Happier Abroad Forum Community

From Simon Black:

A few years ago, in response to national outcry, the government of Venezuela took step... they imposed strict gun control laws to stop the murderers and thieves. The end result? Violent crime actually increased. And Caracas is now one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

But across the Andes is another city that used to be one of the most dangerous in the world-- Bogota. Years ago, Bogota led the region in murder. And they imposed their own strict gun control laws trying to clean up the streets.

It worked. Bogota became safer. There was less murder. Less crime. Less violence.

But how could the same policy engineer completely different results in two cities?

This disparity becomes even more vexing when we look at other countries.

Honduras and Brazil both have very high homicide rates. Yet Brazil has highly restrictive gun laws, while Honduras has fairly lax gun laws.

Pakistan has some of the loosest gun laws in the world. Chile’s are fairly restrictive. Yet both have low homicide rates.

Bosnia has a very liberal gun laws. Belgium has very restrictive laws. Yet their homicide rates are similar.

Luxembourg has few privately-owned guns per capita, yet its murder rate is much higher than Germany’s, which has over twice as many.

Hawaii and Vermont have polar opposite gun laws yet nearly the same homicide rate.

Maryland and Virginia have vastly different gun laws, yet almost identical rates of gun-related deaths.

The numbers are all over the board.

Staunch advocates for gun control tend to think that more regulations and fewer guns make us safer.

Those who oppose gun control tend to think that more guns and fewer regulations make us safer.

But the data doesn’t support either assertion, meaning there must be other factors at work.

Winston looks pretty comfortable with this gun!

As usual I have to step in and straighten the clowns out and settle this issue.

The creditor class who has been running everything for the most part the last few centuries does not want you to know 80 to 90 % of the people killed in their empire building excursions over the last few centuries has been civilians.

I used to think the forces of evil wanted to disarm people so that they could not defend themselves from state tyranny. This now seems to not be true in the direct sense. If there is not a widespread will to overthrow the regime then the largely law abiding gun owners probably aren't going to do anything, and if there is the regime would likely collapse anyway. The real reason seems to be the one that is being played out in South Africa, where criminal trash populations are encouraged to murder disarmed citizens a few at a time, resulting in eventual genocide.

a WAR IS THE SAME THING BUT WITH THE TAPE PLAYER PLAYING IN fAST fORWARD SPEED.

Cornfed wrote:I used to think the forces of evil wanted to disarm people so that they could not defend themselves from state tyranny. This now seems to not be true in the direct sense. If there is not a widespread will to overthrow the regime then the largely law abiding gun owners probably aren't going to do anything, and if there is the regime would likely collapse anyway. The real reason seems to be the one that is being played out in South Africa, where criminal trash populations are encouraged to murder disarmed citizens a few at a time, resulting in eventual genocide.

That's exactly what they want to happen. It's perfectly obvious to anyone with open eyes (and an open minded which isnt blinded to this aspect of reality). South Africa is the canary, but really it is the beta testing center. And at the right time when they want, they can just round everyone up and murder them without trial. Once the USA falls, then they will be able to mass murder anyone they want. They must first wait for the US to fall, because if they began the mass genocide of humanity at this moment, Americans would never give their guns up, making it impossible to kill them en masse. When US gun rights end, that's when the culling of humanity will begin.

This is yet another reason why we need to stop being MGTOW, or labeling ourselves as INCEL or whatever. Who cares about that nonsense? It is distraction. Pay attention to what is really going on. This is a battle for life itself. This has nothing to do with women. Women are just a means to destroy men, if they can convince women to do it.

Remember: One man can literally impregnate thousands of women. That is why men are a target. A woman can not be impregnated one thousand times. They've already convinced women it is crazy to have more than 2-3 kids. They gave them abortion and birth control. What are they doing for the men? They want to make it extremely painful, because men can have far more children than women can. Men are the greater threat.

But also, with the leadership of a strong father, children are more likely to become a success in life. While if there is only a mother or a weak father, they are much likelier to become failures.

Gun Control: Why do Americans hate it religiously?
So that we don't become the French, et al.

One's views on gun control in America hardly matter. That ship has sailed. With 300 million firearms currently in cilivian hands with no tracking system in place there is simply no way to disarm Americans regardless of what laws are passed. Not to mention that making an effective firearm is pretty easy to do in any moderately well equipped home shop.
Current events in France, and historical examples of government tyranny in the USA (for one example watch the movie Mississippi Burning) make me think stricter gun control laws are further than ever away from being passed. Note I said stricter, not effective. I don't think there can be effective gun control in the USA. At most the most law abidding people can be disarmed.

More religion = more violence and murder.

Farmer308 wrote:One's views on gun control in America hardly matter. That ship has sailed. With 300 million firearms currently in cilivian hands with no tracking system in place there is simply no way to disarm Americans regardless of what laws are passed. Not to mention that making an effective firearm is pretty easy to do in any moderately well equipped home shop.
Current events in France, and historical examples of government tyranny in the USA (for one example watch the movie Mississippi Burning) make me think stricter gun control laws are further than ever away from being passed. Note I said stricter, not effective. I don't think there can be effective gun control in the USA. At most the most law abidding people can be disarmed.

That's the point. Then the criminals can kill off the decent people at will. Robbery, rape, murder will be much more commonplace, and all out tyranny by the fascists.

Farmer308 wrote:At most the most law abidding people can be disarmed.

So, you are intelligent (somewhat). I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree.

Winston looks pretty comfortable with this rifle.

Second Amendment wrote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Doesn't seem to make sense any more. The Indian wars ended in 1890. We have a HUGE standing army, to take care of any possible foreign invasion. Well-regulated Militias are no longer necessary. Back then, "Arms" meant muskets (that were highly inaccurate), swords, bayonets, tomahawks, and bows and arrows. Maybe some people kept cannons.

It may be time to update and clarify this amendment.

Otherwise, EVERY gun control law is an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms. As this amendment reads, I should be able to plant land mines, if I want. And, I should be able to carry my assault rifle, with bayonet affixed, everywhere I go. Not something that the author of the amendment could have envisioned, and, therefore, didn't allow for exclusions.

Cornfed wrote:I used to think the forces of evil wanted to disarm people so that they could not defend themselves from state tyranny...

Actually

Second Amendment wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

the idea was that people with guns would come to the defense of the State--not that they would defend themselves from the State.

As for the second half of the amendment

Second Amendment wrote:the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well,

http://www.wyff4.com/news/local-gun-dea ... s/37866300

...Federal law prohibits felons from owning firearms and gun dealers from selling them weapons.

That is clearly an infringement of the right to keep and bear Arms. Moreover, it is the State that determines who is and isn't a felon.