General Music Chat

Look at australia .

Have you done that yet?

The numbers are coming in now and since the gun ban, violent crime has SOARED, with a new phenomenon of house invasions up more than 500%

I've looked it up and cited wiki links here on bmix more than once, with exact statistics on gun violence since the ban, which has been overwhelmingly positive in the ban reducing gun-related deaths. In regards to home invasions, I have no idea, but if a gun is used, then it would show up in the gun violence statistics.

I assume you have citations that can prove your numbers?

We should also ban drugs.



Oh wait....that only made it an underground industry that proliferates violent crime. Do you understand that?

Prohibition didn't work either.

You are comparing apples and oranges- Drugs and alcohol are by design recreational, and desired by people.. nobody is buying drugs in an attempt to use them to kill someone, unless you believe in some hollywood mafia fantasy drummed up by creative thinkers out there.

While they (and guns) might be illegal because of the violence, guns end up being the only item of the three that has only one purpose: To destroy any object in the path of it's projectile. It has no other purpose, and therefore isn't comparable to drugs, alcohol, or even cars (another disingenuous comparison I keep seeing)

The day after Newtown CT, a man with a gun in San Antonio got angry and chased some school-kids into a building and was likely going to kill all of them, but a nearby woman with gun put 4 in him before he hit the ground. That kind of scenario goes unreported on the major media every day.

And recently a friend of mine (who just retired as a Senior Admiral from the Pentagon) told me that as many as 3 million violent crimes per year are avoided or stopped by a gun owner.

Why isn't that included in the record when we talk about gun control? Answer: because it doesn't help the narrative of the fascists.

It's not put in the record? It's not being used by people on the pro-gun side to argue a point? Clearly, it is. How do you know about these stories, then? All I keep hearing is stories about how guns saved lives. I also keep hearing about how guns take lives. What you are missing is that guns are the common denominator on both sides of the stories. Someone always has a gun and is using it to commit crimes.

So long as guns are widely available, there will be people who use them to commit crimes. You are more or less proving the point for me. Nothing good comes from guns, with exception of using them to stop other guns. I still don't see how hard it is to realize guns are the problem here.

If there were no guns, there would be no gun crime. Sure other crime might rise, in it's absence, as a criminal is a criminal. The difference here is the ability that a criminal has to kill a few vs. wholesale slaughter of many.

I don't even suggest we BAN guns, although my arguments might suggest it- I'm merely pointing out the flaws in our logic. What I do suggest is stronger controls to keep guns away from criminals, and also (of course) limit the amount of bullets any gun can spray into a crowd before needing to be reloaded.

Here's my story about how not having banana clips and 15 different assault weapons stopped what could have been a much bigger killing spree (note, I lived a MILE away from this one when it happened):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist

I've looked it up and cited wiki links here on bmix more than once, with exact statistics on gun violence since the ban, which has been overwhelmingly positive in the ban reducing gun-related deaths. In regards to home invasions, I have no idea, but if a gun is used, then it would show up in the gun violence statistics.

I assume you have citations that can prove your numbers?

292 million people that had no guns... were exterminated... by people that controlled the government and the armed forces.

WHAT... ARE YOU FUUCKING KIDDING?

And yes this is what liberal thinking has brought us too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eZo4hbGJjVI

Ok, I watched the video. There's some simple and very important points that get completely ignored.

First, the guy blames "society" for the problem, completely avoiding the fact that higher capacity clips allow shooters to kill larger groups of people faster.

Then he goes on to boast that DC and Chicago both have the strictest gun laws in the country and still have the highest murder rates. And using those facts, it would suggest that he's right. But again, there's a total failure to mention that it's a simple matter of geography and not that gun control equals more gun violence..

Look at australia and england. In both places, they have what we could agree are strict gun laws. Both different, yet far more restrictive than the USA- The fact is that those laws cover the entire country, not just one city. It's pretty damn hard to smuggle a gun, much less many guns, into a country with strict gun laws. Can we agree on that?

In the USA, you can go to any gun show and walk out with an arsenal, no matter who you are. You can then drive those guns, completely unabated, right into the heart of DC and distribute them relatively cheap. So where's the real "control" there? There isn't any. Had I been the mayor of either city, I would not have even bothered to attempt to control guns, as it's geographically impossible so long as they are easily available as soon as you cross the city limits.

Both of those flaws stick out like a elephant in a tutu, yet the pro-gun advocates refuse to acknowledge ANY facts that do not support their points of view. It's dishonest and disgusting. I've yet to see ANY facts that show more guns benefits a civilized society.

Every talking point the pro-gun lobby made so far has ignored the big picture, or uses deception and ignorance to sell it's position.

I'm all for rational and honest discussion, but I'm just not seeing either from that side of the fence.

Magazine capacity doesn't mean much.
It takes me under 2 seconds with my Glock to release a mag, slam another one in, and commence firing again.
If I had a fanny pack full of clips, I could kill all of you pretty much just as fast as if I just had one giant clip.

You'd have to revert back to single shot weapons, or abolish any semi automatic weapons to make any difference.

Also, the Oregon mall shooting - not so many people killed. But why?
Underachiever? I mean, plenty of people just milling around waiting to be shot.
Police action? Well... The guy had already shot himself.

So... Nope, and Nope.

Another person with a gun?
YEP.

The other person never fired. The shooter saw another gun that wasn't his, then he shot himself.

I know for a fact that it wasn't reported much.

Why wasn't it?