Tell me why gun restrictions wouldn't work the same way they did here in Australia.
>>55298722
here in nz we have way more guns and they are easier to get but we have lower gun crime than you
Where is here and is your goal to get gang raped by Lebanese immigrants or not?
>>55298722
Because we actually have rights the government isn't allowed to violate
Shall. Not. Infringe.
But Australian gun control didn't reduce gun violence. It was already trending down prior to the Tasmanian thing.
Because Australia was designed to be a prison, America was designed to be free.
Australian gun control worked great if you're a criminal. And all Australians are criminals. So it's a good law ;)
Because people have garages full of "not firearms"
>>55298722
They probably would work if implemented, the only thing is that our citizenry is not composed of limpwristed kucks who would give up their rights to live under a nanny state.
>>55298722
because if the 2nd amendment was abolished we wouldn't roll over like bitches and turn our guns in
>>55298722
Because there are too many guns, too many gangs and too few reasonable owners voicing progressive opinions. Australian gun restrictions, i.e. making it near impossible to get a semi-auto, would simply be taking the weapons away from those who abide by the law. Criminals won't care for a gun possession charge ontop of burgulary, murder etc - especially when less of the population is able to defend itself.
Coming from a 13 year shooter of .308, .243, .222 and .220 swift.
does any of this matter, i will never bang women like op's pic related
>>55298722
>post about australia
>image from Moscow
Never change aussie shitposters.
>>55298722
>Tell me why gun restrictions wouldn't work
Come and find out for yourself.
Because a badge doesn't make you always right, and neither does a suit and tie, and neither does a 6 figure salary and beyond.
>>55298801
This. Gun violence has gone down at a similar rate in the United States and we weren't total fags about it.
>>55298861
http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2015/06/only_23000_people_registered_assault_weapons_to_comply_with_ny_safe_act.html
>>55298722
>worked in Australia
If by "worked" you mean "the murder rate went up for a few years and then slowly went down over the next fifteen years to settle on less than a 1 per 100k reduction in murders" then sure, that's a valid argument
>instead stabbings skyrocketed
wow congrats. Gun prevalence is only related to gun violence. There is not a shred of evidence that no guns will engender a drop in overall violent crime.
>>55298863
Not with that attitude.
>>55298722
Well for one reason, because US is attached to mexico. Australia doesn't have that problem.
>>55298722
Work the same way? Why would we want that? The homicide rate has dropped faster in the US than in Australia since you guys b& guns, and we've loosened restrictions since then. I'd rather have my cake and eat it too.
>>55298722
they would work exactly the same way. it would have no overall effect on crime rates.
>>55298803
thread/
>>55298990
too bad it wasn't zero. but at at least it was a minority
>>55298722
niggers
>>55298722
1, They haven't decreased violent acts towards the genera populace, at best the ban hasn't increased victimization as a result but still hasn't provided effective results in deterring it.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/obama-praises-australias-gun-ban-the-actual-results/
2. Australia, like Britain and Japan, is mostly landlocked and as such it is easier to control access to firearms to the criminal base because gun running over borders is dramatically lowered.
This cannot be said about the US, European countries with ties to Africa and other gun running hot spots.
3. Gun control only results in a general disarmed populace for which the police and criminal elements gain the opportunity to do as they please without risking violent repercussions.
Gun control doesn't work because it shits on general principles of freedom of man and a secure natural state made by those that have the means to defend and grow it.
If we can trust lethal weapons in the hand of the government on the basis of serving the public, then the same should be considered for the general populace otherwise the state will admit them lesser rights than it grants itself meaning it seeks control over those under it.
>>55299261
According to someone in the comments most of those complying are police.
>>55298990
how did the "assault" rifle registration go in Massachusetts?
>>55299113
The problem you presented is backwards
>>55298722
OP is that pic Moscow?
Anyone who tries to disarm us will be the first to hang on the Day of the Rope.
>>55298722
Nogs, beans, ulta libs etc. also, ultra tyranical pink floyd style govt tryin to edcape chrysalis. Ausrtralia abuncha koala on eucalyptist type, dont seem like yall needed em anyway mate
Port arthur was a false flag to create the tough gun laws we have today and it worked. If only you amerikeks had the ability to make real changes from an important event. Like, i dunno, weekly school shootings?
>>55298803
Then what went wrong, America?
>>55299295
that makes sense. but cant the police just own a banned gun?
I know in cali a officer can sell a gun that doesn't meet California standards (like pistol grip with detachable mag) to a civie and the civie won't have to alter the gun in anyway since he bought it from a cop.
>>55298902
It got you in though, didn't it?
>>55299458
we thought niggers and women were people
>>55299458
taxation without representation
>>55298722
Gun restrictions DIDN'T work in Australia. And you guys don't have 40 million niggers in your country.
>>55299077
>There is not a shred of evidence that no guns will engender a drop in overall violent crime.
liberals dont seem to care about this. the politicians dont really care about the public safety. a scared populous is a docile populous. they want us to be unable to protect ourselves. due to indoctrination leftists dont seem to register that gun crime=/=general safety of the people they are trying to protect. want to protect kids? raise awareness for child-proof chemical cabinets and gated pools.
>>55299181
But, you know, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The saying says so.
>>55299243
It isn't about crime, it is about people dying by gunshot.
>>55299313
presently, yes. but it can go both ways. if the cartels can smuggle drugs in, they can smuggle guns in
organized crime stays in power by making money any way they can
>>55299563
What does it matter what tool people use to kill eachother? A dead person is still dead whether he was shot, stabbed, or clubbed.
>>55299362
No false flag, just bodies.
>>55299563
This is the dumbest bullshit ive heard in over a month and a half, snd for some fuckin reason I heard obama speak within that period. If thats the only reason to ban guns, argument mute, which its moot anyway. Why sacrifice your rights for sucha stupid excuse. Esp with nigs in ur outback yard and chinks on the otherside of lake
>>55299600
A gun is the easiest 'tool' to end a life, I don't even need to think it through or plan it very much to pull a trigger. Think of a small child with a gun. How many other ways can that child take a persons life that easily.
You're a fucking spastic
>>55298763
in nz you don't have suburbs full of kebab criminals
>>55298779
Militia.
>>55299563
that number in the US is actually low.
