Is this the thought process of an old lady packing heat for her self defense? Sometimes I wonder if people like you ever think before you write.
Your logic doesn't enter the scenario early enough... You only begin the scenario at the point when an armed criminal is looking for a target... how about starting earlier and minimizing the liklihood of the criminal being armed in the first place? - - - Updated - - - Sorry, did I say "you" in the general sense, or was I addressing a specific person? I think the answer to that question clearly outlines where you can shove your feedback.
No, you don't get to circumvent logic by assuming against the evidence that gun control actually disarms criminals relative to the law biding person. Criminals don't obey laws and don't care what it takes to obtain a gun so they won't be disarmed by gun control.
Like I said earlier in this thread, less guns doesn't make sense or make you safer. Statistically speaking you'd be infringing on the rights of 99.9% for the actions of 0.1% which I find deplorable. Really gun control laws don't work and would be like throwing paint on a crumbling building thinking that stops it from crumbling. People try to prop up tragic stories as if it were the guns fault, but in reality it's the cultural mindset that is at fault, not an inanimate object. The Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right, not a dispensation of some bureaucrat in DC.
Stupid question, But....If they could curb the mental health issue befor it got bad enough for people to commit murder with any weapon would it not matter if there were more restrictions on guns? Lets say john is haveing mental problems at an early age and they treat it, He becomes a productive member of society and all is well, HE goes out to buy a gun and becomes a hunter and lives life happily. (Great Right?) now lets say John dosnt get the help he needs, gets picked on, commics small crimes, buys a gun knowing he cant own one (illegal purchase) or steals one and commics a crime with it. (Bad right) So lets say scenario one plays out he is treated and helped then does it matter that he owns a gun? Would the real problem be solved as to why he had mental issues and not the fact that he owns a gun? Also why do anti gun people always refer to a weapon as a penis extension? I never understood that.
Cowards rely upon demeaning others. Sex is usually the weapon of choice in an attempt to degrade anyone, especially when used against women. It typifies a lack of cohesive thinking by applying their emotional disadvantage towards other men. Transference of blame. Easier to picture you as a defiler of women than bring attention to their own "short" comings...you know, munchausen by proxie syndrome
If the debate is whether or not gun control will affect criminals, let's stick to that topic. For example, using a firearm to murder... Doesn't it seem relevent to you that all the mass shootings in Europe (where gun control is prevelent) for the last 20 years don't add up to the accidental shootings in America last year? One of your pro-gun compatriots was kind enough to list them out recently...
Ok, it sounds like you have a great solution there.... As long as you can do two things: 1) demonstrate how the government can identify people with mental/emotional issues BEFORE they act on them, and 2) demonstrate that the government mandating psychiatric treatment for certain people who have yet to commit a crime wouldn't raise headlines in conservative media such as "Government mind control program in full effect", or "Obama attempting to brainwash the public". Here's a link that explains the theory: http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/13951/1/Teaching-Psychology--Defense-Mechanisms.html You'll find the relevence under the "Over compensation" section which says "Over compensation is another defense mechanism that we encounter in popular culture often and that has become a household term. Essentially over compensation is when we 'make up' for something we perceive to be lacking by going overboard in other areas. The most famous examples of this are when those with flashy sports cars or a large collection of guns are said to be overcompensating for a small penis. Sometimes there is truth in this, other times there is not."
Your insistance that "gun control doesn't work" doesn't make that statement true. It works in most other first-world democracies. That being said, "gun control" doesn't necessarily mean "gun banning". The Swiss, for example, have guns in every household - but significant (government funded) training in their use as well as national registration.
It is true, gun control doesn't work anywhere. There is and will always be violence and murder. That is a fact and any intelligent person can understand that a 100 percent gun bans won't stop violent crime or murder, your focus on a small percentage of the tools available to commit these crimes is ludicrous. It doesn't work in other first world democracies and you are being prejudiced and disingenuous because you know full well that gun violence still occurs and that other means of violent deaths are accomplished without a firearm. I can't believe you used the swiss for this argument.....guns in every household equals less violent crimes...way to make your point LOL. The government where I live requires training for concealed carry licensees and their crime rate is lower than the general public. All without any registration for any weapons Fail on all points.
Sorry didn't want to quote it all typing from my cell . So from your own quote it says it is sometimes thr case sometimes not wouldn't this be a dumb reason to say it regardless? It's like saying soldiers only follow orders because they are too stupid to goto college, just cause it can be said dosnt make it true. (I was told this when I contemplated joining the service didn't go because grandfather who raised me became ill) some soldiers might be but others aren't so a broad statement such as that wouldn't be worth repeating would it?
Also look at how the places with the most strict gun control laws have some of the biggest problem (ie LA, Chicago, NYC, etc). Also, like I said gun crimes are statistically small and most gun owners do not commit crimes and making more laws will do nothing since criminals don't follow the law to begin with.
Wait, are you really saying "you can't stop all murders, so you shouldn't stop any."? Some people will always choose to speed, so why bother having speed limits, right? Again, Switzerland is a first-world democracy with gun control and a negligible crime rate associated with firearms. Same with Australia... The number of deaths from mass shootings throughout Europe in the last 20 years don't add up to the accidental shootings in the US from just last year, so their gun control definately has an impact... Wow, that's incredibly stupid... I don't agree with gun bans either, but not all CONTROL is a BAN... The Swiss have mandatory government (military) training, all firearms are registered on a national level, and ammunition (at least for military-grade weapons) is only available at ranges.
