Please check my math on this one...

As we've already proven... the bad people are get guns anyway. So the only thing that the "pro-gun-control rhetoric" would have done, is disarm the lawful citizens, which in this case would have resulted in all being murdered.

Huge difference. I'm in favor of laws that punish WRONG ACTION. Like murder should be punished. But we don't live under the illusion that having a law against murder prevents it from happening. Instead, the purpose of the law, is that when someone breaks it, we deal justice. (or at least we should. Too often we think justice is forcing the relatives of the murdered victim pay taxes so the murderer can get free food, free health care, free shelter for life, or until he is paroled or escapes to murder again)

However no one thinks "well we have a law against murder so therefore it will never happen". But for some stupid idiotic reason, some morons think that having a law against having guns... will result in people not having guns. Total difference. And simply having a gun is not a "wrong action". I grew up in a house with guns, and I have had a gun in my home for years. No one can name a single person who has been 'wronged' by me or my parents having guns.

Again, guns are the absolute best possible protection for lawful citizens against those who break laws. So not only is a gun law not prevent guns being used in crimes, but it also disarms the people who follow the law. The very people you claim to want to protect, you are disarming in the face of armed criminals, who will have guns either way.

Wow. Ok so for years I've been told that Australia was this gun control utopia, and for years, people have been telling me how guns are so hard to get..... so I just assumed this was true, and looked at the failure of gun control to prevent violent crime, and basically a drastic increase in all crime.

Now... I find out that gun control, with billions spent destroying guns, and drastic increase in regulations, and licensing requirements, and all the rest of the crap you people have pushed for years....... Gun ownership is up above where it was before?

Does this not prove conclusively that the decline in suicides had nothing to do with gun control? Does this not prove that regulations and the like, haven't accomplished anything? The only thing you can cite that has in fact changed, is that crime is now drastically higher. What exactly would you claim gun control in Australia has accomplished other than wasting tons of tax money?

Um... kids used to go to school with their rifles and shot guns. Literally kids would get on the school bus, with their guns. In fact, crime was so low with everyone armed, that they would leave the guns on the school bus, parked in the school parking lot, while they were in school. The movie "The Patriot" was accurate to the time period, in that kids were handling guns all the time. Again, unlike guns, drugs don't have any real redeeming value. Guns do.

You missed the video dude. They have FOUND home made fully automatic guns... and they worked PERFECTLY. Watch the video. I've posted it three times now. They demonstrate firing the home made automatic sub-machine gun. It works great. I don't know where you get this idea that guns are hard to build. They are not..... (psst: guns have been around for 1000 years. The modern automatic gun has been around 100 years.) We're not talking rocket ships to mars dude. And it doesn't matter what the "average gangbanger" knows how to do either. All it takes is one guy that knows how to operate a lathe. Just like in the 1920s, when you ban alcohol, and people still want alcohol, there will always be someone with experience and expertise in making booze, who will see a prime opportunity to make some cash on the black market. Why would you think the same won't happen with guns? Some dude that hates his job at the machine shop, knows he can crank out 5 fully automatic guns a day with his home lathe, and make $1000 per gun?

Watch the video. At 45 seconds in, the police say they are finding numerous automatic hand-crafted guns. You can see the guns, and then they demonstrate the guns, which work perfectly. The police officer shooting the hand-crafted automatic gun, was not in fear for his life shooting it.

[video=youtube_share;0GPPxGX8pdA]http://youtu.be/0GPPxGX8pdA[/video]

Oh come on. Children in Afghanistan, run around with AK-47, and are completely lethal with them. No, I am not against training. But honestly, in all my years, there was one single gun that I wasn't sure how to operate. Beyond that one strange design, guns are not super difficult.

Yes, owning a gun safe will make it more difficult to defend yourself. Often you have seconds, literally seconds to either defend yourself, or get killed. You think a criminal is going to stand there and give you a few minutes to punch in your code? Hey excuse me, I need just a minute before you shoot me and rape my wife.

I'm against a license because of what happened in New Orleans, and what will happen again in the future. The people who had their guns licensed, ended up being disarmed by the police, even while roving gangs where shooting people in New Orleans after Katrina. The license didn't stop any of the gangs from getting guns, but it did allow police to confiscate guns from lawful citizens who were being abused by the gangs.

And again, the problem with all of these is that criminals are not going to follow any of your laws. All of these laws only effect lawful people trying to defend themselves.