-60% of gun related deaths are suicides, this is according to the CDC
-the number of gun deaths libs like to refer to includes:
police shootings (both justified and unjustified)
people killed in gang related shootings
and justifiable homicides
if you arent in a gang your chances of being hit by lighting are better than your chances of being shot
>>55299740
>not a car
http://www.livescience.com/21774-bullet-gunshot-wound-survive.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0
>If a gunshot victim’s heart is still beating upon arrival at a hospital, there is a 95 percent chance of survival, Dr. DiMaio said. (People shot in vital organs usually do not make it that far, he added.)
Shots to roughly 80 percent of targets on the body would not be fatal blows, Dr. Fackler said. Still, he added, it is like roulette.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/news_releases/2014/01/band/
>>55299740
>A gun is the easiest 'tool' to end a life
and yet more people are killed in vehicle related accidents than intentional shootings
>>55299740
>A gun is the easiest 'tool' to end a life
It's also the easiest tool to kill a criminal.
The fact is that regardless of your (stupid, uninformed) intuition, banning guns didn't fucking work in australia. Your murder rate even now is barely different than it was in 1996 when most of the regulations went in, and yet, America's murder rate has decreased by 50% over the same time period, despite constantly decreasing gun regulations and increasing civilian gun ownership!
>>55299831
you are in a militia, assuming you arent a hamplanet
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
>>55299563
>being stabbed to death and overall violence doesnt matter as long as slightly fewer people die from a bullet
keep telling yourself that, m80
>>55298771
>not allowing the government to violate our rights will stop it from violating them
>not allowing criminals to own guns will not stop them from owning them
Explain yourself.
>>55299740
Thats the point of the tool, and that makes it an effecient tool. What difference does it make if its a child or not, wtf does that have to do with anything? A responsible gun owner locks their shit, if a kid dies from an irresponsible parent, kid was probably going to get kidnapped and raped anyway, parents obviosly didnt give two fucks about him. I have two kids that are still alive and omg, ive got 8+ guns But theyre locked up and they have no way of gettin em and i give enough fucks to teach em about safety.
The world needs less idiots
>>55298902
Am I appropriating Russian culture? Are you triggered?
>>55299831
First of all, you need to read the second amendment. The right isn't granted to the militia, it's granted to everyone, because the people who ratified the constitution believed the existence of a militia is important.
More importantly, a "militia" is everyone who could fight in a war but isn't a part of a regular, standing army. So, literally every adult that has access to one or more weapons.
>>55299851
Good one, link US articles defending US 2nd amendment.
Just keep pretending you aren't the most violently scared, self loathing, gun toting country in the world... Whatever makes you feel better.
>>55299759
And here is the answer to the OP's question.
Australia is two cities and wilderness. I'm actually a little shocked that they got rid of their guns, because the continent is 95% uninhabited wasteland.
>>55299980
It's already a illegal for a felon to obtain a gun or to sell or give a gun to a felon. But hey, as it turns out, the fact that it's illegal doesn't magically make people stop doing it, especially when we're talking about people who ALREADY BREAK THE LAW.
>>55298722
They probably would work EXACTLY like tey dis here is Aus:
>People give up their guns
>Criminals keep theirs
>Criminals get more guns illegaly
>Criminals smuggle in full-auto weaponry, and make their own
>Police crack down on civilian guns
>Criminals don't care
>Muslims shoot up police and civilians
...Just as happened here.
[pic related] is OP.
>>55300058
Only the city folks did.
>>55300056
>Just keep pretending you aren't the most violently scared, self loathing, gun toting country in the world... Whatever makes you feel better.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”-Plato
>>55299831
Madison's original text:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
Was edited down to the current version to remove the conscientious objector clause in it and apparently fluff about the reasons for the right.
>>55300089
Making something illegal doesn't ever completely stop people from doing it. Doesn't mean we should make everything legal. Should we legalize murder just because people haven't stopped killing? Exactly.
>>55300184
can i have a source for this? i would love to use this argument in a debate
>>55300056
>>55299740
>>55299607
>>55299563
>>55299546
>>55299458
>>55298722
I apologise for my nation's insistence on teaching the stupid to read and write.
>>55300238
That is not the point he was making, and you know it.
Also [citation needed] for your image.
>>55298779
Well. Regulated.
>>55300238
now lets see the one with overall crime rates compared to strictness of gun laws.
>>55300238
Funny, chicago, new york and cali have highest crime rates per capita.
>>55298722
Australia doesn't share any borders.
>>55300238
"Gun deaths" literally don't matter.
For one thing, because they are mostly suicides. Over 2/3rds, nationally.
But also, because even the number of gun murders doesn't matter. The TOTAL murder rate matters. And in that regard, murder rate for states compared to their gun control level is uncorrelated, as is the relationship between gun control and total murder or violent crime globally.
>Making something illegal doesn't ever completely stop people from doing it. Doesn't mean we should make everything legal.
Absolutely! I'm not calling for the government to sell guns to felons. I'm calling on retards like you to stop trying to get the government from taking guns away from everyone else. Because, guess what, when you take away firearms from regular people, criminals don't have to wonder about whether or not a target could just fucking kill them or not. If somehow the US federal government got rid of every civilian firearm, do you know what would happen? Niggers would have open season, just like they did in Australia! Or rather, many times worse, because of how we have many times more niggers.
>>55300238
Thank god gun control is useful to prevent gun death. But i'm pretty sure it doesn't prevent other death.
These statistics are so retarded
>>55300238
>Should we legalize murder
you have committed the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.
the act of murder is inherently wrong (mala in se)
the act of simply owning a weapon does not affect anybody besides the owner. what the owner chooses to do with said object is another story
>>55300238
Wow! People who want to kill themselves choose the first option that appears available to them. Way to create a graph that proves absolutely nothing.
>>55300344
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
I'm going to be so happy when trump deports you
Because it attempts to lower gun violence yet would spark a second revolution which would cause a lot of fun violence.
It also did nothing when they did it in the 90's
It also doesn't address the real issue, niggers and spics having guns.
I can't because . . . Well shit
>>55300344
Means well armed, faggot
>>55300379
>Niggers
Wow, so edgy.
But then again why am I surprised? It shouldn't come as a surprise that your typical gun freak is also a putrid racist. One more reason to ban guns altogether.
>>55298722
We don't have the same radial tension they do.
