Motivational wrote

002 wrote Honduras, El savador, Jamaica, Venezuela, Guatemala, South Africa, Columbia, Brazil, etc. the list goes on and on. These are countries that have low gun ownership, yet extremely high homicide rates. Paraguay has less than half the guns as America, yet double the homicide rates. South Africa has less guns than Paraguay, yet double the homicides. I'm also talking in terms of per 100 people as some of these places are much larger than others.

Oh no, please tell me that you didn't just compare some of the poorest countries in the world, where the majority of the population is living in poverty and has no option but to steal and commit crimes as a means of survival, to first world countries?

Do you not understand that comparing a country like South Africa which is completely ruined, filled with corruption, poverty, terrible resouce management and racism to the most powerful country in the world is blatantly stupid? Of course South Africa is going to have worse crime rates, it's a mess of a country. This is even worse than you trying to compare Switzerland to the UK.

I was reffering to first world and second world countries like the UK, Russia, Japan, China etc. America has by far the worst gun crimes from them and they also have the most leniant gun laws.

Guns don't kill people but they're used by people to kill people and without them, killing someone is a lot harder. Take away the guns and you take away the easiest way to kill someone. It's an almost hilarious argument, it's like me saying that sarin gas is harmless and doesn't kill people, people breathe the gas in and they die. It's not the sarin gases fault, it's the idiots that decide to breathe it in. Make sarin gas legal, it's harmless.

002 wrote Guns do not kill people, anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. Sorry not sorry, but they are. A gun cannot walk on its own and fire into a crowd. A human has to do that.

As far as the military vs the people, we have almost 319 million citizens of the US. As of 31 December 2013, 1,369,532 people were on active duty in the armed forces, with an additional 850,880 people in the seven reserve components. This puts the military at a HUGE dis advantage, not to mention that if they get the orders to fire on US citizens, do you think all of them will, or will some of them say no to that order? Also, US citizens have tanks, gas, humvees, etc.

If you government wanted to destroy the people it would be ridiculously easy. They would simply line the army up with gas masks and tell them that it's a practice drill and then drop sarin gas or any other type of gas that's deadly into all the villages and cities. The majority of people don't have gas masks and would be killed. Or about thirty or forty tanks could go in and nobody would be able to stop them.

And don't try and say that U.S. soldiers wouldn't do it, do you not remember the Nazis and WW2? They listened to Hitler and putting people into concentration camps and torturing, starving and gassing them is a lot worse than simply dropping gas or blowing stuff up in a tank.

I know that Cioran has used the sarin gas argument before but it's the most poisonous gas and that's the only reason I'm using it as an example.

No, let's actually look at what you said. I don't care what you inferred because I'm not a mind reader. You SAID "Statistically, countries with less/no guns are safer and less violent." You said nothing about first second or third world countries, that is all you said. Furthermore, China and Russia are both second world countries, so if I can't compare first and third, why can you compare second and first? The answer is you can't if you want to pull that card. If you want to play that game and go down that road you have to compare first world to first world, second world to second world, and third world to third world.

If I can't compare first to third, but you can compare first to second, I guess I'll do that as well. North Korea strictly prohibits the use, ownership, manufacture, or distribution of firearms by any citizen not serving in the military or special sectors of the government "executing official duties." Anyone in violation of firearms laws are subject to "stern consequences." According to experts, gun laws were tightened by the late Kim Jong Il towards the end of his reign in an act to ensure control of society and maintain order for the eventual succession of his son Kim Jong Un. With this gun control, why does North Korea have a murder rate of 5.2 per 100k, when America is at 3.9 per 100k? In Kazakhstan, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms and handguns, yet their murder rate is 7.8 per 100k! Again, they're a second world country.

If you want to say the person who exposed people to sarin gas isn't at fault, that's like me saying it's not the shooters fault, it's the idiot that was around the shooting. See how stupid that sounds? I love it when you bring up this reference.

A US citizen still has to drop the gas. Also it's going to take A LOT of gas to take over the US. For you to compare the US to Nazi Germany quite frankly is an insult. Let's take a walk down history ave real quick, shall we? In short, Nazi-era Germany imposed greater gun restrictions for Jews (and other perceived enemies) at the same time it loosened gun restrictions for other groups. Basically people that would support Hitler could have guns, but anyone who was a enemy couldn't get them. That turns the tables a lot, doesn't it? That's like the current day US saying all races BUT Mexicans can have guns as we try to drive the out. That's giving the advantage to one team, so no matter how you put it, you can't compare 1930's / 1940's German to current day US. I know many US soldiers and for you to say they would fire on American citizens is a slap in the face a damn disgrace. You figuratively lit the American flag on fire.

Glock- wrote Now I'm not one for calling people out but you know Tywin or someone else will comment and say that other countries with firearms banned are so peaceful, blah
Blah blah. At the end of the day, if the police are not present. The only line of defense is a firearm.

