Remember one absolute fact about gun grabbers.

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by logical1, Feb 17, 2020.

  1. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,283
    Likes Received:
    9,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The American public overwhelmingly supports sensible firearm legislation.

    Would you support any popular measures to confirm that individuals wishing to amass arsenals do not pose a danger to the public, their families, or themselves, or do you oppose all such verifications?
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  2. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,283
    Likes Received:
    9,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there any sensible legislation to prevent dangerous individuals from amassing arsenals you would support, or do you advocate surrender to the current level of firearm carnage?
     
  3. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    2,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have any facts to back up that false statement?

    Totally unneeded, you really have no idea of what you are proffering.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    13,204
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah...so you know my whole narrative based on pointing out the US govt doesn’t go around mass killing its citizens? That there is funny stuff
     
  5. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    And the facts supporting your contention are ?????

    So you know for a fact Police deliberately turn a bind eye to sexual assaults committed (and presumably other crimes committed by Muslims?

    There were 13,008 Muslim prisoners in England and Wales at the end of March 2019, about 15% of the total jail population. (aprox 30% were foreigners arrested for crime while in the UK ) plus there is an unspecified rate of foreign conversions.

    See the thing is I don't the the UKs police forces got the memo. Apparently they are still arresting Muslims - go figure!

    Your putting the car before the horse. Russia and China etc had totalitarian governments come to power and then the confiscations started. Japan has a democratic government and firearm restrictions there are almost universal but it is still not a totalitarian government. So who exactly is doing the cherry pickings here?

    See above.
     
  6. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    326
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The most commonly used definition of mass shooting is h one used by the FBI i.e. 4 four more victims (including the shooter).

    From a Universe of Sydney 2018 study. In the 18 years up to and including the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, there were 13-gun homicides in which five or more people died, not including the perpetrator. In the period up the the study being issued in 2018 there were been no such incidents.

    This uses 5 people but the stats wont change much using 4 . FYI there was one recent mass shooting (4 people dead) in Darwin in 2019 using a pump action shotgun that was not handed in during the amnesty. That's the most recent I could find.

    To summarize;

    1) the law had been effective in dealing fairly effective with the one type of crime it was designed to deal with (mass shootings. ) It was not designed to have significant impacts on other types of firearm offense although it may have had some impact on other types of gun crime e.g. The types of illegal firearms preferred by criminals are certainly more expensive to buy now - which, in part reflects availability.

    2) There are more registered firearms in Australia now than there were before the ban - just not the same types of firearms as was the case previously. So there is no evidence supporting a covert agenda to remove firearms from the hands of the general public. (Or if there was all I can say is that it has been mismanaged on a monumental scale!)

    3) The fact that they were in this country under the specific conditions that were relevant here at the time does not means the same policy would automatically work in other jurisdictions under other conditions. That is a matter for consideration and debate in those jurisdictions after taking into account local conditions.

    That said repeated attempts by some posters to argue the ban here was ineffective, unnecessary (because mass shootings were declining anyway etc) or part of a 'conspiracy' to disarm Australian civilians etc are just wrong. As much as it may offend certain peoples world views/belief systems admitting it worked here is not the same thing as saying it would work everywhere.

    There is current debate (not a word used often in totalitarian counties BTW) around protections of religious rights they may relate to free speech and around government access to encrypted social media data.) Nothing has yet been decided regardless of what decisions are made those decisions will ultimately be subject to review via the democratic process.

    Have you met our government and opposition? They can't 'condition' their own members into agreeing with government policy, let alone the general public
     
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2020
  7. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,283
    Likes Received:
    9,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    35,285
    Likes Received:
    13,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is, or was your position: "The US govt has not gone around mass killing its citizens. To suggest otherwise is asinine."

    The Waco massacre demonstrated that you are wrong about that.
    In fact, the USG has a long history of slaughtering civilians, especially unarmed civilians - including Americans.

    Before Waco the USG had generally avoided attacking armed civilians. The President and AG ordered militarized federal police to attack armed civilians and paid a heavy price for the mistake.
    Hence all the efforts to disarm American citizens.
     
  9. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    13,204
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Waco in fact is not example. Nor does the USG have any history of mass killing citizens as evidenced by the fact that you can only name Waco as a lame example. You are dismissed accordingly.
     
  10. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    35,285
    Likes Received:
    13,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My Lai, Kent State ... . Think.
     
