Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Vault Archives Overseer

    Mar 16, 2013
    The problem is that basically nothing you've posted in this thread has been an actual argument. You've posted vague, rambling ad-hom riddled text walls. The closest you've come is making generalized appeals to rights but whenever you've been pressed on that in the slightest, you just repeat yourself.

    Nobody is going to watch the videos you posted, and they shouldn't have to. You're a big boy, if you digested the information in those videos properly, then you'll be able to articulate the talking points into your own argument here. If you need a YouTuber to make your argument for you because you can't, that's fine. But just stop posting in the thread if that's the case.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  2. They keep pushin and pushin on us

    Nothin was wrong to begin with

    However they fucked themselves so now we gotta now put it down and say what it is.

    Oh. Fuckin'

    Foreigners, haters, players

    Feds, traitors and contemplaters

    All over the place sayin what to do, and they listen

    They hate themselves, they don't see nothin worth savin'

    They leave you all to fuckin' die if they could so fuck em.

    It's not like anything else would change a damn thing.

    People keep killin each other, people keep poppin off

    No one cares, no one gives a fuck until they get hit.

    As it is, so it was, as it's always been.

    Play with fire as usual. It's all nothin. They gotta control cause they afraid of workin.

    They get their ass kicked if it wasn't so...

    They afraid of the work thats needin

    They don't want you around so you slammin'

    Slammin' the car through the front door.

    So I don't care, no I don't care.

    They sit from a chair and move a finger

    They hide inside starin at the TV

    While we knockin on their front door.

    They say they comin

    But we already here

    Nothin goin away now

    Too late for them they scared.

    Time to let go an get a gun son. yeeah bitch.

    Fuck you nothin change no matter what you do

    Just push and pushin us

    Doesn't matter doesn't matter

    We knockin on their front door.

  3. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    Wow, you called me and my arguments all the bad things you can think of.

    And I do mean, all of them. Even things that are quite obviously false.

    "Ad-Hom"? Ad Hominem attacks were used on me, not by me.

    "Vague and rambling"? Just because you have difficulty understanding what I have to say, that doesn't mean it lacks merit. It means what you have to say about what I say lacks merit. There are a lot of reasons why you and your party are wrong, and there's not a lot of time to cover all of them. Pull your head out of your ass, wash your face, wake yourself up, and try harder to hold up your end of this conversation. Honestly, some people.

    I could act like you and throw some more insults at you, then hit send. But I'd rather try to be above that.

    I think the only constructive thing to do here would be to give you something you can ask questions about. So I'll question what you mean by being "Pressed". When I talk in this thread, I am sarcastically reacted to or insulted by leftists. Hardly intellectual conversation. I'm not being "Pressed for more info", I'm being de-pressed by people unwilling to look at info that doesn't fit their biases.

    But hey, if you don't like youtube videos that explain why you're wrong, I can type something original up for you.


    Advocates of gun control laws often point to countries where gun control laws seem to be working, and argue that those same laws would be just as effective in the U.S.

    But upon further inspection, you find that these policies aren't very effective in the countries being used as example. Or at the very least, that there's no proof they are.

    The big three? Australia, The UK, and Japan.

    In Australia, gun crime was already plummeting at an identical rate before the gun buyback.

    In the UK, gun crime got worse after the ban and isn't currently declining any faster than the USA's. It's also full of Knife Crime, even though they're trying to ban cutlery and sharp knives over there. Campers are getting fined, sometimes even arrested, for having knives in their backpacks with the rest of the necessary camping gear. The jackboot-licking cronies are repeating "Nobody needs a knife" now, because they've already banned guns and that didn't stop gun crime. Or truck of peace attacks. Or bombings or rapes. It just made the country less safe.

    Japan is a small and mostly racially and culturally homogenous society with low crime rates. It also said no to rapefugees, so you'll rarely if ever see any Truck Of Peace attacks there.

    If the countries Gun Control Advocates tend to use as examples to promote Gun Control tend to reveal that Gun Control isn't all that effective, what can we learn from the example Gun Control Advocates don't use?

    Even if Australia, the UK, and Japan were good examples (Which they're not), why would that be the end of the story?

    Why shouldn't we weigh these examples against National-Socialist Germany, Communist Russia, or Maoist Communist China?

    The government banning guns before becoming tyrannical is pretty relevant when you remember that the Constitution was written to guarantee the rights of its citizens, and the second amendment was intented to give people the right to own guns they would need to defend themselves and stop tyrants.

    Who would look at history and think their government would do a better job of protecting them if they became MORE weak and helpless? Not someone who should be allowed to make decisions that affect me. If you want to give up your guns, do so. Get a tattoo, try a fad diet, I don't give a shit what you do to yourself. If you want to take my guns, try it yourself and see how well that works out for you, instead of trying to get jackboots to do your oppression for you. The debate over gun laws would be a better and more constructive place without religious nuts whose understanding of the topic begins and ends at "all guns bad. gun bans good. only gun nuts disagree. beep boop calling me a NPC is racist".

