Gun advocate mocks Australia's tough laws

[AgedGrunt]

I think the people who are most likely to be outraged by this are other gun advocates.

Certainly. The only thing worse than an ignorant person believing all the wrong things is someone that is on the right side of the argument yet doesn't have a clue. The man should be sacked for being a dolt, yet the true takeaway here is how he's being used as fuel for others to undermine their oppositions' claims.

Gun control does work.

I live in Finland. We have the 4th highest rate of guns per capita in the world, largely due to hunting. Around 14 percent of of murders and homicides are committed with weapons. For comparison, in america that numbers something like 68%.

Which proves the obvious that the availability and possession of firearms doesn't define the problem. The people of Finland and America are raised in different cultures and environments, just like Australia is a night and day comparison with America and isn't an apples:apples model for applying public policy.

NASCAR isn't going to be an international sensation; people outside the U.S. want Le Mans, rally sport and Formula 1 racing.

See thats because we have this process where people are required by law to prove that they actually understand the laws involved with firearms. And you aren't allowed to carry this shit in public.

That's not to say it would work in america. They've largely fucked themselves into a corner with all the illegal weaponry and gun "enthusiasts" who wouldn't give that shit away. Should have been done a whole fucking bunch earlier.

The only controversially "illegal" weaponry are those defined by lawmakers and gun control lobbyists (typecast as heroes, they are just as financially and politically invested in victory for their brand and defeat of their opponents). This war on guns in America is bona fide illegitimate government and mass fabrication.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

Naive optimism is the reason gun control advocates continually fail to change anything in the United States. One thing the pro-gun people are right about is that America isn't Europe or Australia or Japan, the United States has its own brand of stupidity. I'm not sure it's much better than the alternatives, if there's even a way to measure such a thing, but there it is. Realistically,the NRA and their ilk wield as much power as they do because they're not possessed by childlike idealism. They're predatory realists. Self defense and strict interpretivism aren't reasonable positions, you say? Well fuck that, says Wild Wayne, they don't need to be. And do you know why? Because they work. They just work. Reason, and rationalize, refute and rebuke all you'd like, but that's not the name of the game. Wayne's simply the best at what he does, and what he does isn't very nice. And there's nothing that you or anyone else can say on the Internet, of all places, to change that.

 

[Spearmaster]

I like how any one person can try and tell another person that they should not be allowed to possess the most efficient personal tool available to protect their most fundamental human rights and do so with a strait face. Escaping and resisting oppression of our human rights is what created the U.S.A. Our right to possess the most efficient tool for the job was protected by the bill of rights to insure that every individual has the ability to protect their human rights from criminals, enemy invasions even our own government if necessary. Willingly giving up that ability would be as foolish as cutting off both your hands and relying on your government to feed you because they decided some people cant do it properly on their own. Government, military and police exist to protect people who cant protect themselves not to remove the ability of a person to protect themselves. If they attempt to remove that ability they become the oppressors.

So I would appreciate it if people would stop suggesting that I willfully subject myself to oppression and tyranny because the news scares them or they refuse to take responsibility for insuring their own human rights.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Gun control does work.

I live in Finland. We have the 4th highest rate of guns per capita in the world, largely due to hunting. Around 14 percent of of murders and homicides are committed with weapons. For comparison, in america that numbers something like 68%.

Which proves the obvious that the availability and possession of firearms doesn't define the problem. The people of Finland and America are raised in different cultures and environments, just like Australia is a night and day comparison with America and isn't an apples:apples model for applying public policy.

NASCAR isn't going to be an international sensation; people outside the U.S. want Le Mans, rally sport and Formula 1 racing.

Doing a fine job jumping to conclusions there. I didn't say it would work in America. You obviously read my post as you responded to the rest of it. Which leaves me slightly baffled as to how you would assume that I'm trying to say gun control would be effective in america.

I'm merely stating that it can be effective, as evidenced by the fact that I live in a country that has a high rate of gun owning and a high rate of hunting and other gun hobbies but a very low rate of gun violence. You can have a large percentage of guns and a low percentage of gun violence.

I felt it was necessary to state this as the other example, Australia, has a very much lower rate of gun ownage and gun use.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I'm merely stating that it can be effective, as evidenced by the fact that I live in a country that has a high rate of gun owning and a high rate of hunting and other gun hobbies but a very low rate of gun violence. You can have a large percentage of guns and a low percentage of gun violence.

I felt it was necessary to state this as the other example, Australia, has a very much lower rate of gun ownage and gun use.

And it was a fine (if obvious) point, until you went on to say this:

See thats because we have this process where people are required by law to prove that they actually understand the laws involved with firearms. And you aren't allowed to carry this shit in public.

