What is Gun Control Really About?

Yeah, these countries are so full of violence because law abiding citizens are not allowed to arm themselves. And look at how defenseless they are against tyrannical government! They are so much worse than the Land of the Free.

Intentional homicide victims per 100,000 inhabitants.

Japan 0.26.

Norway 0.47.

Netherlands 0.59.

Switzerland 0.59.

South Korea 0.60.

New Zealand 0.70.

Taiwan 0.82.

Australia 0.89.

Germany 0.95.

UK 1.20.

France 1.20.

Israel 1.36.

Canada 1.80.

A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:

Yeah, these countries are so full of violence because law abiding citizens are not allowed to arm themselves. And look at how defenseless they are against tyrannical government! They are so much worse than the Land of the Free.

Yeah, well, it's not about how things are today, it's about guarding and protecting the future. (and it is about having an understanding of history and human nature)

The United States is effectively the World Policeman. Since WWII we have been the major world power. Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have been THE world power. We have been the hedge against tyranny in the countries of our allies.

If we no longer have the power to secure our own liberty, then who is to say those countries continue to enjoy their own freedom?

Further, now China, a Communist human rights abuser, is rising up as a super power equal to and possibly surpassing the US soon. China has not hidden the fact that they intend to dominate the world. Russia is weaker, but is gaining strength. European countries are shifting military strategy to prepare for conventional war with Russia and/or China.

The threats to the United States, within and from outside are real and increasing. As we go, the free world goes.

Oh, Uncle Samson, you're hardly the towering intellect you think you are.

Uncle Samson wrote:

Well, to put it as simply as possible for you and all those that keep bringing up this ridiculous comparison, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are also offensive weapons, not defensive, and are a threat to all humanity. They are a threat to the existence of humans at all. Thus the reason they are banned from international warfare. They can kill millions in the push of a button and there is no defense against them. It is juvenile to try to equate offensive Weapons of Mass Destruction with firearms and it shows an ignorance of the purpose and importance of the second amendment.

Anti-aircraft missiles are defensive weapons. Do you need one of these to defend against the tyranny of the federal government? Their air force has many bombers to destroy your home along with all the people inside.

Uncle Samson wrote:

The United States is effectively the World Policeman. Since WWII we have been the major world power. Since the fall of the Soviet Union we have been THE world power. We have been the hedge against tyranny in the countries of our allies.

Wait, are you saying the US GOVERFMENT is protecting the citizens of other countries from tyranny? I thought it was the private citizens with guns who were protecting themselves FROM the US government.

I remember in the 90s when the Brady Bill became law and also to the Assault Weapons ban. The government then implemented martial law and began their tyrannical authoritarian reign. 10 years of horrible oppression under dictatorship until the ban expired and we were able to buy AR 15s again and fight back to regain our freedom.

Oh wait, that never happened.

michaeltheheart wrote:

Oh, Uncle Samson, you're hardly the towering intellect you think you are.

OK, thanks for that contribution.

NewWorldOrder wrote:

I remember in the 90s when the Brady Bill became law and also to the Assault Weapons ban. The government then implemented martial law and began their tyrannical authoritarian reign. 10 years of horrible oppression under dictatorship until the ban expired and we were able to buy AR 15s again and fight back to regain our freedom.

Oh wait, that never happened.

So what?

Uncle Samson wrote:

NewWorldOrder wrote:

I remember in the 90s when the Brady Bill became law and also to the Assault Weapons ban. The government then implemented martial law and began their tyrannical authoritarian reign. 10 years of horrible oppression under dictatorship until the ban expired and we were able to buy AR 15s again and fight back to regain our freedom.

Oh wait, that never happened.

So what?

The point is that these measures are not about control as you imply in the OP, they are about public safety. Simple as that.

NewWorldOrder wrote:

Uncle Samson wrote:

So what?

The point is that these measures are not about control as you imply in the OP, they are about public safety. Simple as that.

I'm not sure how your first sarcastic comment supports this statement.