    Remember, it's not as if there's just a couple of bad governments here and there with strict gun control laws. Literally all of the most horrific and tyrannical governments that have ever existed have had strict gun control laws. Hell, tyrannical governments that existed before guns were invented did the same shit by banning proper weapons! Remember when they had to use nunchuks and other farming tools as weapons in China? You know, because their real weapons had been confiscated by an authoritarian government?

    There's a reason why tyrants love ruling over a helpless disarmed populace that can't fight back. You can basically do whatever you want to an unarmed populace.

    Venezuela. The country that proved Liberal "utopian" promises only lead to dystopian nightmares. Are you sick of hearing that name yet? It's the country that transformed me from Liberal to Libertarian. Hearing what went on in that country, hearing about the rapefugees in Europe, and the "What emails? I don't know how email servers work! That information doesn't exist and only fucking racists know about it!" Liberal response to Hillary Clinton's illegal private email server, those were what convinced me to leave the left. Now I'm a Libertarian. Free Dread Pirate Roberts!

    In 2012, two years before their humanitarian crisis, they banned private gun ownership. As you can probably guess, they didn't get this law passed by saying "We want to make it easier for us to oppress our people". No, they brought out the usual "Muh safety" lie, a lie The BBC helped sell. "We have to improve security!", after all.

    Yeah, they improved security. For the politicians! The rich fatcats who eat well while their people starve. They get away with it because they have armed guards and the commoners don't.

    The murder rate in Venezuela rose after the gun ban. And because the police are the only ones in Venezuela allowed to own guns, criminals started to target and kill cops to take their guns.

    And if it wasn't clear enough that Venezuela's gun control is being weaponized against political opponents of their marxist regime, in April of 2017, Maduro gave 400,000 guns back to private citizens...

    But only the ones who pledged their loyalty to him and his commie regime. The ones who "counter-protest" at peaceful protests by throwing rocks and guns at peaceful protestors. The ones who get to ride around with cops and get taken to protests. The ones who get away with shooting at peaceful protestors, while the cops get involved and start breaking limbs if good people fight back and the commies start getting their asses kicked again.

    When the Venezuelan Government banned guns, was it because they were secretly planning on oppressing their people?

    Honestly? It doesn't matter.

    Because it still allowed them to do it.

    And that's not just a stain on the credibility of "Gun Control". It's a stain on the credibility of everyone who wants to force it onto others.
  4. TheHouseAlwaysWins

    TheHouseAlwaysWins Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    Nov 28, 2015
    It's only when you ignore the free market that you can actually enforce closed borders like Japan.
  5. TheGM

    TheGM The voice of reason

    Aug 19, 2008
    The Bizarre part is that he assumes I'm black for some reason and that he really wants me to get shot in the face. Is it because he thinks I'm a black guy? because that sounds pretty racist.
  6. TheOtherManInTheRoom

    TheOtherManInTheRoom Watchman

    Mar 28, 2018
    Yeah, that all.... doesn't quite describe the lived experience of most citizens. I'm not gonna wade into the debate too much, but I should say I have, as do most of my fellow citizens of the UK, very little experience with guns. I'm very glad I can live in a society with no gun violence. As for the examples about knives, yeah we have a knife problem, but 1. Knives are less harmful than guns, and 2. We are not trying to ban knives and stuff. The evidence for that is quite often hysteria. The campers example in particular was just a letter vs spirit of the law thing, and not many people here cared. Also, no we don't have gun crime, not nearly to the extent that the US does. That's cause we banned guns. Our police aren't even armed, which is nice too. I've never had to participate in a school lockdown drill, which US schoolchildren have to do I hear.

    I'm sure the cultural difference prevents me from having the greatest opinion about guns in the US, but you may wish to check your sources about the UK, cause your description of us was a little too much to reinforce your point and bears little to respect the cultural difference on our side.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  7. Risewild

    Risewild Antediluvian as Feck
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    Gun crime? Don't know about that, but gun deaths only really plummeted after the ban. Several studies over the years proved this:
    So, there is plenty of serious studies that show Australia got much less gun deaths and mass massacres (should have had around 16 more of those instead it got 1) after the ban. A much higher reduction of these is easily identifiable after the ban compared with before the ban (which was declining but not so much in comparison).

    Risewild, happy to not be afraid of being shot down randomly while I walk outside. :roffle:
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  8. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    You don't live in a society with no gun violence. You're privileged enough to live in an area without gun crime, knife crime, or rape gangs and child-trafficking rings operating with the consent and protection of the police. There's a big difference. There's a world outside your window, and I wish you had the intelligence to know that. I wish you had the honesty to admit that. I wish you had the balls to visit a crime-ridden area without a knife or gun and see for yourself how bad your policies made those places.

