Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

it´s not 70% buy illegal guns. it´s 70% of crimes where guns were used included firearms importet from the US.

Its not the availability that is the issue, but rather what Tiny said in his post right below yours. Enforce the laws you have against crimes and illegally owned guns better..P

- - - Updated - - -

And a completely dysfunctional government run by cartels.

And that is the real issue.

[TZucchini]

It's called the last two plus years of anti-gun rhetoric you've been posting.

You call it anti-gun rhetoric. I call it pro-gun regulation.

After all, I've been arguing for more restriction and regulation. Not a complete banishment of firearms.

So again, do you have any evidence?

So, you really don't give two shits about firearm violence and crime, you just want to soothe yourself?

I've already made arguments as to why those restrictions would reduce firearm violence. You can continue to ignore them if you'd like.

Canada has what you want, and 70% of their gun crime is committed with smuggled weapons. Oops.

Are you attempting to compare the United States to a different country? I remember someone lecturing me about doing just that.

Can't remember who told me it was bad though. Oh yea, it was you. Hypocrite.

Citing studies that were conducted in other countries is just ridiculous.

PRE 9-11 has stopped making points. He's just Kermit flailing around linking irrelevant studies and crying about science denial when people point out how absurd it is to claim a study from another country has anything to do with the United States.

[TwoNineMarine]

You call it anti-gun rhetoric. I call it pro-gun regulation.

After all, I've been arguing for more restriction and regulation. Not a complete banishment of firearms.

So again, do you have any evidence?




I've already made arguments as to why those restrictions would reduce firearm violence. You can continue to ignore them if you'd like.



Are you attempting to compare the United States to a different country? I remember someone lecturing me about doing just that.

Can't remember who told me it was bad though. Oh yea, it was you. Hypocrite.

Fact is we will never agree on what is a 'reasonable restriction'. Which is why this entire debate is rather pointless. But it is rather amusing to watch some of the bickering.

[Tinykong]

You call it anti-gun rhetoric. I call it pro-gun regulation.

After all, I've been arguing for more restriction and regulation. Not a complete banishment of firearms.

So again, do you have any evidence?

Again, it's the last two plus years of anti-gun rhetoric. You want to repeal the 2nd amendment and implement a de facto ban on anyone who doesn't fit your arbitrary "requirements" while ignoring that those regulations are not proven to work.

I've already made arguments as to why those restrictions would reduce firearm violence. You can continue to ignore them if you'd like.

Because it worked in Australia, right?

Are you attempting to compare the United States to a different country? I remember someone lecturing me about doing just that.

Can't remember who told me it was bad though. Oh yea, it was you. Hypocrite.

I knew you'd try to make this filmsy comparison. Just like you did with the "deleted post" failed jab. Bwahahaha.

I'm not comparing anything. I'm pointing out that Canada has exactly what you want, and 70% of their gun crime is committed with smuggled weapons. Clearly, it doesn't work in Canada. If you want to prove it works here, you've got a lot of proving to do.

[TZucchini]

Again, it's the last two plus years of anti-gun rhetoric. You want to repeal the 2nd amendment and implement a de facto ban on anyone who doesn't fit your arbitrary "requirements" while ignoring that those regulations are not proven to work.

I want to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to make restriction and regulation possible. If ownership levels remain identical, or even increase, I have zero problems. There's no legitimate reason as to why firearms, as a consumer good, need special treatment, let alone an Amendment in the Constitution.

Because it worked in Australia, right?

That's a very small piece to a very large puzzle. Fact is, I've presented dozens of studies that provide support for my position. Like I said, you can continue to ignore them if you'd like.

I knew you'd try to make this filmsy comparison.

Flimsy comparison? You're a hypocrite and you've just proved it. Apparently only you get to use studies from other countries to prove a point. If someone else does it, it's "just ridiculous" and "absurd".

[Tinykong]

I want to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to make restriction and regulation possible. If ownership levels remain identical, or even increase, I have zero problems. There's no legitimate reason as to why firearms, as a consumer good, need special treatment, let alone an Amendment in the Constitution.

Nice deflection, but regulations and restrictions are already possible. Repealing the second is all about reducing ownership numbers via a de facto ban. Keep pretending it's not if you like.

That's a very small piece to a very large puzzle. Fact is, I've presented dozens of studies that provide support for my position. Like I said, you can continue to ignore them if you'd like.

The position you believed to be true, right?

Flimsy comparison? You're a hypocrite and you've just proved it. Apparently only you get to use studies from other countries to prove a point. If someone else does it, it's "just ridiculous" and "absurd".

Please, quote where I compared Canada and the United States. I'll wait.

