D
Deleted member 204526
Guest
You really think the government would use WMDs against American citizens, even if they'd taken up arms? That would be a sure way to turn the entire populace against them.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Facebook Cracking Down on Illegal Gun Sales
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
- Status
You really think the government would use WMDs against American citizens, even if they'd taken up arms? That would be a sure way to turn the entire populace against them.
bmellis1984
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2012
- Messages
- 97
I would say that this is proof that facebook leadership is in bed with big brother.
bmellis1984
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2012
- Messages
- 97
I would say "YES". I don't think they would use a Nuke but nerve gas, yes. Just Like Saddam did with his own people. Many of our politicians don't care about you or I it's about money and power. How far can you cheat the system and not get caught. If you do get caught, how well can you lie to the american people.
Last I checked we still are having laws being passed which means freedoms being taken away.
And the real question is if many of those firearm incidents even matter. Does it matter if someone was killed with a metal baseball bat to the head, a 7" knife to the chest, or just head stomping into the curb by a gang instead of a firearm? Isn't the problem here the violent criminal element of society, and NOT the tool the criminals choose to use? If I'm killed by an icepick to the temple or a 22 caliber by a mafioso doesn't really matter to me if I'm dead either way. And if one of the fatalities is TOWARDS someone that is committing aggravated assault, a mugging, a store robbery, a rape, or a home invasion at night is that even a problem, or perhaps even desirable that the good person got to defend themselves from their attacker?
Besides, I hear most of the actual gun crime is just part of the black on black crime statistics over turf wars and the like, and the firearms aren't legally purchased regardless, and the violence is directed from one criminal toward another for the most part and not a real concern for the safety of your average citizen... and if anything the police should be contributing more to the firearm death rate by shooting more violent criminals.... sure saves the tax payers a lot.
I am just sick and tired of liberals pretending that TOOLS are the problem, rather than the problem being the murderers, rapists, muggers, and so forth being the problem. We've shown time and time again, that good law abiding citizens with CHLs remain good law abiding citizens, so a firearm does not create criminality. I'd rather facebook do criminal background checks and ban anyone with a violent background.
I like how it's "tons of studies" and you link to articles about six people.
D
Deleted member 109755
Guest
That's because if they do they know they'll lose.
D
Deleted member 109755
Guest
Or they blame it on other states "leaking" guns into their own.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Fine, fine....if you _really_ want more arguments over a polarized topic where people grr-snarl at each other...
How many of those violent crimes in these unspecified places involve guns? How many of them result in deaths? What places are you talking about and how do you explain the rise in gun-related violence in Missouri since the 2007 removal of background check requirements?
Finally, humans, particularly men who are full of hormones and aggression combined with a serious lack of self-control (read a forum thread or two if you need examples of irrational boys in adult bodies), are going to continue being violent because that's just part of the defective genetics of guys. They're gonna go be violent regardless of what you do or don't let them have. The problem with letting such irresponsible male creatures have access to guns is that it empowers the fragile psyche to feel stronger and more invincible AND permits the infliction of harm from a longer distance with greater lethality. Taking guns from boys reduces their lethal potential and forces them to be a lot less effective when they have to use a bow or a kitchen knife to try to kill someone. You can maybe run away from someone with a knife, pencil, or crayon but you'd have a much harder time running faster than a bullet.
Commander FAT
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,565
You really believe that? This argument is one of the mottos of the true gun haters. People who hate guns just because they are guns. People who can't fathom the thought that bad things happen when you don't expect it.
Nevermind knife attacks, rape, getting jumped by a group of people. None of that is a big deal because it's not a gun. Those things never even happen, right?
Illinois, where I live, has some shitty gun ownership laws but it has probably the most envious set of self defense laws in the country. It's simple. None of that stand your ground or duty to retreat business.
Being under threat of a gun isn't the only thing that justifies using a gun in Illinois. Rape, forcible felonies, arson, even kidnapping all justify usage of deadly force for defense.
As for my personal feelings on guns I would rather see every single gun control law in the US be done away with than anything else. Yeah, I said it. EVERY SINGLE one done away with.