    "That was a letter of the law vs a spirit of the law thing and nobody cared", huh? You might not have cared, because it doesn't suit your biases. But that says a lot about you.

    I see you're ignoring everything I said about Venezuela. That's great, I'll just this thread for whenever I want easy upvotes on a pro-gun site.

    It's always funny how these types of discussions go. Leftists post lies, lies get debunked. Humans post arguments and facts and logic, these things get ignored by the leftist cultists. Insults are thrown by the left because they'll never stop wanting to be evil. Wanting my fundamental human rights taken away is evil. Wanting to aid and abet terrorists, rapists, and pedophiles is evil. How is a tiny woman supposed to protect herself from rapists and people like you without a gun?

    The rate was already declining before the ban. There is no evidence to say the decline was thanks to the ban. Your policies can take credit for it if you want, I suppose. Guess they desperately need a win after how many atrocities and totalitarian communist dictatorships they've been responsible for, huh? Hit or miss, guess your argument's full of shit, huh.

    Why does this argument always come down to "muH FEelInGs ohohOHHOHOH i feel sAFE" once the "YoU dOn't nEEd gUn" and "This stuDy maniPulates data tO tell mE I'm riGht" and "A stuDy exiSts that Says Im Right i sweAR But i woNT SHow yoU IT" nonsense fails? Wow, big whoop, you feel safe when your authoritarian politicians are in control of everything. That is such an amazingly good argument for removing fundamental human rights, except not really, that's sarcasm. Chicago isn't safe. Venezuela isn't safe. Your policies don't fight crime, they enable criminals. They aid and abet criminals. You shouldn't feel safe in a disarmed country, but you do because you've been propagandized. Brainwashed. You're smug over your "Victory" and you're brainwashed enough to think mass shootings are a common thing in countries with gun rights. Mass Shooting statistics are inflated by counting gang on gang violence, drive-by shootings, murder-suicides, and murders with more than one victim among the numbers to trick you. Intestinal disease kills more people every year than school shootings in america. Islamic acts of terrorism kill more people every year than school shootings in america, but something tells me I'd get banned or warned or whatever by a lefty if I brought up the fact that in 2019, there were 1756 Islamic attacks in 54 countries, in which 10413 people were killed and 10696 were injured. Source:

    Yet when people talk about limiting Islam... Oh wait, nobody's talking about limiting Islam yet or trying to reform the religion into a less murderous thing with a humanist new testament, or arresting Imams that say "kill christians jews and atheists and stone women and throw gay people off rooftops like our muslim book The Quran says". Nobody's talking about using the existing "hate speech" laws on anybody except the oppressed right while lefties get to say whatever they want wherever they want. No feminist has ever been arrested for saying "Kill all men" and no black supremacist has ever been arrested for saying "Kill all de white babies, dis our country now, we will outlast dem". No Communist has ever been arrested for saying "Kill capitalists and hang them and rob them" outside of the McCarthy era and if that was brought back the world would be a better place because Communists deserve worse than what they dish out to peaceful protestors. No leftist got arrested for doxing the Covington Catholic boys or sending death threats to them or harassing their school to try and get them expelled. Maxine Walters didn't get arrested for openly inciting and calling for violence and harassment against conservatives. Communists are allowed to organize riots in fucking Facebook groups and post pictures of their weapons and brag about bringing baseball bats and ice picks to free speech rallies local police working with commies forcibly disarmed, while right-wingers get deplatformed and fined and censored and arrested for opposing totalitarianism. Banks and payment processors are harassed into refusing to do business with right-wingers while they're happy to do business with leftists. We're still in the "Arguing for the right to criticize this totalitarian religion, and getting slandered as alt-right for it by totalitarian leftists allied with imaginary Allah and rapey pedo Mohammed" stage of history. The stage in history future generations will look back on and laugh as they wonder how anyone could ever think Islam was compatible with the west, or think any gun bans could ever end well, or wonder why anyone would ever support a dead religion like Communism.

    If you feel safe without a gun in a disarmed country where only the criminals have guns, you're ignorant. There's no soft or polite way to say that, you're just objectively ignorant. You're ignorant of the fact that you've pissed off every innocent formerly-armed person you've forced to disarm, just because you didn't trust them with guns. You're ignorant of the fact that at any moment, you can be shot at or stabbed by anyone, and there will be nothing you can do except cower in fear and piss your pants. You can't save your own cowardly skin. You can't protect anyone. You can't save your fellow man. You can't save women or children. What, do you think you'll pick up a rock and fight someone with a gun? Good luck with that. Then again, you won't need luck since you won't do it anyway. Do you think the cops will show up to protect you? They won't show up until your body and the bodies of innocents have cooled. If you experienced more of the world and had a less narrow view of this topic, you would have experienced at least one point in your life when you realize if there was a gun at your hip you could save lives. Then again, I find that if leftists ever think a humanist thought like "I should save this person" or "I could save this person", they stop being leftists after realizing what their party of crime is.