You can go through my entire post history and you will find nothing but me defending the right to own firearms.
The most I have ever done is acknowledge that the current rate of homicides isn't going to be sustainable in the longterm for the gun rights crowd.

The moment a mentally ill person who was previously banned from purchasing a firearm kills someone thanks to the needless recent repeal by the Republicans, the public blowback is going to be a lot more than just disallowing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms.


We're on the losing side of this battle. The majority already support banning "assault weapons".
You literally shoot yourself in the foot by repealing gun safety measures that make sense.

Continuous wrote Just because your response was not directed at me, does not mean that I can't respond to it.

I literally cannot respond to both you and 002, it takes me almost thirty minutes to type one of these posts and this topic pops up around three to four times a day. So giving me a long reply and cherry-picking every single one of my statements means that I don't have anytime to reply to 002. I'll try to reply to him later though if I get the chance.

Continuous wrote It is not a opinion. Research has shown that places like the UK has even more crime then America, but yet they have very strict gun laws.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

This is exactly why I told you to use statistics and not your opinion.

You and 002 still don't seem to understand my point, like the other thread. I meant that countries without guns are generally safer and have less gun crime. Guns are not the most important factor in deciding if a country is violent or not, that's more to do with wealth and their upbringing.

And comparing the total crimes between two countries isn't fair either. Both the UK and USA have completely different laws and what's completely illegal in one country, is legal in the other. You obviously can't make an accurate comparison with crime when totally different laws are used in each country. Don't compare all crimes, compare serious crimes like murder, rape, etc because the laws are almost identical in both countries.

Continuous wrote Research has shown that places like the UK has even more crime then America, but yet they have very strict gun laws.

Continuous wrote You just tried to attack me because of my opinions. When you just stated your opinion. Actually that was not even a opinion, it was a lie.

Did you just try and say that the UK has more crime than a country six times the size of it? No, no it doesn't. It wasn't my opinion and it wasn't a lie either. I'm just repeating what the statistics say.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

As I've said above, guns play a major factor in the crime of a country but they're by no means the main factor. Imagine if the UK had guns, the whole country would be destroyed and the crime would be far worse than America's. Thankfully, we don't have guns though.

I think you really misunderstand how many drugs are used in the UK. Over three hundred times more than in America. I'd rather have a high crime rate because people want to use drugs than a high crime rate because people want to kill each other.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Continuous wrote You took what I said out of context. What I meant was If the government wanted to kill everybody IN AMERICA and destroy America, then I am sure that they could do it very easily.

It's not my fault that you worded it wrong. I didn't take what you said out of context in the slightest, you worded it wrong. There's a big difference.

Saying, I want to kill everybody means everybody. I just replied to what I read.

Continuous wrote I said this so that you do not keep using that excuse. The government is not going to just destroy America. There is no point is destroying the whole country. It would cause pointless damage. But if that is what they wanted to do, then they could do it.

It's not an excuse? It's the main reason for the second amendment, so that the people can defend themselves against a government uprising which they clearly can't.

Continuous wrote if the government wanted to kill America and its people, that they could

So we've both agreed that there's no chance of defending yourself against the government, which means that the second amendment is pointless. It should be removed and replaced with regular laws that can be changed instead, like the majority of other countries have. Otherwise you have an outdated and unchangeable law that's not necessary and causes more harm than good.

Continuous wrote That one statement was just part of my response. It was not to make the response longer. It was me telling you that if the government wanted to kill America and its people, that they could, but that is not what they would do.

You could have just said that you agree? We can agree you know, just because we have different end results doesn't mean that we can't agree along the way there.

Continuous wrote The second amendment is what allows us to keep and bear arms.

So you don't trust your government enough to have regular gun laws like everyone else does?

Continuous wrote That is something that may or may not happen. We will not know what happens until it happens.

Yes we do. Your government would crush you, that's not even debatable. This is the exact reason you don't let your government put $600 billion into its military every year.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Continuous wrote You said that if 30-40 tanks went in, that nobody would be able to stop them. I said that tanks are not invincible. How is that off topic?

Continuous wrote You did not use the word invincible, but that is basically what you meant. You said that nobody would be able to stop them.

Yet again, nobody is the key word.

Nobody means no single person, or one man. There's a difference between saying that nobody can destroy ISIS and ISIS is invincible, for example.

One person is not going to be able to stop 30 or 40 tanks. So yes, it's completely off-topic and no, Invincible and nobody are not the same words.

Continuous wrote It only takes one person to make a IED. And it only takes one IED to blow up a tank.

Oh yes, so an American is going to put an IED on a road with civilians living in houses beside the road and people running all over the place screaming for their lives.

These IEDS have also been created and placed in advance, waiting for tanks to come, and they're in the most random and unexpected locations. You'd never have enough time to dig up an American road and make an IED, then put it there before and cover it back up before the damage is done.

As I said, it's just not going to happen. Sure, maybe you might get lucky and destroy one tank but with a budget as high as Americas they can afford thousands upon thousands of tanks. It's just not going to stop them.

