• Lenient gun control leads to greater homicide rates.
    400 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38404872]The others cited was a falsified study and a crazy guy decrying the huffington post.[/QUOTE] Are you mentally deficient? I'm not even joking or being insulting here, this is an honest question. [b]I fucking said AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES that NONE of that post's argument, NONE OF IT, was from John Lott's research, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? NONE OF IT.[/b] and that means you cannot ignore it as "bad research." How goddamn dense do you have to be to ignore me saying that 5 FUCKING TIMES? As well, if Queen Lizzie over there in jolly ol' Britland were to suddenly decide tomorrow that she's going to use the army who have sworn allegiance to her to violently overthrow parliament and ban free speech as the first thing of her absolute monarchy, what would you be able to do to defend free speech? What tools would you have? In America, if Obama were to ban free speech tomorrow, there's 100 million people ready to defend that right to the death. Without a guarantee of your rights, they are only privileges, the 2nd Amendment is the guarantee of all the other rights in the US, the guarantee that the government can never take those rights away. Go look up some of the things the founding fathers have said about the 2nd Amendment, they were concerned not just about foreign invasion, but about government oppression. They believed that the people were themselves a militia, and should be just as well armed as the military, to put the people on even grounds with the government, whichever government that may be. Your right to free speech, or anything else for that matter, exists only as long as you are prepared to defend it. In Britain, your right to free speech is already being restricted, people are being arrested for speaking their minds on Facebook, and the government is talking of censorship and cutting web access to pirates. What are you going to do to stop it from going farther, what can you do? What does your government have to fear from its citizens if it defies their will? An election? Is that all? You know what the American government has to fear if they openly and blatantly defy the constitution? Death. Fear of the citizens keeps the government fair, fear of the government keeps citizens compliant. But you don't care, you'll ignore my statement that none of my initial argument was from a "broken" study, you'll keep ignorantly insulting guns, gun owners, and the American Constitution, and you'll keep pulling things out of your ass that you seem to think were validated in the sources you peovided in the OP, which they weren't. You're ignorant and intolerant, you're not here to debate this issue in a serious manner, you're here to hope that spouting lies and hyperbole will make people believe you while you try to find every reason you can to ignore contrary arguments. This thread isn't going anywhere, it died about 6 pages ago.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;38405304]Where do you see that? Unless you're looking at something else, the rate was remaining pretty stable the preceding 9 years[/QUOTE] I assume you're referring to the 1988 laws introduced in Victoria. All that was the introduction of license to purchase guns (which, may I point out, agree with), nothing else (such as bans), not to mention it was in [i]one state of 7 in Australia[i]
People are listing Australia as an example of strict laws succeeding, but they don't mention the others with strict laws and high crime rates(like Mexico) and others with lenient laws and low crime rates(like Switzerland). I could easily use only Switzerland as an example and say every country should hand out rifles to citizens. You can't base your argument on a single country because the statistics are almost never consistent with other countries. A high amount of guns in a country doesn't cause crime, the population determines the crime rate.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405298]But it kept declining despite the introduction of less lenient laws. Surely it should be the opposite according to the gunnuts?[/QUOTE] I took this on in my first post, go actually read it, my sources were Wikipedia, CNN, and the Huffington Post for the US, and testimony from Dr. Caillin Langmann of the McMaster University Medical Department, NOT JOHN LOTT, for Canada.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38405312]Are you mentally deficient? I'm not even joking or being insulting here, this is an honest question. [b]I fucking said AT LEAST 5 FUCKING TIMES that NONE of that post's argument, NONE OF IT, was from John Lott's research, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? NONE OF IT.