Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world

[M14 Shooter]

Did you read what you sent. It contradicts your claim.

You aren't paying attention, as that does not contradict anything I said.
You just don't like the fact guns are used for self-defense an order of magnitude more often that to commit murder.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No it doesn't. Idiot. Read it.

Says he who has not read the source I provided.
Hint: See page 6.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Were you dropped on your head as a child? Those numbers mean nothing.

Other than the fact they demonstrate your nonsense is... nonsense... then sure.

 

[M14 Shooter]

See?

You avoided my question:
What "sacrifice" does this mandate, and how will said sacrifice increase that number?
And you'll avoid it again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

One only has to look at how other developed nations have reduced firearms crime and the firearm homicide rate to see how it can be done.

Really.
How did the UK reduce firearms-related crimes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why shouldn't every gun purchased in the US require a background check.

Simple:
The state cannot show probable cause - or reasonable suspicion - to justify the restraint imposed by same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why not register all guns.

Because it is impossible to soundly demonstrate the necessity for, and efficacy of, doing so.

 

[Abatis]

One only has to look at how other developed nations have reduced firearms crime and the firearm homicide rate to see how it can be done.

The nations typically pointed to for their long-standing gun control did not enact those gun controls to reduce crime. They were enacted originally for political purposes to keep certain segment of the population disarmed and unable to resist government.

Britain is a perfect example, even Blackstone recognized the true purpose of Britain's game laws was to keep commoners disarmed (no person without land bearing income, could possess an engine to take game).

That a compliant and subjugated people who have been forbidden to own guns for centuries don't shoot each other, isn't really all that noteworthy. Neither is that a condition in the people that can be reverse engineered in the USA.

See, the last time we cared what another nation thought about our guns, we shot them in the face at a bridge in Massachusetts.

.

 

[Flash]

Those who want to ban all guns do not live in the real world.
Those who fight all gun regulations do not live in the real world.

We need intelligent people, who understand the real world, to develop common sense gun regulations to stop the insanity of the gun culture in the USA

The stupid Libtards are not to be trusted with "common sense" because they don't have any.

The stupid "common sense" gun regulations were passed in New York.

A week after it was passed a decorated veteran was arrested because he had a 30 rd AR magazine in his vehicle. No AR, no bullets but he was arrested. There are millions of AR magazines in the US but yet he was arrested.

A little time later another veteran went to see his doctor about a little insomnia. Under the filthy ass Libtard New York "common sense" laws the doctor had to tun him into the authorities. A day later the jackbooted thugs came to his home and confiscated his firearms because he was a mental health risk.

There are many more examples.

Liberals don't have common sense and we can't trust them with our Constitutional Liberties.

 

[ElmerMudd]

It takes a good man with a gun to stop a bad man jay walking...

how true.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Prevention of a minor assault is not such a big deal.

Loss of lives by guns is a disaster.

I am still not seeing why you think that helps your argument.

If I have a gun and it stops an assault just by having it, that is defensive use. That is WAY better than any other situation, no? Nobody gets hurt, but the attacker is deturred simply by seeing the firearm.

 

[cnm]

And as I explained, because they are not a multi-culture society. And as I have explained, over half of all US murders are committed by black males. Take the people of color out of the mix and we will line up more closely to those in other all white or single culture countries.

You are such an ignorant, bigoted hick. NZ has around the same 'white' percentage of population the US has.

Your racism is just a handy excuse for your selfishness.

 

[cnm]

The nations typically pointed to for their long-standing gun control did not enact those gun controls to reduce crime.

Be that as it may, the fact is that firearm crime and firearm homicide rates are fractions of the US rate in those countries with more rigid firearm control. It works to reduce events.

But I fully accept other people's school kids are a bargain to those wishing to maintain easy access to firearms.

Apart from that, retaining an easy access to firearms has not helped the US people resist government oppression.
For instance, many people on this message board believe an election was stolen. A greater example of government oppression and tyranny can not be found in US history, yet what happened to the arms bearing patriots on this board and in the general US population when this outrage occurred? This happened.

So much for firearms as an instrument to resist government tyranny. Rather, they appear more to be used to look tough, talk big and shoot each other by accident and design.

 

[Abatis]

You are such an ignorant, bigoted hick. NZ has around the same 'white' percentage of population the US has.

Your racism is just a handy excuse for your selfishness.

That's some particularly amusing virtue-signalling prattle coming from a resident of a nation that has its own ethnic minority condemned as being irredeemably criminally inclined because of its vast over-representation as perpetrators of crime.

That so much of NZ's crime is caused by Māori and various biker gang syndicates of Māori and White backgrounds, would make me think you could identify with America's plight. Criminals aren't "normal" citizens and the well-intended legislation directed towards and dutifully obeyed by "normal" law-abiding citizens has no effect on criminals.

