To anyone against gun control

Hardware Hub Tech Policy & News
41

Alright I think we should start on defintions of everything gun related first since it varies from state to state and country to country. Experience plays a big part of this. Had a few great conversations with a guy from the Netherlands and even he admitted that his lack of experience with guns contributed to his fear of guns. 

I think we should start with this. What is your definition of an "assault rifle"? I will post tomorrow at the latest, damn timezones. 

Assault rifle is a misnomer by US standards (if you live in cali or the East coast). Assault is an adjective and assault rifle is nothing more then a political tool designed to cause fear. Guns have always had the capabilty to harm, and if you wish to control them now you are a few centuries late. Controlling anything is almost impossible; just ask the Chinese government. As an example look at the video posted by yourself. Drugs are an ongoing debate as well. The best we can do is educate ourselves and learn how to be responsible.

42

The great equaliser theory. I don't agree, I don't disagree. I think revolution and tyranny are both made possible by other factors. Regardless of what sticks are lay about.

Every revolution starts with some economic promise, a redistribution of power and wealth. Same with the American War of Independence; a very just war, important part of human history. Only, there was less democracy during that time, which is why I was careful to note the last 100 years or so. There's less monarchism, thankfully.

During the 1930s Germany, was in a deep recession. Hitler threatened to tear up the Treaty of Versailles that was a good thing, and that movement grew in popularity. 

In Batista's Cuba, 99% of the land was owned by the top 1%. Castro sought to address that, but he didn't become indoctrinated and communistic until much later in the campaign. It was very easy for the population to support Castro. Particularly when Batista killed those he suspected as rebel sympathisers, the movement inflated.

Where many of these revolutions, popular movements, democratic changes go wrong happens to be the subsequent power vacuum. Hitler's "Night of the Long Knives", or any other purge of political opponents that can occur. It's no fault of the people that form the challenge, but by deposing or challenging the status quo, tyranny can emerge. Either a different kind of tyranny, or a greater tyranny.

The only way to protect democracy, to end tyranny, is to give everyone incentives and wealth. And arguably, more wealth to the people. Wealth is control. If too much wealth is held by any political entity, and or including corporations monopoly power, I would welcome the next revolution. Providing it is better than the Occupy Movement

Looking at the present day, we have revolution occurring right now. The biggest change in Ukraine came from the people protesting in Kiev, without arms. Sure, they were shot at by their own government, they were threatened by separatists from the east. But they stood firm in the square because they are fearless bastards. It's clear to me, with or without sticks, we can have positive change. Nobody can ever truly defeat the people. We have to be vigilant at times when we are being robbed. Fuck you, credit system!

That's not a pro-gun or anti-gun argument. I just don't think whatever "equalising" utility they might have, it's not gonna work in all circumstances.

43

My definition of assault rifle: gun which uses medium size shell, magazines are usually detachable and fire rate can be semi-, full- or burst automatic. I have no experience whatsoever though so inform me if that's wrong.

Suitable for hunting? I think so (but I don't know so again interested in your experise). Suitable for sport shooting? I think so too. Suitable for the general public to own for their own protection? No, in my opinion; guns are unnecessary for protection as I've discussed in other posts.

44

I feel I need to point out that GUN violence fell after a gun ban, not violence overall. I think we can all agree that the goal is to prevent violence overall, and not let one type replace the other.

The US has seen a consistent drop in violent crimes over that same time span without the use of a ban on guns.

Gun bans are a method politicians use to make people feel safe without dealing with the real underlining issues.

The media consistently under reports cases where people defended themselves and their home with the use of a gun.

As for mass shootings, I believe that to be a mental health issue, not necessarily a gun issue.  Crazy people don't need a gun to commit mass murders (Oklahoma City bombing).  With that being said, there definitely are guns that I can't see a reason for people owning.  

45

Assault rifles for hunting just seem plain overkill and unnecessary. Here in Canada there are strict rules on different types of guns, ammo and calibres allowed for certain animals which make perfect sense to me. Hunting small or large game with an assault rifle sounds plain ludicrous to me as there are plenty of viable alternatives which are more than effective. As a hunter I think it's important to respect nature and wildlife by actually contributing time and effort(preparation, tracking, patience) to a rewarding end goal as opposed to mutilating an animal with an assault rifle from the comfort of a house window(not saying all assault rifle wielders do this). 

