A good argument to disarm the gun-grabbers

[g5000]

Country A has lax gun control. They suffer 2100 homicides one year. The next year, they suffer 2200 homicides. A 4.7 percent increase.

Country B has strict gun control. They suffer 16 homicides one year. The next year, they suffer 20 homicides. A 20 percent increase.

Some dipshit then proclaims, "Country B's homicide rate skyrocketed! This proves gun control doesn't work!"



That's the level of stupidity and willful lying we are dealing with in this topic.

 

[2aguy]

In advanced nations like ours, gun bans and seizures achieve the intended goal. They reduce homicide rates drastically.

This is an undeniable fact. And yet we have deluded idiots who cannot accept this reality.

Sad.

It didn't achieve the goal in Australia, an island where they banned and confiscatd guns....

Australia’s 1996 Gun Confiscation Didn’t Work | National Review

University of Melbourne researchers Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi concluded their 2008 report on the matter with the statement, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

“Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears,” the reported continued, “the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.”

A 2007 report, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran similarly concluded that the buyback program did not have a significant long-term effect on the Australian homicide rate.

The Australian gun-homicide rate had already been quite low and had been steadily falling in the 15 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre. And while the mandatory buyback program did appear to reduce the rate of accidental firearm deaths, Baker and McPhedran found that “the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”

=======

2007 report..

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Baker and McPhedran 2007.pdf

Conclusions Examination of the long-term trends indicated that the only category of sudden death that may have been influenced by the introduction of the NFA was firearm suicide
------

However, this effect must be considered in light of the findings for suicide (non-firearm).

Homicide patterns (firearm and non-firearm) were not influenced by the NFA, the conclusion being that the gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.

The introduction of the NFA appeared to have a negative effect on accidental firearm death. However, over the time period investigated, there was a relatively small number of accidental deaths per annum, with substantial variability. Any conclusions regarding the effect of the NFA on accidental firearm death should be approached with caution
=========

2008 report...


http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee and Suardi 2008.pdf

In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
-------

6. Conclusion

This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths. Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.

In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods.

 

[2aguy]

Country A has lax gun control. They suffer 2100 homicides one year. The next year, they suffer 2200 homicides. A 4.7 percent increase.

Country B has strict gun control. They suffer 16 homicides one year. The next year, they suffer 20 homicides. A 20 percent increase.

Some dipshit then proclaims, "Country B's homicide rate skyrocketed! This proves gun control doesn't work!"



That's the level of stupidity and willful lying we are dealing with in this topic.

No...shithead...the fact that their gun crime rate keeps going up shows their gun control laws are not working.....and that you keep trying to hide the fact that their gun murder rates have always been low....before they banned guns...shows you are the dishonest hack...... gun crime is going up in both countries after they banned guns...

Their criminals have illegal guns.... their criminals do not use those guns to commit murder...

Are you this stupid in real life, or do you just pretend to be this stupid when you post?

 

[buttercup]

Yeah, strict gun control really works, just look at Brazil and Mexico. No gun violence there! Oh, wait…

 

[g5000]

Dude. No one ever has.

All you jackasses do is move the goalposts when you are busted. It's a never ending game.

As evidence of "all guns being seized", a link to an ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN was posted. It takes a special kind of retard to think that proved the case of "all guns being seized".

Yeah, see, I don't really do the goal post thing. No. Huh uh. Not really.

Just so you know, I am not in favor of a total gun ban. I don't even support an AWB. An AWB is theater for the rubes.

I am certainly opposed to the seizure of any guns of any kind. And I am most definitely opposed to the repeal of the Second Amendment.

But on top of all that, I am most deeply opposed to the repeal of reality. And it is reality that our fellow advanced nations have far, far, far lower homicide rates than we do because of their strict gun control.

That's about as simple I can state my position on gun control. These gun control topics go on for a hundred pages or so, and nothing will change. I will stand by my position, and 2aguy will continue to deny reality.

So what's the point of continuing this farcical show?

 

[g5000]

Yeah, strict gun control really works, just look at Brazil and Mexico. No gun violence there! Oh, wait…

They are not advanced nations like we and Canada and Europe are.

Don't compare apples to oranges.

 

[2aguy]

Dude. No one ever has.

All you jackasses do is move the goalposts when you are busted. It's a never ending game.

As evidence of "all guns being seized", a link to an ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN was posted. It takes a special kind of retard to think that proved the case of "all guns being seized".

Yeah, see, I don't really do the goal post thing. No. Huh uh. Not really.

Just so you know, I am not in favor of a total gun ban. I don't even support an AWB. An AWB is theater for the rubes.

I am certainly opposed to the seizure of any guns of any kind. And I am most definitely opposed to the repeal of the Second Amendment.

But on top of all that, I am most deeply opposed to the repeal of reality. And it is reality that our fellow advanced nations have far, far, far lower homicide rates than we do because of their strict gun control.

That's about as simple I can state my position on gun control. These gun control topics go on for a hundred pages or so, and nothing will change. I will stand by my position, and 2aguy will continue to deny reality.

So what's the point of continuing this farcical show?

No.... they have lower homicide rates because their societies were destroyed in World War 1 and 2....and they are just now catching up as their social welfare states destroy their family structures....they have now had generations of single teenage girls raising young males without fathers, and their violence rates are showing the effects..with growing violence and murder...

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, strict gun control really works, just look at Brazil and Mexico. No gun violence there! Oh, wait…

They are not advanced nations like we and Canada and Europe are.

Don't compare apples to oranges.

Canada? Where gun crime is going up, along with gun murder?

As Toronto’s tragedies mount is gun crime in Canada spiralling out of control?

As gun murders go up, other kinds of murder can go down
Canada marked a dubious milestone in 2016. That year, shootings pulled past stabbings as the number one method of killing someone in Canada: 223 people were shot to death, 175 were stabbed and the remaining 213 were killed by other means, include beating and strangulation.
----
Criminals using guns is going way up, but most violent crime is still gun-free

Police keep track of every time a criminal pulls a gun, points a gun or shoots a gun that misses. It’s essentially a running tally of every time that a gun is used for a crime without anybody getting hurt. And this number has been jumping precipitously ever since 2005. In 2017 there were 2,734 instances of someone “using, pointing or discharging” a firearm.

Gun violence isn't just a U.S. problem—and Canada isn't immune - Macleans.ca

Despite this and the persistently high rate of gun violence in many Canadian cities, gun violence still isn’t treated as a serious problem here. And when it’s discussed, much of the attention is focused on the city of Toronto. That’s not unreasonable; as of Oct. 2, Toronto has endured 297 shootings—an average of one shooting every day—which left 434 victims with varying degrees of injury in their wake. In terms of absolute numbers, no other Canadian city comes close to the number of shootings and shooting victims, and shootings in Toronto increased 41 per cent between 2015 and 2016; this year’s numbers are on par with the previous year’s, too.

But when year-over-year changes in gun violence are taken into account, there are other Canadian cities whose problems are at least just as bad.

Local officials in Surrey, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Ottawa, and Halifax have all publicly lamented the rise of gun violence in their cities, and with the absence of provincial and federal support, they have found themselves scrambling to implement their own initiatives.

In Regina, there has been a 94-per-cent increase in violent offences involving guns over the five-year average, and a 163-per-cent increase in the number of victims of firearms offences between 2015 to 2016. This prompted the city to conduct a two-week gun amnesty program in February.

Confidence in the federal government’s ability to tackle gun violence in Surrey, B.C. is so low that many residents have contemplated severing ties with the RCMP and setting up their own municipal police force. Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner recently announced the city would be creating its own task force to address gang and gun violence.

 

[pismoe]

I am a liberal and no one is getting my guns.

The 2nd unites people across party and ideological lines. One of my liberal acquaintances is vehemently anti-American values and pro-socialist. (Dumb as a rock about history). UNTIL you bring up abolishing the 2nd. Then, as if by magic, he turns back into a freedom loving American. It's a hoot to watch. He owns two 1911s that will have to be pried from his cold dead fingers.

Personally I dont know a single liberal that demands turning in all guns. Its like trying to locate Bigfoot. I dont know where people get this idea.

------------------------------------------------------- here you go ACE , --- ---

 

[buttercup]

'Turn 'Em All In': Feinstein Said She Wanted All Guns Banned | Breitbart

One of the lines that many progressives and TV talking heads are reiterating is that no one really wants to take away Americans’ guns. Senator Dianne Feinstein apparently missed that directive. She admitted as far back as 1995 that she does, indeed, wish to take everyone’s guns away from them.
In a 1995 broadcast of CBS’ 60 Minutes, Feinstein admitted she would love to have instituted an “outright ban” on all guns.

This is not the way many lefties are trying to sell their latest attempts at violating the 2nd Amendment, of course. Led by President Obama, the latest tactic is to claim that no one really wants to take away guns and that any claim to the opposite is just “fearmongering.”

This talking point is echoed by many in the media. During his “townhall” event on CNN a few weeks ago, Piers Morgan made the claim that he believes in the U.S. Constitution and doesn’t support taking all guns from every American, despite his constant refrain that guns need to be banned.

