This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
TBC
Obama gun ban
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
HEY LETS GO TO GOOGLE AND USE THE FIRST 7 ARTICLES NO MATTER WHO THE AUTHOR OR WHAT THE DATE.
Statistic from 10+ years ago are not relevant.
Using pro gun sources is biased.
Nice dismissal. Only half of them are "not relevant", even if they are. Did you even read any of the articles? Read them before you dismiss.
l2troll better
Post by
Haxzor
HEY LETS GO TO GOOGLE AND USE THE FIRST 7 ARTICLES NO MATTER WHO THE AUTHOR OR WHAT THE DATE.
Statistic from 10+ years ago are not relevant.
Using pro gun sources is biased.
Nice dismissal. Only half of them are "not relevant", even if they are. Did you even read any of the articles? Read them before you dismiss.
l2troll better
http://www.nationmaster.com/article/Crime-Rates-Around-the-World
last sentence "In overall crimes (the total of all mentioned crimes), US ranks the highest, followed by Germany, United Kingdom, France, and South Africa."
Australia may have more
reported
burglaries, but hardly any of them are successful and there is a tiny amount of burglars who arent arrested (usually one of attempts).
Post by
Dragoonman
HEY LETS GO TO GOOGLE AND USE THE FIRST 7 ARTICLES NO MATTER WHO THE AUTHOR OR WHAT THE DATE.
Statistic from 10+ years ago are not relevant.
Using pro gun sources is biased.
HEY LETS NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE LINKS THAT ARE UP TO DATE!
Seriously, your crime rates are increasing even with guns banned. And the statistics from the last 5 links are up to date, and are obviously worse than the 9-8 year old links.
Yeah, I used yahoo (I hate google) to look up statistics, but I read them before I just linked them. And I even search through the first two pages instead of just linking them in a row. You don't have to post that fast if it isn't going to contain the rest of your argument. I can wait.
And this thread is starting to degrade into a flame war.
Do not flame.
Edit: Where are the stats about the burglaries not being successful? I could easily say the same thing about the US, but most of our burglaries fail because people have guns, but I have no proof of that.
And I already said we have the most TOTAL crimes. Australia, UK, and NZ have more crimes per person than the US. Exponentially so.
Post by
executorvgk
seriously, you use comedians as an example?
did you even watch the video or did you just read Sakarazu's comment?
seriously, your going to ignore my entire post because of one video I linked which basically says: the kids who committed combine bypassed the gun control laws to gain access to some of their guns.
which is a proven fact?
I fail to see how it's relevant if the only thing really being said is a proven fact and it isn't even the comedians saying it, it's some guy they interviewed who is knowledgeable on the subject.
Now if you were to prove they didn't bypass any gun control laws for columbine you would have a point, so I fail to see how the fact that their comedians is relevant.
Post by
Haxzor
seriously, you use comedians as an example?
did you even watch the video or did you just read Sakarazu's comment?
seriously, your going to ignore my entire post because of one video I linked which basically says: the kids who committed combine bypassed the gun control laws to gain access to some of their guns.
which is a proven fact?
I fail to see how it's relevant if the only thing really being said is a proven fact and it isn't even the comedians saying it, it's some guy they interviewed who is knowledgeable on the subject.
Now if you were to prove they didn't bypass any gun control laws for columbine you would have a point, so I fail to see how the fact that their comedians is relevant.
Prohibition: Mind altering substances are different to guns. Already said.
Bypassing: There arent gun stores in Australia, no way to bypass the system.
Post by
executorvgk
Prohibition: Mind altering substances are different to guns. Already said.
Bypassing: There arent gun stores in Australia, no way to bypass the system.
you got me on the prohibition point.
If there's no guns then what tool do the murders use to cause murder?
Also if some high school students are able to get that kind of firepower what would stop the illegal trade of say handguns in
the states
Post by
Random0076
Prohibition: Mind altering substances are different to guns. Already said.
Bypassing: There arent gun stores in Australia, no way to bypass the system.
you got me on the prohibition point.
If there's no guns then what tool do the murders use to cause scuicide?
Also if some high school students are able to get that kind of firepower what would stop the illegal trade of say handguns in
the states
Assuming you mean "suicide", I still have no clue how murders use anything, let alone to cause suicide.
Post by
Dragoonman
Erm... Black market = illegal gun trading. It's pretty easy.
You have one jerk who wants money and sets up a business to smuggle guns into Australia by whatever means he possibly can, like boats for instance, and then sells those guns to criminals. This happens with mind altering substances as well... yeah, anything that is made illegal will have a black market.
Post by
executorvgk
Assuming you mean "suicide", I still have no clue how murders use anything, let alone to cause suicide.
that's just me failing horribly due to trying to multitask, I meant to murder
my bad
/facedesk
Post by
soccergenius
...I am not saying that guns act as a deterrent for crime, but they are a right granted to us to preserve our liberty in the face of any form of governmental tyrrany.
