The Failure of Gun Control Comes Home

[FA_Q2]

Absurd.

right you are-its absurd to think that people who commit felonies are more likely to be disarmed by gun bans than honest people who conscientiously follow the laws

Correct.

.... and??

Actually, the less guns there are in circulation, the less likely criminals have access to guns. In countries where there are strict gun laws, the criminals also have less guns.

Except that gun control laws do not change homicide rates at all. They certainly do not bring down other crime rates as well.

This is the case over and over and over again everywhere gun control is tried. It simply does not pan out.

Credible

I have done this all opver this board. You might have seen these links several times.

Many of the graphics are from Just Facts
England:

A few questions for you.

A man walks into a convenience store carrying a 38. He picks up a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk and walks to the counter. Next, he shoots the clerk and takes the money from the cash register and runs.

1. The NRA spends millions fighting for him to be able to carry that gun into the store, so do they have any responsibility for the shooting when they know some of the people they are fighting for will shoot the clerk?

2. At exactly what point does the NRA stop calling him a good guy with a gun?

Really? You can't figure it out?

He stops being a good guy the second he shoots the clerk.

3. If he gets away, will the NRA continue calling him a good guy with a gun the next time he walks into a store?

What special kind of retard do you have to be to think the NRA would consider a someone who shoots a clerk a good guy?

Without universal background checks, you are guaranteeing that bad guys will more easily be able to get guns.

The NRA opposes universal background checks, and want's everybody (even crooks) to be easily able to buy from a private seller with no checks of any kind.

You figure it out.

Fallacy. Even with universal background checks bad guys will get guns.
What do you think? Bad guys will be deterred by a background check? No one will sell to a bad guy without a bvackground check? Think, man! Think!!

Sure, they will be deterred. Background checks will eliminate the possibility of many guns from their purchase. I never said it would make it impossible, just that it would be much harder.

That assertion is not backed up by facts.

The fist problem that you have failed to address (and has been pointed out many times) is that the law is completely unenforceable. Tell me, how is a law that CANNOT BE ENFORCED supposed to make it more difficult for criminals to buy guns?

Second, there is no data showing that further gun control measures will do squat to reduce crime or homicides. What is the ultimate goal here? If it is safety then gun control falls flat on its face.

The ultimate goal of any gun control measure must be to reduce crime. This is most easily measured in homicides as that is the most prevalent target of gun control:

England outright banned guns and the effect on homicides? Zero. That is the base problem that you have with gun control laws - if you are willing to commit homicide or any other major offense then the extra law that says you cant have a gun is utterly meaningless - period. This has flushed out a myriad of places all across the globe as well as here. All your assertions are NOT backed up by any hard data.

And England is moving for more restrictive laws - if it doesn't work we can always try more right? That is exactly what gun control advocates want here. We have a shit ton of gun control laws on the books and all you can come up with is more that is not effective in the first place.

If outright banning does nothing, what makes you think that background checks that are completely unenforceable will be effective?

Australia (using their own governmental data):

It means I'm busy asswipe. Do it yourself.

You're not very busy if you're posting on here. Your assertion is null and void.

No, it isn't dumbass. Now go play, you bore me.

Null and void. The further you carry this without backing up your assertion, the more ridiculous you look.

What a whiny little pussy you are. Here asswipe, read it and weep: Did gun control work in Australia - The Washington Post

the direct data disagrees with the assertions of that paper though.

When you mess with the data you can make it say anything you want. Mess with it by, say, taking large amounts of time and covering up the fact that there was almost no change at all in homicide rates from 96 (when the law was passed) and 03. Why, if the law was affective at all, did it take 7 years to see ANY GAINS?

Why are the homicide rates going down being attributed to a law that passed 7 years before it started to occur?

Its also noteworthy that the overall incidents have been on a downward trend for a long time - both before and after the law passed. Looking at the raw data shows that the law itself likely had zero impact on the actual number of incidents in general. There is no real drop after the law passed or change in direction from before the law passed.

Using raw data instead of allowing Washington Post authors do your thinking for you will show much more information.
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

In several states as well as relaxing gun control laws:

So, here we go again.

Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads. For those of you that heave read this from me, skip it. For the rest of the slow class: gun control advocates have no evidence supporting their demands. I ask the OP, how are the gun advocates on the 'wrong' side when you have no data to support your point where they have tons.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide variety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.


In conclusion, over 10 separate threads have simply ceased to continue because not a single lefty here has any response to the given facts. I have serious doubts that the OP will be any different but I wait with bated breath for one single person to actually support their demands with something that resembles fact. So far, I have received nothing.

Canada (addressed in the end of my post and governmental data again):

Thank you for the well thought out response. I wish everyone here would do that rather than just take the talking points from the NRA or the far left for that matter. We might actually be able to fix the problem that way. I was just giving you a hard time about the clip. If you were arguing for gun control the pro gunners would say you don't know anything about guns and blah blah blah.

I try and I am always looking for a good debate. Sometimes its hard to find here.

I figured about the clip. I don’t get angry about misstatements like many here seem to do. The use of the word ‘clip’ and ‘magazine’ is separate from the actual point even if it was inaccurate.

I don't dissagree about someone having two .45's for example. But why even appose a ban on high capacity magazines then? Wouldn't two .45's with say 16 round magazines be more deadly yet? Since there aren't any examples of the high capacity magazines being used for defense I think at worst it doesn't hurt anything. At best maybe some guy has to reload and drops his clip and gets tackled.

I guess I view every life as being very valuable. If you can save a few lives in a mass shooting then why not try? Will it drastically effect the overall homicide rate? Probably not, I still like to think the mass shooting are very rare, but again every life is valuable.

This is likely the largest are that we are goig to disagree on but I hope that I can show you the light

You ask why does it matter then? I hold life just as important as you and think that we should try our damndest to save every person we can BU*T (and this is a BIG but) there is a line that we need to acknowledge. The reality is the safest and BEST government to live under if safety and preservation of life is the metric you are measuring would be fascism or despotism. That is a simple truth.

Preservation of life is important but not at the expense of freedom. Where you want to air on the side of protection I am absolutely against that concept. I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS air on the side of FREEDOM. Whenever you wish to take anything away, be it a big gulp, a large clip or smoking, I err on the side of freedom and fight it with every breath I take unless there are real and tangable benefits that can be proven AND those benefits outweigh the cost in freedom.

For example, the restriction on the right of free speech that makes yelling fire in a theater (or other crowded place) illegal is a sound restriction on freedom. The right to privacy that has been taken by the patriot act CLEARLY has saved lives and protects us but the COST is way too damn high. The patriot act is terrible law. Life is not the ONLY thing to consider here, our freedom is also an important consideration. The cost is low and the payoff high as related to that cost. The payoff with a restriction on magazine size is not only not proven but utter conjecture. It lacks enough reasoning for me as well as I can fabricate a large capacity magazine with ease, aquire one that is already in circulation or use more than one weapon (ie, the 2 guns example that I gave earlier). My beef here with your idea is essentially this: you want to limit freedom because YOU don’t see it as a large loss of said freedom. I also do not have a need for large cap mags, don’t own any and have no plans on purchasing the, but the idea that freedom is taken from people without what I consider due diligence in the reasoning goes against everything that I stand for.

The people that created the patriot act likely used your exact same logic. DO you think it was applied correctly there? Are you comfortable with how far this hole goes? If limiting 10 is allright, why not 5 or 1. That, BTW, is NOT a slippery slope argument. It is the same logic applied universally and it is the logic that can and WILL be used again and again...

Every life is valuable. EVERY FREEDOM IS ALSO VALABLE. Do not discount freedom.

I agree with much of what you say about viewing numbers from other countries. You would have to admit that Russia is often given as a pro gun argument when it is really not valid. So how do you counter that? Well pointing out the low homicide rates of countries with strict gun laws. For the sake of the US I hope that the number of guns is in fact not much of a factor in homicide rate. It could be other countries ban the violent video games, or violent movies, or some of the drugs we use to treat mental health, or do better policing.... But given that all the countries with much better homicide rates do have more strict gun laws, I think that would be a mistake to not look into it further.

