The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Jocabia]

No support, eh? You sure about that?

Yes, unlike you I actually provided statistics and analysis. However, if we include the "evidence" you're making up, then you've got a great argument. I especially like the stolen apartment buildings. Beautiful.

[JJ Place]

In a particular city of a few thousand residence (I believe it was in the mid-west) gun ownership was made compulsory. Within a few months, there was so little crime, that criminals actually had to drop they're old routines and get real jobs. The only real crime at this point was from outside sources; a hilarious little incident occurred when a few criminals attempted to hold up a 7-11 in said town. The criminals where each armed with hand-guns... the 7 customers in the store where armed with hand-guns as well, and the 2 employees where armed with shotguns. The criminals where quickly apprehended.

Now, I don't want the government telling me to own a gun; however, it is interesting to see what a heavily armed society would look and function like.

I can safely say I wouldn't use a gun in such a society. I would start making explosives and bomb people's houses, or public buildings, or whatever if I wanted to rob them. Or, make chemical weaponry, buy a gasmask, and use that. Or simply masquerade as a state worker or insurance salesman and slit their throats in their own house.

If you make everyone know how to use a gun, criminals will just get more creative about how they do their crimes. And they'll eventually be more better at committing crimes, since the most successful will survive and learn from their experiences.

Plus when the Soviets Chinese invade instead of parachuting down and facing us they'll just decide to bomb us instead.

EDIT: And no, I would not really do this in any case. I am not a criminal, just demonstrating what criminals could do.

More better, I think you mean that criminals will be 'better'; it's improper English. Second, point out one place where that's happening that has little gun control, and I'll point out that most criminals 1) Are not that smart, and 2) You'll have so few criminals, the few you do have will be minor problems. Also, if people have guns, they can at least have a chance to defend themselves.

Also, if the Chinese start to bomb us, the only thing that's going to save us are a few bunkers under the Earth; luckily, they seem to have little reason to destroy the world right now. Also, if the Chinese started to bomb us, we'd bomb them back, and eventually we would be locked in a ground-war with the Chinese until the Great Nuclear Bombings would begin. But, that's not exactly the issue we're discussing; that's more future war predictions type conversation.

Cars are a bit different; they're a bit more complex then 'Pull trigger here, don't kill any one'.

Guns are more complicated than "Don't kill anyone".

Yes, everything is more complicated than that; it's just a summary.

Then in summary, cars are no more complex than "Press accelerator, don't kill anyone".
Yeah, guns are more complex. http://guncleaningguide.com/ That's no argument, ifreann.
How do you walk? Just answer the question. Whatever summary you give is inadequate.

Guns might not improve the majority of people's lives; yet, they do one thing rather well: keep people alive. Personally, I don't believe cars need to be regulated by the government; but that's another issue for another day.

Guns don't keep people alive. Guns kill people. Sometimes the people they kill are threatening the lives of others. Some times they are not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk. But seriously, guns let you kill people trying to hurt you before they can.

I'd like you to say that to someone who's actually defended themselves with a gun.

[New Amerik]

just think u take away guns ur taking away something the Hunters Use and also this is a free country any law that will support gun control is unconstitutional

Not really, just people have to have access to weapons. And proper weapons, not swords.

Snicker.... Wait, so before guns were invented we had no 'proper weapons'? The swords that killed all those people..... they aren't weapons? Why did so many officer's get them then for use in battle? Are you saying we should allow everyone to have a sword, with no training either because 'it's not a proper weapon'? I remember quite a while ago, when my father was fencing in one tournament a foil's protective tip broke off and it pierced someone's lung.... but that's not a weapon! I have several western swords locked up safely at my house, and I could use them to defend myself if someone broke in, but Noooo, they're still not proper weapons!

Seriously, I don't care about your gun stance, but your statement on proper weapons is laughable.

Compared to missiles, guns are not proper weapons.

[Jocabia]

I'd like you to say that to someone who's actually defended themselves with a gun.

Which, again, is statistically less common than people who are kiled by guns. By a FAR, FAR sight.