As you have seen, gang leaders have been quoted in your press openly refusing to comply with your bitch's gun confiscation and they seem utterly immune to and genuinely unencumbered by police actions.

That undeniable fact that gun control rarely impacts the criminal, is realized by the gun rights people in both NZ and the USA. For them it serves as the evidence that criminals don't obey gun laws which proves gun control in general is a useless misapplication of effort.

 

[Abatis]

Be that as it may, the fact is that firearm crime and firearm homicide rates are fractions of the US rate in those countries with more rigid firearm control. It works to reduce events.

And people who live in a desert rarely drown.

But I fully accept other people's school kids are a bargain to those wishing to maintain easy access to firearms.

Yes, it is all about choices and weighing societal values against governing principles. You look at the issue the way a statist authoritarian would look a it. I look at it from the perspective that it is the primary duty of government to preserve liberty and a citizen's duty is to refuse to sacrifice liberty for empty promises of safety from government.

Government possesses a myriad of powers to vastly reduce, even eliminate the criminal use of firearms in US society but those currently in power are making choices seemingly intended to upend society, allowing crime to flourish.

The rampant level of crime is then held up as evidence that government must be given more power over the citizens -- of course more "gun control", focused on the peaceable, law-abiding citizen -- in the hopes that restrictions on their guns will trickle-down to the criminal and lessen their impact on society. Personally, I think that idea, besides being insane, is philosophically and legally bankrupt and must be resisted at every opportunity.

Apart from that, retaining an easy access to firearms has not helped the US people resist government oppression. . . . So much for firearms as an instrument to resist government tyranny.

Are you suggesting the best way to resist government oppression, even repel tyranny is for the population to be disarmed, harmless and helpless?

My signature isn't just a snappy saying I like; it is as true a statement about force vs. surrender I could ever imagine.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Be that as it may, the fact is that firearm crime and firearm homicide rates are fractions of the US rate in those countries with more rigid firearm control. It works to reduce events.

You cannot demonstrate the necessary relationship between the low rate of firearms-related crime and the gun control laws in those countries.
That is, you cannot demonstrate "they work".

 

[ElmerMudd]

And people who live in a desert rarely drown.



Yes, it is all about choices and weighing societal values against governing principles. You look at the issue the way a statist authoritarian would look a it. I look at it from the perspective that it is the primary duty of government to preserve liberty and a citizen's duty is to refuse to sacrifice liberty for empty promises of safety from government.

Government possesses a myriad of powers to vastly reduce, even eliminate the criminal use of firearms in US society but those currently in power are making choices seemingly intended to upend society, allowing crime to flourish.

The rampant level of crime is then held up as evidence that government must be given more power over the citizens -- of course more "gun control", focused on the peaceable, law-abiding citizen -- in the hopes that restrictions on their guns will trickle-down to the criminal and lessen their impact on society. Personally, I think that idea, besides being insane, is philosophically and legally bankrupt and must be resisted at every opportunity.



Are you suggesting the best way to resist government oppression, even repel tyranny is for the population to be disarmed, harmless and helpless?

My signature isn't just a snappy saying I like; it is as true a statement about force vs. surrender I could ever imagine.

.

Abatis is one large bag of wind full of bullshit. He uses big words to attempt to articulate nonsense. The thinking of one who is paranoid. A person who is fearful of fellow citizens, but his guns make him feel invincible. A person who is fearful of the government, but his guns make him feel invincible. I hate to break it to you, Abatis, but all the guns in the world will not change the fact you are a paranoid, coward seeing danger where there is no danger. I am glad I do not live in you world.

 

[cnm]

That undeniable fact that gun control rarely impacts the criminal, is realized by the gun rights people in both NZ and the USA.

Notwithstanding our own ammosexuals' self delusions, because firearms are more rigidly controlled in NZ, thereby reducing firearms in circulation available to be obtained by criminals, the rates of firearm crime and firearm homicide in NZ are fractions of that of the US.

As they are similarly in other developed nations possessing both criminals and more rigid firearms controls.

Thanks for emphasising that obvious point.

 

[cnm]

Are you suggesting the best way to resist government oppression, even repel tyranny is for the population to be disarmed, harmless and helpless?

I'm suggesting that to resist government tyranny is a principal reason for easy access to firearms has been shown to be bullshit.

 

[cnm]

Yes, it is all about choices and weighing societal values against governing principles.

Absolutely. You accept that other people's school kids are an acceptable price to pay for your easy access to firearms. Your societal values follow those of most Americans, from what I see, where individual freedoms overrule societal benefit. This isn't rocket science.

The personal sacrifice of reducing ease of access to firearms is too great when weighed against other people's school kids.