namelesstavern.net

so you're basing the opinion of an American conservative website with a history of lying and putting it's political agenda before sound journalism against the Australian Journal of Public Health Policy's statistics? jesus christ

i've had this debate a thousand times. i posted the first link that came up, if you want to see crime stats regarding gun bans look into it yourself. australia and the uk both have more violent crime, burglaries, mugging etc... since they instated laws preventing people from defending themselves.

ok, i will

and you'll be wrong

and i hate to sound like mindia, but the nytimes is hardly a non-biased source for gun control debate.

why's that? because they quote reputable sources like the Journal of Public Health Policy? which i'm about to back up with the Australian Bureau of Statistic's findings?

i've had this debate a thousand times too and i'm getting tired of liars and people that are too lazy to inform themselves


here's the last couple years in the UK

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10 ... 0chap2.pdf

http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09 ... 9chap2.pdf

here are the 1997-2003 figures resulting from the UK gun ban:

source: http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb703.pdf page 3

here's australia:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... num=&view=

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... endocument

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf ... endocument


unfortunately i don't see a big comprehensive chart for australia so you have to look at it year by year

falling crime across the boards except for spikes in theft and bicycle thefts in britain and *gasp* blackmail in australia. with a small 2% (which means it essentially is a negligible difference) increase in murder in australia for one year and in robbery for another year, while all other crime significantly dropped

the most interesting part is that the british publishing is a combination of police reports and victim surveys. so considering the population and the authorities all say crime rates are going down, i don't know where you or your conservative un-sourced links find the basis for lying about an increase in violent crimes

these two countries have some of the lowest gun-related violence rates in the world

statistics also will show you that most people that own a gun never get a chance to fire it or get it ready in most burglary incidences so don't give me that tired old shit about not being able to "defend yourself" either

i bet you didn't know that the UK's police force is mostly unarmed, too, and that they and the population want to keep it that way

It's interesting to note that both Britain and Australia are surrounded by... ocean. It's far easier to control a banned item from entering your country when the only entry points are shipyards and airports. Even then, smuggling and corruption are there, but on the whole it's easier to enforce the law.

Unfortunately, all gun laws in the U.S. are particularly unenforceable, due to the porous land borders. This is a country that has had prohibition of alcohol (and failed), prohibition of drugs (continues to fail), and is failing at keeping already-illegal firearms from pouring into the country.

It's quite clear that these unenforceable laws end up doing more harm than good, no matter how good the intentions.

Smuggling, corruption and organized crime always fosters whenever anything is banned. This development serves to rapidly raise the price of the banned items, which then flood the criminal sellers' coffers and allow them to buy more power and influence (more corruption).

Moreover, since you cannot stop the smuggling of illegal guns, the *only* way to purchase them is through illegal means. Who is far more likely to purchase an illegal gun? Criminals in the first place. Except now, once they've acquired them, they can be assured their victims are completely disarmed and powerless.

Prohibition (of generally anything) almost always has the opposite effect of its proponents.

totally true, and it's easy to look at the alcohol prohibition or... weed for evidence

and personally i like the story of a local barista at an Allan Bros. coffee cart that shot and killed a robber a few weeks ago and is now on paid time off for as long as he likes. i'm not arguing for some crazy ban like UK or Australia, but people that can't get in to community college or the Army shouldn't be able to buy a glock with a 33 bullet clip. im just sayin...

Exactly

You want a rifle or shotgun for hunting? Np

Fully automatic machine gun? I don't think so

Tikker wrote:Exactly

You want a rifle or shotgun for hunting? Np

Fully automatic machine gun? I don't think so

Nah, you should be able to hunt with a Dillon minigun.

Tikker wrote:Exactly

You want a rifle or shotgun for hunting? Np

Fully automatic machine gun? I don't think so

Why? Because it can be abused?

That's such a poor basis for more bullshit regulations enforced by the government.

Why do you need a machine gun

Just cause someone says no?

because ARE FREEDMS

Tikker wrote:Why do you need a machine gun

Just cause someone says no?

ya pretty much. there's definitely no logical reason to own something like that

There's "no logical reason" to do a fuckload of things we all do on a daily basis, or more.

The point is that no one should be telling me what the fuck I can and can't do. I'm not a criminal.

The law dictates if you're a criminal or not. If you have a gun the law deems inappropriate you are a criminal.

Stop being a crybaby about your guns. You don't need them.