Remember
>Mexicans invaded Texas
>Canadians burned the white house down
>The north declared war on the south
>The drug war
>The "evil" government/cops
>The natives scalping the settlers
....
Plenty of reasons Americans needed guns, and some still are a concern...
Here we live isolated, and we don't have that much of internal tension.
Besides, its in the constitution.
>>55300247
It is the first draft of the bill of rights/the 17 amendments ratified by the house. Madison submitted 39 amendments, 17 were approved by the house which then became modified and turned into 12 amendments ratified by the senate, and then 10 of those were ratified by the house again to become the bill of rights (one was later ratified in 1992 and one remains unratified). This isn't a contentious thing and any history book on it will have it, here is a link though http://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/four-stages/
>>55300435
Seriously
>inb4 (fagut) should have oppurtunity to reflect, not big enuff boy to have gun, everybody still in pull ups.
>>55298779
>>55300344
in the language of the time that phrase means to be in good working order. like a well regulated clock
>>55298722
because your a faggot and i hope you die
>>55300500
>and we don't have that much of internal tension.
If these chinks don't stop their spy shenanigans we might
>>55298722
>this thread again
Why do you want to ban gun in a fucking foreign country ?
Respect their culture, the way they live is none of your business.
Also the USA doesn't have a gun problem but a nigger problem. Criminals deserves to die, I see nothing wrong with niggers being shot.
>>55300555
Damn. Nice tits n trips. Must say, good choice
>>55300578
This you beautiful man
>>55300474
>>55300492
>In any event, it is clear that the drafters believed the militia that provides the best security for a free state to be the permanent state militia, not some amorphous body of the people as a whole, or whatever random and informal collection of armed individuals may from time to time appear on the scene for one purpose or another.
>The debates of the founding era demonstrate that the second of the first ten amendments to the Constitution was included in order to preserve the efficacy of the state militias for the people's defense -- not to ensure an individual right to possess weapons. Specifically, the amendment was enacted to guarantee that the people would be able to maintain an effective state fighting force -- that they would have the right to bear arms in the service of the state.
-- Judge Stephen Reinhardt
>The right the Court announces was not “enshrined” in the Second Amendment by the Framers; it is the product of today’s law-changing decision. Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding.
-- Justice John Paul Stevens
TL; DR (for you mouthbreathing retards) the Second Amendment means exactly the opposite of what the gun industry lobby wants you to believe it does, it means any and all gun regulation the government enacts is perfectly okay.
>>55300499
If I'm racist for saying niggers murder more than other people, what does that make niggers for committing the vast majority of interracial murder? And also all other kinds of murder
>>55300626
There it is, the stupidest post I'll read all day.
>>55300120
In that case, that's exactly as reasonable as "NO GUNS" can be. I approve. Who cares about the City, save for the people inside it?
No idea why you banned guns in the first place.
>>55300654
Amazing rebuttal. I'm completely convinced.
>>55300344
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment is that something is "in proper working order";
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
>>55300626
Yes, your two judges overrides several explicit supreme court rulings and the writings of the founding fathers.
Didn't read the thread.
The question
>Tell me why gun restrictions wouldn't work the same way they did here in Australia
Is moot, because gun control didn't work in Australia.
>>55300700
Dubs confirm
>>55300628
poverty, niggers are discriminated against, white privilege etc.
It's too damn hot to shitpost properly.
>>55298722
how many niggers do you have again?
>>55300238
You've got seven states and you had to include suicides. I've got eight matches without them.
States with lowest gun homicide rates
1. Vermont
2. New Hampshire
3. Hawaii
4. North Dakota
5. Iowa
6. Idaho
7. Maine
8. Utah
9. Oregon
10. Wyoming
States with lowest percentage of black population
1. Montana
2. Idaho
3. Vermont
4. Utah
5. Maine
6. New Hampshire
7. Wyoming
8. North Dakota
9. South Dakota
10. Oregon
Gun regulations in the US = sweet new line of business for the cartels and international arms dealers. Plus, 3D printing of guns and gun parts is going to become common. The War on Drugs has been a spectacular failure, but the War on Guns would be an even bigger one.
>>55300626
>high ranking judges knowingly and intentionally deny all definitions of the day and past rulings to force their own will on the constitution
literally treason.
>>55300686
Actually, the writings of the founding fathers were used by the two judges you just simply dismissed to either refute the lobby-funded Supreme Court rulings or to rule diametrically oppositely (because Judge Reinhardt's quote predates DC v. Heller). Look it up.
>>55300626
Guess what, they're fucking wrong. No surprise that judges appointed by fucking carter and ford can't read and comprehend a single sentence.
THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. IT SHALL NOT BECAUSE A MILITIA IS IMPORTANT. That's literally it. It doesn't say, "the federal government should let people part of a formal military group have guns", it says that the federal government shall not infringe upon the RIGHT. Rights are held by all citizens, not just those of specific employ.
>>55300790
Do you have any evidence that refutes the multiple supreme court rulings on the topic?
Do you think your individual judges are a higher authority?
>>55300838
>Argumentum ad verecundiam
Nice.
>>55300499
>literally crying muh racism
>literally contributes nothing of substance
aet an cokpenis niger
>>55300802
Amen. The founding principal that created freedom, normal people having guns to fight tyranny. Faggots seem to want to forget cause they like getting fucked by the govt. but the idea is for normal citizens to have arms to protect liberty.
>>55300875
>fallacy fallacy
>ad hominem
>>55300875
That's how the law works you dumbass.
You guys are all forgetting one key point.
The right to bear arms isn't even granted to the militia, it's for the people.
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
>The right of the people
>The people
It's basically just saying "Militias are pretty good, so let's codify everybody's right to own guns just in case they want to join one."
>>55300499
>gets proven wrong
>"I'll criticise his use of the word nigger!"
>>55300875
>HAHA HE SAID AUTHORITY THAT MEANS ITS AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY
you can't discuss laws outside the legal system shit for brains
How can one simple sentence be so misunderstood for so long?
Seriously all these dictionary definitions, linguistics studies, court rulings. Its fucking pathetic.
>>55300923
Sadly. If it worked by reason, what do you think would win: Judge Reinhardt's complete, sound, solid and well-thought-out argument (here http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html#search=%22ninth%20circuit%20%22second%20amendment%22%22), or DC v. Heller's baseless lobby-funded decision?