Motivational wrote No. They said that in court so they wouldn't be killed after the war. That's the first thing you say if you're about to be charged with war crimes, put the blame on the person above you and say that they told you that you'd be killed if you didn't follow their orders. The majority of the officers who were executed tried this tactic too and were killed because it obviously want true.

Continuous wrote How is it not true? The whole point of propaganda is to change someones views. And Hitler was very effective at this.

No he wasn't. Goebbel was hiter's head of propaganda. I'm not going to go into this in details but the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if not for Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich. Hitler was good at talking, yes but he wasn't very convincing. That was Goebbels job. There's a reason that he was head of propaganda.

Continuous wrote Take North Korea for example. We few kim jong un as a horrible person. But his citizens view him as a god. This is because of propaganda. He is a dictator and bans all of these things, and kills people who do not agree with him. But his people still like him, because they have been brainwashed.

I agree totally. This however, has nothing to do with what I said. North Korea are brainwashed, the Nazis were not. The majority of them knew exactly what they were doing but were willing to do it because of tons of different reasons. Goebbels did brainwash the people, definitely. The majority of people didn't even know that the holocaust was even happening until the end. The soldiers however, knew exactly what they were doing.

You can't brainwash a human into thinking that killing millions of men, woman and children is good. People just use the word "Brainwash" because they're scared of the truth and don't believe that another sane human could have done that.

Continuous wrote And the whole "put the blame on the person above you and say that they told you that you'd be killed if you didn't follow their orders" is completely possible. Hitlers army killed 6 million Jews, why would they have any trouble killing a few more people?

The Nazis weren't completely evil people, they just genuinely hated the Jews. They were completely merciless when it comes to Jews but they completely worshipped their own nationality. This is a silly statement, if the Germans were completely against killing Jews then the holocaust would never have happened. The majority of Nazis hated the Jews almost as much as Hitler. They didn't however, hate the German people. Russian POWs were treated better than Jews.

Motivational wrote Did you seriously just use Quora as a source too? You know that it's just a message board like this were people ask questions and other people try their best to answer them? That's not a legitimate source, it's completely biased and opinionated.

Continuous wrote That is like saying that Wikipedia is not a source because people can change it.

Because Wikipedia can not be considered a reliable source, the use of Wikipedia is not accepted in many schools and universities in writing a formal paper, and some educational institutions have banned it as a primary source while others have limited its use to only a pointer to external sources.

Wikipedia isn't a legitimate source.

Continuous wrote It is like me saying that guns have stopped millions of crimes. Does that mean that because I said it, that it is not a "legitimate" fact? No. I am just restating what others have said. The same goes for the person that I quoted.

A source is legitimate when it can be proved correctly. If you can't prove that millions of crimes have been stopped by guns then it doesn't mean that it's not true, but that you can't prove it's true. This is a debate/argument, you're trying to prove that guns are good and don't impact gun crime and crime but you can't prove anything without legitimate statistics and proof.

Continuous wrote I could not find any statistics about how many people in the military support guns. But the number has to be very high assuming that some of their jobs require using guns. What I am trying to say is that if people do not agree with something, then they are not going to do it.

Continuous wrote The Nazis really believed what they were doing was right. They were brainwashed.

So you're completely contradicting what you said above? According to you, the Nazis didn't believe that what they were doing was right but they did it anyway because they would be killed if they didn't listen, which as I said above isn't true. Now you're saying that they were brainwashed? Were they brainwashed or forced? You seem to be changing your mind about this one.

If you do believe it to be true though, why wouldn't exactly the same situation happen in America? Why would the American soldiers not follow orders in-case they were killed too?

Continuous wrote Unless you are "special", you can tell the difference between bombing your country and a drill.

You really can't though. They could take prisoners from prison who are qualified pilots and get them to fly the bombing planes that drop the gas, along with other pilots who would do anything for their government.

Motivational wrote My point was simply that the second amendment is completely irreverent because we don't live in a time where the government and the people are equal anymore.

Continuous wrote And that is your opinion. How can you try to attack me because I use my opinion, when you do the same thing.

That's not my opinion. Do American people spend $600 billion per year on aircraft, vehicles, guns and ammunition? No, they don't even come close to that.

You also agreed with me above and disagreed down here?

Continuous wrote if the government wanted to kill America and its people, they could, but that is not what they would do.

You can't just agree that the American government could destroy America when it suits you and then disagree later. We're trying to find a solution here and not just have a pointless argument. It's not about you or I winning, but to find if guns are actually safer or not.

Continuous wrote Most of your response was you talking about how do not understand what I said or how you do not think it is relevant. It is complete bs. You are trying to discredit my statements because you do not agree with them. You try and act like I am not making sense.

Please, read this post and the last one completely unbiased and try and see my point of view.

