Gun Control Is Bad (BROAD)

> "You do not know for sure if revolt would happen over the seizure of firearms." Then you don't know Americans well enough >"comcast was only 1 example of how corruption exist, showing most laws don't past the way we were taught, when really " The people in power aren't stupid and they know how to play the system, they are slowly taking our freedoms away one bit at a time and the American people are angry.. Why do you think a large majority of the Republican base wants to support a radical man that will DEPORT ALL MUSLIMS AND ILLEGALS, FEDERAL CONCEALED CARRY LAWS, REMOVING WASTEFUL GUN LAWS, BUILD A HUGE WALL. ETC..... Why do you think a large portion of the Democrats support a radical man that is in favor of a 90% tax rate and a socialist-communist style system? The entire population from the left to the right are angry. If you can't see that then well that's your own damn problem. >" Thanks for bringing that up, it's a bunch of wackos with guns, first they illegally hunt on a wildlife reserve," Uhh no, it was when he refused to pay grazing fees for land he and the people around the area have used for several generations. The government merely claimed it as crown land. I don't know anything about them hunting on a reserve so I would like a source for that. >"They are bullies/terrorist with guns that do not care for the land" You are talking from a mighty high horse to be saying so things so ignorantly. >"source cousin from east Oregon " That isn't a valid source sorry. I can't find anything on the internet for what you are telling me. >"The laws in the EU aren't in effect yet do you cannot generalize them." The law applies to the ENTIRE EU, what am I generalizing? "You have done firearm training yourself, most people do not" Most people outside America do not own guns either. There is such a huge fear and stigma with guns that it pushes people away. Look at Texas again for an example, an overwhelming majority of the people there are gun enthusiasts.. It's part of the culture.. The dads teach the sons how to shoot. They practice with their friends, they do mock "battles" with paintball and paint rounds. Perhaps they aren't as trained in police tactics as if they would have taken a long and extensive SWAT style training course. I know what you are trying to explain to me but it only comes off EXTREMELY ignorant and nonsensical. What you are saying makes sense if you give a fresh noobie a gun... You won't get good results in a terrorist situation. Let me give you an example so you better understand me, here are fictional character profiles that are at least at a large degree realistic with concealed carry shooters. Noobs aren't even used to the sound of gunfire immediately putting them at a disadvantage,Practically useless.. But instead consider the next tier up... A woman owns a pistol and she casually goes to the range one or twice a month to practice shooting. In a terrorist style situation if she survives will most likely head for an escape and flee. Or she will draw her weapon but only at a very safe distance.She will be hesitant to fire upon the terrorists and the chance for her to miss (or make a mistake) and cause collateral damage is very high. Now lets take the next tier, a young man owns a pistol, he plays many tactical army video games and also regularly shoots at the range twice a week(3 or 4 times a month).In a terrorist style situation if he survives will most likely get out of direct danger and wait to ambush the terrorists around a corner or structure.He won't be hesitant to fire upon the terrorists and will have a medium chance to cause collateral damage.(except for self) Now lets take the next tier. An older man owns a pistol(s), He may have played tactical army video games in the past and regularly shoots at the range 1-3 times a week. (2-4 times a month) In a terrorist style situation if he survives will most likely tend to take take light cover and fire back. He won't be hesitant to fire upon the terrorists and will have a medium-low chance for collateral damage. (except for self) Now lets take another tier.. A military or police man owns a pistol(s). He has extensive training with firearms from his job and personal life. He has several thousand hours of accumulative shooting and training. He shoots at the range 1-7 times a week. In a terrorist style situation if he survives will most likely quickly draw his weapon and immediately start reading his aim to start shooting. He will have no hesitation to fire upon the terrorists and will have a very low chance for collateral damage (except for self) So I spent all this extra time showing you example profiles. Do you think the majority of concealed carry people are casual women? No... Mostly a mixture of the second and third option, and a decent of the last option depending on what state and country. Current gun laws almost all around the world don't even allow trained people to concealed carry.I shouldn't need to further explain this to you. You aren't talking from experience.. >"been in an actual firefight?" Mock paintball and 9mm paint bullet fights in realistic scenarios. >"Because your dream scenarios of being the good guy with a gun isn't that effective? " If you are ONE person out of several hundred carrying a pistol you most likely wouldn't even have enough time to pull out your gun before you get shot to bits.. but it's EXTREMELY situational and based on luck/chance. But if 1/3 or even 1/15 of the population had concealed carry pistols I know for a fact the casualties would of been much lower. Take the amount of people that were inside the building and within 30 feet of the building.. I'll give a low number and say about 500 people. If my math is correct if 1/15 of the people in that tight vicinity was concealed carrying that would of been about 33-34 people overall. Are you honestly telling me that with the realistic character profiles I have given you that not one of them would of made a positive impact? > A few minutes per gun, but to get automatic weapons it's a very low risk with high reward. Do I need remind you that this isn't the hunger games, gangs and terrorists have lots of time. Hell terrorists are already sacrificing their life to massacre people, they have virtually unlimited time. You think a few minutes or hours will change anything? > "You also realize those cities have a higher rate of poverty? " Because the blacks can't keep up in the workforce and are forced to a life of crime to survive. >"You are seriously trying to justify and defend white mass shooters by claiming their anger over took them? " Of course I am, take a look at Germany for a great example. Massive amount of German women are being raped and sexually assaulted by these refugees. Something that was nearly non-existent before they came. This might drive a perfectly intelligent and reasonable German male to take up arms and defend the "tribe"... It's in our instinct and blood. >"You also realize experts don't ask people bluntly if they have anger issues and similar things right??? That is not how it works, have you ever taken a personality test? It's impossible to fake your answers to get the results that you want." And like I said, it's easy to mould a personality test to fit the caricature you want. Heck I even did it when I entered the military as I was afraid of being denied for antisocial tendencies. I don't consider myself exceptionally smart and it was easy. >" that is near impossible to fake" Not really. Just imagine the personality of a male friend you have and simply copy/paste. >"even a few seconds can save a life." A few extra hours to waste a combined several million hours of lawful people's time. "That has universals studies linked" I want a source not a bloody article. "where people gather." and the people can't defend themselves in those gathering spots. Word limit.. had to cut my arguments short.