Conquer Club

I am ambivalent on the issue. I see good arguments on both sides, but I had a friend send me this recently. I checked the facts generally, and everything matches up as far as dates go. I just wanted to get some input on how gun control advocates interpret this data. Forgive the rhetoric in the language, not my writing. Look past the style and see the facts, thats what I want to see discussed:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were ro unded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberi es are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDER LY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

What does "gun control" mean in all of those contexts??

btownmeggy wrote:What does "gun control" mean in all of those contexts??

indeed i think there are some questions that could be raised....surely only a handful of people in those cases would have been killed if everyone had a gun.

I mean its not like the germans were serious about wiping out the jews during the holocaust or that in china and russia they werent equally as serious about eliminating political dissidents.

While ive never thought the argument that if you give people guns it will necessarily eliminate gun violence was all that bright, these type of statistics do not make a more intelligent case.

Oh here we go again......

Probably best to bump the old gun control thread, think we about debated it into the ground. No need to hash it out again unless anyone has anything new to add

Iz Man wrote:Oh here we go again......

that is one annoying yawn. if only i had my gun with me i could shoot the ignorant swine between the eyes...

Stupid cunts are the only people who think gun control is a good idea.

It should be called GOVERNMENT control. Because thats all it is. The government taking away yet another right that we should have.

Why dont you all just roll over and let the government stomp on you some more? Liberal twats....

Where would Jack Bauer be with gun control?!?!

Oh noes! Canada has gun control! We're going to be rounded up and exterminated! Yup... Any time now... I mean, it's been over 100 years! It has to happen soon!

hecter wrote:Oh noes! Canada has gun control! We're going to be rounded up and exterminated! Yup... Any time now... I mean, it's been over 100 years! It has to happen soon!

Yeah and look at where you all are. The government may not be murdering you, but it has complete control over you. Hospitals, media.. and the funny part is you are all too dim witted to realize it.

I guess the problem with trying to have an intelligent conversation about gun debate is that only fucking idiots like taylor here speak up in favor of no gun control and the rational arguments for free gun ownership never make it to the surface.

Did a little research on my own. The Australia citation above is total bunk.

All of the others are instances where a government really caused the problem. Gun control was just a symptom of a larger governmental problem.

It seems to me that, at its heart the gun issue comes down to a choice about what kind of risk you want to be exposed to.

1. If guns are allowed you run the risk of accidents, curiosity, or the gun being used against you intentionally.

2. If guns are not allowed you run the risk inherent with turning your personal safety over to government entities such as the military and the police.

Both risk are rather minimal and hugely insignificant, but the decision still must be made.

Harijan wrote:I guess the problem with trying to have an intelligent conversation about gun debate is that only fucking idiots like taylor here speak up in favor of no gun control and the rational arguments for free gun ownership never make it to the surface.

Did a little research on my own. The Australia citation above is total bunk.

All of the others are instances where a government really caused the problem. Gun control was just a symptom of a larger governmental problem.

It seems to me that, at its heart the gun issue comes down to a choice about what kind of risk you want to be exposed to.

1. If guns are allowed you run the risk of accidents, curiosity, or the gun being used against you intentionally.

2. If guns are not allowed you run the risk inherent with turning your personal safety over to government entities such as the military and the police.

Both risk are rather minimal and hugely insignificant, but the decision still must be made.

Tell me why I am an idiot? Was my argument idiotic?

Its the government trying to gain more control over the people. You cant deny that fact. It may be well intentioned to some extent, but the main objective is to take control. Thats all that ever happens anymore.

TaylorSandbek wrote:
Tell me why I am an idiot? Was my argument idiotic?

Its the government trying to gain more control over the people. You cant deny that fact. It may be well intentioned to some extent, but the main objective is to take control. Thats all that ever happens anymore.

Its not that your argument is idiotic, its that the way you present your argument is idiotic.

Yes, the government seeks to control different things. Thats actually what a government is supposed to do, so explain why a particular government is doing a good or bad job at controlling things.

Assuming you are talking about the U.S. Government:
-Do you think FEMA had enough control to mitigate natural disasters?
-Do you believe that the FAA needs to control passengers on airplanes to prevent terrorist attacks?
-Should the government control our borders to prevent illegal immigration?
-The biggest tools of control that the state and federal government have are the police and military. Should the Govt disband the military and the police because they have too much control over our lives?

Your ambiguous and emotional presentation of your argument is intended to incite emotional and retaliatory remarks which usually lead to endless bickering and harsh feelings where no progress is made.

If thats what you wanted, then congratulations, you succeeded, I am operating under the assumption that you wanted to persuade or at least add insight to the conversation.

Going with the U.S. (as I assume that this what it's pointed to) the Constitution should be interpreted at face value. The 2nd Amendment isn't that ambiguous. We have the right to bear arms. The only area of ambiguity is how powerful the guns we allow people to have are. In my personal opinion, there shouldn't be control over that aspect. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on a .50 cal. machine gun bought from military surplus, they should be allowed to.

