https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLqZUJqUHo

Short Version: Gun control has been used for a long time to oppress African Americans (and other groups of course) and to disarm them. Currently in cities with lots of black inhabitants there are laws there targeting gun ownership , and it does little to nothing to either stop gun violence or to stop violence in general. But it does cut the freedoms of the inhabitants of those cities by a lot.

When we legally *limit/ban guns from a society that has been thriving with guns, guns will remain, as they have been completely integrated into society. The only ones who will be at the short end of the stick are the law abiding citizens who obey the *limitations/bans.

This can be seen in all communities, but it is more prevalent in the black community. Crime and poverty go hand-in-hand, so I guess the high poverty rate in those areas would be a reason why.

There are traces of going after guns here in Pennsylvania. Instead of going directly for the guns, they are trying to make it harder to obtain ammunition.


*"Ban" is hypothetical, as I know that guns have not been banned outright.

Gun control helps to lower crime and avoidable deaths. It's to easy for anyone to kill people with it. And please don't say you need to have guns to avoid gvt from becoming a dictatorship and take away your freedom. It's not like you're gonna be able to take down tanks and stealth tactical fighters with your handgun...

It's not like you're gonna be able to take down tanks and stealth tactical fighters with your handgun...

Obviously you haven't learned the lesson of the Vietnam War, Iraq War, and the Afghanistan War. Guerilla tactics and asymmetrical warfare put tremendous pressure on conventional forces and large armed groups. Guns are an absolute necessary against the tyranny of the central government overruling the constitution and their delegated powers. The government can't use tanks and stealth jets when any opposition group is concealed among ordinary civilians. Guns would be a powerful deterrent against any attempt to destroy the democratic government the US currently has.

Edited 3/26/2016 03:10:20

Nope it doesn't, and as technology advances, the common citizen's weapons become useless. In our modern world, the US could whipe out the hole population of a country in a matter of days.

The US could have won the Vietnam war if they really did what needed to be done. Public opinion stoped it, not the Vietnamise army. The US tactically won the war, after the Tet offensive, the vietnamise army hardly had any strike force left, the leaders admited it later that they thought the war was lost.

The US could have won the Vietnam war if they really did what needed to be done. Public opinion stoped it, not the Vietnamise army. The US tactically won the war, after the Tet offensive, the vietnamise army hardly had any strike force left, the leaders admited it later that they thought the war was lost.

You like reading American textbooks, don't you?

That said, common guns and ownership laws didn't win the wars - in North Vietnam, gun ownership was also pretty tight, same in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's just a decent military force, not gun ownership.

The government can't use tanks and stealth jets when any opposition group is concealed among ordinary civilians.

Oh, keep this idyllic America, it is wonderful.

Edited 3/26/2016 03:23:52

Yes, we do need to guns to defeat the US government in the event of the mass suspension of freedom. Personally, I believe that the government is already actively doing so, and should be stopped through non-violent action. Hundreds of humans are shot by belligerent police for their skin color, plants are illegal and millions have been jailed for having them, the government spies on you even.

On the subject of the American Army versus Guerillas: The US military was nearly overwhelmed several times in Afghanistan by a organization with a smaller population than the hypothetical Guerillas, a smaller amount of weapons than the hypothetical militias and the Taliban also had a much smaller population to draw off of to keep going. The Hypomilitias have the ability to actively attack facilities like dams , factories and nuclear plants and infrastructure like roads and bridges much easier than the Taliban had against the US.

Edited 3/26/2016 03:31:29

Guns are an absolute necessary against the tyranny of the central government overruling the constitution and their delegated powers. The government can't use tanks and stealth jets when any opposition group is concealed among ordinary civilians. Guns would be a powerful deterrent against any attempt to destroy the democratic government the US currently has.

You are definetely watching too many movies. Why would any democratic goverment want to overthrow the laws to create a dictatorship?
Not to mention that soldier are civilians with families and friends too.

Why would any democratic goverment want to overthrow the laws to create a dictatorship?

Idyllicism. Just think about it, which one, if only caring for yourself, would you rather be: a volatily picked president with limited powers, or a dictator who can legally do anything?

Oh, keep this idyllic America, it is wonderful.

????

Even Gaza's Hamas Fighters concealed themselves among Hospitals and Schools where they knew the Israeli IDF wouldn't attack. The chances of the US government attacking innocent civilians to eliminate guerilla forces would be pretty low.

In our modern world, the US could whipe out the hole population of a country in a matter of days.

Uh sure...but what's the point. Russia could wipe out the whole population of the whole world in a couple of hours too. There's no overall point to this line of argument. The sole purpose of a central government is to govern and exercise power. How would the central government do that if they destroy the entire population with conventional military weapons? The purpose a tyrannical government is subjugation and not destruction. This is the difference. Guns provide the most powerful tool against subjugation. Just try getting Congress to ban guns and get rid of the 2nd amendment...I'm sure a very very peaceful group of gun-carrying citizens will descend on DC to "protest" if you get my drift.

Most likely not make it non-democratic, just make some freedoms much weaker to allow the government more leg room. They did this by banning open carry in California which took the guns away from the Black Panthers who used open carry to defend Blacks against police oppression, have cut freedom of speech significantly too, want you to report sedetious friends, etc.

It is natural for government to try and curtail freedom in the name of progress, and when stress occurs to that government for the process to speed up. It is important for citizens of those countries controlled by those governments to be active against that freedom taking.

^
No offense, but you better move out of that country then, before it becomes a dictatorship, murders all it's disarmed citicen and bomb the rest of the world :)

Because thats exactly how you desribe the future of it.

Things that can kill people:

Aerosol cans
Spray Paint
A Knife
A Rock
Rope
Fists
A Bed
Shoes
Markers
Drugs
Guns - we need to control this one, it can kill people!

tl;dr it's a people and mental health problem and not a gun problem.

Edited 3/26/2016 03:47:36

Oh we will disregard each other's points and make jokes that avoid the point now?

The government is great, they drop crates of puppies and kittens on Afghan peoples yards, only spy on terrorists and criminals, there's no guns and no crime and everyone has everything they need ,globally, the elections aren't rigged, the drug war has been won, only at the price of giving up our rights, GO USA!

Gun control helps to lower crime and avoidable deaths.

Not in a society that is this far in gun integration.

It's to easy for anyone to kill people with it.

It will be even easier when we take guns away from the law abiding citizens.

And please don't say you need to have guns to avoid gvt from becoming a dictatorship and take away your freedom. It's not like you're gonna be able to take down tanks and stealth tactical fighters with your handgun...

If a worthwhile rebellion were to take place, the military would be split.

A Knife

Yeah, if I went for a killing spree (Because I am mentally insane US-American who is mad at the goverment, of course), I would rather take 15 knives with me than a pistol).

Yeah, if I went for a killing spree (Because I am mentally insane US-American who is mad at the goverment, of course), I would rather take 15 knives with me than a pistol).

Hey, it's silent, really hard to miss, much easier to acquire, and cheaper. If I wanted any chance of getting away with murder, I would use a knife.

Oh you're right Cata, the government is great, look at how they brought goodness to Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan from their moral rightousness packages dropped by their drones painted in peace signs. They haven't imprisoned and killed thousands over the selling of plants and you aren't being spied on, the government is great!

Hey, it's silent, really hard to miss, much easier to acquire, and cheaper. If I wanted any chance of getting away with murder, I would use a knife.

The trick is being a cop.