[AlphaNeo36]

Some of those countries don't even have gun bans.

[SevenGold-IV]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

Some of those countries don't even have gun bans.

I did my research, any country I listed has very restrictive gun laws. No two countries have identicle laws. Are you going to discount my examples because they are not exactly the same as Germany, England and Australia?

[AlphaNeo36]

You're refuting total gun ban effectiveness with countries like Brazil that do not have anything close to a total gun ban. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/brazil

[SevenGold-IV]

http://www.afn.org/~afn18566/brazil.html

Gun registration, caliber and type restrictions, and no right to keep or bear arms. Waiting limits, high restrictive taxes on purchases and limits on how many guns you can own. Nope, not restrictive at all.

[SevenGold-IV]

Also, I would consider excessive regulation to be a form of banning. Look at fully automatic weapons in this country. Technically legal to own, but they are so heavily restricted one might as well consider them banned.

[$h@key J0nEZ]



Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.

A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.

If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

Guns only have two enemies: rust and politicians.

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.

Assault is a behavior, not a device.

Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.

When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

[Eric the Fish]

Hmm lets see. Possibility of a proposed ban on assault weapons. Pin head fanatics over react and buy out the army sim weapons and ammo causing a shortage of inventory. Local cops announce gun buy back. Gun dealers see an opportunity and say "hey we will buy em from you for more than the cops will pay". Gun dealers jack the price and sell the weapons to some other tard willing to over pay cause ya know Bamma's gonna take err guns!

[AlphaNeo36]

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

http://www.afn.org/~afn18566/brazil.html

Gun registration, caliber and type restrictions, and no right to keep or bear arms. Waiting limits, high restrictive taxes on purchases and limits on how many guns you can own. Nope, not restrictive at all.

I guess my Brazilian legislation linked material wasn't good enough. So, not a total gun ban as the discussion related. You know, it isn't terrible to say you're wrong once in a while.

Let's look at this a second time.

TSA: Gun bans can be effective, look at countries like Japan.
SG: Nope, look at Brazil. They have one of the highest firearm homicide rates.
Me: Uh, Brazil doesn't have a total gun ban. You just need a license and meet certain requirements to buy a gun.
SG: That doesn't matter.

wat... Whatever, I'm not going to waste my time here.

[SevenGold-IV]

If you look at my original post I was trying to point out that Japan, Australia, and England's gun bans are probably so effective because they are islands which makes guns and ammo harder to obtain. That's really all I was pointing out.

The effectiveness of gun control is due to a variety of factors, only one of which is a countries laws. Cost to obtain and maintain the guns, culture, standard of living etc etc. all play a role.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Volucris

TSA isn't really saying anything. He's posting ****, but none of it means anything. If you try to debate any of the "points" he puts in his posts, he claims that you are strawmanning him or are performing some other fallacious effort.

I am trying to get rid of a bad premise in the argument against gun regulation, because it is bad. I have displayed a pretty clear argument for why this premise is invalid. I did this because I want the argument against gun bans to be as clear and valid as possible. I'm sorry if you view that "not saying ****". I guess you can just not read my posts.

--

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

I was not trying to straw man you. A good indicator of the presence of black market guns is their illegal use in homicides and shootings. I figured this would be obvious. But I dont want to get into it again because it was a stupid discussion based entirely on hypotheticals.

Homicide and shootings are only a good indicator of gun ownership when they are adjusted for cultural discrepancies. If Country A has twice as many guns as Country B, but Country A is 3 times less likely to shoot someone (due to cultural factors), then Country B would have a higher gun homicide rate when in fact it has half as many guns as Country A.

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

If you look at my original post I was trying to point out that Japan, Australia, and England's gun bans are probably so effective because they are islands which makes guns and ammo harder to obtain. That's really all I was pointing out.

And I showed that the "island country effect" didn't effect Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, and several other countries.

--

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

You clearly don't want to move forward in the discussion or you could have responded to my other points on their own instead of how they related to your previous posts.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what I missed. It's kinda hard when people continue discussions without you and all of a sudden you are 5 steps down the line from when I left. I guess that is just part of posting on an internet forum. If there is something I missed, feel free to requote it and I will respond. I am not sure how I am "not moving forward in the discussion".

Someone made a claim: Full gun bans don't matter because underground markets would make them ineffective anyways.
Me: Most, if not all, countries that have full gun bans see very little underground markets.
You: The reason those counties don't have underground markets is due to high cost of island importation.
Me: Malaysia, Greece, Germany, Singapore, etc also follow trends.
You: Disagreed with my statement about those countries having low gun availability because of their high gun homicide.
Me: (Just now) High gun homicide is a bad indication of gun availability

I don't see how I am "clearly not moving forward with the discussion".

[SevenGold-IV]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Homicide and shootings are only a good indicator of gun ownership when they are adjusted for cultural discrepancies. If Country A has twice as many guns as Country B, but Country A is 3 times less likely to shoot someone (due to cultural factors), then Country B would have a higher gun homicide rate when in fact it has half as many guns as Country A.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough when I said we will never know precisely how many guns are in circulation via the black market. The point is no one gives a **** until they are used; and they must be obtained illegally in a black market to kill someone in countries with gun bans. Gun control is only considered effective if it reduces gun violence and gun homicide.