That's not to say it would work in america. They've largely fucked themselves into a corner with all the illegal weaponry and gun "enthusiasts" who wouldn't give that shit away. Should have been done a whole fucking bunch earlier.

So, we're blaming America, calling citizens ignorant (?), open/conceal carry laws, labeling certain weapons as "illegal" and attacking people for not willfully giving up their possessions, going on to say that the government should have come down "earlier", apparently because nothing can be done to disarm these "enthusiasts" who just refuse surrender to anyone. For a nation (Finland) with such strong gun ownership, this is what's truly baffling.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I'm merely stating that it can be effective, as evidenced by the fact that I live in a country that has a high rate of gun owning and a high rate of hunting and other gun hobbies but a very low rate of gun violence. You can have a large percentage of guns and a low percentage of gun violence.

I felt it was necessary to state this as the other example, Australia, has a very much lower rate of gun ownage and gun use.

And it was a fine (if obvious) point, until you went on to say this:

See thats because we have this process where people are required by law to prove that they actually understand the laws involved with firearms. And you aren't allowed to carry this shit in public.

That's not to say it would work in america. They've largely fucked themselves into a corner with all the illegal weaponry and gun "enthusiasts" who wouldn't give that shit away. Should have been done a whole fucking bunch earlier.

So, we're blaming America, calling citizens ignorant (?), open/conceal carry laws, labeling certain weapons as "illegal" and attacking people for not willfully giving up their possessions, going on to say that the government should have come down "earlier", apparently because nothing can be done to disarm these "enthusiasts" who just refuse surrender to anyone. For a nation (Finland) with such strong gun ownership, this is what's truly baffling.

Okay I would be hard pressed to describe it as an obvious point, since the only example stated of effective gun control was very different from my example. It's not a point at all, it's another example that hasn't yet been stated, how could it be obvious? Are people supposed to easily deduce the social and statistical environment surrounding weapons in my country?

I never attacked people for not giving up their possessions. I said they wouldn't give up their possessions. And that this would mean it would be difficult to instate gun control. Yes I implied gun control worked in my nation, yes I implied it was a positive thing. That just means I think these people should be exposed to at least similar standards of requirement if they want to continue owning what they do. I'll grant you that I stated this harshly, mostly since I didn't want to make an in depth comment, but my point was people would be reluctant to pass laws and legislation that would force them to go through these processes which I consider necessary, since the social situation among many of these people seems to consider any attempt at controlling weaponry as an attack toward their property and rights. Laws and rights weren't meant to be eternal, they can and should be changed.

I did in fact attack open/concealed carry laws, which I consider rubbish.

And yes I am in fact blaming america for the situation in which it would be difficult to instate effective gun laws in america. Thank you for reminding me of that, I almost forgot.

The situation in america should have been addressed earlier, when the political situation would have allowed gun control to be instated effectively.

Calling citizens ignorant? I suppose. If your country doesn't have anything to force people who want guns to learn about the laws involved then it's pretty easy to deduce that compared to a country that does your country would have more ignorant gun owners (on average)

You seem to respond to all of this as some kind of attack, and that stating what I've already said without arguing against it somehow constitutes an argument in and of itself.

Is your nation above criticism?

Am I not allowed to state my opinion on what I think would be effective in stopping violence?

I mean if you want to argue with me go ahead but this is just pointless.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Gun control does work.

I live in Finland. We have the 4th highest rate of guns per capita in the world, largely due to hunting. Around 14 percent of of murders and homicides are committed with weapons. For comparison, in america that numbers something like 68%.

See thats because we have this process where people are required by law to prove that they actually understand the laws involved with firearms. And you aren't allowed to carry this shit in public.

That's not to say it would work in america. They've largely fucked themselves into a corner with all the illegal weaponry and gun "enthusiasts" who wouldn't give that shit away. Should have been done a whole fucking bunch earlier.

My knowledge of Finland is a bit thin but I was fairly sure that there are still strict gun control laws, at least much stricter than in the US. To acquire the firearms license you need to undertake a safety course and provide secure storage for said weapons. Also you get an individual license for each weapon. Semiautomatics as well at other special category weapons are banned for all but the avid collectors.

Also (And I'm fairly sketchy about this but... Isn't there compulsory gun control education? Or is that Sweden?

Edit: Sorry read your post wrong. I thought you said gun control in Finland wasn't working XD.
Though I would like to know what the policy on gun control education was, did I have the right country?

Can't say that there's all that much of it to the general population anyway. Basically if you want to get a gun you need to learn all that shit but otherwise it isn't very thoroughly taught in the school system.

 

[AgedGrunt]

You seem to respond to all of this as some kind of attack

What on earth would give me that idea?

Spoiler

we have this process where people... aren't allowed to carry this shit in public.

