stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Resheph]

Originally Posted by patriot1776 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I dont give a fuck abotu crime rates or statistics you arent getting our fucking guns you communists lol move north to that socialist shithole present british colony if you aint like it

From what I've read in the past two weeks, you may find yourself eating your words. You have a President in his second term (therefore no reason to campaign for another one) and multiple mass shootings recently (2 in the past 3 weeks if I recall correctly).

And not everyone that is for gun control (read 'control', not 'elimination') is a communist. Your decision to use that as an attack shows ignorance.

[patriot1776]

taking the guns is step 1 of the Marxist playbook

[Lexical]

How the fuck is this stupid thread still alive?

[OforOppression]

i am ~really~ good at creating troll topics.

[patriot1776]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[OforOppression]

Naez is literally Alex Jones

[Vellatri]

Gotta keep this thing alive!

Australia, people? Really?

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

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), says the D.C. Examiner.

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, says the Examiner.

Wondering if this stuff was just cherry picked, (Choose Your Own Crime Stats) I attempted to verify it. The data from Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics actually compares positively with the Australian Institute of Criminology. Some other things I personally noted:

Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research points out that robbery only rose 6.2% during the period of 1995 to 2007. However, it is interesting to note that the Australian Institute on Crimonology shows a *massive* spike in robberies during the immediate period after the gun ban was instituted (1996 to 2001) and then something (presumably unrelated - any Aussies care to enlighten us?) caused it to immediately drop way down after 2001.

Looking at assault, which was specifically mentioned, AIC seems to show an increase of about 78% in the number of assaults from 1995 to 2007. It notes, "The trend in assaults shows an average growth of five percent each year from 1995 to 2007, four times the annual growth of the Australian population in the same period."

The onus is not on me to provide a need for any of my human rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It was written so that I don't have to bother justifying my reasons for exercising such rights. (That's one advantage of having a republic as opposed to a democracy.) This would hold true even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that guns 'r' bad, mmmkay?

Regardless, why do I want a gun? So I can shoot you in the face if you try to violate my other human rights. Why do I want an AR-15? So it's easier to shoot you if you try to take my other guns by force.

[Resheph]

I was talking to my g/f about this subject last night and she pretty much agreed with me:

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Regardless, why do I want a gun? So I can shoot you in the face if you try to violate my other human rights.

Reasonable and acceptable. Handguns used for protection purposes should be allowed, with a permit. The lack of proper background checks is solely on the shoulders of the gun sellers and the government.

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why do I want an AR-15? So it's easier to shoot you if you try to take my other guns by force.

Not acceptable. Shooting someone who lawfully attempts to confiscate your guns is, in itself, an illegal act making you one of the unstable people that shouldn't own ANY gun. No reasonable argument has ever been made for assault rifles being carried in a populated area. In your home, OK, fine. But keep them there or in locations meant for hunting.

The world is not all-or-nothing. It required compromise and common sense. This, sadly, seems to be lacking on all fronts (I am in no way placing the blame solely on gun owners OR the government for this debacle)

[Lexical]

Vellatri! What are you doing here with all this intelligent posting nonsense?

[Vellatri]

Comes from choosing a dark elf over a big-butt ogre. My bad.