    Cops didn't save people when that gay nightclub "Pulse" in Ohio got shot up by a Muslim, did it? Gun bans didn't save people that day, did it? For every good thing on this planet you desperately try and steal the credit for, there is more proof that your policies kill innocent lives and oppress innocent people.

    Who wouldn't want a gun in their hand when someone tries to rape, rob, or murder them? Someone ignorant who's never been in a Texan restaurant full of gun owners and experienced how safe you feel there knowing a hailstorm of bullets would descend on anyone who tried to kill or rob or rape you. Or someone awful who instinctively knows he'd never have the courage to save anyone and lacks the emotional maturity necessary to be trusted with a gun, and then projects these feelings onto others.

    Gun stores don't get robbed. Helpless corner stores in Disarmed Democrat Chicago do.

    No gun bans in the world can do anything about the untraceable guns in the black market. Gun bans don't make the world a better place, they make the world a worse place. They enable crime and tyranny for an utterly imagined benefit sold to you by politicians who want more crime and tyranny, because more crime provides an excuse for even more tyranny.

    Support gun rights, you childish tyrant.
  9. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    Alright, can we all please calm down a little bit? I sure stoked the flames myself, but come on folks, this is getting a bit too kindergarten-y.

    Removing guns from the US seems to be an impossible task, and any further legislation will just criminalize more innocent and lawful gun owners while not really doing anything about the criminals. The amount of guns already in circulation means that a buyback program to prevent them from getting into the black market is going to be ridiculously expensive, and trying to control and track all of them would require a massive extension of government powers, while having dubious results in return.
    Banning "assault-style rifles" doesn't really do anything for crimes, since these are predominantly committed with handguns. Handguns are really the obvious target for any increased legislation since they are the cheapest to acquire, the easiest to hide and commit crimes with and potentially get rid off afterwards, and since they are also most commonly used for home- and self-defense and thus carried or stored in an easily accessible way, they are the most common when it comes to accidents and suicides. On the other hand, they're also the most reasonable type of gun to have for home- and self-defense, so legislators don't quite want to go there, so they focus on "assault-style rifles". It's kinda pointless to try and ban those, but they're also harder to justify staying legal for the general public, so they're the ideal class of guns that the populist "ban guns" rethoric would focus on.

    The real focus should be the underlying causes for all the violence and crime. Poverty and mental health. Trying to ban the tools used for violence is just masking symptoms, and it's done in a way that doesn't actually help anyone, and really just impedes on the rights of lawful citizens. I'm against taking rights away unless absolutely necessary, so while I don't mind for example the german legal system where gun ownership is heavily restricted (because it has basically always been this way and our culture and social systems are built around that), this system wouldn't work in the US and I wouldn't want to impose it on the US. Although maybe some parts would be worth looking at. A license for certain firearms with a mandatory course for basic gun safety with an exam at the end, for example, could maybe prevent some accidents.
    Mandatory background checks and mental health checks might be an idea, however, those could lead to a system where "undesirable" people are banned from owning guns, so it could easily lead to an infringement of rights if not balanced carefully. It can put people in charge who would selectively decide by their own preference wether people should be armed or not.
    Of course, attaching anything "mandatory" to gun ownership can already be seen as an infringement of rights from one side, and the lack of "banning" would be seen as pointless from the other.
    Maybe take the license idea and go back to the idea of a well regulated militia and have the right to bear arms tied to a basic militia boot camp. You want guns, you do the basic training for a week (or like a weekend course or whatever). Gotta find some ways to make that as accessible as possible, of course. Costs, time, other issues of accessibility...
    Although I doubt that this would be an acceptable idea to anyone, really :lol:
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  10. Risewild

    Risewild Antediluvian as Feck
    Modder Orderite

    Jun 14, 2014
    Like I said and showed in several serious studies over the years, after the ban the homicide rate by firearm decreased much faster than without the ban. And great job ignoring that before the ban there had been 13 mass shootings in Australia in the previous 18 years and after the ban only 1 happened in 22-23 years.
    If there is no evidence that it was due to the ban, then were is the evidence it wasn't? The numbers seems to favor that the ban was effective, instead of not effective. It's impossible to have evidence of something when we can't just go to a different dimension where Australia never banned firearms and see what would have happened, but the truth is (whatever the reasons) that after the ban the decrease of homicides using firearms was higher than it has been before the ban.

    It even has studies that checked the individual states number of gun related homicides and those also went down much more than they were doing before the ban.