Yes of course. Why is that so impossible for you people to figure out? If someone tries to kill you.... you either have a gun to defend yourself, or you die. Do you think you are "saving lives" by preventing criminals from being shot? Just so that only innocent people are killed? That is good in your world? If I thought that gun control would save lives, I'd be for it. In fact, in an earlier life, I was for it. I used to be a gun control advocate. Then I grew up, and realized that my mythical leftist hippy world, doesn't exist. In the real world, there are bad people. If a bad person wants to commit murder, the only question is, which one of you is going to die? The criminal, or the innocent? You choose! It's not a "both / neither" question. It's an "either or" question.

That also makes my point. We have all these laws on prescription drugs... and how's that working for us? Again, you can't stop it. If criminals who break the law, want to sell prescription drugs.... they are going to. Black market: Market that doesn't follow the law. Drug control, doesn't work any better than drug ban has worked. It doesn't work.

I'm actually in favor of completely doing away with the prescription drug system. It does not prevent the abuse that it was intended to prevent, but it does drastically increase the cost of drugs in the system. No positives. All negatives.

- - - Updated - - -

You lost me. Explain?

 

No such thing has been proven.

Really? Do you seriously believe that, if it were totally legal to kill other people, there would not be an increase in murders? Hell, half the people out there would be willing to kill anyone in front of them at the grocery store, just to shorten the line at the checkout.
I guess that if there were no regulations on food quality, there wouldn't be a decline in food quality either?

Actually, they've had a decrease in murders, despite a growing population, and zero mass shootings.
You seem to believe that gun bans are the only form of gun control. This is the equivalent of saying apples are the only kind of fruit. Gun control is about regulation of firearms, not simply getting rid of them altogether. Switzerland has some of the tightest gun control in the world, but almost every household has a firearm BY LAW.
You should really become familiar with what you're arguing against before attempting to make sweeping statements about a topic.

Dude, you are literally comparing one facet of today's society to a society from 240 years ago... I believe history is important to recognize, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't acknowledge that society today is VERY different.

Which would be a whole lot less access than a society in which there are more licensed gun dealers than supermarkets.

And if training in the use of firearms were limited to loading and pulling the trigger, you'd have a point. If training involves actually being able to hit a point target rather than spraying everything/everyone in an area, or safety precautions to limit accidental/negligent shootings, your point is invalid.

How often? I've never been in that situation outside of military service, nor have any of my immediate friends or family. Since you brought it up, how many times have you been in a situation when you had "literally seconds to either defend yourself, or get killed"?

And yet here I sit having this conversation with you... which I guess proves that in all my civilian life, there has been nobody determined to kill me. Why do people hate you more than me?

Something not being 100% doesn't mean it hasn't got a benefit. If you have a migraine, you might take an asprin. You know there is a chance the asprin won't help, or that it'll only take the edge off the migraine rather than make it go away completely, but something is better than nothing... This is no different.

Your argument makes my point. Right now, it is easy for anyone to obtain a firearm. Yet we still have a high crime rate in comparison to every other first-world democracy.

 

You seem to be making up stuff. Did I ever say that it it were legal to murder people, that murder would not increase? No. I said that no one thinks that because we have made it illegal to murder, that therefore murder will not happen. But people on the left seem to think that if we have gun control laws, that no one will break those laws and get guns.

Well their certainly wasn't in the past. If you killed someone with bad food, they put you to death by hanging. Otherwise, poor quality food, often didn't sell. Again, the free-market pretty much worked towards higher food quality. This is historically verifiable.

Um.... totally false? Monash University shooting, Oct 2002. Huan Yun Xiang walked into school with a total of 6 guns, all loaded. And yes, murders alone have declined, which BEFORE the gun ban they were already declining. So saying something that was already happening, was because of a gun ban, is idiotic. Just stop with the stupid.

Now look at all the other crime statistics. Which way have they gone? (hint: drastically up, reversing the prior downward trend)

This is another dumb argument. I do not care what form you choose, they all don't work. Again, you yourself pointed out prescription drugs. That hasn't worked has it? So what difference does it make? Nothing, move on.

How many advocates of gun control, mean to require all people have a fully automatic assault rifle in their homes? Almost none. So basically you are whining because I assumed the default meaning of Gun Control.

Hey, if you want to pass a law requiring all people in our country, to be armed with assault rifles, I for one, am for it.

I would agree with that. In the 1970s in fact, the majority of house holds had guns. The crime rate in the 70s, was a fraction of what it is today, with only 30% owning guns. Yes, today is different. We need to move in the right direction from here, and it's isn't with few guns, and more innocent people getting killed by armed criminals.

