General, you didn't really answer all of the problems I pointed out in your argumentation.

Getting more folk into college raises the prices of college and the governments reaction has been to try and get more folk into college which has raised the prices.

Again, that's not the direct reason of why college prices raised in america. In Europ they've stayed roughly the same in most places, even though more people attend college then ever (both in numbers and %). What caused the raise in prices was the government giving unlimited ammount of credit to students willing to attend the university instead of making public colleges tuition free like thy should have. Public and private colleges alike just took profit on this.

Now they're printing money devaluing it in a attempt to pay for all of this inflating it.

Again, I doubt gvt is printing money just to pay for teens to go to college. You can say they're doing the same to afford a huge army. Gvt money isn't a fixed block, money flows all over the places, you can't say 1 dollar for college come specifically from the printed press. Also, it's too easy to think gvt is giving away this money, it isn't, the federal gvt is anything but naive, they lend this money and make profit on students.

The minimum wage affects folk who are unskilled laborers the most, making most of them unemployable.

Taking away the minimum wage would do more evil then good. With a new labor force willing to work for less, the average pay of the hole society would drop.

In the US there are millions of folk with guns, making the ownership of guns illegal makes millions criminals. And there already paramilitary death squads in America, they're called the police.

Gun ownership wouldn't be criminalized overnight you know? It would probably give a huge time for people to get rid of their guns. But I wouldn't even go that far on a first move, if the US just kept record of every gun owner, sale and prevented them to get on the bad hands, that would already be an improvement.

I think you also are exagerating the police problem. Sure, the problem isn't little and much needs to be done, but you can't just say that every policeman is a member of a deathsquad. Generalization most of the time is wrong.

It would be done slowly not all at once making thousands of criminals, the government could buy all the guns from their owners or they could let people keep their guns but no more guns can be bought in which case guns will slowly become nonexistent among members of the public

Socialists have nothing to do with "gun control", some liberals or conservatives are for gun control, whereas some socialists are also for gun control. This is a personal commitment.

Major are you unable to create a thread with any different topic? It is more like you are rambling like old people.

I apply this same context to gun control. People shouldn't have access to guns at will, because indoubtly some people will abuse this freedom to take away other's liberty not to get shot at school.

I'd agree, but this generally fails and does the opposite. In France, I think the latest estimate on guns was that 4/5 are illegally gotten.

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership, pretty free gun laws, and a lower murder rate than most other European countries. Austria also has pretty free gun laws, and also, of course, a lower murder rate.

Edited 4/18/2016 20:12:39

Great Britain? Come on, they're the poster boy for out of out of control aggression.

WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU SAY? IT'S THE ENGLISH FOLK THAT ARE VIOLENT, GOD DAMNIT.

I'd agree, but this generally fails and does the opposite. In France, I think the latest estimate on guns was that 4/5 are illegally gotten.

Yea, but that's a direct consequence of any restriction. There's little you can do about this if not lifting the ban. I happen to believe things would be worse if there was no gun laws in France. Imagine now if every radicalized muslim could get a gun? We would see much more terrorist attacks then we do today. We would also see a few of the problems related to gun violence we see in the states there.

Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership, pretty free gun laws, and a lower murder rate than most other European countries. Austria also has pretty free gun laws, and also, of course, a lower murder rate.

I hardly see a strong corelation between less crime and free gun laws. There's much more to put into account, or else the US would be the safest country in the world, right?

Guns laws are very restrictive in Spain and Germany, the homicide rate there is smaller then 1 per 100 000 citizens.

You are saying "I want the gub'ment to come and take that guy's AR-15 because only the government should have guns!" and that would be a great idea if governments didn't abuse their power on a regular basis.

Obama is one of the folk for firearm control, and he cried a little on tv for the dumber folk to applaud him for being "caring" and sensitive ,etc. Now which regime in the US government has supplied the most weapons to other governments? The Obama regime.

What about others like Diane Feinstein who are vehemently pro-gun control? Well she supported things like bombing Serbia and Kosova, war in Afghanistan and Iraq and funding those wars, so she's another hypocrite.

