Why nearly all guns have to go

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah but its just the urban areas where virtually all the gun violence takes place. If were we to say it is a problem with black life, that would make it sound racist so we'll just say "urban areas." There's a lot of problems facing young black males that we need to address as a society; they're really struggling and could use our help.

The vast majority of gun owners aren't in the urban areas. We're in the suburbs and rural areas living peacefully with almost no gun violence at all.

Guns are the last line of defense against tyranny. If the state decides to threaten your life with their guns, you can protect yourself with your guns. To remove all guns would essentially give the state free reign to be as violent and oppressive as it wants. Gun control is a short-sighted solution to deeper problems.

Which is why gun disarmament is pointless without pacifying the State at the same. anti-gun advocates would have a greater case if they also packaged gun bans with disarming the police and the state in general. But they focus on the gun issue because manipulating society using innocent dead people has more political traction.

This is merely an ideological statement of opinion.

people who defend gun ownership for self-defense when they find out about non-lethal deterrents like tasers, paintball guns, bear spray, etc.

I shudder to imagine the reaction!

yes if tyranny arises, many would be helpless, but the point of a good society (read: communism) is that the people ARE the state, democratically and egalitarian..ly.

tyranny can't arise if everyone is a tyrant I think

Last edited by Readydaer on 26 Apr 2023, 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But isn’t it proof in all the other countries where guns don’t outnumber people that our/their governments blow people away all day every day because they have all the guns and the citizens don’t and that’s the reason governments want guns that citizens don’t have ???

Oh wait. That’s not real and doesn’t happen - it’s just an anxiety tale told by the NRA to anxious Americans to get them to buy guns & ammo to ease the anxieties they train into them. A bit like the ol’ “If tire business is slow, throw some nails in the road,” sort of guerrilla marketing.

Last edited by goldfish21 on 26 Apr 2023, 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The NRA has been irrelevant for decades and hasn't done anything meaningful for 2A protections in a very long time. Most concerned Americans look to GOA or other organizations to stand up on our behalf. The only people who use the NRA as a boogeyman are liberals.

Funny, that doesn't appear to be the demographic associated with the epidemic of pseudocommando mass shootings.

You're also ignoring how many members of that community strongly advocate to reduce the number of guns in their communities.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 26 Apr 2023, 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Imagine we are on an island where everybody wants coconuts. Mr. A has no coconuts, but has a gun. Mr. B has a coconut and a gun. Mr. C has a coconut, but no guns. If Mr. A is willing to go any lengths for a coconut, would he steal from Mr. B or Mr. C?

Ok. NRA or any number of NRA proxies lobbying government to keep guns & ammo stock prices as high as possible even if it means child sacrifices via pink mist filling the air of kindergarten classrooms.

I never made any such claims.



I am talking about the stat of over 1.5 million that was deleted by the CDC. They put it on their website then deleted it probably because they realized it doesn't help their gun control agenda.

"The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that in an average year during 1996–1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck and Gertz (1995)….CDC's results, then, imply that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals."

https://reason.com/2018/04/20/cdc-provi ... -plenty-o/


For the nth time, the controllers do not care about your common sense gun reform. They are just using common sense gun reform as tool to achieve their real goal of total disarmament. This is the last time I'll say this because I'm feeling tired of saying it at this point.


No it isn't. Because if legislation restricts all shotguns to have no more that 2 shots its basically telling civilians if they are attacked by multiple intruders they are screwed. It is like the legislators saying "f you" to anyone outside the cookie cutter role they expect for civilians. It is protecting civilians only in preset, cookie-cutter scenarios. If you happen to end up in a situation outside of that you're SOL ig.

The other reason that logic isn't valid is because mass-shooters are on a suicide-spree, therefore laws have 0 effect on them whatsoever, other than potentially making it harder to acquire guns. Whereas self-defenders could get in trouble for using weapons that the law didn't allow.


I think politics should be divided into rural and urban sectors. Because the laws don't seem to apply to each other, laws made for rural areas make no sense for urban sectors and laws made for urban sectors make no sense for rural areas. Someone who lives in the wild and is frequently attacked by giant hogs shouldn't have to give up AR-15s because some city-dwelling lunatic might go on a suicide-spree.

No it is a mathematical statement of fact. Disarming citizens means the state has a monopoly of violence. There is no other interpretation.


Oddly enough, tasers are illegal in some American states where guns are legal. Another example of politicians making irrational and illogical decisions. Also your talk of bear-spray shows you have no idea what you are talking about lol. Bear spray is weaker than regular pepper spray and much less effective.

Also good luck using a paintball gun against 3 armed intruders wearing kevlar armor.


Still waiting for real communism.


Why do you keep sticking to the "guns outnumber people" argument? Literally has no mathematical relevance. We both know America would still have mass shootings even if there were less guns than people.


I never heard the NRA weave such a tale. The actual opinion is that the controllers (not the government, the government are simply bribed puppets) want total disarmament, so they can do more unconstitutional things, like force people to eat ze bugs or go to ze podshares. And they accomplish this through bully tactics like sending armed patrols to herd citizens to do what they want, obviously if citizens were armed they could not do these things. And the places where guns aren't allowed, like Australia, UK etc. are not forcing citizens to eat ze bugs yet because they are waiting on America to do severe gun control first, and then they can start enforcing the draconian policies worldwide.


Correct. Guns don't choose to mass shoot people, its humans killing humans using tools. Odds are if someone banned guns there would be less mass shootings (still some mass shootings because of homemade guns and guns on the black market) but there might be the same amount of killing sprees actually, who knows if these people just become future serial killers that are untraceable, at least with mass-shootings the crime ends after the shooting.

Second of all, or even more importantly, guns were far easier to get in the 60s and you didn't see all these mass shootings, so its obviously a culture problem. Abysmal, horrible parenting, for instance I go online and some random 8 year old I don't even know starts bullying me and insulting me and I am an adult. You'd never see kids acting like that in the 60s. And the schools are filled with these kinds of kids, bullies, rapists, molesters, toxic vulgar teens, teachers talking about vulgar bs, addicts, etc. And kids are forced to go to these kind of toxic, unwholesome environments. And banning guns is kind of like the easy way out, instead of addressing the problem and fixing culture you vote to just try to reduce the backlash about the bad environment. So we would get a place that might be safer but with all the same usual garbage. Same situation with people like Bloomberg trying to ban guns from blacks, it doesn't address why black people shoot each other in the first place, the reason blacks join gangs is lack of economic function, lack of ubi, living in the projects, living in a dystopia etc.

Your post reminds me of a drug addict blaming everyone and everything else for the problems in their life that are caused by drugs.

:bonkers:

I post a wall of text and all you have for me is a low-effort response. I thought you could do better.

It was very concise, so what? There wouldn’t be much point in copying & pasting the same statement under the maximum number of quotes allowed in a post when my statement applies to all of the nonsense you posted above.

Feel free to read it 5-10x or whatever if the repetition helps you.

Small arms and even the anti-aircraft weapons some people can legally own in parts of the States will be no protection against government tyranny. If The State decides to turn on the people as it did in Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, small arms won't protect you, you'll up against every branch of the military and intelligence services and you can't prevail.

>Society is a hellscape
>People get tired of the hellscape and lash out at the other denizens of the hellscape
>Rather than fix the hellscape, you offer to declaw and disarm the denizens of the hellscape, and give all power to the creators and rulers of the hellscape



I don't know much about South America so you'll have to explain to me why you think your argument is valid. All I know is the culture is not very similar to the USA so the argument may not apply.