I see the purpose of an assault rifle purely for recreation such as sport shooting as you said and/or used at firing ranges both of which should be operated by qualified firearms users. I am not against the use or possession of assault rifles but their purpose should be limited to the above and not be used for hunting. 

46

Population statistics, economic factors, education, civil rights have a much more desirable effect on crime rates. More so than gun ownership, or lack of.

So I agree with you. I think the gun debate falls wide of the mark.

47

A gun is a tool to protect one's liberties and to provide a level of equality among all. Not to mention the recreational activities it offers. I own multiple guns because... well I'm Texan and I also don't assume that the authorities or circumstances that I am faced with will always guarantee the safety or stability of my life or the lives of those I care about. I'll say it straight up, guns are power, and if we don't have them then what prevents abuse of power with those who do? Yeah guns provide an easy way to mass killings and suicide, but so do bombs and planes. The fear our society has with guns is sensational and silly. Instead of training and arming our teachers and school staff we place a sign out front that restricts the carry of weapons on the premise. That's like putting a no shoplifting sticker on a candybar. Because people who have intent to break the law will stop after seeing the sign that restates the law... no? Believe it or not law alone doesn't stop crime. So if the US government convinces the people to give away their guns, does that really make the criminals who intend to use guns stop and just give them away? Law abiding citizens would be rendered unarmed. The counter argument would be concerning suicide and children's access to guns. The answer to that is found in support from loved ones and good parenting respectively. The police are the obvious response to crime but not the fastest and not the only response available. If you break in to my house I'm going to shoot you to death with one of my guns, because that is the consequence and level of protection necessary for me to provide for my family and my property. If you try to mug me I will respond faster than any cop could with my concealed glock. America does have a genuine issue with guns... irresponsibility. Instead of teaching children about gun safety and the uses and purposes of firearms, the vast majority of our people create fear and hate towards them. If colleges had trained staff with open carry, do you really think their would be any shootings? If the adult population was allowed open carry do you really think crime would still exist at the same capacity we have now? In a world where everyone had absolutely pure intentions and perfect morals and had no selfishness in them at all whatsoever.... not only would gun control work but so would communism. Is that the world we have now? no. So with all of that being said, America needs to grow up and raise a stronger smarter generation. 

48

Silly video, I hope the person who posted it is not as stupid as he/she makes himself/herself out to be.

49

Read all my previous comments, refute all my points with evidence/logic, then you can call me stupid.

50

So, if I follow this logic, we can ban planes and never have another 9/11

51

To someone arguing for gun control such comparisons are faulty and don't add much to the debate.

52

Planes aren't designed to kill people.

Guns are designed to kill people.

53

You don't seem to respond to the more serious comments. Anyway, despite the sarcasm, my point is people kill people.  Banning guns won't lead to less violent crime.

54

You don't seem to respond to the more serious comments.

I've responded to jon666, DemonX09, Relinquis, HarbingerOne, jajone4 and 2bdkid; all of which were serious comments. Everyone else is either ignoring what I've already written or using the assumption that guns are the only solution.

55

ever been rabbit hunting with an assault rifle? the .223 ammo leaves most of the rabbit intact and the semi-auto fire rate allows you to bag many at once, especially when you flush 20-30 out of a bush. Much better than having a lever-action, a double barrel, or a .22 rifle. The AR-15 makes for a nice hunting rifle, and rabbit meat is delicious, so I stand by it.

56

So what, buying an aston martin, a jaguar, ferrari, lambourghini just seems like overkill, having a 100/100Mbps internet connection overkill, you don't need that to watch youtube, owning 4 pairs of shoes, earning more than $10 an hour, that is far more than the cost of bread and water! So I guess the government should tell people they cant do any of those because they seem 'unnecessary', right?

What people get out of telling responsible citizens, people who mind their own business, take care of themseklves, and do not bother others, what they 'can and can't do' is beyond me. Why would you want to do this, the whole gun confiscation thing makes no sense at all, do people really not see how it could be a bad idea for governments, especially nasty ones like the american one to have a monopoly on force and violence? Well that is assuming telling people they aren't allowed to do things works, which it doesn't, has alcohol or drug prohabition worked? What about copyright, how many people pirate game of thrones? How are guns different, what possible reason would there be for a ban on guns preventing ownership?