    Also I never mentioned totalitarian communist dictatorships... I don't know what you're taking but that just shows you're going on a rant related to nothing I said. You rant about stuff not related to anything I said to deflect from what I said. This is a tactic used by people who has no evidence to back the argument they have. Since when was me showing evidence that the number of gun homicides (and also suicides) greatly decreased after the ban has any relevance to "Guess they desperately need a win after how many atrocities and totalitarian communist dictatorships they've been responsible for, huh? Hit or miss, guess your argument's full of shit, huh.". It's a pity, I thought I could have a nice debate with someone and then they jump on the crazy wagon...

    I didn't have any argument about my feelings, I posted a jab at you to see how you would react. It's a bit mean of a strategy I have, but many times the reaction (or lack of it), will tell me quickly about the person I was trying to debate than several posts can. And oh boy, did it work this time...

    Well, I guess in a way you won this battle, since I really don't feel like continuing a debate with people who have absolutely no arguments and write walls of text of rants... I already don't read Crni ones, and I bet they are way more interesting, so why should I read yours? :roffle:

    I'm out of this thread for good.

    Not related to this discussion:
    @Hassknecht We need a tinfoil hat smiley.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  11. TheOtherManInTheRoom

    TheOtherManInTheRoom Watchman

    Mar 28, 2018
    you don't know me (have we met?), and you don't know that I haven't seen or done any of those things. I guess you must be God or something? Cause you evidently seem to presume to think that, cause I live here and don't agree with you, that I must not have seen what you haven't either, funnily enough. Seeing the flaw yet?

    I don't live in Venezuela , why would I comment on it.

    The fact is that not many cared, cause it does not come up here, as the issue was straightened out. Accusing me again of biases where I've tried to be friendly and curb you being a tad misinformed is just a bit rude.
    Last edited: May 20, 2020
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  12. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Vault Archives Overseer

    Mar 16, 2013
    "It's a logical thing to say gunphobia like yours is a mental illness, and not a valid political position."

    Now, I don't want you to get offended, or butthurt. You've thrown out some weak insults so far, so I hope you can handle a few stronger ones in return. I don't want to hurt your fragile leftist narcissistic ego. I don't want you to shatter like glass and cry foul and beg for me to be banned, as lefties tend to do when confronted with facts. So please, watch some nice little cartoons that will help you understand more about the real world." -
    quotes from yourself.

    Your point, so far, could be summarized as "Concessions to the 2nd Amendment are a violation of my constitutional rights and representative of greater authoritarian bends" and yet it has taken you 3 or so posts of incoherent typing to explain that. You've not offered any evidence, statistics, any suggestions of real policy to amend the USA's gun violence issue other than firearm regulation. I don't even agree with the Democrats on their version of gun regulation, but that doesn't matter because talking to you is akin to interacting with an MMO NPC. You just spout pre-prepared lines, insults and assumptions because I am "Hostile" designation.

    Your post is full of rambling shit, again, so let's just cut to the meat.

    Full disclaimer: I am not an advocate of gun abolition nor do I support policies such as buybacks or broad, misaligned "Assault Weapon Bans", for a variety of reasosn but competence as policies is basically the top. I have no inherent ideological opposition to guns and when I return to Florida next year (was meant to be this year) I intend on buying some. I do tend to sit with the evidence, however.

    Australia is a complicated case in that violence and suicides in general were on a decline. Academic studies have been conducted since, however, and come to interesting conclusions. Firstly, the correlation and assumptions regarding firearms deaths and the post-1979 decline are pretty fishy. Most when arguing this point cite 1979 as the beginning date, when 1979 was in fact compartively anomalously high in gun deaths compared to the years prior to and after it. When compared to a much more fair and long-term analysis, going back to earlier years, the NFA ban can be seen to still significantly mark a sharp decline in gun violence compared to projections of what it would have continued as. Similarly, these studies also projected that if Australian gun violence had continued along the projection wagered by some, there still would have been 16 mass shootings between 1996 and February of 2018, when in reality with the NFA Ban, there were 0 mass shootings. The conclusion of the major studies seems to be that because of Australia's violent crime and suicides declining in general you cannot hard-lock the decline in death as the sole responsibility of the legislation, however there is strong evidence to suggest that it was extremely important anyway. Namely that the decline rate of firearm homicides and suicides at the least doubled after the institution of the NFA. The largest drops in firearm deaths were amongst the weapon types that were regulated in the ban. Finally, it was also concluded that it is patently incorrect to attribute the absence of mass shootings to the relative decline prior to 1996.