That's not to say it would work in america. They've largely fucked themselves into a corner with all the illegal weaponry and gun "enthusiasts" who wouldn't give that shit away. Should have been done a whole fucking bunch earlier.

And yes I am in fact blaming america for the situation in which it would be difficult to instate effective gun laws in america. Thank you for reminding me of that, I almost forgot.

Calling citizens ignorant? I suppose.

Here's the thing: I would support standardized testing, licensing and qualifications -- but it wouldn't necessarily have much impact when gun violence does not propagate from ignorance of the object. People know what guns do and too many choose to use them violently. That's not in debate. What no one is addressing is just that: the violence culture (and it doesn't come from firearms, a la chicken-and-the-egg reasoning).

It would make sense to apply treatment in the proper areas. Instead, Americans are hit with more government oversight, data-mining and outright bans. This policy is not about making people smarter, safer users, it's saying that people are too stupid to have these things and need supervision, less they be caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

This is the same line of thinking that produces a New York Mayor who bans large-sized fizzy drinks in the name of public health. People are just too dumb to make good choices for themselves, after all, and it's society that is burdened because of it. Pardon me while I take a swig from my two-liter I bought at Wal-Mart for a dollar.

but my point was people would be reluctant to pass laws and legislation that would force them to go through these processes which I consider necessary, since the social situation among many of these people seems to consider any attempt at controlling weaponry as an attack toward their property and rights.

They don't "seem to consider" these attempts at controlling. What you advocate for is to literally control these things to a point that it undermines everything. When supporters and policymakers don't have to prove new laws would accomplish anything, because they're not based on factual evidence, you can bank on people to "consider" such knee-jerk reactions and politically-motivated changes as pure nonsense.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

First of all, still not an attack. It's commonly referred to in the english language as criticism, it's possible you've heard of it

Here's the thing: I would support standardized testing, licensing and qualifications -- but it wouldn't necessarily have much impact when gun violence does not propagate from ignorance of the object. People know what guns do and too many choose to use them violently. That's not in debate. What no one is addressing is just that: the violence culture (and it doesn't come from firearms, a la chicken-and-the-egg reasoning).

So we basically agree on my main point.

I would disagree that gun violence doesn't stem from ignorance of the object. A test you actually have to study the laws for, some paperwork and a waiting period would reduce at least a significant percentage of gun violence. It's about dedication. If you put this barrier in front of people only people who actually seriously want these weapons will get them. That'll reduce the percentage of people who have weapons, well basically just because, and thus the amount of people who in a fit of poorly thought out reasoning shoot someone for shitty reasons.

but my point was people would be reluctant to pass laws and legislation that would force them to go through these processes which I consider necessary, since the social situation among many of these people seems to consider any attempt at controlling weaponry as an attack toward their property and rights.

They don't "seem to consider" these attempts at controlling. What you advocate for is to literally control these things to a point that it undermines everything. When supporters and policymakers don't have to prove new laws would accomplish anything, because they're not based on factual evidence, you can bank on people to "consider" such knee-jerk reactions and politically-motivated changes as pure nonsense.

Throughout all of these replies you seem to be contradicting yourself.

You say you would support these laws and then immediately say there's no basis for them, that they're politically motivated nonsense. Can you please explain that to me?

See here.

Here's the thing: I would support standardized testing, licensing and qualifications

you can bank on people to "consider" such knee-jerk reactions and politically-motivated changes as pure nonsense.

I'm left wondering what you actually mean to say.

What you advocate for is to literally control these things to a point that it undermines everything

Undermines everything? What is everything? How does gun control undermine it? What? I'm not trying to be mean here, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

When supporters and policymakers don't have to prove new laws would accomplish anything, because they're not based on factual evidence you can bank on people to "consider" such knee-jerk reactions and politically-motivated changes as pure nonsense.

I would certainly say that the fact similar laws instituted elsewhere have been effective would at least give a very strong indication. Certainly a powerful enough indication that the opposing side would need to present an argument as to why the laws wouldn't be effective other than "things are different here".

You're not even arguing there, you're trying to claim that the argument already stated doesn't exist.

And policymakers don't need to prove that a law will accomplish something positive to institute the law. The general populace isn't necessarily going to disagree even if the law is shitty and has no factual evidence to support it. There are plenty of shitty laws to prove that.

What I meant in my original post wasn't that gun control wouldn't function in america, but that the political climate wouldn't allow for such laws to be instituted.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Muslim woman had "fallen" down some escalators

...Escalators?

As in several?

And she wasn't seriously hurt?

Pretty impressive.

 

[AgedGrunt]

I would disagree that gun violence doesn't stem from ignorance of the object.