But it's not. Again, same thing with alcohol. In 1920s, there were an estimated 100,000 speakeasies in New York alone.... just New York! And the raise of the Mafia types, that organized millions of small black market distilleries.

And you think this can't happen with guns............ why? Do you realize that when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, the people there were almost completely unarmed? Then the CIA gave over designs for AK-47s. Suddenly throughout the middle easy, millions of 'black market' gunsmithing operations were setup, and soon thousands of hand crafted AK-47 emerged, and were so prevalent that they were being sold for a few live chickens. The CIA didn't run those operations either. It was cave dwellers in Afghanistan, building these AK-47s.

Once the black market becomes profitable, the flood gates open. This is exactly what has happened in Australia. Again, another video.
[video=youtube;Tj5Zr5LTEFg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj5Zr5LTEFg[/video]

Australian under cover reporter, found multiple people, that were willing to get him any type of gun he wanted, for as little as $100 Aus. That's $90 USD. You can't buy any gun for less than $200 here in the US. In fact the very opposite of what you claim has in fact happened. They can get guns faster (no waiting period for the black market), and cheaper.

Oh please. As if guns are hard to aim. Really? This is your big insightful idea?

How often? So if a life and death situation only happens once in a lifetime, then it doesn't matter? Think about that. Thankfully never, but if it does happen, I can actually do something, instead of being a sheep to the slaughter. Again, this is such a dumb dumb argument. If a life and death situation happens only once in a life time, then you shouldn't have a gun, and should instead simply die? Dumb stupid arguments. Try something better.

Another dumb argument. Is this best you can come up with? Really? Are you suggesting that since you haven't had someone try to kill you, no one has? Because we have these nifty things called "news papers" which show otherwise. Or are you so completely self centered, that as long as you don't have that happen, to hell with everyone else?

But it doesn't. There is no benefit at all. Zip. Zero. Zilch. None. You assume there is, but I am positive there is not. Right now I know a half dozen people that could sell me nearly any pill I could want. Best of all, they are getting those pills off of the government. So you are paying the tax bill, so they can sit at home without a job, and make money selling off pills.

Yes, we do. And right now it is even more easy for criminals in Australia to get guns. And gun crime is on the rise in the UK too.

 

Dude there's not enough proof in the world to change his opinion. I would spend time working an extra job to get more money to take back the senate if I was you...it would be more productive

 

I disagree. I think that laws that REDUCE the occurance of murder are a benefit, even if they don't wipe it out entirely.
I assume you brush your teeth periodically, even though brushing your teeth doesn't 100% disinfect your mouth?

So you're saying that people naturally gravitate towards foods that are less likely to cause them harm... On the surface, this sounds obvious.
Explain McDonalds. While you're at it, explain how the average consumer would be able to tell which frozen TV dinner was less likely to contain toxins if there were no regulations forcing companies to list ingredients.

Regulations limit the depths people and corporations can sink to in their quest to make a buck.

You're right, I forgot about one incident where two people were killed, in the last 15 years or so.
How many incidents have we had in the last year alone?

"all the other crime statistics" that you've sourced where?
Can you illustrate that occurances are outpacing population growth?

As for prescription drugs, do you believe more people or less people would abuse them if we removed all regulation?

You do not get to dictate the "default meaning of Gun Control".

I agree! It's with more skilled "lawful owners", and fewer guns in the hands of criminals and people with mental disorders.
So, how would you suggest we determine who the criminals and people with mental disorders are before selling them guns?

Seriously, your big evidence is "A Current Affair"? They can go out and buy a gun within 20 minutes? They talk about being able to find any drug or handgun yet they showed not one instance of any mention of any specific drug or firearm. All they got was "yeah yeah mate text me tomorrow" from a handful of moron teenagers who were blowing smoke.

Do you ever go target shooting?

Dumb and stupid? You certainly have a way with the written word...
So you have a firearm just in case there's an opportunity to use it "once in a lifetime". In the meantime, there's a daily risk (no matter how small) of an accidental or negligent shooting, and an additional daily risk (no matter how small) of the gun being stolen - in which case you become part of the problem that's allowed a gun to fall into criminal hands.
Why not walk around wearing an NBC suit, just in case some crackpot from North Korea or Iran launches a nuke? At least you'd just look ridiculous and paranoid, instead of looking paranoid and endangering others.

The fact is that only a tiny percentage of people have ever had anyone seriously try to kill them. That's exactly why those stories are newsworthy in the first place. Exposing yourself and the people around you to any level of danger just because you're scared of the remote possibility that something might happen at some undetermined point in the future is just ridiculous and irresponsible.
That being said, I have no issues with people who negate this danger by ensuring they are very proficient and secure their firearms appropriately. That should be made the standard.

The fact that you are friends with at least a half dozen unemployed drug dealers does not speak highly of the area in which you live or your judgement. That aside, something not being 100% still doesn't mean it hasn't got a benefit. I used the example of taking an asprin for a headache, I've used the example of brushing your teeth; I'll try another one that might appeal more to your 'demographic':

When you use the toilet, you wipe your backside with toilet paper even though you know that it isn't as effective at getting your backside clean as taking a shower would be. Since toilet paper may not be 100% at removing all traces of feces from your backside, would you say that toilet paper is a total waste of time?

According to "A Current Affair", media that's well known for sensationalising stories... Try one of the most respected media outlets in Australia: the Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit.../guns-policy-saving-lives-20130114-2cpny.html

 

Not comparable in any way. Those laws not only don't reduce a single murder, but disarm the lawful citizens. So murder is even safer to commit, because criminals know their intended victims are completely helpless. Better still, if they do defend themselves with a gun, they are not legally allowed to have, but they can actually sue the victim for being shot.

Sure. But first answer my question. Please list here the names of people who died from McDonald or TV dinners. Oh wait, you can't because there isn't a single body with a toe tag "Cause of death McDonalds" or "Cause of death TV dinner".

Here's the problem. You claimed that without regulations quality of food would decline. Then you cited what you claim is low quality food which already exists under the regulations? Doesn't that prove your regulations don't work?

When I'm talking about quality of food, I'm talking about serious health issues. More people have gotten E Coli poisoning from regulated controlled organic farmed Spinach, than from all the fast food joints across America combined.

No they don't. Not even close. If anything, regulations allow more people and corporations to sink lower than they could ever do otherwise, by working the system of regulations. Enron would never have survived as long as they did, without regulations. In a truly free-market, the market would have dumped them at least 10 years prior.

Again, irrelevant. They started with a lower crime rate than we did, to begin with. Moreover, guns are easier to get in Australia, than they are here in America. The difference is the culture, and enforcement. Not the availability of guns. The main point is.... gun control has failed to accomplish anything.

The Australian Bureau of Criminology.

Again, they had a lower starting point than we have. Yet things have gotten worse, not better.

Neither. I think it would stay the same. The people who are going to abuse those drugs, would do so. Those that would not, won't. India is a perfect example. There was a BBC report on India's street drug markets, where people sell drugs by the pill on the open street. You can get literally any drug you want, for less than a dollar. I don't see that the drug abuse rates are that much higher in India than here. And drug death rate, is actually a tad lower.

I never said I did. I said that *IS* the default meaning. If you ask anyone on this forum "Does the phrase 'gun control' mean reducing people having guns, or requiring they have guns", the vast majority is going to say reduce guns. I'm not dictating that, everyone else is. Now stop being stupid about it.

We can't, anymore than we can make a law the prevent people from getting prescription medications. Fake IDs are not rocket science. Straw purchases are not rocket science. Home gunsmithing isn't rocket science. There is not one thing you can do, to stop one person from getting a gun, and using it to commit an illegal act.

Yes, and it is conclusive evidence. Sorry, but that's the truth. Black market guns are discovered constantly in Aussieland, and the other videos proved that. Basically, your argument is that everyone in the video, from the authorities, to the guys on the street, to the professionals at the shooting range, and of course the reporters, are all lying. Sorry, but you have to make a better argument than "Everyone on the planet is lying but me!".

Every week except recently because of the ammo shortage.

Yes. Absolutely. Again, the criminals are going to get guns, whether they find my gun and steal it, or not. But they likely won't find it, because I also have CCW, so I normally have it with me. Spare me your stupidity. Thanks.

Yes, tiny percentage, so who cares if they die. Again, I expose no one to any danger period. In fact, if someone else is attacked by a criminal, I will be able to help them. Unlike someone defenseless, who does nothing, because there is nothing they can do.

Fail. I never said I was friends with them. I said I knew them. I don't get to choose who my co-workers are, and I am a low skilled, low wage worker. That's simply what I am. So yes, I meet some crazy people in the low-skill low-wage jobs that I do.