You're genuinely not making sense in half of your statements, from you confusing the statement "nobody can stop a tank" into me saying that tanks are invincible? They're two completely different statements and meanings. To also trying to say that "America could kill everyone" and not meaning everyone in the world? Everyone on it's on refers to everyone in the world. I don't care about winning an argument, I care about being right.

If you could prove to me that guns positively effect a country and don't have any negatives then I would say fair enough and stop arguing, you can't though because the negatives highly outweigh the positives and countries with high gun owner-ships generally have terrible statistics for crimes.

Motioncorey wrote Whenever most of the homicides in the U.S are because of guns, something needs to be done. SOMETHING.

I understand your trepidation when it comes to attempting to outline something akin to a policy position on this subject.
Almost any position that you could put into writing and post on a message board will have pot-holes to be exposed by any opposed to the overarching umbrella under which your view would fall.

I think that people need to stop expecting others to have flawless views on this issue and, as a matter of simple psychology, we as individuals need to admit that our views have flaws of their own and should approach this as more of a problem-solving task as opposed to a debate.

With that being said I have spoken to a lot of different people about this problem over the past few years and I have reached the view that gun control is only a small part of solving the gun death issue in the US.

This puts me in the unfortunate position of being right in the middle of a lot of left wingers who think that guns should be restricted far more than they are at the moment and a lot of right wingers who think that any sort of gun legislation is a bad thing by definition because it infringes on their second amendment rights.

I guess I'll just have to occupy this wasteland between the trenches where I might as well keep espousing the solutions which seem most credible to me until I am convinced to retreat to either trench or someone wins the war.

The gun control legislation which I am in favor of, aside from the obvious criminal background checks, are those which apply to the mentally ill.
I have learnt to be specific on this issue in particular so I would stop those who have mental illnesses which impair their ability to reason adequately, control their impulses and body movements, or their ability to control a weapon with as much accuracy as any person without an illness from purchasing or using a firearm.
I have not completely decided on whether or not to extend this to instances in which they are under the supervision of a trained weapons expert, but given what happened to Chris Kyle, I would lean in favor of saying no to that too.

Like I said though, gun control is only a small part of the solution in my opinion.

The two main ways in which I think the gun death rate could be lowered in the US are:

• Mental healthcare legislation
  

Suicides make up a large chunk of the gun deaths in the US. two thirds to be exact.
Getting people the help they need and improving the state of the mental healthcare system in the US would lower this amount drastically.

Potential school and workplace shooters would also benefit from improvements in this area.
Studies have shown that it is mainly a falsehood that mental health problems must be the cause of a school shooter rampage.
They conclude that the majority of school and workplace shooters are perfectly sane and understand what they are doing.
While I am willing to accept this conclusion it doesn't therefore follow that no mental healthcare legislation would reduce the number of school and workplace shootings by some - if not a significant - amount given that, while not a majority, a lot of these kinds of shooters are mentally ill.

• Gang warfare and drug law legislation

Gang violence makes up 80% of the gun homicides in the US every year.
This is one instance where the typical mantras heard by gun freedom advocates is correct, "Criminals don't obey the law, so why would they obey gun laws?"

I think it is accurate to say that if guns were legislated out of existence the criminal elements in the US would still be able to access weapons through the use of black markets. It may even have the adverse effect of increasing the revenue streams of gangs because it would give them one more product to sell in the US.

To run the risk of sounding like a broken record, the solution I think to this is for the US to end its war on drugs. A war which obviously has not worked, has been extremely costly, and a war which has given the gangs of the nation enough money to supply themselves with weapons and go to war with each other since the 1980's.

If the drug war is ended and drugs are legalized then the gangs will have no revenue streams. They will die out and have no reason to kill each other any more and that 80% of all gun homicides will drop significantly.
I use the broad term 'drugs' here because I don't want to debate the specifics of which drugs in particular should be legalized. One is tempted to say all of them but that really is another topic for another time.

I am still open to being convinced by left wingers that more gun control legislation will have good effect on society in the US, but I think that there are far more important - and far less talked about - solutions to this problem than mere gun control and they seem to be solutions which can be agreed upon by both left and right wing people.

These solutions don't tackle the problem of the mentally stable school and workplace shooters at large and I am open to discussions about gun safety and security legislation being implemented in relation to those issues. The use of safes or secure gun cabinets, for example.
I am not entirely convinced by the suggestion that teachers should be able to carry weapons, I think there must be more palatable solutions to the school shooter problem than that, but I am still open to being convinced otherwise.

Overall, I think these two solutions take away a large chunk of the gun deaths in the US and whilst the country decides how to deal with the other chunk it might as well do what it can where it can.

Motivational wrote And comparing the total crimes between two countries isn't fair either. Both the UK and USA have completely different laws and what's completely illegal in one country, is legal in the other. You obviously can't make an accurate comparison with crime when totally different laws are used in each country. Don't compare all crimes, compare serious crimes like murder, rape, etc because the laws are almost identical in both countries.

You seem to think that you can compare guns laws even though some countries have completely different laws.