Education is the treatment of ignorance, but people don't need to study their firearm rulebooks in order to curb their violent urges. That's a much deeper issue that the gun does not initiate.

The contradiction of mine was no contradiction. People do need to be educated and qualified on firearm safety and use. Standardized testing and qualifications can accomplish this. The product is safer, more intelligent citizens who seek to legally own firearms. However, much like other gun control policy, it doesn't address those who have no intention to obey the law or work within the system in the first place (e.g. straw purchases).

This idea of policymakers needing no facts or objective reasoning really says that logic isn't needed, and that's absolutely true as evidenced by existing laws. The point is to stop it and stop making bad laws.

The effectiveness of gun control in other parts of the world says a lot more about the people of those nations than of the laws they abide. The ineffectiveness of gun control here in America (and we have tried it) also says a lot about us, and that is where the nation needs to take a different path because attempting to regulate firearms has gone over as well as the war on drugs.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I should make it clear here that I'd never vote to ban the variety of weapons people have, since that would be redundant in basically every case of gun violence (how often do you see someone murdered with a sniper rifle? Or rocket launcher?), just who has access to this weaponry.

Education is the treatment of ignorance, but people don't need to study their firearm rulebooks in order to curb their violent urges. That's a much deeper issue that the gun does not initiate.

The contradiction of mine was no contradiction. People do need to be educated and qualified on firearm safety and use. Standardized testing and qualifications can accomplish this. The product is safer, more intelligent citizens who seek to legally own firearms. However, much like other gun control policy, it doesn't address those who have no intention to obey the law or work within the system in the first place (e.g. straw purchases).

Well that doesn't make any sense. Because it doesn't work to fix the entirety of the problem it shouldn't be implemented at all? People are always going to try to circumvent control, doesn't mean that control shouldn't exist. It does also address to problem in that obviously the less people who have guns the less people are going to use them to kill other people. And you might feel the need to pull up (maybe not, you seem oddly rational) the old argument of "people are going to find a way if they want to kill someone" so I'm going to address that ahead of time: it's contradictory with basic psychology. Murders are not good, well thought out decisions. Anything that will make it easier for you to kill someone will make it more likely for you to do so. People can also more easily be emotionally detached if they're using a gun, especially if there's distance between victim and murderer.

The effectiveness of gun control in other parts of the world says a lot more about the people of those nations than of the laws they abide.

I completely disagree. The fact that the laws were implemented says a lot but their effectiveness really doesn't. I can't really think of any reason why after implemented, these laws wouldn't be effective in America. Can you explain this to me?

This idea of policymakers needing no facts or objective reasoning really says that logic isn't needed, and that's absolutely true as evidenced by existing laws. The point is to stop it and stop making bad laws.

Well I don't think it is a bad law, so your point is rather moot.

The ineffectiveness of gun control here in America (and we have tried it) also says a lot about us, and that is where the nation needs to take a different path because attempting to regulate firearms has gone over as well as the war on drugs.

Your problem hasn't been in execution but in implementation. How can you say that it wouldn't work when basically every area has refused to try?

 

[AgedGrunt]

Well that doesn't make any sense. Because it doesn't work to fix the entirety of the problem it shouldn't be implemented at all?

Firearm qualifications may improve the accident rate but don't address actual gun violence. Having a driver's license doesn't even make one a good driver, let alone a friendly one.

I completely disagree. The fact that the laws were implemented says a lot but their effectiveness really doesn't. I can't really think of any reason why after implemented, these laws wouldn't be effective in America. Can you explain this to me?

It depends on what laws we're talking about, gun control covers a lot of ground and we have a lot in place already.

There are many cultures in America; that's where we get multiculturalism. There is a firearm culture and it's made up of millions of people who own, use and organize responsibly, within the law. These are the scapegoats. The reality is there are many bad cultures, and for whatever reason we should be focusing on them when addressing the problem. That needs social movement and policy changes at every level of power,right down to community and family.

An example. In the city of Chicago, public schools are planned to be shut down. There's a lot of outrage, but one of the big concerns isn't even about education -- it's safety. The closings would shift kids around, and gang activity is going to be meshing kids who don't get along. We're talking bad enough that the school board sports department wasn't even allowing two schools to play sports together. Did I mention these are elementary schools?

Your problem hasn't been in execution but in implementation. How can you say that it wouldn't work when basically every area has refused to try?

We have tried extreme gun control. There was an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. One of the most infamous school shootings in history occurred under it; Columbine. The resulting analysis of the period has yielded "inconclusive" effects. This was part of a larger block of legislation, but in other words it didn't work. But to answer directly, people should refuse to adopt bad laws that don't address the problem, reject persecution and not get misled into specious reasoning.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Your problem hasn't been in execution but in implementation. How can you say that it wouldn't work when basically every area has refused to try?