<< Staff Edit ~ Remove comment directed at other user. Focus on the topic, not each other. >>

 

It's a simple concept, not sure what the problem is...

 

What laws are you talking about?

You don't believe obesity increases heart disease and diabetes? You don't believe that anyone has ever died of these?

Nope, just proves that corporations are willing to go as low as the regulations will allow - and the regulations are not very high.

And how many people have died of EColi in comparison to heart disease?
Anyway, are you saying there should be more regulations to further minimize the EColi cases stemming from organic spinach?

Let me give you an example of why I disagree:
After the Exxon Valdez catastrophe in 1989, when oil gushed from a ship ripped open on an Alaskan reef, Congress demanded that all oil tankers have double hulls. You would think the change would have been almost automatic after such a disaster. But the oil industry was so powerful that Congress gave it until 2015 (25 years) to comply. Even now, single-hulled oil tankers like the Exxon Valdez, which now operates as an ore carrier in Asia, can ply U.S. waters.

That was just one example of how the industry&#8217;s influence has slowed or stopped regulations that might have cut into profits. Earlier this decade, the oil industry successfully lobbied against efforts that would have required oil platforms to have remote control shut-off devices as backup systems in case of spills. The systems, which cost about $500,000, are widely used on rigs in Norway and Brazil.

When the federal agency charged with supervising offshore oil and gas production proposed stricter oversight of safety procedures last year, citing 1,443 incidents and 41 deaths over eight years, the industry said the new rules were too confusing. The agency backed down even though its safety data showed "no discernible trend of improvement by industry."

When BP, which was leasing the Deepwater Horizon rig, assured regulators last year that an oil spill at the site was "unlikely" and any impact on marine life would be "sublethal," the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service gave it a waiver on an environmental impact study, one of up to 400 waivers the agency issues each year in the gulf. In 2004, MMS had performed its own analysis of the impact of a leak from the site. Among its conclusions: less than half a percent chance any oil would reach Florida's coast.

Please tell me again how less regulation means higher performance.

Australia &#8211; Ranked at No. 25 in comparison of number of privately owned guns in 178 other countries, about 15 out of every 100 Australians owns a firearm. Annual homicide rates involving firearms in the country is relatively low, spiking in 2009 at 0.1% per every 10,000.

United States &#8211; The United States is ranked at No. 1 for civilian gun ownership in comparison with all other industrialized countries. There are approximately 88.8 firearms for every 100 people in the U.S. In the past 14 years, the year with the greatest number of homicides caused by a firearm occurred in 2006, when 10,225 people were killed by the use of a gun.

Can you provide a link illustrating that their issues are even remotely close to ours?

Yup, a single "mass murder" of 2 people since they implemented gun control is WAY worse than the the 5 mass shootings they had in the preceding dozen years...

Right, because if drug abuse was rampant in India, you'd definately know about it...
In order to misuse an inanimate object, you have to gain access to it. Just assuming that criminals can magically produce any such object by the sheer nature of being criminals is childishly naive.

Those are the only two things it can mean now?
Couldn't it mean, putting rules in place to minimize the number of criminals and loonies that have access to guns?

Can you go purchase some C4 right now? Probably not, even though you could cook some up in your kitchen with the appropriate know-how and a trip to home depot.
You think that level of control can't be attained with firearms?

"The authorities"? You mean the reporters working for 'a current affair'?
I suppose everyone at the Sydney Morning Herald was lying too, right?

And you don't think a person who can hit a target consistantly has a better chance than a beginner of defending themselves with a gun?

Yup, criminals can make guns magically appear. And nobody could ever take yours because it's constantly on you.... unless they use their magic teleporting gun to get the drop on you before you are aware they are a threat, and just take yours.

My guess is you'd prevent that by either spotting them coming with your xray vision because you're ALWAYS on the alert, right hero?

Right, so you're a hero looking for an opportunity to shine... Your maturity level and grasp of reality (or lack thereof) is becoming clearer.

You indicated these people would sell you illegal drugs. Generally, people have to trust you somewhat in order to commit a crime in your presence.

<< Staff Edit ~ Remove comment directed at other user. Focus on the topic, not each other. >>

 

you only need to worry if the shoe fits...............does it?

 

It's not that hard to figure out. I know that if the positions were reversed, and I was the one who was backing up the gun-control position with "don't you think" and "well toilet paper and blaw blaw blaw", and you were the one posting links, posting articles, posting statistics, and posting videos all proving that gun control doesn't work.... I know I would have changed my position.

