Reality Check on Gun Control

[miller-time]

MORE VIOLENT CRIMES DESPITE GUN BANS

*Posted to refute that the gun ban had any effect in the low violent crimes; for example, if the overall crime rate rose 42% after the gun ban and then increased to over 43% and then back to 43% in 2012, then how the f*ck does that mean the gun ban has any impact in deterring crimes overall in Australia when the rate increased by 42% after the ban took effect.

Nice way of picking and choosing your stats without looking at the overall picture dumbsh*t.

Before your edit I was going to agree with you. But f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck that. You're just an asshole.

[IamRAMBO24]

I thought the issue is banning rifles. Not all guns.

Still all based on a false premise. I can't support something that has an appeal to emotions (Sandy Hook shooting) and a strawman (all gun owners are mentally ill and will kill others if they get a hold of a gun).

The fact is most law abiding gun owners (including public workers such as cops) are sane individuals in possession of a firearm to protect themselves.

This is a fact.

The premise that an insane child who illegally possesses a firearm is a bad thing is something we all can agree to, but this has been generalized to include the "possession of a firearm in and of itself equates to violence." I don't see how a child who steals a gun from his mother and shoots up a school can equate logically to a law abiding, trained, sane adult (including cops) in possession of a firearm. This is a generalized fallacy.

Usually this can easily deceive those not verse in logic.

[MMM]

I thought the issue is banning rifles. Not all guns.

banning certain semi automatic weapons but some argue that banning some guns could potentially lead to the banning of all guns. I think we should be looking at preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not necessarily talk about banning certain guns, perhaps through tougher background checks, registrations, or graduated licencing.

[IamRAMBO24]

Before your edit I was going to agree with you. But f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck that. You're just an asshole.

I apologize, I got too emotional. You are a good poster and I didn't mean to call you a dumbsh*t. I take that back.

[miller-time]

I apologize, I got too emotional. You are a good poster and I didn't mean to call you a dumbsh*t. I take that back.

no worries man :)

[Velocirap31]

The tags for that video are pretty funny: 'brittian' Piers morgan, idiot liberals destroying america, etc.

[iamgine]

banning certain semi automatic weapons but some argue that banning some guns could potentially lead to the banning of all guns. I think we should be looking at preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not necessarily talk about banning certain guns, perhaps through tougher background checks, registrations, or graduated licencing.

I wonder about that because certainly there are some guns that is technically already banned as it is. For example, you can't just own a bazooka.

[BlackWhiteGreen]

That is not the argument, the argument the anti-gun advocates are upholding is that "Possession of firearms will lead to mass murder."

Which is a false premise as Reality Check pointed out. Of course gun murders are higher in the US because of the possession of more guns, but more violent crimes are being committed per capita in the UK, which doesn't involve the use of guns but by other violent means, and based on the low percentage of gun ownership it could hypothetically increase such violent crimes as burglary.

I live in the UK and don't know anyone who has been a victim of violent crime. And I'd rather be a victim of violent crime that a victim of homicide

[andgar923]

I don't say this lightly, but gun 'nuts' are idiots.

[dunksby]

Rambo why do you have to be a such a stereotypical sob? Conspiracy nut pro gun paranoid Mfer whom I don't understand why isn't living in some cottage in the middle of some dead zone already.

[Thorpesaurous]

banning certain semi automatic weapons but some argue that banning some guns could potentially lead to the banning of all guns. I think we should be looking at preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands and not necessarily talk about banning certain guns, perhaps through tougher background checks, registrations, or graduated licencing.

I'm a gun owner, and I would have little to no problem with any of increased measures you propose to getting a gun. However I do know that the NRA opposes many of these measures, as their position is consistently at the extreme, with the argument that they're constantly trying to prevent the slippery slope.
I also feel like we'd be better off if these decisions were put further into the state's hands. I live in Connecticut. Could I get by without a gun? Probably. But people who live in more hunting rich parts of the country, or people who make their living as farmers, why should they have their feet held to the fire because other states can't handle the responsibility. Why should a community in say Montana have to abide to restrictions to something that is inherently part of their existence, just because some sociopath kid shot up a school.
The biggest problem with the current jump to solution items we're hearing is that few of them would've affected the outcome of this tragedy. Banning thirty round clips wouldn't have helped. Banning assault rifles wouldn't have changed much. This energy would be better suited figuring out a methodology of protecting our schools.

