^No. I would use ricin extracted from the seeds of the castor oil plant. A dose of purified ricin powder the size of a few grains of table salt can kill an adult human.

About the Vietnam war, I don't read american textbooks, you know I'm mostly anti-american when it comes to international interventions. But you can't deny that the US could have won the Vietnam war lol. It's just a matter of if the ends justify the means.

Quick tips on how to win the Vietnam war:

- Just start killing everyone on north vietnam in a genocide style thing until there's no more civilians there.
- Wait the army on the jungle to die because they have no more supplies while you just gaz hole portions of the forest to speed up the process.

Done, your war is won. Now the international community and western public opinion wouldn't accept that, thank god lol.


About stuff that kills people control, it's not that all of the other stuff should or shouldn't be legal. It's just that the ability to kill someone with a gun is 10x higher then doing the same with knives or markers lol... About drugs, it's not a point here, you can't mass kill people by forcing them to inject heroin. I can't even think of why some1 would do that.

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!

You voted for it, not me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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.

When the capital borough is being overun, when a country is critically losing a war, in real "national emergency", so to speak, there are no laws. The government will do whatever the hell it needs to stay in power. IRM is not going to discriminate, since Palestine is overrun.

America has put down military draft several times, although a critic war has never happened on the American side, not for 200 years. And what is military draft? It is sending innocent men, against their will in order to risk their life. It is forcing civilians to be killed. Now, if America will do that for invasions very much in their favour, along with illegal and mostly secret torture, gaols, and killings, what do you think the American government would do when the Washington fat cats are in hazard of being overrun?

And America is willing to do false flag attacks, there's even a declassified document detailing how America could start a war with Cuba, including false flag attacks against American civilians.

This is the most awful, disgusting thing of patriotism: thinking government as just volunteer angels, instead of cruel, selfish, vile swine in the case of America, anyway.

Yeap, I read the stuff about the attack on cuba, really dirty thing. But again, how would americans prevent this by having guns?

About the gun control thing, of course it wouldn't take away guns from american citizens, but it would be harder to have more of them. If you start to collect guns in exchange for money it could speed up the process in a democratic way. Again, you could just start taking away guns from all citizens, but I doubt those right wingy people would accept that, neither to I really think it's the best solution.

Cata, stop this retardation and actually argue. All you do is snarkiness about the glories of government when Europe can't take some refugees without throwing a fit and becoming more authoritarian. You guys reacted horribly, Hungary quite literally defied human rights by refusing refugees into their country because of their religion. What the hell is that? The core of the leftists' beliefs on this website revolve around giving the government more power while hoping they don't use it poorly. This has almost always backfired. In America, the federal government has become much more powerful over the 200 years and that's resulted in millions of deaths world-wide. In Germany Hitler neutered the Reichstag, uped Propaganda and increased militarism.

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.
lets try a mass killing with all of those things, which is more succesful?

Gun control helps to lower crime and avoidable deaths.

Not in a society that is this far in gun integration.
this is the first sensible argument against gun control ive ever heard good job

About the gun control thing, of course it wouldn't take away guns from american citizens, but it would be harder to have more of them. If you start to collect guns in exchange for money it could speed up the process in a democratic way. Again, you could just start taking away guns from all citizens, but I doubt those right wingy people would accept that, neither to I really think it's the best solution.

they did this in australia and it worked well
http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/561817dbbd86ef195c8b5a7f-1200-900/australia-gun-deaths-bi.png

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/88908/area14mp/image-20150719-21056-1yd4tex.png 1996 the government started buying guns off of people and regulating who can buy a gun after the sandy hook massacre and since then there has only been one mass shooting

Edited 3/26/2016 05:11:05

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!

An G18 machine pistol will shoot up to 20 bullets each second, and has an effective firing range up to 50m, but is easy to hide.

Most long-range sniper rifles will work up to 2,000m, making for undetectable killers easier than ever before.

Shoes have no effective range, and have maximum 2 shots, which are best said as independently semi-automatic.

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

The military forces are taught what is right. In civil wars, brothers will fight brothers. A lesser known war, it would be almost funny, but it ended sadly. The Coconut War. In 1980, Vanuatu gained independence from Britain and France. A bloke named Jimmy Stevens led an independence movement for the biggest island of Vanuatu, Espiritu Santo. He got the support of the local folk and eventually managed a bloodless overthrow of Vanutan authority on the island. Vanuatu invited Moresbian forces to put down the revolt, and so the soldiers came. Most on Espiritu Santo did not want to fight a professional army, and those that did had bows and slingshots as their most powerful weapons. Stevens wanted conditional peace and wanted to negotiate, but Moresbian forces refused and hunted the weak rebels down, killing folk. The rebels were gunned down pitilessly. The sad climax of the war was when J. Stevens's son tried to bypass a Moresbian roadblock and was denied. Soon after, J. Stevens surrendered, and the war was pretty much over. He said he never intended anyone to get hurt in the movement. He was put into prison until he was freed on medic grounds, and he died 3 years later of cancer.

The soldiers, they killed folk who peacefully got independence, and always wanted peace. And these folk were armed with slingshots and bows, and gunned down, and these were soldiers from a much less professional army than America, and they did this.