[/b] and that means you cannot ignore it as "bad research." How goddamn dense do you have to be to ignore me saying that 5 FUCKING TIMES? As well, if Queen Lizzie over there in jolly ol' Britland were to suddenly decide tomorrow that she's going to use the army who have sworn allegiance to her to violently overthrow parliament and ban free speech as the first thing of her absolute monarchy, what would you be able to do to defend free speech? What tools would you have? In America, if Obama were to ban free speech tomorrow, there's 100 million people ready to defend that right to the death. Without a guarantee of your rights, they are only privileges, the 2nd Amendment is the guarantee of all the other rights in the US, the guarantee that the government can never take those rights away. Go look up some of the things the founding fathers have said about the 2nd Amendment, they were concerned not just about foreign invasion, but about government oppression. They believed that the people were themselves a militia, and should be just as well armed as the military, to put the people on even grounds with the government, whichever government that may be. Your right to free speech, or anything else for that matter, exists only as long as you are prepared to defend it. In Britain, your right to free speech is already being restricted, people are being arrested for speaking their minds on Facebook, and the government is talking of censorship and cutting web access to pirates. What are you going to do to stop it from going farther, what can you do? What does your government have to fear from its citizens if it defies their will? An election? Is that all? You know what the American government has to fear if they openly and blatantly defy the constitution? Death. Fear of the citizens keeps the government fair, fear of the government keeps citizens compliant. But you don't care, you'll ignore my statement that none of my initial argument was from a "broken" study, you'll keep ignorantly insulting guns, gun owners, and the American Constitution, and you'll keep pulling things out of your ass that you seem to think were validated in the sources you peovided in the OP, which they weren't. You're ignorant and intolerant, you're not here to debate this issue in a serious manner, you're here to hope that spouting lies and hyperbole will make people believe you while you try to find every reason you can to ignore contrary arguments. This thread isn't going anywhere, it died about 6 pages ago.[/QUOTE] The privilege to keep arms isn't going to save America though. The American army can pummel a disorganised rabble of idiots armed with crappy old Russian guns.
[QUOTE=Onion836;38405332]People are listing Australia as an example of strict laws succeeding, but they don't mention the others with strict laws and high crime rates(like Mexico) and others with lenient laws and low crime rates(like Switzerland). I could easily use only Switzerland as an example and say every country should hand out rifles to citizens. You can't base your argument on a single country because the statistics are almost never consistent with other countries. A high amount of guns in a country doesn't cause crime, the population determines the crime rate.[/QUOTE] Brought that up earlier, he ignored it because he didn't realize it was me and not John Lott arguing.
[QUOTE=download;38405329]I assume you're referring to the 1988 laws introduced in Victoria. All that was the introduction of license to purchase guns (which, may I point out, agree with), nothing else (such as bans), not to mention it was in [i]one state of 7 in Australia[i][/QUOTE] Whoops, I was under the impression that they were all similar laws
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405337]The privilege to keep arms isn't going to save America though. The American army can pummel a disorganised rabble of idiots armed with crappy old Russian guns.[/QUOTE] You mean the same army that's comprised of voluntarily serving American citizens? Yeah, they aren't gonna start mowing down American civilians because the president says so.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405337]The privilege to keep arms isn't going to save America though. The American army can pummel a disorganised rabble of idiots armed with crappy old Russian guns.[/QUOTE] I think this is past the point of a sane discussion. You are quite obviously an idiot or oblivious to all the evidence presented to you
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405337]The privilege to keep arms isn't going to save America though. The American army can pummel a disorganised rabble of idiots armed with crappy old Russian guns.[/QUOTE] I don't know they're having some trouble fighting off that disorganized rabble of idiots with old russian guns over in the middle east
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405344]You mean the same army that's comprised of voluntarily serving American citizens? Yeah, they aren't gonna start mowing down American civilians because the president says so.[/QUOTE] Millgram would say otherwise.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;38405342]Whoops, I was under the impression that they were all similar laws[/QUOTE] They're not. The only significant introductions were the 1996 buyback where every registered semi-auto rifle and shotgun, and every registered pump-action shotgun were bought back by the government for $600 million dollars, and the 2003 Handgun buyback where every handgun over .38cal, 10 rounds and under 120mm barrel length were bought back for an unknown amount (they kept it a secret). All the others were introduction of licensing or registration
