debate

ffs my entire 2/2 comment was deleted by MO. well, time to write it again.

the comment consisted of something like this: "Now the argument against that position is that they have other uses than just killing. But guns aren't just used to kill, They're used to save lives. (Statistically speaking far more than they end in places that have studies on them like America)Certainly end a life to save one may not seem nice, but it's a fact of life. Criminals will always get guns. Making them illegal will only hurt those who follow the law, and it will take away the equal footing every person has now, and the protection that they give them. " i can't collect all of my thoughts on this particular argument: "Making them illegal will only hurt those who follow the law, and it will take away the equal footing every person has now, and the protection that they give them." so i'll give you that one for now, but remind me to pick that argument up again. there's a lot of thoughts that are raising into my head that i can't put out into words. (there's actually so much that i don't know what i can say, i think the argument is wrong on many levels but i've probably made many counter-arguments for that argument before and so i don't know them anymore as i forgot about them) Criminals won't always get guns as easily as they can get them now, in america. your border control is seriously, seriously really fucking bad, especially when it comes to smuggling. not that that matters anymore as you've legalized guns LOL. now, sure, someone might think: since everyone has a gun now i might not just rob this place because i'll get shot maybe. but the thing is, since you're making guns so easily accessible, one might also think: since i have a gun now, i can rob this place! and especially if you're with more than one person it's a lot easier to rob a place. even if you give people guns, they might not use them even though there's some criminal activity going on. it's because they don't want to risk being shot, or they're too scared that even if they do shoot someone, they might be seen as the bad guy. ofcourse, if you're the one being robbed you'll want to use your gun, but as a bystander it's probably a no-no unless you can't get out of the situation. (which actually happens a lot nowadays, staring at a woman for too long can be seen as sexual harrassment, there's literally people that are scared to help people in trains that are being (sexually) attacked because they might be seen as the attacker) i think those 2 arguments cancel each other out. by giving everyone guns, you are also dropping to the level of criminals, and letting the public take matters into their own hands, instead of the police, which in my opinion is pretty scary. edit: 2/2

MO almost deleted my comment again but i was able to somehow prevent it :o i'm now copy-pasting all of my comments before posting them

if you accidently delete it, alt (or cntr cant remember) z (or v cant remember) will go back on what you deleted or if you accidently click off the page, just hit go back and the message is saved *slinks back to the darkness*

As I thought I come back in a little time and Leo is the only one talking any sort of sense. I knew I would get a laugh and I was right. Was I being particularly nice when I used "braindead" to describe a statement .. no... but was I accurate..... yeah I'll stand by that. I've noticed between lamby and yestotally (I'll refer to this person as "totes" for the remainder of my response(s) - my best short version) is purely idealism with no thought or mention of practicality or how much history has proved this ideal wrong. I'll concede that for the most part guns are more lethal and are an easier medium to use lethally for a supermajority of people (not everyone is a navy seal). I cannot and will not argue against this. However this disparity in the "real world" is utterly meaningless when being used as a logic to ban guns. Stopping at just this conclusion is just lazy and very closed minded really. I'm going to reread the past few pages but be warned there will be some long posts coming with just oodles of knowledge and sense that will show or prove that my remarks while not "nice" are "accurate" the latter being much more important. Translation: Nukes incoming - Freedom and Democracy to reign down bombs bursting in air (also anything posted after this post I will likely not have read until after I post my thoughts on the matter)

First things first the central idea posed against my beliefs that guns should be available for the general populace is that guns are more efficient at killing than knives or other means. I have already conceded this to for most purposes and circumstances to be true. I will now argue and present that just because this is true does not mean that the "debate" is over - not by a long shot (pun sort of intended). We have a solid 100+ years of history proving the very notion of civilian disarmament leads to a hell of a lot of death and various other human rights violations. In other words a hell of a lot can and has gone wrong when force was monopolized by the state (the government or whatever term you want to use for those with political, legal and military power). If I use the term "the state" I use it as a term for government and not an entity within a country like the term is used in America among other places. 1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929-1953, 20 million dissidents rounded up and murdered. 1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Christian Armenians rounded up and exterminated. 1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated. 1935: China established gun control. From 1948-1952, 20 million political dissidents rounded up and exterminated. 1964: Guatemala established gun control. From 1981-1984, 100,000 Mayan Indians rounded up and exterminated. 1970: Uganda established gun control. From 1971-1979, 300,000 Christians rounded up and exterminated. 1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975-1977, 1 million educated people rounded up and exterminated. https://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130127/discuss/701279952/ (source for the above list) What the above shows if nothing else is that if the state is given a monopoly on force they at minimum have the ease of committing genocide. If taking one life is bad it would lead itself to that genocide is also bad. The idea that we should trust the state with all of that power has through the 20th century been proven to be a bad idea. Other places may have instituted draconian (unduly strict) gun control and genocide has not occurred but that doesn't mean that other violations are not occurring (even if these violations do not take ones life they are violations and wrong nonetheless). For example the UK has very strict gun and is even pondering knife laws and as a result the state has been able to impose whatever regulations it wants because the people realistically cannot do a thing about it. For now the state in the UK is targeting free speech - their hate speech laws leave a lot to the imagination and statements such as "there are biologically two genders" can easily have someone facing legal consequences. In other words a place with a disarmed populace is now being nudged in the direction of "groupthink" or the amount of "acceptable opinions and speech" is being limited. It may be incremental and small at first and this is only one example (I don't happen to have a list of these non genocidal offenses) but when a populace is disarmed it is realistically powerless against the state. In states with a democratic system they can vote but if the state has a monopoly on force then the populace only has as much power as the state allows it to have. As tragic and horrible as mass shootings are most of the truly atrocious global atrocities are committed after gun control is instituted. For anybody who has done 10 minutes of research on the 20th century as a whole gun control creates bigger atrocities than it solves and it isn't even close. In other words in 100+ years civilian disarmament has lead to an overwhelming net negative. Gun control is the precursor to genocide and human rights violations by the state and it isn't like these genocides were just "a couple" or an aberration (an outlier of the norm). Even if it isn't genocide by the state gun control / civilian disarmament is a complete net negative to the populace. Lots of places in Latin America have stringent gun control and yet there is a high level of violence among them (one of the reasons people are fleeing in mass to America - citing asylum). Take Mexico which you know borders America (most of which is very generous on access to guns) they have very strict gun laws and yet the cartels have no problem "doing business". Gun control also makes it a lot easier for organized crime or mob rule by criminals. You add in some police corruption by these cartels or other criminal organizations and that's a double whammy of trouble that the populace is defenseless against because of gun control. TL:DR.... Gun control has proven to be a practical failure with over 100 years of evidence. Monopolizing power in the hands of government and military is a bad idea and has lead to genocide and a great deal of human rights violations. Banning guns from civilians to stop mass shootings and hinder criminals (even if it did these things - and it does not accomplish this 100% but EVEN IF IT DID) creates the opening to much more atrocious and widespread events. Gun control by logic and evidence does NOT serve the PEOPLE it serves THE GOVERNMENT. However I will admit I haven't done much if any research into where gun control has been instituted and no genocide (or political dissident murder) or other violations have not occurred. If someone can point me to a place where this is the case I may be persuaded to give more credence to the idea that civilian disarmament isn't the disaster the 20th century has proven it to be. Even if provided with a good example of a disarmed populace and functioning benevolent government that does not cancel out the innate logic that is that governments are much easier able to violate life and other human rights with a disarmed populace. Arms are the means in which a populace has to forcefully (if voting or political means are unable to accomplish desired outcomes peacefully) dissent and keep their government in line. If that is taken away then there is no balance and can go from being citizens to subjects.

