5) Believing government conspiracies to take out your guns because a multi millionnaire lobby or a News Channel told you

HISTORY has told us. Disarming the general population is always one of the top priorities of tyrants. I'll concede there are benevolent reasons for wanting disarmament, but how can you really know whether a government's endgame is benevolent or not?

+1 Anonym and i agree with General PE, i don't want this good goy anonym, bring me back the quran spammer jihadist!

Pfff another gun control debate. That's uterly useless, pro-gun ppl will claim that guns arent evil and show you graphs that proove their point ignoring a huge ammount of other factors, and anti-gun will do somewhat the same thing but reverse.

Sure, and then we have condescending anti-gun people who list out a bunch of their absurd opinions with the assumption that they are somehow true and nobody could possibly have anything to say about them (and even if they do, they're just "pro-gun people who ignore a whole bunch of facts").

I believe that no action should be taken out of hot blood, be it for guns or any other thing.

+5

HISTORY has told us. Disarming the general population is always one of the top priorities of tyrants. I'll concede there are benevolent reasons for wanting disarmament, but how can you really know whether a government's endgame is benevolent or not?

War and killings by governments kills roughly 50k folk each year. Murders kill 500k each year. If there's a way to lower common kill rates, at the cost of greatening government killrates, do it. Some governments known to be oppressive.

China (civilian gun ownership near-banned; heavily regulated): civilian kills (~12k) 6x higher than government kills (~2k at a high estimate)

Iran (civilian gun ownership regulated): civilian kills (~3000) 2x higher than govenrment kills (~1.5k at high estimate)

Arabia (civilian gun ownership regulated): civilian kills (~200) 2x higher than government kills (~100).

Meantime in Japan or Norway, government executions are fully ended. So even by the most free estimates, it's still worth it to curb civilian killings - that is, if possible (the main problem with gun regulation).

Sure, and then we have condescending anti-gun people who list out a bunch of their absurd opinions with the assumption that they are somehow true and nobody could possibly have anything to say about them (and even if they do, they're just "pro-gun people who ignore a whole bunch of facts").

Please don't be so hostile.

Please don't be so hostile.

I mean there's not really too much hostility here. The strongest words I used were "Condescending" and "absurd", which honestly are pretty weak terms to describe the content and tone of his post (I can think of a few dozen stronger words which would probably get me banned if I used them).

If there's a way to lower common kill rates, at the cost of greatening government killrates, do it.

I'm not sure if you're advocating for strict gun laws here or for capital punishment, but if it's the former I think it's worth mentioning that Saudi arabia actually has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, despite any sort of gun laws they may have.

http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/03/iib_death_wellcome_collection_fullsize.png

303M killed by government (it had genocide under murder, so I'm removing that and suicide)

58M killed by murder

Note: The estimates for losses to government are fairly conservative in this graphic.

Edited 7/29/2016 03:31:03

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seH3bsymNJ4

There isnt a way to keep guns away from bad people entirely but I think keeping them away from the bad as much as we can is worth doing.

People with certain mental issues : No Gun

Criminal History : No Gun

Edited 7/29/2016 03:51:48

The strongest words I used were "Condescending" and "absurd", which honestly are pretty weak terms

TeamGuns was saying that another gun controle debate is going to get nowhere, and even if not, there's no grounds for you to be rude, anyway.

Also, to that chart: this isn't 1914 nor 1937 (in which guns were less regulated) In the 2000s, it has roughly stayed at 50k to 100k killed by war each year, while 500k to 700k killed by murder each year (despite almost the whole world having gun regulation of some kind - including America).

You can't compare government killings vs murder in a time span as short as fifteen years. Government killings aren't like murders in that they vary wildly depending on the political situation. While the governments of the world might be at some peace right now, that does not mean they couldn't ratchet up conflict in the future to world war levels of killing.

It's like comparing the world between 1900 and 1911 and determining with only a decade of evidence that governments will be much more peaceful than they used to be.

We live now in the era of the War of Terror, polit doesn't apply the same it did even 20 years ago. 30 years ago, Germany was still divided but the Soviet Band was not. 60 years ago, racism was still cool in most countries.

If it was really right, then in Japan, Russia, Germany, Britain, and other firstworld countries where is the government killing more than the civilian killing (despite firearm controles)?

