guns vs conspiracy - General

[QUOTE=Toro;48502603]That actually makes me wonder, I wonder how far Nazi Germany would've spread if even half of the citizens in Europe had their own weapons and knew how to use them.[/QUOTE] ehh. This is heavily debatable, but we have a few pages in history to rely on. In 1914, when the German Army was blitzing towards the coastline, they had hit Belgium. Well at first, most Germans weren't all that concerned with it, but the officers were in full-blown panic about the possibility of civilian hunters that pre-war were given some organization as colonial bushwhackers. They usually went to the Congo and came back, and the mere-thought of guerilla warfare specialist coming back home from defending Belgian interest in Africa was something that encouraged the German officers to initiate several attacks on civilian areas in the hopes of either wiping out or forcing the colonial bushers into the open. As we know from history, all that was achieved was widespread murder and rape of the civilian population. So yeah. Most standing armies are afraid of civilian gun owners to a degree, but most civilians with guns probably wouldn't go innawoods to help local partisan movements as they lack the training or incentive to join a resistance.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48502818] I haven't given any liberty up for security, though. I don't live in Rwanda, but rather a pretty cozy area of Copenhagen. If you're talking about the US, I'd argue most people would be no worse off without a gun security-wise. But honestly I wasn't debating whether the US would be worse or better off without the 2nd amendment, simply which one was most important; the first or the second. [/QUOTE] So why are the "gun free" states/cities/towns the ones with the highest crime rates in the country? Because criminals know people aren't armed and they can go about their business without being challenged. Police are there after the fact doing paperwork. I know from experience that it's better to be armed and deal with it head on than cower in a corner crying and hoping police arrive on time. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48502818] My argument is that the 2nd amendment has become totally irrelevant, and therefore it doesn't matter whether they were equally important when the bill of rights was drafted.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant why? Maybe in Europe. Not in the US.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48502933]So why are the "gun free" states/cities/towns the ones with the highest crime rates in the country? Because criminals know people aren't armed and they can go about their business without being challenged. Police are there after the fact doing paperwork. I know from experience that it's better to be armed and deal with it head on than cower in a corner crying and hoping police arrive on time. Irrelevant why? Maybe in Europe. Not in the US.[/QUOTE] Again, I'm really not interested in discussing whether the 2nd amendment should be abolished (though I don't think it'd make a big difference in the short run, considering the number of guns in the US). And if it doesn't play nice with you, let's scratch the word "irrelevant" as well and write "not very important compared to the 1st at all". The other guy wrote: [QUOTE] You know who is delusional? Any person willing to give up liberty for security![/QUOTE] It seems like you're saying a gun is for security, and I'd argue free speech is the epitome of liberty.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48503009]Again, I'm really not interested in discussing whether the 2nd amendment should be abolished (though I don't think it'd make a big difference in the short run, considering the number of guns in the US). And if it doesn't play nice with you, let's scratch the word "irrelevant" as well and write "not very important compared to the 1st at all". The other guy wrote: It seems like you're saying a gun is for security, and I'd argue free speech is the epitome of liberty.[/QUOTE] Guns are for security (and sport). The first amendment protects my right to speak out against asshole government leadership.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48502818]Nice speculation, who knows? Personally I think most people who were willing to partake in operations like that were already doing it, blowing up train tracks etc. But I don't know, if you have something to credit that speculation, I'd take my time reading it.[/QUOTE] What I brought up was, unknowingly to me, an actually common argument for pro-gun groups, so I went and did research. AFAIK The Nazi's actually had looser gun control laws than the Weimar Republic, With the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, which "completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition" (Bernard E. Harcourt - "On Gun Registration, the NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding the Gun Culture Wars") This of course, to my knowledge, did not apply to Jews/persecuted classes or citizens of conquered countries, but it did apply to 'normal German citizens.' something that supports the fact that the Jews/Prosecuted/Citizens of conquered countries were not allowed guns of any type would be this quote: [QUOTE]The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. - Adolph Hitler, HITLER'S SECRET CONVERSATIONS (Full article, which may contain some interesting information, I didn't get the time to read it, is NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, No. 3, 483-535[/QUOTE] I'm not taking this quote to heart due to the fact that the book is discredited/disputed by historians due to confusion on Hitler's religion (Hitler's Secret Conversations/Hitler's Table Talk contains anti-christian content, yet Hitler was a christian) This is really all of the research I've done so far, but I'm probably gonna do more, considering how interesting this topic is to me. edit: Wikipedia Article on the matter, which contains a lot more information than I would care to type out: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory[/url]