By hey, who said you have deal with facts. Just keep repeating things. That's almost like an argument. Except not.

[Jocabia]

JJ, how ya coming along on finding the name of that town you made up?

What about these special criminal economic models you spoke of? You must have found them by now, eh?

[JJ Place]

Again, because criminals and insane people are really stopped by laws on paper.

No dear, by the enforcement of those laws. You've heard of "the police", right? Not just an awesome band

People are going to do what they are going to do no matter what you do; and having an unarmed populous when a disaster strikes really isn't going to help you.

Hey there fellows, I've found a strawman! Seems this chap thinks that gun control leads to an unarmed populace. What a silly bugger!

I'd site England; yet that seems a little redundant.

Also, if you burgled when your away, having a gun really isn't much of a point, as the gun is to protect yourself; a gun can't think for itself, so it's not going to protect your stuff while your away. But, hey, a gun is a last resort to only be used when absolutely necessary.

JJ Place, it is EXACTLY my point. I asked you about leaving you gun where it can be stolen. You say "oh that doesn't matter" ?

It's almost as though you want thieves to have guns.

No, I said exactly what I meant; you through out that ridiculous argument because apparently you couldn't find a real argument.

No support, eh? You sure about that?

Yes, unlike you I actually provided statistics and analysis. However, if we include the "evidence" you're making up, then you've got a great argument. I especially like the stolen apartment buildings. Beautiful.

You mean your false statistic that take into account any other factors, and your false analysis? You want statistics? Fine:

Up until a landmark case less than 2 years ago, D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws in all of the U.S. They had an amazingly low murder rate of 69 murders per 100,000 citizens; yet, in Indianapolis held the extremely high murder rate of 9 murders per 100,000 due to the lack of gun control. Want some analysis? Sure, here's something: An intruder to your house is certainly going to be stopped by you not being armed, and will simply leave your house at the sight of you not being armed. Want another statistic? An incredibly high amount of 150 children under the age of 10 are killed each year with guns by accident (Every single one is a tragedy, don't get me wrong) but, there are 100,000 cases of a gun being used in self-defense through the United States each year; we could only fathom how many of those people would have been killed if it where not for them having a gun. There, now, if you want any more statistics that are on my side of the argument, just Google 'Gun Control Statistics' and you'll find plenty more.

I'd like you to say that to someone who's actually defended themselves with a gun.

Which, again, is statistically less common than people who are kiled by guns. By a FAR, FAR sight.

By hey, who said you have deal with facts. Just keep repeating things. That's almost like an argument. Except not.

Hey, ignore the facts, stay in your little bubble. Unlike you, I have actually responded to your arguments; you've just ignored mine.

JJ, how ya coming along on finding the name of that town you made up?

What about these special criminal economic models you spoke of? You must have found them by now, eh?

Oh, your know accusing others of making up thing? Is not that the Kettle calling the pot black? Except for the fact that I actually have proof.

You might consider taking a refresher course on your economics, mate.

[Cameroi]

there may be logical arguments against banning possession of fire arms.
(and i'm not convinced i've heard one yet)
but there are none against banning totally their mass production.

[Harrakh]

words

THIS.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

but there are [no logical arguements] against banning totally their mass production.

1. Interchangeable parts
2. Parts and training commonality for uniform and standardized training
3. Standard ammunition loadouts (standard pressure loads wasn't dictated by the gov't, it was because the vast majority of the best-sellers could handle it due to the insane consistancy of mass-production)
4. Reliability due to commonly available replacement parts
5. Standard accessories
6. Easier to develop and enforce de-facto industrial standards and practices for the safety and convienence of the end-users.
7. It creates jobs

As for a rational reason not to ban guns, I doubt you'll find one as it is meant to deal with an irrational problem. But I will tell you this, the previous sentance, though not rational, is logical.

Conflict.
Conflict is not rational.
Conflict is wasteful.
Therefore, it is best to end conflict with a minimal of loss, and prefferably in an expedient and straightforward manner.