We have tried extreme gun control. There was an assault weapons ban from 1994-2004. One of the most infamous school shootings in history occurred under it; Columbine. The resulting analysis of the period has yielded "inconclusive" effects. This was part of a larger block of legislation, but in other words it didn't work. But to answer directly, people should refuse to adopt bad laws that don't address the problem, reject persecution and not get misled into specious reasoning.

First of all I feel the need to say that columbine and basically all school shootings are irrelevant and get far too much media attention. They are merely symptoms of the actual problem. Nothing but the circumstances behind these murders are special, and getting caught up in circumstances is a damn fine way to lose sight of the bigger picture.

And did I not specifically state that I don't support banning the variety of weapons people can own since that would be redundant? You're just repeating my own point and opinion for me. Yes that is a bad law with bad reasoning behind it, no it didn't accomplish anything meaningful, that's what I just said.

Can you provide an actual example?

I completely disagree. The fact that the laws were implemented says a lot but their effectiveness really doesn't. I can't really think of any reason why after implemented, these laws wouldn't be effective in America. Can you explain this to me?

It depends on what laws we're talking about, gun control covers a lot of ground and we have a lot in place already.

There are many cultures in America; that's where we get multiculturalism. There is a firearm culture and it's made up of millions of people who own, use and organize responsibly, within the law. These are the scapegoats. The reality is there are many bad cultures, and for whatever reason we should be focusing on them when addressing the problem. That needs social movement and policy changes at every level of power,right down to community and family.

You're sidetracking from the debate here. Yes, if possible to do in a way that would minimize violence that should also be done.

But that isn't a counter argument to my point. BOTH should be done, as (or in the other case IF) BOTH would be effective.

This debate isn't about "bad cultures" in america or how much fixing them would help against violence, it's about whether or not gun control should be implemented.

Firearm qualifications may improve the accident rate but don't address actual gun violence. Having a driver's license doesn't even make one a good driver, let alone a friendly one.

What.

Are you saying that traffic accidents wouldn't increase if people weren't required to take tests while getting a drivers license?

If ANYTHING your example proves my point. Not that it's a good example since the problem generated is completely different.

OF COURSE there are going to be bad drivers, no solution is going to be 100 % effective, that doesn't mean anything.

And like I already said, they WOULD address gun violence, if in ABSOLUTELY nothing else than in the fact that less people would have guns and therefore obviously less people would use them to kill someone.

Putting this barrier in front of people will force only the dedicated (in my opinion those far less likely to commit gun violence) to have access to it.

Related to that, do you know of any studies done on what percentage of gun homicides are committed by people who have multiple guns and use them as a hobby, and what percentage have just one or maybe two for home defense or whatever?

I feel like that would be deeply relevant here but I can't find any information on it.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I did in fact attack open/concealed carry laws, which I consider rubbish.

On what basis are they rubbish? It's also a hilarious blanket statement considering those vary from state to state. In one state, Colorado, simply being the legal owner of a handgun is sufficient to carry. In my own state of Texas, the process of carrying a concealed weapon requires a number of registrations with state authorities, and a mandatory period of classes. In the same breath, even in Texas, widely seen as a gun nut Mecca, employing a concealed firearm is incredibly tricky as the law only provides slim protection against prosecution in a handful of cases. Simply put, if I shoot someone in the face, I have still committed murder but, if I can prove that I met a stringent criteria, I may be free from prosecution.

And yes I am in fact blaming america for the situation in which it would be difficult to instate effective gun laws in america. Thank you for reminding me of that, I almost forgot.

That damn constitution seems to get in the way of a lot of things. If only it weren't for that crazy notion that any change to the document ought require widespread consensus rather than being something that could be changed on a whim.

The situation in america should have been addressed earlier, when the political situation would have allowed gun control to be instated effectively.

There has never been a period in American history where gun control would be widely supported to date. Certain geographic areas certainly but nothing on the national level.

Calling citizens ignorant? I suppose. If your country doesn't have anything to force people who want guns to learn about the laws involved then it's pretty easy to deduce that compared to a country that does your country would have more ignorant gun owners (on average)

The federal government doesn't have the power to force such a law as that rests solely with the States. Different states have wildly different laws. My Sig SP2022 is illegal in California for example as it holds 15 rounds but is perfectly fine here in Texas.

Is your nation above criticism?

From what I've seen, you haven't actually criticized so much as thrown inflammatory remarks with little basis on the facts.

Am I not allowed to state my opinion on what I think would be effective in stopping violence?

