The only people supporting this proposition are being paid to come here to support this proposition.

Course we are. No-one could possibly have different opinions to you.

Edit: I kid, obviously I'm a shill.

I'm sorry you got downvoted for this. The prevailing "anyone who doesn't agree with me is a shill" mentality in this subreddit is a large reason why I don't visit here often. I have been accused multiple times here of being a shill, even though one quick scan of my comment and submission history should tell you that this possibility is very, very unlikely. How arrogant and full yourself do you have to be to believe that the only reason why someone would have a different opinion that you is because they're being paid? Get over yourselves.

[deleted]

So tell me, who am I shilling for?

Shit man, didn't you get your check yet? My Jewbucks came in the mail last week.

They've started paying me by the upvote, and as you can see things aren't going so well.

Man, this economy is tough on everyone!

The gun control lobby. duhhh

Usually it's Jews. Who exactly I am a shill for depends on which position I'm holding in any particular issue, apparently.

Well, now that you know,.... stop doing that.

You tell us, who signs your checks?

Mossad.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Lol. Just. Lol. I can't believe you exist.

You are a great advert for mental healthcare reform.

[deleted]

Nice one.

So I'm a shill if I want a mandatory mental check and a backround check to see if you have violent tendencies and are unstable? I'm not for taking all guns away.

There already is a mandatory criminal backround check.

Not mental checks

I would have to agree they are probably at least /r/politics subscribers.

That's just not true. There are all kinds of people on this subreddit: right-wingers, leftists, Ron Paul Indies.

I'm sure there are more than a few people here who don't think reasonable restrictions on guns are a bad thing.

I can get paid to do this shit?

Well fuck, dog, where do i sign up?

Once the American people are disarmed only the grossly corrupt government will be armed.

"I have two words for you, Predator Drones." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWKG6ZmgAX4#t=0m13s

because your piddly personal firearms could do shit to the US military.

The key is that many of our military members would have a problem with turning arms against their fellow citizens. Many would still follow orders, but we don't need to have nukes, predator drones, tanks, etc. People in the military may follow orders to a point, but they are first hand in touch with the failures of their government. This is partly why Ron Paul had such strong support from military. (I served 6 years myself)

Imagine how devastating it could be if the crew of one SSBN submarine, chose to stand against the tyranny. It's argued that the 6 of them the US has, are all tied for most powerful nuclear force on the planet. They can strike anywhere on the planet, then disappear in to the depths, nearly impossible to track without another sub. Submariners are a very tight knit community, good luck getting them to turn against each other.

I think this is in part how the minutemen managed to defeat the standing army of redcoats. The redcoats were only fighting to follow orders, the minutemen were fighting for their freedom.

It is time to break the grip the Jewish Zionist media has on their minds and that AIPAC has over the Dept of Defense.

... way to blow a joke way out of proportion.

Also there is zero evidence that there are armed UAVs going to be used in America.

I keep asking for such evidence on this subreddit and no one has come forth. I always point out that UAVs have a huge array of uses in civilian life and it gets ignored.

So I ask. Where is the evidence that there are weaponized UAVs being used on U.S. soil?

Step 1: Claim that the post is 'conjecture' or lacks any burden of proof.

Step 2: Demand evidence, documents or source material to back their claims.

Step 3: Never, ever, EVER accept any proof or evidences regardless of how legitimate.

Step 4: Constantly highlight minor logical flaws, spelling errors, inconsistencies and use petty semantics as ammunition to attack original posters arguments.

Step 5: Use all the above to redirect opinion and then control the conversation.

That is exactly every 9/11 discussion I've had.

All I was ever shown for proof was UAVs being used for surveillance by police, which is no different then them using choppers for surveillance.

They used that as their argument that the UAVs will be weaponized and used against American citizens.

So instead of personally attacking me, maybe you would like to actually show me where it's going on at?

I think the vast majority of all Americans do not want them to take our right to own guns away. They have no idea what they've unintentionally awakened in the consciousness of the American people. Those of us who did not question and had no reason to be suspicious are stirring in massive numbers. I do not own a gun but i will die for my right to own one.

As we rub the sleep out of our eyes and look around us can we truly be happy with the current order of things? We may not agree on the root causes of our problems but the symptoms are here and impossible to ignore. We can't diagnose the problem accurately (by design) because the decisions being made for us are not done transparently.

I think the vast majority of all Americans do not want them to take our right to own guns away.

Well, then, who DOES want to take our guns? Read this incomplete list of those pushing for gun control in the U.S. When you realize what they have in common, you'll know what the problem is.

Alan Lowenthal, U.S. representative from California.

Rep.-elect Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, also said he fully supports Feinstein’s proposal – and would be open to considering additional gun controls as well.

http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2012/12/17/gun-control-call-draws-partisan-reaction/89916/

http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Alan_Lowenthal_Gun_Control.htm

Jerrold Nadler, U.S. Representative from New York.

Mr. Nadler was asked whether the Newtown tragedy could be the turning point in many Democrats’ longstanding struggle to enact stronger gun laws.

“I think we will be there if the president exploits it, and otherwise we’ll go on to the next” incident, Mr. Nadler said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/dem-lawmaker-get-gun-control-obama-must-exploit-sh/

http://nadler.house.gov/press-release/nadler-now-time-discuss-gun-control-and-gun-violence-america

Jan Schakowsky, U.S.Representative from Illinois.

Rated F by the NRA.

http://www.ontheissues.org/il/Jan_Schakowsky_Gun_Control.htm

SCHAKOWSKY WARNS: TIME IS RUNNING OUT ON EXTENDING ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN -- JOINS 111 POLICE CHIEF/SHERIFFS FROM ILLINOIS IN CALLING ON SPEAKER HASTERT & PRESIDENT BUSH TO PROTECT FAMILIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT BY KEEPING LAW ON THE BOOKS

http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=827&Itemid=32

Brad Sherman, U.S. Representative from California.

Rated F by the NRA.

Rep. Sherman has a perfect anti-gun rights voting record.

http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/142/brad-sherman/37/gun-issues#.UNTmqqyFs0k

Adam Schiff, U.S. Representative from California.

"Reinstating and improving the Assault Weapons Ban should be one of the first issues Congress takes up next year"

http://schiff.house.gov/articles-opeds/los-angeles-daily-news-exclusive-survey-california-democrats-agree-to-ban-assault-weapons-republicans-mostly-silent1/

Allyson Schwartz, U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania.

Schwartz is one of the front-line cheerleaders pushing Obama to restrict "assault" weapons.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Schwartz-Brady-gun-laws.html

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, U.S. Representative from Florida.

Rep. Schultz was aiming for our gun rights at least since Rep. Giffords was shot.

Ironically, Giffords was a "Blue Dog" Democrat, and supported gun rights, openly opposing the D.C. gun ban leading to the Heller decision.

What say you, Debbie Schultz?

I commend President Obama for recognizing following the Tuscon shooting that there are gaping holes in the current law that allowed people who would do others harm that shouldn’t have had guns or ammunition to be able to get it. Focusing on closing those loopholes…that’s what’s important.”

I've never been so touched by words of a political vulture. I'm sure if Giffords had died, she would be spinning in her grave.

http://shark-tank.net/2012/07/30/wasserman-schultz-waiting-for-more-favorable-political-environment-to-roll-back-gun-rights/

John Yarmuth, U.S. Representative from Kentucky.

I share the president’s commitment to strengthening our nation’s gun laws, and I thank him for approaching the complex problem of gun violence in a comprehensive way.

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/politics/2012/12/19/rep-john-yarmuth-praises-president-barack-obamas-task-force-on-gun-control/

Ted Deutch, U.S. Representative from Florida.

Rep, Deutch is interested in renewing the assault weapons ban, as well joining in with the crowd of people trying to politicize the Connecticut shooting.

http://www.ontheissues.org/FL/Ted_Deutch.htm#Gun_Control

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/14/bloomberg-house-dems-call-for-stricter-gun-control/

David Cicilline, U.S. Representative from Rhode Island.

Another vulture exploiting the Arizona shooting.