And why would you possibly want to ban them, sure gun regulation has a correlation to gun violence, it also has a negative correlation with crime, it is not correlated at all with murder, what we see is that when gun availability is reduced, people don't stop killing each other, they just use different methods. And the world becomes a more dangerous place, it turns out the risk of being shot to death is a strong deterent, by removing this risk crime increases. We saw it in Australia, in the UK, and in every other country where gun restrictions have come into effect. There are some places in the USA, where gun ownership is so prevelant, that there is no violent crime! In the UK violent crime is double that of america!

57

I find it ironic that the people who advocate against inequality, as if government can somehow make people equal or something, are normally always opposed to guns, yet guns are the biggest equalizers of them all, a gun can litterally make almost anyone, irregardless of age, fitness and training equal.

58

Guns don't hurt anyone, they don't kill people, it is impossible for guns to kill or hurt anyone, they are innanimate objects. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, the gun is irrelevant. Do homicide rates drop when you take guns away from the law abiding proportion?

The answer is no, it is no correlated, why because guns don't kill people, they are inanimate objects, incapable of doing anything without a human. Does removing them stop massacres, no, look at all the mass stabbings in china, they seem to be very effective. People killed each other before the advent of guns, they will kill each other without guns, ironically sharp pieces of metal called blades were popular before the days of guns for killing people. Ironically that is what they are using in the UK and China.

59

  "In the fourteen months since the mass shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 44 school shootings including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings — an average of more than three a month.

In the first six weeks of 2014 alone, there were 13 school shootings including one eight-day period in which there were four shootings in K-12 schools."

source

If you live in America and aren't in the business of selling guns, then you're clearly missing out on a massive growth sector.

I'm sure school based shootings and every-day American gun massacres will increase quite substantially, as will gun stocks, fear mongering and Americas' overall depressing reality/cringe factor.

Pro tip - buy shares in firearms manufacturers.

 
 
60

And the world becomes a more dangerous place, it turns out the risk of being shot to death is a strong deterent, by removing this risk crime increases. We saw it in Australia, in the UK, and in every other country where gun restrictions have come into effect. There are some places in the USA, where gun ownership is so prevelant, that there is no violent crime! In the UK violent crime is double that of america!

I can agree with so many points that you make, but these particular points always bemuse me. The US crime rates are the highest of any developed economy, consistently, despite having the largest number of guns per capita. Don't insinuate that other developed countries have a worse crime problem, the US really doesn't begin to compare.

States with the highest amounts of gun ownership are sparsely populated areas, like Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming. Hunting is much more prevalent, which is why gun ownership is higher. Why don't states on the Eastern seaboard have gun/crime correlation?

Criminals don't go to remote locations to rob people. They go to metropolis areas, which would prove to be more lucrative. That's why gun control doesn't work in these areas. The wealth divide, the population density prove to be a good opportunity.

Texas is middle-of-the-road in terms of gun ownership, and yet, it ranks third on the highest US crime statistics. Hawaii has fewer guns than California, and a much lower rate of homicide. You cannot say that it correlates with your hypothesis. In fact, crime hot spots are Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, LOUISIANA sorry Jon666 . And those states happen to have fairly high levels of gun ownership. 35%-55%. Mississippi is only 4-5% behind Wyoming.

Violent crime is not actually apples to apples, whereas, murder rates are. Violent crime is an umbrella term, it includes people arrested for shouting abuse - not exactly a crime that I would worry about, personally.

Even the UK has lower rapes, lower murders, lower amounts of home invasion; in comparison to the US. Doesn't gun ownership stop those listed crimes? Or only violent crime? Seems like an arbitrary conclusion to me.

I would attribute falling crime statistics to more civil rights for minorities, more entrepreneurship, education, things like that. To come to an X and Y conclusion, when the evidence is stacked very heavily against it, is mendacious. You should be looking at other environmental data.

I'm not even anti-gun. I just think that last paragraph was propaganda, and mildly amusing. People are welcome to protect themselves. It's not a solution, though! You have to do other things to reduce crime.