Ok, let's address one fallacy at a time: Banning guns is stupid, I agree. Banning guns in a city - which has no borders or customs officers to prevent people from transporting them in and out of the controlled area - is both pointless and stupid. Assuming that all gun control means banning is equally stupid, as is comparing a local city-based legislation to a national legislation. If you want to see whether NATIONAL gun control legislation works, try looking at other national programs (like Switzerland or Australia). Gun crimes are statistically rare... So are airplane hijackings, but I still have to take my shoes off every time I go through the airport. Break & Enter offences are statistically rare in my area, but I still lock my front door when I go out. I understand locking my door won't make it impossible for a criminal to get in my house, but there's no point making it easy for the b@st@rds. Imagine if people had to display a gun license in order to purchase a weapon, and obtaining that license required a background check, psych evaluation, passing safety courses, and 20 hours of firearms training on a range. The average gun owner would be less likely to have a psychotic break and shoot innocents, they would actually know how to use their firearms, and there would be fewer accidental shootings. Imagine if private sales required the same paperwork as purchases from licensed vendors... Police trying to track down a weapon's owner would actually be able to find the CURRENT licensed owner, rather than the guy who intially bought the gun 12 years ago. It would instantly make straw purchases for criminals difficult, as well as making it difficult for criminals to obtain weapons from private sales. Imagine if it were necessary to obtain liability insurance for firearms, and the insurance costs would be lowered/negated by undertaking regular sessions at a range, having a gun safe, etc. This would ensure gun owners' skills stayed sharp, while encouraging people to take precautions to ensure their weapons can't be stolen... None of this is banning. None of this takes your guns away. It's gun CONTROL, not gun BANNING.
And I think that is stupid too, but then again, flying is not a part of the Bill of Rights. But airport security and locking your door is not the same as gun control. Gun control laws only affect law abiding citizens and limit our abilities to protect ourselves from those uninhibited by the burdens of laws. Imagine, the government keeping its nose out of my business. The 2nd Amendment didn't have any fine print next to it.
as I have shown in other threads, there are 550,000 - 6,000,000 unregistered firearms still in Australia. That puts their population at 5% unprocessed criminals such much for gun control as you would have it. But I cannot help to wonder why so many citisens wouldn't register their firearms if it was so safe. Maybe they don't trust their government either.
Nope I am saying your fallacy of using registration/control/limits/whatever won't stop all murders because the tool isn't the problem, The intent of the evil person is, if you don't get that then you just don't understand. Thanks for making my point, No matter how many laws we have about speeding....seems we always have speeders eh? Gun control In Switzerland is that everyone should have one not they should be registered which refutes your lost cause argument that registration is effective. Smoke and mirrors eh? http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html I just gotta believe you don't even understand your own argument eh? Talk about a stupid argument.....see above
If I found a source that said the number of people in Vietnam was somewhere between 500 and 5 million, would you be impressed by the accuracy of the information, and confident that the source had a clue what it was talking about?
Hang on, are you seriously saying that a solution to reduce murders shoueldn't be implemented unless it is guaranteed to STOP ALL MURDERS? I guess are current gun laws haven't done that either, so what kind of change do you suggest? I'm sure all drivers would slow down if we got rid of speed limits... said no one, ever. Actually, you're half right. Their laws say that ever citizen should have one, and that all firearms in Switzerland must be registered to the national level. Kink of kills the whole "registration leads to confiscation" thing, right? By the way, did you really provide a link that says the UK's gun control doesn't work because they had fewer gun crimes 113 years ago without gun control being in place? That's moronic considering that the few guns they had in 1900 were nowhere near as effective as those in existance today, and they were expensive enough that most people didn't have access to them anyway. Yeah, because "control" and "ban" are totally synonyms.... not.
i have posted this before in several other threads. It comes from their [Australia's] government resources. Go find it yourself. It appears you've become somebody's lapdog.............defending their honor ain't worth the time to acknowledge their existence. Starting to travel in packs now? That is simply cowardice. I stand alone requiring no one to "get my back" in here. Still having issues with those visions of yours?
Let me get this straight, you want to post a claim that is so vague that it has no impact on the current discussion, then you want me to go find where you got it? That's hardly a compelling argument... especially considering the only information I could find from an Australian government website quanitfying the number of unregistered firearms is here: http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/crime-profile-series-fact-sheet/illicit-firearms This site claims there are approximately 260,000 unregistered firearms in Australia... which is about 3,015,000 fewer than the average of the range you claim from a source you can't be bothered to name... Fail. I have no idea who you're talking about, especially since its usually me fending off the same old tired, poorly thought out pro-gun quotes from multiple people at once.
At yet Mexico has a homocide rate much higher than the USA. Why is that? Guess making guns illegal does not work so well afterall. I find it interesting how progressives are always advocating for more population control and abortion. So, how is more guns not a good thing? The murderers still get punished, but we have less people. And criminal gang members shoot themselves dead before they can wreck havok on society.