Commander FAT
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,565
Oh man, you must own the Gun Haters handbook. Another classic bullshit argument. Fuck the elderly and people in wheelchairs right? Meh, might as well. Old people will be dead soon anyway and it's not like people in wheelchairs contribute to society anyway. Fuck 'em!
D
Deleted member 109755
Guest
Here here!
I agree with 99% of this. We definitely need to have a system that keeps the legal firearms out of illegal hands (mental, prior felony, etc.), but other than that. The firearms aren't the things doing the killing, it's the people behind them.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Well, I'm sorry Mister Flash Gordon, I wasn't aware that it was untrue that people can't easily outrun bullets. That _must_ be BS and classic BS at that.
Decades of CHL statistics prove without question you are wrong. They are part of public record, and its not a hypothetical at this point. And regarding "boys", last I checked, they already can't buy or walk around legally with a firearm nor bring them to schools.
Regarding the idea that if guns didn't exist then no one would be shot, you're absolutely right. You're absolutely wrong though that a technology like firearms can be eliminated from a free society with relatively open borders. Hell we have 10 MILLION living breathing illegal aliens living and working in the United States, so if you can't prevent a 200 pound person from crossing the border, how could you hope to 100% control firearm distribution?
All you can really do is get the law abiding citizens to wilfully disarm, and slightly raise the street price of firearms which isn't a problem for criminals as they already "pool" their weapons as is. Current drug dealers are often firearm dealers and will rent out anonymous weapons to criminals that get some of the money back upon its return.
And lastly the further problem is that our government is founded with checks and balances on power, and part of the check/balances is to allow the people to be armed as a means of empowering them. The civil war showed that it gave the people at least SOME form of rights, even though the central government ultimately used force of arms to subjugate the people and prevent them from leaving the union they voluntarily entered in to, in the same way the British government attempted to prevent all of those same colonies from leaving the United Kingdom by force of arms (except that time we were successful). Guns are power, and while not absolute, a 1% government can't control the 99% with a small police force if the people are armed. So to disarm the public is to fundementally change our government, no different than removing the supreme court or cominbing the house and senate.
tuksonrider
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 814
Well, I'm sorry Mister Flash Gordon, I wasn't aware that it was untrue that people can't easily outrun bullets. That _must_ be BS and classic BS at that.
Actually, if you have ever fired a firearm, especially a pistol, you'd know that hitting a moving target beyond 5 yards is hard.
A firearm is a force multiplier. I can easily run down an unarmed woman with a knife. It's harder for me to run down a woman who is wielding a firearm.
So I guess we should just ban and/or regulate men then?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
What we are talking about here is civil war and its guaranteed to be a complete catastrophe. There's be blood and hate on both sides and plenty of people fearing those would 'free' us from government oppression more than the government.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Men commit more crimes and more violent crimes than the opposite gender. What stats support that as wrong? And by boys, I mean male humans of any age.
Most of them don't really grow up much. Just watch them drive somewhere and see how often they do dangerous things for supporting evidence.It's mostly a control of manufacture thing. Really, the US government needs to be in complete control of the production of firearms within the US so that private companies have to pass all guns to the government for use in law enforcement or by the military. The rest of that, I agree with, a lot of stuff will still get in through the borders and that's where we need better and more effective human oversight along with supporting police gun raids on suspected people just like we do with narcotics. It won't, I totally agree, stop them all, but it's a good start.
That was a different world. Grandpappy's shotgun won't do anything to an armored vehicle or a missile fired from a jet. Nor will they shoot down the MIRV warhead reentry vehicle of an ICBM. The relevance of owning guns to keep the government in check just doesn't really ring true in an era when a city can be made to disappear 30 minutes after a missile is launched from anywhere else on the planet. That disparity is only growing with time as technology evolves and no, you really can't put the average citizen on par by arming them equally. That'd be asking for someone to PMS on their moron cheating boyfriend and nuke his fetish-blondie-fondling behind into a pile of glowing ash like he deserves.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
It's harder to hit a moving target with a knife from 5 yards.
Making a person more effective at killing which conflicts with your previous statement. Make up your mind already.
No, it's not harder. Running doesn't get magically faster because someone is holding a gun. But if neither of you have guns, its also a lot safer for bystanders to get involved and stop YOU from running someone down with your knife.