    I'm currently living in the UK, and have been for a few years now. I am also a semi-regular clay-pigeon shotgun shooter here. As someone else in the thread said, this portrayal simply isn't at all true to the lived experience of majority people in the UK and the image of this country as painted by American conservatives is a completely absurd fantasy. However, that being said, I will provide you with some hard evidence. So firstly, let's deal with the statistical tidbit you posited about post-ban death rates. This is a popularly cited argument, from a study commissioned from the assuredly unbiased Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting. Much like the Australian example, this is a nuanced situation that is deliberately confused and conflated by people for the sake of their arguments. Firstly, violent crime in the UK had (has) been on a slow and statistically consistent uptick for decades prior to any gun regulation although we did have a sharp decline for a decade between 2006-2016. However, this comes with many asteriks, particularly with relevance to your argument. Firstly, I would argue that there is no causation in this instance between the Firearms Ban and the original commissioned study was a case of bad data. This is supported by a study contemporary to the time (King's College London's Centre for Defence Studies, July 2001 which concluded there was no such causation) but I would posit the following in support as well if that's not enough. The first is that the same kind of spike and decline is experienced throughout this stretch of British history with no relevant markers, the homicide rates for 1990-2000 look about the same as that to 1970-1980, in particular 1977-1979 shows a sharper rise than 1998-2000 and yet there is no gun legislation at that time, suggesting along with the aforementioned study rejecting causation that the spikes in homicide within England are related to other issues. Namely economic or policing. I'd urge you to look into the numerous debates and scandalous issues regarding austerity, cuts to police funding and ability and how they have directly affected the country, but that's not relevant to this argument. Similarly, outside of England and Wales, within Scotland gun homicides dropped 80% following the ban. We can piece this together with the Australian example to get a bit of a better picture about the impact of the policies, no?

    Secondly, since you seem to want to compare the United States and the United Kingdom. Let's do that.

    According to the UNODC from both Homicides and Homicides by Firearms:

    • You are 5x more likely to be victim of a homicide in the United States than the UK, a rate of about 5 per 100,000 vs 1 per 100,000
    • In the list of all countries ranked from most homicidal to least, the United States ranks 94 whilst the United Kingdom ranks 175, making the US one of the most homicidal countries in the western "First World"
    • 73% of all homicides in the United States of America are committed by firearms, whereas this is only 3% in England and Wales

    Now, it goes without saying that the amount of deaths in the past decade resulting from massacres of some kind (Including terrorism like the Manchester Bombing or the London Bridge knife attack) are absolutely dwarfed by the amount of massacre-related deaths in the United States. Even the Las Vegas 2017 mass shooting by Stephen Paddock alone killed more people than have died in Britain from massacres over the period of a decade. This is less relevant than the above statistics due to these stats not being relative to the size of the country, but the point still stands.

    UNODC Homicide Statistics
    UNODC Homicide by Firearm Statistics
    "Homicide in England and Wales" by the Office of National Statistics

    This is entirely irrelevant to the argument we're having, but also you are literally proving yourself wrong by citing Japan. Japan has incredibly low rates of crime, and also extremely stringent gun regulation. Congratulations.

    Because comparing the failed policies and mass-deaths of totalitarian regimes or failed states to a contemporary first world liberal democracy like the United States is completely absurd and makes the US seem pathetic if you really feel the need to compare them, but I'm betting you're going to do that anyway.

    I agree and I think it is a strong guiding principle, however the US Constitution was not intended as a holy static document, it was intended to be developed and amended. Unlike with principles such as speech, the context surrounding firearms has changed so unimaginably both in technology, comparison to the armaments of the government and culturally/socially that the legislation itself has become outdated when taken literally or stringently. In the same way that the Tenth Amendment is a complete and utter far cry from the literal interpretaiton, but across the aisle amongst both Republicans and Democrats nobody is troubled by the US not being a total confederation of bickering states anymore. The Tenth Amendment still reinforces the principles of federalism and state individuality but the literal interpretation has been instead replaced by more pragmatic contemporary legislation/approaches. I would urge the same for the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't need repeal and the principle is good, but it arguably requires legislative treatment to allow it to function successfully and without active detriment to the people of the USA. The 1st Amendment has proven exclusively beneficial and its counterparts around the rest of the western world show the same. The same cannot be said of the 10th or the 2nd Amendment, for example. The main difference is that the former has been adapted. Firearm regulation and the 2nd Amendment are far from the only cause of gun violence, and the larger systemic socio-economic issues creating poverty and lack of mental health support are also weeds that must be whacked, but being a Republican you don't actually give a shit about that part.

    If there were an amendment about the government not being able to impede the ownership and travel of citizens via horse, carriage or ship to prevent the gov. cutting off travel or isolating the populace, I'd still be very much for driving licenses and driving tests in the modern day.

    Literally inventing strawmen to attack.