Am I the only one who finds this statement paradoxical? Of all the arguments for gun ownership and/or interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, I have never ever heard this before, well, not outside of fringe paramilitary militias who think the government is out to get them and fear of the new world order.
Actually, I've heard it many times and as I understand this is largely the reason that the 2nd Amendment was included into the U.S. Constitution in the first place.
I don't think it sounds like a fringe idea at all, when given context. The first 10 Amendments were written just after the U.S. had liberated themselves from (perceived) tyranny. When you understand the 2nd Amendment in context, it makes sense.
The US also didn't have a suitable standing army at the time and the federal government had to rely on the state governors to loan them their state militias, which they didn't always do. This 13 separate states vs 1 country mentality was one of the problems with the Articles of Confederation.
I'm also going to go out on a limb here and say that the 1st Amendment was put in to give people a means to address their government, besides of course being able to elect officials, rather than give them the right to own guns to they can turn them on their government if they need to.
If you could re-word this, it would be great, because I'm not following what you're saying.
Also, in case you were replying as a rebuttal to my post, I wasn't trying to make a counterpoint. I was merely giving context as to why the people that you perceive as fringe nutjobs say what they say.
Sorry for text pyramid.
Many people cite the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide for a citizen militia, forerunners to today's state national guard, which report to their state governors, not the president. This idea gets traction because at the time, when we were using the Articles of Confederation, we had a very very very small standing army because the federal government didn't have the means to fund an appropriately sized army (the fed govt couldn't just raise taxes on its own). For a good bit of time the federal government had to rely on state militias borrowed from the states to protect the entire country. The 2nd Amendment is seen by some as put into place to ensure the availability of the citizen state militias by protecting individuals' rights to own weapons for said militia.
The people have ways to influence and control their government through election and by exercising their 1st Amendment rights to press, petition, and assembly. Saying we should be allowed to have guns to protect us from our own government as the original intent of the amendment is silly and sounds anarchist to me. It makes no sense for the Framers to put in a mechanism for civil/revolutionary war in the Constitution.
Post by
Random0076
Assuming you mean "suicide", I still have no clue how murders use anything, let alone to cause suicide.
that's just me failing horribly due to trying to multitask, I meant to murder
my bad
/facedesk
I don't know how murders murder without guns. I didn't know murders could physically hurt people.
Post by
Dragoonman
Assuming you mean "suicide", I still have no clue how murders use anything, let alone to cause suicide.
that's just me failing horribly due to trying to multitask, I meant to murder
my bad
/facedesk
I don't know how murders murder without guns. I didn't know murders could physically hurt people.
Trololololo?
I didn't know murders could kill anything either.
I think he meant murderERs.
Post by
executorvgk
I don't know how murders murder without guns. I didn't know murders could physically hurt people.
I meant what tool is more commonly used in Australia if there aren't guns?
knives? bare hands? etc.
Post by
Haxzor
Knives are the most used weapons, but they barely ever cause death.
There will always be the odd case of shootings, but it is a very rare occurrence.
Post by
executorvgk
Knives are the most used weapons, but they barely ever cause death.
There will always be the odd case of shootings, but it is a very rare occurrence.
damn, compared to the U.S that's pretty good. It's still pretty odd that the gun shootings are low imo.
You wouldn't happen to know how the drug trafficking is in Australia would you, relatively speaking compared to the U.S or Mexico I mean
Post by
Monday
U.S is probably higher, taking into account it's proximity to Mexico and the northern South American countries which produce drugs.
Post by
Haxzor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates
also, drugs do make their way into Australia, but it's usually in small amounts. Boats are the easiest way to smuggle anything into Australia, but that's like saying K2 is easy to climb when compared to Mt Everest.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Asylu
The 2nd Amendment grants us the right to own firearms for the protection of ourselves, our families, and in the advent of either a war reaching our shores or the federal government waging war on the populous, to defend our civil liberties. And if you think that those things can not come to pass just remember New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The cops and the National Guard stayed couldn't be everywhere, and stayed out of neighborhoods that were suffering from the worst of the looting, raping and MURDERS. Did they care about the families that lived in those areas? Not really. Did they respond to emergency calls? Nope. And do you know what started to break up the gangs of looter/rapists/killers? Ordinary people with personal firearms. They took it upon themselves to defend their neighborhoods from criminals, and there are some of these brave people facing time in prison for doing so.
Is that right?
It should be every human beings right to defend their home, belongings, family and neighbors from those who would steal, rape and kill them. You could, in theory, do so with a butter knife but there is an old saying about such: Never bring a knife to a
gun
fight.
Ask yourself why.
I don't think I need to illustrate my point, do I?
The government fails at times of crisis to protect
all
of it's citizens from what it should. During those failures a well informed and armed populous can pick up the slack.
Post by
349490
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