And many that have worse homicide rates ALSO have stricter gun laws. As a matter of fact, ALMOST THE WHOLE WORLD has stricter gun laws. I do not aspire to be like the rest of the world.

That said, IF, and only if, the statistical analysis showed that gun laws in those countries was a factor in the lower homicide rates would such a comparison be valid. As the data does NOT support that claim, such data is meaningless. You might as well claim that every country that has a lower homicide rate is does not contain states, or a congress, or have a bill of rights, or does not sell hummus on Tuesday. All those would be just as meaningful. FIRST you need to establish that gun laws have a positive effect, AND THEN you compare the gun laws with our gun laws. That is the ONLY logical order to do it in.

How about we look at Canada?

In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on numerous firearms. Since about then the violent crime rate went down through 2007. They currently have a homicide rate of 1.6 which is drastically better than ours. Not a perfect comparison of course, but is there something to learn from this? There may very well be. Is it wise to completely write if off? I think that would be a mistake.

How about we look at Canada. First, we need to address your thumbnail. It is not cited. It does not explain itself at all. It does not even use the metric we are going by: homicide rate. It does not even mention the country that it applies to. I REALLY hope you did not pull this from a blog. Essentially, you should not even have posted it

Really, I KNOW you can do better than that

It took some digging but here we go:
Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2011
official Canadian source on this with some good data.

All violent crime (except sexual assault against children) have been on a gradual down trend since 1980 and the data in your thumbnail is outright false. There is simply no dicernable way for me to fit the increase in your cite with the actual numbers. It looks as though the gun law had little to no effect in canida as well with the homicide rate starting at 2.5 and decreasing to just under 2.0 after a decade

We can see that directly after the law was passed (I did not check the date but I am going off of your 1991 timeframe) a sharp increase in homicides tool place, leveled out the next year and then continues the same downward trend that had been going on the previous years. Note: I am NOT attributing the spike to gun laws – spikes happen and that is a given. That trend line dies not really change at all. As far as I can tell, this is not a good piece of evidence for gun control, the law does not look like it altered the trend at all.

Further, the piece that interests me quite a bit is the fact that attempted murders and actual murders have CONVERGED a lot after the law passed. That went from a full point in difference to just .1 difference. That is, 40% of attempted murders FAILED and now a pithy 2% fail. Possible that might be due to people lacking protection but the criminals not lacking the offensive means to kill? I believe that is likely but I would need to pull up more evidence to support so I will just leave that as an interesting thing to think about for the time being.

All said and done, I don’t think Canada is the example you were looking for unless you can present this data in another way.

 

[FA_Q2]

Absurd.

right you are-its absurd to think that people who commit felonies are more likely to be disarmed by gun bans than honest people who conscientiously follow the laws

Correct.

.... and??

Actually, the less guns there are in circulation, the less likely criminals have access to guns. In countries where there are strict gun laws, the criminals also have less guns.

Except that gun control laws do not change homicide rates at all. They certainly do not bring down other crime rates as well.

This is the case over and over and over again everywhere gun control is tried. It simply does not pan out.

Without delving into specifics of wherever you're referring to, just an observation:
The term "gun control" implies a pre-existing problem. Something that needs to be "controlled" is something that's by definition already out of hand. e.g. we call the fire department when the building is in flames, and they get it under control to prevent the whole city going up, but damage is already done.

And as you remember from our convos on this in the past, my stance is that throwing laws at something that's already out of hand is tantamount to slamming the barn door after the horse is already gone. It's a feelgood line in a speech but has little significance once the speech is over.

However, that said --
what you just posted is not necessarily the logical counter to what she just said.
See post 216; correlation is not always causation.

Yes, we have talked about this before and I agree with much of your points on the matter. However, my point was counter to hers. She specifically mentioned countries with stricter gun laws and implied that was the cause.

Nothing in her statement mentions the idea of culture being the driving force. If she wishes to add to that statement I can correct but my reading of those comments are that gun control is an ANSWER rather than a societal reflection.

