zapplez posted:

Can we not argue which of the particular gun control measures are the most worth while?

zapplez posted:

Try again.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-venezuela-crushes-2000-guns-in-public-plans-registry-of-bullets-2016-8
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29308509
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...-now-victims-of
https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/venezuela-homicide-rate-rose-after-2012-ban-on-private-ownership-of-guns/

Im starting to think if you cant even bother to do your own research and read my links you aren't arguing in good faith - You



My last point was specifically about that gun control wont stop mass shootings. Because they go on with all weapon types. In order to stop more of those from happening we need to work on preventing vulnerable people from having access to guns and more access to mental health support. A guy like Cruz shouldn't have been able to buy a gun. The Sutherland Springs shooter legally wasn't allowed to, but some lovely clerks didn't do their job.

Can we not argue which of the particular gun control measures are the most worth while? I think we can both agree total disarmament is impossible in the USA anyways so who cares?

zapplez posted:

Try again.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-venezuela-crushes-2000-guns-in-public-plans-registry-of-bullets-2016-8
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29308509
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...-now-victims-of
https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/venezuela-homicide-rate-rose-after-2012-ban-on-private-ownership-of-guns/

Im starting to think if you cant even bother to do your own research and read my links you aren't arguing in good faith - You

quote:

Artículo 5. Se considerarán armas de fuego distintas a las de guerra, las siguientes:
1. Armas orgánicas: Son aquellas armas de fuego utilizadas por la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana, los cuerpos de policía, órganos e instituciones que excepcionalmente ejerzan funciones propias del servicio de policía y demás organismos del Estado autorizados para la adquisición de armas, debidamente autorizadas y registradas por el órgano de la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana con competencia en materia de control de armas.

2. Armas deportivas: Comprende todas las armas que estén clasificadas como deportivas por las organizaciones internacionales dedicadas a la materia, cuya finalidad sea el uso para la práctica o competencia de la disciplina de tiro deportivo. Se incluyen en esta definición las armas neumáticas.
3. Armas de colección: Comprende las armas que fueron fabricadas antes del Siglo XX o sus réplicas, así como aquellas otras armas de fuego de uso diverso, que por su antigüedad, valor histórico y por sus características técnicas, estéticas, culturales o científicas, sean destinadas a la exhibición pública o privada.
4. Armas de cacería: Son aquellas armas de fuego utilizadas para garantizar el sustento alimenticio propio o el de la familia, así como para actividades comerciales, científicas, deportivas o con fines de control de especies animales.
5. Armas no industrializadas: Comprende aquellas armas que son inventadas, elaboradas, modificadas, reformadas o improvisadas, sin cumplir con los controles de fabricación industrial y registros oficiales respectivos.

quote:

Article 5. Firearms other than those of war, firearms, following:
...
2. Sporting Weapons: Includes all weapons that are classified as sports by international organizations dedicated to the subject, whose purpose is the use for the practice or competence of the discipline of sport shooting. Pneumatic weapons are included in this definition.
..
4. Hunting weapons: Are those firearms used to guarantee one's own food or that of one's family, as well as for commercial, scientific, or sports activities or for animal control.

zapplez posted:

My last point was specifically about that gun control wont stop mass shootings. Because they go on with all weapon types. In order to stop more of those from happening we need to work on preventing vulnerable people from having access to guns and more access to mental health support. A guy like Cruz shouldn't have been able to buy a gun. The Sutherland Springs shooter legally wasn't allowed to, but some lovely clerks didn't do their job.

Can we not argue which of the particular gun control measures are the most worth while? I think we can both agree total disarmament is impossible in the USA anyways so who cares?

VitalSigns posted:

Nope those all reference the same law, actually the same BBC article. Gunpolicy links to the actual 2013 law you're talking about. Which bans "weapons of war" and exempts the following from the definition


Let me translate the important bits


You are lying.


I agree there is no point in arguing whether gun control reduces homicides, you are objectively wrong about it and I've posted the evidence a million times, which is why you're trying to change the subject by freaking out over shitposts about banning all guns.

VitalSigns posted:

Nope those all reference the same law, actually the same BBC article. Gunpolicy links to the actual 2013 law you're talking about. Which bans "weapons of war" and exempts the following from the definition


Let me translate the important bits


You are lying.


I agree there is no point in arguing whether gun control reduces homicides, you are objectively wrong about it and I've posted the evidence a million times, which is why you're trying to change the subject by freaking out over shitposts about banning all guns.

zapplez posted:

Either way the gun control has been working great there

Jaxyon posted:

So your examples of places that banned all guns are places that didn't ban all guns?

stone cold posted:

countries that are extremely comparable to the us:
venezuela, syria

stone cold posted:

countries that are extremely comparable to the us:
venezuela, syria

zapplez posted:

countries that are extremely comparable to the us:
australia,finland,demark,switzerland,sweden, other rich countries with low crime rates both pre and post gun control

but in all seriousness there are no countries to compare the usa to. its unique in its terrible abject poverty and open gang war zones, and then super rich whiteys all over.

stone cold posted:

despite having comparable crime rates to the OECD countries, the us has way more lethal violence

could it possibly be because guns exist

quote:

The data seems to support this. "Robbery and assault rates ... reveal several Western nations that rival the United States," a 2011 review found. "While the level of lethal violence in the United States is probably the highest in the Western world, it is hard to make the case for US exceptionalism when it comes to non-lethal violence."

quote:

"There's no question the United States faces a number of distinctive social policy challenges, some of which affect the crime rate. But many other OECD countries face their own distinctive problems that affect their crime rate," he told me. Western Europe, for example, has a major problem with drug use. Canadian cities have "very high" rates of property crime like car theft. And yet, the US still stands out on murders.

