there is no way to ban these two things across the board:
1. Weapons;
2. Bad attitudes.

Bad attitudes will wreck peace. They will wreck peace by developing weapons. Often the weapons will be used incorrectly by the people who proclaim that they are the peace-makers... government people, police, military.

Ban weapons for yourself if you want. But if you ban them formally for all people, you will only be making slaves of the honest, law-abiding people... slaves to the crooks in government and elsewhere.

A 250-pound muscleman can easily overpower and kill a 90-pound granny. But if Granny has a gun, she has a chance.