On that note however, I believe there should be gun control in the sense that we don't want just everyone running around with weapons. Background checks, permits, and the whole nine yards should be enforced so as not to put those .50 cal. machine guns into the hands of some crazed killer out to shoot hundreds of people just because.

Anyway, that's my argument, and I think I'm gonna go sleep now.

Hologram wrote:Going with the U.S. (as I assume that this what it's pointed to) the Constitution should be interpreted at face value. The 2nd Amendment isn't that ambiguous. We have the right to bear arms. The only area of ambiguity is how powerful the guns we allow people to have are. In my personal opinion, there shouldn't be control over that aspect. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on a .50 cal. machine gun bought from military surplus, they should be allowed to.

On that note however, I believe there should be gun control in the sense that we don't want just everyone running around with weapons. Background checks, permits, and the whole nine yards should be enforced so as not to put those .50 cal. machine guns into the hands of some crazed killer out to shoot hundreds of people just because.

Anyway, that's my argument, and I think I'm gonna go sleep now.

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Would the kids who shot up all those other kids in columbine, Virginia tech etc have been flagged up with background checks? Would their parents?

And woudl teh worl dbe a sfare place if everyone had guns? Even if aonly governmt-approved™ owners had guns, would that make it easier or harder for whackos to get hold of them?

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Yes.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Yes.

i believe thats johnny mac stepping over to the empires chair....

"You Cannot Be Serious!!!!"

got tonkaed wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Yes.

i believe thats johnny mac stepping over to the empires chair....

"You Cannot Be Serious!!!!"

Mainly, that answer was for an overboard, and also a foolish question that people should have common sense about. Basically, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer in return. In this case, ask an absolute extremist question, expect an absolute extremist answer.

Just a personal view but I would not put my right to bear arms ahead of the desire to prevent thousands of accidental shootings every year.

TaylorSandbek wrote:

hecter wrote:Oh noes! Canada has gun control! We're going to be rounded up and exterminated! Yup... Any time now... I mean, it's been over 100 years! It has to happen soon!

Yeah and look at where you all are. The government may not be murdering you, but it has complete control over you. Hospitals, media.. and the funny part is you are all too dim witted to realize it.

Sounds exactly like the USA.

heavycola wrote:

Hologram wrote:Going with the U.S. (as I assume that this what it's pointed to) the Constitution should be interpreted at face value. The 2nd Amendment isn't that ambiguous. We have the right to bear arms. The only area of ambiguity is how powerful the guns we allow people to have are. In my personal opinion, there shouldn't be control over that aspect. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on a .50 cal. machine gun bought from military surplus, they should be allowed to.

On that note however, I believe there should be gun control in the sense that we don't want just everyone running around with weapons. Background checks, permits, and the whole nine yards should be enforced so as not to put those .50 cal. machine guns into the hands of some crazed killer out to shoot hundreds of people just because.

Anyway, that's my argument, and I think I'm gonna go sleep now.

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Would the kids who shot up all those other kids in columbine, Virginia tech etc have been flagged up with background checks? Would their parents?

And woudl teh worl dbe a sfare place if everyone had guns? Even if aonly governmt-approved™ owners had guns, would that make it easier or harder for whackos to get hold of them?

If someone can either produce a nuclear bomb on their own or the military is stupid enough to sell one on the open market (stealing is still against the law and therefore if they obtain it that way they shouldn't have it) then I'm all for allowing them to have it. However, I would probably move far away from any urban areas.

Im sorry, all that you say about my argument is true.. It was far too emotional, and it was not written very well.
I was just sort of heated up, and could not pull together any real logic whatsoever.

I see it as the government taking over more control then they ought to, because to have gun control, we need to change the second ammendmant. Thats too much power for the government to have.
Also, Id like to make the point that were there is a will, there is a way, and that the people who really wanted to murder someone else could pretty easily find a gun to use, even with gun control. This would leave the other person helpless.
What Im trying to say is, the bad guys will inevitably find a way to have a gun in their possession, so it does no good to then take it away, because the only people that will be punished by it are the good guys.

Im sorry, even this was not written well but its late and Im tired. Take it for what it is.

Hologram wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Hologram wrote:Going with the U.S. (as I assume that this what it's pointed to) the Constitution should be interpreted at face value. The 2nd Amendment isn't that ambiguous. We have the right to bear arms. The only area of ambiguity is how powerful the guns we allow people to have are. In my personal opinion, there shouldn't be control over that aspect. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on a .50 cal. machine gun bought from military surplus, they should be allowed to.

On that note however, I believe there should be gun control in the sense that we don't want just everyone running around with weapons. Background checks, permits, and the whole nine yards should be enforced so as not to put those .50 cal. machine guns into the hands of some crazed killer out to shoot hundreds of people just because.

Anyway, that's my argument, and I think I'm gonna go sleep now.

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Would the kids who shot up all those other kids in columbine, Virginia tech etc have been flagged up with background checks? Would their parents?

And woudl teh worl dbe a sfare place if everyone had guns? Even if aonly governmt-approved™ owners had guns, would that make it easier or harder for whackos to get hold of them?

