The only gun control needed.

[Dr Grump]

If they are driving without a license how do they get their license taken from them? And when they get out of jail, then what? Double secret probation?

Some have suspended licenses but continue to drive.

What are you rambling on about? Like any law, if you break it you pay the consequences. You seem to have this idea that because crims don't obey laws we should get rid of the laws or not make new ones. That's not how it works. Your whole argument is based on nothing it seems. Some gun nuts uber fantasy that if you make laws surrounding guns and people don't obey them then the laws don't work. Taking that to its logical conclusion, none of your laws work. People are arrested every day for burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, DUI. But hey, let's get rid of the laws because people aren't obeying them. Warped logic. You say gun laws don't work. I live in a country where they demonstratively do. No "reductio ad absurdum fallacy" here pal.. fact...

 

[Rustic]

If they are driving without a license how do they get their license taken from them? And when they get out of jail, then what? Double secret probation?

Some have suspended licenses but continue to drive.

What are you rambling on about? Like any law, if you break it you pay the consequences. You seem to have this idea that because crims don't obey laws we should get rid of the laws or not make new ones. That's not how it works. Your whole argument is based on nothing it seems. Some gun nuts uber fantasy that if you make laws surrounding guns and people don't obey them then the laws don't work. Taking that to its logical conclusion, none of your laws work. People are arrested every day for burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, DUI. But hey, let's get rid of the laws because people aren't obeying them. Warped logic. You say gun laws don't work. I live in a country where they demonstratively do. No "reductio ad absurdum fallacy" here pal.. fact...

Most criminals are repeat offenders, it's not the guns.

 

[The Rabbi]

Compared to the same places 20 years earlier. Apples to apples.
NZ and Australia ALWAYS had lower rates of crime than the US because the populations are different. But you have more crime since you banned guns.

Who has banned guns? Not Australia or NZ....

Oh so now we're playing semantics.

Not really. There is this myth that you can't buy guns in NZ or Australia. You can.

There's this myth by pro-gunners in the US that NZ and Australia were armed to the teeth and since we've had our guns taken off us crime has increased. We were never armed to the teeth in the first place.

For a start, NZ gun laws have more or less been the same for the past 50 or 60 years. You've always been able to buy guns tbut you need a license. Certain guns cannot be bought, but that has always been the case. You have never been able to by handguns unless you belong to a gun club. Even then you have to keep the firearm at a gun club.

Australian gun laws banned certain types of weapons but you can still buy rifles and certain shotguns.

Yes Australia banned handguns. There's your gun ban.
And it is ineffective because therre wasnt a problem before the ban so of course there isnt one afterwards. Well, except for the high crime rate.

 

[The Rabbi]

If they are driving without a license how do they get their license taken from them? And when they get out of jail, then what? Double secret probation?

Some have suspended licenses but continue to drive.

What are you rambling on about? Like any law, if you break it you pay the consequences. You seem to have this idea that because crims don't obey laws we should get rid of the laws or not make new ones. That's not how it works. Your whole argument is based on nothing it seems. Some gun nuts uber fantasy that if you make laws surrounding guns and people don't obey them then the laws don't work. Taking that to its logical conclusion, none of your laws work. People are arrested every day for burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, DUI. But hey, let's get rid of the laws because people aren't obeying them. Warped logic. You say gun laws don't work. I live in a country where they demonstratively do. No "reductio ad absurdum fallacy" here pal.. fact...

Thank you for admitting that laws against driving with no license do not prevent people from driving without licenses.
Actually thats wrong. They prevent some people from driving without licenses. Namely law abiding people. But criminals will drive regardless of whether they have a license or not.
Similarly criminals will arm themselves regardless of whether they can legally possess a gun or not.
Laws against gun ownership only affect people who are basically law abiding to begin with.
Thank you for proving my point once again that gun control does nothing to disarm the people it is supposedly meant to disarm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. I ask that you post what you think to be a sound argument so I can show how it isn't, and you refuse to do so.
That, is you're running away from a challenge you know you have no hope to meet.
Disagree?
Post what you believe to be a sound position and I will show you how it is not.

I have posted my sound positions.

This is a lie; since I have challenged you to post your 'sound positions' for the specific purpose of illustrating how they are unsound, you haven't posted a thing.
You refuse to do so because you already know they are unsound
You may now continue with your lies.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. I ask that you post what you think to be a sound argument so I can show how it isn't, and you refuse to do so.
That, is you're running away from a challenge you know you have no hope to meet.
Disagree?
Post what you believe to be a sound position and I will show you how it is not.

I have posted my sound positions.

This is a lie; since I have challenged you to post your 'sound positions' for the specific purpose of illustrating how they are unsound, you haven't posted a thing.
You refuse to do so because you already know they are unsound
You may now continue with your lies.

His position is that just because criminals dont obey laws doesnt mean we should make more laws barring criminals from doing something.
I think thats circular reasoning Or just plain nuts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact.

Its also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and an example of how you cannot present a sound argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

[
Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact.

Its also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and an example of how you cannot present a sound argument.

It is that too.
But since they never had a problem with mass shootings either before or after the change in gun laws no one can say they were effective.
It is like saying there were no drive by bayonettings during the Clinton AWB. Therefore the AWB was effective in preventing drive by bayonettings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You seem to have this idea that because crims don't obey laws we should get rid of the laws or not make new ones

Your failure to understand the point must be deliberate, because no one who actually does not understand the point does not have the intellectual capacity to breathe on their own.

Arguing that laws intended to PREVENT people from breaking the laws against murder, etc, in no way translates to an argument against the laws against murder, etc, because the two sets of laws inherently differ - one exists to prevent the crime, the other to punish people that commit the crime.

it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people form breaking another law; such laws needlessly restrict the law abiding and should be opposed at every turn..

 

[The Rabbi]

You seem to have this idea that because crims don't obey laws we should get rid of the laws or not make new ones

Your failure to understand the point must be deliberate, because no one who actually does not understand the point does not have the intellectual capacity to breathe on their own.

Arguing that laws intended to PREVENT people from breaking the laws against murder, etc, in no way translates to an argument against the laws against murder, etc, because the two sets of laws inherently differ - one exists to prevent the crime, the other to punish people that commit the crime.

it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people form breaking another law; such laws needlessly restrict the law abiding and should be opposed at every turn..

A simple point but one that most anti gunners fail to grasp. Perhaps deliberately.

 

[Dr Grump]

[
Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact.

Its also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and an example of how you cannot present a sound argument.

So it's just coincidence that since the buy back there have been no mass shootings? How....interesting..

 

[Dr Grump]

This is a lie; since I have challenged you to post your 'sound positions' for the specific purpose of illustrating how they are unsound, you haven't posted a thing.
You refuse to do so because you already know they are unsound
You may now continue with your lies.

Of course they are sound. Stats prove it. No massing killings in Australia since the buy back. The US has a much higher person per capita of deaths caused by firearms.

A couple of reasons gun-nuts love their guns:
1) "The govt is out to get me". BS. Although your system of govt is probably one of the worst in the developed world there are enough checks and balances that the chances of that happening are not even within a margin of error. All it is is an excuse for gun nuts to justify the type of weapons they own. A rogue govt may be a gun nut's wet dream, but it has about as much chance of happening as me winning the lottery.
2) "To protect me and my family". Really? Most of you already admit that the vast majority of deaths are caused by gang bangers, so what are you protecting yourself from? That aside, most responsible gun owners say they keep their firearms in a safe to keep them away from little kids etc, which is not a bad idea. However, if that's the case, THEY"RE NO FUCKING PROTECTION. What are you gonna do if somebody with a gun breaks into your house? "Er, excuse me, can you sit over there while I undo the combination of my safe so I can access my firearm?" Don't think so..

You say my arguments are not sound. Hi kettle..

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact.

Its also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and an example of how you cannot present a sound argument.

So it's just coincidence that since the buy back there have been no mass shootings? How....interesting..

So... you don't like the fact that I proved your argument unsound, just like I said I would?
Your problem, not mine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie; since I have challenged you to post your 'sound positions' for the specific purpose of illustrating how they are unsound, you haven't posted a thing.
You refuse to do so because you already know they are unsound
You may now continue with your lies.

Of course they are sound. Stats prove it. No massing killings in Australia since the buy back.

It doesn't matter how many times you present this post hoc argument - it is still based on a fallacy, and therefore unsound.

A couple of reasons gun-nuts love their guns:

Ah - the ad hom, an appeal to emotion reserved for those who fully understand they have nothing of value to say.

So far, you have yet to post one, just one, sound position.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is a lie; since I have challenged you to post your 'sound positions' for the specific purpose of illustrating how they are unsound, you haven't posted a thing.
You refuse to do so because you already know they are unsound
You may now continue with your lies.

Of course they are sound. Stats prove it. No massing killings in Australia since the buy back. The US has a much higher person per capita of deaths caused by firearms.