We live now in the era of the War of Terror, polit doesn't apply the same it did even 20 years ago. 30 years ago, Germany was still divided but the Soviet Band was not. 60 years ago, racism was still cool in most countries.

We now live in the world of vast colonial empires, politics aren't even similar to twenty years ago, when most of Africa wasn't even mostly colonized. 30 years ago Germany was still divided, but Italy was a country for ten years already. 40 years ago, slavery was legal in America and Russia.

You can talk a lot about how the world has changed, but that doesn't change the fact that states are capable of things far greater in scale than common murderers around the world.

If it was really right, then in Japan, Russia, Germany, Britain, and other firstworld countries where is the government killing more than the civilian killing (despite firearm controles)?[/i]

Governments do not mass kill all the time. They do it in fast clusters, like the Holodomor, or Holocaust, not in measly parts like common murderers.

But fine.
Invasion of Dagestan killings: 2275 deaths
Estimate I have gotten of killings in Dagestan from the Russian murder rate then: 437

Governments do not mass kill all the time. They do it in fast clusters, like the Holodomor, or Holocaust, not in measly parts like common murderers.

Holodmor 1930s, Holocaust 1940s...it's been 70 years...don't apply old polit to new polit.

But fine.
Invasion of Dagestan killings: 2275 deaths
Estimate I have gotten of killings in Dagestan from the Russian murder rate then: 437

Don't cherrypick. All killings ever done by the Russian Federation I guarantee is lower than the Russian murder rate. Furthermore, the Invasion of Dagestan was began when Chechen-backed strenghts invaded, not Russia.

Mmmmmm yyiiisss the drama pleases me.

+1

Don't cherrypick. All killings ever done by the Russian Federation I guarantee is lower than the Russian murder rate. Furthermore, the Invasion of Dagestan was began when Chechen-backed strenghts invaded, not Russia

Don't tell me to not cheerypick when you're cheerypicking decades.

Holodmor 1930s, Holocaust 1940s...it's been 70 years...don't apply old polit to new polit.

Fine let's do a more modern example, Rwanda's genocide and civil war:

Estimated with numbers from 2006 as I don't know where to get older ones from, the murders in Rwanda 1990-1994: 1,145
Deaths from the Rwandan Civil War: 10,000
Deaths from Rwandan Genocide: 1,000,000

The Rwanda genocide was commited by the general population with civilians killing the most; if one thing thank god that they werent all armed, casualties would've been even higher.

Don't tell me to not cheerypick when you're cheerypicking decades.

It's 16 years, and even with 50, would it do much better, and much of these gun regulations have been much longer than 16 years. You say Rwanda, but for every country that does do violence on that scale, there's 8 that don't. For the five biggest first-world countries like America, Japan, Russia, Germany, or Britain which have had gun regulations of some format for some time now, what has happened?

Now in non-first world countries, there's China (but again, nothing past 2000) - but there's also India, Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan.

Edit: ^

Edited 7/29/2016 07:59:03

The Rwanda genocide was commited by the general population with civilians killing the most; if one thing thank god that they werent all armed, casualties would've been even higher.

It was started by the government going around and killing folk.

It's 16 years, and even with 50, would it do much better, and much of these gun regulations have been much longer than 16 years

With fifty years? From 1950 to 2000, let's do this.

The chart shows 58 million dead, so I think it would fair (actually, it would give you a slight advantage) to chop it in half.

We don't even have to do more than one event.

Murders: 29M
Deaths from Great Leap Foward: 45M

5) Believing government conspiracies to take out your guns because a multi millionnaire lobby or a News Channel told you is not only stupid in regards of trusting people that obviously don't have your best interests in mind but also pathetic.
Is this "News" Channel that you mentioned also called Fox "News" Channel?
AR-15s and other such semi-automatic or automatic weapons (3 rounds a second is SO useful for mowing down that deer-mmmm! Good venison!) Civilians should not have weapons designed solely for military purposes. A rifle, a pistol, sure fine. Consider that when the 2nd Amendment was made all you could get was a musket, rifle, and jazz it up with a bayonet. Had they known people could get guns to kill 50+ people in just moments, they might've reconsidered.