The "Assault Weapons ban" in the 80's, while worhtless and a violation of our rights, didn't make "Assault Weapons" illegal to own, or even to buy. It made a group of firearms that had traits they deemed were "Assault Weapony" not manufacturable or importable. So anyone who had a firearm that was banned by the bill was still able to legally own it. A gun shop that had "Pre-ban" firearms could sell them, and they did at a gigantic mark up. So this ban was nothing like banning all ownership of a classification of firearms, nor was it anything close to a ban on firearms in general.

It should also be noted that the bill made zero impact on crime, which is one of the main reasons it was not renewed. This is not surprising given the numbers I listed in the original post about how few gun deaths are caused by these so called "assault rifles". It isn't a significant issue except in the propagandist media and the unreasonable fear that has been whipped up in much of the public, which also then goes back to my original question. If gun violence ranks far down the list of causes of death, and if rifles account for very few of the gun deaths that do happen, and if "assault rifles" are included in the category of all rifles, making them responsible for even fewer of those deaths, then why all they hype and desire to outlaw them? It doesn't make logical sense in terms of being a major public safety threat. Therefore, it is much more reasonable that it is for emotional PR purposes, or to set up something worse.

Finally, how do you know these measures are not about control and are "simply" about public safety? That is your opinion. You don't know. So making such a statement is of no value.

you obviously were enlisted. We all knew that.

For all your talk, you and your guns have not prevent wholesale destruction of rights by the ruling class against certain people SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN THOSE DISTRUCTION OF RIGHTS.

you were not a solider, you were a mercenary. I am sure BP was thanks you for your service.

michaeltheheart wrote:

Oh, Uncle Samson, you're hardly the towering intellect you think you are.

He thinks Red Dawn is real.

I will say this. If the zombie apocalypse ever happens , I will admit I was wrong about guns

I just can't engage with these gun proponents. The answer as to why there are so many mass shootings and gun deaths is staring them in the face, and yet they'll go to the moon and back talking about the 2A and the need to guard themselves against an encroaching state. And yet we're the ones who are Libtards and Idiots. Baffling.

When you copy and paste you really should give attribution.

I think folks who want to "control guns" mean well but look at the world far too simplistically and have over the top expectations.

Some measures to curb gun violence and suicides make a lot of sense.

1) Red flag laws.

2) Limits on magazine size.

3) Prosecuting straw buyers.

4) Even stiffer penalties for crimes involving a firearm.

Increasing background checks to private sales will not have any effect on crime much less mass shootings.

It's been done before in Australia and it does work in other countries. But even in my "gun grabber" heart. I know that America is too far gone.

Some people (**ahem** like people who start these kinds of threads}, have too much of their identity in being a gun owner. It's make them "think" they are better people without having to to all that much. They view themselves as the last bastion against a gov't who is a moment away from turning on it's citizens. It's probably quite seducing to feel that way.

Wuzzle Wuzzle wrote:

It's been done before in Australia and it does work in other countries. But even in my "gun grabber" heart. I know that America is too far gone.

Some people (**ahem** like people who start these kinds of threads}, have too much of their identity in being a gun owner. It's make them "think" they are better people without having to to all that much. They view themselves as the last bastion against a gov't who is a moment away from turning on it's citizens. It's probably quite seducing to feel that way.

You struggle with your English. Are you even an American?

Mike Bloomberg created and funds the biggest anti-gun organization, Every Town for Gun Safety.

This is a guy who has backed every US attack on Muslim majority nations and who used the NY Police as his own private army and bragged about it.

You think he gives a damn about our safety?

Samson,

1. Your flawless founding fathers owned slaves, so hardly a moral compass on government overreach on personal liberty. Please tell me how slaves were okay at the time and 2021 is completely different.

2. Mass shootings did decrease in the ten years the Brady bill was in effect and then sharply increased after

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Uncle Samson wrote:

Well, to put it as simply as possible for you and all those that keep bringing up this ridiculous comparison, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are also offensive weapons, not defensive, and are a threat to all humanity. They are a threat to the existence of humans at all. Thus the reason they are banned from international warfare. They can kill millions in the push of a button and there is no defense against them. It is juvenile to try to equate offensive Weapons of Mass Destruction with firearms and it shows an ignorance of the purpose and importance of the second amendment.

Here is another "defensive" weapon. Do you need this to defend yourself against M1 Ahraham tanks? (The US government has many of them.)