What about Europe? Well there's Germany, which raided the home of a family because the mother wasn't taking her kids to school, another show of force from Merkel and how she thinks the government should own children.

France? They're attacking folk in Mali to try and preserve their colonial (oh wait , can't say that, I mean diplomatic) interests there.

Great Britain? Come on, they're the poster boy for out of out of control aggression.

Sweden? Forced sterilization for thousands of folk because they weren't pure Swede, hardly a example for anyone. Just more hypocritical-ness.

This is why I cannot take anti-gun folk seriously. They support stronger governments , and that kills way more than any criminal could. They worry about folk getting ahold of small revolvers while they force folk into indoctrination centers to "learn" , bomb farmers, and give jet bombers to medieval fundamentalist kingdoms.

Even if you don't support that stuff (aside from public education, statists love that) you still support taxation which is extortion, punishing folk for victimless crimes (hey a gun no one is using, you're a criminal!) and hurting poor folk by making minimum wages and printing off lots of money.


It's very hypocritical is what I am saying.

The reason I want gun control is to make sure people don't have excessively dangerous weapons that don't have many legitimate (legal) uses. While some are overcontrolling, not all people of one front are for something or against it.

Also, there were legitamite reasons for bombing Serbia (human rights violations) and maybe some for Afghanistan (radical Islamic group took control, although that is quite shaky), but I will agree that Iraq was a stupid idea. But, does all of this make her a hypocrite? For us to get a conclusion, we would need her logic on why gun control is a bad idea.

On the German case, more context needed. Did she force her kids not to go for a really long time? Is there a homeschooling alternative there? While I would support some government action (question her on her actions), Germany went too far.

For France, lots of context needed. Is it Boko Haram?

For Sweden, when did that happen?

This is why I cannot take anti-gun folk seriously. They support stronger governments , and that kills way more than any criminal could. They worry about folk getting ahold of small revolvers while they force folk into indoctrination centers to "learn" , bomb farmers, and give jet bombers to medieval fundamentalist kingdoms.

Even if you don't support that stuff (aside from public education, statists love that) you still support taxation which is extortion, punishing folk for victimless crimes (hey a gun no one is using, you're a criminal!) and hurting poor folk by making minimum wages and printing off lots of money.

This isn't a black and white issue. Stop making it one. Also, NOT ALL OF THEM (us) ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING REVOLVERS. No matter where you go for education, many people will try to push their ideologies onto the young. The best way to stop all indoctrination is to ban education of all kind and keep them at home away from all contact (sarcasm). Also, banning public schooling would either take them home (bad idea in most cases) or private schooling (no comment). Also, what are you referring to with the "bomb farmers" comment? Also, while taxation could be extortion, the connotation for extortion does not apply to taxation all the time. Also, the reason I would punish people owning an assault rifle is that they are dangerous AND there are not a lot of legitamite (legal) uses for them: not because other people do not have it. Also, minimum wages help the poor by making sure they have wages that can keep them alive. Also, the US mint is not responsible for all money minted (Fiat money).

All I'm saying is that this is not a black and white issue and should not be treated as so.

how du u guys expec me to shoot up my scool if i dont hav any guns?!

eric n dylan wood be ashamd of u foolz

Yea, but that's a direct consequence of any restriction. There's little you can do about this if not lifting the ban.

That's why I am saying to not ban guns, it only makes things worse.

I happen to believe things would be worse if there was no gun laws in France. Imagine now if every radicalized muslim could get a gun?

What makes you think they can't? Now, I am for background checks of some sort, no selling to folk who are on the wanted list, or something like that, but not heavy.

I hardly see a strong corelation between less crime and free gun laws. There's much more to put into account, or else the US would be the safest country in the world, right?

As you say, there is more to put into account often, but it seems to be that freer gun laws make for less gun murders. Comparing countries that are on the same geographic site, and the same development level, there are outliers on both sides, 'course, but it seems to me that freer gun laws make for less murders, except in countries that can more easily enforce gun laws (like Japan, as it's gun laws have been about for a long time, and it's immigration policies are very strict - hard to smuggle things).

