Senate Gun Control

The U.S., or those who control it, doesn't value human life. The country was built on slavery. Health insurance companies often provide inadequate coverage or none at all; the Senate is poised to make the situation worse and kill tens of thousands of more Americans a year. Pharmaceutical companies get people addicted to opioids; the typical response from authorities is to criminalize addiction and throw people into prison after they survive an overdose or several. Arms manufacturers produce death-- for police to give it to unarmed blacks and mentally ill, for drug cartels to give it to those who stand in their way, for dictators to give it to dissidents, for the military to give it to impoverished people on other continents, and for Americans to give it to themselves. We've been taught that biting into the profits of these great industries is Un-American. It probably is.

 

And you forcefully exported that ideology, called it capitalism - which it is not - and tried to make other countries as materially miserable and soullesss as you guys are.

I was shocked at how disconnected the US felt, being there. It's just not right. People are not chattel

 

"Real" capitalism was awful too, Ender. I don't know what kind of ridiculous distinction you're trying to make.

 

We are here.

 

Yeah I hear this from people who have the economic acumen of afterbirth and struggle to articulate what it means. I usually ignore those people because they have not bothered to research their arguments, and talk out of their arse.

I am right to do so.

 

If you ban them it wont do any good. Criminals will still find a way to get them and people will still find a way to kill people. All it will do is stop regular folds who like using them from owning them.
If they dont have guns than they will use trucks and people wont have a way to protect them self.


AS long as we teach gun safety it can help a lot because there are rules you just need to follow

 

OK except we have proven it will do good. Thanks for turning up 399 pages in with generic thoughts. Copypasta is delicious.

 

It's amazing how so many Americans turn into anarchists when they argue about gun control, but it's weird that they don't want to apply the same political logic to literally any other law or regulation.

 

It's all just a matter of degree. At what point do you draw the line and say if control x saves less than y lives per year then it is not worth it? Gun control does not rob responsible gun owners of their ability to own and use guns. Those countries which have robust gun control still maintain a healthy and vibrant gun culture. For example, in Australia I can own as many guns as I want and can join a gun club and shoot as much as I like. I can even go out "bush" and shoot as many kangaroos and wild pig as will fit in the back of my ute (I don't actually own a ute I'm just trying to relate). I just can't purchase semi-automatic or automatic weapons and I have to store my guns and ammunition in a lockable safe. It's a sacrifice I'm morally willing to make.

In short, if you ban them then it reduces the ease of access for those millions of people who are not actually criminals but are contemplating criminal acts because of mental health issues or other emotional problems. At the very least banning certain classes of weapons makes it harder for a Sandy Hook type massacre. If you can save the lives of a dozen kids then any inconvenience caused to responsible gun owners because they can't fire off 30 rounds in five seconds at the range is something that won't keep me up at night.

 

At this point, it's hard to argue with gun nuts. You can show them all the evidence that supports gun control a million times and they will still ignore it and come up with the same old pro-gun arguments again.

Gesendet von meinem SM-J510FN mit Tapatalk

 

I'm turning into a bit of a gun nut myself and will probably buy one next year. For some reason it seems possible to appreciate guns but also not be a selfish immoral creep. I might start a blog.

 

That would be cool. "The pro-gun control gun nut blog".

 

It's like the "people with healthcare still die" argument.

 

Yeah a plane crashed the other day, **** air safety rules man! They don't work! Deregulate the industry.

 

If you are for gun control, you are not against guns. The authorities will need guns to disarm the population.

Gun control advocates are for centralizing guns into the hands of a small political elite and their minions.

 

And how many indiscriminate school or workplace massacres have been carried out by the political elite and their minions?

How many indiscriminate massacres by the political elite and their minions are prevented by the people using their own guns?

 

And how many indiscriminate school or workplace massacres have been carried out by the political elite and their minions?

Around the entire world?

How many indiscriminate massacres by the political elite and their minions are prevented by the people using their own guns?

Situations where a population defended itself in wartime? King Philip's War?

Are you comfortable with that centralization of guns?

 

Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ghan-school-bombing-kills-seven-children.html

 

Do you think you need your guns to protect you from the authorities who want to disarm the population, declare a tyrannical dictatorship and enslave you all in labour camps and eat your children? Do you go outside much?

 

Govt's have murdered a staggering number of their own people in the twentieth century, usually after they have disarmed them.

 

I think over 600,000 guns were surrendered in the buy back program. There was very little resistance because (a) the government offered generous compensation which allowed gun owners to buy more legal guns (b) there was an 'amnesty' so you could turn in and receive compensation for your outrageously illegal firearms, (c) there were reasonable exceptions for those who needed otherwise illegal firearms for work and (d) people of all walks of life, including the gun lovin rednecks, were utterly shocked by the Port Arthur massacre and conceded it was socially and morally necessary.

 

Let's start with your own country.

No. Internally.

There are no examples of a population defending itself with any success in wartime using uncontrolled guns. So it's a moot question anyway. Which is why you can't provide anything close to an example. I can provide examples where the population used illegal firearms to wage war with the central government.

I am happy with the gun control in my country. The examples of abuse of firearms by the authorities are negligible and usually down to rare individual error. Instances of a policy to misuse guns by the authorities, officially or otherwise, are considerably rarer still.

You might as well reduce the control of using black magic in the face of an air strike. Welcome to ignore, time waster