Gun Control

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ziegler

I did...hell...I lived through it. you stated there wasnt a natiowide gun ban.

Since when are rifles guns?

There was, you asked for proof, I posted it along with proof that it was ineffectual and did nothing at all.

And again you completely and deliberately ignore the REASON for why it was ineffective: they were hardly used in the first place for crime!

If you want to make an impact, you remove the stuff that is used most! NOT JUSTTHE STUFF THAT IS USED THE LEAST.

You can't make any statements or claims regarding any other gun law based on a token law that you knew in advance would not be effective because it couldn't possibly have a huge impact!

All it shows is that you banned too few guns and the wrong types at that! (Even if assault rifles should ALSO be banned, because they're mostly used by nutjobs). In fact, the only reason that federal law passed, was most likely because the Republicans knew it wouldn't make much of an impact as they knew very few people would be affected by that law. How can you be so obnoxious as to then make sweeping general statements concerning guns that ARE used on a daily basis for crime by the hundred thousands?

How many numbers of assault rifles do you think that law banned? A few hundred? A few thousand? You're insane if you expected that does anything to 60 million gun owners. Especially if you, after banning the sale on it, don't actually go out and have those rifles that are already out there returned.

In order to ban guns nationwide....would take a constitutional amendment.

Yes, it would, including the revocation of the right of states to determine this, since if you allow it in one state, then the other states suffer from it. It has to be a full and total ban, including revocation of previously owned guns or it will be ineffective, certainly in the short run.

One would be insane to think that just passing a gun restriction law or a compromise that allows people to retain any gun rights they had in the past would affect crime statistics within two decades. Certainly not if you can just go to a state next door and evade the entire law and avoid registration altogether.

And even then, it would still take a civil war. Cause you would quite literally have to remove those 60 million registered gun owners weapons by force and then you'd have to worry about those of us who own unregistered weapons and will never give them up....from our cold dead hands as the saying goes. There isnt a police force in the USA that wants that propostion, and there are many that would probably be on the side of the people refusing to disarm. Most americans have been taught, and believe, when the government asks for your guns, it's time to kill the government.

Yes, you are a nutty, murderous people indeed: You'd rather kill your entire law enforcement apparatus than give up your right to killing equipment. No, that's going to take a bite out of crime!

Right. I don't believe it and neither should you. You underestimate the will of people to live and avoid getting hurt. If some nuts start shooting at law enforcement who have a legal warrant, without trying to go the legal route, public opinion will soon turn against you because they will see you as the threat to national security, NOT the police. In fact, you'd only confirm an image that gun owners are irresponsible people who'd murder for no good reason at all when they throw a tantrum.

Fact is, you're not actually prepared to kill over the access to a mere object and if you are, you should be in an institution for the mentally deranged. Threatening with insane scenarios is one thing, acting on them an entirely different one. I don't think you quite realise how gun revocation would go: it would go one area at a time, starting with the most criminal ones.


People have done quite fine without wearing swords on the street. People have done quite fine without gentlemen's duels being fought to "settle one's honour". People will do fine without guns. The evidence is provided by an entire continent of independent people that are far saver on a per capita basis.


If you have a vested interest in high crime and murder rates, I could understand you to support gun laws. In any other case, you're indoctrinated into the marketing plan of gun producers of believing you need it without wanting to realise it's the products of those same producers you want to defend yourself against.



Btw, if you want to change the government, why not just vote for a different party? Sure, in your crap dictatorial election system it will take some time, but it's still possible.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Figment

Since when are rifles guns?

Err... what?

All it shows is that you banned too few guns and the wrong types at that! (Even if assault rifles should ALSO be banned, because they're mostly used by nutjobs). In fact, the only reason that federal law passed, was most likely because the Republicans knew it wouldn't make much of an impact as they knew very few people would be affected by that law. How can you be so obnoxious as to then make sweeping general statements concerning guns that ARE used on a daily basis for crime by the hundred thousands?

Automatice Weapons were banned because they would be the most effective civilian weapon used against the government. But even then it was primarily about which weapons looked more intimidating than were actually used for crime.

Yes, you are a nutty, murderous people indeed: You'd rather kill your entire law enforcement apparatus than give up your right to killing equipment. No, that's going to take a bite out of crime!

You make it sound like we go around with guns strapped to our hips all day looking for someone to shoot.

Fact is, you're not actually prepared to kill over the access to a mere object and if you are, you should be in an institution for the mentally deranged. Threatening with insane scenarios is one thing, acting on them an entirely different one. I don't think you quite realise how gun revocation would go: it would go one area at a time, starting with the most criminal ones.

It would not take long before it became apparent what was happening. That our second amendment rights were being forcibly removed. And that is plenty of reason to kill. How many other rights can we just be stripped of till we have none?

People have done quite fine without wearing swords on the street. People have done quite fine without gentlemen's duels being fought to "settle one's honour". People will do fine without guns. The evidence is provided by an entire continent of independent people that are far saver on a per capita basis.

Till the next revolutions come.

Btw, if you want to change the government, why not just vote for a different party? Sure, in your crap dictatorial election system it will take some time, but it's still possible.

It is not always the people that get to decide when violence becomes necessary. Historically, the government does that.

[blackfang]

Let the americans have their guns, i want to move there myself just to get my own anti-air cannon (which is actually very legal if you got the right certificate)

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Err... what?

Sorry let me rephrase, pistols. Handguns.

Automatice Weapons were banned because they would be the most effective civilian weapon used against the government. But even then it was primarily about which weapons looked more intimidating than were actually used for crime.

Aside from use against the government (which is bull that they'd be removed for that), that is more or less what I said, wasn't it? Ziegler concludes however that banning any sort of gun apparently has no effect on crime, based on this particular ban of a small portion of non-crime related guns. I find that a preposterous claim.

You make it sound like we go around with guns strapped to our hips all day looking for someone to shoot.

Not really, Ziegler did. Was sarcastically hyperboling his statement to show just how silly it was.

It would not take long before it became apparent what was happening. That our second amendment rights were being forcibly removed. And that is plenty of reason to kill. How many other rights can we just be stripped of till we have none?

Privilige, not right. It's not a privilige you should have had in the first place, so stripping is a bit of an overstatement.

Till the next revolutions come.

Considering we pretty much destroyed any need and will for warfare in Europe by removing arms races etc. Eh. Whatever. Revolutions come every 2 to 4 years after a government falls or expires and is replaced by a new one with completely or at least partially different parties.

The US populace is too far away removed from a true democracy perhaps to see that you can easily replace your government if the need arises if you really had a democratic government, without any need for violence whatsoever.

It is not always the people that get to decide when violence becomes necessary. Historically, the government does that.

Typically it's the minority leaders that call for violence. Either when they want power or when they want to hold on to power, both at the expense of the remainder of the populace. Violence is a sign of weakness, not of power. Unfortunately, intimidation does often lead to inaction by people that, if they really dared, could easily topple their government without requiring violence, it does require bravery of a large mass of people to overcome fear. Intimidation though, can easily be broken because it often depends on a scared portion of the populace to act in support of said minority out of fear someone else would.

[ziegler]

The assualt weapons ban was put in place directly because of crime.

60 million legal gun owners didnt do anything wrong yesterday. and everybody lived to tell the tale.

You want to demonize and belittle and that's fine, cause it wont change anything. It's not like Americans have ever cared what europeans thought of us, even when we have to come bail you out of a fight or debt crisis. You've been looking down your noses at us for a few hundred years.

It's a right. This isnt even open for discussion.


BlackFang: it would take a FFA license...which last I checked requires a indepth background check, 2500.00 USD /yr and there are only about 3000 people in the US allowed to have them, which is something like .0001 percent of the population. Good Luck!

But I can buy this
Without so much as a background check.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ziegler

The assualt weapons ban was put in place directly because of crime.