    Well not only are you literally doing what I thought you would, i.e comparing a failed third world state to the US for the sake of argument, but you're also showing your ignorance. Venezuela is not a liberal state. You do not know what liberal means, at all. Venezuela is a failing, socialist state. A state that was not well run to begin with, and its incompetence only accelerated by socialist policies. On that, we won't disagree. I'm a liberal, not a fucking socialist.

    Comparing the situation in a failing socialist state to the United States and the policy arguments on-going, policy arguments which have already been settled in other, less homicidal first world countries. Come on now.

    I think it says enough that you also seem to have immediately pivoted to another topic when you've been pressed. You are proving yourself over and over completely worthless to talk with, though I should have guessed that from the Brony avatar.
    Last edited: May 20, 2020
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  13. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    Wew, lads!

    I think it's a new record!

    This is the longest a Liberal has ever gone without attacking me over my pony avatar!


    I'll ignore every other lie you said and focus on the car thing because it's a lie I hear "Carted" about often. Haha, pun.

    If you drive to a drive-through McDonalds and it gets Truck Of Peace'd, guess what?

    You can't use your car to save lives from the criminal mass-murderer.

    Not without crashing your car into that car.

    And you're not the type to do that, you'd watch a disaster happen and fail to save anyone. Then you'd blame something involved in the disaster when it's your fault. That's what anti-Gun Rights crowd has done until now. The anti-Gun Rights crowd is why mass shooters don't often find themselves getting shot at in return. You make the world worse for everyone else with your Communism, and the only response you ideologues will ever use to that is: More Communism! Leftism is a mental disorder, and failing to understand why rape and theft and socialism/marxism/etc are bad is one of the symptoms.

    A Religion Of Peacer would find getting a Driver's License and Car easy, because restrictions on law-abiding citizens will never be strict enough to magically stop crime. In case you haven't noticed, criminals do not obey laws. Your laws do not stop criminals. Your laws will not stop criminals. If your goal is to save lives, you're doing it wrong. You're not saving lives, you're helping criminals end them. You might not understand why that's wrong, but it is bad. Stop aiding and abetting criminals, tankie.

    A car, and a gun... These are two completely different things. I wish you understood that. I seriously wish you could be talked out of being like this. But your head is full of soundbites and obvious lies from Youtube-Trending-Tab Late Night Talk Show propagandists.

    But if you wanted to treat cars like you treat guns, you would be the ones arguing against the right to own cars that go above sixty miles an hour. Then it would be fifty, then thirty, then ten. You would be the one arguing against the right to put "Assault Stickers" on your car and have more than one seat per car. You would be the ones arguing that Truck Of Peace attacks are proof that the weight of cars should be heavily restricted and private truck ownership should be illegal. You would be the ones arguing that nobody deserves a car except the police. You're already against truck-drivers owning guns. You're already against everyone but your corrupt government officials and their supporters owning guns. So you'd be against truck-drivers owning and driving cars. You would be the lunatics who would rather cripple the country's ability to function than admit that you're wrong... Well, you're already that, but you'd be that about cars as well as guns.

    I love Democracy. However, you are an argument against Democracy, because you were given the right to vote and you want to abuse that right. You want to revoke the most important human right of all, the right that allows men to defend themselves from petty tyrants like you and allows women to defend themselves from those like you.

    To tell you the truth, I don't think you're qualified to vote. You didn't read or even skim what I said about Venezuela because you don't care about the lives your leftist thinking ruins or ends. Perhaps if you were put in a padded room, doped up on drugs, and allowed to put fake ballots in a fake box every so often while the doctors tell you that you've successfully ended gun crime with this vote and ended racism with that vote, you'd be satisfied. You'd stop being a detriment to democracy. You don't understand that there's a world outside your window and you don't understand that people should have rights. You don't care about what happens to others. Would you even notice if you were put into a padded room for your own protection, so you'll never get to push people so far that the Boogaloo becomes the people's only way to take back what you want to destroy?

    It's always funny how you lot retreat and reform like slime whenever you are called out for being totalitarian ideologues who want to end human rights as a concept. Suddenly, you recoil and retreat as if struck. "I don't actually want this right GONE, I just want it LIMITED a little more! Is that too much to ask? Is that so heretical? Ooohhh, you're so unreasonable and mean!". Give it a rest, would you? You're not victims here. You create more victims. You're a problem with two obvious solutions.

    I am a Libertarian. Stealing violates the Non-Aggression Principle. Trying to steal my guns is a crime, even if you say "you can just buy them back afterwards!". Trying to get my right to move freely, own a car, speak freely, have due process in a court of law, and own guns violates the NAP. We all know what happens to countries your ideology ruins.
  14. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Vault Archives Overseer

    Mar 16, 2013
    And that's a wrap folks. This is the closest we'll get to a concession from this idiot.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  15. TheOtherManInTheRoom

    TheOtherManInTheRoom Watchman

    Mar 28, 2018
    Aren't you the civilised one, who participates in reasoned debates with respect on both sides as enlightened men do. I just hope you know how much of a laugh you're giving us.