Congressman David Cicilline yesterday became one of the original co-sponsors for a bill that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, like what was used in the Arizona shooting incident.

http://www.golocalprov.com/news/cicilline-co-sponsors-gun-control-bill/

Brad Schneider, U.S. Representative from Illinois.

When he was running for election, he stated his position.

“Since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire, we have seen a tragic increase in the number of crimes involving these automatic weapons. I believe that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have no business on our streets or near our children.”

http://vernonhills.suntimes.com/news/14157350-418/proposal-to-ban-assault-weapons-draws-differing-local-reactions.html

CARL LEVIN, U.S. Senator from Michigan.

He is pressuring the governor to veto a bill that would expand carry rights.

He is also co-sponsoring the “Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act”

http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=838648

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=338142&

BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. Senator from Maryland.

Rated "F" by the NRA.

Consistently votes against gun ownership rights.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Benjamin_Cardin_Gun_Control.htm

BARBARA BOXER, U.S. Senator from California.

Both Boxer and Feinstein were quick to propose an assault weapons ban following the Colorado movie shooting.

Boxer is currently rallying the troops.

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/07/24/barbara-boxer-dianne-feinstein-push-for-assault-weapons-ban/

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2012/12/19/11637/senator-boxer-says-gun-control-could-pass-senate-d/

RON WYDEN, U.S. Senator from Oregon.

From his official senate page:

Third, policies must be enacted that get military-style assault rifles out of the hands of individuals who would commit these heinous crimes. In addition, Congress should decide whether the most dangerous types of weapons and ammunition should be held to higher ownership, licensing and security standards than other firearms.

Also:

The federal background check database must be made substantially more accurate and comprehensive.

http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-ending-gun-violence_

BERNIE SANDERS, U.S. Senator from Vermont. (Independent)

Voted for the 1994 assault weapons ban.

http://votesmart.org/bill/2674/8220/27110/regulation-of-semi-automatic-assault-weapons

BARNEY FRANK, U.S. Representative from Massachusetts.

Frank advocated a handful a reforms, including reinstating the assault weapons ban, and banning large ammunition clips.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/19/leaving-congress-barney-frank-is-hopeful-about-his-colleagues-courage/

GARY ACKERMAN, U.S. Representative from New York.

Co-sponsored H.R.308 - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act

Rated F by the NRA.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h308/show

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Gary_Ackerman_Gun_Control.htm

ELIOT ENGEL, U.S. Representative from New York.

"The alarming prevalence of imported assault weapons in the US has put our nation’s police officers at risk. Returning to the Bush 41/Clinton enforcement of the ban on imported assault weapons will protect our brave police forces and all people throughout New York and the United States,” said Rep. Engel.

http://engel.house.gov/latest-news/rep-engel-urges-obama-to-enforce-bush-41clinton-restrictions-on-imported-assault-weapons/

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Eliot_Engel_Gun_Control.htm

NITA LOWEY, U.S. Representative from New York

Her great idea from August...

“Those purchasing ammunition must do so in person and present photo identification which in effect prohibits the mass sale of ammunition online and through the mail.”

http://newcity.patch.com/articles/lowey-calls-for-online-restrictions-for-ammo-and-assault-weapons

STEVE ISRAEL, U.S. Representative from New York, and the chairman of the Democratic National Campaign Committee.

He wants to ban "plastic guns" and supported the "undetectable firearms act." You can read about him complaining here about 3-d printing and the evils it will bring to the world.

http://israel.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1121:rep-israel-announces-legislation-to-renew-ban-on-plastic-guns&catid=53:2012-press-releases

[deleted]

They're all being compilated into lists by morons!

[deleted]

Sure I have!

1. http://www.reddit.com/user/21022012

2. http://www.reddit.com/user/john_madden_advice

That's the list I'm sending off to my CIA contacts. Drones are as good as on their way!

[deleted]

No, I haven't included any of the people mentioned in madden's list. Only a moron would do that.

They're shills.

I'm no shill. I think camera phones, internet access, and massive peaceful civil disobedience is a better protection than a bunch of potbellied rednecks.

People demand to have all sorts of weapons to fight the government, but I never see them out in the streets actually protesting.

Guns are just another american cock fetish.

See, there is where your logic is flawed. You associate/stereotype all gun owners as "a bunch of potbellied rednecks".... camera phones, internet access, and massive peaceful civil disobedience currently have government assaults on them also. Please don't help them make us helpless. Fear is their tool.

i'm not afraid at all. if i was afraid i would hole up in my house with a bunch of guns and some ramen noodles.

i associate gun owners with people who by definition are willing to use skull-exploding violence to solve their problems. they are by definition my enemies. police, the bloods, the michigan militia, the taliban, they're all the same to me- people willing to take human life.

just because the rednecks fight the bilderbergs doesn't mean that either of them is right.

So what happens when camera phones, Internet access and massive peaceful civil disobedience fail? Which will inevitably fail... What then will you say when we allow the country to disregard its people and do exactly what they want. This will inevitably happen and us "potbellied rednecks" will be the freedom fighters while your ignorance will have you ass up willing to be fucked by the ever powerful "bubba" that is the government.

what happens when guns fail?

i demand the right to bear nukes and smallpox!

when your puny small arms fail you'll be crawling back to me, mark my words.

see how anyone can take an argument to its absurd extreme?

if massive peaceful disobedience fails then WWIII has already started and humanity is doomed. i'm not gonna let the rednecks make us all live in a waking nightmare under the threat of an even worse disaster than the status quo they support.

i'm just not a scared person in general i guess. the fear mongering doesn't do much for me.

Civil disobedience gets trampled by riot police with shotguns. Camera phones are soon to be illegal to use against government officials, through legislation. I can't even count on my hands anymore how many times governments all over the world have tried to censor the internet.

take a deep breath, it will be okay. did you hear tyler went online yesterday? it's the newest encrypted p2p distribution network.

if you bring guns to the protest, they'll bring drones. you'll never get enough money to compete militarily without becoming as oppressive as the people you fight.

potbellied rednecks

Because all gun owners are potbellied rednecks? Fuck you

RES tagged as Pot-Bellied Redneck.

Probably not the worst RES tag I have...

sorry, impotent potbellied rednecks.

...fantasizing about shooting the big black cock right out of their ugly wife, just in time to suck out the creampie.

impotent, sexually inferior, cuckolded, fat, under-educated protofascists.

you're an idiot.

that's exactly what an undereducated cuckold would say...

Please, enlighten us all with the last "peaceful" protest that actually accomplished anything.

They got a recall election in Wisconsin.

....and lost. (And I'm glad they did, frankly)

Immaterial. The question was when has peaceful protest achieved its goals. I gave an example.

well, in oaxaca mexico the native people there have expelled the federal government and taken control of their villages for years now.

in canada this week native people are halting progress on the keystone XL pipeline by blocking trains.

union strikes are why you have an 8-hour work day, weekends, etc.

now that i've enlightened you, please return the favor and tell us when the last 2nd amendment-based armed american insurrection was that accomplished anything?

In 2006, police shot about 30 unarmed "protesters" (which were actually some for-profit special interest group) in Oaxaca Mexico, including medics tending to the wounded...The "native people" have in no way taken over the area, Ruiz remains in power. No idea where you are getting your false info.

in canada this week native people are halting progress on the keystone XL pipeline by blocking trains.

Yeah, let me know how that works out...ಠ_ಠ

union strikes are why you have an 8-hour work day, weekends, etc.

Oh, really? Why, because that's what you heard once? Ok, whatever. If that's as accurate as the rest of your comment, it's obviously bullshit.

http://roarmag.org/2012/12/zapatistas-march-chiapas-mayas/

did we just magically get a 40 hour work week? where did weekends come from?

Must have been the unions. Or could have been the Jews. Who knows?

certainly not you.

[deleted]

cool story bro

I never see them out in the streets actually protesting.

Because

• they do not want to be Arrested and charged with a Crime, that will likly cost them their employment even if they are never convicted. and could in pact their ability to get employment in the furture
• they do not want to be Pepper Sprayed and possibly perminatly harmed by the Jack boots you want to give more guns too
• They understand that protesting on the street is beyond pointless

ah, so they're hiding. got it.

can you quote me saying i want the pigs to have more weapons?

if i cited an example of peaceful protest being effective, that would refute your argument that protesting is pointless right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

[deleted]

your armed rebellion didn't stop the war either, because you were too chickenshit to walk the walk.

so what are you waiting for big talker? let's see you light this place up. what, things aren't shitty and oppressive enough yet?