I know this because I used to be a gun control advocate, and I did the same thing "don't you think fewer guns is better?" and blaw blaw blaw. The problem was, I did the one thing that leftist can't stand. I started thinking for myself. People said, look at the evidence yourself, and so I did. I discovered the evidence didn't support my position. So instead of going into brain dead partisan hack mode, I simply changed my position to fit the overwhelming evidence.

Now why you people are incapable of doing that, reflects only on you. No me. You can say all the dumb unsupportable statements you want, and you can mindlessly repeat moronic non-examples, and ask questions that don't apply to the argument, and then say "it's so simple!"..... but if it's simply wrong, it doesn't matter how simple it is.

It's still wrong. You are still wrong.

 

It's that you're arguing with an ideologue. For ideologues, doctrine trumps reality. They call it 'standing on principle' and use 'wtilitarian' as an insult.

 

Yes dozens.


After the ban, homicides drastically increased. Not only that, but there was a long term trend downward prior to the ban. The only way the UK has reduced homicides in recent years, is by drastically increasing law enforcement, typically by having cameras all over the place.

I would be hard pressed to find many regulations that are positive. What would you cite as a positive regulation?

The problem with these, is that they do nothing. You can print out a 40 round magazine using a 3D printer. You can mail order parts to make a 30 round magazine clip. Again, the only people that are going to be limited by a magazine limit, are law abiding people. Criminals are not going to obey that law, and they have far more sources for illegal magazine clips than lawful people do.

Same with back ground checks. First, I have a problem with the premise. If we have released these criminals, then they should have done their time, and we shouldn't be punishing them any further. If they are still a risk to society.... then they should have been released to begin with.

But even then, America's most wanted are not going to submit to a background check anyway. They already buy their guns off the black market as it is right now. When I go to the gun shop, or any place that sells ammo, they ask to look at my ID. Are you telling me that a criminal can't get a fake ID? Have you seen identity theft number recently?

So again, it isn't going to work. My point is, why are we wasting our time with something that doesn't work?

There is no evidence anywhere, that this idea works. None. Not in the UK, not in Australia, not in Washington DC, not in California, not anywhere. Canada even had at one point (I don't know if they still do) a national gun registry. The government of Canada, itself, admitted the national gun registry did absolutely nothing about crime. Not a thing. Not one single crime was solved by the system. Again.... it doesn't work.

If you can show me where it works, I'll look at it.

 

Any law that exists to try and prevent other laws from being broken. I call it the Baptist Preacher mentality. Instead of just teaching that you should not see really bad movies... instead we make a new rule, don't go to any rate "R" movies. And then make a new rule, you can't go to any PG movies, because there could be a trailer for a rate R movie. And the finally, just don't go to movie theaters at all, because there are advertisements for bad movies that you might see if you go there.

Or instead of teaching that people should dress themselves modestly, they teach you have to wear a skirt, and it's got to be down to the knees, no wait down to the ankles, no wait covering the feet and trailing a foot behind you. And men have to wear a shirt.... no wait, a button down shirt.... no no a suit and tie... no wait, they have to wear a tuxedo every day!

Similarly, instead of just focusing on "Don't murder", and exacting punishment for people who violate others, we have to make a million laws and rules, and regulations for every aspect of society, so that they won't in theory be able to break the other laws. And that never works. It simply never works.

Of course. I had a roommate in 2009, who came home with two chocolate cakes. She went to one store, and found a cake there, and bought it. Then she went to another store and found a cake there, and determined that she would buy both cakes, and compare them so she would know in the future where to buy cakes from.

She came home and ate both cakes. Then she would lay on the couch, and watch biggest loser, and weep about how she wished she could be like them.
(I am not making this up)

A year after she moved out, we met up for lunch, and she told me she was diagnosed with diabetes. Shocking....

Kicker is.... she never went out to eat at fast food joints. Didn't like it.

Point being, quality of food isn't the problem. It's individual choices of people. Regulations are not going to change this.

No, they are specifically using the regulations to benefit themselves. All regulations generally benefit large companies. Enron is a perfect example of this.

How it compares is not relevant to the point. You claimed that regulation prevents this stuff, and yet we have examples where it has not. Are you claiming there is no regulation on spinach?

I assume you know that Exxon Valdez had a double hauled bottom, and that the damage penetrated both hauls? Point being that even if it was a fully doubled hauled boat, it would have done nothing.

