The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[PointOfViewGun]

Remember when they made weed illegal and nobody had weed until like 2018?

Yes, I remember how there was no cannabis control and they two different incomparable issues. You have no argument there. It might be interesting for others to know that banning and increasing punishment for cannabis was largely due to attitudes towards migrants as cannabis was their choice of intoxication. As its use spread to the white communities states started to ease laws about cannabis usage.

[Heathen Hammer]

It is comparable in a way, that its an easily creatable item, whose prohibition would only monopolize it for criminals. Anti-gun laws practically make society less safe, as most violent parts of the world all have one thing in common - citizens are heavily restricted for using firearms in self-defense.

[PointOfViewGun]

It is comparable in a way, that its an easily creatable item, whose prohibition would only monopolize it for criminals. Anti-gun laws practically make society less safe, as most violent parts of the world all have one thing in common - citizens are heavily restricted for using firearms in self-defense.

One is a substance with various biological effects and the other is a tool. They are not comparable. I love how people bend backwards to avoid the comparison with using a car but here you are trying to draw a parallel with a completely different kind of issue. Gun control is not anti-gun either. Proper background checks, including mental health checks for a gun license, doesn't make the society any less safe.

Also funny how number one example in your link, Pakistan, has one of the most relaxed gun laws in Asia. It's overall gun control approach is labeled as permissive.

[alhoon]

Criminals will still have guns, gun control only removes them from law-abiding citizens.
Do you have any evidence that gun control reduces overall violent crime or not?
Because without that evidence your initial argument is entirely false.

Yes.
Japan for example has much less violent crime than USA. And so does any civilized nation. Even the ones that DO have guns for tooooons of people, like Switzerland, have strict controls on how you get those guns. You don't walk into a store to get them.

[Mithradates]

Yes.
Japan for example has much less violent crime than USA. And so does any civilized nation. Even the ones that DO have guns for tooooons of people, like Switzerland, have strict controls on how you get those guns. You don't walk into a store to get them.

Totally this^
Its not "something else" both Japan and Switzerland has much less, no no.
Its the weapons.

[Sir Adrian]

Criminals will still have guns, gun control only removes them from law-abiding citizens.

This has been debunked so many time it's not even fun to demolish it anymore.

Do you have any evidence that gun control reduces overall violent crime or not?

Obvious attempt at sealioning is obvious. 2 minutes on google will reveal to you that violent crime is lower in countries with full gun control or where gun ownership is strictly regulated.

But if you want examples take a look at Japan or take a look at Norway, or even better, Romania established one of the strictest gun control programs in the world in 1996, and violent crime rate immediately started dropping as criminals stopped owning guns because simply owning one without any ammo to shoot it meant a 2-7 year prison sentence (typically 5 years) and if you also own ammo for it that's an extra 5 years. Simply put, if you're a criminal and you get caught and you also own a gun, you're ed.

Because without that evidence your initial argument is entirely false.

My initial argument is asking you to prove your sources. How is that false if I don't provide you with statistics.

Also, you have not answered any of my questions. Can you source any of your claims?

[Heathen Hammer]

Yes.
Japan for example has much less violent crime than USA. And so does any civilized nation. Even the ones that DO have guns for tooooons of people, like Switzerland, have strict controls on how you get those guns. You don't walk into a store to get them.

Japan is a monoethnic island with very high living standards, and even there they have Yakuza and citizens occasionally 360 no-scoping former leaders with homemade firearms, proving that in place like USA it would be much much worse.

This has been debunked so many time it's not even fun to demolish it anymore.

No, it hasn't been debunked. Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens, and not criminals. Supporting gun control means supporting violent criminals.

Obvious attempt at sealioning is obvious. 2 minutes on google will reveal to you that violent crime is lower in countries with full gun control or where gun ownership is strictly regulated.

But if you want examples take a look at Japan or take a look at Norway, or even better, Romania established one of the strictest gun control programs in the world in 1996, and violent crime rate immediately started dropping as criminals stopped owning guns because simply owning one without any ammo to shoot it meant a 2-7 year prison sentence (typically 5 years) and if you also own ammo for it that's an extra 5 years. Simply put, if you're a criminal and you get caught and you also own a gun, you're ed.

Wrong, as we can tell by above-mentioned statistics: what unites places with highest violence crime rate is that they all restrict self-defense carry of firearms, where it is practically impossible for civilians to do that legally. Gun control only works for violent criminals.

My initial argument is asking you to prove your sources. How is that false if I don't provide you with statistics.

Also, you have not answered any of my questions. Can you source any of your claims?

See my previous post, where I already posted all the statistics.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, it hasn't been debunked. Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens, and not criminals. Supporting gun control means supporting violent criminals.

Supporting gun control does not mean supporting violent criminals. That's not how logic and common sense work.

Wrong, as we can tell by above-mentioned statistics: what unites places with highest violence crime rate is that they all restrict self-defense carry of firearms, where it is practically impossible for civilians to do that legally. Gun control only works for violent criminals.

Nope. Simple review of gun regulations for the locations in that list does not support your claim as have been already indicated.

[Heathen Hammer]

Supporting gun control simply means supporting disarmament of law-abiding citizens, which doesn't affect violent criminals, as above-cited statistics reveal, where majority of areas with highest violent crime rates all have very strict (but pointless) gun control.