Personally, I'd rather be a potbellied redneck than a scarf and skinny jeans wearing hipster any day.

coming out against hipsters eh? that's quite a bold stance. have you come out to your family yet as someone who's not a big fan of hipsters? i hope they don't ostracize you. i know how society at large really disagrees with your novel and witty opinion that hipsters suck.

good one. that was a funny joke you did there.

I don't have a problem with hipsters, I hate scarves and skinny jeans.

what does that have to do with rampant gun violence in the US?

What does potbellied redneck have to do with it? I mention the scarf and skinny jean hipster to contrast your stereotype. You don't seem to realize that your stereotype is just as ridiculous as mine.

it's relevant because these armchair commandos are claiming to need weapons to defend against tyrannical government (essentially to fight and win in an armed rebellion). however their lack of physical fitness is only one of the many reasons such a claim is laughable in a modern context.

if you claim to need weapons to fight a war, you better be doing cardio and lifting too, otherwise your claim isn't believable. the vast majority of gun owners are not fit on par with even a regular infantry soldier.

Your argument is based on ignorant assumptions. Just as it is ridiculous to assume because I once saw an OWS person wearing skinny jeans and a scarf, that they are all skinny jeans scarf wearing hipsters, you are claiming all gun owners are potbellied rednecks. This ignorant prejudice is not helping you, it's making you look bigoted.

there is no requirement that people who own guns are in any way physically fit, competent in their use, or associated with any group who can credibly claim to resist government tyranny.

so basically what it comes down to is that we have tens of thousands of gun deaths every year to protect what amounts to dangerous toys.

if you'd like to claim that gun owners as a group are more fit than the general population (who are indeed potbellied), i'm happy to look at your sources.

I didn't make the claim of fitness, you did. You cite sources, you're the one making claims like a bigot. When a 100lb women is unable to stop a 250lb man from raping her, because she is prohibited from having a gun, do you tell her she should've been in better shape?

i never made any claim. what i pointed out is that there isn't any evidence to suggest that gun owners as a group are significantly more fit than the general US population (which is already known to be on the whole overweight). therefore the null hypothesis is that gun owners are similarly overweight. i'm not saying they're more potbellied than other americans, just that we don't have evidence to suggest that they as a group take their physical fitness as seriously as they claim to take the role of firearms in the success of a violent uprising. hence my argument that we suffer constant gun violence to accommodate what amounts to a hobby.

you know, you're just proving my belief that gun owners are motivated by cuckold fantasies when you talk like that.

How does camera phones, internet access, and massive peaceful civil disobedience protect you and your family from someone who is trying to shoot you?

how would they shoot me if they didn't have guns?

how do you protect your family from people engineering doomsday viruses? asteroids?

should nuclear weapons be legal to own for asteroid defense? serious question.

I live in a city where guns are banned, yet shootings somehow happen (miraculously) all the time. Criminals will get guns regardless of what the laws are.

Don't derail the conversation with absurdities if you want to be taken seriously. I have the skill set to defend myself and my family from a shooter. How many doomsday viruses and asteroid collisions do we have on a daily basis, because we have about 10 shootings a weekend here.

just like criminals have nukes even though they're illegal?

what do you think would happen to the prevalence of atomic blast deaths if nuclear weapons were legal to own for asteroid defense?

we have factories pumping out guns and ammunition as fast as they can, then people turn around and demand guns to protect themselves from all the guns!

maybe if we stopped manufacturing them, it would be harder for teenagers to shoot up a kindergarten with them.

...or are you still planning the revolution against the tyrannical government? i'm ready whenever you are.

I'm not commenting on your idiotic absurdities. Whether you like it or not, criminals having guns is a fact of life. You can defend yourself or you can wait for the police to arrive to maybe be in time to save you. I prefer being able to take care of myself.

no one is forcing you to engage in a debate. if you'd like to quit, be my guest. just don't expect to have also won it.

There is no debate to win. I am trying to debate. You are only derailing.

lol k.

how's that OWS shit working out for you, I am gonna wait till the shit goes to hell in a handbasket and come out ok, I don't think you will make it with your peace sign

how is that armed rebellion working for you? i haven't seen any bankers strung up in the streets lately.

are you sure you're not just an impotent cuckold fantasizing about an apocalypse to offer the escape from mediocrity you'll never manifest through your own will?

this is simple, ows is played out , no one has started an armed rebellion

i see, you didn't fail because you never tried. i feel much better about all the needless gun deaths now.

ya ,sure you do

so... no rebuttal then?

give it a rest, its Christmas, Have a great day with your family :)

i accept your forfeit.

(y) :)

shh shh you gave up.

? yes I did !!

K

Or they're just fun, silly.

First of all not all users on this sub are of the same awareness level. Secondly, opinions differ greatly from individual to individual. Some may have reasons for supporting gun control even if the majority opinion is that gun control is wrong.

This sub is not about having one consensus voice. It's about having real and legitimate discussion.

Crazies will always find a way to fulfill their crazy urges. Whether it's killing themselves or others or being anorexic or running cults. The same easy if you want some pizza you drive your happy ass down to pizza hut. but weapons are a legitimate need for humans to be able to protect themselves, and in the 21st century firearms are the weapons of the age. Ultimately an individual's survival is his own responsibility. And taking sweaty a persons means to ensure his survival is never the right move.

Plenty of people all around the first world protect themselves without guns.

Really? How? Lets say....home invasion. Standard police reaction time in a metro area is roughly 13 minutes, last time I checked. I'm not saying that you should fill the air with bullets, but exactly how are you going to stop 2 or 3 criminals (probably armed), and you are armed with what, a baseball bat?

They aren't as common in Europe and they normally don't have guns, even the British police officer said that in his AMA and aswell as the Irish Garda Síochána

By not needing them in the first place. Look at other countries with strong gun laws. How many of those intruders are armed with guns? They aren't because they don't need to be.

What do you do if someone breaks into your house? Call the police and lock yourself in a room. The odds are so stupidly low that someone invading your home wants to attack you vs take your stuff that there is no point to that argument.

Lets say someone with a gun breaks into your house and you plan to shoot them. Look at your hands, they are shaking like crazy from your adrenaline now, you have to fill the air cause you ain't hitting anything like that. And do you think that person isn't going to suddenly start shooting at you now that they are being shot at? How likely are you to be able to drop 2 or 3 people with guns before they drop you?

[deleted]

I've been involved in a home invasion situation and I just hopped out of the shower and grabbed a box cutter, didn't want my dog to die from a broken neck / get hurt since I couldn't see the intruder, and slashed forward down some stairs stark naked... Was a bit cold out that day too, had to get dressed before police showed up, with a broken door...

Mindset in a home invasion for me is weapon / get person out / grab phone, police are good but they are usually the last to arrive after the intruders left...

Didn't get a plate number, wasn't thinking of it.

Time at the range does nothing to help you when you're in a combat situation.

If your gun is so easily reachable that you can get it and use it faster than you can lock your kids and wife in a room then it's not very safely stored is it?

[deleted]

If you believe that you can successfully hit a target trying to kill you in a small enclosed space while worried about your family and your own life with a sidearm than more glory to you. I wouldn't put money on you though no matter how much time you spend at the range.

Well, practice makes perfect, as the saying goes. I'm genuinely curious, though, have you ever been involved in a "combat" or "home invasion" scenario?

No, but I've spent a lot of time at the range and been in a few violent situations not involving guns so I'm familiar with the effects of adrenaline on the system.

If 4 out of 5 people owned a gun, do you think an intruder would really want to take those odds?

That's always my stance on guns. If literally everyone had a gun, then there would be almost no violence. No one would want to try and rob a house if they knew for sure that they have a gun. Same thing someone going on a shooting rampage. You think they would do that if they knew they would be stopped immediately? The answer is no.

Is everyone going to carry their gun with them all the time or know how to use it safely? This is really the world you want to live in? To avoid losing certain types of guns you would have every citizen living in fear and always carrying a weapon on them? Sounds like a scary country I don't think I'd want to visit it.

A majority of people who carry handguns legally feel much safer and at ease because of it.

You are inaccurately linking CCP with fear.

You missed my point. If you need to carry a gun to feel safe you aren't living in a safe country. You're living in a hell hole.

You sound like a retard who has never fired any weapon... "Fill the air" sounds like you are trying to sloppily spray your entire magazine into nothing, which would be a complete waste of ammo.

I've fired plenty of weapons.

If your adrenaline is going as it would be(someones invaded your house, and now you're going to kill your first person) your hands are going to be shaky. Your odds of one shot one hit are going to be stupidly low. So you will need to take multiple shots to make up for that. You're not going to be thinking straight in a home invasion situation.

By not needing them in the first place. Look at other countries with strong gun laws. How many of those intruders are armed with guns? They aren't because they don't need to be.

Might want to watch this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRjxEAWwagc&feature=youtu.be

What do you do if someone breaks into your house? Call the police and lock yourself in a room. The odds are so stupidly low that someone invading your home wants to attack you vs take your stuff that there is no point to that argument.

Taking my stuff is attacking me, and I would never call the Jack Boots, they just makes matters worse

Lets say someone with a gun breaks into your house and you plan to shoot them. Look at your hands, they are shaking like crazy from your adrenaline now, you have to fill the air cause you ain't hitting anything like that. And do you think that person isn't going to suddenly start shooting at you now that they are being shot at? How likely are you to be able to drop 2 or 3 people with guns before they drop you?

Some one would have to be crazy to even find my home, let alone break into it.

Taking my stuff is attacking me, and I would never call the Jack Boots, they just makes matters worse

Really? You're fucking stupid. Shit can be replaced your life can't risking your life over some cheap ass electronics is beyond retarded.

Some one would have to be crazy to even find my home, let alone break into it.

Way to avoid the question.

Some things cant be replaced, if I choose to risk my life over them what business is it of yours? You do not own my life, thinking you do it biggest disconnect we have.

See I value Freedom, you value Authoritarian Rule,

I say people have the right to live their lives as they see fit, you feel you should choose for them because you know best.

It's no business of mine, but I will still think you're a fucking moron for doing so.

I feel if they choose to live in a society than they give society the right to dictate the rules for inclusion.

You don't like those rules then leave that society.

At least you admit you hate liberty and favor government control....

I think your a fucking moron for giving up your freedom in favor of Statism, and "society" does not have any claim on anyone. This idea of a "Social Contract" is the largest logical fallacy there is.

Then give up the social support structure. Move off the grid and give up all the benefits of the society you oppose.

Stop stealing my money and prohibiting me from Trading freely with out confiscating my wealth in the form of taxes and I will

What money? Money is part of that society you are rejecting.

Money comes in all forms, not just US Currency.

US Laws require I pay taxes on any transaction, the value of which is calculated in US Currency so even if I buy something from a local farmer in gold, I have to pay the IRS an inventive amount in US Dollars for taxation or they will send men with Guns to lock me in a Cage.

If you think it is possible to remove yourself form Statism, your a complete in utter moron of epic proportions.

You support sending men with guns around to force peaceful people into bending to your worldview, you support violence, your a despicable individual.

You don't have to pay the government anything if you buy something from a farmer where did you get that stupid idea from? Do you keep records of everything you buy and send the government a cheque for their values?

Where did I say I support violence or men with guns? In case you haven't noticed I'm opposed to guns.

Gun Control is Gun Violence,

Advocating for Statism, for Government is advocating for violence, and men with Guns

Government is Force, government is Violence, Government is a parasitical violent gang of thugs

I already responded to that video.

Here is another Video For you...

Learn how to be a Good Citizen

My cousin was murdered this last year by a deranged doctor who was stalking her, he went to her new boyfriends house and shot her then killed himself. I still think guns should be legal. If her new boyfriend would have been packing a Bushmaster, chances are the doctor would have had a hard time doing much shooting.

[deleted]

From the book Freakonomics:

The likelihood of death by swimming pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.

"One person had access to a gun and went crazy and killed someone. Clearly the better option is to add more guns to the equation than the remove the first one"

Banning Guns will work as well as every other ban attempted, From Drugs to Alcohol...

Bans do not work

It works in other countries, why is that?

Actually it does not, but keep believing it does...

you might get a unicorn one day or win the lottery as well

Really? So gun crime or violent crime is just as bad in the UK, Canada, Australia, German, Japan, etc?

(And before you drop the link showing violent crime is higher in the UK look at what is categorized as violent crime in the US vs UK).

"Gun Crime" is an irreverent stat, so is "Violent Crime" since the numbers are skewed by our Massive war on drugs.

If you remove crimes related to the pointless war on drugs then yes the UK is a far more Dangerous place than the US

Further

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRjxEAWwagc&feature=youtu.be

Where are these stats you claim show that?

Show what the Drug Crime Connection or that the US is safer than many nations with Stricter gun laws including the UK...

The latter is in the Video

Show that the US is safer than many nations with stricter gun laws including the UK. Where in the video is that?

Starting at the 8min mark

That says nothing about the seriousness of those offenses except for rape. Robbery in Belgium would include pick pockets for example. There is nothing in what he shows in the burglary stats that talk about people being home yet he talks about that. There is also nothing about the violence involved in those burglaries.

Wow you are dense.....

So sad, I hope the government always does the things you want and never turns on you.... History however shows it is likely that one day you will wake up and realize that your support of Statism was very misguided, but by that point you will probably be in a Cage or near death because you seem to have a very Sheepish mentality, you believe the government is good and wonderful and only has the best interest of society in mind.

Yes, because everyone in history has ended up in a cage or near death because of their government. Oh wait no that happens to almost no one in the western world over the past few hundred years.

How many people are currently in prison in the US for non-violent offenses? How many innocent lives have been taken in the name of failed political polices? But no those things never happen in the western world,.... no no.

Keep putting your head in the sand.....

So are you saying that no one should be in prison for non-violent offenses? What about bankers?

So are you saying that no one should be in prison for non-violent offenses?

No they should not be, even if you want to make the case that Fraud and non-violent theft be punished by imprisonment (which I feel there are much more productive ways to handle those situations) I was more thinking about Drug Use, polical Speech (like the now 3 anarchists that are being held with out trial or charge for refusing the answer questions from a Grand Jury) and the 10000's of other offenses out there that have no victims even but that Statists like you support

What about bankers?

The current banking system is a direct descendant and creation of your beloved Government. and would not exsist in a free market.

Well we can agree about that. I'm pro-rehabilitation over retribution.

To say all drug use has no victims is wrong though. Plenty of drug use has victims besides the people doing the drugs. Though even with that in mind I'd rather them be rehabilitated than detained.

Drug use has not direct victims than the people doing the drugs,

the Family of the Addict is not a "victim", if the addict commits other crimes like theft, those people are victims of those crimes not the drug use.

Many people use a variety of drugs some even more powerful than the illegal ones, every day and are able to do so with out becoming your stereotypical addict living on the street doing anything for the next fix.

That is actually a small minority of all drug users.

The children of a drug addict are not victims?

no....

Well we can agree about that.

Ohh I am sure we agree about the problems, you however see government as the solution to those problems, and I see government as the source of the problems.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2569/have-great-britains-restrictive-gun-laws-contributed-to-the-rise-in-violent-crime

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

http://newsbusters.org/node/12267

They include different things in their violent crime figures.

Actual gun crime has gone up, along with violent crimes that are not gun related.

These figures are all broken down and categorized in a few of the articles I linked to.

Gun Control is GUN VIOLENCE

That is a stupid argument. Show me one study that shows higher levels of gun control lead to higher levels of gun violence in a politically stable country.

Also go look at the ways other countries have moved towards these types of laws. They don't involve armed men coming to your house and taking your guns. Thats FUD.

Just because most people sheepishly surrendered their weapons in other nations does not mean they did so "peacefully"

Every singe one of them new that first would come a fine, if they did not pay the fine or continued to refuse to hand over the gun next would be imprisonment, if the resisted the men that came to take them to thier cage they would face violent force to get them to that cage, upto and including lethal force.

If you think the situation was anything less than that your in denial and refuse to admit what a Government is.

Thats not true at all. You clearly haven't looked. Look next door in Canada. Grandfather laws exist in all these rules.

I used to feel the same way when I was younger but as I have gotten older and experienced a little more of life I now have a better understanding of evil. It is a force that lives all around us and is in people that you would never suspect. It takes the form of madness, greed or negligence. No authority is immune to it so you should never expect anyone to protect you from it. It strikes randomly and at times when authority figures are not present to protect innocents. So how should we deal with evil then? You must allow citizens to have the unalienable right to protect themselves in whatever way they deem necessary. (i.e.. if they require an assault rifle to scare a rioting crowd away from their shop, or a teacher with a pistol used to kill a murdering madman.)

Party line Liberals and Conservatives wander in here all the time.

As with all groups there are many diverse opinions all up in the bitch.

Jews.

The second amendment is not abut hunting. It's about being able to protect yourself in case of a rabid government.

Banning Guns is insensible and even ludicrous, but requiring all states (federal law) to enact laws requiring gun bearers to pass through both gun proficiency tests and most important psychiatric screening would be welcome changes.

I agree that it's impossible to compare the US with any other "idyllic small European nation".

But as for illegal gun trade, unfortunatelly most of these "massacre" are conducted with lefally obtained firearms.

edit: Just finished reading the "official" statement from NRA's president, where one of his "recommendations" would be to create national registry of "psychiatrically disabled people", not jsut a screening when necessary but a nation-wide registry.

I think we Americans are just as paranoid as our government, which is unfortunate.

In a perfect world, guns would not be needed for protection. But this isn't a perfect world. You can't go around disarming people (and nations) while stockpiling weapons and nukes for yourself. I'm talking to YOU, U.S. gov't.

if you had a "government" you would not be afraid of it....we do not have a government, we have a division of a cental bank....proof would be that the currency is not created by government....currency, the stuff that all people use, the stuff that is the benchmark of value....."chevron made 7bagillion, jp morgan is worth 41094850 katrillion, apple stock s selling at 567....notice something? regardless of who or what you are....the prize that all are playing for is money....money that is not created by your government....he who has the gold rules...yor government is niot the source of the gold....it is the one that borrows the gold, as it is supposed to be, that way you are on the hook for the debt....if you live in europe, you are owned by the same company

Truth. Maybe "powers that be" would've been a better way to word it.

Those who command the military and draft laws like the NDAA and Patriot Act, setting a paranoid, hyper-aggressive mindstate in our people. The "men who stare at goats" types with their finger on the trigger during the Cold War, threatening atomic/nuclear warfare and using anti-communist propaganda to justify unethical human testing a la MKULTRA.

They may not be a government in the strictest sense, but they sure as hell have more power than you or I. And yes they're all in it for the $$$.

Go ahead, just try and tell these people they didnt need their guns.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/24/man-found-slain-in-front-yard/

http://www.kcra.com/news/3-wounded-one-intruder-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion/-/11797728/17875642/-/2o7y1hz/-/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pkWgp2abM2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4g1n8cmwhIY

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-woman-shot-intruder-9-times-in-self-defense/nFB7g/

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/Girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars

http://www.webcitation.org/64J0sqd4C

Probs just some CIA misinformation effort

Yes, I know if the government wanted us dead we would have our work cut out for us against all the tanks, UAVs etc.

You think the military wouldn't stand down to those orders?

that would be because in this horrible central banker nightmare, and our new world order economy, the fastest growing job sector is shillery....get paid to say stuff that counters anything our masters don't want you to talk about

If the US government goes evil, an assault rifle isn't going to protect you in any way shape or form.

if you stand alone, however, WE the people do not stand alone, nice try

'WE' the people will quickly find that 'THEY' the 'extreme measures' are easily enough to shut the people down. You answer a crowd with pitchforks with tear gas - you answer gun touting militia with daisy-cutters.

20 thousand assault rifles won't protect you. The US army is the most advanced military force in the world. If they want you dead, you are going to die.

If they want you dead, you are going to die.

We shall lay on our backs, yellow bellies exposed, lest we inconvenience our killers.

I don't care what you do. But I'm not a fan of assault rifles floating around.

I don't care what you do. But I'm not a fan of assault rifles floating around.

I'm not a fan of placing keyboards into the hands of woefully misinformed people, but you don't see me rushing out to ban everyone else's keyboards. After all, that would infringe on their First Amendment rights.

The fact of the matter is that assault rifles aren't "floating around". They're extremely heavily regulated, requiring about 6 months of paperwork with the ATF and at least $10,000 to make the purchase. You should also be aware that when the AWB expired in 2004, there was no increase in crime. So if you really want to revoke the rights of your fellow Americans, you're going to have to try and repeal the Second Amendment. This would be a highly unfortunate course of action which would likely be interpreted as an assault on the freedom of the American people.

I would point out the massacres, but this is /r/conspiracy, so massacres don't count since it was the Mossad or some other bullshit.

European mentality?

JDIF:

Take the Goyim guns and we will finally have control

Shills, son.

Shills.

I used to visit /r/conspiracy quite frequently.

Then I learned that the mods edit and delete posts. I've seen it first hand. Truly wish I had taken screen shots.

To anyone reading this, I suggest you get off of reddit.

Check out the following.

Drudgereport.com freerepublic.com wnd.com godlikeproductions.com

You have to wade through the rediculousness, but there is good information out there.

God help us all.

say hi to the tranny midget....shillskin

shillskin?

Really?

Trying to inform people and all you can do is throw insults...

Leave the internet, for the sake of everyone.

because this isn't /r/peopelwhoagreewithmyviewsonguncontrol

that you read /r/conspiracy and think your guns would do anything to stop the government that wanted to take them is even more naive and stupid.

Don't any of you wonder why gun rights are the only thing the government has touched in the past 11 years?

Freedom of speech, demolished

Privacy, ruined

Due process, abolished

But guns, the ONLY thing between us and the government, hasn't even been touched.

You know why? Because we BOUGHT guns, we paid money for them. You can take Americans freedoms but when you try to take their shiny little toys, well THEN you're a tyrant.

Oh and the multi-billion dollar in gun lobby money doesn't hurt, BUT HEY who gives a fuck about that right? I'm sure gun companies are just here to defend "ur freedumz"

And by the way, before any of you say "WELL THE'YRE ABOUT TO BAN GUNS". They're going to ban ASSAULT WEAPONS, which were already banned for the past 10 years.

Nevermind the fact that over 90% of gun crimes are committed with handguns. The government won't even touch handguns, because that's how the gun companies make their money, lebowsky

Gun control doesn't mean gun banning or gun take away and give them to the government. It means exactly what it says--gun CONTROL. I found it weird when people voluntary gave in their guns. They already have them, so why give them away? I support coming up with a more comprehensive system to gun control that takes into account mental health, education, training, insurance, licensing, etc., not outright banning guns. Being more careful about what's going on with our guns doesn't attack or threaten the second amendment, it just makes it more responsible.

They're either being paid to post their opinions, or they're retarded. It's best to just ignore them.

Or they see how well gun control works in the rest of the first world.

Maybe if we had limited immigration and kept our country homogeneous it would be an option.

Still a horrible option, though.

None of the countries I'm thinking of(Au, Ca, UK) match that at all.

Compared to the U.S., they do.

You must be very ignorant of their immigration policies and that of your own country to believe that. Ignorant to the point where you clearly know nothing about any of them.

Word!

So I have the choice of someone taking some of MUH GUNS and having at least one state official everywhere I go and maybe even more cameras, microphones and all that shit?

As I am pro freedom I choose of course total surveillance.

Be proud, be indipendent, where are the burgers?

Total surveillance? That sounds like hell to me. I'd rather not have Big Brother following me around, watching everything I do. Gun control really isn't about the guns, in my opinion, it's about personal freedom. I choose to live in the country because of the personal freedoms offered to me. If you don't like that, move somewhere else.

Although I support gun ownership, there's one fallacy I would like to address here.

There isn't going to be a revolution. The United States will NEVER develop an anti-government revolutionary movement of any dangerous proportions and the mere idea of an armed revolutionary force capable of fighting a sustained guerrilla war against the United States Military is nothing but a dangerous and foolish fantasy.

The truth is that every word I type is now entering a database and is scanned and tagged for key words, then tucked away in my personal file. This is not because I am someone special or particularly dangerous, though awareness is its own little power and danger to the system.

Fact is - the FBI and other services are tracking OWS and every other subversive knitting club from here to Eugene, OR. Is the NSA not tracking every email and every phone call? None of this is fiction if the whistleblowers are to be believed. Judging by the rate they're being bumped off or scape-goated, I'd say the whistleblowers are on to something. And that something is pretty much the nascent invention of real world Oceania - the electronic surveillance state.

All our base are belong to those assholes. Think about it - heard of any major movement that hasn't been compromised or infiltrated by either CIA, FBI, or some other service? Again, this isn't undercover information, this has all been in the press repeatedly.

So, if you are an AR-15 owner, and you have wistful thoughts late at night, drinking whiskey on the porch, about "what it'd be like" going head to head against federal marshals, or a SWAT team, or Special Forces operators?

It will be like a blinding flash of light as you, your weapons, and your little prayer meeting all go to heaven on a laser-guided GBU-38 JDAM launched from a drone piloted by some kid drinking a Big Gulp of Mountain Dew 2,000 miles away.

add:dr; The power of civilian grade weapons as a means of domestic political resistance is greatly overstated.

The fact that I would rather die before turning in my guns when I have committed no harm to anyone else makes me dangerous. Not the threat I pose with my gun but the threat I pose with my message which is probably shared by the man behind that UAV.

The fact that I would die before turning in my guns when I have committed no harm to anyone else makes me dangerous

Well, it only actually makes you dangerous if someone physically comes to your house to disarm you, and only to them. That doesn't make you a general danger to other people. And as an individual, your threat to the State is negligible.

However, if you stockpile weapons, begin training operations, and start printing literature or making Youtube videos about politics, you should expect the attention from the forces of control.

Do you really think that the men and women who fire missiles from these drones will think themselves to be anything less than patriots as they blow you and your friends to charred lumps of sizzling human coal? Their egos will allow nothing less than to consider you evil and themselves to be the righteous cure. These are the justifications we've used for years now.

As an individual I am just a vulnerable cog in the machine that fights for the better good, understood. I am one of the many who will stand strong against any attempt to take my right to defend myself. They are left with the moral dilemma of killing each of us and trying to justify it each time. That is real power.

The only justification needed is that you were a terrorist. No evidence needed.

Honorable sentiments. I'm suggesting it won't matter because of media and the power of the police state.

The powers that be don't seem to have much of a moral dilemma about anything - that was my point. Police squads stomped those OWS kids in their own homes and it was barely reported. Kicked the doors in, I didn't hear much of an uproar about it on this sub.

Control has been established. I'm suggesting your freedom is in direct proportion to your anonymity. And the moment you try to gather to multiply your voices, you will be compromised, monitored, and if need be, intimidated and eradicated.

Understand I'm not happy about this situation. I'm just reporting it.

You're more likely to need those guns against your fellow citizens during the coming food shortages then you are against government forces.

Then I will die with my dignity.

Fair enough.

[deleted]

???

Bombs don't discriminate; they are known for their impartiality.

[deleted]

They already have on many occasions. Ask the Branch Davidians about that one.

As soon as a person is labeled terrorist, you'd be surprised at how fast the public's attitude changes.

[deleted]

And they'll keep it that way.

Either you assume they will and you have no chance, or you assume they don't and you have no need. Neither way justifies guns.

[deleted]

Ragheads? Seriously?

And are they? For anyone except their own countrymen or in most cases with the imported fighters, for people of the country they claim to be fighting for.

"The point of the second amendment is to keep potential dictators in check."

If the second amendment had any teeth in it today at all, local groups of citizens would have access to and hold the very same weapons that the most advanced parts of the military do. It's a freedom to arm ourselves...not specifically guns. It exists as it does today because of gun lobbyists (...surprise!) that love your money and prepper paranoia which adds some 5-20% GDP to a sagging US economy.

"You do not have the right to tell others how they should defend themselves against guns already in the hands of other people."

We're already as citizens kept from arming ourselves how we want. How can you possibly use this as a point until we've really committed ourselves to it and everyone is holding as many atomic bombs as they want in storage?

You're in essence telling the government "don't take our peashooters" when within 5-20 seconds and at the government's command your house could be bombed, you could be gunned, and for all practical purposes wiped from the map. How much 2nd amendment rights do you have to save you from this....really?

Wager on the side of none and you'd be right.

edit - misspelling

edit - playing devil's advocate here. I simply don't understand why you don't go full monty into this business.

I just dont want to be like the Egyptians fighting back with rocks and molotovs. My 'peashooter' will put a hole in you the size of a basketball.

Compare that to the small weapons of the army. They do have precision guns which can make smaller holes, but they can also level your entire city or state without blinking twice. The remnants of your body will be an aerosol. There won't be enough of you left to prove you were ever alive.

This is what you're up against, and depending on what you've read, you probably know that the government has a total and complete willingness to take you out, should you be anything more than a minor inconvenience to them. So, I for one welcome our totalitarian overlords.

Edit: because I feel like adding a paragraph.

An average American is fifty times more likely to be murdered with a firearm that the average Brit. It goes without saying that the prevalence of firearms in the US (and their scarcity in the UK) is a major contributing factor to this statistical divergence. The "obvious" conclusion is that gun control legislation in the US could reduce the firearm homicide rate.

However, there are two factors which need to be addressed. The first is that gun control legislation and "fewer guns" are not the same thing. There are so many guns in private hands that banning them would cause huge problems. And criminalising previously legal gun owners is a dangerous step. I honestly doubt whether it is practical, and that the incredible homicide rate is the price you have to pay for this Constitutional right.

The other point is that the United States is rapidly turning into fascist plutocracy with corrupt paramilitarised police - a sort of Argentina max. If I was American, I would want a weapon. It would give me a sense of being a sovereign citizen, even though at a cerebral level I knew it was just an illusion. The statistics show that owning a gun makes you far more likely to be killed by a firearm (even excluding suicide). But who cares, you FEEL in control.

It is about FEEL. Take a historical look at the time before firearms, and look at it from our(american though not all perspective). Firearms are basically super crossbows, fast loading and easy to learn to use. The states were basically brought about by an insurrection made successful by distance and guns. America owes its existance to popular enough sentiment and the will to make it happen. Not just the will but the ABILITY.

Life is not safe, we are not immortal or invulnerable. Some will accept the risks inherent with certain freedoms. Gun ownership as a standard will have causualties, every individual will not always act within reason. The question boils down to the needs of the many against the few.

What are your needs for the types of guns people are proposing banning? Why can't you get by with single shot long arms and shot guns?

Go ahead, just try and tell these people they didnt need their guns.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/24/man-found-slain-in-front-yard/

http://www.kcra.com/news/3-wounded-one-intruder-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion/-/11797728/17875642/-/2o7y1hz/-/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pkWgp2abM2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4g1n8cmwhIY

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-woman-shot-intruder-9-times-in-self-defense/nFB7g/

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/Girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars

http://www.webcitation.org/64J0sqd4C

You just linked to 7 stories. Do you really want me to post all the stories about people being murdered by guns as a counterpoint?

In which of those cases was a handgun or semi-auto rifle needed? The best gun for home defence is a shot gun not a hand gun.

Depends on the situation.

In what home defence situation is a handgun better than a shot gun?

I believe a good comprimise would be to allow ordinance that is equal to swat teams, and not military.

What benefit does your sidearm provide society?

That's a rather interesting argument. Yes, I suppose that single shots are fine. I have a number of them. But, that's not really the point. You start banning certain types of guns, that's just the foot in the door. That's like saying that people would be safer if we all drove the same model of car.

You already allow them to ban certain types of arms.

A shotgun is much better for home protection than any handgun. So that covers that argument.

Not really. You haven't stated why a shotgun is better than a handgun. A shotgun is long and awkward, and it's not easily accessible. A handgun? Bolt a fingerprint access safe to your wall (They're not that expensive.) and you're set.

Because you aren't as likely to miss with a shotgun but you will still drive the person off. You don't need to kill them just scare them away.

Remember you're shooting in a house full of your family. Do you really want to miss and have it go through a wall and kill your kids?

I've made this point before. You need to be familiar with any type of firearm you're carrying. I've seen buckshot drive clean through a wall.

And it will slow so much that it's not even likely to leave a bruise unless they are right on the other side of a drywall dividing wall and your holding your gun a few feet away from it.

If you're familiar with the firearm why would you choose one with a lower spread(harder to insure a hit) and more punching power(more likely to have a through and through or a misfire hit someone friendly).

What? No, it won't. We're talking about 6 quarter-inch ball bearings. Drywall won't slow those down a fraction. You don't really buy a shotgun according to spread. That's determined by the shotshells used. But, regardless of the shot, do you know how much spread a shotgun as at 15 feet? Roughly 6 inches. This is basic physics. As for "punching power"? That's another buzzword that's been created by the general public, and it doesn't mean squat.

You don't really buy a shotgun according to spread. That's determined by the shotshells used.

Obviously, but the difference is that one can have spread, the other can't.

We're talking about 6 quarter-inch ball bearings. Drywall won't slow those down a fraction.

Then stick in bird shot. Remember your job is to push the intruders away. You don't need buck shot unless you're trying to kill them.

6 inches gives you approximately 28.27 square inches of coverage with which to hit the intruder vs what, 1 with your sidearm?

I agree with you. I'd only like to offer an extra point. Britain and America are vastly different countries. The whole of the UK can fit inside of Texas, giving it a different set of statistics altogether.

An average American is fifty times more likely to be murdered with a firearm

Sublimely chosen words. But you can't take credit for them. They are standard party line propaganda. You could have said "An average American is fifty times more likely to be murdered" but the deception would be far more obvious. People are murdered at roughly the same rate with or without guns. Murderers prefer guns to be sure. The lack of a gun does not change a murderer into an model citizen. Nor does ownership of a gun turn anyone into a murderer.

Let's not ignore that our gun crime rate is vastly inflated by minority/gangland crime and the War on Drugs.

Doesn't really affect 90% of Americans.

I an European and I love watching US gun violence on my TV. It is very entertaining.

Don't ban guns, but make the laws to get them more strict. A mentally ill lunatic should NOT be allowed to buy a gun or get his hands on any. People with guns should have a safe where they store their guns, with a lock combination that ONLY the gun owner knows. Ban automatic weapons and make sure everybody follows the rules.

This has nothing to do with your government controlling us, but protecting us against the occasional lunatic. This is how it works in Europe and we have way LESS gun related incidents than USA.

Perhaps you aren't aware that criminal elites operating through governments were responsible for over 90% of the murders of unarmed civilians during the 20th century. Are you really that concerned with distempered lunatics in this one?

[deleted]

Boiling frogs; they do things in increments that seem reasonable in themselves, but over time amount to something nobody would have agreed to in toto.

[deleted]

Making you believe democracy is a good thing is the first step in overthrowing your republic.

[deleted]

Democracy is nothing short of mob rule in which 51% of the population can rule over the remaining 49%. Ben Franklin once said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner plans." In a Republic the rights of the individual are the most important and 99% of the population can't vote away the rights of an individual. I hope that clears it up.

Criminal elites?

I'll get the popcorn while you come up with a source for that astounding claim.

You do realize criminals don't follow laws? So they will get the weapons even if there is a complete ban.

Just like Alcohol prohibition didn't work, just like drug prohibition isn't working, just like you don't prevent burglaries or rapes or petty crime with laws.

The second amendment says the right of the people to own and bear arms; I don't see where is says "except". Do you, or are you blind or are you retarded? Maybe you are retarded and you should be put in a mental institution, I see you are a big video game head just like the shooter was.

Some will but they will be so much more expensive and difficult to acquire that they won't be used regularly. Look at the stable western governments with strict gun control and tell me honestly their situation isn't 100x better than the US.

It doesn't specify the type of arms so you can still have the right to bear arms without the right to have any type of arms. Everyone sane agrees lines should exist(like with nukes) it's just where that line exists that people argue with.

The second amendment explicitly specifies a well-regulated militia as a condition of bearing arms, in plain English.

Maybe you should actually read it sometime before patronizing somebody else for not reading it when he disagrees?

There is a clear comma there buddy boy. It has nothing to do with militia and the supreme court has ruled so at least 3 times.

I didn't realize a comma had the ability to represent such complex semantic content.

It doesn't, as someone who has no emotional stake (or otherwise) in the outcome of the debate its clear that "well regulated [trained/maintained] militia" is the operative term.

This is all the more clear when you understand that the founding fathers feared the states having a unified standing army under the government's control; instead they favoured having regional militias.

However, America does have a standing army now and "well regulated militias" are a thing of the past, by and large. The supreme court couldn't rule any other way otherwise they would render the 2nd amendment irrelevant, plus it has been interpreted this way for countless years now.

Ruling any other way would also mean disarming the population which, although its doable, would be a major pain in the arse (there's an abundance of guns in the US) and the reality is nobody in government cares enough about doing it anyway.

No. YOU are wrong. The supreme court settled what the second amendment means. gun ownership rights apply to individuals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[deleted]

My disagreement is only speculation, but yes, I would disagree. I imagine that while the country's founders knew the value of having an armed population by which threatening forces may be resisted, they also understood the need to have that armament regulated and conformed to a responsible standard, and the specification of the militia was how they chose to express that. Granted, I don't think any of our founding fathers had the ability to foresee their nation a few hundred years in the future when every man's neighbor is an occupying force and each civilian is irresponsible.

[deleted]

Suddenly I'm wondering just how people hunted for food back in those days. Did they trap animals? I sincerely can't imagine them having used firearms for this purpose, as I'm pretty sure that, even by the time of the Civil War, there wasn't even a competent enough rifle in existence to guarantee a soldier's ability to strike his opponent with bullets.

Right, and it says later that every able bodied individual is part of the militia. And regulated does not mean what you think it does in that context.

[deleted]

Sorry, gotta disagree. They don't work because there's too many loopholes in those laws to allow people to get such guns.

Can you identify these loopholes?

biggest one is the "gun show" loophole.

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090923_gun_study/index.html

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

I am European and I sincerely recommend considerably more gun control in the US....

... but I am probably an agent of the United Nations.

lol. USA has all the gun deaths in the world. solution? more guns. lolol.

You're an idiot. lolol

I'm an idiot that lives in an urban center of >4million people that doesn't have 1/100th of the gun deaths of a similar USA city. solution? more guns. I'm a grateful idiot. Besides, your assault rifles won't protect you from your government's drones.

Youre an idiot because you couldnt conceive how it could be possibly be different in the US with gun control when I just told you why in the text of my post.

I would voluntarily give up my guns, as have many thousands of people in countries where guns were banned like this.

why not USA, what's special about it? You think people are different in America that they need assault rifles. ok.

Victims of gun crime are overwhelmingly minority criminals. For everyone else, it's not really an issue.

I didn't claim they weren't

Maybe because this subreddit isn't limited only to 'Murkins?

From an outside point of view the main cause of thousands of 'Murkins shooting each other TO DEATH each year is because you have such lax gun control, and such a childish manner to go along with it.

"Don't tread on me!" "Live free or die!"

...and other slogans you've been programmed to worship under your nonsensical patriotism.

You don't understand that you're still a young, immature nation, and you need to have an adult response to this gun-masturbation crisis you're in at the moment.

It's almost exclusively minority gangland crime, however. The chances of an average, non-scum person ever meeting someone affected by gun crime are quite low. It's not really a big issue.

What is so wrong with the pursuit of liberty? I would rather live in a country that I know i can protect myself. The alternative seems to be Orwellian surveillance resulting in having a camera shoved up my ass everywhere I go. Yeah, you guys really fucking figured out the better answer.

[deleted]

Oh, so the 33 cameras that capture you as you pass George Orwell's former home arent for preventing crime?

[deleted]

No but it makes them think twice about taking all of our rights.

Has it? Time and time again we see that it doesn't. The NSA is a perfect example.

I doubt it troubles them even slightly.

Stop posting lies. https://images.angelpub.com/2012/06/12922/orwell-home.jpg

Tell me how passing his house puts you on 33 cameras.

Liberty? You don't have liberty my friend. And you can't possibly think you can protect yourself from the drones due to be in service in the next decade.

And as for camera's shoved up my ass, yes, you will have read that London is a shithole for that. Luckily the rest of the UK's cities are relatively ignored, and the rural village I live in has no public CCTVs at all, just like rural USA.

(But yes, London is most definitely 'surveilled'.)

A handgun and sneaking in the shadows is enough to steal a tank or airplane. You are naive if you think weapons and equipment always stay in the hands of their owners during conflicts.

They may have the toys, but us gun owners have the numbers. At least some of them will be killed in the process, we hold them at bay because none of them wants to be the "some".

Limit your magazine capacity, screen your gun buyers better maybe limit your rate of fire? There's no need for a private citizen to own a saga shotgun. There's no need for a private citizen to own an AK47 with 30 round magazine with quick swap capabilities. It's just suicidal to allow elements of your unstable community (ala Sandy Cook shooter, and your Firefigheter shooter just this morning) to own firearms.

If you lived in Syria, Egypt, Mali,Ethiopia, isreal, Georgia, Vietnam, or Mexico a couple hours drive away could you say people don't need x type weapons? You assume because your government is stable that it will always be so, but in reality the entire world is deadly violent all around you. In the end your survival is your responsibility , not the government's and whether you want to believe it or not they can easily become the agent of your death.

Exactly if you live in one of those countries you could maybe convince me that hey you know what you need this. But the US isn't any of those countries. If the US is so unstable that people feel the same need to arm them selves to the same degree as those countriest there is a much bigger issue there. The US is just as stable as my country (Canada for the record). And honestly I'm not some anti gun nut I'm fan of guns I'm also a fan of gun safety though. In a situation where I'm confronted by a gun be it from a criminal who knows what they're doing or some mad man shooter I'd much rather be going up against someone with a limited number of rounds (ie in Canada those would be 5 for a long gun and 10 for a pistol). Don't get me wrong I think that some of the laws are a little over the top regarding minimum barrel length limiting what kinds of weapons you can have but I understand the reasoning for it. I'm not saying outlaw guns what I'm saying is realize that the average citizen doesn't need a rambo level armory. You want pistols that's fine you want long guns that's fine people on average don't need (and in my opinion shouldn't have) high cap fully automatic firearms and if you're adament that no people should be able to buy whatever they want you can't possibly be against stricter background checks for these people.

It doesn't matter how many bullets a gun can fire in a clip. You can just reload in a few seconds. A lot of tactics used in the past to take away guns was the slow and steady illegalization of their parts. Its like throwing frogs in boiling water and they jump out vs slowly turning up the heat.

Well in the case of a madman shooter the reload time could be precious seconds for someone to do something be it escape or over power them or the police to move in whatever in that situation give the victims every advantage you can.

Why?

The odds of being killed or endangered by an "assault weapon" are nearly nonexistent, contrary to what some would like you to believe.

Really, unless you deal with criminals or like hanging around very high crime areas, the chances of being involved in any gun crime are negligible.

Tell that to the fireman, tell that to the kids of the sandy hook, or columbine, or Aroura. I'm not saying take away guns I'm saying limit that shit. DON'T GIVE YOUR GUNS TO CRAZY PEOPLE. If you're on medications for depression or you've recently gone througha life crisis YOU DON'T GET TO BUY AN AR15 WITH 30 EXTRA MAGS and if you try to that should throw up some red flags.

Mmmm appeals to emotion.

Jesus Christ, appeals to emotion? How about appeals to common sense? Those examples just leapt to mind as major examples of shootings involving assault weapons. AR15s in the hook and fireman shootings and a missfiring AK in the case of Aurora. When was the last time you heard of a Canadian going on a shooting rampage? We give depression meds out here like candy and yet you don't hear of this kind of shit happening here because guns aren't easy to get your hands on than food (fun fact there are more gun stores than grocery stores in the US)

Not really, since then you're including every pawn shop, and big box retailer such as Walmart which sells many things (including groceries) besides guns.

Fallacies abound, and my interest has waned to nil.

w/e gun nut

Most guns used to commit crimes are not legally obtained

really? they must have been legally obtained at some point, even if by the store that got robbed. it was legal for them to sell the guns.

the rest of your arguments are similar fails.

Youre missing the fucking point you idiot. The guns are out there, 3 fucking million of them. 3 MILLION! Thats just the REGISTERED ones. The government hasnt been able to stop the transfer of them into criminal hands. A gun ban WILL NOT mean they will just disappear into the ether as soon as the ink hits the bill. Do you think criminals will just hand them over? They will be jumping for fucking joy at all the easy loot they will get.

3 million guns. the solution is not more guns. that is insane. there are much better ways.

Where did I say I wanted more guns? Gun-grabbers always think I am trying to advocate more guns instead of listening to what the fuck I am saying. Its like some sort of conditioned mantra to you idiots "The answer isnt more guns....The answer isnt more guns". Its some sort of default response you guys make to ANY pro-gun argument when it isnt even relevant.

WHO IS FUCKING MAKING THAT ARGUMENT? Jesus Christ!! facepalm

Because all the pro-gun for protection people talk about is how in all these situations if more people had guns the problems wouldn't happen.

more guns is the status quo. every day more and more guns.

"assault weapons" are used in <2% of crimes.

i didn't claim they weren't

you lie that you are confused. you obviously have no interest in understanding why people advocate gun control.

Sure we do, it's because they are cowards.

Go ahead, just try and tell these people they didnt need their guns.

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/24/man-found-slain-in-front-yard/

http://www.kcra.com/news/3-wounded-one-intruder-dead-in-Sacramento-home-invasion/-/11797728/17875642/-/2o7y1hz/-/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=pkWgp2abM2w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=4g1n8cmwhIY

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/police-woman-shot-intruder-9-times-in-self-defense/nFB7g/

http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/Girl-loads-rifle-to-spook-burglars

http://www.webcitation.org/64J0sqd4C

I believe a good comprimise would be to allow ordinance that is equal to swat teams, and not military.

That's a rather interesting argument. Yes, I suppose that single shots are fine. I have a number of them. But, that's not really the point. You start banning certain types of guns, that's just the foot in the door. That's like saying that people would be safer if we all drove the same model of car.

Time at the range does nothing to help you when you're in a combat situation.

If your gun is so easily reachable that you can get it and use it faster than you can lock your kids and wife in a room then it's not very safely stored is it?

Then give up the social support structure. Move off the grid and give up all the benefits of the society you oppose.

So are you saying that no one should be in prison for non-violent offenses? What about bankers?

I've been involved in a home invasion situation and I just hopped out of the shower and grabbed a box cutter, didn't want my dog to die from a broken neck / get hurt since I couldn't see the intruder, and slashed forward down some stairs stark naked... Was a bit cold out that day too, had to get dressed before police showed up, with a broken door...

Mindset in a home invasion for me is weapon / get person out / grab phone, police are good but they are usually the last to arrive after the intruders left...

Didn't get a plate number, wasn't thinking of it.

From the book Freakonomics:

The likelihood of death by swimming pool (1 in 11,000) versus death by gun (1 in 1 million-plus) isn’t even close: Molly is roughly 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident at Imani’s house than in gunplay at Amy’s.

I would point out the massacres, but this is /r/conspiracy, so massacres don't count since it was the Mossad or some other bullshit.

you're an idiot.

just like criminals have nukes even though they're illegal?

what do you think would happen to the prevalence of atomic blast deaths if nuclear weapons were legal to own for asteroid defense?

we have factories pumping out guns and ammunition as fast as they can, then people turn around and demand guns to protect themselves from all the guns!

maybe if we stopped manufacturing them, it would be harder for teenagers to shoot up a kindergarten with them.

...or are you still planning the revolution against the tyrannical government? i'm ready whenever you are.

Well in the case of a madman shooter the reload time could be precious seconds for someone to do something be it escape or over power them or the police to move in whatever in that situation give the victims every advantage you can.