Politics Thread


The piece of paper which decides which shiny piece of paper I get to put on my wall says that I’ve been a History major for going on four years.

I’d like to think I’m pretty well-versed myself.


fair enough


My opinion on gun control: Ever heard of a place called Chicago? They have very high gun control but what does it do? Stop you from defending yourself from the thief who could care less about gun control because he’ll just go get a gun on the black market. Just saying.


Exactly. Someone who has never committed a crime should be allowed to own a handgun to defend themselves, their homes and their family. It is the state’s responsibility to ensure that said gun owner uses their weapon responsibly.

In Canada, semi-automatic handguns and long arms and revolvers are more common than most people think. The main restriction is a licensing fee and a day-long gun safety course to make sure you don’t put a round in your foot or something.


The more one studies of the history of the Police-Action of Independence, the more one realises it had scarcely even the semblance of grounds for complaint, let alone protest or rebellion. Always a nice supplement to my default political objections.


I’ve thought about this issue a bit since we last discussed it and I posit that having a gun for self-defence against gun-wielding criminals is a preposterous idea. It is human nature to fight back against perceived wrong-doing when we think we are on equal-footing with the wrong-doer. However, in the case where both parties are wielding weapons that could easily cause severe or life-threatening injuries, it is much wiser to give up and seek help after you’ve removed yourself from the situation.

For example, if a man was approached by a gun-wielding robber who demands that he empty his wallet. Should this man also own a gun, it is much more likely for the man to pull out his gun in an attempt to defend his possessions. However, when the man draws the gun, he presents the robber with a danger. The robber can run and risk being gunned down as he flees or he can open fire and risk being caught for murder. Now we’ve gone from a near zero chance of the robber opening fire at the man to at least a 50% chance of the robber opening fire at the man.

As is a frequent argument from anti-gun-control proponents, criminals will obtain weapons no matter how tightly the government controls them. But if we can decrease the chance of innocents dying during such confrontations, why not adopt such a policy? It is the job of police officers to protect a country’s citizens; not the citizens themselves. They’re the ones who are trained and paid to do so. It seems very strange to me that Americans consistently show they honor and value their police officers but they don’t seem to trust them to do their jobs.

As an aside, I feel like America’s relationship with guns is almost like their relationship with pennies. They don’t need them and it’s costing them, but they just hate to part with them. …I apologize if I sound a little harsh. Just speaking my mind. :stuck_out_tongue:


I honestly don’t know where I stand on this topic, America was founded on an Amendment by our forefathers that said we have the right to bear arms its kind of a pillar we were built on but I see why people want guns taken away, cause there is alot of dipshits who have no common sense and no respect for something that gives you the power to take life in a slight squeeze of a trigger.

In media you guys may not notice but they have a different agenda every like decade or so, and this new Agenda is trying to prosecute guns like every gun crime you could possibly think of is on the news(which is flooded with more gun crimes everyday) and getting exposure, while any other things that could show guns in a positive light are snubbed and never really talked about except for a brief moment.

Also, Police arent a omniscient net of protection, like in the LA riots where the Korean shop owners defended themselves from people who wanted to burn down their shops while the cops did nothing also sometimes you cant reach the police when someone may be trying to harm you, like you may live too far away or whatever and someone may be trying to break into your house I think you should have a gun or something to defend yourself just to try to scare them off, incapacitate them, or (last resort)kill them instead of being at a possible psychopath’s mercy.

But then again, I dont think any other country has Gun crimes like us, I’m pretty sure other countries are strict about it which probably adds to the rarity of gun crimes in those places, but I think Guns are needed at times(but most of the gun crimes I read about 80% of the guns in the situation were uncalled for), I think we just need to do something about making it alot harder for dipshits to own a gun.

But perhaps we could replace guns with something less deadly but could easily incapacitate our attackers or stun our attackers so we could feel safe but at the same time not have all these dumbasses abusing it and by misusing it causing deaths so it would be pretty much idiot proof


First of all: A reminder that our continent (North America) is NOT entirely fit for everyday human habitation. I live in a suburb of a major city and we still get the occasional bear on our street. For a good chunk of people living in the US or Canada, you *need* a gun to defend yourself against animals in the wild.