 

[FA_Q2]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

 

[Brain357]

And keep in mind, when the Communists/Progressives say 'Gun Control', they mean a complete Gun Ban. They won't stop till they achieve that goal. So all gun owners need to stay vigilant. The Communists will continue to attack them and the Constitution.

The Gun Fetishist Paranoia is strong in this one.

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

Got a link to support that?

its common sense. the only people who have a logical reason to fear honest people being armed are those most likely to be shot by honest people

criminals, for example, are huge fans of gun bans

Not really. There are like 20,000 accidental shootings each year and over 600 people accidently killed. Only about 230 criminals are killed each year in defense. I'm pretty sure criminals prefer they continue to have easy access to guns. They are the ones who are by far using guns the most.

 

[The Rabbi]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

I guess Rosa Parks was wrong because no one needs to ride on the front of the bus.

 

[paulitician]

And keep in mind, when the Communists/Progressives say 'Gun Control', they mean a complete Gun Ban. They won't stop till they achieve that goal. So all gun owners need to stay vigilant. The Communists will continue to attack them and the Constitution.

The Gun Fetishist Paranoia is strong in this one.

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

In other words, a vast portion of the Democratic Party electorate base. I hear ya.

 

[paulitician]

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Actually, many of your fellow Communists/Progressives have openly stated they will continue fighting to abolish the 2nd Amendment. So when you guys say 'Gun Control', you do really mean a complete Gun Ban. Gun Owners will just have to stay vigilant and continue fighting for the Constitution.

Still nothing but your Gun Fetish Paranoia.

Yeah, you said that. Still isn't true. You Communists/Progressives do not stand for Freedom & Liberty and the Constitution. You will have to be vigorously opposed at at every turn.

Three times in a row he posts ipse dixit blanket strawmen. It's all he's ever done here.

I bet the next thing he posts when you call hiim out on it will be:
"Gay".

Nah, you Communists/Progressives' goal is to implement a complete Gun Ban. The term 'Gun Control' is just code for it. So you're not foolin anyone. It's 'death by a thousand cuts.' You're banning guns slowly and incrementally. You will have to be vigorously opposed.

 

[paulitician]

And keep in mind, when the Communists/Progressives say 'Gun Control', they mean a complete Gun Ban. They won't stop till they achieve that goal. So all gun owners need to stay vigilant. The Communists will continue to attack them and the Constitution.

The Gun Fetishist Paranoia is strong in this one.

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

Criminals are law breakers, yet gungrabnazis think criminals will comply with gun control laws.

Crazy.

Whew. And I thought it was gonna be tough finding another one. Took ten seconds.
Summa y'all just take turns throwing the same blanket strawman up and then expect different results.

Crazy.

Uh huh, you Communists/Progressives definitely aren't fighting to ban guns. Sure thing. We believe ya.

 

[CowboyTed]

I don't think our RW understand the culture first. In Ireland we want to have a gun free society. We don't even want our police armed on a regular basis(only in exceptional circumstnaces).

Why? Guns kill people. We don't want an arms race.

As to criminals getting guns. Criminals find it very hard to get and keep hold of guns. The guns they have to be hidden and the maintance on these guns is poor as they are usually old. So we have very little gun crime compared to US. Because these numbers are so low, incidents (like a drug war) can spike those numbers in isolated areas among usually famillies but generally the numbers are consistently low.
Also a high percentage of firearm deaths are with shotguns because they are far eaiser to get when stolen.

There is also the sucide factor, Sucide by gun has far higher likelihood of death than by most other means. 'So the guy wanted to die' thing is reduced when comapring to other forms of sucide.

So we get a 'Paris' incident? They want us to change our lifestyle and culture through fear. That is the aim of Terrorism. They want the massive reaction like Patriot Laws and wars... Guess What? We are not giving it to them. We have reached out to the moderate muslim community and offered our support and they have given their's back.
You see in Eurpoe we have seen people do horredous crimes in our name in the past and we know it wasn't us. We know we didn't support those actions and we founds that those actions were far from their views too.
We remember when the IRA bombed little kids in the UK and rasied our Flag and sang our Athemn and climed as a victory for Ireland. We were horrified and humliated by their actions, they were scum.
So our actions are to be a bit more viligent and support efforts with our community to integrate muslims. Muslims kids play with our kids, support our teams, go to school and university.. We treat allmembers of our community with dignity and respect and expect the same back.
And lads that is how you beat Terrorism.

