Special Forces statement on gun control.

[Itch]

Oh pls.

Next you're going to tell me events are liberal biased <3

Why would you want people having firearms? What does that decrease? Nothing.

Apparently you haven't done any real research either. Please read my post above including the Harvard research done regarding Gun ownership and the violent crime and murder rates.

Educate yourself and then come back.

[Vy]

Apparently you haven't done any real research either. Please read my post above including the Harvard research done regarding Gun ownership and the violent crime and murder rates.

Educate yourself and then come back.

Oh pls.

Because something that has Harvard in it is completely accurate and coverts all of the views on everything <3

If you are so obsessed with owning a firearm, please tell me how it makes other people safer?

[Itch]

Oh pls.

Because something that has Harvard in it is completely accurate and coverts all of the views on everything <3

If you are so obsessed with owning a firearm, please tell me how it makes other safer?

I asked to you to research the issue so that you wouldn't look like an ass. Not for my own benefit. I have done the research. The paper from Harvard that I quoted has a ton of references as to what data was used. The paper I quoted was initially done as research to prove that more guns = more violence & murder, but in the end proved the opposite of what they had intended to find.

If you want anyone to take you seriously look at the actual statistics. Read something that has been peer-reviewed and uses legitimate sources of data for that research, then form your opinion. I researched the references that Harvard cited in their paper. What sources have you looked into in forming your opinion if any?

You ask how it makes other people safer? I handed you a well written paper that has all the information that you would need to better understand an issue that clearly you aren't educated on and are basing your opinion on nothing more than an emotional reaction, because the data doesn't back you up. The data proves that areas with strict gun control have a much larger murder & violent crime rate. Areas that have more guns have a lower murder and violent crime rate. It doesn't get much clearer than that.
It also didn't matter if the area being examined was within the same country with different gun laws or internationally the end result was the same More guns = Less violent crime & murder.

If you want to remain ignorant and chose to spout bullshit that's fine, but it becomes very obvious to anyone that has read that until you back up your claims with validated research (which I have done) you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Vy]

What sources have you looked into in forming your opinion if any?

Social and personal sources <3

So far all of the sources I've read about the assault weapon ban seem pretty reasonable? Considering you should in no case have assault weapons.

you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Great argument ;)

[Itch]

Social and personal sources <3

So far all of the sources I've read about the assault weapon ban seem pretty reasonable? Considering you should in no case have assault weapons.



Great argument ;)

Social and personal resources are biased - Always. Back up your claims with actual data. "He said this" "She said that" is a terrible way to try to write policy & law.

When you say the sources "seem pretty reasonable" how are you determining this? Are they representing one side or the other of the debate or are they an unbiased researcher? Also are you looking at just "Gun violence" or all violent crimes & murders? By looking at the whole picture it shows how much violence & crimes can be deterred by an armed citizenry.

Also try defining "assault-weapon" it is a political term with no solid definition. Automatic weapons are already illegal. Yes that's correct automatic weapons are ALREADY ILLEGAL. And at NO point would I argue that they should be allowed to the general public. So you're saying we should ban certain types of rifle because of how they look? (That's a big part of what this legislation is set to do) Also of note the recent Sandy Hook shooting was done with hand guns the only rifle was found in the car and according to police reports not used in the shooting. So why try to ban the type of gun that was left in the car?

There are clearly way to many holes in the argument for the ban and research that supports not having the ban so tell me (providing evidence, not anecdotes) why should we ban guns again?

I stand by my statement that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but social and personal sources are not a valid data source. I have very close friends that had their lives saved by someone with a gun. But I chose not to try to use that as an argument for guns, knowing that there are people that have had the opposite experience. So I chose to actually research the issue and educate myself using credible sources for that data. In some cases the data was researched by the very people that want strict gun control. It just doesn't add up in their favor.

Again as I've stated before I'm not against all gun control legislation. Just against legislation based on emotion and not actual research.

[Sniper]

Why would you want people having firearms? What does that decrease?