There is literally no evidence that suggests harsh gun restrictions would curtail violence in general. You'd have a better time instead arguing one of the following:

1) Strict Gun Control would reduce firearm related violence
2) Strict Gun Control would reduce violence that results in the death of one or more parties

The problem with the blanket statement is simply that the data does not exist to support your position. In the few places in the US where there exists strong gun control laws, violent crime rose considerably. Sure, you can point to a case here or there where such laws coincided with a reduction but that leads to the whole "different place, different people, different problems" argument that gets us nowhere.

At least with the first two points, you could find a reasonable basis to make such an assertion. I'm actually curious - in all the instances of, say, stabbings, how often did the victim die? Because death by firearm happens in single digit percentages of cases where such a would occurs.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Okay if you could please remove yourself from your 50 foot tall horse we can argue.

I did in fact attack open/concealed carry laws, which I consider rubbish.

On what basis are they rubbish? It's also a hilarious blanket statement considering those vary from state to state. In one state, Colorado, simply being the legal owner of a handgun is sufficient to carry. In my own state of Texas, the process of carrying a concealed weapon requires a number of registrations with state authorities, and a mandatory period of classes. In the same breath, even in Texas, widely seen as a gun nut Mecca, employing a concealed firearm is incredibly tricky as the law only provides slim protection against prosecution in a handful of cases. Simply put, if I shoot someone in the face, I have still committed murder but, if I can prove that I met a stringent criteria, I may be free from prosecution.

How the hell is that a "hilarious blanket statement"? You shouldn't be allowed to carry handguns in public, ever. That's my opinion on the matter. I don't CARE about the differences between the laws, it shouldn't be allowed at all (unless of course you're transporting it somewhere but only then and only sealed in a bag or something).

And yes I am in fact blaming america for the situation in which it would be difficult to instate effective gun laws in america. Thank you for reminding me of that, I almost forgot.

That damn constitution seems to get in the way of a lot of things. If only it weren't for that crazy notion that any change to the document ought require widespread consensus rather than being something that could be changed on a whim.

You state that as if it were an argument against me. You're merely extrapolating on something that I just said. The constitution wasn't meant to be permanent, and if it's necessary for it to be changed it should. The fact that it probably won't be is something that we both agree on, so why are you arguing?

Or do you think the constitution of the united states is flawless and eternal?

Calling citizens ignorant? I suppose. If your country doesn't have anything to force people who want guns to learn about the laws involved then it's pretty easy to deduce that compared to a country that does your country would have more ignorant gun owners (on average)

The federal government doesn't have the power to force such a law as that rests solely with the States. Different states have wildly different laws. My Sig SP2022 is illegal in California for example as it holds 15 rounds but is perfectly fine here in Texas.

How is that addressing my point? I wasn't stating anything about the goverment, I used the word as a blanket term.

I assumed that was pretty freaking obvious.

Even if I was that would only be addressing half of what I said.

Is your nation above criticism?

From what I've seen, you haven't actually criticized so much as thrown inflammatory remarks with little basis on the facts.

Then I'd recommend you pick up a dictionary and read what "criticism" means.

Am I not allowed to state my opinion on what I think would be effective in stopping violence?

There is literally no evidence that suggests harsh gun restrictions would curtail violence in general. You'd have a better time instead arguing one of the following:
1) Strict Gun Control would reduce firearm related violence
2) Strict Gun Control would reduce violence that results in the death of one or more parties

Oh would you people please stop using the word literally wrong? Well either that or you don't know what "evidence" means.

How about the example listed in the video? You know? That this thread is basically about? Did you watch that at all?
Australia?

Ooh, or how about every other country in the world that has strict control and fewer gun murders? Do those not count?

You keep claiming that I possess absolutely no evidence, ironically with no evidence for your claim.

And at what point exactly did I state that violence in general would be reduced with gun control? Or any of the other points? At the time I wrote that I'd only said that gun control couldn't be effectively instituted throughout america, and that it had been effectively implemented in my country. Why are you inventing positions for me to support?

I mean I do support those positions but you basically only had an assumption that I did.

I think widespread fully implemented gun control similar to that in my country (minus the limits on the variety of weapons people can have since that's redundant) over a longer period of time would be effective in reducing gun violence, namely murders. Everything else I've said is irrelevant, that is my opinion.

If you would like to argue against it, please go ahead. If I feel like it I will make counter arguments.

But can we please do this without a sense of moral superiority?

 

[AgedGrunt]

First of all I feel the need to say that columbine and basically all school shootings are irrelevant and get far too much media attention. They are merely symptoms of the actual problem. Nothing but the circumstances behind these murders are special, and getting caught up in circumstances is a damn fine way to lose sight of the bigger picture.