 

[CowboyTed]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Actually, many of your fellow Communists/Progressives have openly stated they will continue fighting to abolish the 2nd Amendment. So when you guys say 'Gun Control', you do really mean a complete Gun Ban. Gun Owners will just have to stay vigilant and continue fighting for the Constitution.

Still nothing but your Gun Fetish Paranoia.

Yeah, you said that. Still isn't true. You Communists/Progressives do not stand for Freedom & Liberty and the Constitution. You will have to be vigorously opposed at at every turn.

Three times in a row he posts ipse dixit blanket strawmen. It's all he's ever done here.

I bet the next thing he posts when you call hiim out on it will be:
"Gay".

Nah, you Communists/Progressives' goal is to implement a complete Gun Ban. The term 'Gun Control' is just code for it. So you're not foolin anyone. It's 'death by a thousand cuts.' You're banning guns slowly and incrementally. You will have to be vigorously opposed.

If you give black men civil rights, next they will want to be President.

Now they want to be overlords and you will be calling the balck man boss...

Slippery Slope.

 

[Pogo]

The Gun Fetishist Paranoia is strong in this one.

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

Criminals are law breakers, yet gungrabnazis think criminals will comply with gun control laws.

Crazy.

Whew. And I thought it was gonna be tough finding another one. Took ten seconds.
Summa y'all just take turns throwing the same blanket strawman up and then expect different results.

Crazy.

Uh huh, you Communists/Progressives definitely aren't fighting to ban guns. Sure thing. We believe ya.

Apparently all you have is infantile "is not!" and "I don't care what you say, I know what you really mean" over and over and over. Why don't you go start another thread about how The O'bama is raising gas prices.

Like you did here.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think our RW understand the culture first. In Ireland we want to have a gun free society. We don't even want our police armed on a regular basis(only in exceptional circumstnaces).

Why? Guns kill people. We don't want an arms race.

As to criminals getting guns. Criminals find it very hard to get and keep hold of guns. The guns they have to be hidden and the maintance on these guns is poor as they are usually old. So we have very little gun crime compared to US. Because these numbers are so low, incidents (like a drug war) can spike those numbers in isolated areas among usually famillies but generally the numbers are consistently low.
Also a high percentage of firearm deaths are with shotguns because they are far eaiser to get when stolen.

There is also the sucide factor, Sucide by gun has far higher likelihood of death than by most other means. 'So the guy wanted to die' thing is reduced when comapring to other forms of sucide.

So we get a 'Paris' incident? They want us to change our lifestyle and culture through fear. That is the aim of Terrorism. They want the massive reaction like Patriot Laws and wars... Guess What? We are not giving it to them. We have reached out to the moderate muslim community and offered our support and they have given their's back.
You see in Eurpoe we have seen people do horredous crimes in our name in the past and we know it wasn't us. We know we didn't support those actions and we founds that those actions were far from their views too.
We remember when the IRA bombed little kids in the UK and rasied our Flag and sang our Athemn and climed as a victory for Ireland. We were horrified and humliated by their actions, they were scum.
So our actions are to be a bit more viligent and support efforts with our community to integrate muslims. Muslims kids play with our kids, support our teams, go to school and university.. We treat allmembers of our community with dignity and respect and expect the same back.
And lads that is how you beat Terrorism.

Well said, and exactly my point earlier. The culture and the will of the people leads the legislation, not the other way round.

Why? Guns kill people. We don't want an arms race.​

Spot on. That's it in a nutshell. And we continue to have message board wags insisting the way to squelch a fire is to pour gasoline on it.

 

[Jarhead]

"Gun control" is neither our problem nor our solution.

Gun fetishism -- that's our problem.

A comic strip?
All you can produce to support your statement is a comic strip?

Does that not tell you something?