Did you just try and say that the UK has more crime than a country six times the size of it? No, no it doesn't. It wasn't my opinion and it wasn't a lie either. I'm just repeating what the statistics say.

I meant to say that the UK has a higher violent crime rate per capita. And they even have a higher crime rate per capita.

As I've said above, guns play a major factor in the crime of a country but they're by no means the main factor. Imagine if the UK had guns, the whole country would be destroyed and the crime would be far worse than America's. Thankfully, we don't have guns though.

The fact that the UK has a higher crime per capita rate has nothing to do with guns. If they had guns, would the rate be higher? Probably. But it is the people who use them.

Google Search Results:
The United Kingdom is a developed country and has the world's fifth-largest economy. The UK has a high-income economy and is categorised as very high in the Human Development Index.

The UK is very developed. But yet they have more crime per capita then America. The people do not need a gun as you said. Crime will be commited with what ever the criminals can get their hands on.

Continuous wrote You took what I said out of context. What I meant was If the government wanted to kill everybody IN AMERICA and destroy America, then I am sure that they could do it very easily.

It's not my fault that you worded it wrong. I didn't take what you said out of context in the slightest, you worded it wrong. There's a big difference.

You did take it out of context. I was talking about the US government.

It is like how people think that Trump said that mexicans are rapists and commit crimes. It was taken out of context. His words were 'They're bringing drugs,' crime and are 'rapists'. He was referring to illegal immigrants.

Continuous wrote I said this so that you do not keep using that excuse. The government is not going to just destroy America. There is no point is destroying the whole country. It would cause pointless damage. But if that is what they wanted to do, then they could do it.

It's not an excuse? It's the main reason for the second amendment, so that the people can defend themselves against a government uprising which they clearly can't.

Just because the the government has more money and bigger guns, does not meant that they would win. Take the Vietnam war for example. If you compare the U.S. military spending to Vietnam, then the U.S. should win right? But the U.S. lost that war.

So we've both agreed that there's no chance of defending yourself against the government, which means that the second amendment is pointless. It should be removed and replaced with regular laws that can be changed instead, like the majority of other countries have. Otherwise you have an outdated and unchangeable law that's not necessary and causes more harm than good.

The U.S. government has enough nukes to nuke itself four times over and over again. They could do a lot of stuff. But they are not going to nuke them selves. It does not make sense. Just because they can do it, does not meant that they are going to.

The second amendment is not pointless.

So you don't trust your government enough to have regular gun laws like everyone else does?

No, I do not. Well, now I do, because we have Trump. But I did not trust Obama, and I would not trust Killary. For all I know, if we did not have guns, then we could end up like North Korea.

Rev. Cruz: 'Every Dictator That Has Taken Guns Away Has Used Them Against the Population'

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Sure that is just one persons words, but it has proof to back it up.
Take Stalin for example, he took away guns. And killed millions

One person is not going to be able to stop 30 or 40 tanks. So yes, it's completely off-topic and no, Invincible and nobody are not the same words.

There are millions of guns owners, it is not just one person.

Oh yes, so an American is going to put an IED on a road with civilians living in houses beside the road and people running all over the place screaming for their lives.

Take Syria and other terrorist countries. They make car bombs and all sorts of bombs, and they kill tens of thousands of civilians.

These IEDS have also been created and placed in advance, waiting for tanks to come, and they're in the most random and unexpected locations. You'd never have enough time to dig up an American road and make an IED, then put it there before and cover it back up before the damage is done.

I just used IED's as one example, if people can make IED's then they can make other bombs.

As I said, it's just not going to happen. Sure, maybe you might get lucky and destroy one tank but with a budget as high as Americas they can afford thousands upon thousands of tanks. It's just not going to stop them.

You said 30-40 tanks. But even if they had 5000 tanks, that would only take 5000 bombs.

Motivational wrote No. They said that in court so they wouldn't be killed after the war. That's the first thing you say if you're about to be charged with war crimes, put the blame on the person above you and say that they told you that you'd be killed if you didn't follow their orders. The majority of the officers who were executed tried this tactic too and were killed because it obviously want true.

Continuous wrote Take North Korea for example. We few kim jong un as a horrible person. But his citizens view him as a god. This is because of propaganda. He is a dictator and bans all of these things, and kills people who do not agree with him. But his people still like him, because they have been brainwashed.

I agree totally. This however, has nothing to do with what I said. North Korea are brainwashed, the Nazis were not. The majority of them knew exactly what they were doing but were willing to do it because of tons of different reasons. Goebbels did brainwash the people, definitely. The majority of people didn't even know that the holocaust was even happening until the end. The soldiers however, knew exactly what they were doing.

This was just a example of propaganda working. You said that people can not be brainwashed and that propaganda does not work.

You can't brainwash a human into thinking that killing millions of men, woman and children is good. People just use the word "Brainwash" because they're scared of the truth and don't believe that another sane human could have done that.