That's proof this country is corrupt to the core and it needs a violent revolution right now.
>>55300926
Well said, and underrated.
>>55301015
Then by all means try and get gunned down like the rest of your mexican bretheren on the day of the wall.
You're cherry picking judges and bitching and moaning when the legal system doesn't agree with you.
Also the antigunners have more lobbiers and are better funded
>>55300802
Oh yeah, Judge Reinhardt wrote this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html#search=%22ninth%20circuit%20%22second%20amendment%22%22
But you, in two sentences, refuted all of that. You totally changed my mind!
>>55301015
Wait, you want a violent revolution with guns in order to ban guns? That's a little silly
>>55300989
Its basically, because those in positions of power realised early on that the 2A is intended as a safeguard against their abuses.
Hence their constant attempts to neuter it.
>>55301079
Why do you have such a boner for reinhardt?
Thankfully the american legal system was designed so that one or two communists couldn't destroy the nation.
>>55301015
Irrelevant. Supreme court overrides your special snowflake judge.
>>55301079
See >>55301117
And nice ad hominem and appeal to incredulity.
Gay/10
>>55300578
I don't want to ban gun culture in America. I'm simply askiing why it wouldn't work because here in Aus the general consensus is that Americans are gun obsessed morons. Of course no one knows the facts though and i myself would like to know them so I can tell people that they're wrong (telling people they're wrong is a hobby of mine).
>>55301098
It's gotta be so frustrating for the sane people in Murka though.
Glad we don't have to worry about it...
...
:(
>>55301117
>>55301151
>his argument is irrelevant, even though he's right, because a higher authority decreed he isn't
Seriously, if you believe in truth by decree, you need to be hanged.
>>55301079
I don't care what he wrote or how long it is if he lacks basic reading comprehension. And apparently, he does. "The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". That is the law. The rest of the amendment is just explanation of the rationale, which doesn't actually hold any legal value of its own, but more importantly, means the exact opposite of what they suggest. The point of the second amendment, is that the federal government cannot impose itself on the right to bare arms specifically so that the possibility of a non-governmental armed force could exist, as is plainly stated.
>>55300989
Misunderstood and intentionally taken out of context are two different things. Google eric holder brainwashing americans to give up guns. He said this, he was obamas attorney general doj.
>>55301158
Largely because in america gun ownership is understandably linked with freedom. It's the means by which all rights are protected. If our government when all europe and started saying fuck you to the people we'd say fuck you right back. It gives power to the people rather than the political elite.
How can you trust the government with guns and not your fellow man?
>>55301202
>he says as fellating reinhardt
>>55301179
>Glad we don't have to worry about it...
... because we're already slaves?
>>55301298
Yes :(
>>55301202
Your whole argument can be summed up as:
>this judge is right because I agree with him
... which makes it an appeal to authority.
Your're wrong. Accept it.
>>55301158
Basically
1. The gun ban didn't actually help out the situation in Australia
2. The vast majority of gun crime in america is done by gang members to other gang members using guns which they aren't legally allowed to have and either bought through a straw purchase or stole, neither of which would be at all eliminated by tighter gun control.
3. Firearms can and are used to stop violent criminals all the time. They also act as a deterrent, as a criminal has to guess whether or not a potential victim will just shoot them. If they know their victim is a law abiding citizen and won't have a gun because they aren't allowed one, all they have to worry about is making sure that they're stronger than the target or have someone to help them. If civilian gun ownership were somehow curbed in america, you would see an enormous spike in robberies, assaults, rapes, and home invasions. And probably a spike in murder, but less pronounced.
>>55298771
Thats not true the government has violated them short of outright striking them from the record.
>The law of the land = the demographic and crime rate of the people inhabiting it
Murka smart bcoz dey hav make big gun
>>55301531
Mostly true
Firstly, Australia had nowhere near the amount (proportionally) of gun owners as the US, not even close, so it was less of a concern to those who did not own firearms and therefore there was not a strong opposition to the introduction of gun control laws.
Secondly, Australians in general are far more stupid on the whole than your average American. Australians have been shown to willingly swallow draconian laws that remove freedoms where Americans are far more likely to reject that. It's why we call ourselves the "Nanny State". Just look at the widespread resistance to the changes to the racial discrimination act that would have removed the "insult or offend" part of the legislation. Australian people actually stood in defence of a law that makes it illegal to offend and insult people.
There you go, Australians are fucking idiots, simple.
Because they didn't work here
>>55298722
moscow girls are awesome (pic related)
>>55299980
that ruling was upholding the 2nd amendment though.
The ruling said that you can only ban a gun if it is particularly unusual or ban guns from a location if self defense wouldn't be a concern there (such as a school, thinking that children won't be shooting each other... that clearly needs to be reexamined)
He was saying that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to the sort of arms used to stop oppression/attackers.
>>55302150
>(pic related)
But there's nothing th-
oh I get it
>>55298722
There are still unlicensed firearms in circulation in Australia. There are still shootings in Australia.
There are more guns in Burgerland, both licensed and unlicensed. America also has niggers. Most Clapistan shootings are hood apes doing each other in and blaming evil whitey for keeping them down.
Accessibility might make a difference in school shootings but it's not going to put an end to dindus.
>>55303355
There are also licensed firearms in Australia.
About 23% of illegal guns got handed in during the confiscations, and we now have more legal guns than we have at any point in our history.
>>55298722
Shall not be infringed
fuck off Australia, saged.
>>55303470
Well regulated.
>>55299856
to be fair cars are useful compared to claims of necessary manly hunting for food, and dreaming of shooting up that next trespasser.
>>55303489
>Has been proven wrong literally dozens of times
>Completely refuses to accept reality
>Can't even read a simple sentence
>>55298722
The wouldn't work because gun laws reflect culture.
> read before posting
> OP is worse than faggot; OP is ignorant
>>55303513
>can only come up with simplistic arguments
>data refutes your pseudo-reality and reason refutes your interpretation of the law
>diagnosis: clinical retardation
>>55303642
>Literally can't read a simple sentence
Just answer this: is the right for the people or the militia?
>>55303696
Unequivocally, for the militia.
>In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
>Historical research shows that the use of the term “bear arms” generally referred to the carrying of arms in military service-not the private use of arms for personal purposes. For instance, Professor Dorf, after canvassing documents from the founding era, concluded that “[o]verwhelmingly, the term had a military connotation.” Our own review of historical documents confirms the professor's report.29 The Tennessee Supreme Court, in the most significant judicial decision to construe the term “bear arms,” concluded that it referred to the performance of a military function: “A man in pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms.”
>>55303950
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms
>The right of the people
>The people
How many times must this be repeated to you
>>55303950
B T F O
T
F
O
>>55303996
>I am one of simple mind, I have to take things at face value and repeat the same simplistic and unconvincing argument over and over to my opponents, because deep analyses of meaning and historical context always go straight over my head.
You're embarrassing yourself.
>>55304086
>I literally can't read the law
The law is very consistent in this regard.
The people have the right to bear arms so that they may use them as part of a militia.
This is where that stuff you've posted about "militia usage" comes from - everybody has a right to keep and bear arms, but that right is because of the militia.
Now I get that you hate women, the disabled and the elderly (legally, the militia is all able-bodied males between 17 and 45), but they have a right to bear arms as well.
>>55304143
>he people have the right to bear arms so that they may use them as part of a militia.
ugh straya, you really are embarrassing yourself. two separate statements tbf, im trying to help you not look this bad in the future family
>>55304143
I should add that you can keep posting your silly little interpretations of things, but the law very explicitly states the opposite.
There's a very specific definition of the informal militia.
>>55304196
>I'm going to agree with you while making it look like I disagree with you!
The second amendment was written to codify the right of the people.
It was written because they saw the need for a citizen's militia, and saw the bearing of arms as important towards that end.
The right doesn't require the participation in a militia, but that was the original intent.
Jesus christ people get antsy when Australians post pro-gun stuff.
>>55304283
whoops. when i was reading through the argument i mixed up ids
more then a little drunk
fight the good fight against this fag, need to freshen up this drinkk
>>55304143
>>55304283
>Contemporaneously enacted provisions of the Constitution that contain the word “militia” consistently use the term to refer to a state military entity, not to the people of the state as a whole. We look to such contemporaneously enacted provisions for an understanding of words used in the Second Amendment in part because this is an interpretive principle recently explicated by the Supreme Court in a case involving another word that appears in that amendment-the word “people.” That same interpretive principle is unquestionably applicable when we construe the word “militia.”
>“Militia” appears repeatedly in the first and second Articles of the Constitution. From its use in those sections, it is apparent that the drafters were referring in the Constitution to the second of two government-established and -controlled military forces. Those forces were, first, the national army and navy, which were subject to civilian control shared by the president and Congress,26 and, second, the state militias, which were to be “essentially organized and under control of the states, but subject to regulation by Congress and to ‘federalization’ at the command of the president.”
>To determine that “militia” in the Second Amendment is something different from the state entity referred to whenever that word is employed in the rest of the Constitution would be to apply contradictory interpretive methods to words in the same provision. The interpretation urged by those advocating the traditional individual rights view would conflict directly with Verdugo-Urquidez. If the term “the people” in the latter half of the Second Amendment must have the same meaning throughout the Constitution, so too must the phrase “militia.”
>>55298722
Your island, its inhabitants and history are nothing like America's, for instance. You cannot simply take guns away, maybe you could have couple hundred years ago before such saturated ubiguity, but not now.
They didn't work here in Australia.
>>55304535
Did you literally just copy and paste that from a liberal's blog?
Give me an actual, legal definition saying "The militia refers to the formal militia".
Because we've been giving you actual, legal definitions saying the opposite.
>>55298722
Are there a lot of niggers in the outback?
If no, that's why it has succeeded.
If yes, then your baboons are behaving.
>>55304283
America was literally founded on the idea of breaking away from a tyrannical government, and we believe, that our second amendment guarentees us the right to bear arms, to rise up against said tyrannical government again if need be.
>>55304697
>t-this can't be real, p-please tell me this comes from a librul blog
Wow, you're so buttflustered. It came from a court:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1464183.html#search=%22ninth%20circuit%20%22second%20amendment%22%22
>>55304801
Eh, it's really about stopping tyrants in general.
The modern interpretation of it being stopping your own government is really just because your own government is the biggest threat right now.
>>55304824
Still quoting that little handful of stalinist judges that try going headlong against every legal definition and law in your nation?
Keep trying. Just remember to read the pic in >>55300676, where it quotes the legal definition of the US militia.
>>55304856
This is how 90% of conservative Americans think of it, also why the fuck would i ever want to turn my gun in when i practice responsible gun ownership?
>>55304983
>stalinist
Justice Stevens was a registered Republican, appointed by a Republican president.
>>55305125
Blame spellcheck.
*statist
All that a civil and democratic state needs to do to regulate gun ownership is to make extremely hard for criminals to get them legally, while allowing law abiding citizens to do so without any arbitrary restriction.
Gun registration and background checks are all that you need to prevent the usage of legally attained firearms in crime. There is no need to restrict handguns, salt rifles, tactical assault clips and any other kind of scary weapon.
In Italy you need to have a clean criminal record and no pending mental health conditions to buy a gun. Also, after you buy it, you need to register it so that the police knows which guns you own. You also are accountable for their custody: If you do something like a straw purchase to help a criminal, if your guns get stolen and you fail to report it promptly, or if your assburgers son kills someone with them, you are going to be fucked in the ass royally by the justice system.
With this system we have one the lowest rate of homicides perpetrated using legally acquired firearms in europe (if i recall correctly: only 15 in 2013, half of which where committed by police officers using their service gun). We never had a school shooting in our history, unlike Germany and France, which have far more restrictive gun control laws. At the same time, we can get our hands on juicy stuff like, tacticool american assault weapons, ex-military salt rifles (need to be stripped of their full auto capability tho) and even sweet russian imports that are banned in the US, like SVDs (at their actual, non inflated, price).
>>55299759
Not yet anyway. The average person here thinks it's a brilliant idea to let as many in as possible. I'd rather Asians. At least they're submissive and tend to own a lot of stuff and land as opposed to stealing and harassing. We can always do with more fish n chip shops anyway.
>>55298722
>Tell me why gun restrictions wouldn't work the same way they did here in Australia.
Here's your answer >>55299759
>suburbs full of kebab criminals
Wow, that was easy.