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48503025]Guns are for security (and sport). The first amendment protects my right to speak out against asshole government leadership.[/QUOTE] I knew that, now which one is more important? Literally the only point I've tried to make in this thread: [QUOTE=Sobotnik;48500037]I consider the right to free speech one that trumps the right to own weaponry any day of the week.[/QUOTE] You guys rated this dumb. Not just something that is kinda disagreeable but actually dumb. "Security (and sport) trumps free speech" is what I'm getting out of this. That sounds pretty delusional (or at least a lot like you'd rather give up liberty than security) to me, but if those are your priorities, fair enough.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48503280]I knew that, now which one is more important? Literally the only point I've tried to make in this thread: You guys rated this dumb. Not just something that is kinda disagreeable but actually dumb. "Security (and sport) trumps free speech" is what I'm getting out of this. That sounds pretty delusional (or at least a lot like you'd rather give up liberty than security) to me, but if those are your priorities, fair enough.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying one is more important than the other. The Bill of Rights is equally as important from end to end. That's all there is to it, and that's how it was designed.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48503306]I'm not saying one is more important than the other. The Bill of Rights is equally as important from end to end. That's all there is to it, and that's how it was designed.[/QUOTE] Considering that virtually every other country in the world considers free speech more important and has gotten along fine with gun control, that places a certain degree of scrutiny on America. America is the only developed country in the entire world to have the right to gun ownership explicitly written out in their constitution. The fact that most societies can function quite happily without something like the second amendment is most intriguing. Free speech always trumps the right to gun ownership in every instance.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48503549]Considering that virtually every other country in the world considers free speech more important and has gotten along fine with gun control, that places a certain degree of scrutiny on America. America is the only developed country in the entire world to have the right to gun ownership explicitly written out in their constitution. The fact that most societies can function quite happily without something like the second amendment is most intriguing. Free speech always trumps the right to gun ownership in every instance.[/QUOTE] If by gotten along fine you mean higher violent crime rates, then sure, I guess European nations are the example to follow. Is it not Sweden who allows men who serve in the military to retain their rifle in the home after their service? What's the home invasion rate there? Was it not just 70 years or so ago when a Nazi army poured through European streets unopposed? The French resistance managed to be a thorn in the side (albeit a small one), would things not have been different if vastly more people were armed? At the end of the day, bearing arms is about responsibility, it is about ownership. When you bear a firearm, you are taking your life into your own hands. Whether it's an intruder in your home or an army in your streets, a firearm lets you choose not to be a victim. It lets you say, "I am going to fight, and if I die, at least it will be by the choices I made." Unarmed, you are at the mercy of your oppressor. You can simply hope being docile will persuade the intruder not to harm you. You can simply hope being cooperative won't mean an execution in the streets. Are the chances of things like that happening slim? Sure. The odds of you ever needing a firearm are extremely slim. The odds of ever needing to take up arms against a foreign or domestic oppressor are slim to none. But the 2nd amendment will give us a choice if things turn out leaning toward the slim side. Those professional soldiers might gun down everyone who resists with ease, but many people out there (including myself), would much rather die fighting for their life than begging for it. America was founding on the concept of choice. You can choose to not fight, there is nothing wrong with that. You can choose to be at the mercy of fate and/or others, hoping lady luck is on your side when that guy comes barging into the store with a gun, maybe he won't point it at you. There is no shame in not wanting that responsibility (as choosing incorrectly would mean you died by your own hands), everyone doesn't operate the same. But there are others out there who choose to fight instead of flight. Removing guns forces everyone to either submit or always be against the odds when resisting. I'd say the right to choose my own fate trumps the right to freely express myself. But once again, that's my own viewpoint. It is no more valid than yours. Hence the reason why the Bill of Rights exists, they are all equal, we all deserve to be free in every way. I would never sacrifice the 1st amendment for the 2nd, nor vise versa. Both are required in order to call yourself a free man.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48503549]Considering that virtually every other country in the world considers free speech more important and has gotten along fine with gun control, that places a certain degree of scrutiny on America. America is the only developed country in the entire world to have the right to gun ownership explicitly written out in their constitution. The fact that most societies can function quite happily without something like the second amendment is most intriguing. Free speech always trumps the right to gun ownership in every instance.[/QUOTE] As previously stated, the US has a different culture.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48503857]If by gotten along fine you mean higher violent crime rates, then sure, I guess European nations are the example to follow.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? The US have a higher murder rate than any European country.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48503996]Uh, what? The US have a higher murder rate than any European country.[/QUOTE] More people. More drug problems, more mental health issues, more gang violence, etc.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504027][b]More people.[/b] More drug problems, more mental health issues, more gang violence, etc.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand how murder rates are calculated.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48504037]I don't think you understand how murder rates are calculated.[/QUOTE] Re-read the second half.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48504044]even the murder rate adjusted for population is still miles above any european country and no we dont have this absolutely massive mental health problem, every country has its nutters, we just have ones that have easier access to weapons[/QUOTE] People can steal guns even if there is "gun control."