Guns are ridicoulously forthright in their purpose of being the final arguement against a problem that is both irrational, and persistantly fatal.

You want world peace?
Build a bigger gun for your police-state.

[Nobel Hobos]

You are honestly saying that what bad neighbourhoods need is more and cheaper guns ?

The more the merrier, eh ?

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. But, hey, if you want to be completely unarmed without a chance in the world, I believe that to be your choice.

I've lived in some pretty crook neighbourhoods. I've seen knife-fights, I've seen people dead. I've never seen a gun used in a crime.

In my twenties, the age when men are at most risk of violent assault or murder, I lived some time homeless, and in squats and shelters, and the rest of the time in inner-city share-houses with all sorts coming and going. I hitch-hiked around the country. There's a very good chance I rode with Ivan Milat. I was never raped, but I was robbed more times than I can count. I did without a gun just fine. If I'd had to kill people to protect my property I wouldn't consider that better than being robbed.

I've seen guns in the hands of hunters, and inside the one (indoor) shooting range I have been in. I've seen guns in holsters of plain-clothed and uniformed cops. I've seen them drawn by cops on about four occasions, but never discharged. Criminals take cops very seriously in Australia, because apart from some well-funded gangs, the criminals don't have guns.

I love my country's gun control. I want it tighter, in fact. I'm concerned that security guards with nowhere near the training or background checks which cops have, carry legal guns. I would quite simply replace them with police, who would be paid (at higher rates) by exactly the employers who currently pay private security.

Smuggling of guns into Australia is obviously a problem, which is hard to fix (though prioritizing that, instead of illegal immigration or illegal drug imports would help, and Customs simply need more staff). But legal guns already in the country, falling into the wrong hands is a preventable problem.

Gun control has kept me safe from guns for 45 years. I've been in fights and I've won some of them. I've run away from many more, particularly when knives have been pulled on me. I might very well be dead, or permanently injured, if guns had been plentiful in the hands of "law-abiding" (ie, never convicted of a crime) citizens. Running away from a huge violent guy, or a knife wielding nutter, is a viable strategy. It isn't, if they can shoot you in the back.

I would be LESS SAFE in possession of a gun, if it meant that other people like me also had guns "for self defence".

And a large majority of Australians agree. We love our gun control, and a fair proportion of us want it tightened up.

So even though it's not my choice (I follow the spirit of the law on this one, though I could in fact own a gun for private use) I think it's the right choice and I'd much rather it this way, thankyou.

Also, yes, the more guns, the merrier, I say. You can never be too safe; it's always good to have just a little extra security, even if you lock up most of your extra guns under tight security.

And you should, right ? This was what I asked you, and which you haven't answered.

You should do everything you can to prevent a gun you leave in your house WHEN YOU ARE NOT THERE, from being stolen. Correct ? Gun-safes ... or preferably a gun-bank, a location which is more secure than an unattended residence, in which permanent security protects a large number of guns from theft. A bank.

What say you to that ?

Should you? That's kind of your personal choice,

It's not. Did you read what I wrote at all ? Do you support or oppose laws which REQUIRE gun owners to keep them in high-security conditions, not just somewhere in their house ? Do you support mandatory gun safes and trigger locks ?

[Nobel Hobos]

JJ, you're adequately demonstrating the problem and I thank you for it. If you really cared about people being safe, you'd support a level of gun control that keeps them out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

You know my Favorite part of GTA? When you take all your firearms and register them; don't you love that part of the game? No; why not? Because, Criminals don't follow the law. How do you think a criminal gets his guns? He breaks the law! And that's just what your going to get, gun control only hurts the law abiding citizen; criminals will always get weapons even with the strictest of gun controls; look at England if you want more proof.

I have. First of all, you should actually examine how criminals get guns. Now, you might not have an issue with them either stealing them from gun owners or acquiring through legal dealers, but I view that as a bad thing. I generally don't want to find out that people are intentionally putting guns in the hands of criminals and I'm not doing something about it. It's interesting how you claim you want to own guns to protect yourself but you'd rather make it easier for criminals to acquire guns (the majority of guns criminals get were originally properly registered) just so it doesn't inconvenience you.