Bummer that I missed a gun debate.

reasons for owning assault weapons in 1791:
1. our brand new govt is too weak, and the british might pwn us
2. americans loyal to the british might rise up and pwn us
3. we can form a militia to back up our army in case 1, 2, or 4 happens
4. other countries might pwn us
5. if our govt = assholes, we can pwn our govt

reasons for owning assault weapons in 2011:
1. your penis is too small
2. you're a criminal
3. you're a fuckin loon
4. you're retarded and the neocons have you convinced it's an issue
5. you fail to understand what the 2nd amendment is really about

You know im not a righty and im not a criminal either. I like to shoot and I live in a bad spot. In december I had to pull a weapon on a drunken gang after breaking up a fight on christmas. They didnt like me getting involved so they tried to storm my house and attack me and my ex. I dont see the problem with owning firearms if you dont act like a jackass with them. Also I think extended mags in pistols are kind of silly since it messes up your ability to conceal it but im not to keen on 5 or 10 round mags in rifles. We both know that legal owners arent the problem with guns so why take the guns away from us? We all know that the war on drugs fuels a lot of gun crime so why dont we start there instead of taking away more rights from people?

what rights? no one wants to take your guns. we just don't think people that get denied from the army and kicked out of a community college for being crazy should be able to turn around and buy a concealed weapon. don't you? that's really the only point of this argument

fully-auto weapons are already illegal anyway right? so wtf you guys even talkin about them for

just because i think your big rambo guns are stupid and a total waste of resources in every aspect doesn't mean i give a shit if you own them or not, provided it's proven you're psychologically stable enough to do so

FUlly auto are not illegal you just have to jump through a lot of hoops and meet a lot requirements to own one. I dont want loons to have guns either but seeing as im a good boy I should be allowed to own whatever FIREARMS I want if I can afford them and if we pass new gun controll laws in our country that isnt going to be the case.All new gun controll laws would do is hinder responsible people from going about thier hobbies of shooting and collecting it would have no bearing on weather or not criminals and crazy fuckers would get thier hands on one. The problem is with so many people in our country shit like this is going to happen from time to time. Look at it this way if old dude in AZ didnt have a gun he coulda went suicide bomb style or Tim mc style and killed a whole lot more people. If you look at it that way his extended mag doesnt seem so bad. Your a lot more likely to die in a car accident than get shot to death , and if you got a pool look out those are way more dangerous to children %wise than a gun in your house.

Spazz wrote:All new gun controll laws would do is hinder responsible people from going about thier hobbies of shooting and collecting it would have no bearing on weather or not criminals and crazy fuckers would get thier hands on one.

that's exactly what they would be for is criminals and crazy fuckers. they'd have NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU STOP TRYING TO DEFEND YOURSELF FOR NO REASON JESUS CHRIST I HATE TALKING TO PRO-GUN PEOPLE

Have gun control laws stopped criminals and crazy people yet? How many gun laws are on the books allready?Crazy people arent sposed to have guns allready and yet they still seem to get ahold of them how do you propose that we stop crazy people from having them while still letting decent people own whatever they want ? . I hate to use the slippery slope arguement but each time a new round of gun control laws get passed we get closer to not being allowed to own them while it has no effects on crime. Im telling you right now if a new law gets passed it wont be something as simple as no crazy people are allowed to have guns. It will come with an assault weapons ban , mag restrictions ,caliber restrictions silly thumbprint scanners that might get you killed when you need it and worse.

i just think it's silly for guns other than hunting shotguns (rifles? i have no idea what they're called) to be available for the average joe shmo to purchase anyway. WTF is the point of them? when do you ever actually NEED a machine gun or even a handgun? why would you need a gun for anything other than hunting? i dunno, i guess i just really don't like guns in general and don't see the need for someone to own more than one or two for hunting purposes.

I think ive explained about why you need a handgun about a billion times over the years now. If you live in a bad spot they come in handy. HUnting is ok but my passion is shooting. The term your looking for im sure is assault rifle wich if you cant tell me anything about shows that you have no opion to stand on when it comes to judging them. Let me put it to you like this All you really need is one pair of shoes one pair of pants and a shirt. DOes that help you see the diff between want and need? While your talking about hunting rifles also keep in mind the modern bolt action started as a military weapon as well. A lot of hunting rifles now use new technology and why shouldnt they. All things advance but guns should stay a century behind ?

I don't really see why killing things better is something that needs to advance with technology.

Your gun boner is the problem with the world. A society obsessed with guns is why there is so much gun violence.

Also, someone who uses a gun for the first time is not a criminal until they do it. I never understood how people could say gun crimes are only committed by criminals. Duh, it's a crime.