Op-Ed IF ONLY POLICE HAD GUNS, this never would have happened...

[Rolyo85]

There wasn't actually a question, there was a straw man argument. I don't answer accusations about things I've never said.

Actually, it's an objective reality that you have consistently made the argument that for a variety of unspecified reasons what works in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan etc. would not work here in America. No strawman, just referring to your own posts.

 

[Rolyo85]

So all the hype about "We don't want to take away your guns" is exposed for the lie it is: disarmament is the goal.

And it's an unobtainable one, as is being seen in California, where not only are criminals making their own guns, but the police lose hundreds a year -- and we're supposed to trust them to be the theoretical only ones with guns?

First of all, I don't know what the "goal" is, but my personal wish is ABSOLUTELY total disarmament, and I've never hidden that.

Second, and more important, criminals in California get their guns from Mexico, not from self-made garage factories. And you continuously ignore - on purpose - the argument that any gun regulation is meaningless unless it covers the entire country, because there is no border control between state boundaries. Gun laws in Chicago mean nothing when I can drive to Indiana in half an hour and get anything I want there.

 

[Rolyo85]

"Less." In other words, IT DOESN'T WORK. What it does is sentence people to be victims.

Actually, "less" is the exact definition of "it works", especially when it's "90% less". There is NOTHING in this world that works 100%. But a thing that works 90% is the very spirit of "it works". And it damn well works better than "90% more mass shootings". Btw, to your earlier question - yes, they barely ever have mass shootings. Most countries in the first world go MANY YEARS without a SINGLE mass shooting in fact. I think Australia hasn't had one in over a decade.

 

[Rolyo85]

Just reposting, cause it tends to get ignored. Also yes. I keep repeating - the freedom to kill is not a freedom I want. The freedom to feel safe from being shot down is far more relevant.

Americans killed by guns in the USA 2001-2013: 400,000
Americans killed by terrorists in the world since 2001: 3,440 (includes 9/11).

edition.cnn.com/2015/10/02/us/oregon-shooting-terrorism-gun-violence



Not all parts of the government provide equally useful insight on any given topic.

- - - Updated - - -

Especially loving this.

I'd prefer freedom from being killed rather than the freedom to kill.
Stats over the 2000s:
Homicide rate in Western Europe: between 0.7 and 1.4 per 100,000
(Excluding Italy, home of the mafia with 2.5)
Homicide rate in USA: 6.1 per 100,000 people

https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/546379ed6bb3f7fc44a12570-960/screen shot 2014-11-12 at 10.14.53 am.png?_ga=1.149783030.1728581758.1468750664

 

[Rolyo85]

There's a direct link between gun control and individual safety: it requires individuals to be victims.

Yes, the link is direct.

There are fewer guns in other countries, and VASTLY fewer deaths.

There are more guns in America, and VASTLY more deaths.

I would love to be this kind of victim, and you have consistently failed to provide an argument for why fewer guns won't lead to fewer deaths here, when it has done so everywhere else.

 

[xbuzzerx]

First of all, I don't know what the "goal" is, but my personal wish is ABSOLUTELY total disarmament, and I've never hidden that.

Second, and more important, criminals in California get their guns from Mexico, not from self-made garage factories. And you continuously ignore - on purpose - the argument that any gun regulation is meaningless unless it covers the entire country, because there is no border control between state boundaries. Gun laws in Chicago mean nothing when I can drive to Indiana in half an hour and get anything I want there.

Or it's just a quick drive to Vegas or Nevada to a gun show... people are constantly doing that anyway to go gambling on weekends.

All of the arguments I've ever heard, and all of the "evidence" offered for it, that "gun bans don't work", are only true in the U.S. context where gun bans are strictly local and vary from locality to locality, and people can simply hop over to another county and get around a ban.

 

[Kulindahr]

Right to bear arms FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA is not a duty for all individuals to bear arms. Yes, it is only pro gun groups claiming that interpretation.

Citizens were expected to be watchful. Not armed.

Nice irrelevant response. Or is that what France has? Because according to the Framers in the U.S. every citizen was hoped to be armed.

 

[Kulindahr]

And that is different from forcing me to carry murder weapons how?

And no, this is no "freedom" when there are so many guns out there and so many backbirths with small dicks, eager to shoot when they get angry. Your points are so intellectually dishonest, there is literally green pus oozing from them...

It's only a murder weapon if you're a murderer.

BTW, telling other people what to do because you have a disgusting prejudice against them as revealed above is not freedom, it's tyranny. Freedom is letting others do as they please.

 

[Kulindahr]

Actually, it's an objective reality that you have consistently made the argument that for a variety of unspecified reasons what works in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan etc. would not work here in America. No strawman, just referring to your own posts.

You're going back to claiming that there are never any shootings in those places?

There are no "gun control" measures that have ever worked, anywhere, and now that people (including criminals) can and do make guns at home, that boat has sailed anyway.

 

[Rolyo85]

It's only a murder weapon if you're a murderer.

BTW, telling other people what to do because you have a disgusting prejudice against them as revealed above is not freedom, it's tyranny. Freedom is letting others do as they please.

Literally its only purpose is to kill. In your world that killing is to be done on people. We call that murder.

BTW, you are telling me what to do (to arm myself), so clearly you are supporting tyranny by your definition. What I PLEASE is to not have guns around me.

 

[Rolyo85]

You're going back to claiming that there are never any shootings in those places?

There are no "gun control" measures that have ever worked, anywhere, and now that people (including criminals) can and do make guns at home, that boat has sailed anyway.

And you are back to ignoring statistics, arguments and anything that doesn't match your pathological gun fetish.

What the fuck do you mean there are no gun control measures that have ever work? Gun control measures work EVERYWHERE outside of America, literally in every country where they are implemented. This isn't an opinion, it's a provable factual reality. And your claim that only 100% success counts as "working" is absolutely laughable when we look at the statistics of gun deaths per capita.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You're going back to claiming that there are never any shootings in those places?

There are. Vastly fewer of them and with far smaller yearly death counts.

 

[Kabluey]

It's only a murder weapon if you're a murderer.

We've established that guns have no other purpose. You're not stupid.

 

[Kabluey]

You're going back to claiming that there are never any shootings in those places?

There are no "gun control" measures that have ever worked, anywhere, and now that people (including criminals) can and do make guns at home, that boat has sailed anyway.

Except they work everywhere in the rest of the developed world.
Australia successfully disarmed vast swathes of their population. So did Europe and Asia after WWII.

The USA isn't Mars, it's very much like the rest of the developed world, apart from its indulgence of people who love guns and ammo.