The point of owning a gun and allowing the proliferation of firearms isn’t retaliation, it’s deterrence. I don’t need to have been shot to know that having a heavy piece of metal pierce your vital organs at several hundred metres per second would suck, most people would be disinclined towards the experience as well, to the point where they will try to avoid the risk of it altogether. The logic goes that if a criminal has a gun and knows that very few other people do, they may feel as if there is very little chance of being shot in the lung, whereas if a large proportion of the population is armed, they’ll consider either going elsewhere where people are less well armed, or reconsidering the criminal act altogether,

That being said, the reason there is so much gun crime in the US is because there is a heavily entrenched gun culture. America has a love affair with guns, from the Minutemen to Annie Oakley to Alvin York to Desert Eagles to The Engineer from Team Fortress 2. Many countries do, but the US is special in its racial diversity, almost irrational love of personal freedoms, and its heavy urbanization. British or Japanese-style gun law won’t work in the US because in the UK or Japan, civilian gun ownership is considered abhorrent. Going to the other extreme with the Swiss model won’t work either, because Switzerland is an insular, culturally and racially homogeneous nation-state which sees having an assault rifle in the living room as a duty and symbol of loyalty to the state, not a freedom. People CAN eradicate American gun culture if there is a concerted effort, but it will take decades to do so, and those who continue to believe that it is the right for every American to own a firearm will fight them every step of the way.

That being said, I agree with @2Ton: restrictions on gun ownership to some extent is a good idea. Gun-safety courses are a must, and I believe the US government is considering mandatory background checks for prospective gun owners, which I think is a fantastic idea.


@hahaha01357 Naturally a criminal is more times than not cowardly and so will want to abstain from attacking any gun owner.


I should have mentioned this in my previous post, but it was about three in the morning and my laptop was overheating.

@817819, you say the idea of anyone robbing somewhere with a sledgehammer is preposterous, and yet I’ve witnessed it myself. It’s quite simply: Take a jewellery store that’s closed, pull up outside of it in a van, have a bunch of men emerge with sledgehammers - Windows smashed, cases broken open, jewellery stolen; Bob’s your uncle, Fanny’s your aunt, job’s a good-un. There and gone within two minutes.


@Drazen for your first comment a would submit that what is waranted is not decided by those who look upon it through hind site.
Towards your second I can only reply with awe a man once tried to rob a cousin of mine with one. My cousin had a knife, and that man didn’t last two seconds


@817819 I would contend that the weren’t warranted at the time, either. Hind sight simply heightens our awareness of this.

Secondly, thank you for proving my point.


@hahaha01357 If you can id the criminal who has raped or robbed you, then he has an incentive to kill you so there are no witnesses to his crime. And in the US that happens all too often. So assuming that an armed criminal will let you go so you can report him after he’s done committing his illegal acts is a really, really big assumption. Plenty of people do just that and die as a result. There are also the sickos who just like killing people. Submission to a criminal isn’t always the best policy, and this issue isn’t quite as cut and dry as you’re presenting it.

Furthermore police departments are under no legal obligations to protect citizens in the US. They often don’t have the manpower, or are just plain too far away to arrive in a timely fashion. They’ll happily make a police report if you’re still alive when they arrive at the scene of the crime however. That won’t do you or your loved ones much good if you’re already dead however.

There are multiple reasons why people own guns in the US, and interestingly enough, it is in those states where gun ownership is highest that crime rates are lowest.


Party: Independent, currently vote for National Coalition


@Drazen secondly I proved nothing of the kind my cousin is a criminal, a fool, and a poorly trained knife fighter. The only value you will find in that story is that mentality is everything, and that sledge hammers are incredebly ineffective as a weapon thus know one with half a brain would use them as such unless their intended victim had an inherently servile mentality.


Now as for my point on gun control you can defend against a man with a knife but what about the coyotes, the rattle snakes, the wild dogs, and mountain lions that live in the area I grew up? What would you do if one of them attacked you would you be so confident with a knife or a sledge hammer? It has happened to me before when I was unarmed I barely escaped with my life. My grandfather would surely be dead by now if not for his shotgun as would I.


Shoot the attacking rattle snake?
Wow… want to see that movie.

But overall an interesting post.


@loelet well that’s the point of bird shot (multible projectiles with a nice spread pattern) hard to miss at close range


well the spread pattern depends on the type of shotgun of course


Aaah - shotgun… didn’t notice that.
Was just thinking back to my military service and tried to imagine how to shoot an aggressivly moving snake with a pistol. :wink: