Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 181. (Read 450482 times)

Hey, blab, can you lighten up a bit?  There's no advantage or big deal to disagreeing with people and no reason to insult them. 

To the poster: get a life.

When you criminalize something, only criminals will use or own it. Gun control laws only take guns away from people who obey laws.

And you don't have a clue what ideologies I espouse, but that doesn't stop you from making shit up. BTW, its public record, so if it is a problem for you maybe you should stop talking in public. Additionally the only reason I did it is because you are too much of a coward to disclose your country of residence so that comparisons of US demographics and your own country's demographics could be made, but you are so dedicated to your bias you can't allow a fair debate now can you?

You don't have a fucking clue where I live or don't live. It's a bit creepy to see how someone can be so obsessive that they latch on to some old quote or post they found. Do you also break restraining orders and go through your ex-boyfriend's rubbish disposal to find old receipts? Well, at least the US has equal opportunity so that mentally deranged people such as yourself can obtain infinite guns without being "discriminated" against.

You are nothing but a fucking parrot anyway repeating what others tell you to think. I still think it is hilarious your reference is a branch of MAD magazine, always a trustworthy scientific journal. Have fun fucking chlamydia infested koalas or whatever the fuck it is you do in that island sandpit of yours. I look forward to the day China decides it wants your resources and your people have nothing to defend yourselves with. Your nation started as a prison, but evolved into a nation of snotty entitled pansies. Funny how that works.

"But people familiar with gun culture will recognize it as something far sillier: a bunch of grown men collecting firearms like little girls collect Barbie dolls (we're not being insulting -- it's a running joke among gun enthusiasts)."
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns_p5.html


Aussie want a cracker?

I've explained it several times. Since you're obviously "skipping over" what I've already written because you're unable (or unwilling) to see reason, I've got nothing more to add.

I've said it before but I'll reiterate.  This is exactly the situation in my area.  Minimal law enforcement, high unemployment, low earnings, lots and lots of tweakers and generally younger people running around causing problems of various types.  Almost zero confrontational property crime.  I am certain that this is largely attributable to the fact that most people are armed at least well enough to protect themselves and their property.

It is also the case that people don't necessarily always lock up their guns in a safe (which is a bit counter-productive for home defense use) and I don't remember an incident where there was an accidental shooting.  There could be some that I've not heard of, but I follow the sheriff's log of and on and I don't remember seeing one ever.  My sense is that the problem of accidental shootings (or non-accidental ones for that matter) is a puffed up canard.

I would say that it is not true that a 'one size fits all' policy on firearms makes sense for individual communities.  The policy in my area and surrounding counties suits us just fine.  In fact the county sheriff's in all such counties are pushing back hard on the gun-grabbing agenda coming out of our urban population centers in our state, and I believe that it is because they are well aware of the benefits for our community.  Indeed, they and their families live here themselves so they have a vested interest in the well-being of our communities.  They are also elected by members of the communities.

It is interesting to me to find out that the same basic principles of widespread gun ownership seem to work in larger population areas like El Paso.  I never even considered owning a gun when I lived in Silicon Valley.  As a white professional I figured I could get help from the cops fairly quickly if need be and probably would not end up suffering from lead poisoning brought on by their visit.

You falsely believe that taxing firearms will some how reduce the availability of firearms, but you have no problem skipping over that step and just claiming it is a fact taxes will reduce the prevalence of firearms.



You can site whatever cherry picked stats you like, it doesn't change the fact that your plan is unenforceable therefore worse than useless.



Who said every gun owner has a family at home, or that their family is untrained in firearm safety? Again it boils down to you pointing out problems with no suitable or effective solution.

Having a pool at home automatically increases your risk of drowning. Having electricity in your home automatically increases your risk of fire or electrocution. Using a ladder automatically increases your risk of falling and being injured. Most injuries are in the home as well, should we just start taxing the shit out of all these things because they aren't needed in the survivalist sense? You are used to living in a country where they dictate to their subjects what they will do. Here, public support of laws are required otherwise they either aren't passed, aren't enforced, or are completely ignored. I know that is hard for some one who has been trained to be obedient and subservient their whole life to understand, but this is not just about guns or safety, it is about self determination, something which has little value in monarchies like where you live.




What does my character have to do with the facts? I brought up things about your country and perception because as a direct result of your circumstances you are completely ignorant of the huge differences between your society and mine, and that creates huge rifts of bias you are unwilling to acknowledge. My criticisms are focused on the debate, your personal attacks are focused on your existing bias against myself as a person in which you apply labels to me without any kind of basis but your existing bias. Real debates do not include personal attacks. You have relied upon fallacy after fallacy to try to "win" this debate, and all you have done is buried yourself in a pile of bullshit ever deeper.

You are 55 times more likely to die at the hands of police than terrorists in the US, but we have no reason to fear our government right? The poor are more often victims of crimes, but that is just fake empathy to you. The elderly can't physically defend themselves without firearms, but that is again just fake empathy right? The same thing goes with the rape and assault of women. I wonder why there are more women raped per capita in Australia than in the US...

You are right tho, those are all just fake empathy, those people wont REALLY have to suffer, it is all just a  "red herring" like mental health, and even if they do have to suffer, it is worth it so you can feel like you did something with your social experiment right? My favorite kind of people are the ones who are generous and caring at the expense of some one else. It just so much easier when you just make others sacrifice for your ideals! It just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside with absolutely no personal sacrifices, just like socialism!

I am not going around demanding everyone own a gun, but gun control cultists have no problem telling together people they shouldn't own one, even if it is by force, force by the way that if utilized in this country would in fact result in civil war. Good plan dipshit! That ought to save a lot of lives!

I would beg to differ.  El Paso, Texas is one of the safest places to live in the USA, but it is a hundred yards from Juarez, one of the most violent of Mexican cities.  And the bad guys cross back and forth across the border all the time.

Why is it so safe?  Because they know there is likely a gun in every house.  And no, they are not useless and all safely locked up.

You're twisting so many things around, it's hard to know to where to start.

You falsely believe that "less guns" in society would somehow be socially costly. I showed that to be incorrect a couple of pages back, linking information that gun suicides far outnumber gun murders in the US. The article explains how there could be a lot less deaths in society if "law abiding citizens" didn't have so many guns lying around and within easy reach. They linked it to research proving that a lot of suicides are opportunistic, not premeditated, and that simple measures in other areas in society successfully reduced the amount of deaths. As examples, they talked about suicide-prevention fences on a bridge, which lo-and-behold, reduced the total suicide rate in the entire town despite there being other bridges. And when coal ovens were upgraded, the same thing happened: less opportunity = less death.

Because there are so many MORE gun suicides than gun murders to start with, there would have to be a large spike in the murders to compensate for a slight decrease in the suicide rate. And that won't happen either because most gun murders ALSO occur at home, and most likely by a family member or spouse. Not home invasions.

A spike in home invasions wouldn't make sense either. If it's not a relative or friend, then it's a stranger, and they most likely won't know if there's a gun in the house or not, or whether it's safely locked up or not. If there's a gun at home, it's useless all safely locked up. And if it's not locked up, then your family is a bigger risk to you in the first place.

There's no need to bring Mexican cartels into it, or arming the poor. The simple fact is that after adding up the biggest factors, having guns at home puts you at more risk of dying than not having guns at home.

LOL
Questioning your character is completely relevant in a discussion about social concerns. Like you're so righteous to disguise your selfish aims (untouchable gun rights so you can defend yourself against the evil government) as caring about the poor and wanting everyone armed so that they can supposedly defend themselves against each other. You're SO gun crazy that you even managed to fake some social empathy.

LOL, I wasn't going bother responding to your drivel any more but,



No, you fucking don't pay the costs. That's a fucking lie and you know it. In fact, I'm almost certain you're one of those people who fight tooth and nail against all types of "tax coercion", whether or not you use the infrastructure and other tax-funded things. You then justify it to yourself with a utopian Anarcho-Capitalist ideology or some Libertarian variation thereof. In other words, your factual stealing is acceptable in your mind because you really really don't like taxes, a lot more deeply and emotionally than the superficial way that most other people don't like tax. And you rationalise the greed by imagining an elaborate utopia where everything is private and tax-free.

It wouldn't be so bad if your preferred alternative was actually a good idea, but it's not. It never stands up to scrutiny. Guns are a glaring case where tax-free utopias fail: you guys want to have tax-free fun, even though you know that the social costs are NOT ZERO, and you know that you're NOT PAYING those costs. Other taxes don't count because everyone else has to pay that shit too!

And in some cases you have no means of privately paying reparations to someone's family if you accidentally injure or kill someone. Are all gun owners millionaires? Unlikely! Are they all comprehensively insured for that sort of thing? Un-fucking-likely. Would they all voluntarily pay insurance if there weren't any state or federal governments "coercing" them? Un-fucking-likely.

You're like one of those geriatric 90 year old smokers, who spend hours bitching about why do THEY have to pay exorbitant taxes on cigarettes, when it's all the OTHER old smokers who are a drain on the health system, and they're still healthy. Their BS argument conveniently ignores the fact that the government had their sorry ass covered during all those decades they spent smoking and risking their health despite being broke. In the US' case, admittedly the coverage might have been a bit weak due to your obsession with "private insurance or die on the streets" mentality, but it was definitely NOT ZERO.

Tax skiiing, bicycling, kayaking, etc.  Same rationals apply insofar as rescues and injuries from such optional endeavors cost money and it does not always fall to the injured to pick up the tab.

The problem with gun laws is they don't prevent anything, they simply punish violators after the fact. Also no one ever accounts for the amount of crimes STOPPED by guns. Since there are no official avenues for reporting these incidents, and people are afraid of having laws enforced against them for what would normally be considered legal firearms use, the defensive use of firearms are hardly ever kept track of. The majority of the time simply brandishing the weapon is enough to stop the criminal activity, with zero actual use of force.

"Yet the legal gun owners aren't willing to support laws that help the government fight illegal gun ownership."

What laws do you think would do this effectively without providing the government with an avenue with which to strip yet another right from the US population? Its easy to point out problems, finding effective solutions is much harder. Unfortunately most people are either very anti-gun or very pro-gun ownership, so there is usually not much middle ground found.

Yeah man, I'm with you but it's a "double edge sword"...

On one hand, legal gun owners don't want their rights infringed - and honestly the government in the US will never succeed in taking personal gun ownership away. It just won't happen without a militia fight form legal gun owners.

On the other hand, you have a lot of crime from illegal gun owners and the mentally unstable. And they'll always find guns, regardless of the laws. Yet the legal gun owners aren't willing to support laws that help the government fight illegal gun ownership. It baffles me.

Legal gun owners in the US want their guns but aren't willing to be stewards or ambassadors of responsible gun ownership.

I am not quoting you directly any more because you are too fucking lazy to format your posts properly.  Additionally since you refuse to disclose the bias of your resident nation, I decided to just review your post history. After examination of your post history I have concluded you are most likely from Australia. It makes sense after all, your snotty attitude, your assumption that you are familiar with our culture, your self proclaimed superiority, as well as your cult like following of gun control regardless of the lack of logic behind it. These are all traits I have regularly seen exhibited in Australian citizens.

Additionally now that I know your country of residence, I can point out some key differences between where you live, and where I live. None of these things are independent of the crime rate or violence in general.

-You live on an island, the US borders with Mexico meaning a regular supply of illegal immigrants flooding in from Mexico, South America, as well as other countries where illegal weapons are in large supply, and violence is high.

-Australia has about 10% of the population of the USA.

-You live under a Monarchy as a royal subject, we have constitutional rights

-You live in a more culturally homogenized nation, the USA is made up of a tremendous amount of cultures and peoples increasing the incidence of conflict.

-There are enough guns within US borders currently to have 10 for every Australian citizen, or one for every singe American. No amount of good will or taxation will make that not a fact.

-Freedom, independence, the right to self defense, and the right to have a representative government is something that the people of the US in the past have paid enormous costs for. As a subject this is not part of your culture. As it is part of our culture here, many people here do not feel the loss of those cherished concepts is worth abandoning for any price. The fact of the matter is no one knows how high of a cost abandoning those concepts could be. Dictatorships are not a thing of the past no matter how much you want to believe society is some how more civilized that it has been in the past.

I am sure there are many more differences, but I don't want to waste too much time with your idiocy. The fact of the matter is Australia and The United States are not directly comparable, no matter how much you pretend they are. Of course you know this, which is why you so cowardly refused to identify your own nation of residence.


Can you tell me exactly what expertise you have that I don't that some how makes this theory not apply to you?  Additionally this is one of those things that people with no logical argument cling to and use like a cudgel to try to make themselves sound more logical and scientific like Occam's Razor, or Godwin's law. You just hear other people use it and think it makes you sound smart so you throw it around as if it is an insult never truly understanding its real application or point.



So the fact that your plan is fundamentally flawed on basic economic levels is a red herring? I don't see how that is possible. At this point I am fairly certain you don't even know the real definitions of half of these fallacies you are accusing me of. You ASSUME your logic is flawless, but you have no proof it would be effective here or anywhere. If people can make their own weapons cheaply at home, your whole taxation scheme is completely flawed. Your argument is that even though your logic is flawed, we should push ahead with your unproven social experiment, no matter what the cost, because it is "the right thing to do". You are ignoring lots of real world costs that would be incurred as a result of implementing your flawed system, which could arguably make things worse than they already are. Those are real issues you are ignoring. That isn't science or logic, that is called dogma.

Do you know anything at all about the cartel problem in Mexico? Of course not. No one is above being touched by them. Roll a few heads into a night club, abduct a few police and other civil servants, and trust me people get quiet pretty fucking quick. Additionally you make the assumption that they know anything to begin with. Its called compartmentalization.



A policy statement. That's nice, lets make millions of people unable to defend themselves so you can make a policy statement. Brilliant. We already pay these costs every day, but what are the social costs of your plan? I guess that doesn't matter as long as you get to have your social experiment become reality. In this country we have rights. I know living in a monarchy as a royal subject that must be hard to understand, but don't be jealous. Again, your logic is to just push forward and hope that some time in the future your plan MIGHT make some kind of positive effect, with absolutely no assurances.



I seem to be focusing on the 0% effectiveness of your tax scheme, because not only will it cause more harm than good, it is also in violation of several rights that were paid for with blood by our people. There is no way in hell the people of the USA will ever abandon these concepts for some lofty ethereal promise of peace, which would then easily be violated by those willing to use force resulting in far more death and destruction. Gun control cultists like you believe society has reached some kind of pinnacle of humanity which now puts us above such antiquated concepts of war, violence, and crime. Sorry to burst your bubble, but humanity is just as fucked up as ever, even if your favorite bubble of society is isolated from this on your little island. BTW, we all pay taxes here just being consumers, so we all pay the costs associated with gun ownership. I don't have children, but I still pay to send other people's children to school. That's how taxation works.



What right does anyone living anywhere but here have a right to dictate what we do in our own internal domestic policies? Where the fuck do you get off thinking you have a right to dictate to other people living in a place much different than where you live, how to live. Crime in the US over the last 30 years HAS been going down, but don't let that mess up your confirmation bias. Lets talk about "gun deaths".  Did you know if we banned cars we could save thousands of lives every year? If we reduced the availability of cars and taxed the producers more heavily, there would be less cars and therefore less "car deaths". Lets put the enormous costs and hardships of such an idea aside, because it is "the right" thing to do.

As a royal subject, of course you can dismiss the concept of rights so easily, because you have no rights, so it costs you nothing to decry it.  I don't need you to tell me, I already know where you live and that you are a subject. I would expect nothing more from chattel.

300 million guns currently in the USA....

...in accordance with the 2nd amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Off hand I would say any outright scheme such as increasing taxes to make it more difficult for the people to keep and bear arms would be, duh, unconstitutional.  It would be a sort of mean, regressive tax on the poor.  It would differentially affect the ability of blacks and other poorer ethnic groups to have protection.  This is NOT "a good thing" but is "a very bad thing."

http://www.rulen.com/gunban/

And just for fun...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150981679934534&set=a.66031429533.93081.591279533&type=3&theater

Seattle To Pass ‘Gun Violence’ Tax on Guns And Ammo…



There isn’t a far-left issue that the Seattle City Council hasn’t passed or considered passing. So you just knew that they would get around to screwing gun owners in some novel and inventive way.

How about a $25 tax on every firearm sold? Add to that a 5 cent tax on every cartridge and you have the typical liberal assault on law-abiding gun owners.

But that’s only part of the package. There’s also a provision to require  gun owners to report the theft or loss of any firearm within 24 hours.


http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/08/09/seattle-gun-violence-tax-set-to-pass/?utm_term=%23tcot