Yes you can, did you not read what I posted?
" the Nazi party, political fanatics who had spent years being propagandised into thinking that these 'innocents' were the enemy looking to enslave their country and that they would be the ones to make Germany great again"

Continuous wrote It is like me saying that guns have stopped millions of crimes. Does that mean that because I said it, that it is not a "legitimate" fact? No. I am just restating what others have said. The same goes for the person that I quoted.

A source is legitimate when it can be proved correctly. If you can't prove that millions of crimes have been stopped by guns then it doesn't mean that it's not true, but that you can't prove it's true. This is a debate/argument, you're trying to prove that guns are good and don't impact gun crime and crime but you can't prove anything without legitimate statistics and proof.

I gave a link to a source that showed millions of crimes have been stopped by guns.
Just because I do not provide a link for something, does not mean that it is not true. You can do your own research.

Continuous wrote I could not find any statistics about how many people in the military support guns. But the number has to be very high assuming that some of their jobs require using guns. What I am trying to say is that if people do not agree with something, then they are not going to do it.

Continuous wrote The Nazis really believed what they were doing was right. They were brainwashed.

So you're completely contradicting what you said above? According to you, the Nazis didn't believe that what they were doing was right but they did it anyway because they would be killed if they didn't listen, which as I said above isn't true. Now you're saying that they were brainwashed? Were they brainwashed or forced? You seem to be changing your mind about this one.

How did I contradict myself?
Let me restate what I posted earlier.
" the Nazi party, political fanatics who had spent years being propagandised into thinking that these 'innocents' were the enemy looking to enslave their country and that they would be the ones to make Germany great again"

And the ones that did not believe in what they were doing were killed. I am not changing my mind, I am just showing how many different things can happen.

If you do believe it to be true though, why wouldn't exactly the same situation happen in America? Why would the American soldiers not follow orders in-case they were killed too?

Is it possible that this could happen? Yes, but it is not likely. The majority of the military is pro-gun.

Continuous wrote Unless you are "special", you can tell the difference between bombing your country and a drill.

You really can't though. They could take prisoners from prison who are qualified pilots and get them to fly the bombing planes that drop the gas, along with other pilots who would do anything for their government.

Why would prisoners of all people do anything for their government? They are put in prison by the government. The prisoners are the last people that would trust the government.

Continuous wrote if the government wanted to kill America and its people, they could, but that is not what they would do.

You can't just agree that the American government could destroy America when it suits you and then disagree later. We're trying to find a solution here and not just have a pointless argument. It's not about you or I winning, but to find if guns are actually safer or not.

I am not disagreeing. If the government wanted to destroy America, they could do it very easily. But what I am saying, is that they would not do it. They would not benefit from it.

Continuous wrote Most of your response was you talking about how do not understand what I said or how you do not think it is relevant. It is complete bs. You are trying to discredit my statements because you do not agree with them. You try and act like I am not making sense.

If you could prove to me that guns positively effect a country and don't have any negatives then I would say fair enough and stop arguing, you can't though because the negatives highly outweigh the positives and countries with high gun owner-ships generally have terrible statistics for crimes.

Guns have positives and negatives. You can not have one with out having the other. The negatives do not out weigh the positives.

Guns are just another tool. It is the person who uses them. If the U.S. got rid of all guns. And nobody could make anymore, then people would just use other tools to commit crimes. Take the UK for example, they have very strict gun laws. They do not really use guns to commit crimes, they use other tools. The same thing would happen in the U.S.

If anything, guns have more positives than negatives. You can hunt, defend yourself, etc.

Sure you could use other tools for those, but lets use what 002 said.

but as I always say it's just the better tool for the job. Say for self defense, pepper spray can be used, right? A spoon can be used instead of a shovel to dig, and smoke signals can be used instead of cell phones for communications. Can we all agree that in those two examples they are not the best tool for the job?

This has got really off-topic now. We've went from guns, to security, to Syria, to the Nazis and to lethal bombs and gases.

I don't think that anyone has a problem the with the average person owning a gun in America.

My point is that the way America is at the moment, basically anyone can get their hands on a weapon regardless of their intentions and that's not right.

It can't be coincidental that America has the most guns per 100 residents in the world and the most crimes for any country in the world. Especially when America is nowhere near the biggest country in terms of population or land.

I'm not trying to argue with you about guns being safe or not because the statistics don't lie when they point to America being one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Weapons that are used and designed to kill aren't safe by any means, they can however be used safely if the person knows what they're doing.

All I'm saying is that you should try to focus more on a solution than arguing a pointless argument with me when neither of us are going to agree. There's no trying to convince me that guns are safe when you have places like Japan that's totally without guns and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And on the other hand, places like America that are the complete opposite.

I would like to suggest that you could legalise drugs but that wouldn't work. Pretty much everyone would try to get into America to get their hands on the drugs because they'd be so cheap and legalising drugs is a very general term, are they legal for everyone to use and as much as they want? Are the government selling them? Lots of questions could be asked regarding this.

