Guncontrolism: A pathology of the weak and fearful.

a reply to: chr0naut

If they blocked free access to atomic weapons from the general public, only criminals would have atomic weapons.

Why are you repeating this retarded statement? You are bringing state controlled WMDs into a discussion about firearms. Are you daft? If your point is about retaining civilian access to firearms and stating that because the government controls nuclear arms means that small arms are rendered useless you are truly daft. The US has been in countless wars since the atomic age began and never used those arms for the last 60 years. You think that is a factor in this debate?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The "American Empire" is pretty much the source of all the world's problems.

Yes and by that definition is the power in this world. So what's your point exactly?

a reply to: machineintelligence

My "point" is that its gun-toting citizens haven't really done all that much to stop it from ruining everything. Your second amendment is meant to be there to try and stop this.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
Again you show your ignorance of what is going on in the United States. The American Empire is the only currently existing global empire on the planet. They control the IMF, the FED, the US military, The UN, NATO. Pretty much the entire power structure of the world. Civil unrest is caused by the control freaks who try and disrupt American liberty. They routinely fail in the end.

I think you have this confused. The United States is under the control of those central banks, not the other way around. The US is in debt to them and they create our money supply so they are in charge. However, even those central banks are then controlled by another set of private businesses which are ultimately controlled by a group of very powerful wealthy collective of people that we probably have never heard of and never will.

The United States it's just one Government which is under their control like all other Governments and banks and media, etc. The American Empire is a tool of theirs and it doesn't belong to us. We just have to pay back it's debts as slaves. Even now with the TPP we are about to lose the last bit of sovereign control over our country to a small group of Corporate Elitists. The people at the top are loyal to no country or nation. They are the only true sovereign entities on this planet and we are all under their control.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Really, the bunch of average Joes that even care about this subject were supposed to band together, stop this bunch of conspiring rich boys from trying to take over the world with their greed and avaricious? We do what we can.

a reply to: mOjOm

Who do you think these banks obtain their charter to operate from and their connections to other banks? Banks rely on state charter not the other way around believe it or not.

originally posted by: machineintelligence

Who do you think these banks obtain their charter to operate from and their connections to other banks? Banks rely on state charter not the other way around believe it or not.

Whoever charters that bank. But I don't think that puts us in control of them though.

But I don't know for certain how it all works but from what I've read we don't hold power of those banks.

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: chr0naut

As far as I am concerned, Americans are free to do what they want. Their empire is over. The civil unrest occurring now are the death throes, like every other empire previous. Gun proliferation will just hasten the breakdown. It is just sad, the number of innocents that will end up caught in the crossfire.

Again you show your ignorance of what is going on in the United States. The American Empire is the only currently existing global empire on the planet. They control the IMF, the FED, the US military, The UN, NATO. Pretty much the entire power structure of the world. Civil unrest is caused by the control freaks who try and disrupt American liberty. They routinely fail in the end.

The EU, the Commonwealth of Nations, The Russian Federation, the Chinese Socialist bloc are just a few 'empires' that exist now and have in recent times (or are now) in a stronger economic position than the US. The US empire is hardly global.

A brief analysis of the GDP of various countries might surprise you about the true state of American financial power.

I will agree that the US is the most powerful country militarily at present, but history shows that military power is ephemeral and many powerful nations have been defeated by lesser nations.

Somewhat tongue in cheek, but here is Military history of the United States - Unclopedia (this is just to lighten the mood - a joke - for those who are overly serious).

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: chr0naut

If they blocked free access to atomic weapons from the general public, only criminals would have atomic weapons.

Why are you repeating this retarded statement? You are bringing state controlled WMDs into a discussion about firearms. Are you daft? If your point is about retaining civilian access to firearms and stating that because the government controls nuclear arms means that small arms are rendered useless you are truly daft. The US has been in countless wars since the atomic age began and never used those arms for the last 60 years. You think that is a factor in this debate?

Despite the number of countries that are nuclear armed (many for nearly the whole 60 years), the US is the ONLY country to have ever used atomic weapons against another. But that is beside the point.

Both nukes and guns are weapons - functionally, they aren't much good for anything else.

originally posted by: Konduit

originally posted by: ForteanOrgBut facts are facts: with strict gun control in place people are safer.

This is the most repeated red herring when it comes to gun control in the UK. Anyone who has researched the topic knows that overall VIOLENT crime has increased in the UK since the gun ban in 1997

Red herring? Facts: in the UK we had 14 murders with firearms. In the US we had a whopping 669 times as much: 9,369. In the UK: 11.68 murders per million people. US: 42.01. Four times more than in the UK.

Red herring indeed..

a reply to: machineintelligence

People who would rather defend themselves want to see an end to the wannabee mass shooter as he or she hits the floor dead before anyone else is killed and big brother's guys are just 3 or 4 magazine changes away.

Please cite examples of armed civilians stopping mass shootings with their concealed carry gun. The only instance I can think of involved an off duty policeman stopping an attempted assassination.

originally posted by: Logman

People that want gun control want to see an end to mass shootings. They don't want to see massive firefights in the streets between nutcases and terrorists.

Dumb thread. Dumb mindset.

You mean like the one that just happened in Paris where people can't have guns?

a reply to: DJW001

Please cite examples of armed civilians stopping mass shootings with their concealed carry gun. The only instance I can think of involved an off duty policeman stopping an attempted assassination.

More recent: www.kgw.com...