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504064]People can steal guns even if there is "gun control."[/QUOTE] But in Europe there are far fewer guns to steal.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48504068]But in Europe there are far fewer guns to steal.[/QUOTE] And different issues altogether.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48503996]Uh, what? The US have a higher murder rate than any European country.[/QUOTE] Hence why I said violent crime rate, not murder. Though European nations tend to use a different definition of violent crime, even if you adjust the definitions to be the same, the rate is higher in places like the UK. Also, our general murder rate can be strongly linked to specific cultures and areas, it is generally widely accepted that our murder rate rests in the hands of socioeconomic and cultural issues, not the tools themselves.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48504108]Hence why I said violent crime rate, not murder. Though European nations tend to use a different definition of violent crime, even if you adjust the definitions to be the same, the rate is higher in places like the UK. Also, our general murder rate can be strongly linked to specific cultures and areas, it is generally widely accepted that our murder rate rests in the hands of socioeconomic and cultural issues, not the tools themselves.[/QUOTE] Culture and specific areas...hence the worst cities in the US...New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore...etc. Without those cities, our murder rate goes below Europe.

[QUOTE=_Axel;48504068]But in Europe there are far fewer guns to steal.[/QUOTE] So what is your solution? Magically make all guns disappear? There's tons of firearms in America, they cannot all be confiscated. Not only due to things like violence kicking off, but because it would simply be logistically impossible. Banning would do nothing but open up a HUGE black market, everyone who owns guns would be sitting on a gold mine. That pistol you originally bought for 600 bucks suddenly sells for 2000 and is now being used for violence against people who are no longer allowed to protect themselves. The main problem with arguments coming from European examples is they do not understand the logistics. America is vast and very spread out. We are much larger in both size and populous than Europe. You can make it illegal to store guns outside of a safe, but who can enforce that? Hire a bunch of officers who's jobs are to check millions and millions of homes every month to make sure they are following the rules? Do you understand how logistically IMPOSSIBLE it would be to implement many of the suggested solutions?

