Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The worst anti-gun argument ever.

75 replies to this topic
AceKingston
  • AceKingston

    Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India

#61

Posted 28 October 2013 - 04:28 PM

Damn must have missed that.


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006

#62

Posted 28 October 2013 - 06:11 PM Edited by lil weasel, 28 October 2013 - 06:13 PM.

Melchior, posted 28 October 2013][M]ake it a serious crime to be in possession of a firearm illegally.

Over the years many people have seen the bumper sticker

sticker,375x360.u1.png

 

Few have understood what it meant when first published. Do you?

Spoiler


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#63

Posted 28 October 2013 - 06:52 PM

You are aware that has been discussed at quite some length already? Apparently not.

It's fallacious to suggest that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Singapore outlawed guns, and now the only people who have them are the police and military. Statistically, there are so few firearm crimes in Singapore annually that it is recorded as zero. So, tell me, if the above mantra holds true, then why isn't Singapore a hotbed of mass shootings conducted by criminals?


Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#64

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:27 PM

...this entire thread, however, is predicated on what amounts to a bloody email forward I'd receive from my step-father. Any point, really, in carrying this crap on?


Moonshield
  • Moonshield

    amplifier worship

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2002
  • Mongolia

#65

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:32 PM

FW:fw:fw:fw:fw:fw:CHECK THIS OUT YOU CAN'T BELIEVE WHAT OBUMMERS DONE NOW

  • Otter likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#66

Posted 28 October 2013 - 07:41 PM

So, who hit "reply all"?

  • Otter likes this

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#67

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:28 PM

You are aware that has been discussed at quite some length already? Apparently not.

It's fallacious to suggest that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Singapore outlawed guns, and now the only people who have them are the police and military. Statistically, there are so few firearm crimes in Singapore annually that it is recorded as zero. So, tell me, if the above mantra holds true, then why isn't Singapore a hotbed of mass shootings conducted by criminals?

I think there's a clear difference though when talking about a place like Singapore versus the United States, which, though people in this thread aren't admitting, is the main target of these arguments. Singapore's population has long been "obedient" and subservient in a way. You're talking about a population that has been pretty much dominated by British authorities or Japanese authorities in its entire modern history, and only recently has been independent. The notion that the population of Singapore's response to banning guns would be even remotely similar to if that occurred in the US is frankly silly. 


ColePhelps27
  • ColePhelps27

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2013

#68

Posted 29 October 2013 - 04:31 AM Edited by ColePhelps27, 29 October 2013 - 04:36 AM.

Um, we have both mentioned the difficulty in acquiring firearms in nations that heavily restrict and/or outlaw firearm ownership multiple times. We've used Australia, Singapore and the UK as examples throughout the thread...

It's relatively easy to acquire a firearm here. After you do the background and safety checks you should be able to own one in 3 weeks. Sometimes it can be later because of application processing issues, but generally you should be clear in 3 to 5 weeks. UK firearms owners have told me it takes around a year for them. I may be misinformed but that's just what I've been told. We have access to more firearms than them as well. Handguns, 30 round mags, AR-15's (only for professional hunters etc.) etc. And yeah, we do have more shootings than the UK. The thing is, most of the time it's due to illegal firearms being imported in from Asia. Which are therefore used in crimes.

 

Turned on the news the morning and a few driveby shootings, as well as a double shooting were mentioned. I bet you none of those were committed with legal guns. 

 

So, why does a country of 23 million have considerably more shootings than the UK, which has over 60 million? 

 

EDIT: I should also mention that after the 1996 firearms buyback following the Port Arthur Massacre, many did not hand in their firearms. Since they are likely unregistered then they are usually sold off to criminals and used in robberies, shootings etc.

 

I understand that the UK had a similar scheme in 1997. Did the same thing happen there?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#69

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:26 AM Edited by sivispacem, 29 October 2013 - 08:51 AM.

Australia (I assume you're referring to Australia anyway as that's the only logical, rational and reasonable conclusion from your response) probably has considerably more shootings than the UK because of the combined effect of the current biker war and a higher level of firearm proliferation. I'd say access to legal firearms is relatively free in Australia, but restrictive enough to still have a total of what, about one-tenth of that of the US per 100,000? Raw population figures don't really make that much difference, by the way- places like Jamaica and The Bahamas have very high firearm fatality rates (the former is something like 40 per 100,000) despite having very small populations.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1996 gun buy-back was centred around semi-automatic centrefire and rimfire rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and other similar weapons, in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, no? Class H firearms (that is, handguns) are still relatively easy to obtain, and as far as I know there haven't been any fundamental changes to their registration and licensing in the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. I question the logic of drawing parallels between the weapons generally used in criminal activity (almost universally self-loading pistols or revolvers) and those that were subject to the buy-back (semi-automatic long guns), claiming that the making illegal of one resulted in large amounts of the other finding their way into the hands of criminals. It simply doesn't make sense to claim that the weapons used in robberies and shootings by criminals- handguns- were the same as those subject to the buy-back- semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.


ColePhelps27
  • ColePhelps27

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2013

#70

Posted 29 October 2013 - 12:45 PM Edited by ColePhelps27, 29 October 2013 - 12:46 PM.

