Lenient gun control leads to greater homicide rates.
400 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405477]The chances of 100 million (or even 1 million) gun nuts rising at once to overthrow evil are slim as well. Plus it's doubtful they would manage to set up a stable government too.[/QUOTE]
I'd certainly rather have the "gun nuts" in charge in lieu of the likes of you!
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405408]Except obesity rates are higher in America.[/QUOTE]
If you actually knew anything about the subject, you would know that the system used to determine whether someone's overweight/obese is completely flawed. Arnold Schwarzenegger is obese by those standards.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405436]Still, the idea that a rabble of gun nuts can defeat the most powerful army on earth is laughable.[/QUOTE]
Someone used the middle east as an example to prove to prove you wrong, you just responded with stereotypes.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405477]The chances of 100 million (or even 1 million) gun nuts rising at once to overthrow evil are slim as well. Plus it's doubtful they would manage to set up a stable government too.[/QUOTE]
So the countless revolutions throughout history are irrelevant because they don't support your opinion?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405477]The chances of 100 million (or even 1 million) gun nuts rising at once to overthrow evil are slim as well. Plus it's doubtful they would manage to set up a stable government too.[/QUOTE]
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We're here to discuss " Lenient gun control leads to greater homicide rates." not armed uprisings
[QUOTE=junker|154;38405482]I do not want to be offensive but america suffers from obesity and that is a well known fact. Nothing against you though.[/QUOTE]
You missed the point completely, its tangential to the discussion.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38405484]They don't need to defeat the army, all they need to defeat is Congress and the Senate, and that would be a much easier task, considering they'd never martial enough forces to DC in time to be able to stop a "rabble of gun owners," considering how many of them there are in Virginia and Pennsylvania alone.[/QUOTE]
The south tried the same thing in 1861 and that didn't work. It went into 4 long and painful years of civil war.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Onion836;38405498]So the countless revolutions throughout history are irrelevant because they don't support your opinion?[/QUOTE]
Revolutions like that tend to have massive social problems running deep throughout the country, and many different groups often vie for power.
Given the many different groups of people with varying interests in the USA, it would be difficult for a collection of gun toting guys to establish control over a large portion of a continent.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38405510]You missed the point completely, its tangential to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
That is true, but I just wanted to state this as Protocols comment was really unfair.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405514]The south tried the same thing in 1861 and that didn't work. It went into 4 long and painful years of civil war.[/QUOTE]
And we almost won. I wish we had won.
[QUOTE=junker|154;38405526]That is true, but I just wanted to state this as Protocols comment was really unfair.[/QUOTE]
And what, stating that gun owners in America are all fat, redneck, unintelligent buffoons isn't unfair?
Give me a fucking break.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405514]
Revolutions like that tend to have massive social problems running deep throughout the country, and many different groups often vie for power.
Given the many different groups of people with varying interests in the USA, it would be difficult for a collection of gun toting guys to establish control over a large portion of a continent.[/QUOTE]
If there was something provoking a revolution it wouldn't be a few gun toting guys. It would be most of the population, like every other revolution in history.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405541]And what, stating that gun owners in America are all fat, redneck, unintelligent buffoons isn't unfair?
Give me a fucking break.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I never said that in any way. I just popped in and saw your comment and I answered to it. I was not aware of the big picture behind this discussion.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38405536]And we almost won. I wish we had won.[/QUOTE]
Except the war being lost was a good thing, and the South was doomed from the outset anyways.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Onion836;38405549]If there was something provoking a revolution it wouldn't be a few gun toting guys. It would be most of the population, like every other revolution in history.[/QUOTE]
Except guns are not required for a revolution.
I think the thing people most often forget with firearms in America is that they where never intended to be used for personal defense, hunting, or target shooting, they where meant to be used to over throw a corrupt government that wanted to be all powerful over the people.
However I believe a firearm is tool and that is what makes them so versatile, you can use it to hunt and target shoot, or you can use one to protect yourself from immediate dangers, or in the case of criminals, use it to seriously injure or kill other criminals or, and mostly, innocent bystanders and that is how a firearm becomes a weapon.
I own many firearms, and would never want to hurt someone with it, but if it came down to it a firearm was the only thing I had between that and death, I would fight back with it because I don't like the thought of me not living.
In short, gun control is kinda bullshit.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405514]The south tried the same thing in 1861 and that didn't work. It went into 4 long and painful years of civil war.[/quote]
I'll leave this to an American.