One of the main ideas or points established above is that the ideas between people who believe as Lamby or Totes do and those whole believe as Leo or I do is that history has shown that people who believe that populaces should be armed to be correct and reasonable in their thinking (this does not mean flawless). One problem with people who believe in gun control or civilian disarmament desperately need to be cognizant of is that the burden of proof is on their side to prove themselves right. The 20th century has proven that those who believe in civilian ownership and access to arms correct both logically and logistically. Logically: When civilians are armed governments are much less likely to commit heinous violations for fear of public forceful retribution. When people can fight back and resist it provides a deterrent from state overreach. An armed populace actually encourages peaceful resolutions by (to a varying degree) negating the threat of force by government. The idea that civilian disarmament saves lives is purely idealistic and mostly only considers a few factors as opposed to the entirety - most notably of all defensive gun use (which does not require the use of the gun just its presence) Logistically: When civilians have been disarmed the worst events in world history have occurred. We hear all the time about how bad Nazi Germany was under Hitler and the first thing he did on his way to doing Nazi Germany things was......... gun control. The same ideas he touted are the same ones leftists today use the further their gun control measures. My entire list in my last post is a sizable list of large scale atrocity enabled by gun control. Is there a list in the 20th century (to compare apples to apples) where civilians have been disarmed and no atrocity or rights violations occurred? (of this I am genuinely curious) When you take all things into account even the idea that guns are more lethal than knives (which I do not dispute) holds no water in actually saving lives. Only in a vacuum or a specified realm of thoughts and topics can this even have a chance of being true. I've got to shovel some snow ... I might not even be halfway done rebutting the ideas presented to me as reasons that guns should be banned/outlawed/regulated. On the next episode ... watch out for topics such as gun deaths vs defensive gun use (in other words are guns a net negative or positive?) what guns provide other than lethal force (or the threat of)

I only read this page of the read, kinda. But I assume its about gun control. So here's my 2 cents. Hm, I enjoy weaponry and to my limited exposure, enjoyed using them. But I would however prefer to live in a society with a strict gun control policy than one with a lax one. Someone who has an intent to kill or rob and is determined to do so, will do it regardless of what method or tools that will be used to achieve their end goal. But I however, would prefer to live in a place where after a heated argument with a perhaps a mentally unstable neighbour or relative, I can eliminate the possibility of being shot or themselves being shot. I fully accept that responsible gun owners are well in the majority and I even watch gun channels based in the states but still, given it's track record and reputation I would probably never feel comfortable sending my child to school where I'll be worrying if one day they will end up as a collateral from some deranged and disturbed kid's hit list. The power of a gun can be an intoxicating thing. People can be smart, considerate and responsible. I appreciate that. But I don't appreciate the ease of access of which a device specifically designed to end the life of another human being can end up in the hands of the stupid, the dangerous or the vulnerable or even worse all three. America is a bigger, more populated country than mine and there is obviously a cultural difference aswell where owning weapons for self defence has genuine merit. So I may be wrong or retreading old ground making my opinion irrelevant but I thought I'd present it regardless. As for the statistics aren't everything, I'll second this. For example, You can present me with evidence, facts and statistics telling me gun crime isn't as bad but humans have the capacity of irrational and superstitious habits. All the evidence points to ghosts not existing but I'll still shit myself if I see a shadow move in the darkness lol. Does this mean everyone should be stripped of their rights to bear arms? maybe, maybe not, I dunno. But I think it atleast has the capacity to improve lives in the future.