 

[Pogo]

How so? A complete gun ban is your goal. It has always has been for you Communists.

the people most wanting gun bans are generally those most likely to engage in activities that would cause patriotic americans to shoot them

child molesters
robbers
rapists
power hungry dictators
rogue storm troopers

Got a link to support that?

its common sense. the only people who have a logical reason to fear honest people being armed are those most likely to be shot by honest people

criminals, for example, are huge fans of gun bans

Do you know how the liberal mind works? It doesn't.

Liberals don't see obvious patterns. Most of the time they need you to explain step by step, over and over.

Did you ever notice that they never address your points?
At the most, they will get all huffy and explain why they shouldn't have to.

Fallacies -- such as blanket strawman ad hom in his post above -- don't need answering. They're not points in the first place.

 

[Pogo]

"Gun control" is neither our problem nor our solution.

Gun fetishism -- that's our problem.

A comic strip?
All you can produce to support your statement is a comic strip?

Does that not tell you something?

The strip is not "support". It's graphic illustration of what's already been stated.
As the saying goes -- read it and weep.

 

[Ernie S.]

I got nothing so I will insult his debating skills.

 

[Jarhead]

"Gun control" is neither our problem nor our solution.

Gun fetishism -- that's our problem.

A comic strip?
All you can produce to support your statement is a comic strip?

Does that not tell you something?

The strip is not "support". It's graphic illustration of what's already been stated.
As the saying goes -- read it and weep.

Actually, that's not true.

When you posted the strip, nothing like that had been stated in this thread. You posted the strip and made your comment. It was a graphic illustration of the point you were trying to make....but your only "proof" to support your point, was a comic strip.

I know many gun owners...and none that walk around in a trance saying "yes safe"....

They live their lives feeling more secure just as people with house alarms live their lives feeling safe.

Or do you believe that people are also entranced by the thought of safety thanks to their home alarms?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Anyone who wants to buy a modern assault rifle

Why would anyone need a "modern assault rifle" for either self defense or hunting?

The bold makes the rest of your statement meaningless. No one 'needs' to justify why they want to exercise a right. The onus is on those that want to restrict it to justify why the restriction is needed.

If you want to restrict speech or religious practice you do not go to the one with the right and ask why they need it at that particular time, place or capacity. You must show cause and need to RESTRICT - not practice - that right.

Turtle said anyone that WANTS. That is all that is required - the desire to exercise a particular right.

So under the 2nd Amendment you or I should be able to purchase a nuclear armed ICBM under that illogical rationale of yours.

 

[Conservative65]

We need gun control, say the libs.
Look at the crime rate in France, say the libs.
It works over there, it'll work here, say the libs,

In one or two days all of that has been wiped away. The Muslim assholes who attacked Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery were armed with RPGs, AKs, and other goodies, generally not even available in this country, much less to the average Frenchman. The only ones not armed were the good guys, a/k/a the victims of their attacks.

At least now some Jews are getting hte idea that being defenseless and dependent on how fast police can react is a recipe for more dead Jews.
Europe s Leading Rabbi Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns Washington Free Beacon

Had proper gun control been in place they would have needed to use a bat or a knife. And no, we have no plans to ban bats or knives, since they are dual-purpose, to say the least, while a gun is only for killing things, human things often enough.

Had a bat or knife been used producing the same result, tell me how less dead the victims would have been because it wasn't a gun.

 

[Conservative65]

We need gun control, say the libs.
Look at the crime rate in France, say the libs.
It works over there, it'll work here, say the libs,

In one or two days all of that has been wiped away. The Muslim assholes who attacked Charlie Hebdo and the kosher grocery were armed with RPGs, AKs, and other goodies, generally not even available in this country, much less to the average Frenchman. The only ones not armed were the good guys, a/k/a the victims of their attacks.

At least now some Jews are getting hte idea that being defenseless and dependent on how fast police can react is a recipe for more dead Jews.
Europe s Leading Rabbi Jews Must Begin Carrying Guns Washington Free Beacon

Had proper gun control been in place they would have needed to use a bat or a knife. And no, we have no plans to ban bats or knives, since they are dual-purpose, to say the least, while a gun is only for killing things, human things often enough.

Sounds as if you define proper gun control as banning them.