Australia (I assume you're referring to Australia anyway as that's the only logical, rational and reasonable conclusion from your response) probably has considerably more shootings than the UK because of the combined effect of the current biker war and a higher level of firearm proliferation. I'd say access to legal firearms is relatively free in Australia, but restrictive enough to still have a total of what, about one-tenth of that of the US per 100,000? Raw population figures don't really make that much difference, by the way- places like Jamaica and The Bahamas have very high firearm fatality rates (the former is something like 40 per 100,000) despite having very small populations.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1996 gun buy-back was centred around semi-automatic centrefire and rimfire rifles, semi-automatic shotguns and other similar weapons, in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre, no? Class H firearms (that is, handguns) are still relatively easy to obtain, and as far as I know there haven't been any fundamental changes to their registration and licensing in the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. I question the logic of drawing parallels between the weapons generally used in criminal activity (almost universally self-loading pistols or revolvers) and those that were subject to the buy-back (semi-automatic long guns), claiming that the making illegal of one resulted in large amounts of the other finding their way into the hands of criminals. It simply doesn't make sense to claim that the weapons used in robberies and shootings by criminals- handguns- were the same as those subject to the buy-back- semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

I think that our firearms laws have a nice balance. For the most part, they aren't restrictive enough to stop law-abiding shooters going about their business, but restrictive enough to stop people that shouldn't have them from owning one. I think that firearms ownership should not be guaranteed by law. Like a drivers license, it should be a privilege, not a right. 

 

I'm definitely not arguing that the U.S. has a gun problem. I'd be accused of infringing on their rights if I ever suggested more restrictions, though.   :sigh:

 

I understand that countries with smaller population like the ones you listed have far higher gun murder rates, but I think that can be partially chalked up to societal/cultural differences. Take South Africa for example, a country with a far higher crime, homicide rate than the United States, yet only has a population of around 52 million. 

 

Handguns have become somewhat difficult to obtain since 2002 following a shooting at Melbourne University. You now have to wait at least 6 months (12 in some states) before you can purchase a handgun. All the while you have to be an active member of a pistol club to show that you're interested. Before you can purchase one, you have to have an interview with the club director who authorizes the purchase. Although, from what I've heard you're basically guaranteed to be told yes. A 10 round magazine capacity limit was introduced and .45 is the highest caliber allowed. You have to compete in a dozen or so shooting competitions per year. 

 

The thing is, there is a loophole here. If you hold a collectors license, you can have a functional handgun that was manufactured before a certain date. All you have to do is keep it in a safe. No other requirements.   

 

Not long ago a major political party was trying to get all semi-automatic handguns banned. They were suggesting a 300 million dollar buyback to take all handguns. It didn't end up happening but I could see it happening in the near future. Another party was suggesting open carry for civilians. In my opinion that will never happen.

 

You'd be surprised about unregistered, once legal firearms being sold onto the black market. I wouldn't say it's overly common but it happens. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#71

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:08 PM

With respect to handguns, I know they're more difficult to acquire in Australia than other firearms but isn't that mostly due to "self-defence" not being an applicable reason for ownership, and apart from silhouette and IPSC type shooting there's not really a sporting purpose for handguns?


ColePhelps27
  • ColePhelps27

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2013

#72

Posted 29 October 2013 - 02:14 PM

That's basically it. Target shooting or collecting are the only valid reason you're allowed to own one. 

 

If you use any firearm to defend yourself, even in your own home, you've got a high chance of being jailed yourself. Personally, I think we should have the right to defend ourselves. 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#73

Posted 29 October 2013 - 03:06 PM

If you use any firearm to defend yourself, even in your own home, you've got a high chance of being jailed yourself. Personally, I think we should have the right to defend ourselves. 

 

Using a firearm to defend yourself in your own home isn't necessarily illegal or legal, AFAIK. The same is true in the UK- there's a test of proportionality that has nothing to do with the weapon that is used to defend yourself. It's perfectly legal to shoot someone dead in the UK, and, as far as I'm aware, in Australia, if they're posing a direct and imminent threat to your or someone else's life. For instance, if a masked man breaks into your home armed with a handgun, you can *generally speaking* legally kill them. But if a masked man breaks into your home, starts leafing through your CD collection, and when confronted runs, you can't attack them.

 

No idea how the foibles of the system work in Aus, but that's basically the way it works in most of the developed world.


ColePhelps27
  • ColePhelps27

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2013

#74

Posted 29 October 2013 - 06:03 PM

It basically is. I've heard of stories before where Australian home owners have shot dead armed intruders and they are in for years of legal hell afterwards. 

 

Say for instance someone breaks into my house with an axe and I shoot them dead. I would have to argue that he was a direct threat to my life, if I can't do that, I'm up for murder, which is usually under 10 years because of our pathetic justice system. Anyway, since all guns have to be stored locked up, unloaded and with the ammunition separate, I'd be asked why I didn't spend that time calling the police or getting out of the house.

 

I would have my firearms confiscated, be charged, be tried etc. Of course it needs to be investigated, but I think if someone tries to harm you in your own home you should be able to act appropriately.   


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006

#75

Posted 29 October 2013 - 07:28 PM

Keeping it simple.

The reason Police Authorities don't want people to 'defend' themselves is that it makes it easier to prosecute the guy with the weapon. Then there is the Religious who seem to believe it is better to give away 'Your' property than to take a 'valuable' life (Criminals are people who have families too.)

The side benefit of disarming the people is that the People running the Government have less to worry about armed rebellion.


Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#76

Posted 29 October 2013 - 08:13 PM


The side benefit of disarming the people is that the People running the Government have less to worry about armed rebellion.

This has got to be the 5th or 6th time you've brought this up in the past 3 three years and every single time you do numerous people shoot it down and you just ignore them, so the real question is should we bother trying again?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users