>>55305225
Licensing systems are far simpler, cheaper and more pertaining to freedom than registries.
>Don't have to register a gun every time, just flash your license
>So there's only one background check ever done
>Easier to revoke somebody's access to legal firearms
>The government doesn't know what guns you have, making confiscation impossible
>Legal transfers can be done without paperwork
>Easier to justify when someone was illegally in possession of a gun (i.e. they can't legitimately claim "It was registered to him, I was just borrowing it for a weekend!")
>Covers firearms, ammunition and components equally
I agree that there should be measures in place to stop some people from having access to guns, but licenses are way better than registries.
>>55299534
The top right graph clearly shows a drop, and the other three don't mention firearms at all.
>>55305451
>They don't mention firearms at all
Why should they?
Banning guns should actually do something to reduce crime rates, rather than just shift them around to different weapons.
If the same number of people are being murdered, it doesn't matter if it's with rifles or with knives.
>>55305495
Banning firearms was primarily to reduce homicide, not assault. People are going to find ways to commit robbery and assault regardless of what they have access to. No one can deny that. But murder is a very deliberate thing to do, and someone with a gun is more likely to act on impulse and pull the trigger than to stab someone repeatedly to death.
>>55305716
>someone with a gun is more likely to act on impulse and pull the trigger than to stab someone repeatedly to death.
[citation needed]
>>55305716
That sounds like really valid rhetoric.
Let's check if it's backed up in the statistics.
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf
Whoops, looks like Australia's gun laws had absolutely zero measurable effect on the homicide rate.
That last point often takes a while to sink in, so just read that last sentence again to make sure you've gotten it.
On top of that, there's actually no correlation between homicide and gun ownership rates across the world.
There isn't any correlation with suicide, rape or assault either, but you already predicted that.
>>55305762
Imagine a domestic dispute. The guy wants to kill his wife. If he has a gun, he is more likely to act rashly and shoot her in a fit of race all in the blink of an eye. A knife would take longer, be messier, and would require a greater mental commitment. I can't claim to have ever shot or stabbed anyone before, but I would argue that its easier to shoot someone that stab them to death.
>>55305909
I've already used statistics to prove that to be nothing but conjecture.
>>55305797
I know this stuff normally takes a while to sink in.
Just read the post again.
Australia's gun laws did nothing to affect the homicide rate.
There is no correlation between guns and homicide.
Meaning that guns just do not cause or contribute to the homicide rate at all.
BOGANS AND BIKIES HAVE GUNS.
I WATCH YOUR TELEVISION.
>>55298722
Niggers.
>>55305909
[citation needed]
Everything you said is opinion, not fact.
>>55305979
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
I can bring in statistics too, whats your point?
>>55298722
That's some pretty sweet shitpost, m8.
>>55305909
Epic strawman. Here's a more realistic one:
Imagine a domestic dispute. The woman wants to kill her man because she (wrongly) thinks he is cheating on her. She has a knife, so she stabs him repeatedly while he is sleeping, knowing that she will get off scot-free by crying "muh domestic violence".
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2014/04/22/3148973/nampa-woman-to-serve-at-least.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_25549887/east-palo-alto-woman-who-killed-boyfriend-steak
http://gossipplug.com/man-killed-by-girlfriend-after-tweeting-his-womancrushwednesday/
http://www.kfvs12.com/story/25630426/m/category/106766/radar-images
http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/crime/woman-gets-years-for-plunging-knife-into-boyfriend-s-neck/article_25c72cb4-3815-11e3-9c76-0019bb30f31a.html
... I think that that will do.
I the best you can do to justify your poor argument is to use an imaginary situation, even you should see it is ridiculous.
>>55298722
because we are not slaves. You shills are so desperate to bring us to your level its disgusting. Move along drone.
>>55306122
Yes, that's actually exactly where that Melb. Uni study got their statistics from.
It clearly shows that the gun laws had no effect on the homicide rates.
Also, "homicides involving firearms" is a very different statistic to homicide.
>>55298722
jesus christ post more
>>55301531
The problem is invasive gun restrictions might work the same.
Guns are a deterrent factor that forces the government to play in a way that gives us time to oppose things legally.
While we may have as corrupt a government as any other, someone in it cannot unilaterally declare us a Muslim safe haven and then go on to tell our industries they need to hire and train these new muslim citizens.
They would be responsible for the ensuing murders and would even actually be in danger of assassination.
Most other politicians would throw them under the bus to try and calm the angry, armed masses.
tl;dr well armed citizens force the people in power to think about their decisions.
In America, when everything is a-ok prior to your decisions, then people start dying, you can't shut down criticism with talk of racism because everyone knows that much more is at play.
Do the guns deserve credit for that?
I can't say, but in Europe accusations of reckless spending have actually been shut down with a self righteous: "I refuse to answer because the tone of your accusation offends me!"
>>55306167
>Yes, that's actually exactly where that Melb. Uni study got their statistics from
A government criminology institution probably has more credibility than a university.
> Also, "homicides involving firearms" is a very different statistic to homicide.
....you realise this whole thread is about firerams right?
>>55306122
So you wanna play the official publications game? Ok:
>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
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
>A 2011 study published by the Justice Policy Journal examined the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand over a 30 year time period. The results don’t provide any evidence in favor of the belief that banning guns reduces mass shootings. According to the authors:
“[The results do]not find support for the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2122854
>A study published in the British Journal of Criminology found that there was no evidence that the NFA [National Firearms Agreement] had any impact on reducing firearm homicide. They did find that it may have helped reduce firearm suicide, but noted that societal factors were already reducing suicide rates.
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/3/455.abstract
>Lastly, a 2009 study published by the Australian Institute for Suicide Research examined how the NFA effected suicide rates and found the following:
“The implemented [firearm] restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference”.
http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/18839044/Controlling_firearms_use_in_Australia_has_the_1996_gun_law_reform_produced_the_decrease_in_rates_of_suicide_with_this_method
Amount of guns has little to no correlation to amount of crime.
Banning guns just removes ability for people to defend themselves.
>>55306301
>A government criminology institution probably has more credibility than a university
As I said, the uni literally got their stats from the AIC.
They just compiled them.
The AIC stats clearly show that gun control didn't do shit.
>....you realise this whole thread is about firerams right?