I'm going to answer this question with what Itch said.

you still have failed to address the fact that areas with strict gun laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates where as areas where guns are more prevalent have fewer violent crimes and murders. This holds true both inside the U.S. from state to state as well as internationally from country to country. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.

[Fartingo]

My replies in red;

Oh pls.

Because something that has Harvard in it is completely accurate and coverts all of the views on everything <3 Your 'social and personal sources' sure as shit don't


If you are so obsessed with owning a firearm He's not obsessed with owning a gun, the pussies pushing gun bans are obsessed with taking them. Just watch a minute of their sputtering and you'll realize they're acting solely on emotion., please tell me how it makes other people safer?BY PROVIDING A MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

So far all of the sources I've read about the assault weapon No such fucking thing, it's based entirely on how 'mean and scary' it looks ban seem pretty reasonable? Considering you should in no case have assault weapons I don't mean to sound overly aggressive, but you do not get to decide what we need. I hope whatever laws in you have in your country are working well for you, I really do, but I'm not eager to allow the Bill of Rights to be ignored so a handful of moonbats can feel proud of themselves..

Why would you want people having firearms? What does that decrease? Nothing. Aside from violent crime and human rights violations, but I'm sure that's fine as long as the government says so.

People that think guns shouldn't be banned obviously don't watch the news in America :x That was about as pointless as a fucking golf ball. Congratulations.

[Lux]

Lux you still have failed to address the fact that areas with strict gun laws have the highest violent crime and murder rates where as areas where guns are more prevalent have fewer violent crimes and murders. This holds true both inside the U.S. from state to state as well as internationally from country to country. If guns were the problem this would not be the case.

Again take the time to read the actual research done: A great starting point would be this research done at Harvard.

Use that as a "starting point" look at the references and where they obtained the data. Start looking for current data sources and compare. Guess what? You'll end up finding what you don't want to find! More guns ≠ more violent crime or murder and the precious gun control that so many people tout as saving lives actually promotes an environment that welcomes violent crimes.

So before you continue to argue for gun bans look into the actual cost of those bans.

That being said I'm not opposed to gun laws that make sense. Things like background checks and making States within the U.S. share mental health and criminal information when performing background checks. I do believe that you should have to prove yourself capable of handling a firearm before you can purchase and carry one. But that's not what the currently proposed anti-gun legislation is all about.

I have addressed this several times before.

You introduce guns to a country.... then ban guns in a certain area, presumably because gun crime/violence is very high in that area. You suddenly expect that area to become gun/gun crime free? Is there any border patrol that stops guns flowing into that area from surrounding, less restricted areas? If so, is it effective? (obviously not...)

Guns, drugs, whatever else are regularly smuggled across country borders, how hard do you think it is to move them around one country? It's only a deterrent to most people who would use their gun with good intent. It's an area with a history of bad gun crime, so you have lots of people who will be looking to get guns, and any criminal could easily obtain one. Based on how you currently have gun control, either for a certain state or certain areas, rather than for the country as a whole.... it's a lot less effective.

Laws, restrictions, they're only worthwhile if they're enforceable and enforced. For all I know, El Salvador could have strict gun laws. Yet, due to their inability to enforce their laws, criminals go about and make it one of the countries with the highest mortality rates. You also have to factor in the corruption you would expect from countries such as these.

My source of reliable proof that "gun control = less gun crime" is Europe, especially Western Europe. There is more gun control, and less gun crime. Western Europe is what the USA should be comparing itself against (and likes of Canada, Australia, Japan...developed countries basically). There is a history of sustained gun control, and it is heavily enforced. The result, clearly, is less gun crime.

As has been brought up, some people claim that the less gun crime there is, the more other violent crime there is. I'm sure there is some truth in this. But not all crime is the same. On average, IMO, criminals with guns are going to be more dangerous, commit more crime and kill/injure more people, than criminals with knives. Why? Because a gun can be used from distance, it's more deadly, it takes the pull of a finger rather than a very violent act. That's just my opinion.. but I'm sure most would agree that they would prefer a criminal to have to use a knife rather than a gun because gun control prevents them obtaining one (or is too costly/too hard for them to obtain).