A couple of reasons gun-nuts love their guns:
1) "The govt is out to get me". BS. Although your system of govt is probably one of the worst in the developed world there are enough checks and balances that the chances of that happening are not even within a margin of error. All it is is an excuse for gun nuts to justify the type of weapons they own. A rogue govt may be a gun nut's wet dream, but it has about as much chance of happening as me winning the lottery.
2) "To protect me and my family". Really? Most of you already admit that the vast majority of deaths are caused by gang bangers, so what are you protecting yourself from? That aside, most responsible gun owners say they keep their firearms in a safe to keep them away from little kids etc, which is not a bad idea. However, if that's the case, THEY"RE NO FUCKING PROTECTION. What are you gonna do if somebody with a gun breaks into your house? "Er, excuse me, can you sit over there while I undo the combination of my safe so I can access my firearm?" Don't think so..

You say my arguments are not sound. Hi kettle..

I don't know any gun owner that has a safe for their gun. A simple gun lock will keep kids from hurting themselves with a firearm if they happen to take it.

Gun collectors may be a different thing, but I'm sure most would keep a pistol by their bed or close to it in the event of an emergency.

I have no children and have a loaded gun in the headboard of my bed and one on my dresser. I never even touched a real gun until I came home one day and found my apartment had been broken into. I knew who did it too, and they were very dangerous people.

The reason we are safe in our homes is because there is a very good possibility that the home owner does have a firearm whether he or she really has one or not. If you don't believe me, then get a huge sign made for your front porch that says WE HAVE NO FIREARMS IN THIS HOME and let me know how that works out for you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

[
Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact.

Its also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and an example of how you cannot present a sound argument.

So it's just coincidence that since the buy back there have been no mass shootings? How....interesting..

We have gun buy-backs over here in Cleveland once a year or so. Guess what, in spite of all the guns turned in (probably most of them stolen or used in a crime) it didn't reduce or eliminate gun crimes.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If they are driving without a license how do they get their license taken from them? And when they get out of jail, then what? Double secret probation?

Some have suspended licenses but continue to drive.

What are you rambling on about? Like any law, if you break it you pay the consequences. You seem to have this idea that because crims don't obey laws we should get rid of the laws or not make new ones. That's not how it works. Your whole argument is based on nothing it seems. Some gun nuts uber fantasy that if you make laws surrounding guns and people don't obey them then the laws don't work. Taking that to its logical conclusion, none of your laws work. People are arrested every day for burglary, homicide, rape, robbery, DUI. But hey, let's get rid of the laws because people aren't obeying them. Warped logic. You say gun laws don't work. I live in a country where they demonstratively do. No "reductio ad absurdum fallacy" here pal.. fact...

Yes, some people have suspended licenses and do continue to drive. So what makes you think making more laws would stop unlicensed drivers from driving? There are already laws on the books that make it a crime just like there are with those who illegally have or use a gun.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are voluntary. Someone has to go fill out a form or present himself for fingerprinting. Those are things he must do on his own. If he knows he has a record and wont pass he wont bother filling out the form or getting fingerprinted.
As for doing away with all laws, that is the standard reductio ad absurdum fallacy. You do away with laws that logically and demonstrably do not achieve even a modest amount of their aim. Like gun control.
It is impossible task to remove guns because yes, we are awash in guns. 300M at least in a country of about 350M I thank G-d for every one of them too. So we agree that getting rid of guns in the US is impossible, and that trying to reduce the number is foolish.
I dont think I know 20 people who dont own guns.

They are only voluntary only in the way getting a driver's license is voluntary.

Of course gun control works. NZ does not have a history of mass shootings. Neither does Australia since the buy back. Nothing illogical about it, it's a fact. And guess what? The vast majority are happy about it.

Yep, that is one point I do agree with you. If you were to get serious about gun control etc, then anybody taking it seriously would have to add a caveat that it would take time to work. Probably 10 years.

You seem to be obsessed with mass murders in the US. We don't lose most of our people to mass murders. They are usually individual murders involving two bad guys.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True. I f reducing the number of guns reduced crime then the opposite should be the case, right? More guns should equal more crime.
But there have been more guns sold in the last 8 years than probably the last 20 combined. And yet the crime rate is lower.
Oops.

Lower crime compared to what? Where are you stats and comparisons.

Both NZ and Australia have less crime rates involving guns per head of population than the US. Does that mean a lack of guns work down here or is it other reason(s)?

Other reasons because guns don't kill people--people kill people.

We have plenty of places in the US where there are no gun murders at all. We have other places where murders take place almost every night, and sometimes multiple murders.

It's the people that are the problem--not the guns. We here in the US are the most diverse country on the planet. Some groups are more prone to use violence than others. But in the end, all the statistics get thrown in a blender and we end up with more gun violence than other countries.

You have laws against guns and claim they work. Well our gun violence and violence in general has been on the decline over the last ten years or more. And guess what, we have more guns and more gun carriers than we ever had.

 

[Rustic]