There's literally no other suggestion that I can see to decrease gun crimes or death except further gun restriction or legalising drugs/mental health improvements. And mental health improvements aren't going to work without offending some special snowflakes that can't handle not being able to purchase a gun. They're also not going to stop kids from shooting up schools or other public places. At most they'll slightly decrease school shootings.

I genuinely don't see what harm that fully banning extended mags, fully automatic and the majority of semi automatic rifles can do. It would certainly have a lot of positives.

Motivational wrote This has got really off-topic now. We've went from guns, to security, to Syria, to the Nazis and to lethal bombs and gases.

I don't think that anyone has a problem the with the average person owning a gun in America.

My point is that the way America is at the moment, basically anyone can get their hands on a weapon regardless of their intentions and that's not right.

It can't be coincidental that America has the most guns per 100 residents in the world and the most crimes for any country in the world. Especially when America is nowhere near the biggest country in terms of population or land.

I'm not trying to argue with you about guns being safe or not because the statistics don't lie when they point to America being one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Weapons that are used and designed to kill aren't safe by any means, they can however be used safely if the person knows what they're doing.

All I'm saying is that you should try to focus more on a solution than arguing a pointless argument with me when neither of us are going to agree. There's no trying to convince me that guns are safe when you have places like Japan that's totally without guns and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And on the other hand, places like America that are the complete opposite.

I would like to suggest that you could legalise drugs but that wouldn't work. Pretty much everyone would try to get into America to get their hands on the drugs because they'd be so cheap and legalising drugs is a very general term, are they legal for everyone to use and as much as they want? Are the government selling them? Lots of questions could be asked regarding this.

There's literally no other suggestion that I can see to decrease gun crimes or death except further gun restriction or legalising drugs/mental health improvements. And mental health improvements aren't going to work without offending some special snowflakes that can't handle not being able to purchase a gun. They're also not going to stop kids from shooting up schools or other public places. At most they'll slightly decrease school shootings.

I genuinely don't see what harm that fully banning extended mags, fully automatic and the majority of semi automatic rifles can do. It would certainly have a lot of positives.

I think that we and many others can agree that guns need to be regulated.

I am not against gun control. I am against banning guns.

I think that there are some really simple things that can be done.

Like Glock or some one said, there should be training that everyone has to take before they can buy guns. Maybe some more laws about securing guns.

And that is just a few of the things that I think should happen.

But I also think that some of the laws that are already in place should be removed.
I do not think that there should be a ban on extended magazines.

And I do think that automatic gun laws should stay as they are.

And besides, it is easier to modify a gun into a fully automatic gun than to go through all of the work and money to legally get one. If criminals really want to do that, then they can. Is it legal? No, but they do not care about the law.

Banning semi auto guns is ridiculous. Me and others have gave you multiple reasons for them. Could there be more laws in place? Yes. But should they be banned? No.

You said that you wanted to ban some semi auto guns? What makes one more dangerous than the other?

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
The AR-15 and the Mini 14 have a lot of the same characteristics, but people are all scared of the AR-15 because the news makes it out to be a gun of terror. They are both capable of the same things.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

But the fact of the matter is that we will never end gun crime in the U.S.

Motivational wrote This has got really off-topic now. We've went from guns, to security, to Syria, to the Nazis and to lethal bombs and gases.

I don't think that anyone has a problem the with the average person owning a gun in America.

My point is that the way America is at the moment, basically anyone can get their hands on a weapon regardless of their intentions and that's not right.

It can't be coincidental that America has the most guns per 100 residents in the world and the most crimes for any country in the world. Especially when America is nowhere near the biggest country in terms of population or land.

I'm not trying to argue with you about guns being safe or not because the statistics don't lie when they point to America being one of the most dangerous countries in the world. Weapons that are used and designed to kill aren't safe by any means, they can however be used safely if the person knows what they're doing.

All I'm saying is that you should try to focus more on a solution than arguing a pointless argument with me when neither of us are going to agree. There's no trying to convince me that guns are safe when you have places like Japan that's totally without guns and has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And on the other hand, places like America that are the complete opposite.

I would like to suggest that you could legalise drugs but that wouldn't work. Pretty much everyone would try to get into America to get their hands on the drugs because they'd be so cheap and legalising drugs is a very general term, are they legal for everyone to use and as much as they want? Are the government selling them? Lots of questions could be asked regarding this.

There's literally no other suggestion that I can see to decrease gun crimes or death except further gun restriction or legalising drugs/mental health improvements. And mental health improvements aren't going to work without offending some special snowflakes that can't handle not being able to purchase a gun. They're also not going to stop kids from shooting up schools or other public places. At most they'll slightly decrease school shootings.

I genuinely don't see what harm that fully banning extended mags, fully automatic and the majority of semi automatic rifles can do. It would certainly have a lot of positives.

For the most part fully auto firearms are banned. You need some DEEP pockets, a ton of time, and a ton of paperwork to own them. Even at that you can't walk into a gun shop and buy one, most places don't have the right permits to sell or transfer them.

