Total posts: 4
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Ehyeh
TheUnderdog, Would you like to do an actual debate on this?
That’s too authoritarian. The only reason a government wants to take your guns is because they want to do something to you you would shoot them for. The taliban wanted to enact tyranny in their country, so they took people’s guns. Guns make us free. The tree of liberty from time to time must be watered with the blood of tyrants.
Norway took people's guns for safety...was Norway wanting to do something they would be shot for?
Gangs don’t follow the law. Criminals will always have guns. The only people gun laws effect are law abiding citizens (who need protection from criminals and the government).
This logic is flawed. I've said it so many times to so many people: things are not legal for the simple reason that people will still get their hands on them. Need I provide examples?
Yes. The tree of liberty from time to time must be watered with the blood of tyrants. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fear the people, there is liberty.
I disagree but I'm not going to argue with you on this point
Homicide is rare when the civilian does it and common when the governor does it.
Are you referring to police killing innocent people, such as George Floyd?
I trust we the people to defend themselves from danger over a government known for tyranny and war.
If by we the people, you mean the unprivileged who are more likely to die "get" to defend themselves from danger, sure.
I'm curious, do you agree with the people who stormed the capital on January 6th?
The argument that guns are necessary to fight a tyrannical government is outdated and nonsense, contradicted by the very fact that Americans were given guns by the French to fight the British. Not only that, but the current war in Ukraine and the wars in the Middle East show you get guns anyway during war times.
Exactly. Revolutionaries will always be able to get guns. Whether supplied by foreign powers or taking them forcefully like in the French Revolution, when the Bastille was stormed.
Banning AR 15s and background checks don’t reduce the homicide rate significantly (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/11yflOMimI67xOmbzx3E_f6x0MlweEgjkwUpmJ8Ww8Ug/htmlview#gid=0)
1. This is completely irrelevant to what you responded to.
2. This is measuring homicide rate, not gun violence statistics. Additionally, this only shows the next 5 years when significant legislation like that often takes longer to really take effect.
There can at any time be a war between American civilians and foreign countries or even our own government. America is freest when the government is most scared of enacting tyranny. Canada has hard vaccine mandates that cause lots of people to be unemployed. Europe has incredibly high income and VATs that make most people there lower middle class. A government that cares about liberty would privatize lots of things to make an unequal blessing in their country, rather than an equally shared misery. America’s commitment to small government and liberty is why more people (especially from countries that lack liberty) want to move to America than any other country. It’s why more people move to red states than blue states.
As Ehyeh said:
The argument that guns are necessary to fight a tyrannical government is outdated and nonsense, contradicted by the very fact that Americans were given guns by the French to fight the British. Not only that, but the current war in Ukraine and the wars in the Middle East show you get guns anyway during war times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
"...the recent FBI data revealed five times as many deaths are caused by knives than guns according to a recent Breitbart News article."FBI UCR Data shows more people die every single year by "hands, fists and feet" than they do by "rifle" of ANY kind.
guns are harder to get access to than knives and fists. It's not about how many people die from guns in total, it's about how much more effective guns are at killing a person than knives. Sure, a knife can kill a person at close range, but a gun can kill a person from a hundred feet away, and then quickly aim at the next person, without having to chase them down.
Comparing a "bomb" to a "gun" is a false equivalency fallacy.
I'm not saying bombs and guns are the same thing. What I AM saying is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives. I'm providing an example - in this case bombs - in which a weapon isn't legal because it is more effective at killing people than knives. If we ban guns, people will find other ways to kill people, but not as effectively as they would with guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
AR 15s protect you from gangsGang violence would be less prominent if guns were banned.This struck me as funny and the first thing that popped into my head was...the fight scene in 'The Outsiders.' No guns. Still a gang. Chains. Knives. Pipes. Fists. Still all "weapons" used for violence.Guns are merely a tool, the same as any other "tool" that can be (and has been) used for violent intent against another person. So no, take away guns they will just find another usefully effective "tool" to enact their 'gang' violence.
My bad that was badly phrased. I specifically was referring to gun violence involving gangs, sorry.
Guns are merely a tool but guns can kill people far more effectively than things like knives. Unless someone is very proficient at knife throwing and has a large supply of knives, they aren't gonna be able to kill more than one person every ten seconds (unless they're just standing there and tightly packed together). On the other hand, assault rifles (and guns in general to a lesser extent) can kill one person every other second, more if the people are tightly packed together. Why do we ban bombs? They are "merely" tools, but they are far more effective at killing than a knife. The same goes for guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
IF there is a way for a government to enact a mandatory buyback of assault rifles and be confident they got most of the assault rifles of their country, I would support an assault rifles ban.
AR 15s protect you from gangs
Gang violence would be less prominent if guns were banned.
2) ICE being tyrannical to the undocumented (who aren't allowed to have guns)
Are you saying you believe undocumented immigrants should fight back against ICE tyranny with guns?
Gun rights benefit the oppressed.
Yes and no.
Gun rights benefit the oppressed in the instance of a revolution or if they need to fight back.
Gun rights also hurt the oppressed more than they do the privileged. For instance, it has been found that gun violence is more prominent in less economically privileged counties: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2786452. POCs are also twice as likely to die from gun violence, and 14 times more likely to be wounded: https://www.bradyunited.org/issue/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue
You sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg puts the ANNUAL mass shooting deaths at 60.
What is it defining as a "mass shooting death"?
Any government can become tyrannical at any time. Guns are needed to defend from a tyrannical government. That tyrannical government can be foreign or domestic. It can be an invading government (Russia).
The alternative that allows citizens to still bear arms in this instance, is to give weapons to those wanting to defend themselves in the event of a war.
Created: