Mock

(12-03-2015, 04:32 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2015, 02:30 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I quit. I should know better than getting into a discussion with you about guns. Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.

Yeah. And Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.

(12-03-2015, 05:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2015, 04:32 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-21-2015, 02:30 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]I quit. I should know better than getting into a discussion with you about guns. Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.

Yeah. And Unless I look at things from your point of view I will never be right.

No, you're just never right, but thanks for playing.

(12-03-2015, 05:52 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]And nice sticking up for your bud there, although I thought he was packing enough guns to look after himself.

Maybe Zero was right..

(12-03-2015, 06:08 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't photoshop anything, just copied the link..

(12-03-2015, 06:35 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2015, 06:08 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't photoshop anything, just copied the link..

So we found yet another thing that you suck at. Great work in here today folks!

(12-03-2015, 06:56 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2015, 06:35 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2015, 06:08 PM)crash Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't photoshop anything, just copied the link..

So we found yet another thing that you suck at. Great work in here today folks!

Ooo...a bit of butt hurt? Bit close to the truth?

Bah..the only thing we found is that you suck at comprehension, well reconfirmed really, and you feel the need to jump in at every turn and defend your gun toting buddy, FU.

You and crayla would make a great couple; you know, grasps on reality at about the same level and all..

(12-04-2015, 12:56 PM)Mohammed Wrote: [ -> ]Now that's not what those guys say on that link HotD put up.

5) Other developed countries have had huge successes with gun control

In 1996, a 28-year-old man walked into a cafe in Port Arthur, Australia, ate lunch, pulled a semi-automatic rifle out of his bag, and opened fire on the crowd, killing 35 people and wounding 23 more. It was the worst mass shooting in Australia's history.

Australian lawmakers responded with new legislation that, among other provisions, banned certain types of firearms, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. The Australian government confiscated 650,000 of these guns through a gun buyback program, in which it purchased firearms from gun owners. It established a registry of all guns owned in the country and required a permit for all new firearm purchases. (This is much further than bills typically proposed in the US, which almost never make a serious attempt to immediately reduce the number of guns in the country).

The result: Australia's firearm homicide rate dropped by about 42 percent in the seven years after the law passed, and its firearm suicide rate fell by 57 percent, according to one review of the evidence by Harvard researchers.

Now, it's difficult to know for sure how much of the drop in homicides and suicides was caused specifically by the gun buyback program. Australia's gun deaths, for one, were already declining before the law passed. But Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis argue that the gun buyback program very likely played a role: "First, the drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback. Second, firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates per capita fell proportionately more than in states with lower buyback rates."

One study of the program, by Australian researchers, found that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people correlated with up to a 50 percent drop in firearm homicides, and a 74 percent drop in gun suicides. As Vox's Dylan Matthews noted, the drop in homicides wasn't statistically significant. But the drop in suicides most definitely was — and the results are striking.

(12-04-2015, 11:35 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent).

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them.

(12-04-2015, 12:59 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't rely on what "guys say" as facts Mo. The statistics I posted are validated.

(12-04-2015, 01:28 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]just careful about infringement issues.