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;38405349]I don't know they're having some trouble fighting off that disorganized rabble of idiots with old russian guns over in the middle east[/QUOTE] Except the people in the middle east aren't obese, spend much of their time in a first world environment, and do not possess the will to fight a guerrilla war against the most powerful army on earth.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405357]Millgram would say otherwise.[/QUOTE] Milgram's experiment is non-comparable to the army because there's nothing stopping the army from sending their "shocks" down a different path.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405337]The privilege to keep arms isn't going to save America though. The American army can pummel a disorganised rabble of idiots armed with crappy old Russian guns.[/QUOTE] Do you know how the Russians, an army of idiot peasant farmers, defeated the elite Nazi Army in WWII? Sheer numbers. It doesn't matter how well trained or equipped the US army is, it's maybe 4 million men ideally against a likely 50 million, not to mention not everyone in the US Army will support the president in a violent suppression of American freedoms. The US RIGHT to bear arms is just that, a right. It may be a privilege in the commonwealth, though it's supposed to be protected in the English Bill of Rights, but it is a RIGHT in context to the US, and it should be treated as such when used in that context.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405368]Except the people in the middle east aren't obese, spend much of their time in a first world environment, and do not possess the will to fight a guerrilla war against the most powerful army on earth.[/QUOTE] man you really don't know anything at all about america, do you?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405368]Except the people in the middle east aren't obese, spend much of their time in a first world environment, and do not possess the will to fight a guerrilla war against the most powerful army on earth.[/QUOTE] Yep, we're past the point for rational discussion. Ignore this knob people, nothing said will convince him
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405368]Except the people in the middle east aren't obese, spend much of their time in a first world environment, and do not possess the will to fight a guerrilla war against the most powerful army on earth.[/QUOTE] And now you're using the "Americans are fat" stereotype to try and support your argument. God you are ignorant and bigoted. And no, that is not coming from an American.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38405374]Do you know how the Russians, an army of idiot peasant farmers, defeated the elite Nazi Army in WWII? Sheer numbers.[/QUOTE] You know nothing about WW2 from this comment alone. [QUOTE=DaCommie1;38405374]It doesn't matter how well trained or equipped the US army is, it's maybe 4 million men ideally against a likely 50 million[/QUOTE] These numbers have been pulled from nowhere. Also note that many of these people will not know how to operate a firearm, are cowards, or likely to defer.
Mods, just close this thread, nothing productive is going to come from it at this point.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;38405400]And now you're using the "Americans are fat" stereotype to try and support your argument. God you are ignorant and bigoted. And no, that is not coming from an American.[/QUOTE] Except obesity rates are higher in America.
You're just ignoring all the points that completely destroy your arguments and instead responding to posts that are completely irrelivant to the topic.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405408]Except obesity rates are higher in America.[/QUOTE] Boy am I glad I'm not fat! Nor do I actually own any guns! Woah, your ad-hominems are failing you now, aren't they?
[QUOTE=Onion836;38405417]You're just ignoring all the points that completely destroy your arguments and instead responding to posts that are completely irrelivant to the topic.[/QUOTE] To be fair, most of the thread turned into sourceless and inflammitory posts on both sides, 1 guy responding to 6-7 people gets pretty hard once posts come in so fast
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405430]Boy am I glad I'm not fat! Nor do I actually own any guns! Woah, your ad-hominems are failing you now, aren't they?[/QUOTE] Still, the idea that a rabble of gun nuts can defeat the most powerful army on earth is laughable.
oh hey, I found a thread where I can whine about gunnuts and flame everyone that is obsessed by them :v:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38405436]Still, the idea that a rabble of gun nuts can defeat the most powerful army on earth is laughable.[/QUOTE] That's still implying that A) the army will ever invade its home country and B) no soldier will side with the people. The chances of that happening are quite impossible I'm afraid.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405463]That's still implying that A) the army will ever invade its home country and B) no soldier will side with the people. The chances of that happening are quite impossible I'm afraid.[/QUOTE] The chances of 100 million (or even 1 million) gun nuts rising at once to overthrow evil are slim as well. Plus it's doubtful they would manage to set up a stable government too.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38405430]Boy am I glad I'm not fat! Nor do I actually own any guns! Woah, your ad-hominems are failing you now, aren't they?[/QUOTE] I do not want to be offensive but america suffers from obesity and that is a well known fact. Nothing against you though.
They don't need to defeat the army, all they need to defeat is Congress and the Senate, and that would be a much easier task, considering they'd never martial enough forces to DC in time to be able to stop a "rabble of gun owners," considering how many of them there are in Virginia and Pennsylvania alone.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.