I am not entirely sure of what system you refer to, but I assume you mean the Acoustic remote shut-off system. All underwater oil wells have blowout preventers. These devices are normally activated one of three ways. One, they self activate if the device itself detects a problem with the well. Two, they have a hard wire cable to the surface, and can be activated by the controls on the platform. Finally, they have a dead-man switch. Meaning if connection with the surface is lost, it automatically activates.

There is yet a fourth method, called an acoustic remote switch-off. This method that some blowout preventers have, is where an acoustic signal is transmitted from a boat, and is received by the blowout preventer, which tells it to shut down remotely.

At least with respect to the Deepwater Horizon crisis, this would have done nothing. The blowout preventer had already activated from the dead-man switch. The acoustic remote shut-down would have done absolutely nothing because it had already activated.

Right, and oil is one of the most regulated industries in the country. I do find it ironically sad, that over sixteen thousand deaths of unarmed innocent people every year, is perfectly fine with you, as long as they don't defend themselves with guns, but 41 deaths over 8 years... well now, that's grounds for regulating an entire industry.

Now these examples, are exactly why I'm against regulations. In both cases you mention, the regulations you support would have done absolutely NOTHING for either. Not a single thing of would have changed. Zero positives.

But those regulations would have done three things. First, it would have drastically increased the cost of building blowout preventers, and ships. This would have greatly benefited the corporations that build either of them. So rich people would have gotten richer. Second, it would have made it more difficult for new companies to compete on the market, because it's more difficult to get the money to build more expensive products. Thus it would have reduced competition to existing large companies. Rich people would have gotten richer. Lastly, it would have increased the price of oil to the citizens. All costs are always passed on to consumers. Poor would have gotten poorer.

All negatives. No positives. Regulations would have only benefited the rich, at the expense of the poor.

And what would a impact analysis done exactly? Wasted even more tax dollars, on something that would have resulted in nothing. Of course they issue hundreds of waivers every year. You elect these idiots into office, that pass all these regulations, that drive business away. Then the only businesses that stay, are the ones that have the money to lobby for waivers. Again, making the rich richer, because all the average people trying to get into the market, don't have the money to lobby for the waivers.

You elect these corrupt officials, and then complain they are making money off your regulations? You don't see the connection there? Government loves regulations. Regulations give politicians waivers to sell to the highest bidder. The politicians are playing you. They know these regulations don't help anything. But it does give them fat pocket books.

You are the one who said regulations have all these benefits. You prove that first. So far, you have two fails.

If you weight 150 lbs, and I weight 300 lbs, and you start a diet plan. After a year you weight 200 lbs, and I still weight 300 lbs, would anyone be so stupid as to claim that your diet plan works? It doesn't matter what my weight is. The only person whose weight matters to whether your diet plan works, is your weight. If your are 50 lbs fatter than when you started your diet, then your diet plan doesn't work. My weight doesn't mean jack.

But you are doing the same thing with Australia. They started without gun control, with a much much lower crime rate than the US. After they passed gun control, crime went UP. It's still lower than the US, but that doesn't matter. It was lower BEFORE they passed gun control. The only comparison that matters, is what Australia's crime rate was before, and after gun control. The US crime rate is completely irrelevant to this discussion of whether gun control in Australia worked or not.

Um... no the reverse is true. In the 11 years following gun control, they had 5 mass murders. In the prior 11, they had 3.

If you have information on India, that I don't know about, by all means share it. But according to the CIA and India's government, the drug abuse problem is comparable to the US, and by some estimate marginally lower.

Nevertheless, the facts are they do get those objects. I have posted numerous links showing what I say is true. All you have provided thus far is sarcasm.

Wouldn't that be "reducing people having guns"?

LOL you keep making my point, and then claiming I'm wrong.
Obviously if I can go make some C4 myself, then why is it a stretch to think that someone couldn't make C4 and sell it? And that's exactly what has happened with guns in both the UK and Australia. So yes, clearly the evidence suggests what I said is right.

They interviewed a member of the Australian government, who said exactly the same thing.

I doubt it. When I was a tiny tot, I went to a shooting range for summer camp, and I hit the target on my first shot. Similarly, when I got my CCW, there was a tiny little girl there, who had never shot a gun before in her life, and she also hit the target on her first shot.

Besides, when you are confronted by a criminal, you are not thinking, ok two hands, correct grip, match up sights, control breathing, to line up a perfect shot. Instead, you pretty much point at the bad guy and fire.

Of course the hope though is that I won't have to. Criminals confronted with armed civilians typically run. The hope is that simply showing the gun will drive the would be criminal away.

