138 pts ยท August 29, 2015
No.
No, it isn't. It buffers context sampling, allowing you to see that prohibition (specifically of arms and firearms) has never worked.
You linked an article proving my point. Show me exactly where I'm wrong about an effective ban.
Neither of which work, as has been shown throughout the world and throughout history.
This is what is known as an 'effective ban'. That means it's not called a "Ban" but it is in fact a ban.
2/2 SxS shotguns and 22 caliber, non repeating rifles.
I'd say the same for you. Tell me how to buy an ar15 in Australia. Or a Glock 17. Or anything except specifically licensed 1/2
2/2 option for curbing violent crime. it doesn't work.
What? I'm pointing out that gun control in almost every form has proven to be ineffectual, and is therefore an illogical 1/2
Almost every country in the EU, and Australia.
2/2 want murders. it doesn't work that way.
I've gone over this! You prohibit it, because you don't want MURDERERS in your society. You don't prohibit guns because you don't 1/2
/facepalm I've already gone over this...
2/2 a preexisting decrease trend in crime.
Then let's see one "Westernized" country which say a decrease trend in violent crime increase after a total or partial ban beyond 1/2
Why? Guns are banned. Crime rate is unaffected. Gun control was completely ineffectual. How? Because you can't uninvent guns.
Additionally, countries which banned guns completely never see a decrease trend in crime different from a preexisting decrease trend.
Almost every third world country in the world. China. Russia.
2/2 asking: You think guns should be banned for all people, because some of them may be stolen and misuse not by the owner but by criminals?
So, with that said, most guns used in crime, according to FBI, are stolen or made be black marketeers. So i round my point back to 1/2
2/2 school shooting only compose less than 1% of all criminal shootings in the US.
Wrong. Almost every time they're stolen. I'm glad you got to this though, because now you can address the fact that 1/2
How does banning me from owning guns stop a maniac from shooting up a school with his own gun?
Okay. How does John Q. owning 0 (vs 1) make Billy Kid less likely to do violence with a gun?
Barraged by attacks? You're inferring the premise that banning guns would reduce violence. That's never been the case, in any country.
So we must ban guns, because we don't want them stolen and used improperly? That's.... shaky ground to stand on.
People own tanks. People own modern canons. This isn't something new.
So is a sword. So is a car. What is wrong with a civilian owning a firearm? How is 1 different than 100?
It wasn't legal because the specific design was classified.
In America, everything is legal until it's specifically banned. Neither tanks nor their guns are specifically banned. They're legal.
It's also legal to own grenades. Real, deadly grenades. When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a real grenade?
No, it isn't. It buffers context sampling, allowing you to see that prohibition (specifically of arms and firearms) has never worked.
You linked an article proving my point. Show me exactly where I'm wrong about an effective ban.
Neither of which work, as has been shown throughout the world and throughout history.
This is what is known as an 'effective ban'. That means it's not called a "Ban" but it is in fact a ban.
2/2 SxS shotguns and 22 caliber, non repeating rifles.
I'd say the same for you. Tell me how to buy an ar15 in Australia. Or a Glock 17. Or anything except specifically licensed 1/2
2/2 option for curbing violent crime. it doesn't work.
What? I'm pointing out that gun control in almost every form has proven to be ineffectual, and is therefore an illogical 1/2
Almost every country in the EU, and Australia.
2/2 want murders. it doesn't work that way.
I've gone over this! You prohibit it, because you don't want MURDERERS in your society. You don't prohibit guns because you don't 1/2
/facepalm I've already gone over this...
2/2 a preexisting decrease trend in crime.
Then let's see one "Westernized" country which say a decrease trend in violent crime increase after a total or partial ban beyond 1/2
Why? Guns are banned. Crime rate is unaffected. Gun control was completely ineffectual. How? Because you can't uninvent guns.
Additionally, countries which banned guns completely never see a decrease trend in crime different from a preexisting decrease trend.
Almost every third world country in the world. China. Russia.
2/2 asking: You think guns should be banned for all people, because some of them may be stolen and misuse not by the owner but by criminals?
So, with that said, most guns used in crime, according to FBI, are stolen or made be black marketeers. So i round my point back to 1/2
2/2 school shooting only compose less than 1% of all criminal shootings in the US.
Wrong. Almost every time they're stolen. I'm glad you got to this though, because now you can address the fact that 1/2
How does banning me from owning guns stop a maniac from shooting up a school with his own gun?
Okay. How does John Q. owning 0 (vs 1) make Billy Kid less likely to do violence with a gun?
Barraged by attacks? You're inferring the premise that banning guns would reduce violence. That's never been the case, in any country.
So we must ban guns, because we don't want them stolen and used improperly? That's.... shaky ground to stand on.
People own tanks. People own modern canons. This isn't something new.
So is a sword. So is a car. What is wrong with a civilian owning a firearm? How is 1 different than 100?
It wasn't legal because the specific design was classified.
In America, everything is legal until it's specifically banned. Neither tanks nor their guns are specifically banned. They're legal.
It's also legal to own grenades. Real, deadly grenades. When was the last time you heard of someone being killed by a real grenade?