[TZucchini]

Nice deflection, but regulations and restrictions are already possible. Repealing the second is all about reducing ownership numbers via a de facto ban. Keep pretending it's not if you like.

I guess flat out saying you don't care about ownership rates isn't good enough to prove it.

I care about comprehensive laws and responsible ownership. I don't care about the ownership rate.

Did it work?

The position you believed to be true, right?

It's still something I believe to be true. I certainly can't know it to be true. That would require irrevocable causative evidence. That will never happen. For either side.

So yes. The position I believe to be true.

Please, quote where I compared Canada and the United States. I'll wait.

Comparing isn't the correct term. You never compared Canada to the United States. Just as I never compared Australia to the United States.

You used the 70% number from a study to support your position that such action in the United States is not feasible. Just as I used a study on firearm legislation to support my position.

We did the same thing. Yet I'm the only one that's wrong. You're a hypocrite.

[Mayhem]

Its not the availability that is the issue, but rather what Tiny said in his post right below yours. Enforce the laws you have against crimes and illegally owned guns better..P

but you said it´s about availability, confused

[Tinykong]

I guess flat out saying you don't care about ownership rates isn't good enough to prove it.

I care about comprehensive laws and responsible ownership. I don't care about the ownership rate.

Did it work?

No, because it's contrary to the position you've been building for over two years.

It's still something I believe to be true. I certainly can't know it to be true. That would require irrevocable causative evidence. That will never happen. For either side.

So yes. The position I believe to be true.

So, it's a "highly scientifically processed" "scientific hypothesis" backed up with "scientific study conclusions."

Science.

Comparing isn't the correct term. You never compared Canada to the United States. Just as I never compared Australia to the United States.

No, you said "here are some studies that prove that firearm regulation will reduce crime." You failed to acknowledge it was from another country, and therefore, not applicable to the US.

You used the 70% number from a study to support your position that such action in the United States is not feasible. Just as I used a study on firearm legislation to support my position.

We did the same thing. Yet I'm the only one that's wrong. You're a hypocrite.

No where in my post did I say this. Stop lying.

I pointed out that Canada has exactly the regulations you are asking for, and yet, their gun crime is committed mostly by smuggled weapons, and therefore the regulations you won't don't work in Canada.

[TZucchini]

No, because it's contrary to the position you've been building for over two years.

Then provide a quote directly from me that supports your assumption. It shouldn't be difficult.

So, it's a "highly scientifically processed" "scientific hypothesis" backed up with "scientific study conclusions."

Science.

Right. My position is based on scientific evidence. But there is no causal evidence, for either side. It's still a belief, albeit one which is strongly supported.

No, you said "here are some studies that prove that firearm regulation will reduce crime." You failed to acknowledge it was from another country, and therefore, not applicable to the US.

No. I said "here is some evidence that firearm legislation has had a positive impact on firearm violence."

No where in my post did I say this. Stop lying.

I pointed out that Canada has exactly the regulations you are asking for, and yet, their gun crime is committed mostly by smuggled weapons, and therefore the regulations you won't don't work in Canada.

Oh you didn't? I figured your "Oppps" was the implication. My mistake then. I suppose the point you were making, whatever it was, is completely moot then. The United States will benefit from these laws.

[Tinykong]

Then provide a quote directly from me that supports your assumption. It shouldn't be difficult.

You want me to find a quote that sums up your 2 plus years of posting history?

lol.

No. I said "here is some evidence that firearm legislation has had a positive impact on firearm violence."

Looks like you're having memory problems again.

The question asked of you was:

Let's see some studies that show gun control at the Federal level will result in lower firearm crime, violence, injury and/or suicide.

You replied by linking a bunch of irrelevant studies from other countries and State regulations (which you openly admitted don't work) claiming it was proof.

You seem to have this inability to actually produce the studies that prove your position, and instead, just Google-fu some keywords, glance at the abstract, engage in confirmation bias, and then pat yourself on the back Charlie Sheen style and proclaim you're "winning."

Oh you didn't? I figured your "Oppps" was the implication. My mistake then.

No, the "oops" was pointing out how it doesn't work in Canada. They have exactly the regulations you want, and yet, 70% of their gun crime is comitted with smuggled weapons.

I mean, let's not get crazy here, but maybe, just maybe, criminals and black markets exist despite government regulation. It's a wild idea, I know.

The United States will benefit from these laws.

You're free to have this opinion.

Too bad you haven't shown this to be true.

But you just know it's true! You know it is!

[Cthulhu 2020]

100% fact?

"Scientists aren't 100% certain it's caused by humans, but it's approaching 99.9999%... so what you're telling me is there's a chance?"

[TZucchini]

You want me to find a quote that sums up your 2 plus years of posting history?

