Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Infinite Coscotlan]

You overvalue the impact of private firearms.

And you woefully underestimate the effect that a major crackdown on firearms would have. I mean, do you expect people to give them up willingly?

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

[Greater Redosia]

And it melted just like your attempt at a reasoned argument.

Give us all reasons not to round up and imprison every firearm in the country?

Civil War, the death of hundreds of thousands if not millions, the sheer logistical impossibility, the inevitable sundering of the United States into several fragmented new nations and the resulting outbreak of warfare across the globe that would result?

Allied States of America when, we can make Jericho a reality and have direct rule from Cheyenne Wyoming.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And you woefully underestimate the effect that a major crackdown on firearms would have. I mean, do you expect people to give them up willingly?

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career.

You say that when 99% of the population gives a rat's ass about frivolous legislation such as "gun bans".

[Sovaal]

And you woefully underestimate the effect that a major crackdown on firearms would have. I mean, do you expect people to give them up willingly?

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Heh. Why anyone would want to go to the frankly failed state of Zimbabwe is beyond me.
And we’re talking about a political crack down here, so many will give in yes, but many others will not. What you suggest is playing with fucking fire.

[Kernen]

Never said it had to be stable. Reactor No.4 in Chernobyl wasn't stable, and yet it's still called a nuclear reactor.

And it melted just like your attempt at a reasoned argument.

Give us all reasons not to round up and imprison every firearm in the country?

That violates due process rights? The inevitable armed resistance to enforcement action? Seem like good reasons.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Heh. Why anyone would want to go to the frankly failed state of Zimbabwe is beyond me.
And we’re talking about a political crack down here, so many will give in yes, but many others will not. What you suggest is playing with fucking fire.

Playing with fire with your dick.

[The New California Republic]

And you woefully underestimate the effect that a major crackdown on firearms would have. I mean, do you expect people to give them up willingly?

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Yup, maybe in your fantasy version of the USA, but your fantasy has absolutely no relation to reality whatsoever. Your authoritarian vision would end up in a lot of dead cops (or whoever else it would be) that would be forcefully trying to take guns away.

[Telconi]

And you woefully underestimate the effect that a major crackdown on firearms would have. I mean, do you expect people to give them up willingly?

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Human rights are of more value than my career.

And I'd rather vote from a rooftop and keep my own country decent.

[Kernen]

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Human rights are of more value than my career.

And I'd rather vote from a rooftop and keep my own country decent.

Sounds like a delightful vacation, actually.

[Len Hyet]

And you woefully underestimate the effect that a major crackdown on firearms would have. I mean, do you expect people to give them up willingly?

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

[Infinite Coscotlan]

Of course. Few would want to end up on the wrong side of the law, especially if they value their career. Those who refuse may vote with their feet to Zimbabwe, or wherever!

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

[Telconi]

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

>Swallow your emotions.
>Muh bullet riddled corpses.

Pick one...

[Deutsche Savanne Reich]

ban guns and criminals will use knives
ban knives and criminals will uses baseball bats
ban bats and criminals use a hammer
so on and so on until you start chopping off hands because you banned hands

[Ors Might]

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

500k to 3 million defensive gun uses a year in the US alone says otherwise.

[Dylar]

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

>Tells us to swallow emotion
>Says an emotionally charged statement that there'll be more corpes if we keep guns

Man, the hypocrisy is strong with this one.

[Len Hyet]

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

...

riiiiiight

Okay, so, nobody here has shown even the faintest correlation between homicide rates and gun ownership rates. Seeing as how of the two of us I'm actually the only one who has used any math, I'll just wait for yours then shall I?

[Kramanica]

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

"Swallow your emotions as I tell you that you will keep seeing bullet-riddled corpses."

[Infinite Coscotlan]

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

>Tells us to swallow emotion
>Says an emotionally charged statement that there'll be more corpes if we keep guns

Man, the hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Nothing emotionally charged in my statement. That is why I told you to ingest the emotion back into gut.

[Sovaal]

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

Funny coming from the guy who is advocating for what is basically pressing the big red button on social stability. But hey, keep living in your fantasy land dude, hell, I’ll even let you claim that you’re king of the high ground. Just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Statistically most people don't turn over their weapons. Like the overwhelming majority of people don't turn over their weapons. There were 800,000 SKS-type weapons in Australia in 1996, and 650,000 guns of all types were turned in during the new law. There's millions of unregistered firearms in Australia, and in states like California, Illinois, and New York there's been like 5-10% compliance with bans and registrations.

So, unless you're willing to ditch the 4th Amendment and spark a civil war, you ain't banning guns.

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

Bullshit. Taking guns away from low risk law-abiding citizens won’t stop murders, or massacres.

Take them away from the mentally ill, sure, and terrorist sympathizers, sure, with due process. But stripping a populace of their rights due to weak-kneed fear is both useless and dangerous.

[Greater Redosia]

ban guns and criminals will use knives
ban knives and criminals will uses baseball bats
ban bats and criminals use a hammer
so on and so on until you start chopping off hands because you banned hands

It will be the Taj Mahal all over again.

[Telconi]

>Tells us to swallow emotion
>Says an emotionally charged statement that there'll be more corpes if we keep guns

Man, the hypocrisy is strong with this one.

Nothing emotionally charged in my statement. That is why I told you to ingest the emotion back into gut.

Why should I care about bullet riddled corpses?

[Ors Might]

Then keep dealing with shootings. You will see many more bullet-riddled corpses than you will protect by owning a gun.

Swallow your emotion for a minute. Mathematics do not lie.

Bullshit. Taking guns away from low risk law-abiding citizens won’t stop murders, or massacres.

Take them away from the mentally ill, sure, and terrorist sympathizers, sure, with due process. But stripping a populace of their rights due to weak-kneed fear is both useless and dangerous.

Tbh, I’m not sure if disarming the mentally ill would do much good. Isn’t it like an extreme minority of them that are actually dangerous?

[Sovaal]

Bullshit. Taking guns away from low risk law-abiding citizens won’t stop murders, or massacres.

Take them away from the mentally ill, sure, and terrorist sympathizers, sure, with due process. But stripping a populace of their rights due to weak-kneed fear is both useless and dangerous.

Tbh, I’m not sure if disarming the mentally ill would do much good. Isn’t it like an extreme minority of them that are actually dangerous?

I mean banning guns isn’t going to stop serial killers.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Bullshit. Taking guns away from low risk law-abiding citizens won’t stop murders, or massacres.

Take them away from the mentally ill, sure, and terrorist sympathizers, sure, with due process. But stripping a populace of their rights due to weak-kneed fear is both useless and dangerous.

Tbh, I’m not sure if disarming the mentally ill would do much good. Isn’t it like an extreme minority of them that are actually dangerous?

Extreme minority, yeah, and it would increase stereotyping, leading to non-compliance and decreased diagnosis rates. Pretty damn useless, but still more useful than disarming the general populace.