A Review of Gun Control in History

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: fiverx313

Making it harder for law abiding people to obtain means of defense just shows the government does not give a crap about the people they are supposed to be representing.

Not sure why more people don't understand this.

Be careful, saying things that make sense is dangerous these days.

Keep it up though, some may stick.

originally posted by: fiverx313
shouldn't your history also include all the times gun control didn't have any correlation to mass murder?

Think of it more like riding a motorcycle, there are those that have wrecked and those that are going to. Just give it time....

originally posted by: fiverx313
shouldn't your history also include all the times gun control didn't have any correlation to mass murder?

I think you are missing the point....


...the correlation to mass murder isn't that guns were taken. Its that once guns are gone, mass murder is possible. Do you have any correlation of a populace that kept firearms, and was also killed by their government en masse?

I'd say that what this shows is that the correlation is fairly strong...but that there is zero correlation between well armed populace and mass murdering government.

Fromt here you can figure out why not all disarmed nations suffer under murderous tyranny. Perhaps things like human nature come into play...dunno. All i DO know is that you seem to have strong evidence that if the populace can fight back, the government tends to not kill large numbers of them.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

well, you may have something there.

i myself am not for total eradication of gun ownership. but i can't help feel that something needs to be done to restrict these high firepower situations we keep having. it's a complex issue for sure.

but i retract my original question.

originally posted by: fiverx313
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

well, you may have something there.

i myself am not for total eradication of gun ownership. but i can't help feel that something needs to be done to restrict these high firepower situations we keep having. it's a complex issue for sure.

but i retract my original question.

Something may need to happen...but taking action on guns is not it. The volume of firearms in the US means that there will always be guns available for the criminal, despite what the noncriminal is doing. Further, i spent an entire lifetime until the early 90s with kids having rifles in their trucks while at school to go hunting after school.

Passing a law against guns achieves 1 goal: it prevents people who follow the law from having that access. It does not increase safety or security. At least not for the US. And if we are truly honest, its help in Australia has been marginal at best, and arguable regardless.

Would you agree that outlawing alcohol was the right call for America? DId it stop people from drinking? I think there are lessons to be learned from this.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Would you agree that outlawing alcohol was the right call for America? DId it stop people from drinking? I think there are lessons to be learned from this.

no, i wouldn't agree totally outlawing a thing is the right way to go, but i also don't agree that unfettered access is the way to go either. should everyone be allowed tactical nukes just because they exist?

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Would you agree that outlawing alcohol was the right call for America? DId it stop people from drinking? I think there are lessons to be learned from this.

no, i wouldn't agree totally outlawing a thing is the right way to go, but i also don't agree that unfettered access is the way to go either. should everyone be allowed tactical nukes just because they exist?

2 schools of thought on this that i mull over from time to time:

- Nukes obviously are very dangerous, and 1 mentally ill person could easily kill millions with the right detonation
- the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide protection. It wasn't written because they were afraid of the deer coming. it was written to allow people to defend against a tyrannical government, and to allow the people to have the same arms that government had. At the time the biggest hurdle to someone owning a canon was the raw materials and the ability to create it. But if a man had it in his mind to build a canon....Come and Take It.

So do I think folks should be allowed to have nukes? Honestly...is that an issue? I mean, how many people actually know how to split an atom? Thats generally a term reserved for metaphorical uses ("Well, they are capable, but they are nowhere near splitting the atom" in reference to a business group). In real life...its certainly beyond the capability for just about anyone. I get the philosophical discussion that can be had...i have it with myself frequently. What i am always brought back to is feasibility.

Maybe we could dial it down a notch and discuss tanks. Should a civilian have a tank? I believe "yes". And then hold them accountable for their behavior. I should also mention that i think felons should be allowed firearms. if a man is too dangerous to be free, then why on earth are they not locked up?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Maybe we could dial it down a notch and discuss tanks. Should a civilian have a tank? I believe "yes". And then hold them accountable for their behavior.

you know, i completely don't agree but i can respect your position anyway.

a reply to: fiverx313

I didn't expect you would. And if we are being honest, im not broke up about not having a tank. It'd be fun, but i couldn't afford to maintain it.

We don't need that because none of it actually hits home.

What I find does hit home is that the only people in history that the US government ever specifically outlawed the ownership of arms to is Black American slaves and Native Americans.

Gun control is racist.

a reply to: projectvxn

I hate to say it...but you displayed that the government is racist. Which is kinda what BLM has been going on about.

Gun control is the best. Two hands, firm grip. Don't teacup it. Squeeze the trigger don't jerk it. Practice until you have all the control of your gun. And when the news starts ranting about needing gun control you can confidently reply "I already have control of my gun, thanks anyways bai".

a reply to: Guyfriday

Well said.

a reply to: SuicideKing33

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Certainly with democrats in charge.

originally posted by: fiverx313
shouldn't your history also include all the times gun control didn't have any correlation to mass murder?

Shouldn't your post correlate with the main topic ?

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
Gun control is the best. Two hands, firm grip. Don't teacup it. Squeeze the trigger don't jerk it. Practice until you have all the control of your gun. And when the news starts ranting about needing gun control you can confidently reply "I already have control of my gun, thanks anyways bai".

I am always in control of both my firearms and my gun



ETA:
This is for shooting ,
and this is for fun

originally posted by: fiverx313
shouldn't your history also include all the times gun control didn't have any correlation to mass murder?

Maybe countries that have strict gun control don’t all end in genocide.

But genocide is most likely to happen in countries with strict gun control.

a reply to: AnthonyMD

Well people who cant fight back are more easily controlled and killed. From Lenin's Russia to old Communist China to even today in the middle east and the militant rise to power. It has shown, that those with guns, tend to have power over those without.

The bigger the better, which is why a missile trumps a handgun etc etc.

Though I don't know about this gun issue.

I mean if your going for depopulation and killing massive amounts of people. There is more then one way to skin a cat you know.

Though the best way to achieve depopulation and mass die offs? Is probably just to stand back and let people be people. its likely the stupidest will come to power and kill of the rest. Its a numbers game really. There are more stupid people then there are not stupid.

So its only a matter of time before somebody comes with a law or rule that is so stupid it would make perfect sense to all the other stupids, and so everybody has to follow it. And then? After a time? Bam they all follow it to there graves, and problem solved.

Its like nature taking its course.

originally posted by: fiverx313
shouldn't your history also include all the times gun control didn't have any correlation to mass murder?

99% of the firearms owned in the USA have zero connection to gun crimes or violence... seems if you were looking for some manner of reporting equity, you'd start there.