  11. Levant

    Levant Active Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    512
    Likes Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    It doesn't matter what the American public overwhelmingly supports. If you listen to CNN, the American public overwhelmingly supports the killing of white straight men... They don't get to do that, either.
     
  12. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    34,283
    Likes Received:
    9,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't follow CNN, and am surprised that it is promulgating such an antic notion.
     
  13. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I really don't think that's true. Most of them are afraid of guns in the hands of people who aren't police or military, including themselves. They're not typically the people who grew up hunting or keep a loaded gun in their glovebox.

    The idea of prohibiting guns to solve the gun problem is as ridiculous as prohibiting drugs to solve the drug problem. It's not an effective solution, and just introduces more problems.
     
  14. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,005
    Likes Received:
    6,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The number of firearms that any particular individual may own is of neither relevance nor importance, as an individual is still limited to utilizing only one firearm at a time. Thus making the subject and discussion of multiple firearms an effort at distraction from the main point.

    There is presently no legislation, either in the united states or abroad, that is capable of preventing dangerous individuals from gaining access to firearms at all. The latest mass shooting in the nation of Germany is evidence of that fact.

    So long as supposedly dangerous individuals are allowed to remain free in society, they will be able to gain access to firearms, through whatever channels are necessary, and do so with great ease.

    The only way to put a stop to such is if such individuals are removed from society all together, and kept out of society for the duration of their natural lives.
     
    Levant and Ddyad like this.
  15. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    35,285
    Likes Received:
    13,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They do tend to be rather fact challenged - even when they actually know the facts.
     
  16. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    35,285
    Likes Received:
    13,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have insisted that the USG does not murder civilians even after I have given you several examples of such atrocities.

    All governments are killing machines. The USG is no exception.
     
  17. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    13,204
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The USG is not going around mass killing citizens. The examples you gave were not situations where the govt went in with intent to just mass kill for the sake of just killing off citizens. You know this so stop being silly.
     
  18. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    35,285
    Likes Received:
    13,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The USG sent tanks into a wooden structure filled with women and children. You write that off as an accident?
    The USG has a long history of murdering civilians. History reveals that the mass murder of civilians is a defining characteristic of human governments including democratic governments. Democratic governments do seem to be far less blood thirsty than the other models, but they also slaughter civilians.

    "… from 1900 to 1987 governments MURDERED almost ***170*** MILLION people ... far exceeds the 34.4 million battle deaths ... from all...wars fought during the same period.... democratic governments were responsible for only about one percent of the twentieth century's death toll from democide...."
    THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, "The World In Numbers," "Murder By The State," Vol. 292 NO. #4, 11/20. (*** mine) The Atlantic's source: "Rummels books on the subject - particularly "Death By Government" (1994) and "Statistics of Democide" (1997).
     
  19. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    13,204
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You mean the stand-off after a gun battle ensued with the people holed up in the house?
    We're talking about USG...but I see you're trying to change the subject since you're in a losing battle. I've proved my point....my work is done here :D
     
  20. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    2,846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where the government fired the first shot.

    Your surrender is acknowledged.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  21. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    35,285
    Likes Received:
    13,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you really justifying the use of tanks against a compound full of women and children? Have you thought that through?

    Was Kent State a "gun battle"?
     
    Levant likes this.
  22. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    13,204
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hahaha....sure thing.
     
  23. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    13,204
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. But it also wasn’t a case where the govt simply just wanted to go on a killing spree for s h i t s and giggles.
    This is quite silly. The OP was referring to govts that killed of hundreds of thousands to millions of its people. You’re stretching to find examples of the US mass killing its citizens, which you have failed to do.
     
  24. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    22,005
    Likes Received:
    6,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The government of the united states is indeed killings its own citizens. The sale of tobacco products is evidence of such. These products have been proven to cause cancer and other illnesses, and have no constructive benefit to justify their existence. Yet their sale and use remains legal, because the government collects a tax on their sale. Holding the life of a private individual is of a lesser value than the tax it collects on a pack of cigarettes.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  25. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    13,204
    Likes Received:
    3,574
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Hahaha...what a joke. Allow me to clue you in on one important detail...smoking is a choice. No one is forced by the govt to smoke. Dumb people choose to smoke on their own and know the risks involved with that dumb choice. Sorry, but this is on those who stupidly choose to smoke, not the govt. But nice try.
     

Share This Page