16 more: blog.uritraining.com...

San Bernardino, Calif.•Reports indicate there were three shooters in tactical gear.www.youtube.com...
You see, the gun-violence problem…is part of the gang problem…and gangs are a necessary…part of the drug business…and the drug business…must never be interrupted…because it makes a lot of money…for a lot of people…important people…Accumulating money takes precedence over the downside of killing and maiming people
no matter what gun laws are passed in America, gangs will continue to get guns.jonrappoport.wordpress.com...
Sinaloa is granted clean drug routes up from Mexico all the way to Chicago (a hub of heroin and coc aine distribution, and also a hub of gang violence).

originally posted by: RealtruthYou mean like the one that just happened in Paris where people can't have guns?

Are you actually suggesting that if even more people had had a gun, the number of deaths would have been less?

Let's see.

So, you're sitting there at a table drinking some wine, enjoying yourself. Paris, after all. Now, suddenly a car passes by. You sip your wine and while looking over the edge of the glass you suddenly realise there is something strange going on: you hear gunshots, you see some guys with an automatic weapon. It all happens in 1 or 2 seconds. So, you duck. And it's all over, around you are many that did not have the luck and reflexes. Do you actually think that it would have made a difference that you would have had a gun?

Or you are in a theatre, a rock concert. Oh, man, come on, even in the US you're leaving your weapons behind if you go to a concert. But okay, let's say everybody had had a weapon. So, you're sitting there, enjoying a concert, loud music, banging of the drums - and then you hear gunshots, see people flee and fall down. What do you suggest you do - pull out the gun, shoot at a gunman you can't even clearly see? Also, the public would have gotten confused. Shots would have gone off everywhere, killing many more and confusing the public even further.

The movies aren't real. More guns do not protect you against this type of attack.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Logman

Anything that comes after the "people like you" is falling on deft ears

I quite like nimble ears, but I do prefer the delft ones. There's just something about the blue and white that gets me.

That's all I have to offer this silly thread: more silliness.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: RealtruthYou mean like the one that just happened in Paris where people can't have guns?

Are you actually suggesting that if even more people had had a gun, the number of deaths would have been less?

Let's see.

So, you're sitting there at a table drinking some wine, enjoying yourself. Paris, after all. Now, suddenly a car passes by. You sip your wine and while looking over the edge of the glass you suddenly realise there is something strange going on: you hear gunshots, you see some guys with an automatic weapon. It all happens in 1 or 2 seconds. So, you duck. And it's all over, around you are many that did not have the luck and reflexes. Do you actually think that it would have made a difference that you would have had a gun?

Or you are in a theatre, a rock concert. Oh, man, come on, even in the US you're leaving your weapons behind if you go to a concert. But okay, let's say everybody had had a weapon. So, you're sitting there, enjoying a concert, loud music, banging of the drums - and then you hear gunshots, see people flee and fall down. What do you suggest you do - pull out the gun, shoot at a gunman you can't even clearly see? Also, the public would have gotten confused. Shots would have gone off everywhere, killing many more and confusing the public even further.

The movies aren't real. More guns do not protect you against this type of attack.

how does taking them away from 30 million innocent bystanders.......?
For drunk drivers we need to just make it harder for everyone to purchase a car.....
So…how many times, since he took office, has he mentioned the word “gangs”? How many times? More importantly, how many times has he explained, with great emphasis, how significant a role gangs play in gun violence?
How many times has he said, explicitly and in detail, what he is going to do about that? Just asking.
30 thousand gangs in the US.
People dedicated to crime, quite dedicated.
They have guns. Perhaps, just perhaps they can buy many of these guns from illegal sources, which would allow them to bypass the tightest registration laws. And, don’t forget, they shoot those guns. At people

You would think that any campaign to diminish gun violence in America would include, and focus on, gangs—unless the more important agenda is maintaining the multi-billion or trillion-dollar drug business, with its associated payoffs to “helpmates.”

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: DJW001
More recent: www.kgw.com...

Now, that's actually a very good example of how useless a gun can be in such situations. There we have a young man, who works in the security business and carries a gun (CCW). A mad shooter starts shooting down innocent people in the mall. Our CCW has his weapon ready and a clear line of sight.

He does not shoot, as he fears he might hit an innocent bystander.

Cheers to him. But what use is a gun then? If you are a pro, you won't use it if there is the slightest chance of hitting an innocent bystander. And that is mostly the case. If you're not a pro I don't want you to carry a gun.

Another thing: this young man now is traumatised - two people were killed and he simply stood there watching. Had he NOT had a gun, he would not have to worry if he had done the right thing.

originally posted by: madenusa
You would think that any campaign to diminish gun violence in America would include, and focus on, gangs—unless the more important agenda is maintaining the multi-billion or trillion-dollar drug business, with its associated payoffs to “helpmates.”

Yes, organised crime should be fought - by the police. One of my main reasons of not being opposed to legalisation of drugs is that by legalizing them, you diminish the role of gangs. Mind you: legalised drugs should be fought too: like we do with cigarettes and alcohol. We inform the public about the consequences of mis-use and forbid people to do work or drive when under the influence of drugs - and if they do they will be severely punished.

With the abundance of weapons on the American market, it's no wonder all gangs have guns - it's legal after all. Make ownership of guns illegal and legalise drugs. Your world will be a lot safer.

a reply to: aorAki

There is nothing having to do with guns that is "silly".