60 million legal gun owners didnt do anything wrong yesterday. and everybody lived to tell the tale.

I'm quite sure someone somewhere died intentionally yesterday due to a gun in the USA. Probably quite a few more got injured:

Originally Posted by US gun violence statistics

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]

Let's see, 144 intentional injured people per day, 64 accidental injuries, 48 suicides by gun and 35 people got murdered.

In a day. In the USA. Yeah, all of your 60 million people are REALLY behaving themselves.

Considering the other stats we've gone over earlier (you know, those you ignored), 70% of those deaths were committed with legaly acquired guns.

Whether or not the actual owner used them or not.

You want to demonize and belittle and that's fine, cause it wont change anything. It's not like Americans have ever cared what europeans thought of us, even when we have to come bail you out of a fight or debt crisis. You've been looking down your noses at us for a few hundred years.

As far as I know we bailed your banks out and hence why we have a financial crisis because your banks were corrupt. Nice try though.

It's a right. This isnt even open for discussion.

It's a privilige: criminals don't get to use guns because they've committed crimes. It's not a right, a right is for everyone. A privilige is if some can and others can not have it based on certain personal conditions having to be met. And no, it's indeed not open for discussion.

BlackFang: it would take a FFA license...which last I checked requires a indepth background check, 2500.00 USD /yr and there are only about 3000 people in the US allowed to have them, which is something like .0001 percent of the population. Good Luck!

How many people with a thorough background check have ever committed mass murder? And I suppose it's also impossible for someone who's legit selling it off or "losing it" (yeah, losing an AA emplacement, I suppose they'd take it with them on holiday to ensure it's not going to be stolen! But hey, they need it for... uhm... fightin' teh gub'ment! Just in case!).

But I can buy this
Without so much as a background check.

Yeah, like nobody with sniper rifles ever turned serial killer in the USA before to the extend entire cities were living in fear because randoms were getting shot in public.

Aren't those 3 wounded and 10 dead victims glad someone had the "right" to get a sniper rifle. I'm sure they could have defended themselves if they had had access to a handgun or sniper rifle of their own though!

Just. Brilliant.

The suit claimed that Bull's Eye Shooter Supply ran its gun store in Tacoma, Washington, "in such a grossly negligent manner that scores of its guns routinely "disappeared" from its store and it kept such shoddy records that it could not account for the Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings when asked by federal agents for records of sale for the weapon." It was alleged that the dealer could not account for hundreds of guns received from manufacturers in the years immediately prior to the Beltway sniper attacks. It was also claimed that Bull's Eye continued to sell guns in the same irresponsible manner even after Muhammad and Malvo were caught and found to have acquired the weapon there. Bushmaster was included in the suit because it allegedly continued to sell guns to Bull's Eye as a dealer despite an awareness of its record-keeping violations.

I mean, that sniper rifle went to a legit store, didn't it? Yeah all those dealers are of such high standard you could trust them all with your life.




Ziegler, one of these days you might find an argument I can't counter without breaking a sweat, but it's not today. <3

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by Figment

I'm quite sure someone somewhere died intentionally yesterday due to a gun in the USA. Probably quite a few more got injured:

Happens every day...death wont stop because guns go away. And they arent going away.

Originally Posted by Figment

Let's see, 144 intentional injured people per day, 64 accidental injuries, 48 suicides by gun and 35 people got murdered.

In a day. In the USA. Yeah, all of your 60 million people are REALLY behaving themselves.

Considering the other stats we've gone over earlier (you know, those you ignored), 70% of those deaths were committed with legaly acquired guns.

Whether or not the actual owner used them or not.

So if someone steals a car and uses it to run down people, we going to hold the owner responsible?

Originally Posted by Figment

As far as I know we bailed your banks out and hence why we have a financial crisis because your banks were corrupt. Nice try though.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...763082876.html

It's ok.

Originally Posted by Figment

It's a privilige: criminals don't get to use guns because they've committed crimes. It's not a right, a right is for everyone. A privilige is if some can and others can not have it based on certain personal conditions having to be met. And no, it's indeed not open for discussion.

