Gun Violence

[James Granger]

Its been happening far too often something needs to be done about it
What do you think should be done to cut down on the use of firearms?

 

[Legendary Saiyan]

People will find other ways to kill each other either way.

 

[ShogunSpiderman89]

We've tried gun control on multiple occasions and it hasn't worked. Carolyn Goodman was the mayor of Las Vegas and tried gun control, but it didn't stop the Las Vegas shooting and in fact criminals and before anyone tries Google. It'll only give articles not actual facts on gun control.

 

[Chikombo]

Nothing, it's peoples rights to carry arms.

 

[Animegoin]

Its been happening far too often something needs to be done about it
What do you think should be done to cut down on the use of firearms?

The non-participant civilians shouldn’t be liable for what rogue groups/individuals do. Believe me, I don’t want anyone to be harmed by guns if they hadn’t carried out murders/attempted murders for non-self defense reasons. But I want to be able to defend myself and my family from tyranny of any kind.

The more civilians armed with assault weapons means that the politicians are forced to hear the voices of the people. The US is very authoritarian and if guns are stripped from civilians, it’ll only get worse. Look at what was going on in Hong Kong where peaceful protests were met with armed force.

 

[chopstickchakra]

The non-participant civilians shouldn’t be liable for what rogue groups/individuals do. Believe me, I don’t want anyone to be harmed by guns if they hadn’t carried out murders/attempted murders for non-self defense reasons. But I want to be able to defend myself and my family from tyranny of any kind.

The more civilians armed with assault weapons means that the politicians are forced to hear the voices of the people. The US is very authoritarian and if guns are stripped from civilians, it’ll only get worse. Look at what was going on in Hong Kong where peaceful protests were met with armed force.

Why do you guys actually think you can fight off a military, let alone the military that has the biggest budget by nearly 20 times, with assault rifles and semi-automatic weaponry? How are your AR's gonna handle against a fleet of tanks? What has more range a rifle or a drone?

just be honest, you like guns. That's why you want to keep them. That's fine. But this delusion that we could fight off the government and military with them is asinine. If it became as your fear presents it they would come out at full force and we'd have no chance of stopping that.

 

[Animegoin]

Why do you guys actually think you can fight off a military, let alone the military that has the biggest budget by nearly 20 times, with assault rifles and semi-automatic weaponry? How are your AR's gonna handle against a fleet of tanks? What has more range a rifle or a drone?

just be honest, you like guns. That's why you want to keep them. That's fine. But this delusion that we could fight off the government and military with them is asinine. If it became as your fear presents it they would come out at full force and we'd have no chance of stopping that.

Some resistance is better than no resistance, obviously civilians can’t overthrow a military but at the same time, a coup within the military could occur because the soldiers would see how their Freedom is being destroyed by the politicians in power that called troops in to kill and detain civilian populace. Hopefully not every soldier will carry out orders laying down.

Again, don’t be a bitch and take it lying down. If we slip even a little bit, freedom as we know it will never exist on the planet again. By all means, you are free to be a bitch if you want to, but don’t restrict my freedom to protect my family.

 

[salamander uchiha]

Gun violence is down to individuals and value system. There are countries where guns are freely available(Switzerland etc) and firearms training is given, yet no real violence.

 

[Animegoin]

Why do you guys actually think you can fight off a military, let alone the military that has the biggest budget by nearly 20 times, with assault rifles and semi-automatic weaponry? How are your AR's gonna handle against a fleet of tanks? What has more range a rifle or a drone?

just be honest, you like guns. That's why you want to keep them. That's fine. But this delusion that we could fight off the government and military with them is asinine. If it became as your fear presents it they would come out at full force and we'd have no chance of stopping that.

Lmfao I was looking forward to what your response would’ve been but I guess you saw the flaw in your logic.

Gun violence is down to individuals and value system. There are countries where guns are freely available(Switzerland etc) and firearms training is given, yet no real violence.

I agree, despite not knowing the stats of violence in Switzerland. I do know that fatal shootings by police officers in the US are the main cause of death in the US. And the penalty of even shooting at a police officer (even a police K-9) is far worse than a police officer killing someone without cause. It’s very authoritarian in the US and will certainly get worse once guns are taken away from civilians.

Of course, it all comes down to the individuals that cause the shootings which is why everyone shouldn’t be punished for the few.

 

[salamander uchiha]

Lmfao I was looking forward to what your response would’ve been but I guess you saw the flaw in your logic.



I agree, despite not knowing the stats of violence in Switzerland. I do know that fatal shootings by police officers in the US are the main cause of death in the US. And the penalty of even shooting at a police officer (even a police K-9) is far worse than a police officer killing someone without cause. It’s very authoritarian in the US and will certainly get worse once guns are taken away from civilians.

Of course, it all comes down to the individuals that cause the shootings which is why everyone shouldn’t be punished for the few.

