[ SECRET POST #2187 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2187 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05. [repeat]


__________________________________________________














[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]














06. [SPOILERS for Once Upon a Time]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for amazing spiderman]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Nu52 Stormwatch]



__________________________________________________















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]















09. [WARNING for rape, sexual assault, gore]

[SCP Foundation wiki]


__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for abuse]



__________________________________________________



12. [WARNING for child sexual abuse]



__________________________________________________



13. [WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



14. [WARNING for violence, RL deaths]



__________________________________________________













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #312.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 (not broken, but being reported as malicious?) - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - personal attack ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ill_omened]

You're suggesting that there's a possibility of a need to lead an insurgency because america is going to become a dictatorship in which that is the best, or at least partially effective solution (i.e. worse case scenario). Therefore we need to keep a huge number of guns in circulation, to prepare for the black helicopters, and this outweighs the current and present damage done by this ongoing situation (ignoring everything else, suicide would be dramatically reduced if you could effectively get rid of the majority of firearms).

I'm pointing out that even if we grant the need to fight the power, your going to have very limited success with small arms, and far more with explosives, something which are comparatively easy to produce. So the need for small arms even if we grant your original scenario, is unnecessary.

Explosives as a method, are used far less in interpersonal disputes, suicides, mass killings by lone individuals, and etc.

A propaganda song by terrorists, doesn't really change the efficacy or methods actually used by them. To be honest, I'm not really that interested in discussing modern insurgent techniques, there's a whole wealth of literature out there.

[chardmonster]

Well, no. Not exactly. We already have a huge number of guns in circulation, and banning them won't get rid of them. My thoughts on the subject are purely historical: no, I don't think there's a fricking conspiracy. Conspiracies are kind of rare. I don't think guns would reduce suicides that much.

Bombs are used in mass killings all the time?

I linked the song because it's a song. Don't read too much into it.

Here's another song about guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf47DQj_2Gg

[ill_omened]

It will, long term.

No the guns won't be gone the day after the ban, but for reference until dunblane the UK had incredibly lax gun laws. How many are there now? For clear reasons this isn't a straight comparison, none the less the point remains - good social engineering with a goal of eventually reducing to negligible numbers the firearms in circulation is certainly possible, albeit difficult. Politics not practicality is the issue there.

Suicides would drop tremendously. We perceive suicide as solely being the product of long term, well planned out, act of desperation. This isn't really true. And by banning guns you reduce one of the easiest most effective methods of spur of the moment act. You would think other methods would be used, but for whatever reason, they're not - or at least not to the same extent.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/7791644 yo http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html

Don't have the stats to hand, however, are you really suggesting that explosives are used even close to the same extent as guns in mass killings, interpersonal disputes, etc? After all, no-one is saying banning firearms is the perfect solution and no harm will ever be done again, just that it reduces it.