Civil wars will have brothers fight brother, since their government tells them to. Soldiers are brainwashed, they are broken. Their sense of individuality is 0, they act for the squad, even if it means they die. All they are taught to care about are their orders.

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.

There are silent (quiet) guns, too. Outside suppressors help quiet them, but there are also built-in suppressors sometimes, which can make guns really quiet. AS Val for example. Automatic rifle effective up to 300m. Less powerful, but the OT-38, I've shot this. 5 shot silent revolver with effective range up to 50m. Sounds weaker, but it's cheaper, fully flashless, concealable, and really quiet. Also, you could make a bad jab with a knife, and have that lose some critic time for you (saying this as a fencer - it's the worst thing to miss your target with a high energy jab - your momentum carries your arm, and in a real fight, they can just grab your arm and then you've lost all advantage you have. A small semi-automat at that range, if you miss, you just have to turn a few centimetres.

No. I would use ricin extracted from the seeds of the castor oil plant. A dose of purified ricin powder the size of a few grains of table salt can kill an adult human.

I mean, if you have the knowhow and stuffhow to do that (which is not common), then sure, but then sarin is far more effective.

About the Vietnam war, I don't read american textbooks, you know I'm mostly anti-american when it comes to international interventions. But you can't deny that the US could have won the Vietnam war lol. It's just a matter of if the ends justify the means.

Well, America could have won pretty much most of its modern wars by, y'know, sending over some extra-size atomic bombs. But conventionally, no. Your tips, they are not conventional, second one, though, I don't know enough about the Vietnam War, but jungles is where food can be grown, there is life in the jungles. And the jungles have foxholes, through foxholes are remote bases and mines, moats, and traps if the Americans try to get though.

Edited 3/26/2016 05:43:10

"United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations."

Stopping gun related violence doesn't do anything when it doesn't change the murder rate.

Edited 3/26/2016 06:20:32

When someone spells control like that I automatically think German.

The worst argument against gun control:

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.

Why is it the worst? It refuses to acknowledge the utility associated with any of the items.

The utility in a gun is to fire a projectile at a rapid velocity, sometimes, the projectile is designed to induce maximum carnage when impacting flesh.

Great, lets permit a person with a mental health problem access to an item whose sole utility is to inflict carnage.

What do you have to say about the tens of thousands of accidental deaths inflicted via a gun and a person without a mental health problem?

Aerosol cans help you paint things, you can prepare food with a knife, rocks are items of nature and are thus wholly out of place, rope can help you transport things, fists (again, who came up with this list), you can sleep on a bed, shoes protect your feet, you can write things with markers, drugs can cure diseases.

TLDR: Benjamin628 fails to make a point.

@Major General Smedley Butler

Homicide rates on these countries were very small before already, and today they are actually bit smaller today then before. Not by much, but their homicide rates were already small before anyway. This ban is really mostly needed in countried that have gun problems, and the US has a gun problem.

- It's easier to commit mass shootings with the current gun situation.
- It's easier to suicide yourself with a gun, try doing the same with a knife or a rock.
- Criminals have access to guns very easily.

"Don't ban or restrict drugs, people will just get them anyway."

"We should restrict or ban guns, that will stop people from getting them"

The logic paradox is real.

It's easier to produce drugs then to manufacture guns, and bullets. Both are hardly comparable. I can grow weed on my garden, good luck doing the same with bullets.

Ans yea, probably super trained assassins will be able to still buy guns from idk, mexico. But having the hole population with a gun don't make those murderers less likely to kill people, but now the hole population is able to become one.

- It's easier to commit mass shootings with the current gun situation.
Mass shootings are like terrorist attacks, very bad things but cutting freedoms for them is stupid.

- It's easier to suicide yourself with a gun, try doing the same with a knife or a rock.
You can slit your throat, pretty easy. And taking a lot of pills and drugs at the same time is also easy too.

- Criminals have access to guns very easily.
Yes and they will continue to have easy access to guns afterwards. There are millions of guns in America and many are on the black market, and it's quite easy to supplement the supply of favorable business made guns with homemade guns.

Mexico has quite strict gun laws and it does not help crime.

You don't become a drug dealer to shoot guns, you become a drug dealer to sell drugs, same with robbers and extortioners.

Mass shootings are like terrorist attacks, very bad things but cutting freedoms for them is stupid.

The thing is that both are avoidable, and that's the point. Mass shootings are harder to happen if every kid don't have a gun at home, and terrorism isn't as likely to happen if every muslim kid is given the same opportunities in the country.

You can slit your throat, pretty easy. And taking a lot of pills and drugs at the same time is also easy too.

Hardly. People who commit suicide are often affraid of doing so. Guns are the easier way to kill yourself while suffering the least.

Yes and they will continue to have easy access to guns afterwards. There are millions of guns in America and many are on the black market, and it's quite easy to supplement the supply of favorable business made guns with homemade guns.

Not really, if you reduce the supply, prices raise. Great economics law; only rich criminals would be able to afford guns then.

About Mexican gun laws, it's impossible for them to have the effect they wanted to, the US/Mex border isn't really controlled on the other side, you can find your guns in the US for a cheap price. Actually your guns are sold all over the world due to contraband. #ThxMurica

TeamGunscontrol