Less than half an hour ago you stated that gun laws reduce the homicide rate as "someone with a gun is more likely to act on impulse".
Therefore, your statement would be backed up by statistics showing that gun control affects the *overall* murder rate.
If it has no effect on the *overall* murder rate, your hypothesis is incorrect.
As I've demonstrated, gun laws do nothing to reduce the homicide rate.
>>55298722
There is an estimated 350 million guns in private hands here in the U.S. The bulk of these are in the hands of pro-gun-rights conservatives. America has a "gun culture" which idealizes gun ownership rights, lethal self-defense, and violent resistance to tyranny. Any attempt to implement an involuntary gun seizure program would be met with fatal consequences for the officials involved.
Think I'm exaggerating? In the 1990's two anti-government militants blew up a federal building in Oklahoma city in response to a mishandled federal raid on a religious cult in Waco Texas. Almost two hundred government bureaucrats died, along with several of their children because the building had a day care center. Just last year there was an armed stand-off between federal officials and a volunteer conservative/libertarian force in Nevada over grazing rights; the feds had to back down to avoid a blood bath. Again, that was over GRAZING rights on Federal land, which is rightly regulated by the federal government, not Constitutionally guaranteed gun rights.
Any effort to even slightly limit gun rights in this country provokes violent rhetoric, and often costs any elected officials involved their next elections. The Democrats just lost elections in Virginia and a few other states because liberals from New York decided to fund gun-control adds in those states.
Put simply, when "crazy right-wingers" threaten a civil war in America over gun-rights, they aren't kidding and they have the firepower and popular support to back their threats up.
>>55306391
Have you looked at the AIC statistics themselves form their site itself instead of what the university compiled? As of yet, you haven't really formed a coherent argument besides posting that one uni study, and a couple articles from pro-gun sites. At the end of every single one your posts, you even insist that
>lalala see I've demonstrated I'm right
>>55305398
We have licensing too, but that alone is insufficient to prevent things like straw purchases. If you don't know who is supposed to own a specific gun it's way harder to determine who should be held accountable when that gun ends up in the hands of a criminal.
And registries aren't that hard to manage, nor costly. I mean, if our renowned bureaucracy manages do it without fucking up since the '30s, then really anyone else can.
>>55306496
Yes, I actually have looked at them.
What evidence would you like me to provide?
What would convince you?
What, apart from the convincing evidence I've already posted, would convince you that guns don't cause crime?
I've got all this shit stacked up and ready to go, so I can fill basically any reasonable request.
>>55298722
Because unlike every other ciuntry american citizens are made to be unhappy. So sure enforce gun control, Theyre still gonna pass laws that makes everyones lives miserable, nothings stopping us from killing each other except washington
>>55306532
Okay, well, start with the graph I posted at >>55306122
Taken straight from the AIC site, it shows a decrease in firearm homicides from 1999 onwards. However, you claim at the end of >>55306391 that guns laws do nothing to reduce the (firearm) homicide rate. I would like you to explain this. I'm not even pro nor against gun laws to be quite honsest, I'm just going off government statistics, and I'm just genuinely curious what a /pol/ poster could prove that AIC hasn't.
>>55298722
But it did not work in Australia man show me the facts
>>55306660
1996 onwards*, my mistake
>>55299740
>A gun is the easiest 'tool' to end a life
That'd be matches m8.
4 of the 5 highest body count massacres since we stop slaughtering abos have been done by arson.
>>55306660
It looks to me more like it's starting from 1990.
>you claim... that guns laws do nothing to reduce the (firearm) homicide rate
I did nothing of the sort.
Gun laws are effective at reducing the firearms homicide rate.
They just shift it onto other weapons, like knives and bats.
The overall homicide rate has stayed the same, there are just different weapons involved.
It's like trying to reduce the road toll by banning red cars.
There would be fewer red-car-crashes, but the overall road toll would stay the same because people would just crash silver, white and black cars instead.
If banning red cars doesn't have any effect on the overall road toll, the laws haven't been worthwhile.
Similarly, if banning guns doesn't reduce the overall homicide rate then it can't be said to have had any reasonable effect.
>I'm just genuinely curious what a /pol/ poster could prove that AIC hasn't
Oh, a good portion of my evidence is from the AIC. I also use other sources like UN studies, CDC reports and university research papers.
Asking me to "prove something that the AIC can't" is a stupid question, because the AIC already has proven it.
>>55298722
1. Why take away one of our rights?
2. Our fellow citizens aren't the problem. The over-reaching government is the problem. I'm not afraid of another citizen but I am afraid of my out of control government.
I say this as someone with a pretty much leftist political view. I don't own a gun but I very much want to right to get one anytime I choose.
>>55306795
I should also add that it's logically inconsistent to claim:
>Gun laws would reduce the homicide rate because guns make it easier to kill people!
And then simultaneously claim:
>You can't just use homicide stats, you have to specifically include "homicides involving firearms" because it's a thread about gun control!
You can only have one of those two statements, because they conflict with each other.
I swear, I've been in so many of these fucking debates that I just go on autopilot.
>Post evidence
>They say "That study/paper/data isn't valid!"
>They provide no reason why it isn't valid
>They just don't like it because it disagrees with them
>>55298722
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
>>55306795
>>you claim... that guns laws do nothing to reduce the (firearm) homicide rate
>I did nothing of the sort
Yes you did. Right at the bottom of your post in pic related
>It looks to me more like it's starting from 1990.
Granted there is slight shifts throughout the decades, but the most significant and permanent drop comes at 96', which can be attributed to the buyback scheme most likely.
>UN studies, CDC reports
Post more of these if you have them, not cheap articles from NRA type websites.
>>55306259
THis
>>55306983
You obviously cannot read:
You are deliberately conflating the homicide rate with the firearm homicide rate.
>>55300742
underrated
>>55306983
>Gun laws do nothing to reduce the homicide rate
>Gun laws do nothing to reduce the firearm homicide rate
These are two very different statements.
Please read them again and spot the difference.
Hint: this entire discussion has been focusing on that key difference.
>not cheap articles from NRA type websites
I posted a fucking study from Monash University! How is that an "NRA type website"?
Fuck me, mate.
Tell me very specifically what you want me to prove.
Very, very specifically.
I've already demonstrated that the Australian gun laws didn't do shit.