Yet, this is strained by the fact that the majority of people are good; even if a lack of gun control makes acquiring a gun a little easier for a criminal and a bit less expensive, the majority of people, all who follow the laws, are going to be able to purchase something to protect themselves if there is no gun control at all. Also, your example just shows how easily gun control can be broken, and why registering guns is pointless.

The point of registering guns is to get the gun back out of the hands of criminals.

For instance, a person with criminal intent who has never been convicted of anything, can buy more than one gun. Selling that gun to a criminal is itself a criminal act, but would be quite lucrative.

And we'd hope that they go down for it, and lose their right to buy or own weapons. That should happen when a gun used in a crime is traced back to them ... but there could be any number of guns that they have sold to disqualified people. Those guns don't just come back magically: they stay out there, in the hands of criminals until each one is found in a police search or AFTER it is used in a crime.

And don't forget that people can change. People who were criminal (violently so even) in their teenage years or their twenties, can make good. But they can go the other way too. People can turn bad, and when they do you what you have is a previously law-abiding gun collector who sells more than one gun to more than one criminal.

If people need a gun for self-defence, why not have a limit of one legal gun per person? Armed, but not an armourer.

[Jocabia]

No support, eh? You sure about that?

Yes, unlike you I actually provided statistics and analysis. However, if we include the "evidence" you're making up, then you've got a great argument. I especially like the stolen apartment buildings. Beautiful.

You mean your false statistic that take into account any other factors, and your false analysis?

You're actually required to make an argument. "Nuh-uh" doesn't count. What factors are my statistics missing. Please quote the statistics directly from my original post and explain why they are not relevant. Also, quote the original analysis and explain the precise problem with it. I suspect you can't. Prove me wrong.

You want statistics? Fine:

Up until a landmark case less than 2 years ago, D.C. had some of the strictest gun laws in all of the U.S. They had an amazingly low murder rate of 69 murders per 100,000 citizens; yet, in Indianapolis held the extremely high murder rate of 9 murders per 100,000 due to the lack of gun control. Want some analysis? Sure, here's something: An intruder to your house is certainly going to be stopped by you not being armed, and will simply leave your house at the sight of you not being armed. Want another statistic? An incredibly high amount of 150 children under the age of 10 are killed each year with guns by accident (Every single one is a tragedy, don't get me wrong) but, there are 100,000 cases of a gun being used in self-defense through the United States each year; we could only fathom how many of those people would have been killed if it where not for them having a gun. There, now, if you want any more statistics that are on my side of the argument, just Google 'Gun Control Statistics' and you'll find plenty more.

I keep telling you and you've not addressed it even once. There is no border control on cities. Making city-wide laws only affects those who are law-abiding because there is nothing addressing criminal access to guns. Nations have border patrols. Border patrols are effective enough that 85% of illegal gun activity are with guns originally acquired legally in the US.

You also keep bringing up cultural differences when statistics are inconvenient and ignoring them when they are convenient. The US and France have more in common socio-economically than Houston does with DC.

Now, would you like to address the problem of completely unsecured borders versus secure borders? No, but do it anyway. Otherwise, your argument is a sham.

As far as gun defense, with or without guns, it's well documented that murder by unfamiliars is a low percentage of all murders. Even among those most are criminals killing criminals. I posted the link to this statistic. Even if you adjust the number of murders by claiming that these same criminals happen about gun owners and are ALWAYS thwarted from their intent to kill, it still wouldn't make gun defense more likely than the usage of guns in suicide, accidental death and spousal murders.

I'd like you to say that to someone who's actually defended themselves with a gun.

Which, again, is statistically less common than people who are kiled by guns. By a FAR, FAR sight.

By hey, who said you have deal with facts. Just keep repeating things. That's almost like an argument. Except not.

Hey, ignore the facts, stay in your little bubble. Unlike you, I have actually responded to your arguments; you've just ignored mine.

