Despite Australian gun ban. Illegal market flourishes

Tell that to the parents who lost their kids in SandyHook or the 6 kids who lost their Dad yesterday in San Bernardino. That's the saddest excuse I've ever heard. Hopefully if God forbid your loved ones are killed senselessly the stats will make everything ok.

 

Gangs, drug dealers, criminally violent people.

These are not "gun owners", as none of them legally own guns.

Gun owners are people who legally acquire their guns, teach their families to respect and safely use them, they are the ones who go through the hoops and pay the fees to have the RESPONSIBILITY of legally carrying a concealed weapon.

The reasons those guns were bought LEGALLY is because NICS is a total failure, because the liberals keep trying to put guns in jail and violent felons on the street, and everyone wants us to hug a Muslim.

The fact that you ADMITTED that those 8 gunmen legally bought weapons means that the government is inept, and you foolishly want them to be responsible for even more complicated systems of gun ownership?

The country is a disgrace that people are obviously paid to come and make attacks on honest americans, and because too many are held thrall to politically correct bull(*)(*)(*)(*) to do anything meaningful.

 

Guns were bought legally b/c the NRA and Congress shoots down ANY gun restrictions. Are you nuts?

Do you know what's going on in the UK and Australia? Do you see how they have almost no gun homicides? Do you understand that when there's less guns, there's less deaths?
It's unbelievable people are so stupid in the USA after all the bloodshed in front of them day after day after day and they STILL.....STILL don't see 300 millions guns as a problem.
It's literally mindblowing. We deserve the shootings b/c we're too stupid.

 

Ok lets revisit your earlier statement.

So let me see if I understand you correctly.

What you're saying is that we have criminals and people with documented mental health problems LEGALLY acquiring weapons. Hm. Don't we already have laws to prevent that? Don't we already have NICS which is SUPPOSED TO PREVENT THAT FROM EVER HAPPENING?

Why yes, we do.

So please explain how Congress and the NRA is supposed to fix that? Implement an even more complicated system when they can't make the simple NICS system work? Genius.

Actually the countries with the highest violent death rates are the countries with the lowest gun ownership rates. I know I know, I hear you thinking "but those are 3rd world countries". Screw them right? I mean, they're THIRD world, it's to be expected in places like that.

I love when people bring up Australia and the UK.

Are we only worried about gun homicides or do all deaths count? I'm going to go on the assumption that it's lives you're worried about, and not just gun deaths, because that would be incredibly stupid.

Go and add up the number of deaths by mass killings in the same time span both before and after Port Arthur. If you do, you'll see that the number is almost exactly the same. I think the difference is +1 if I remember correctly. Way to go gun confiscation.

How about overall crime, rape, etc? Guess what? Big explosion of both, in both the UK and Australia.

I'll pass on trading one gun death for three stabbing deaths, thanks.

Nearly all of our violence comes from the drug wars, minority violence, and exploding Muslims.

Our legal CCW holders who go around strapped all day shoot fewer people than the police, and are orders of magnitude less likely to illegally kill someone than your average, non-CCW citizen. Counter-intuitive right? I know, I sympathize.

 

Argue from emotion much?

- - - Updated - - -

This is, of course a lie, or abject ignorance..
You are clearly unfamiliar with CA gun laws, the most draconian in the country.

 

Not an 'explosion' of rape but more women actually reporting sexual assault as the term 'rape' was reclassified. The stigma of being raped was also removed and marital rape moved from the bedroom into the courtrooms.

Nothing to do with guns, just a sign of the times for women's rights.

 

All of which happily coincided with the gun grab. Convenient.

 

Ummmmm no. It's been progressively happening since the 1980s.

Show me a link where rape in Australia spiked in 1996-97.

 

Let's just agree to cut to the chase here.

I'll post some stuff showing my point, you'll post some stuff saying "but we started counting unwanted touching in the same category as gang rape", we'll go back and forth for a bit....but then I realized.

I don't really care enough to talk about Australia's problems. It's your country, you figure it out.

Fact is, your guns were confiscated, your crime spiked, then started going down, just like the rest of the world trend. In the US, gun sales and CCW licenses went through the roof, and our crime also continued to steadily go down.

Your country doesn't want guns? Fine. I hope you never need them, or have some kind of national emergency where you will have only your crickett bat to defend yourself with.

Good luck.

 

Emotion is an invalid point of discussion and debate. It is what gives rise to the notion that society must do something, anything, anytime some crisis occurs, in a desperate effort to prevent a similar crisis from ever occurring again. It is the mindset of react now, ask questions later. It is a knee-jerk reaction that causes far more problems than it solves. Such thinking brought the united states into the Iraq war under the helm of George Bush. If you did not support the war in Iraq, then you should not partake in the mindset responsible for it in the first place.

 

Fact is your assertion is fellatious. A black market in guns may exist, but the going rate for a $300 Bushmaster is around $30,000 pricing all but the best crims out of the market.

 

Right.

Because criminals won't want to break into houses, murder every occupant, and steal weapons worth $30,000 dollars each.

 

And precisely where are you getting your pricing information?

 

It's irrelevant.

He was trying to say that if guns suddenly became rare, they would be more valuable, therefore criminals couldn't afford them.

Like criminals buy guns anyway, instead of stealing from hard working men and women who actually earn their money.

It was obvious he didn't spend more than 10 seconds trying to think that one through.

It's basic supply and demand. It's what fueled prohibition violence, it's what fuels drug violence, and it's what would fuel gun ban violence. Some people never learn anything from history.

 

riiiight, just like those black market drugs are priced too high, pricing the lil guy out of the market. More emotional drama.

 

It's funny that he thinks guns suddenly being hugely valuable will decrease crime isn't it.

If heroin cost $1 a bag how many would be selling it, stealing it, or killing people in order to obtain it?

 

Beyond which he ignores the fact that a potential buyer, lacking sufficient funds to illegally acquire a prohibited weapon, could simply murder the one charging such a price, take it for themselves, and keep their money.