How To Argue For Gun Control.

Simple. Suppressive fire is when you lay down fire towards the enemy forcing them to take cover. While you're doing that, your fellow soldiers are either moving up to flank the enemy or are retreating to a better position. Machine gunners will fire in bursts to be more accurate and to conserve ammo. That's why they have up to 200 round drums. To give the gunner mkre time to cover.

You're going to have to regulate ALL semi automatic weapons including double action revolvers then. And the second amendment isn't about target practicing and people need semi autos for self defense too.

I did said probably. I don't know why he chode what he chose.

.5 What?

 

"If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns,
because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it's
not that you are anti-gun. You'll need the police's guns to
take away other people's guns. So you're very Pro-Gun;
you just believe that only the Government (which is, of
course, reliable, honest, moral and virtuous...) should be
allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control.
There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a
small, political elite and their minions."

-Stefan Molyneux

 

Statistics on guns and preventing crimes with no blood shed in the hands of civilians.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

 

This idea that guns will have to be used to overthrow the government one day isnt exactly realistic

We wouldnt even be able to overthrow the local police force with guns nowadays, much less the government and military.

I personally think the first amendment and an educated populace are far more powerful tools for keeping a government in check

 

The simple answer is machine guns tend to have more ammo and is psychologically devastating to hear automatic fire directed towards you. And to answer your second question, it's not so much as the weapons used but the tactics chosen. I may have my guys all outfitted with .50 caliber machine guns but if all I do is just stand in the middle of the field blasting away then the weapons may be near useless. However if all I had were M1s in strategic places and used good tactics, I could over run a machine gun nest. The main reason why machine guns are chosen for covering fire is the amount if ammo they can hold.

Which will be all semi automatic firearms. It's all depends on how fast you pull the trigger.

Yeah but that's after the fact and apparently the shooter didn't intend on running. Even if he did, there are much faster ways of knowing who fired the shots like the booking records.

 

One of the best ways to increase gun sales is to constantly talk about gun control, but never actually pass any gun laws. I'm not convinced the government is pro gun control.

 

Exactly

 

Because you can still aim and shoot particular targets, it's just not as accurate as aimed fire.

Of course you have a good chance of getting shot if you just stand out in the open. Even semi automatic fire headed in yoyr direction will make your head go down. Here's a link on machine gun tactics.


https://www.quora.com/How-did-modern-machine-gun-tactics-evolve-during-the-first-two-world-wars

While they were good against a wave of bodies charging toward you as you're bound to hit something, modern tactics don't allow for that to happen. Even though it's not real warfare, I suggest you go to an airsoft or paintball game and see for yourself. If someone has a machine gun he's not mowing down hundreds of people. He'd be fortunate if he got more than ten. In fact, you don't even have to go to one. There is plenty of Youtube videos of people playing the machine gun role.

In a way yes it is.

Not accounting for reloads you can put rounds down range in a hurry. All you need is practice.

 

Agreed.

Depends what side of government is pro gun control.

Socialists will never want guns for personal use.

The gun argument is oxymoron in a way.

Some people say ban guns! Well you can ban a thousand guns, but that doesn't matter if I have just 1 with ammo.

I own them cause if im home, and you try to take me from my home, ima just go out blasting. All I need is one gun.

 

My weapon of choice is 9mm.

 

To ArtOfJaCOb: I've just noticed that after every mass shooting politicians start talking about gun control and people start buying guns anticipating that gun laws will be put in place. It's led to some pretty hefty profits for gun producers.

 

On this issue you are not independent. And you ignore my point. You want cake and to eat it too. To own guns without resurrection but also to live in a society where there is no help for anyone but yourself. Why do you owe that? You do not so fuck off with this socialism and my tax dollars being wasted. What you are asking for means either you pay money or you can't have the gun. Are you prepared to do either? Maybe I am wrong.

 

Owning a gun is not the threat gun owners think it is. It's a non-issue to pacify them.They think they can actuly overthrow the goverment which is all they care about meanwhile they ignore serious issues. Personally I just care for the people who die. They can make all the threats I want but if they were actuly one guns would be gone tomorrow. How do I know this? People who worked in Black Ops told me. There is a plan in place if they ever did anything but the goverment finds it highly unlikely because militias would have a hard time with large structures. These people hate "big goverment" so even groups of more then a few hundred people with more then one clear leader will not survive. They will fight each other more then Uncle Sam for the right to fight Uncle Sam.

The rebellions would be in over a few days. Within almost any major militia there are already goverment plants. In addition there are various forms of bio and psychological warfare panned. Say I have a bad source but he proved his security clearance to me. He can not go anywhere in a base but many places the average Marine does not even know about.

 

Mac

You mean the ‘harmless’ KKK the longest and deadliest domestic terror organisations in US history? I mean “4,000 black people were publicly murdered in the U.S. between 1877 and 1950” many at the hands of the KKK, I think the last death of a black man involving KKK members was in 1981.

Thing is that these people have not changed their views or attitudes and would go back to murder if they could get away with it, so why do you seem to be saying that you think some of them are ‘fine’ people?

 

The Stefan Molyneux piece well if got me thinking and the thing is - do I trust the gun owners - i mean it has to be remembered that only 3% of the population owns half of the civilian guns in the US. So only about 7.7 Americans own about 133 million guns.

78% don’t own guns
19% own 50% of the guns
3% own the other 50% of guns

And it makes me wonder if the gun owners (especially that 3%) are ‘reliable, honest, moral and virtuous’?

I mean who are these people?

Well we know the demographic of gun ownership which is that it’s in the main white men who lean right politically.

I would also guess that the 3% are probably the most anti-gun control group and probably have the same views, outlook and arguments as the anti-gun control people on this site, and those people do not come across as the most rational, reasonable or even honest group I’ve ever meet.

 

Your reply said it all. I also think that having a gun in the house is a bit like smoking. People who smoke do not intend to burn their house down or kill their family, but accidents happen. Needless to say, I am pleased that we are in the UK. LOL