Not me. I've never used an illegal drug in my life. In fact, I don't even drink alcohol. Never a drop. Don't smoke either. I never did understand the idea of working hard to earn money, only to roll it up and burn it in your mouth.

But you know... I don't know what to tell you. I'm here in the real world, where people do this stuff. Why people admit this stuff to me, is beyond me. But if you have been so isolated, in your perfect little world, I don't know what to say to you. It does explain why you have such rosy views of gun control making everyone sit around camp fires singing kumbaya my lord.

Hey, I can't help it that you have resorted to this level of conversation. When someone becomes an idiotic jerk, I call them out for it. That's how life works. You act like an idiot, and become a jerk, you get called what you are acting like. It's a simple concept, not sure what the problem is...

 

Dude, have you posted a single link during your conversation with me? What "posting links, posting articles, posting statistics" are you talking about?!
The only think I've seen you purchase is a video from "A current affair", which is hardly a credible source.

My position is based on common sense, as well as statistics from other first-world democracies. If I remember correctly, you were under the impression that guns were completely banned in Australia (so much for you being a font of factual knowledge).

- - - Updated - - -

Did I say I was worried, or did I just point out some (unsurprising) hypocrisy?

 

no. You failed miserably.You should be ashamed of the way you twist words, not only mine, but others as well.......typical Lib attack. Demand answers then redefine them to attack. Context baiting is still baiting.
I answered you queries and you still cannot accept the fact that I don't trust government, not just your god's adminstration.

 

Hang on, someone claims to have posted sources when they obviously have not, and I'm "twisting words" when I point it out?

As for your mistrust of the government, you've routinely referred to THIS government in particular. Now YOU move the goalposts by saying you meant ALL government and attack me?

Are you still wondering why I generally don't take your arguments seriously, or is it now obvious?

 

Logician0311,

So what?

I really don't care if firearms are more dangerous than automobile, or less dangerous, or the same - it really makes no difference to me. I have a Constitutional right to own a firearm - a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Firearms are far safer today than they were 250 years ago!

 

Funny that you only quote four words of the 2A...
The point was just as indicated in the OP, to end the false analogies.

As for firearms being safer today than 250 years ago, that depends entirely on whose hands they are in. I'd rather face a criminal with a musket than one with a M249, any day.

 

............real weak reply............... and yet, here you are picking a fight..............
You asked three questions, of which I answered. Now you call me a liar because I did not agree with you. You are trolling with this rely.
My Rights are My Rights. How I use them and what I use them for are none of your concern, as long as I'm not messing with your Rights, personally. I think that's why they call them Individual Rights, and your Rights are yours. Do with them what you will, but you do not have the Right to tell me how, when, or where I use them and the same applies from me to you.
My reply has been and will continue: I do not trust government, especially this administration. What is it with you and your government trust? Is it your position that you don't trust this government, or this administration?

 

It appears you're harassing this poster. You shouldn't do that.

First of all, no one is on the witness stand here, so if you're gonna be rude, no one is obligated to answer you.

Having said that, I'll be glad to respond to your questions (anyway).

This administration has breached the public's trust. It forced obamacare on us when the majority the public doesn't want it.
They lied about Benghazi and blamed it on a video when clearly it was a terrorist attack.
They mislabled the Fort Hood attack as "workplace violence"
They failed to close Gitmo after having promised to do so.
They used the IRS to suppress the activities of tea party and other liberty oriented groups in their efforts to participate in the presidential campaign.
They used the NSA to spy on citizens without a warrant.

That's just for starters. I've been around for a while in this life and there's no comparison to other administrations. This administration is the most secretive, the most corrupt, and the most dishonest of any I've seen in my lifetime.

You don't get to make demands of other posters. Civility should be maintained.

I don't think he's obligated to go back and research all your posts, sir.

Another personal attack? That's inappropriate, and off topic.


.

 

Repeating a question that has been avoided is not harassment.

You'll have to illustrate what, specifically, is rude about the question "You've stated that this government in particular is untrustworthy. I'm asking you to substanciate this by illustrating what this government has done that is more diabolical than the previous government."

 

Let's try this again.
I disagree with your assertion that pointing out that someone has made a fallacious statement is equal to "picking a fight".
As for your question, I trust the government as much as it is viable to trust any group of total strangers. At least I know they've passed a background check.

 

I'd rather you face a criminal with a musket too, your last thought....Damn I wish I had a modern firearm