US Gun Control (Yes, again).

[Libertarian California]

At least Canada doesn't have Dianne Feinstein and her fascist cronies.

At least Canada doesn't suffer from an epidemic of reductio ad hitlerum.

Source?

[Gun Manufacturers]

As has been pointed out many times in other threads, you'd need 2/3 of Congress, as well as 38 states legislatures to repeal the Second Amendment. Since 44 states have the right to bear arms in their STATE constitutions, you'd have to start there first.

It isn't going to happen ANYTIME soon.

But it has to happen or else America will be screwed eventually...

If you REALLY want all firearms gone, then you've got a long road ahead (as I've already pointed out). Hell, it might not happen in either of our lifetimes. I'd wish you luck with that, but honestly I don't agree with your views.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

[Jassysworth 1]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

No, the police and military will still have them.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

No, the police and military will still have them.

And civilians won't. So outlaws can walk up to the civilians, shoot them dead, and get away long before the police arrive. If the civilians have guns, they can fight back and either kill the outlaws or hold out until the police arrive.

[Jassysworth 1]

No, the police and military will still have them.

And civilians won't. So outlaws can walk up to the civilians, shoot them dead, and get away long before the police arrive. If the civilians have guns, they can fight back and either kill the outlaws or hold out until the police arrive.

Except the vast majority of reported homicides (gun or no gun) are solved...

So chances are they won't get away with their crime.

Plus even if you had a gun, what good is it to you if the outlaws threaten you first and pull their gun on you? Would you really risk pulling out your gun and get shot?

Guns give the advantage to whoever attacks and takes out the guns first. That's almost always the criminals... ''Self-defense'' with a gun is a ridiculous idea. Guns give the advantage to the attacker who is criminal by definition.

You can run away from a knife or a baseball bat... not from a gun. If a gun is pointed at you, you can't do shit about it even if you have a gun yourself. You'll just get shot if you try anything.

Outlawing guns decreases the odds that someone can obtain a firearm illegally over a long period of ban enforcement... thus giving victims more chances to escape. You can't run from a gun, you can run from knives.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

And civilians won't. So outlaws can walk up to the civilians, shoot them dead, and get away long before the police arrive. If the civilians have guns, they can fight back and either kill the outlaws or hold out until the police arrive.

Except the vast majority of reported homicides (gun or no gun) are solved...

So chances are they won't get away with their crime.

Plus even if you had a gun, what good is it to you if the outlaws threaten you first and pull their gun on you? Would you really risk pulling out your gun and get shot?

Guns give the advantage to whoever attacks and takes out the guns first. That's almost always the criminals... ''Self-defense'' with a gun is a ridiculous idea. Guns give the advantage to the attacker who is criminal by definition.

You can run away from a knife or a baseball bat... not from a gun. If a gun is pointed at you, you can't do shit about it even if you have a gun yourself. You'll just get shot if you try anything.

Outlawing guns decreases the odds that someone can obtain a firearm illegally over a long period of ban enforcement... thus giving victims more chances to escape. You can't run from a gun, you can run from knives.

No. Illegal arms are one of the largest black market industries in the world. If you want to buy a gun illegally, you can. Making guns illegal for legal people will only reduce their chance to defend themselves.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

No, the police and military will still have them.

Ah. So you're not anti-gun, you're pro-elitist.

[Jassysworth 1]

Except the vast majority of reported homicides (gun or no gun) are solved...

So chances are they won't get away with their crime.

Plus even if you had a gun, what good is it to you if the outlaws threaten you first and pull their gun on you? Would you really risk pulling out your gun and get shot?

Guns give the advantage to whoever attacks and takes out the guns first. That's almost always the criminals... ''Self-defense'' with a gun is a ridiculous idea. Guns give the advantage to the attacker who is criminal by definition.

You can run away from a knife or a baseball bat... not from a gun. If a gun is pointed at you, you can't do shit about it even if you have a gun yourself. You'll just get shot if you try anything.

Outlawing guns decreases the odds that someone can obtain a firearm illegally over a long period of ban enforcement... thus giving victims more chances to escape. You can't run from a gun, you can run from knives.

No. Illegal arms are one of the largest black market industries in the world. If you want to buy a gun illegally, you can. Making guns illegal for legal people will only reduce their chance to defend themselves.

Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

The idea that banning guns is ''unsustainable'' and will lead to a permanent rise in the number of gun crimes and gun violence with tons of innocents killed is not supported by the empirical evidence. If that were true than we should be seeing ridiculous amounts of gun violence everywhere in the developed world except in America where people can ''defend themselves'' because guns are not banned.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

No. Illegal arms are one of the largest black market industries in the world. If you want to buy a gun illegally, you can. Making guns illegal for legal people will only reduce their chance to defend themselves.

Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

Source on the 'criminals in America do regularly use guns… gnus are not banned', please.
EDIT: @bolded; How about Iraq?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

No. Illegal arms are one of the largest black market industries in the world. If you want to buy a gun illegally, you can. Making guns illegal for legal people will only reduce their chance to defend themselves.

Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

Not only does gun control render victims defenseless against people with guns, it is a universal symbol of tyranny. If only the state has guns, the people are rendered unable to rebel against tyranny and oppression.

[Jassysworth 1]

Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

Source on the 'criminals in America do regularly use guns… gnus are not banned', please.

Fact: America has the highest number and proportion of gun crimes in the entire developed world.

Another Fact: Guns are not banned or closed to being banned in America.

[Planeia]

Come on! It's just Sandy Creek! Don't you know how many children get shot on a daily basis?

This is NOTHING. One time, a similar incident like this happened, but there was MORE kids AND EVEN TEACHERS that were gunned down.

