Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 148. (Read 450558 times)

I have to agree, it's about people control. Guns themselves cannot be controlled. In countries where guns ownership is illegal, criminals still have guns. It is simply the regular citizen that gets limited freedom.

Criminals walks around with this, while citizens don't have guns:

"Gun control" is a misnomer. The thing that it really is, is "people control."

Why do some people think that they can control other people better than the people can control themselves? You government people, get your pasty little fingers out of my life.

"Guns" and "control" are the key words here. If anyone can have guns anytime they want where is the control? Isn't there a contradiction?

I came here to debate the pros and cons of gun control, but you clearly are not interested in debate because you automatically latch on to the most meaningless part of a conversation to try to give yourself some kind of moral high ground that you already took a crap on 5 pages back. I want to have a debate about gun control with you and others, you do not want to debate me, you want to tell me your opinions and ignore facts I present while cherry picking your own stats and then not understanding what you are even sourcing.

You couldn't offend me if you tried, you however are obviously very offended by my opinions based on your response to my production of information that is counter to your existing beliefs. You have such strong confirmation bias you literally will not even look at any one else's information. In summary its not about you offending me or not wanting to debate you, its that your opinion means nothing to me much like the facts I present mean nothing to you. The difference between us is I will look at facts when you present them, but so far I see 98% opinion, and any facts are from statistics sites I sourced. Not impressed.

What is generally offensive however is some Frenchman that doesn't have any idea what he is talking about trying to argue that I should be disarmed in my own country and not be able to protect myself so he can feel morally superior. Why would anyone be offended by foreigners trying to define laws in a country they don't even live in? French won't even speak English to people when they visit your country, but you get to tell us if we are allowed to defend our lives and country at home? Frenchy please...

When you are done looking up the big words in my previous reply please do respond.


P.S. I think with the invasion of Muslim "refugees" from "Syria" moving into Europe, that it is far too dangerous for your police to be armed. I think in preparation for this incoming wave of crime and violence that you should disarm your law enforcement. After all, guns cause more violence than they prevent right? In the end you will be much safer in your hole 6ft under.

Wrong! The 2nd Amendment gives us no rights at all. The rights are inherent in us. If the Amendments were gone today, all of our rights remain. Why? Because government paperwork does nothing. It just sits there. Only people do things. What do government people do? They take advantage of other people who think that their rights come from some paperwork.

The paperwork expresses the equality of all people when it says, "All men are created equal ..." So, how is it that when government people hurt you by what they say and do, they get away with it? It's because you let them... maybe agree with them. Wake up and pick up your right to do anything as long as you are not hurting someone else. Wake up and realize that when government people limit you in any way, they are harming you.

For me it's all about freedom. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. That right has been infringed upon enough. Gun control is a joke. How would you like to live in a society where only the police and criminals had guns ? Not me.

LOL, an opinion based on "facts" from Michael Moore is fundamentally insulting.

But go read some of the links and see what you think then.

Dude if you don't want my opinion don't go on a thread named "your opinion on guns' control".
For the "not call us for help" part, yeah thanks when you see how you screwed us after I wonder if nazis were not better...
And I like it how WWII is the proof of French incapacity to protect themselves and American great heart but how Lafayette is forgotten.

I'll take the time to read your links later. But as I said and as you ignored, I apologized for the misunderstanding of the stats you provided. I can't really give you more than an apology. But it doesn't demonstrate your point as I was talking about violent crimes. Of course you could argue that "making a population safe" aso includes minor crimes like thefts. But guns won't increase thief, that's rather obvious there is no corelation between the two.

So I was talking about violent crimes rates and homicides. That's why I was talking about mass shootings.

And if my opinion offenses you, again don't go on a thread made for that or ignore me.

Really, it's not just them.  The favorite hobby of practically the entire world is discussing US politicals and stuff, often with wildly wrong facts.  And don't forget the $92M in "undocumented donations" to Obama's campaign from offshore.  So it can be more than just what they think or discuss.

Who gives a fuck what the French think about our domestic laws? What are they going to do? Not call us for help again next time they get their asses kicked?

Sure, but those from outside the USA really are fed large amounts of propaganda to shape their opinions about the USA.  The pro gun control totalitarians within the US are fed a different type of propaganda, with some overlap.

But my experience is that (say here) French may actually think of the USA as John Wayne, boots, gun, stuff like that. 