I think it's clear that I don't think any infringements should be placed on guns, and with the current death rates, guns are not an issue in my opinion.

As far as mags, what do you mean by "extended capacity"? Are you talking about 75 and 100 round mags? Standard capacity is 30 round, but the 75 and 100 round is just a novelty. I had a drum mag for my first AK and it is simply too heavy to be practical for anything. I don't think magazine limits should be in place as they kind of are just based on how much they weigh. Going from a 30 round to a 10 or 20 round just means I hit that button more to reload. In an AR platform it is quick to reload.

As far as semi auto guns, I am a firm believer that no guns should be regulated. With that said, I would totally understand it if we made mental health checks and training mandatory for you to own a semi auto firearm. Realistically I'd support something like that, but morally I just couldn't get behind it. We had many thousands of great men and women die to protect our rights as Americans, a lot of my family served in the military so to me it's a slap in the face when we decide we want to restrict one of our rights. I always say this and I stand behind it 100% Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither and often loose both.

The way I see it, America is a free country. That means you are free to leave if you want, if you don't support out constitution and bill of rights, you shouldn't be here, or at the very least shouldn't try to take them away from the rest of us. I know you're not American, but that's just my stand point.

Motivational wrote I genuinely don't see what harm that fully banning the majority of semi automatic rifles

I had to make another reply just to address this issue again. In the other gun rant. I said that people who know nothing about guns other than a few statistics should not make gun laws or decisions about guns. And the video below proves what I am talking about.

These are people just like you. They have not actually gone and shot a gun, some of them have barely even seen them. And they want to ban certain guns but not others. They think that because it is scary looking, that they should be banned.


And then you or some one said that people should stop assuming that the left is influenced by the news. But the news are the people who make people think like this. People watch news channels like CNN, and they tell people that these "assault weapons" are horrible guns. And a ton of people believe it.

And you do not even have to watch the main stream news to hear about this. The American politicians are going out and telling people stupid things about guns that are either not true, or completely opinionated.


And it is one of the most frustrating things. Because a ton of people watch these people and believe them. They do not know any better, so they go around spreading all of this misinformation.

The people who actually have shot guns and know a good deal about them, do not buy in to this bs.

Can you determine that guns have been used to kill thousands of people from just looking at a few statistics? Yes. Can you determine if you should or should not ban guns just by looking at a few statistics? No. You need to go and learn about guns and maybe shoot some of them before you try and ban them.

I'm only replying to the areas of this which relate to what I was saying.

Motivational wrote I would like to suggest that you could legalise drugs but that wouldn't work. Pretty much everyone would try to get into America to get their hands on the drugs because they'd be so cheap and legalising drugs is a very general term, are they legal for everyone to use and as much as they want? Are the government selling them? Lots of questions could be asked regarding this.

You are absolutely right that there are a lot of questions still to be answered about this so why don't we give it a go?

Looking at current states in which cannabis is legalized it doesn't seem to me that vast numbers of people have moved into those states in recent years, so I don't think that we can conclude that if the entire country were to legalize cannabis immigration into the US would increase drastically.
I'm only referring to cannabis here because that is the drug on which I could make a valid comparison - given that no state has legalized all drugs.
Colorado appears on the first map as a state in which there has been a large population increase but they legalized weed in 2014 whereas this map only extends to 2013.



In regards to which drugs should be legalized, I am not sure. I see few issues with the decriminalization of all drugs, but there are certain drugs - like Krokodil - which I can scarcely imagine being legalized or even decriminalized.
I think the important thing to do in regards to gun control would be to focus on the drugs which contribute the most to the revenue streams of gangs in the US.
I see no need to draw up a comprehensive list of which drugs should be in what category at this stage.

There's literally no other suggestion that I can see to decrease gun crimes or death except further gun restriction or legalising drugs/mental health improvements. And mental health improvements aren't going to work without offending some special snowflakes that can't handle not being able to purchase a gun.

I think that some special snowflakes getting offended is a worthwhile price to pay.
If their offense extends itself to them attempting to obtain guns illegally then that is where the justice system would have to step in and prosecute them like any other criminal.
No matter what legislation is implemented regarding gun control there will always be some people crying about it and some people trying to circumvent it.

They're also not going to stop kids from shooting up schools or other public places. At most they'll slightly decrease school shootings.

I agree. I think that slight decrease is worth the implementation but further discussion is definitely needed to work out the finer details and how to remove the rest.

I feel as though I need to stress that I am not 100% convinced by the prospect of legalizing drugs to decrease the gun death rate.
It makes sense to me in terms of it being logical, but I am unsure in regards to the practicality of it.
Discussing this should help to neaten up the edges.

I am also aware that you now have three people to reply to on this thread and I understand that it can be difficult to spend so much time talking to strangers on the internet while the real world requires your attention. Feel free to reply to this whenever you have the time - or not at all - there is no rush.