Senator Feinstein, though, is far more direct. This attempt to hide the left’s true motives is not a tactic that she bothers with. Feinstein is quite open: Her goal, like that of the rest of the left in America, is to undermine the Second Amendment and take away all Americans’ right to own firearms of any kind.

Please dont cite Briefbart and expect people to take you seriously.

In a 1995 broadcast of CBS’ 60 Minutes, Feinstein admitted she would love to have instituted an “outright ban” on all guns.

Yeah? Breitbart? Link?

Your logical fallacy is...

I didn’t read the whole Breitbart article, but I’m pretty sure they were talking about this:

 

[buttercup]

I am a liberal and no one is getting my guns.

The 2nd unites people across party and ideological lines. One of my liberal acquaintances is vehemently anti-American values and pro-socialist. (Dumb as a rock about history). UNTIL you bring up abolishing the 2nd. Then, as if by magic, he turns back into a freedom loving American. It's a hoot to watch. He owns two 1911s that will have to be pried from his cold dead fingers.

Personally I dont know a single liberal that demands turning in all guns. Its like trying to locate Bigfoot. I dont know where people get this idea.

------------------------------------------------------- here you go ACE , --- ---

Haha, I didn’t even see that you had posted that.

 

[pismoe]

Dude. No one ever has.

All you jackasses do is move the goalposts when you are busted. It's a never ending game.

As evidence of "all guns being seized", a link to an ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN was posted. It takes a special kind of retard to think that proved the case of "all guns being seized".

Yeah, see, I don't really do the goal post thing. No. Huh uh. Not really.

Just so you know, I am not in favor of a total gun ban. I don't even support an AWB. An AWB is theater for the rubes.

I am certainly opposed to the seizure of any guns of any kind. And I am most definitely opposed to the repeal of the Second Amendment.

But on top of all that, I am most deeply opposed to the repeal of reality. And it is reality that our fellow advanced nations have far, far, far lower homicide rates than we do because of their strict gun control.

That's about as simple I can state my position on gun control. These gun control topics go on for a hundred pages or so, and nothing will change. I will stand by my position, and 2aguy will continue to deny reality.

So what's the point of continuing this farcical show?

------------------------------------------- if i am correct you are a Second Amendment supporter G5000 and thats good to see . I don't argue numbers of dead by gun or anything else . I simply say that there is a cost to the Freedom to own guns and that cost is some deaths caused by people owning guns in the USA . As far as the numbers of Gun Deaths , i say that the numbers are Acceptable so as to RECOGNIZE Americans have the RIGHT to own guns G5000 .

 

[buttercup]

 

[Natural Citizen]

Just so you know, I am not in favor of a total gun ban. I don't even support an AWB. An AWB is theater for the rubes.

I am certainly opposed to the seizure of any guns of any kind. And I am most definitely opposed to the repeal of the Second Amendment.

But on top of all that, I am most deeply opposed to the repeal of reality. And it is reality that our fellow advanced nations have far, far, far lower homicide rates than we do because of their strict gun control.

That's about as simple I can state my position on gun control. These gun control topics go on for a hundred pages or so, and nothing will change. I will stand by my position, and 2aguy will continue to deny reality.

So what's the point of continuing this farcical show?

Oh, good. Most people are against a total gun ban. So, that's good.

About those other countries, though, they don't have the system of checks and balances of power that we have here.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Whew. It's a good thing America isn't a Democracy. We'd be up the crick, huh?

 

[Natural Citizen]

------------------------------------------- if i am correct you are a Second Amendment supporter G5000 and thats good to see . I don't argue numbers of dead by gun or anything else . I simply say that there is a cost to the Freedom to own guns and that cost is some deaths caused by people owning guns in the USA . As far as the numbers of Gun Deaths , i say that the numbers are Acceptable to allow Americans to own guns G5000 .

It's the 'allow' thing that gets my gipper. Since when did 'shall not infringe' turn into 'no not allowed'?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Really, almost every mass shooter has been on psychiatric prescription drugs. That's the problem, I think.

 

[buttercup]

Fast forward to 2:48

 

[buttercup]

I don’t watch this schmuck on TV, but apparently he talks about the Second Amendment often. Fast forward to 2:30. I’m actually amazed at the reaction he got from the audience, to me that’s scary. Who was saying Democrats aren’t against the Second Amendment?

 

[pismoe]

I don’t watch this schmuck on TV, but apparently he talks about the Second Amendment often. Fast forward to 2:30. I’m actually amazed at the reaction he got from the audience, to me that’s scary. Who was saying Democrats aren’t against the Second Amendment?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i hope that ACE is clicking your links . Course its my opinion that he would like to see CERTAIN Americans disarmed but he talks against disarming Americans as he lies and as a ploy 'imo' to fool Americans . Read his posts ButterCup .