Please, for fuck's sake tell me what will satisfy you.
>>55307065
Nothing will satisfy him. He's one of those "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts!" people.
>>55298722
because niggers
>>55307095
I just wish he'd at least read what I'm saying.
Usually people will at least try to shift the goalposts and say "What about THIS meaningless statistic? What about THIS one?"
But this fucker's just flat-out refusing to read anything I say.
>>55307132
That's usually the mark of a shill - thay go off pre-written scripts.
>>55298722
It doesn't work. Everyone we don't want to have one, has one.
>>55307029
The question is about firearm homicides, not homicides. Obviously, if you include non-firearm homicides in your statistics then the homicide rate has not dropped much, but the discussion is regarding the rate of deaths caused by firearms. Also I can tell from >>55306879 and >>55306907 that you're starting to break down a bit with the consistency of your arguments, especially considering that they are posted one after another. If you have a new point, please make it. Again, I'm not trying to argue against you as an anti-gun gungrabber, I'm just genuinely curious.
>>55307159
*they
border w/ mexico
our government wants and plans to murder its own people. The only threat on planet earth to the continuity of the US federal government is the people of the united states. I hope you understand how such organizations are by nature focused on their self preservation, and that the idea that everyone is trying to do the best for society in good faith is the VERY ROOT of ignorance of people's capacity for evil.
The road to hell is not paved with good intentions, that phrase was made up by people who plan to execute deliberate cruelty and inflict pain and sufferring in a pre-meditated fashion for their own gain or worse, for it's own sake. This is not rare but the prevailing character of those in power in the US. The reason why, then, is that they literally plan to murder us and are fucking DESPERATE to do it asap, they are mad with their murderlust.
>>55307172
>The question is about firearm homicides, not homicides
Why?
Give me a single reason why it matters more if someone is shot than if they're stabbed.
Just one.
And don't you dare say "Because it's easier to shoot someone" again, I'll fucking walk away from this thread right now if you do.
My arguments are completely consistent, I'm just getting a bit fucking flustered at how utterly retarded you are.
>>55306771
There was a twenty year decline prior to 1996 you seem to be ignoring fel.
>>55307213
Why are non-firearm homicide statistics relevant in a discussion about firearm homicides statistics?
>>55307282
Because... And this is the last time I'll say this...
If gun laws are effective, they'll reduce the overall homicide rate.
If the same number of people are being murdered, then you haven't done anything.
I'm not going to say this again.
So just read this post until you understand it.
It might take 20 or even 30 tries, but you'll get there eventually.
>>55307172
>I'm not trying to argue against you as an anti-gun gungrabber
Except that is literally all you have done this whole time.
A murder is a murder, and the means to the murder make no difference to whether it is murder or not. Your attempt to separate firearm homicides from all homicides is a poor attempt to cherrypick data to support your blatant anti-gun viewpoint.
>>55300044
>every adult
Are niggers people?
>>55298722
Because criminals already have their networks and access to firearms, either through other criminals, illegal immigrants or politicians
Also
Check flag
>>55307258
>Sweden:
>Anti-Gunner: *provides statistics supporting his stance*
>American Pro-Gunner: *shall not be infringed*
kek, Sweden can't into reading.
>>55307343
They are adults, and technically human. They certainly don't act like they are sometimes...
>>55307308
You still haven't refuted the very first thing I asked you to explain, at >>55306660
I am asking you, to explain your claim that guns laws do nothing to reduce the firearm homicide statistics, despite it being proven otherwise at >>55306122 . That's it. Just start with that. Nothing more. I'm thinking of going to bed soon so I don't really want to spend more time on this, but if you can coherently refute that one single AIC graph I can at least take your arguments into consideration. Also your statement of "If gun laws are effective, they'll reduce the overall homicide rate" goes against everything else you've said, because it implies that gun laws work when effective, which isn't consistent with your whole "gun laws do nothing" argument.
>>55307480
Yep, I'm fucking done.
You are incapable of comprehending this debate.
Hopefully somebody who was actually reading this thread took something from it.
>>55300742
>States with lowest percentage of black population
I will also bet that would be the lowest je populations too
>ban jews when?
>>55307480
Damn you're an idiot. You actually think that the way someone is murdered makes a difference.
>>55307525
Well, running away from the debate is easier than arguing it, for you I guess. Thank you anyway though.
>>55298771
>He actually believes the government doesn't violate the constitution
>He doesn't realize that the federal government and supreme Court have taken huge steaming shits on every single amendment
>>55307633
If you actually want to learn, I've made all of my points multiple times.
If you're capable of rational thought, you'll pick it up eventually.
>>55307633
>"The other guy got tired of arguing with my 'brick wall' approach, I can now safely declare victory, and collect my 30 shekels"
-(You)
>>55307622
It doesn't. And thats not what I'm asking. You two are busy trying to explain how the homicide rate as a whole has not been decreased significantly as a result of the buyback scheme (which is true), when in fact I'm asking to explain the decrease in FIREARM homicide statistics, NOT homicide as a whole.
>>55307686
>I don't have anything more to post
>>55307749
Well, what can I do? Argue with myself?
>>55307789
>'m asking to explain the decrease in FIREARM homicide statistics
But that is utterly pointless.
If the WHOLE of homicide statistics have NOT gone down, (protip: homicides by arson have gone UP) all it means is that criminals are using less-traceable methods to murder.
Your emphasis on the "FIREARM!!1!!! homicide statistics" is a poor attempt to derail the matter at hand, which is whether or not removing guns from the equation reduces the number of murders.
>>55301158
>because here in Aus the general consensus is that Americans are gun obsessed morons.
We've been fed this narrative for probably more than 20 fucking years now. It's a complete fabrication as any one of us who visits the US can confirm.
Hollywood being full of clueless antis doesn't help either, most here learn about guns from watching tv/movies and so much of that shit is a complete fantasy eg: suppressors magically make guns totally silent. We're fed a complete fabrication of american gun culture yet every garden-variety fuckwit here accepts it as fact.
>>55300926
Saved and loved
>>55307643
Not sure what your point is here.
>gov does something unconstitutional
that doesn't invalidate the constitution, it invalidates the government.
>>55299759
>in nz you don't have suburbs full of kebab criminals
And neither does America
>>55308768
You have plenty of niggers, autist, read the whole thread.
