You are forgetting the majority of gun owners are responsible with their guns. This isn't the wild wild west where everyone is shooting at everybody else. If anything they want to push gun control laws to the forefront, what good are words in a hail of bullets?

That would be a very inefficient strategy for population control.

How would 5-10 Victims have any affect on population control. Or even 60 for that matter

There isn't even remotely enough people dying for it to be a form of population control. The staged shootings do go beyond the typical division and distraction though. They've been rapidly converting the U.S. into a corporate police state. Part of that agenda is disarming the public while simultaneously arming the police and other goon squads to the teeth with military-grade gear.
If this were pretty much any other country, they would already have achieved this part of the agenda. This country has the 2nd amendment though, and much of the adult population understands the primary purpose of it (deterring government tyranny) so what they're having to do is brainwash a fresh generation to vote against the constitution; namely the smartphone generation; a generation that spends most of their time being entertained and knows very little about the way the world actually works (almost nothing besides what the controlled education system and controlled mainstream media tells them).

Seriously if they take my guns away I will build another one they can never stop people from owning or making their own weapons. And if the government or some wack job wants to hurt people there is many worse ways than guns.

There are very few ways to hurt people which are easier or more readily available than guns though. Yeah someone could build a bomb like the Boston Marathon Bombers or something but they killed what like 4 people, injured 50. Paddock injured 500, killed 50+ with just guns. Let's not pretend they aren't the most readily available and efficient means of committing mass violence, because they are.

I am not even going to explain the ways that simple things can hurt more people than one deuch with a gun.

Probably because you don't have any good examples. I would really like to know how anything that is a readily commercially available could do what Paddock did in Vegas. Unless you are going to be building very big bombs or making some kind of Chlorine gas or something, there aren't many other options you can buy from the store that can kill dozens and harm hundreds of people from 400 yards away.

What are you 12 you really think a gun or a bomb is the only way. You must still be watching cartoons to think that. To use a gun or a bomb or any weapon other than for protection is a coward move. Guns were made to kill game for hunting not killing people. Things change when you give coward a gun and he shoots you in the back.

Guns absolutely were made for killing people. The first guns were made as weapons of war not for hunting, they were way too inaccurate to be used for hunting in their early stages.

OK

But accurate enough to shoot a person that is taller and thinner than almost any animal you would hunt.

They shot into big groups of dudes at relatively close ranges. How are you this into guns but you don't know anything about what you are talking about?

Read "Guns Germs and Steel" and that will put things in perspective.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood that book if you think its message was guns are safe and a threat to no one.

No, I am saying they did not even have to shoot a gun, all they had to do was touch them and breath around them to kill off a major amount of population. Maybe you need to reread that book.

Right everyone knows smallpox and other diseases killed of 90% of Native Americans, but those aren't weapons that were intentionally used. That all happened by accident. We were talking about weapons or at least readily available objects more deadly than guns. Do you have some deadly diseases laying around, some anthrax, some ebola, some plague rats? No. You don't. So that doesn't change my original point that guns are the most efficient and readily available weapon in our society if you want to kill a large amount of people as an average person. You have yet to name one thing other than fucking small pox to counter that position.

Nice google search

Nice deflection. btw that not google thats just me knowing things. Pretty cool I know. you should try it some time.

they can never stop people from owning or making their own weapons

They're in the process of doing it. If things go according to plan, the smartphone generation will outvote you in banning guns (all guns eventually), and for people who don't comply, that's what the very profitable private prison system is for.
What happens then? Well, by now you probably know about the list.
The U.S. is on the longer version of that list, right after China and Russia. They are preemptively disarming the U.S.; one of the few remaining countries that poses a threat to the global government; a government run by them (a bunch of wealthy fascist psychopaths).

Well ban things like home depot and ace hardware while we are at it. I agree with what you are saying but hell you can make anything into a weapon.

You're not properly envisioning how it's all going to go down.
The only way I know of to win this battle is to teach the smartphone generation about the way the world really works, so that they won't join the military (the psychopaths in power can't continue their agenda without the hijacked U.S. military) and they won't unwittingly vote for their own demise.

Oh we are on same page problem lies with the dumb fuckkids and old school fools that are in power

Heh, pre-emptively disarming while the number of guns in the US increases year over year. If they're disarming us, they're doing it wrong. Every time there's a mass shooting, more guns and loads more ammo are purchased.

War is population control.

It’s all population control.

And if you don’t agree with that, you’re a damned fool.

It is about control, alright. The only reason that the oligarchy even pretends that US democracy still exists is because of the +250M guns in the hands of the public.

Reductio ad absurdum.

If true, that easy access to guns was a form of population control, what does it mean? What assumptions must also be true for that to be anything but absurd.

In actual government, when they want to reduce the population, the stop giving tax breaks for having kids. They eliminate social programs that help families pay for childcare, education, healthcare, and food.

The literal cheapest way to reduce the population is through comprehensive sex education that does not teach abstinence as the only form of safe sex, and by handing out condoms and birth control to young adults that are going to have sex whether they take sex ed classes or not. Ironically, better education would probably reduce the need for a lot of govt. funding of social programs.

The gun debate isn't about population control. The gun debate is about selling more guns. It's about propping up the MIC and carrying out the steps laid out in the Shock Doctrine.

If the government were afraid of the guns that ordinary citizens are allowed to buy, they would not be legal. Go ahead and get your Desert Eagle. It might make a little dent in the surface of a tank the government will be using to quash an uprising if one actually occurred. How many govt. agents died in Waco?

If the govt. wanted severe and quick population reduction, they might release a biological agent.

What are you 12 you really think a gun or a bomb is the only way. You must still be watching cartoons to think that. To use a gun or a bomb or any weapon other than for protection is a coward move. Guns were made to kill game for hunting not killing people. Things change when you give coward a gun and he shoots you in the back.