And now the US Government wants to bring up gun control?

Sandy Creek not Sandy Hook, also there are shootings every few days in America places like Los Angeles or Chicago, that's why we need gun control.

Fixed.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Source on the 'criminals in America do regularly use guns… gnus are not banned', please.

Fact: America has the highest number and proportion of gun crimes in the entire developed world.

Another Fact: Guns are not banned or closed to being banned in America.

Source?

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Source on the 'criminals in America do regularly use guns… gnus are not banned', please.

Fact: America has the highest number and proportion of gun crimes in the entire developed world.

Another Fact: Guns are not banned or closed to being banned in America.

Fact: Give me a relevant link. Saying 'my argument IS TOO correct' does not constitute a source.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Fact: America has the highest number and proportion of gun crimes in the entire developed world.

Another Fact: Guns are not banned or closed to being banned in America.

Fact: Give me a relevant link. Saying 'my argument IS TOO correct' does not constitute a source.

It only proves he has no evidence to support his case and is making up shit.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Fact: Give me a relevant link. Saying 'my argument IS TOO correct' does not constitute a source.

It only proves he has no evidence to support his case and is making up shit.

Wait wait wait wait. Let him/her speak.

[Jassysworth 1]

Criminals in France don't regularly use guns... guns are almost completely banned there.

Criminals in the USA do regularly use guns... gnus are not banned.

Connect the dots...

If your logic were correct (banning guns means a shit ton of criminals will use guns) then we should be seeing a ridiculous number of gun crimes in Japan, France, South Korea etc where they are banned. We don't.

Gun bans (or de facto gun bans in which close to every civilian doesn't own a gun) are a success around the world. Give me one example of a developed country that is now experiencing MASSIVE proportions of gun crimes despite having a gun ban. There are none.

The empirical evidence shows that gun bans work in the developed world after you give them some time. Every country that has implemented them that has been a developed country has had success with it. Hell, even countries like China manage to keep guns out of 99% of the people and they aren't even a truly developed country.

Not only does gun control render victims defenseless against people with guns, it is a universal symbol of tyranny. If only the state has guns, the people are rendered unable to rebel against tyranny and oppression.

If banning guns were truly a ''universal symbol of tyranny'' how come every single other developed democracy in the world except the United States has voted through the will of the people... to either

1) Ban guns completely
2) Regulate them so carefully that they are basically banned for the vast vast vast majority of people

???

Every other developed democracy has chosen a ''universal symbol of tyranny'' then? America is the only sane, tyranny-hating democracy?

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Not only does gun control render victims defenseless against people with guns, it is a universal symbol of tyranny. If only the state has guns, the people are rendered unable to rebel against tyranny and oppression.

If banning guns were truly a ''universal symbol of tyranny'' how come every single other developed democracy in the world except the United States has voted through the will of the people... to either

1) Ban guns completely
2) Regulate them so carefully that they are basically banned for the vast vast vast majority of people

???

Seriously, where is my link?

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Not only does gun control render victims defenseless against people with guns, it is a universal symbol of tyranny. If only the state has guns, the people are rendered unable to rebel against tyranny and oppression.

If banning guns were truly a ''universal symbol of tyranny'' how come every single other developed democracy in the world except the United States has voted through the will of the people... to either

1) Ban guns completely
2) Regulate them so carefully that they are basically banned for the vast vast vast majority of people

???

Representative democracy ain't "The will of the people".

[Jassysworth 1]

If banning guns were truly a ''universal symbol of tyranny'' how come every single other developed democracy in the world except the United States has voted through the will of the people... to either

1) Ban guns completely
2) Regulate them so carefully that they are basically banned for the vast vast vast majority of people

???

Seriously, where is my link?

Do you dispute the fact that

1) Guns are not banned in America
2) Gun crimes are the highest in the United States among developed countries in both numbers and proportion of total crimes

???

Because these 2 things are common knowledge that need no citation I think. Unless I am wrong?

[Jassysworth 1]

If banning guns were truly a ''universal symbol of tyranny'' how come every single other developed democracy in the world except the United States has voted through the will of the people... to either

1) Ban guns completely
2) Regulate them so carefully that they are basically banned for the vast vast vast majority of people

???

Representative democracy ain't "The will of the people".

In democracies you vote for leaders who represent your country as a whole, thus democracies represent (or come close to representing) ''the will of the people.''

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Representative democracy ain't "The will of the people".

In democracies you vote for leaders who represent your country as a whole, thus democracies represent (or come close to representing) ''the will of the people.''

Go back to school and learn what representative democracy is.

[DuThaal Craftworld]

Seriously, where is my link?

Do you dispute the fact that

1) Guns are not banned in America
2) Gun crimes are the highest in the United States among developed countries in both numbers and proportion of total crimes

???

Because these 2 things are common knowledge that need no citation I think. Unless I am wrong?

I dispute those things being a fact, yes. Some guns are banned in America. Some guns are banned in France. Name 1 country that has totally banned all guns. I also dispute your definition of 'developed countries', 'proportion of total crimes' (non-violent crimes included? No? Still BS). So yes, SOURCE!

[Jassysworth 1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ed_to_guns

''...Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it; however, most countries similar to the United States have a more secure social network. Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability.[28][32][33] However, developed countries with strict gun laws have essentially eliminated gun violence.[34][35][36][37]''

There you go...

1) Gun crimes in the USA are ridiculous

2) Gun bans can work... they have worked in developed countries with ''strict gun laws'' where gun violence is ''essentially eliminated.''


I don't think there is much of a point citing how guns are not banned in the USA.