And I showed that the "island country effect" didn't effect Singapore, Malaysia, Germany, and several other countries.

But Singapore, Malaysia, Greece and Germany DO NOT have gun laws as strict as the island nations. They have severely restrictive firearms laws, similar to Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, and many Central American nations. All of these countries have black markets for guns (who gives a **** how big they are) but the ones I listed have much higher rates of gun violence and gun homicide. Therefore their gun control laws are ineffective. You ignored this and accused me of straw-manning.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure what I missed. It's kinda hard when people continue discussions without you and all of a sudden you are 5 steps down the line from when I left. I guess that is just part of posting on an internet forum. If there is something I missed, feel free to requote it and I will respond. I am not sure how I am "not moving forward in the discussion".

Someone made a claim: Full gun bans don't matter because underground markets would make them ineffective anyways.
Me: Most, if not all, countries that have full gun bans see very little underground markets.
You: The reason those counties don't have underground markets is due to high cost of island importation.
Me: Malaysia, Greece, Germany, Singapore, etc also follow trends.
You: Disagreed with my statement about those countries having low gun availability because of their high gun homicide.
Me: (Just now) High gun homicide is a bad indication of gun availability

I don't see how I am "clearly not moving forward with the discussion".

You dodged my point about violent crime in countries with strict gun control laws. Which is something I really want to discuss.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

The point is no one gives a **** until they are used; and they must be obtained illegally in a black market to kill someone in countries with gun bans. Gun control is only considered effective if it reduces gun violence and gun homicide.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GUN BANS ARE EFFECTIVE. THIS IS ABOUT SOMEONE'S CLAIM THAT GUN REGULATION SHOULDN'T BE PURSUED BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT REDUCE GUN OWNERSHIP DUE TO THE UNDERGROUND BLACK MARKETS. STOP CHANGING THE ARGUMENT TO SOMETHING IT IS NOT.

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

But Singapore, Malaysia, Greece and Germany DO NOT have gun laws as strict as the island nations.

They have severely restrictive firearms laws, similar to Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, and many Central American nations.

Greece is often regarded as having the strictest gun laws in the world. What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by SevenGold-IV

You dodged my point about violent crime in countries with strict gun control laws. Which is something I really want to discuss.

I'm assuming you meant the post in which I underlined all the references to gun violence:

I didn't dodge it. I explained why it wasn't relevant to my point. It was literally in the post you just linked.

"Homicide and shootings are only a good indicator of gun ownership when they are adjusted for cultural discrepancies. If Country A has twice as many guns as Country B, but Country A is 3 times less likely to shoot someone (due to cultural factors), then Country B would have a higher gun homicide rate when in fact it has half as many guns as Country A."

Ring a bell?

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by $h@key J0nEZ

Saw this going around the conservative noise chamber today. The spin is that it was "fail" because some people paid cash for guns, and the people buying guns was some great win for gun advocates.

What actually happened is this: The buyback program was far more successful than expected, taking in at least 4,000 guns and running out of the prepaid visa cards they were issuing. And a bunch of "law abiding gun owners" may have bought and helped fence stolen guns, murder weapons and guns used in other crimes.

It's funny how "law abiding gun owners" are perfectly willing to literally get blood on their hands to supposedly protect the right to be a "law abiding gun owner." It's interesting how fast and loose "law abiding gun owners" play with the law when it comes to the issue of guns.

[Blake360]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

And a bunch of "law abiding gun owners" may have bought and helped fence stolen guns, murder weapons and guns used in other crimes.

I'm pretty sure criminals aren't the ones who participated in the buy-back program, when they need guns to commit their crimes or could sell them for far more money on the street.

[SevenGold-IV]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT GUN BANS ARE EFFECTIVE. THIS IS ABOUT SOMEONE'S CLAIM THAT GUN REGULATION SHOULDN'T BE PURSUED BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT REDUCE GUN OWNERSHIP DUE TO THE UNDERGROUND BLACK MARKETS. STOP CHANGING THE ARGUMENT TO SOMETHING IT IS NOT.

Gun regulation doesn't reduce illegal gun ownership in countries like Mexico, Brazil, Thailand and much of Central America.

Greece is often regarded as having the strictest gun laws in the world. What are you talking about?

Neat.

I'm assuming you meant the post in which I underlined all the references to gun violence:

I didn't dodge it. I explained why it wasn't relevant to my point. It was literally in the post you just linked.

"Homicide and shootings are only a good indicator of gun ownership when they are adjusted for cultural discrepancies. If Country A has twice as many guns as Country B, but Country A is 3 times less likely to shoot someone (due to cultural factors), then Country B would have a higher gun homicide rate when in fact it has half as many guns as Country A."

Ring a bell?

Violence, not gun violence fool. Countries with strict gun control laws have higher rates of robbery, assault etc.

[Space Pope]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Saw this going around the conservative noise chamber today. The spin is that it was "fail" because some people paid cash for guns, and the people buying guns was some great win for gun advocates.

What actually happened is this: The buyback program was far more successful than expected, taking in at least 4,000 guns and running out of the prepaid visa cards they were issuing. And a bunch of "law abiding gun owners" may have bought and helped fence stolen guns, murder weapons and guns used in other crimes.

It's funny how "law abiding gun owners" are perfectly willing to literally get blood on their hands to supposedly protect the right to be a "law abiding gun owner." It's interesting how fast and loose "law abiding gun owners" play with the law when it comes to the issue of guns.

You do know that these guns are taken back "no questions asked" (in the majority of buybacks I have read about anyway) and destroyed. If they were murder weapons, stolen, or whatever no one would ever have known.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

You do know that these guns are taken back "no questions asked" (in the majority of buybacks I have read about anyway) and destroyed. If they were murder weapons, stolen, or whatever no one would ever have known.

Once the guns are collected, police plan to check serial numbers to see if any are stolen. If so, they will not contact the person who turned in the weapon. Instead, they will contact the gun's registered owner and see if that person wants their firearm returned to them or destroyed.

So they are going to run the serials at least, they don't just destroy them without looking into them. I'd be surprised if they didn't at least do cursory detective work on them as well, since these buybacks can be venues for getting rid of otherwise illegal weapons.

Regardless, it doesn't make "law abiding gun owners" getting involved with weapons involved in crimes any more virtuous.

[jamest91]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Saw this going around the conservative noise chamber today. The spin is that it was "fail" because some people paid cash for guns, and the people buying guns was some great win for gun advocates.

What actually happened is this: The buyback program was far more successful than expected, taking in at least 4,000 guns and running out of the prepaid visa cards they were issuing. And a bunch of "law abiding gun owners" may have bought and helped fence stolen guns, murder weapons and guns used in other crimes.

It's funny how "law abiding gun owners" are perfectly willing to literally get blood on their hands to supposedly protect the right to be a "law abiding gun owner." It's interesting how fast and loose "law abiding gun owners" play with the law when it comes to the issue of guns.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

So they are going to run the serials at least, they don't just destroy them without looking into them. I'd be surprised if they didn't at least do cursory detective work on them as well, since these buybacks can be venues for getting rid of otherwise illegal weapons.

Regardless, it doesn't make "law abiding gun owners" getting involved with weapons involved in crimes any more virtuous.

By your logic it also means that police are giving money to criminals who used the guns to commit crimes. Seeing as how they would not contact the person who turned in the weapon, but the original gun owner (if one exists).

You can't exactly jump all over "law abiding citizens" for buying guns that may have been used for crimes and simply forget about the fact that it means police officers were also buying guns that were used in crimes. With your excellent logic, I am sure a left wing news company would hire you in a second!

[Bloodeagle]

From the article:

The last time a buy-back program was held in Seattle - in 1992 - about 1,100 weapons were turned in. But in the six months that followed, the average number of firearms-related homicides increased. The mean number of firearms-related assaults in Seattle also increased, as did the mean number of robberies with guns. Even the average number of accidental shooting deaths more than doubled, according to data in a government journal.

Most of the weapons turned in Saturday were rifles - although some were old or no longer operational. But there one or two assault weapons. The most unusual weapon turned in was a military surface-to-air missile launcher, a single-use military device that had already been fired and was no longer functional. The owner turned it in and received a gift card.

I suspect quite a lot of those turned in were no longer functional. What better way to turn a Benjamin or two. Also, viva the choice. For those who don't have the ability to responsibly own a gun, this is an excellent option.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

So they are going to run the serials at least, they don't just destroy them without looking into them. I'd be surprised if they didn't at least do cursory detective work on them as well, since these buybacks can be venues for getting rid of otherwise illegal weapons.

Regardless, it doesn't make "law abiding gun owners" getting involved with weapons involved in crimes any more virtuous.

Umm ... not sure you understand the concept.

The police are going to run the serial numbers and return stolen guns, if they've been reported stolen. That's it. If it isn't stolen, it will be destroyed. A serial number doesn't help solve a crime.

Furthermore, by your logic, the police and Amazon are giving money to criminals.

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Saw this going around the conservative noise chamber today. The spin is that it was "fail" because some people paid cash for guns, and the people buying guns was some great win for gun advocates.

What actually happened is this: The buyback program was far more successful than expected, taking in at least 4,000 guns and running out of the prepaid visa cards they were issuing. And a bunch of "law abiding gun owners" may have bought and helped fence stolen guns, murder weapons and guns used in other crimes.

It's funny how "law abiding gun owners" are perfectly willing to literally get blood on their hands to supposedly protect the right to be a "law abiding gun owner." It's interesting how fast and loose "law abiding gun owners" play with the law when it comes to the issue of guns.

Haha you really typed all that in response to that meme? You need to lighten up a little.

But seriously who money are the police using to buy back guns and what is the cost across the country? Next thing you know Obama will be giving out money for all the sheeplecrat's wool.