100% yes!
CreepyUncleGoogle, I have a feeling you wouldn't be advocating for governmental control of so much and brain-washing of kids if it wasn't for things you support.
What you are missing is the understanding that those of us who choose not to trust the government do it regardless of who is in charge... I would be against brain-washing kids to want to own a gun as much as I am against brain-washing kids against owning a gun.
Your creepy utopian visions have no place in reality, and the ideas you advocate, state-control, brain-washing and propaganda, only serve to make people slaves to those who only think they know what is best for others.
What you are missing is the understanding that those of us who choose not to trust the government do it regardless of who is in charge... I would be against brain-washing kids to want to own a gun as much as I am against brain-washing kids against owning a gun.
Your creepy utopian visions have no place in reality, and the ideas you advocate, state-control, brain-washing and propaganda, only serve to make people slaves to those who only think they know what is best for others.
I'm not going to get too involved in this conversation, clearly both sides have made up their minds. I'm somewhere in the middle, I don't exactly want to pull guns away from responsible gun owners, but I don't exactly want to see guns being handed out like candy either.
But my feelings lean more towards the "controlled" side of the argument. I would feel far less safe walking down a street knowing that everyone was carrying a gun than I would if I were walking down a street where nobody was allowed to carry a gun.
I also live in Canada and we don't have the 'gun culture' that exists in the US. Most people here aren't interested in owning a gun.
But my feelings lean more towards the "controlled" side of the argument. I would feel far less safe walking down a street knowing that everyone was carrying a gun than I would if I were walking down a street where nobody was allowed to carry a gun.
I also live in Canada and we don't have the 'gun culture' that exists in the US. Most people here aren't interested in owning a gun.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
I don't really care who's in charge as long as they're not total morons. If you think people know what's best for them and can make their own decisions responsibly, I really suggest you go shopping at Wal-Mart and pay attention to the people around you, what they buy, what they say, what they do and so forth. People aren't responsible enough to take care of themselves and exist in a way that's compatible with a large, interlinked social structure without a lot of oversight and fear of consequences. (Of course, there are always some people that won't work on but they're probably insane and need to be fixed using the aforementioned consequences). What's that got to do with guns though?
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
The other side of it is that there are plenty of people who don't trust those who seem to eager have the ability to wage a bloody civil war. We've been down that path before and those fighting the US Federal Government were in no way shape or form trustworthy defenders of freedom, not for a lot of folks at least.
Commander FAT
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,565
Well, I'm sorry Mister Flash Gordon, I wasn't aware that it was untrue that people can't easily outrun bullets. That _must_ be BS and classic BS at that.
Holy fuck, talk about missing the point...
Commander FAT
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2000
- Messages
- 3,565
Why attempt to be self sufficient when you can just rely on other people and the government to keep you safe? Keep them coming. You're in the zone.
The CHL statistics show that people with legally licensed firearms have a collective crime rate magnitudes below even the average population. This demonstrates without question that firearms do not affect behavior, and the availability of a firearm has no negative effect on criminal behavior (and if anything the stats show the opposite, although I would argue only good law abiding citizens can qualify for and are willing to apply for a license).
The crime rate for CHL holders isn't twice lower or three times lower or even four times lower but 16 times lower, which is an insane statistic when it comes to making a point:
Grandpappy's musket made no difference up against the highly trained and organized British army with warships and cannon a plenty by itself either, but the fact is that there are hundreds and millions of citizens, and you can't hope to opress them as there are simply far too many firearms collectively. Whats the old Roman saying, that ten hungry dogs can eat a lion... something like that.
And an opressive government typically isn't going to maintain rule by nuking their own cities, they will do what Hitler did in France, and for more recent examples we can see how rebels with simple small arms (mostly semi-automatic AK47s) were able to amass, raid the military weapon stores, and form militias to overthrow their opressive leaders in the "Arab Spring".