My facts are supported by actual statistical evidence. I've addressed everything you've ever posted that you thought countered them. The only thing I've not actually addressed was stuff you made up wholesale like magic criminals who don't have financial restrictions and secretive towns that force people to own guns. You refuse to support either of these.

Again, you ignored the salient point, as well. Statistical analysis shows that even if every gun own successfully defended agains potential murderers, unless you assume that gun owners are targetted it doesn't outweigh the number of times that familiars are killed with guns.

JJ, how ya coming along on finding the name of that town you made up?

What about these special criminal economic models you spoke of? You must have found them by now, eh?

Oh, your know accusing others of making up thing? Is not that the Kettle calling the pot black? Except for the fact that I actually have proof.

Except that isn't proof. It's an editorial. One that still doesn't address the issue with those statistics. The issue I bring up every time that you ignore. You cannot compare gun control in places where there are neighboring places with differing laws and no border control at all. It's pretty clear that if you disarm the populace while arming criminals that you have a problem. Fortunately, no one is suggesting that is a good idea and that is the only thing that comparing cities addresses.

You might consider taking a refresher course on your economics, mate.

You mean if I just study more I'll find out how thieves are stealing apartment buildings.

Ah, so rather than actually supplying the economic model you wholesale made up, your reply is pretend I just haven't encountered it or don't understand. Again, please provide sources for your imaginary town and the imaginary economic model.

It's pretty clear to me that you're just spinning yarns, but feel free to prove me wrong but actually providing proof of such a model or of this town you made up.

I claim that there is an economic model that says that if we destroy all handguns that I get pie. I don't have to provide proof, of course. As you've well established, debate is just about making outrageous claims, right?

Also, before you accuse me of making things up like the joke above, you might look up sarcasm.

[Jocabia]

Again, JJ, let me know when the magical town reappears.

Also, let me know when you find the economical model that only applies to criminals and allows them to steal houses and other magical properties.

I love hearing about magical worlds. I hope the model has dragons on it. And can you make it blue?

[Gun Manufacturers]

JJ, how ya coming along on finding the name of that town you made up?

What about these special criminal economic models you spoke of? You must have found them by now, eh?

I believe the town he was referring to is Kennesaw, Georgia. Not the midwest, but still, an actual town.

[Jocabia]

JJ, how ya coming along on finding the name of that town you made up?

What about these special criminal economic models you spoke of? You must have found them by now, eh?

I believe the town he was referring to is Kennesaw, Georgia. Not the midwest, but still, an actual town.

Ah, finally, someone who actually believes in evidence. That's good.

Now, let's actually look at this town.

I picked a random town in IL. IL is not well-known for it's freedom for gunowners and Kennesaw's law was actually in response to an IL town's gun control laws.

So I did a comparison between Moline, IL and Kennesaw GA.

http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographi ... ennesaw+GA

You know what's interesting. Moline has more crime in several categories, but what's much lower? Murder. So much for that claim that more guns means less murder, eh?

This was the literally the first town I chose at random. Moline actually has more people than Kennesaw by about 40%, so it's not as if it's a smaller or quieter town. Yet, less murder. So much for the whole guns will stop murder BS.

Interestingly enough, Morton Grove, IL, that inspired the Kennesaw, GA, law change, also has lower murder risk than our "low-crime" example.

http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographi ... ennesaw+GA

In fact, it does significantly better on a number of crimes and only significantly worse on larceny and assault. Also, not that the not only are you less likely to be killed, but the total crime risk is lower in Morton Grove, IL, than it is in Kennesaw, GA.

Proof it's a valid comparison, according to the town itself....

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1719257620070418

"Kennesaw's law was a response to Morton Grove, Illinois, which had passed a gun ban earlier that year as a step to reduce crime."

It appears that Morton Grove was more successful. Again, their populations are comparable.

That didn't work quite how you'd hoped now did it, JJ?

EDIT: And just to add another source...
http://www.city-data.com/city/Morton-Gr ... inois.html

Morton Grove hasn't had a murder during the period recorded. Kennesaw has had 4.

http://www.city-data.com/city/Kennesaw-Georgia.html

[Nobel Hobos]

>snip<

You want world peace?
Build a bigger gun for your police-state.