Evidently that's where you, the U.S. government and gun control lobbyists completely disagree. The expansion to firearm background checks was argued to ensure another Newtown didn't happen again. Nevermind that the facts of the case don't back that up, which is why the argument was changed to a poll, which spins that 9/10 Americans were defeated by NRA mafia-- stupid crap like that (other polls dismiss the 90% claim).

Indeed there is a bigger picture, and so little of the proposed legislation to come out of this latest tragedy sees it. I just gave you an example of what is going on in inner city schools and talked about violence in communities. We can work on that. It's pretty hard when the President, himself a community organizer, cares so little about it and plays Washington politics.

But that isn't a counter argument to my point. BOTH should be done, as (or in the other case IF) BOTH would be effective.

This debate isn't about "bad cultures" in america or how much fixing them would help against violence, it's about whether or not gun control should be implemented.

I pointed out that qualifications and licensing makes for safer, legal gun owners, but it's not a treatment for gun violence, nor a barrier to people with evil intentions. Supposing someone's intent is to rob a gas station, what makes you believe they're going to make sure they get licensed first? You don't need a driver's license to steal a vehicle and commit a crime with it; that happens a lot. The Newtown massacre began as theft of property; he was denied a rifle purchase of his own.

And excuse me, but it is about addressing the roots of violence. It's a very complex issue with no clearly defined answers, and that is exactly where gun control gets it wrong. Anything that can improve a situation doesn't necessarily do so. It's dangerously naive to think that human behavior is what you want it to be.

Every time government "cracks down" and uses excessive force of the law it drives people underground and turns a manageable problem into a disaster. It makes criminals harder to catch and the system slower to respond under its own weight. It happened with prohibition. It happened with the war on crime. The war on drugs. Online piracy.

Now we're evolving into a war on guns. Apparently historians haven't sent out the memo that we're repeating ourselves.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

First of all I feel the need to say that columbine and basically all school shootings are irrelevant and get far too much media attention. They are merely symptoms of the actual problem. Nothing but the circumstances behind these murders are special, and getting caught up in circumstances is a damn fine way to lose sight of the bigger picture.

Evidently that's where you, the U.S. government and gun control lobbyists completely disagree.

Irrelevant.

My opinion is never going to influence the matter, whether or not other people support the same opinion or why doesn't enter into the debate here. I don't care, frankly.

Indeed there is a bigger picture, and so little of the proposed legislation to come out of this latest tragedy sees it. I just gave you an example of what is going on in inner city schools and talked about violence in communities. We can work on that. It's pretty hard when the President, himself a community organizer, cares so little about it and plays Washington politics.

Well I didn't ask for an example, nor was it required. And despite of my opinion on your president (lying, spineless *****) your comment on him isn't really relevant here either.

I'm strictly arguing for gun control here, we can't include anything else without making this debate too long to bother with.

But that isn't a counter argument to my point. BOTH should be done, as (or in the other case IF) BOTH would be effective.

This debate isn't about "bad cultures" in america or how much fixing them would help against violence, it's about whether or not gun control should be implemented.

I pointed out that qualifications and licensing makes for safer, legal gun owners, but it's not a treatment for gun violence

Yes it is. I've already explained why, you keep insisting that it won't work because it doesn't address the problem on some deeper level, while providing no reason for why it would need to. Nothing you've said revokes anything I've said on this matter.

Nor a barrier to people with evil intentions

Oh for fucks sake.

SEE THIS

And like I already said, they WOULD address gun violence, if in ABSOLUTELY nothing else than in the fact that less people would have guns and therefore obviously less people would use them to kill someone.

Putting this barrier in front of people will force only the dedicated (in my opinion those far less likely to commit gun violence) to have access to it.

AND THIS

It does also address to problem in that obviously the less people who have guns the less people are going to use them to kill other people. And you might feel the need to pull up (maybe not, you seem oddly rational) the old argument of "people are going to find a way if they want to kill someone" so I'm going to address that ahead of time: it's contradictory with basic psychology. Murders are not good, well thought out decisions. Anything that will make it easier for you to kill someone will make it more likely for you to do so. People can also more easily be emotionally detached if they're using a gun, especially if there's distance between victim and murderer.

Look closely here

Supposing someone's intent is to rob a gas station, what makes you believe they're going to make sure they get licensed first? You don't need a driver's license to steal a vehicle and commit a crime with it; that happens a lot. The Newtown massacre began as theft of property; he was denied a rifle purchase of his own.

CAN YOU SEE HOW I'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THE ARGUMENT AHEAD OF TIME?

And you might feel the need to pull up (maybe not, you seem oddly rational) the old argument of "people are going to find a way if they want to kill someone" so I'm going to address that ahead of time: it's contradictory with basic psychology. Murders are not good, well thought out decisions. Anything that will make it easier for you to kill someone will make it more likely for you to do so. People can also more easily be emotionally detached if they're using a gun, especially if there's distance between victim and murderer.