I want you to find a quote to support the assumption that what I actually seek is reduction in firearm ownership.

Looks like you're having memory problems again.

The question asked of you was:

I'm not the one with memory problems. It seems as though you forgot that you asked me to supply something that does not exist. I cannot produce a study about a federal law that has never existed. So I did the next best thing.

You seem to have this inability to actually produce the studies that prove your position

Prove? No. Strongly support? I've linked dozens.

No, the "oops" was pointing out how it doesn't work in Canada.

Doesn't work? How can you be certain their laws do not work? What's their firearm homicide rate?

You can harp on smuggled firearms all you'd like. I'm more concerned about firearm violence.

[jugzilla]

I guess flat out saying you don't care about ownership rates isn't good enough to prove it.

I care about comprehensive laws and responsible ownership. I don't care about the ownership rate.

Did it work?

So you changed your opinion. You've been arguing for quite a while about how you want to reduce ownership.

The United States has higher homicide rates than countries with less gun ownership. That's a fact and will remain a fact! Therefore, lots of firearm ownership means lots of homicide!

(see why we control variables now?)

Assumptions aside, I'm perfectly fine with the statement "non-fatal firearm injuries have increased in the past decade." Regardless of intent, the outcome is negative. An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.

Did that work? I really want to know what science you found that changed your mind to now have no problem with ownership rates.

[Tinykong]

I want you to find a quote to support the assumption that what I actually seek is reduction in firearm ownership.

jugzilla just took care of that. Looks like in addition to your other qualities, you're also a flip-flopper.

I'm not the one with memory problems. It seems as though you forgot that you asked me to supply something that does not exist. I cannot produce a study about a federal law that has never existed. So I did the next best thing.

The next best thing to "prove your claim" is proving a bunch of other unrelated stuff?

Translation: you can't prove your claim.

Doesn't work? How can you be certain their laws do not work? What's their firearm homicide rate?

You can harp on smuggled firearms all you'd like. I'm more concerned about firearm violence.

Their laws don't work because 70% of their gun crime is committed by firearms that are smuggled into the country. Does regulation, registration, safe storage and training apply to criminals using illegal firearms?

Securing a bunch of legal firearms and training legal owners has no impact on criminals using illegal firearms.

Like I said, are you just interested in soothing your irrational fears? It's okay to be scared of all those dangerous unlocked firearms.

At best, you can hope to reduce accidents. Don't need to repeal the second amendment to achieve that goal, but something tells me you aren't willing to settle for anything less.

[TZucchini]

So you changed your opinion. You've been arguing for quite a while about how you want to reduce ownership.

Yes, I've spoken to reducing ownership. And to clarify, while additional restrictions and regulations might reduce the ownership rate, it would only do so by disenfranchising individuals that shouldn't (imo) have access to firearms to begin with. That would be the only ownership decrease that I'd actively seek.

But like I said, if the laws were enacted, and ownership rates remained the same, I'd have no problems. Reducing ownership isn't the endgame, comprehensive laws and responsible ownership is.

Did that work?

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

[Tinykong]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

It's obvious.

You claim that increased ownership rates increase homicides, then, after thumping your chest about how you care about firearm violence, act as if you don't care about that "fact" any longer and are fine with high rates of ownership.

[TZucchini]

jugzilla just took care of that. Looks like in addition to your other qualities, you're also a flip-flopper.

The thing he quoted was blatant sarcasm. Look at the context. Talk about not reading things thoroughly...

The next best thing to "prove your claim" is proving a bunch of other unrelated stuff?

No. It was the next best thing to "here's something that impossible to prove. prove it anyway!"

Their laws don't work because 70% of their gun crime is committed by firearms that are smuggled into the country.

Well gee. Maybe, just maybe, the weak firearm regulations in the United States have something to do with that?

And again, what's their firearm homicide rate? What's their firearm suicide rate?

Hint, they're both several factors lower than the United States. Yet their laws aren't working? You sure about that?

- - - Updated - - -

It's obvious.

You claim that increased ownership rates increase homicides, then, after thumping your chest about how you care about firearm violence, act as if you don't care about that "fact" any longer and are fine with high rates of ownership.

How embarrassing. You still haven't read the context of that quote....

[Tinykong]

The thing he quoted was blatant sarcasm. Look at the context. Talk about not reading things thoroughly...

Back peddle, away!

Yet their laws aren't working? You sure about that?

No, their laws are not preventing criminals from accessing illegal firearms.

How embarrassing. You still haven't read the context of that quote....

Keep on back peddling, you might just convince yourself:

An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.

[jugzilla]

In 9-11's defense I added that 2nd quote a minute or two later, didn't expect you guys to be so quick to respond lol.