That's why I am saying to not ban guns, it only makes things worse.

I don't think it does. People who have money and are really willing to buy guns always will. But the low tier thugs and normal citizens won't be able to. In my opinion it is a better thing. Why normal citizens shouldn't be armed (you'll probably ask me)? Because a normal citizen is doomed to live like any other. One day that person can be reasonable and the other day it's husband/wife cheats and then we have someone that dies.

A gun is different then a knife, killing becomes too easy.

What makes you think they can't? Now, I am for background checks of some sort, no selling to folk who are on the wanted list, or something like that, but not heavy.

They can, but it is HARDER. Guns used on the Paris attacks were all from contraband. To acquire those, they needed funding from ISIS, contacts and places to hide their guns. It offers many chances for the intelligence agencies to find them, as well as it forces less organized terrorists to make attacks with knives for example.

As you say, there is more to put into account often, but it seems to be that freer gun laws make for less gun murders.

I doubt it... Freer gun laws reduce other genre murders and transfer it to guns. It's easier to kill with a gun then a knife for instance. In the US, the vast majority of murders is commited by guns. In the UK it's the opposit.

Also, there were legitamite reasons for bombing Serbia (human rights violations) and maybe some for Afghanistan (radical Islamic group took control, although that is quite shaky),

There was no ethnic cleansing in Serbia before the bombings, the Serb military was fighting the KLA not Albanian Kosovars in general.

The current Afghan government is not better than the Taliban by much, a bit like Saudi Arabia. Does not justify invading and occupying a place.

On the German case, the woman was homeschooling the children. The government decided they own children so they kidnapped them from her and raided her house.

No it is not , it is Al-Qaeda aka the CIA.

Sweden has been doing awful things against the Sami for a long time.

https://www.laits.utexas.edu/sami/dieda/hist/race.htm

Assault rifles can be used for self-defense, sport and hunting. Very legitimate use.

The minimum wage keeps unskilled folk from working, no one would pay them more than they're worth.

Public School is about creating a loyal citizenship , not education. Folk were educated more cheaply before public education and better than now.

Teamguns it simply is not harder enough to warrant stripping folk of their freedom. And you can't use information from Britain , they falsify their data way too much. They have to find someone guilty of murder for a death to be recorded as a murder, instead of in the US where most deaths if not obviously suicide or accident are counted as a murder.

Sweden has been doing awful things against the Sami for a long time

Every country have oppressed some group of people, Sweden are no different.

they falsify their data way too much

How are you not sure everyone falsifies their data? What makes Britain different? Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it's wrong. You are incorrect sometimes, Butler, face it. Guns do not give you any more freedom, just a tool to kill loads of people with more efficient than any other tool.

Edited 4/18/2016 22:20:39

I could have used any other data from a country with strict gun laws and lower gun murder rate then no gun murder rate. I took Britain because it was the first I found, I could take France and Germany and have very similar results...

Darkness will prevail whilst humanity will fall!

Why normal citizens shouldn't be armed (you'll probably ask me)? Because a normal citizen is doomed to live like any other. One day that person can be reasonable and the other day it's husband/wife cheats and then we have someone that dies.

What if the government wants to prevent a citizen from living his life like any other? If they force them to eat or not eat something, or make other personal decisions for the people, what do the normal citizens do? Voting can easily be made fraudulent. Rebellions are needed in order to keep the ruling class on their toes.

Darkness will prevail anyway, no use in smashing up your small intelligence about topics which you actually have no clue about.

@GeneralPE

Are you now saying that mass shootings are needed in order to prevent government to take over your freedom? That's a new low from you...

Not mass shootings, just a rebellion. No targeting of innocents.

A gun is different then a knife, killing becomes too easy.


I strongly disagree, especially depending on the situation. If you're in a crowd, than a knife can kill people much faster and easier than a pistol. If you are trying to kill armed people than it's difficult either way.