CAN YOU FEEL IT STARING IN YOUR FACE.

(I don't mean to be rude here, I'm just trying to be funny cos I'm bored, no offense intended).

And further stop using singular but famous examples as if they actually mean anything in even the slightly larger scheme of things. I think I already addressed that in my "school shootings" argument (see above).

It's dangerously naive to think that human behavior is what you want it to be.

I don't WANT human behaviour to be like this. I have no idea what you're basing that on. This part of your comment strikes me as more of a personal attack than an actual argument.

And excuse me, but it is about addressing the roots of violence. It's a very complex issue with no clearly defined answers, and that is exactly where gun control gets it wrong.

Well that's a completely illogical argument. Yes it is a complex issue. That does absolutely NOT mean that there are no clearly defined answers. Why wouldn't there be?

What do you even mean by vaguely defined answers?

Could you please stop posting vague arguments that mean nothing?

This is NOT about addressing the roots of violence. This is about REDUCING violence. I think gun control will accomplish that. I'm not going to argue my opinion on addressing violence in america at the roots, I agree with you on that. Like I already said, at least 2 times now.

The only thing we disagree on is that you think this means gun control shouldn't be implemented at all, while providing no reason why.

Every time government "cracks down" and uses excessive force of the law it drives people underground and turns a manageable problem into a disaster. It makes criminals harder to catch and the system slower to respond under its own weight. It happened with prohibition. It happened with the war on crime. The war on drugs. Online piracy.

Yes! Thank you! Yes! This is what I've been asking for again and again, an actual argument as to why gun control shouldn't be implemented!

The only problem is that it's both invalid and unsound (oh look it up).

And war on crime? What the fuck is that? Isn't any police work "war on crime?".

Yes when the government uses excessive force of law to solve a problem it usually ends badly. It's a good thing I'm not ADVOCATING that. I'm advocating REASONABLE use of law, to help prevent murders and injuries by weaponry!

See that's why I don't want (almost any) weapons to be completely banned! You know, like every example you listed? I want there to be more control as to who GETS these weapons!

And this absolutely CAN NOT be compared to either prohibition OR the war on drugs OR the war on online piracy ANYWAY. When the government cracks down on those (okay maybe not piracy) organised crime comes up because they can make an insanely large, long time profit on it. That is the primary (or in fact the only) problem.

How the bloody fucking hell would that happen here? The Mob can barely make a minimal profit on it and most every place where you can shoot guns both people and the police could extremely easily see (or hear) you doing it.

And it doesn't really help that the problem is manageable when the problem isn't being managed.

There. I think i've addressed every point you've made.

Only took me a most of an hour.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Raaaage

Translation: Everything I say is screaming nonsense and every counterpoint (if not vague/incomprehensible/already repeated/ducks/cheese pizza) is "invalid and unsound".

So, when did we get married?

Go ahead with ideas like the Training Wheels Act and make everyone balance a gun on their noses before owning one. I'm going to be over here wondering how to get people to stop shooting at each other like it's an alternative to cardio, and get communities to root out the violence oppressing neighborhoods and plaguing school systems that breed this brand of stupidity.

Also, illegal arms trade. Please stay seated now.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Raaaage

Translation: Everything I say is screaming nonsense and every counterpoint (if not vague/incomprehensible/already repeated/ducks/cheese pizza) is "invalid and unsound".

So, when did we get married?

Go ahead with ideas like the Training Wheels Act and make everyone balance a gun on their noses before owning one. I'm going to be over here wondering how to get people to stop shooting at each other like it's an alternative to cardio, and get communities to root out the violence oppressing neighborhoods and plaguing school systems that breed this brand of stupidity.

Also, illegal arms trade. Please stay seated now.

Oh it's the good old "I can't actually argue against you so I'm going to insult you, poke at a couple of things you've said and run away".

Translation: you don't want to actually address anything I've said so you're just going to insult me and dismiss all of my arguments without addressing them. If you don't want to argue anymore just don't reply, I'm sure you can get satisfaction out of something other than insulting me. Do you actually think you get anything out of insulting me on the internet?

Translation: You lost.

This is infinitely more satisfying for me then actually getting you to admit that I've won the argument, or insulting you. See now you're basically handing me a piece of your dignity to play it. So thank you.

And you know for a second there you almost seemed mature?

Also, the illegal arms trade profits criminal organizations and smugglers in third world countries where actual wars and unrest still happen. It has nothing to do with america, nor will it start having anything to do with america if minimal limitation (compared to basically everywhere on the planet) on weaponry is instituted. You want to make a throwaway argument could you please make it anything other than pathetic?

captcha: yeah right

Oh dear lord is that appropriate.