[KevinNYC]

I'm a gun owner, and I would have little to no problem with any of increased measures you propose to getting a gun. However I do know that the NRA opposes many of these measures, as their position is consistently at the extreme, with the argument that they're constantly trying to prevent the slippery slope.
I also feel like we'd be better off if these decisions were put further into the state's hands. I live in Connecticut. Could I get by without a gun? Probably. But people who live in more hunting rich parts of the country, or people who make their living as farmers, why should they have their feet held to the fire because other states can't handle the responsibility. Why should a community in say Montana have to abide to restrictions to something that is inherently part of their existence, just because some sociopath kid shot up a school.
The biggest problem with the current jump to solution items we're hearing is that few of them would've affected the outcome of this tragedy. Banning thirty round clips wouldn't have helped. Banning assault rifles wouldn't have changed much. This energy would be better suited figuring out a methodology of protecting our schools.

I don't think that any of the current proposals would affect anything that "inherently part of a Montanan's existence."

Most NRA members are in favor of the proposals that are being offered. However, the NRA is not really an organization of sportsman any more. It's a lobby for gun manufacturers.

The Washington Post just had an article when the radicals took over the NRA and transformed it from a hunting organization into a gun lobby.

[Thorpesaurous]

I don't think that any of the current proposals would affect anything that "inherently part of a Montanan's existence."

Most NRA members are in favor of the proposals that are being offered. However, the NRA is not really an organization of sportsman any more. It's a lobby for gun manufacturers.

The Washington Post just had an article when the radicals took over the NRA and transformed it from a hunting organization into a gun lobby.

My main point is that this should be handled more on the state level.

[Balla_Status]

I live in the UK and don't know anyone who has been a victim of violent crime. And I'd rather be a victim of violent crime that a victim of homicide

Neither do I in the USA...what a stupid argument.

I've cousins in brighton, UK who talk about knife fights happening all the time.

[IamRAMBO24]

Rambo why do you have to be a such a stereotypical sob? Conspiracy nut pro gun paranoid Mfer whom I don't understand why isn't living in some cottage in the middle of some dead zone already.

What many people fail to realize is that the 2nd amendment means just that: the second most important freedom we have in a free nation. Freedom of speech is the most important because it allows us to convey our ideas and thoughts without retribution.

Why is the possession of guns so damn important you ask .. when we have the freedom to speak our mind against those in power (you know the people with the money, power, and bigger guns), we will need some sort of protection if those in power do not like what we have to say.

So the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms to protect our right to say whatever the f*ck we want even if it pisses off the people controlling this country.

Today we can call our President an idiot and not be fearful he's going to put a rope around our necks and hang us.

That is why it was put under numero 2. The SECOND most important freedom a free man can have; what the f*ck is the point of being free if you don't have the power to protect yourself.

If a guy tries to rob my house, I should have the right to shoot him; if some dude wants to rape me in the a*s, I should have the right to stop him; if the government wants to abolish the constitution and be a dictatorship, the people should have the right to try to fight against that.

So what if our arms won't be up to par against the military; it sure as hell is better than a f*ckin' knife.

You are taking guns from law abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves. The real problems are criminals who possess illegal arms and mental teenagers who are f*cked up in the head and shooting up schools. Go after those f*ckers. Why would you want to take guns away from the people who are only possessing firearms to protect themselves.

By equating them altogether is a generalized fallacy, which is a premise I cannot support.

You are not arguing to take guns away from the criminals who will commit these heinous crimes, you are arguing to take away the guns from the people who want to protect themselves from these criminals.

That's the fallacy because if the criminals and deranged kids are getting these guns through illegal means, that is a failure of law enforcement and government officials who should find some measure to prevent such access, not the people themselves. Huge difference.