Great Link. Unfortunately your first mistake was assuming people give enough of a shit to spend 3 minutes reading to educate themselves. It is much much simpler to stare at a talking glowing box and let it tell you what your opinions are for you. It cuts out all the pesky straining mental work of thinking for yourself. Notice how the pro-gun control crowd are usually not rocket scientists? That is not a coincidence...

The huge amount of MISINFORMATION about guns in the USA leads me to provide this link, which is Federal.  States may have more restrictive laws.

https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/firearms-qas

You sound like you watch a lot of old westerns and action movies. A lot of simple minded people judge countries based only on their portrayal in entertainment media.


Because cops aren't people right? They have their tempers extracted at the police academy? I suppose that is why they had Michael Winslow there to make the temper extracting sound while they do it. Also police never use the threat of violence or actual violence for personal gains now do they?

http://www.cato.org/events/policing-profit-abuse-civil-asset-forfeiture



So in short the entertainment media talks a lot about guns and a handful of rare mass shooting incidents in a nation of 300 million plus people ad nauseum, and it appears to be a critical problem to you from your seat in some far off land. Who asked you your opinion about our domestic laws in the first place? The rest of the nations of the world don't have 300 million people of differing cultures, religions, races, and ethnicities with the amount of freedom we do. You are comparing Mayberry To New York and pretending like they are they same place. I do respect you at least stated this is your OPINION though. That means there is hope for you yet. FYI. Mayberry:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayberry#Archetypal_small_town

What?  M0gliE says he "don't really trust videos .... very biased media..." then he quotes as authority FatAss Moore? 

Right after Charles Hebro and the Paris bombing, to boot.

Actually not quoting properly is not only lazy and inconsiderate to all readers of the forum, it makes it impossible to verify if the person actually made the quote by linking it back.


 It is real easy to make a fake quote see? the only way anyone can tell if it is real is if they can click it and they are directed back to your actual speech. If you don't do this you are not only being a pain in everyone's ass making it harder to read but you are making yourself look like you are even more full of shit (is that even possible?).




I have showed you stats contrary to your standpoint but you either refuse to even read them or purposely misinterpret them and make fallacious strawman arguments and attribute them to me. Funny how every stat you list is immutable "fact" and anything I post "the problem is not with the stats but your stupidity" which is you basically just pretending the premise and the stats supporting the premise don't exist or are misinterpreted.

I don't know what nergy is, but even if you had enough of it I still don't think you have any weapons to fight with literally or figuratively.
What you call "taking any part of my speach and explaining how it is not perfect" I call debate, and examination of your complete lack of logic. Logic is based on language, and even if you could speak English you still wouldn't be able to argue because you don't understand the rules of logic which ALL language is based upon.




Your argument is that the availability of guns is a greater danger than not having guns available. I provided evidence of direct circumstances where an unarmed population is put in danger by NOT owning firearms, therefore this is in fact the same debate.

Cherry picking your arguments is another logical fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

Freedom and security are mutually exclusive. To have security you give up freedom. To have freedom you give up security. Just because you are satisfied with being a subject because it provides you personal emotional (not actual) security does not mean that the rest of the world should be subject to your mental illness of cognitive dissonance where we give up actual security for emotional security so you can pretend you are safer. You are safer...until you are not. Then you and millions of others are dead. I would rather have civil war than genocide as happened during WW2 and well before over and over throughout history. Which is more? Your few thousand deaths a year or millions killed in massive waves of genocide. Get out a calculator.




Proof you get your "facts" from entertainment media, but..but...



"In one infamous scene, a bank offers a free rifle to anyone who opens an account with them. Moore is shown walking into the bank, opening an account, and walking out with a rifle in his hands. In actual fact, banks are just a wee bit skittish when it comes to customers bearing firearms on their property. The event was staged; the bank in question actually only offered a gift certificate for a free rifle from the gun store down the street from it, which required all the standard background checks to obtain. "

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine

You are a dupe and are incapable of independent thought. This proves it.

Wasn't it obvious that it was a joke?
You don't have to take out the wikipedia articles from the attic.
Mentally sound - yes.
Law-abiding - only when it makes sense.
I won't go and jump off a bridge if the government says so - I'll tell you that.
Please and thank you.

Yes. Shockingly low.   

Somewhere i read regarding number of people having guns in America and I found the amount of guns in america shocking, i think it needs to be reigned it because i have read about several high school massacres involving guns in america and we are yet to have one. its just my opinion but the rest of the world manage to 'protect their property' without such dangerous weapons.

Well, you are making no sense.  The edged weapon of the bear is his claws, and he killed all three of those soldiers before they could grab their Ak47s.