Here you go man, at the end it even tells you most gun related deaths in Switzerland are suicides. That should tell you how non existent the problems are.

You must be registered for see links

The Swiss clearly employ different strategies relative to the US. It is disgusting that cops can get away with murder and even a police dog has more rights than a human being. We both agree there's a clear difference that the value system and culture are broken.

There's another unique thing about Switzerland that is often overlooked. Interventionism, occupation and war are not promoted as a good thing or engrained as part fo their cultural identity. The US does it to justify occupations and bombing campaigns and they bombard people with messaging day in and day out. The Swiss don't do that, they stay neutral and do their best to avoid conflict.

The two opposites help in breeding different value systems.

 

[chopstickchakra]

Lmfao I was looking forward to what your response would’ve been but I guess you saw the flaw in your logic.



I agree, despite not knowing the stats of violence in Switzerland. I do know that fatal shootings by police officers in the US are the main cause of death in the US. And the penalty of even shooting at a police officer (even a police K-9) is far worse than a police officer killing someone without cause. It’s very authoritarian in the US and will certainly get worse once guns are taken away from civilians.

Of course, it all comes down to the individuals that cause the shootings which is why everyone shouldn’t be punished for the few.

Or I don't waste my day waiting on a reply from people.

Defending yourself to the best of your ability and thinking you can stop an oppressive government with assault weapons are two different things. Your first post implied you believe a group of citizens with rifles could force a government and that's just simply not true.

 

[Animegoin]

Or I don't waste my day waiting on a reply from people.

Defending yourself to the best of your ability and thinking you can stop an oppressive government with assault weapons are two different things. Your first post implied you believe a group of citizens with rifles could force a government and that's just simply not true.

Or you just realized how asinine your argument was and fled the post.

Defending yourself from an oppressive government to the best of your ability vs. willingly giving your weapons away to said tyrannical overlords are indeed two entirely different things. Would you care to explain how the opposite of what I’d described in my first post is true?

 

[ShogunSpiderman89]

Oh and at the end of the day. Guns don't kill people. People do!

 

[Chikombo]

Or you just realized how asinine your argument was and fled the post.

Defending yourself from an oppressive government to the best of your ability vs. willingly giving your weapons away to said tyrannical overlords are indeed two entirely different things. Would you care to explain how the opposite of what I’d described in my first post is true?

I think what he means to say is that guns can create individual safety but less guns would make society safer, stasticially speaking.

So the question becomes if your own interests are greater than society's.

I still believe guns should be legal cus it's sacreligious to say anything else, in the US but I have no interest in owning a gun myself and I don't really want those laws in my own country,

I think guns could be interesting to have for protection of your home or something like that, or maybe if you are suicidal it's an easy way out but other than that I'm not very interested.

 

[ShogunSpiderman89]

This is what the 2nd amendment states

Spoiler

You must be registered for see links

 

[chopstickchakra]

Or you just realized how asinine your argument was and fled the post.

Defending yourself from an oppressive government to the best of your ability vs. willingly giving your weapons away to said tyrannical overlords are indeed two entirely different things. Would you care to explain how the opposite of what I’d described in my first post is true?

How did I flee if I replied, you're making less sense than when you claimed a bunch of citizens with rifles could beat a military.

What's wrong is you're using an antiquated idea of the people being able to fend off the government as a reason you want to keep your guns when there's no merit actually left on that stance then when that's pointed out you try to turn it to some shouldn't we defend ourselves issue.

But thanks for showing everyone the idiocy and arrogance they can expect to deal with if they're foolish enough to waste time on you.

Post automatically merged: Sep 19, 2019

I think what he means to say is that guns can create individual safety but less guns would make society safer, stasticially speaking.

So the question becomes if your own interests are greater than society's.

I still believe guns should be legal cus it's sacreligious to say anything else, in the US but I have no interest in owning a gun myself and I don't really want those laws in my own country,

I think guns could be interesting to have for protection of your home or something like that, or maybe if you are suicidal it's an easy way out but other than that I'm not very interested.

I agree they should be legal, I just wish the people who want to keep them would stop trying to rely on this outdated notion that they need them to stop the government from becoming too oppressive since the days of actually being able to do so are long gone.

 

[Animegoin]

How did I flee if I replied, you're making less sense than when you claimed a bunch of citizens with rifles could beat a military.

What's wrong is you're using an antiquated idea of the people being able to fend off the government as a reason you want to keep your guns when there's no merit actually left on that stance then when that's pointed out you try to turn it to some shouldn't we defend ourselves issue.

But thanks for showing everyone the idiocy and arrogance they can expect to deal with if they're foolish enough to waste time on you.