[quote]Revolutions like that tend to have massive social problems running deep throughout the country, and many different groups often vie for power.[/quote]
The Arab Spring 2011-2012, The Indian Independence Movement 1947, The American Revolution 1776, The Russian Revolution 1917, The Cuban Revolution 1953, The Chinese Revolution 1949, The Vietnam War 1955-1975, The Korean War 1950-1953 (Present, technically). Were there problems? In some, yes. Were these revolutions ultimately successful, yes. With enough support even a team of rag-tag guerrilla fighters can overthrow a government with enough men and dedication, in some cases, even the US Army. Will it be smooth? Not necessarily, but it can happen, and lead to a stable government of some kind afterwards, whatever that kind of government may be.
Given the many different groups of people with varying interests in the USA, it would be difficult for a collection of gun toting guys to establish control over a large portion of a continent.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405566]Except the war being lost was a good thing, and the South was doomed from the outset anyways.[/QUOTE]
how so?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38405615]how so?[/QUOTE]
The slaves were freed.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405566]Except guns are not required for a revolution.[/QUOTE]
The victor of a revolution usually has guns, just sayin'.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405632]The slaves were freed.[/QUOTE]
I believe he was asking on how they where doomed from the start.
[QUOTE=zerglingv2;38405644]I believe he was asking on how they where doomed from the start.[/QUOTE]
Diplomatic isolation, and very quickly economic collapse.
And they had little in the way of railways, factories, telegraph systems, etc that the North possessed. The North also had greater economic resources and manpower.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405660]Diplomatic isolation, and very quickly economic collapse.
And they had little in the way of railways, factories, telegraph systems, etc that the North possessed. The North also had greater economic resources and manpower.[/QUOTE]
And somehow the South still gave them what-for.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405668]And somehow the South still gave them what-for.[/QUOTE]
140,414 KIA from the North and only 72,524 KIA from the South, I can agree with that.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405668]And somehow the South still gave them what-for.[/QUOTE]
In a total war of economic attrition, the South was at a disadvantage.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405660]Diplomatic isolation, and very quickly economic collapse.
And they had little in the way of railways, factories, telegraph systems, etc that the North possessed. The North also had greater economic resources and manpower.[/QUOTE]
And the south still almost won because most had prior experience with firearms.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405681]In a total war of economic attrition, the South was at a disadvantage.[/QUOTE]
They still tended to do better in the actual warfare part of the war.
we all know the south is an awful place come on
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38405686]And the south still almost won because most had prior experience with firearms.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
They still tended to do better in the actual warfare part of the war.[/QUOTE]
Except the naval blockade, economic collapse and Shermans march to the sea tipped it resolutely in the USAs favour. Also diplomatic isolation.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38405686]And the south still almost won because most had prior experience with firearms.[/QUOTE]
It never got close to winning.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405724]Except the naval blockade, economic collapse and Shermans march to the sea tipped it resolutely in the USAs favour. Also diplomatic isolation.
It never got close to winning.[/QUOTE]
But again, the south still bested the north on the actual battlefield, which is my point. I don't disagree that the south didn't have a good chance of winning, but they kicked serious ass compared to the north.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
We're not even on the original topic and haven't been for pages, can this thread be closed already?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405681]In a total war of economic attrition, the South was at a disadvantage.[/QUOTE]
That and Sherman was waging total war and burning down fucking cities.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38405729]But again, the south still bested the north on the actual battlefield, which is my point. I don't disagree that the south didn't have a good chance of winning, but they kicked serious ass compared to the north.[/QUOTE]
The USA leaders were incompetent in the initial battles. Unfortunately, had they prepared a bit longer and organised themselves properly, they could have crushed the southerners initially and force the war to end early.
[editline]11th November 2012[/editline]
Fact of the matter is that the privilege to own guns won't assist in overthrowing the US state.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405743]
Fact of the matter is that the privilege to own guns won't assist in overthrowing the US state.[/QUOTE]
well actually it would. The [b]right[/b] to own firearms would certainly help us overthrow a corrupt government. Firearms are a key part of a revolution believe it or not.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38405768]well actually it would. The [b]right[/b] to own firearms would certainly help us overthrow a corrupt government. Firearms are a key part of a revolution believe it or not.[/QUOTE]
Except the privilege to own firearms doesn't assist with the planning and organisation of a nationwide revolution.
Plus unarmoured people with no air/naval/artillery/anything support and varying loyalties would be hard pressed to win a war.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405743]Fact of the matter is that the privilege to own guns won't assist in overthrowing the US state.[/QUOTE]
Did you miss this whole statement?
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38405374][b]The US RIGHT to bear arms is just that, a right. It may be a privilege in the commonwealth, though it's supposed to be protected in the English Bill of Rights, but it is a RIGHT in context to the US, and it should be treated as such when used in that context.[/b][/QUOTE]
IT IS A RIGHT IN THE US, NOT A PRIVILEGE, and no matter how many times you try to say otherwise you'll still be wrong, and it'll still be a right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.