What could be more horrible than world peace enforced by a 1971 Super-Computer ? One which (0:30s to 0:45s) thinks that Africa is a country ?

What, I ask you, could be more scary than that ?

[The Future Kingdom]

btw Guns don't kill people People kill people last i check guns can't fire themselves now and cars are sooo god damn easy to drive a monkey can do it

[Jocabia]

Also interesting, Kennesaw had a mass shooting (five people) and Penske's Kennesaw facility. Two died. Strangely enough, the gunman was NOT stopped by another armed civilian. He was, in fact, apprehended by police. Where are all the internet tough guys when you need 'em? If I've learned anything from the internet it's that if we just let everyone have a gun, these shootings could not possibly happen.

And, yes, it was just outside the limits, but people who own guns are still allowed to carry them. Gun ownership existed prevelently before the law in Kennesaw and has persisted. It exists heavily around Kennesaw as well. Certainly it can't be claimed too much gun control allowed this guy to get away with it.

[Nobel Hobos]

there may be logical arguments against banning possession of fire arms.
(and i'm not convinced i've heard one yet)
but there are none against banning totally their mass production.

You've got your daddy's old gun, haven't you, you bad hippy !

You don't like those young punks with their cheap plastic guns, but you want a grandfather clause for your old banger ?

This is only a guess.

[New Amerik]

btw Guns don't kill people People kill people last i check guns can't fire themselves now and cars are sooo god damn easy to drive a monkey can do it

And I think we all know here that monkeys can also fire guns....
Edit: And if cars are so easy to drive, why must we be forced to take classes and registration and get a liscence just to drive a car?

For that matter, why ban marijuana? Marijuana doesn't make people kill people. Ask a cop the last time he's been assaulted by a guy high on pot AND NOTHING ELSE. Then ask him when's the last time he's been assaulted by a drunkard.

[The Future Kingdom]

still if they ban guns they ain't taking mine who ever likes the ban on guns is just a retarded asshole that is all

[The Future Kingdom]

btw Guns don't kill people People kill people last i check guns can't fire themselves now and cars are sooo god damn easy to drive a monkey can do it

And I think we all know here that monkeys can also fire guns....
Edit: And if cars are so easy to drive, why must we be forced to take classes and registration and get a liscence just to drive a car?

For that matter, why ban marijuana? Marijuana doesn't make people kill people. Ask a cop the last time he's been assaulted by a guy high on pot AND NOTHING ELSE. Then ask him when's the last time he's been assaulted by a drunkard.

i been driving since i was 5 dude

[Jocabia]

still if they ban guns they ain't taking mine who ever likes the ban on guns is just a retarded asshole that is all

Probably a good idea to read the site rules before posting further. Just a suggestion, because posts like this one will get you into trouble.

[Ifreann]

btw Guns don't kill people People kill people last i check guns can't fire themselves now and cars are sooo god damn easy to drive a monkey can do it

And I think we all know here that monkeys can also fire guns....
Edit: And if cars are so easy to drive, why must we be forced to take classes and registration and get a liscence just to drive a car?

For that matter, why ban marijuana? Marijuana doesn't make people kill people. Ask a cop the last time he's been assaulted by a guy high on pot AND NOTHING ELSE. Then ask him when's the last time he's been assaulted by a drunkard.

i been driving since i was 5 dude

Good for you.

[Jocabia]

btw Guns don't kill people People kill people last i check guns can't fire themselves now and cars are sooo god damn easy to drive a monkey can do it

And I think we all know here that monkeys can also fire guns....
Edit: And if cars are so easy to drive, why must we be forced to take classes and registration and get a liscence just to drive a car?

For that matter, why ban marijuana? Marijuana doesn't make people kill people. Ask a cop the last time he's been assaulted by a guy high on pot AND NOTHING ELSE. Then ask him when's the last time he's been assaulted by a drunkard.

i been driving since i was 5 dude

On the roads and expressways?