Phoenix333
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,510
Do you include yourself in this equation, or are you one of those that knows what's best for everyone else? You must fall into the latter category because you've already decided what people should and should not have. You hold a logically incongruent point of view. You say people can't take care of and make decisions for themselves, and that only the government should have guns, but the government is made of, surprise surprise, people. Your entire philosophy is based on the assumption that the people making up the government and thus having the guns are going to be somehow superior intellectually, morally, and more responsible. Human history has shown that governments behave in the exact opposite manner - the old proverb "power corrupts" exists for a reason. The entiry system of American government is founded on the observation that governments abuse their citizens and that the government - not the citizenry - is what needs to be kept in check. Now let's take this a step further. Your "stupid" population happens to live in a democratic republic where they elect the people that make up the government. How's that guarantee the "best and brightest" are going to be in charge? Oh wait, it can't.
What you want to happen cannot happen with the existing system of American government. The only way to guarantee Ubermensch are in charge is with a dictatorship. Germany tried this early in the previous century, where the "superior" people were in charge. They had a disarmed population, and only the government had the guns. Look where that went. How about The USSR under Stalin? 20 million of their own citizens butchered at his hands, but then, it's OK so long as the government is doing the butchering, right?
You are completely disconnected from reality, and your willingness to sacrifice the liberties of other people is appalling to me. Who the hell are you to tell people how they should live, what they should own, and what they should be allowed to do? If you want to live in a gun-free "paradise" then GTFO of the US and go live in England or Australia. You're not going to get your way in this country. Too many people oppose what you're trying to do, and I support them 100% for doing so.
D
Deleted member 109755
Guest
As the military has been shown (i.e. Afghanistan, etc.), you still need ground troops in order to attain the goal of suppressing an enemy. Unless you decide to erase the location off the face of the earth with Nuclear or Chemical means... in large part a ground military will be required, that's where armed citizens come in. You can't do everything by drones, bombers, etc. without so much collateral damage that you turn the remaining populace against you as well.
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 2,542
Doesn't this mean they need to hire 1 billion people to keep an eye on the posts of the other 1 billion people?
They just have to use a report feature, and there will be a bunch of liberals with nothing better to do than police it all day every day for free.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
It's good practice for when we transition to Communism in the not so distant future, where reporting on others to the Central Committee is not only encouraged, but rewarded.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,701
Nuke or nerve gas on the general public? Not only would 99% of the population suddenly be against you, most of the world governments would as well, plus a lot more of your military.
If it came down to it, a lot of our military would jump ship to be general citizens rather than fight for the cause of the corrupt government. A lot of the armed population wouldn't fight, either. I don't think that normal folks would be able to take on the military, but there would be enough of an uprising and revolt that it wouldn't be pretty for both sides. Enough to where the citizens would "win" a new government. I hope it never comes down to it, but we have that option if needed.
Also, in a full on civil war, we'd get tanks and planes, too. By stealing, defectors, etc.. I think the guns are a good part of our defense, though. Guns help make us citizens rather than subjects.
This is precisely it for me. The "armed society = polite society" strikes me as so much self-serving ideological BS when you have a former cop open fire on someone in a movie theater because he felt "threatened" by popcorn. He should have known better, but because he had a gun, he used it. I truly believe that people who have guns, trained or not, are more likely to resort to force escalation than if they did not have that gun.
Can you do something about someone's mental state with laws? No. But you can hold people accountable to more than "Ooooh, I was scared!" as a standard.
People love to bitch about cops and government, but the proposal is to make every citizen judge, jury, and executioner? No thank you.
Who ever said that? The argument is that we have the right to be armed, not to use it indiscriminately.
Why must the anti-gun crowd always resort to fear?
Didn't they already start that too where if you report people for movie/TV downloading you get a reward?
Who ever said that? The argument is that we have the right to be armed, not to use it indiscriminately.
Why must the anti-gun crowd always resort to fear?
Those that feel the need to coward for a gun due to paranoia are the fearless ones I assume?
Who ever said that? The argument is that we have the right to be armed, not to use it indiscriminately.
Why must the anti-gun crowd always resort to fear?
The worry is that they will use their firearms indiscriminately. You can promise all you want that you will be responsible with your guns but most anti-gun people would rather not take the chance.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
Those that feel the need to coward for a gun due to paranoia are the fearless ones I assume?
I love these over-exaggerations about the mental state of gun owners.
- Status