No. when we jail someone, they forfeit their rights by their own actions.

Originally Posted by Figment

How many people with a thorough background check have ever committed mass murder? And I suppose it's also impossible for someone who's legit selling it off or "losing it" (yeah, losing an AA emplacement, I suppose they'd take it with them on holiday to ensure it's not going to be stolen! But hey, they need it for... uhm... fightin' teh gub'ment! Just in case!).

The kid in colorado recenty...never commited a crime, was an honor student. Would have easily passed a back ground check.
Major Nidal Hassan...in the US Army......
Jeffrey Dahmer

Originally Posted by Figment

Aren't those 3 wounded and 10 dead victims glad someone had the "right" to get a sniper rifle. I'm sure they could have defended themselves if they had had access to a handgun or sniper rifle of their own though!

Just. Brilliant.

Again...bad things happen to good people. You seem to be under the illusion that nobody ever died of violence prior to guns. taking away guns will only stop good people from defending themselves. It wont stop bad people from doing bad things.

We're willing to live/die with the consequences of having freedoms.

Originally Posted by Figment

I mean, that sniper rifle went to a legit store, didn't it? Yeah all those dealers are of such high standard you could trust them all with your life.

So, wouldnt a better question be....why did law enforcement not shut down the store after finding out about this? ....That's the job of the ATF. They'll gladly bring their full force down on a single american family...see Ruby Ridge...but a gun store owner? ......seems a failure of the government.

Originally Posted by Figment

Ziegler, one of these days you might find an argument I can't counter without breaking a sweat, but it's not today. <3

Figment...I've been exposed to you wrong headed europeans for years, I have no illusions of tearing you away from your government dependancy, it's been bred into you over generations. Just as our hate and distrust for government has been bred into us.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ziegler

Happens every day...death wont stop because guns go away. And they arent going away.

Actually, yes, yes it does.

Netherlands: total murder rate: 179 per 17 million people. That's let's see...0.49 per day, with an exchange rate of 17 to 308 million, that's... 8.9 per day. Compared to your 35 per day, I'd say 25% of your murder rate is a pretty decent lower rate.

Even a pessìmist like you should be able to admit that a relative drop of 75% is not too shabby.

So if someone steals a car and uses it to run down people, we going to hold the owner responsible?

Depends, there is some degree of responsibility to prevent others from getting their hands on your car if they're unfit for driving, what? If your kid would go out and joyride with your car and ends up killing someone by accident, then hell yes, you're definitely responsible as a parent for a high variety of reasons.

Not only was your upbringing subpar as you didn't teach the kid that joyriding was bad, but you also let the kid gain access to the car. Is the kid responsible? Of course, very much so. But the kid is not going to pay for the damages, is (s)he?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...763082876.html

It's ok.

Great. China is paying too. And is bailing you out too. Everyone's bailing out everyone! It's one big bail out party!

No. when we jail someone, they forfeit their rights by their own actions.

So you revoke their privilige of carrying a weapon. Dundunduuuun. They still have the right to a fair trial, they still have the right to not get murdered (unless you're in nutty lynch party states), they still have the right for sustainance, etc. THOSE are rights.

Guns are not.

The kid in colorado recenty...never commited a crime, was an honor student. Would have easily passed a back ground check.
Major Nidal Hassan...in the US Army......
Jeffrey Dahmer

Actually, if the background check included psychiatric report and not seeing a shrink, no, no the Colorado kid would not have passed.

Again...bad things happen to good people. You seem to be under the illusion that nobody ever died of violence prior to guns. taking away guns will only stop good people from defending themselves. It wont stop bad people from doing bad things.

We're willing to live/die with the consequences of having freedoms.

You seem to ignore that taking away swords from the streets has dramatically dropped the amount of random street fights that resulted in deaths... But hey, doesn't stroke with your line of argumentation, does it to not have the freedom to survive because the other guy is unable to attack you with something terribly lethal?