"I think that Americans have this view of Western Europe, or Toronto for that matter, which is very stereotypical and doesn't take into account the challenges that many of peer industrial democracy problems face," he points out. "There's a lot of drug sale, a lot of ethnic stratification and conflict, there's a lot of just general crime."

Pollack also shared Zimring and Hawkins's theory of the ease with which guns escalate conflict to violence, and thus heighten homicide rates. "Some of the behaviors that we think of as fundamentally linked with violence may stay quite steady as the violence rate goes down, as you get a better handle on the gun issue," he explained.

hmmmmm

stone cold posted:

zapplez posted:

You should compare what the poverty rates of USA and those other countries on that list

QuarkJets posted:

The US has a much lower poverty rate than many of the countries in the first plot, for instance Lithuania. But you arbitrarily decided we should only look at a few countries, hmm why could that be

AdmiralNeltharion posted:

The problem with guns is that with current laws, you can give no poo poo about license and grab them guns easily from a gun store. With minimal skills, you can then strap your gun and live on your GTA fantasies. Sure, gun ban cannot totally prevent homicide since there's still shitload of other tools to kill around but it at least will greatly restrict the access of guns to those who do not deserve it. Unlike what you might think, Switzerland has amazing gun control, only those who served in the military can own guns and they completely forbid concealed carry on the street.

Unoriginal Name posted:

Why are guns the magical exception to the rule of law for gun advocates

Like, laws making poo poo better have worked since Hammurabi, why wouldn't they work for guns?

WampaLord posted:

"Guns are for safety! I need one to protect my family!"

https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/975686522338004992

Predicting the inevitable response - "Well that was just one bad owner who didn't secure his guns, I secure my guns all the time and thus I assume that 99.9% of fellow gun owners also secure their guns despite statistics proving me wrong!"

quote:

Rep. Tom Suozzi made the remark to constituents at a town hall last week, saying that folks opposed to Trump might resort to the “Second Amendment.”

“It’s really a matter of putting public pressure on the president,” Suozzi said in a newly released video of the March 12 talk in Huntington. “This is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly, because you know, what if the president was to ignore the courts? What would you do? What would we do?”

Crabtree posted:

Man, all of these right wing militias would surly rise up against Trump's tyranny. They must! That's what the second ammendment is supposed to set up! Oh, you mean, these same people are the ones cheering on Trump, voted him in and are bombing black people in austin?

WampaLord posted:

"Guns are for safety! I need one to protect my family!"

https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/975686522338004992

Predicting the inevitable response - "Well that was just one bad owner who didn't secure his guns, I secure my guns all the time and thus I assume that 99.9% of fellow gun owners also secure their guns despite statistics proving me wrong!"

WampaLord posted:

Predicting the inevitable response - "Well that was just one bad owner who didn't secure his guns, I secure my guns all the time and thus I assume that 99.9% of fellow gun owners also secure their guns despite statistics proving me wrong!"

Tim Raines IRL posted:

I assume that fully 50% of other gun owners are complete idiots, and the number might be much higher given that gun ownership skews along party lines. I see motherfuckers every day that can't even be bothered to wipe off more than 15% of the snow from their front windshield before they get on the highway; think someone like that knows what a proper gun safe is? gently caress no.

WampaLord posted:

And yet you support their "right" to buy as many guns as they want?

MixMastaTJ posted:

It's possible I'm an idiot who doesn't understand the word endangerment but I would typically consider increasing the odds of someones death "endangerment." As we've gone over thousands of times now, owning a firearm increases the likelihood of someone in your household dying from a firearm related incident.

MixMastaTJ posted:

Hunting- killing animals.
Self defense- killing "aggressors."

So for starters, as we've been over, self defense is 100% bullshit BUT even if I give you that, the point remains guns are for killing someone. The explicit use of a firearm is firearm related death. It's the death of someone you may be in the right to kill, but it is still a death.

And if you're arguing target shooting as the main utility of firearms then you can't defend any caliber higher than a .22.

MixMastaTJ posted:

This is insane. I never said anything about "creators intent" I'm talking about the item's singular use- killing things. If we found out that an unintendid use for guns was that they worked as a miracle toilet cleaner and people started buying guns to clean their toilets this would be a different matter. We'd be weighing your right to clean your toilet against the risk of gun death. As it stands we're weighing the right to risk gun death against the risk of gun death.

Anyway, I'm not even making these arguments because I want all guns banned. This is just a ridiculous, obnoxious argument where you take the stance that guns aren't a weapon and that there is no difference between weapons and things that aren't weapons and you can't concieve why we would ever have different laws for weapons than we do things that aren't weapons.

VitalSigns posted:

Literally any other country that has implemented gun control but hasn't banned 100% of guns which is pretty much every other Western democracy.