If someone can either produce a nuclear bomb on their own or the military is stupid enough to sell one on the open market (stealing is still against the law and therefore if they obtain it that way they shouldn't have it) then I'm all for allowing them to have it. However, I would probably move far away from any urban areas.

You are wrong in that sense. I'm sorry, but there is literally no argument for allowing nuclear weapons. What the hell are they going to use it for? Anyways, while banning guns altogether is a bad call I'm for banning semi-automatic (and automatic, naturally) weaponry. Frankly, for the US at least, no matter what you realistically possess, the government has the technology to take you out from a mile away. If the government wanted to repress us they could. So the only thing those weapons will ever be used for is killing other humans en masse. Anything that isn't semi-automatic is sometimes used for hunting (and is more than enough for self defense) so should be allowed. That's just my two cents.

Frigidus wrote:

Hologram wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Hologram wrote:Going with the U.S. (as I assume that this what it's pointed to) the Constitution should be interpreted at face value. The 2nd Amendment isn't that ambiguous. We have the right to bear arms. The only area of ambiguity is how powerful the guns we allow people to have are. In my personal opinion, there shouldn't be control over that aspect. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on a .50 cal. machine gun bought from military surplus, they should be allowed to.

On that note however, I believe there should be gun control in the sense that we don't want just everyone running around with weapons. Background checks, permits, and the whole nine yards should be enforced so as not to put those .50 cal. machine guns into the hands of some crazed killer out to shoot hundreds of people just because.

Anyway, that's my argument, and I think I'm gonna go sleep now.

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Would the kids who shot up all those other kids in columbine, Virginia tech etc have been flagged up with background checks? Would their parents?

And woudl teh worl dbe a sfare place if everyone had guns? Even if aonly governmt-approved™ owners had guns, would that make it easier or harder for whackos to get hold of them?

If someone can either produce a nuclear bomb on their own or the military is stupid enough to sell one on the open market (stealing is still against the law and therefore if they obtain it that way they shouldn't have it) then I'm all for allowing them to have it. However, I would probably move far away from any urban areas.

You are wrong in that sense. I'm sorry, but there is literally no argument for allowing nuclear weapons. What the hell are they going to use it for? Anyways, while banning guns altogether is a bad call I'm for banning semi-automatic (and automatic, naturally) weaponry. Frankly, for the US at least, no matter what you realistically possess, the government has the technology to take you out from a mile away. If the government wanted to repress us they could. So the only thing those weapons will ever be used for is killing other humans en masse. Anything that isn't semi-automatic is sometimes used for hunting (and is more than enough for self defense) so should be allowed. That's just my two cents.

You're right in that sense. The military is highly advanced compared to anything any kind of rag tag militia could come up with. But the same was basically true of the military in the 17th century, just less so. They still had the power of discipline, supply, and technology. The point of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the entire populace (or enough anyway) to rise up if they felt it needed. Because after all, a republic is based on the opinion of the people, and if the people can't solve their problems via political channels, rebellion is the only other option.

Frigidus wrote:

Hologram wrote:

heavycola wrote:

Hologram wrote:Going with the U.S. (as I assume that this what it's pointed to) the Constitution should be interpreted at face value. The 2nd Amendment isn't that ambiguous. We have the right to bear arms. The only area of ambiguity is how powerful the guns we allow people to have are. In my personal opinion, there shouldn't be control over that aspect. If someone wants to spend thousands of dollars on a .50 cal. machine gun bought from military surplus, they should be allowed to.

On that note however, I believe there should be gun control in the sense that we don't want just everyone running around with weapons. Background checks, permits, and the whole nine yards should be enforced so as not to put those .50 cal. machine guns into the hands of some crazed killer out to shoot hundreds of people just because.

Anyway, that's my argument, and I think I'm gonna go sleep now.

So nuclear weapons would be OK for people to own? For self0defence, obviously. What about cluster bombs?

Would the kids who shot up all those other kids in columbine, Virginia tech etc have been flagged up with background checks? Would their parents?

And woudl teh worl dbe a sfare place if everyone had guns? Even if aonly governmt-approved™ owners had guns, would that make it easier or harder for whackos to get hold of them?

If someone can either produce a nuclear bomb on their own or the military is stupid enough to sell one on the open market (stealing is still against the law and therefore if they obtain it that way they shouldn't have it) then I'm all for allowing them to have it. However, I would probably move far away from any urban areas.

You are wrong in that sense. I'm sorry, but there is literally no argument for allowing nuclear weapons. What the hell are they going to use it for? Anyways, while banning guns altogether is a bad call I'm for banning semi-automatic (and automatic, naturally) weaponry. Frankly, for the US at least, no matter what you realistically possess, the government has the technology to take you out from a mile away. If the government wanted to repress us they could. So the only thing those weapons will ever be used for is killing other humans en masse. Anything that isn't semi-automatic is sometimes used for hunting (and is more than enough for self defense) so should be allowed. That's just my two cents.

So, no paintball or airguns that are semi or fully automatic?