So, wouldnt a better question be....why did law enforcement not shut down the store after finding out about this? ....That's the job of the ATF. They'll gladly bring their full force down on a single american family...see Ruby Ridge...but a gun store owner? ......seems a failure of the government.

Oh I agree. I don't get how these gun stores apparently get away with hundreds of thousands of guns "disappearing".

Figment...I've been exposed to you wrong headed europeans for years, I have no illusions of tearing you away from your government dependancy, it's been bred into you over generations. Just as our hate and distrust for government has been bred into us.

lol, you don't honestly think our government got the trust for free, did you? But you know what, we've been working on organizing our government since well... quite a few centuries before you. Our government has always been about freedoms and general wellfare. This might be a new concept to you since you live in a bipartisan dictatorship, but we're actually in control of our government. Distrust of the government in say Italy or Greece is a lot higher and for good reason: they're not in control and their government doesn't have much integrity.

We have standards and ethics.

[ziegler]

Originally Posted by Figment

We have standards and ethics.

Because you are a state by comparison and one of our smallest states at that, with an isolated population that has a large resrouce that has been socialized to support your populace. It's not even a comparison. Take away your socialized resources and you'd be fucked.

And yes, you guys have been serfs or dependants of the government for centuries, I'll definately agree with you there. and if America was 90+% 1 race, we'd have some awesome looking stats too...I point you to look at the amount of crime commited by race in the US......it's not the scandinavian looking guy that's committing all the crimes.

[TheDAWinz]

well shit, people die, get over it. I could die tomorrow by tripping on a crack and breaking my head open. Oh shit, side walks and old age are the leading killers in the USA ban them! Ban death even though it is unavoidable!

[cBselfmonkey]

Originally Posted by TheDAWinz

well shit, people die, get over it. I could die tomorrow by tripping on a crack and breaking my head open. Oh shit, side walks and old age are the leading killers in the USA ban them! Ban death even though it is unavoidable!

I would imagine the difference is that sidewalks have other, primary uses that are not lethal. As opposed to just being these lines of concrete we put down to kill people when they least expect it.

Really now 'we're all going to die anyway'? Then whats the point of doing anything? Why have any safety regulations? Why bother with any of these 'rights' or 'privileges' crap if we're all going six feet under anyway, right? Right?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ziegler

Because you are a state by comparison and one of our smallest states at that, with an isolated population that has a large resrouce that has been socialized to support your populace. It's not even a comparison. Take away your socialized resources and you'd be fucked.

And yes, you guys have been serfs or dependants of the government for centuries, I'll definately agree with you there. and if America was 90+% 1 race, we'd have some awesome looking stats too...I point you to look at the amount of crime commited by race in the US......it's not the scandinavian looking guy that's committing all the crimes.

Why do you want to show you have no knowledge of Europe whatsoever every time? We have more freedom than you. Try understanding that. We are not an isolated State because all countries around us have similar laws and if you heard of the Schengen treaty, we don't have any border customs anymore outside of shipping and airports.

As for your 90% remark... Maybe you'd like to look up some stats. Main cities sometimes have 52% non-native ethnicity. We had colonies you know.

You need to drop your idea of your government running you as it does in America, we are not serves to it, it serves us. You have no idea what it is like to as a community control the government.

[TheDAWinz]

Originally Posted by cBselfmonkey

I would imagine the difference is that sidewalks have other, primary uses that are not lethal. As opposed to just being these lines of concrete we put down to kill people when they least expect it.

Really now 'we're all going to die anyway'? Then whats the point of doing anything? Why have any safety regulations? Why bother with any of these 'rights' or 'privileges' crap if we're all going six feet under anyway, right? Right?

Thats why i don't do jack shit.

[Figment]

http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/0...united-states/



Notice any correlation? No? Maybe these per capita charts then?





http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/arch...olent-country/

No?



http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/22/...es/#more-25302

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/22/...es/#more-25302

Per state and region then? Still no trends or correlations?

[Figment]

*crickets*