    Honestly at this point I would rather just know why this issue gets you nicely aflame as it seems to. To come onto a Fallout website, post a little about Fallout, but vociferously attack anyone who dares disagree with you about this. I'm genuinely curious, what's the goal here? Cause whatever it is, its hard to see how you'll achieve it this way.
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  16. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    You literally ignored everything I said about Venezuela. Why should I pay attention to anything you have to say? Why should a civilized nation that respects human rights pay attention to any anti-rights rant an anti-civilization lunatic has to say? You dodge topics you don't want to deal with. You ignore parts of my post that make you feel like you're wrong, because you're too afraid to admit you're wrong.

    First of all, Vociferously. If you're going to try hard to use big words to make yourself seem smart, do yourself a favour and install a spellcheck.

    Second, why do you lot BAWWWWW so hard when insults fly your way, when you're the ones who threw insults around first?

    Third, you are not entitled to my respect. If you want my respect, earn it. If you want my respect, stop attacking me and my country and my civilization. If you want my respect, be a big man and admit when you're wrong. If you want my respect, you should question what you've been taught instead of blindly trusting in political delusions that have been proven to accomplish little on good days and cause disasters normally. If you had your way, I would lose my human rights. So should I want your human rights restricted? Is that what Democracy turns into when groups of people are turned against one another and desire each other's destruction? Why should the anti-Americans get a say in how America is run, if they want the Americans to lose their say in how America is run, lose their right to defend themselves and criticize the left, and lose their jobs and houses? Libertarianism says "Everyone good should have Liberty, and trying to restrict the Liberty of a good person is wrong". Liberalism says "We should have power no matter the cost and we should be able to abuse it however we want, fuck truth and reason. We're willing to lie, steal, cheat, rape children, attack peaceful protestors, help cartels smuggle drug mules into America across the border and bypass it with migrant-ferry rides, and cover up for rape gangs in Europe, if we think that'll get us the power we crave". Why would anyone choose to be a leftist?

    And finally, I'm here to talk about Fallout on a Fallout website. I know you don't want me to speak about anything, because you're a Liberal. But I don't see much point in just making posts about Fallout for the sake of balancing Fallout posts with Political ones. What's the point in making a new "Oh my god, Fallout New Vegas is good and Veronica is best girl!!!" post every week, or starting an argument over whether the Big Guns skill should or should not exist in Fallout games, or arguing over someone's interpretation of Bethesda's "Open-ended" (bad and unfinished) writing for the Institute. I'll talk about Fallout when I feel like talking about it. But there's never not a good time to debate, debunk, and embarrass leftists like yourself. It won't affect me if some Fallout fan thinks The Institute were the real good guys all along, but if you have your way more disarmed women will be raped. You don't want me to speak out against your lies, and that is why people must speak out against your lies no matter where you put them.

    I don't care if you boo or insult me, because I've seen what makes you cheer.

  17. TheOtherManInTheRoom

    TheOtherManInTheRoom Watchman

    Mar 28, 2018
    Says the man who didn't respond to any of the studies quoted above. I've seen enough. Gotta admit, you've given me a great laugh though.

    The irony
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  18. SquidWard

    SquidWard Pirate and Bankrobber oTO Orderite

    Jun 1, 2018
    Ah yes, the "you misspelled something therefore you are not intelligent" comment.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  19. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Vault Archives Overseer

    Mar 16, 2013
    I responded to precisely what was relevant with your references to Venezuela. Namely that it isn't a liberal state, it is socialist and also failing because of it. I also rebuked your vague, unsubstantiated feelings with the simple fact that the United States and a failed socialist state in South America are not comparable when we're talking about specific policies like gun control. The reason I didn't respond to the bulk of it was because it wasn't an actual argument and was more just your feelings about random shit and not policy.

    You should pay attention to the arguments I made, the ones that completely rejected what you were saying, because they were actually substantiated with facts and evidence and entirely relevant to the policy of gun control in the United States and comparative western liberal democracies. You've proven you have no interest in facts, though, and unless your next reply actually addresses my argument and has academically sourced substantiation of its own (i.e not another blogpost about your feefees) then we can pretty tidily chalk this up as you running away and conceding the argument. You following?
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  20. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    Cowardly little thing, aren't you?

    Are you really backpedaling and playing the "Hurr durr liberalism isn't socialism" game? You're literally in this thread arguing that the whole world should suffer under Venezuela-style gun laws.

    God, even YOU know you're wrong. That's why you're backpedaling and filling your posts with pointless insults.

    Every state becomes a failed socialist state when people like you are permitted to ruin it for the benefit of the political elite.