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48502246]Would you prefer not being able to express your opinions, or not be able to adequately defend your life if it's in danger? Not trying to refute your point, just making it more balanced. If I replaced express opinions with tweet cat pictures, it would make the question unfair by biasing it toward one side. The bottom line is, some individuals find the 1st more important. Some find the 2nd more important. It depends on your environment, someone who lives in an urban area surrounded by others might value the freedom of speech more. Someone who lives in a rural area and inherently can say whatever the fuck they want might value the 2nd. That's what is meant when all of the rights are claimed to be equal, they may not be equal to everyone, but they should be defended with equal vigor.[/QUOTE] I can tell you for a fact guns are useful in rural areas for a number of reasons beyond shooting tannerite and doing redneck stuff. Like we used to have neighbors that for 6 months didn't stop their puppy coming over and nipping at the ankles of our senile mini- poor lass was too old to fight back and usually bled considerably. And it looked thoroughly painful. We warned them several times, called the sheriff on them, put up chicken wire to keep the dogs out (which they removed for being "on their fence") and tried diplomacy. In the end, we shot the damn dog. Sheriff showed up and sided with us. Problem solved, horse no longer being attacked. Also, cleaning up moles and coyotes. Or badgers. Moles dig holes in fields that are PERFECT for horses to fall and break their ankles in. Coyotes killed chickens, along with badgers. Usually with those we'd just scare em off with the gun, don't think we had to kill any coyotes or badgers. Also, hunting. I don't hunt because I don't like venison, pheasant, or duckmeat but for many people in the country who are poor its a feasible way to get a lot of food while having fun. And in the worst case scenario, putting an animal down with a gunshot is the fastest most humane way when something tragic happens. Versus waiting for a vet to drive out and euthanize, for example. Also, we used to carry big shotguns and 30-06 when huckleberry picking in the mountains because bears and cougars are a threat. I think the problem is many europeans live in inherently more urban areas and don't see this kind of stuff. I live in a really urban area now, and I don't see a gun as nearly as essential as I used to. Its an environmental factor, really.

Did no one watch the videos I posted that deal with gun control?

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;48504195]Did no one watch the videos I posted that deal with gun control?[/QUOTE] I did, and they're great. Though I'm obviously pro-gun and from the US.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48504108]Hence why I said violent crime rate, not murder. Though European nations tend to use a different definition of violent crime, even if you adjust the definitions to be the same, the rate is higher in places like the UK. Also, our general murder rate can be strongly linked to specific cultures and areas, it is generally widely accepted that our murder rate rests in the hands of socioeconomic and cultural issues, not the tools themselves.[/QUOTE] The argument that higher violent crime is due to guns being illegal in the UK is just as unsubstantiated as the argument that claims the higher murder rate in the US is due to firearms being widespread. I don't see why you chose to use that argument in the first place.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504126]Culture and specific areas...hence the worst cities in the US...New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore...etc. Without those cities, our murder rate goes below Europe.[/QUOTE] Source on this? And shouldn't European nations be allowed to remove problematic cities from their murder rate as well, then?

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504064]People can steal guns even if there is "gun control."[/QUOTE] so do you think everyone who bought a gun legally and used it to commit a crime would steal a firearm to commit that same crime if there was gun control?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48504298]Source on this? And shouldn't European nations be allowed to remove problematic cities from their murder rate as well, then?[/QUOTE] Look up US crime stats by city. [editline]20th August 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48504306]so do you think everyone who bought a gun legally and used it to commit a crime would steal a firearm to commit that same crime if there was gun control?[/QUOTE] 99% of people that legally buy guns in the US don't go out murdering people with them.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504310]Look up US crime stats by city.[/QUOTE] Are you misunderstanding me on purpose? Show me the statistic that says removing these cities (don't really know your criteria) will make the murder rate plunge below the EU average, and then tell why it's justified to do so in the case of the US. If it's just a gut feeling then I'm sorry but that's not really acceptable.

[QUOTE=agentfazexx;48504310]99% of people that legally buy guns in the US don't go out murdering people with them.[/QUOTE] good thing i never said that, now try answering my question you think some socially inept, emotionally unstable dude who's fed up with his classmates and sees a chance at revenge with his dad's handgun would instead break into a store on his own and steal a gun in order to shoot up his school if weapons were more tightly regulated?

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48504108]Hence why I said violent crime rate, not murder. Though European nations tend to use a different definition of violent crime, even if you adjust the definitions to be the same, the rate is higher in places like the UK.[/QUOTE] do you have a source for that? i'm far from an expert on the subject, but everything i've read suggests the true numbers are unclear due to the varying classifications and circumstances. and do you know what percentage of those crimes involve actual injury?