Lmfao yeah don’t try it, you had to be enticed to respond which I why we’re conversing right now. I saw you come back to this thread yesterday after I’d made my reply to you and before Salamander’s first comment. You read what I’d typed, lingered here for a while, then left the thread.

How is it antiquated when military personal will always require troops to carry out tasks? Are you implying that the troops are invincible? Police officers, swat, military, etc. they all die when shot, thusly making their goal citizen supression harder. So answer the questions:
-Are troops still required in the military?
-Are troops invincible?
-Have tanks ever stopped those in Iraq, Afghan, Yemen, etc. from destroying them?
-Why should peaceful civilians hand over their weapons or have their weapons seized due to the actions of the few?

And no, allow me to thank you for showing everyone how moronic the idea of assuming giving away guns has ever made things better for anyone and for showing us that there actually is merit in what I’d stated, and that you’re a naive dunce that’d be the first to relinquish your freedom, if you’re even a US citizen.

 

[chopstickchakra]

Lmfao yeah don’t try it, you had to be enticed to respond which I why we’re conversing right now. I saw you come back to this thread yesterday after I’d made my reply to you and before Salamander’s first comment. You read what I’d typed, lingered here for a while, then left the thread.

How is it antiquated when military personal will always require troops to carry out tasks? Are you implying that the troops are invincible? Police officers, swat, military, etc. they all die when shot, thusly making their goal citizen supression harder. So answer the questions:
-Are troops still required in the military?
-Are troops invincible?
-Have tanks ever stopped those in Iraq, Afghan, Yemen, etc. from destroying them?
-Why should peaceful civilians hand over their weapons or have their weapons seized due to the actions of the few?

And no, allow me to thank you for showing everyone how moronic the idea of giving away guns always made things better for anyone and for showing us that there actually is merit in what I’d stated, and that you’re an naive dunce that’d be the first to relinquish your freedom, if you’re even a US citizen.

What a delusional twit. If nothing else it must be pleasant living in a mind state where you actually believe everything you say is infallible.

It's antiquated because of the tools available to both sides now. One side is severely under equipped.

- Troops are required

- Troops aren't invincible

- Do you have or can you get RPG and anti aircraft / anti tank artillery and guns? Do you have a surplus of discarded military equipment at your disposal? Do you have rival governments funding you? Good job making an unequal comparison and trying to use it as a valid point.

- Funny thing is I never actually said that, you said I said that. I said stop hiding behind this delusional farce that you'd fend off the US military if they became oppressive and just own that you like guns.

 

[Animegoin]

What a delusional twit. If nothing else it must be pleasant living in a mind state where you actually believe everything you say is infallible.

It's antiquated because of the tools available to both sides now. One side is severely under equipped.

- Troops are required

- Troops aren't invincible

- Do you have or can you get RPG and anti aircraft / anti tank artillery and guns? Do you have a surplus of discarded military equipment at your disposal? Do you have rival governments funding you? Good job making an unequal comparison and trying to use it as a valid point.

- Funny thing is I never actually said that, you said I said that. I said stop hiding behind this delusional farce that you'd fend off the US military if they became oppressive and just own that you like guns.

I literally saw it happen but yeah, continue being the wounded dunce, after all you’ve got no choice at this point.

Again it isn’t antiquated since troops will always be necessary and short of an air bombardment, armed civilians are a necessity to counter those boots on the ground troops.

-I can’t nor was I thinking of doing that, but not everyone is restricted to my means. So great job generalizing everyone into the same category. You’re an even bigger idiot than you initially appeared to be lol

-No it’s funny because you clearly didn’t read what I’d said in my first reply to you. I never said that you could take down a government, I said that don’t have to make it easy on them though. Lmfao go back to avoiding replying, you’re terrible at this.

 

[chopstickchakra]

I literally saw it happen but yeah, continue being the wounded dunce, after all you’ve got no choice at this point.

Again it isn’t antiquated since troops will always be necessary and short of an air bombardment, armed civilians are a necessity to counter those boots on the ground troops.

-I can’t nor was I thinking of doing that, but not everyone is restricted to my means. So great job generalizing everyone into the same category. You’re an even bigger idiot than you initially appeared to be lol

-No it’s funny because you clearly didn’t read what I’d said in my first reply to you. I never said that you could take down a government, I said that don’t have to make it easy on them though. Lmfao go back to avoiding replying, you’re terrible at this.

You literally just explained why it's antiquated and tried to say it's not. short of an air bombardment. Armed civilians no longer possess the force to oppose the full force of the military.

Funny thing is you did, you said you need to keep your guns in case the government becomes oppressive 'The more civilians armed with assault weapons means that the politicians are forced to hear the voices of the people. The US is very authoritarian and if guns are stripped from civilians, it’ll only get worse. Look at what was going on in Hong Kong where peaceful protests were met with armed force.' directly implying if the citizens of Hong Kong had been armed they'd have not been forced down by the government.