[Caution]

I want and sneak them in, If you want gun laws to work, they have to be implemented at the federal level.

Mmm I'm going to take it a step further and say for them to ACTUALLY work, you'd need the state legislators to actually support the gun laws as well lol (not sure if you were implying this without actually saying it), federal laws aren't going to do shit against states like Texas, and I think we all know this. The ATF is not going to go through Texas (or any state, really) and start taking people's guns door to door - I just honestly don't see it happening. I've talked to a couple people who work for the ATF and they said in all honestly they don't have any interest in doing that. I mean I have no factual evidence for the last bit, just merely an opinion

@ Lux, having "an army" isn't the best argument tbh. Coming from somebody who's a Marine, not everybody in the military's primary function is to kill people. There's a lot of people in the army, national guard, air force, navy, etc, but the majority of those guys aren't trained to kill / fuck shit up, unless they're infantry. Without trying to sound like "my branch is the best", at best you'd probably have 500,000 thousand infantry-ready people (just a rough estimate without actually looking at army infantry numbers), including about all marines and infantry guys in the army - but you also got to think about all the other posts around the world that we'd be abandoning, all the gear we'd have to leave back / guard in low numbers just to support a war at home, etc. I mean I'm kind of going off on a tangent about something that would probably never happen, but just saying.


Either way, I support a ban on automatic weapons / armor piercing rounds and shit like that for general civilians, but Idgaf about handguns (need stricter laws regarding the loopholes in gun shows imo) or semi-automatic rifles, for the most part. I've never been a 'gun' guy, I'm not a hunter, etc. I'm qualified on probably a dozen different weapons from SAW to a grenade launcher to a rocket launcher, but I honestly wouldn't care if I never got to shoot another gun again ever. However, I still support other people being able to enjoy shooting on a range, hunting, etc. But there is no valid reason, in my opinion, why a civilian should privately own an automatic weapon.

stuff

I'm going to be nicer than Itch (no offense Itch :P) - either get an actual argument or just don't post anymore on this thread.

[Lux]

Mmm I'm going to take it a step further and say for them to ACTUALLY work, you'd need the state legislators to actually support the gun laws as well lol (not sure if you were implying this without actually saying it), federal laws aren't going to do shit against states like Texas, and I think we all know this. The ATF is not going to go through Texas (or any state, really) and start taking people's guns door to door - I just honestly don't see it happening. I've talked to a couple people who work for the ATF and they said in all honestly they don't have any interest in doing that. I mean I have no factual evidence for the last bit, just merely an opinion

I think it would have to be a much longer process than that. Similar to how cigarettes are being phased out. If you simply stop selling them and took any in possession away, that wouldn't stop the problem... it would cause an uproar. But if you slowly put legislation in.... wind up the restrictions over a much longer period, then it wouldn't exactly be as drastic as going around, snatching guns.

@ Lux, having "an army" isn't the best argument tbh. Coming from somebody who's a Marine, not everybody in the military's primary function is to kill people. There's a lot of people in the army, national guard, air force, navy, etc, but the majority of those guys aren't trained to kill / fuck shit up, unless they're infantry. Without trying to sound like "my branch is the best", at best you'd probably have 500,000 thousand infantry-ready people (just a rough estimate without actually looking at army infantry numbers), including about all marines and infantry guys in the army - but you also got to think about all the other posts around the world that we'd be abandoning, all the gear we'd have to leave back / guard in low numbers just to support a war at home, etc. I mean I'm kind of going off on a tangent about something that would probably never happen, but just saying.

Surely if there was a war at home... any troops in other posts would be sent back ASAP. I know there's a point in making sure everything else you're working for doesn't mess it itself up when you abandon it, but any war in this age is going to need all you're troops at the least. As you said, I don't see it happening either. I can't see civilians with guns making much difference in a war where it would probably be dealt with by missile strikes. Personally I don't think it's worth the benefits should it happen, considering all the negatives in the mean time.

For now, a ban on automatic weapons is a step in the right direction. In years to come, maybe other weapons will also be banned.