[PointOfViewGun]

Supporting gun control simply means supporting disarmament of law-abiding citizens, which doesn't affect violent criminals, as above-cited statistics reveal, where majority of areas with highest violent crime rates all have very strict (but pointless) gun control.

Repeating the same false claims doesn't really make up a valid argument. It merely shows that your position does not stand up to scrutiny as you avoid addressing it so religiously.

[Sir Adrian]

See my previous post, where I already posted all the statistics.

If you've already sourced your claims it should not be too difficult to link me to that post.

Notice, this is the 3rd time I'm asking you to prove your argument and you still haven't given me anything.

[Heathen Hammer]

If you've already sourced your claims it should not be too difficult to link me to that post.

Notice, this is the 3rd time I'm asking you to prove your argument and you still haven't given me anything.

It is 2 posts above your previous post on this same page, where I posted the list of most violent places on the planet, common trait among which is.. strict gun control.

Repeating the same false claims doesn't really make up a valid argument. It merely shows that your position does not stand up to scrutiny as you avoid addressing it so religiously.

Bad faith much?
I posted a link to article which proves my point. You just gainsayed in response.

[PointOfViewGun]

It is 2 posts above your previous post on this same page, where I posted the list of most violent places on the planet, common trait among which is.. strict gun control.Bad faith much?
I posted a link to article which proves my point. You just gainsayed in response.

And I pointed exactly how that article didn't support your claim in post #2183. There was no gainsaying in play there. You simply chose to ignore that as your position is not supported by your own link.

[Heathen Hammer]

And I pointed exactly how that article didn't support your claim in post #2183.

Saying "not its wrong" is gainsaying and doesn't count as counter-argument.
Majority of most violent places on earth have strict gun control and my point remains.

You simply chose to ignore that as your position is not supported by your own link.

Feel free to quote the corresponding part of the link. Otherwise what you said was just vague gainsaying.

[PointOfViewGun]

Saying "not its wrong" is gainsaying and doesn't count as counter-argument.
Majority of most violent places on earth have strict gun control and my point remains.

Feel free to quote the corresponding part of the link. Otherwise what you said was just vague gainsaying.

Except I didn't simply say that its wrong. I pointed out why its wrong as I used the number one city from your list. Why are you failing to address such a simple point?

[Sir Adrian]

It is 2 posts above your previous post on this same page, where I posted the list of most violent places on the planet, common trait among which is.. strict gun control.

.

There are no stats in that post and that's not what I asked you to source. You said you posted stats. Do you intend to to source the claims you made on the previous page, namely that gun control is denial of self defense? So far your own link contradicts you.

The common trait among those cities is the heavy presence of drug cartels and drug dealing street gangs, not gun control. Most of them don't actually have effective gun control. Taker Baltimore, you can literally drive 5 minutes outside the city, buy a gun from the first gun store you find, and go back.

[alhoon]

Japan is a monoethnic island with very high living standards, and even there they have Yakuza and citizens occasionally 360 no-scoping former leaders with homemade firearms, proving that in place like USA it would be much much worse.

Yes, but not 20 times worse as it is right now.

Gun control only affects law-abiding citizens, and not criminals. Supporting gun control means supporting violent criminals.

You don't get it.
Police in several cases KNOW who are the criminals and are building a case to bust them. If gun possession becomes illegal, they will spot that trouble-maker dude they always wanted to arrest, search him and his car and send him to jail for years. So, that troublemaker dude won't be walking around with a gun.
Mere possession of a gun being illegal, it means the police will be enough to protect you. As Settra said, look at Romania or Australia: Once they instituted strict gun controls, crime fell.

And you say Japan is monoethnic and rich and all, so it is reasonable that the entire 120 million people island have less murders than Alabama (with their 5M people).

OK, let's take a poor country, struggling with high unemployment, low salaries, 10% of the people walking on the street being immigrants and refugees from the Arab Spring (half of them illegal): Greece!
Greece is the size of Ohio in population and land size. GDP per capita is about 21000$ and we are below average on many many economic indices (14.5% unemployment). We also have strict gun controls.
Ohio has the equivalent of GDP per capita of 60000$, about triple that of Greece. Ohio has 4% Unemployment, 10% and 4 times below Greece.

Poor, multi-ethnic Greece has like 70-90 murders per year. Rich Ohio has x10 as many with the same population.

Q.E.D

[Heathen Hammer]

There are no stats in that post and that's not what I asked you to source. You said you posted stats. Do you intend to to source the claims you made on the previous page, namely that gun control is denial of self defense? So far your own link contradicts you.

That's the neat part- it doesn't require source because the source is rational logic. Passing laws that prevent people from defending themselves is denying them right to self-defense. Pretty neat, huh?

The common trait among those cities is the heavy presence of drug cartels and drug dealing street gangs, not gun control. Most of them don't actually have effective gun control. Taker Baltimore, you can literally drive 5 minutes outside the city, buy a gun from the first gun store you find, and go back.

That just sounds like repeat of fallacious communist argument about real marxism not yet been tried.
Also wait a hminute, didn't you say that gun control makes society safer? How are people from those places being unable to defend themselves against those armed gangs "safer"?
If you or your loved ones were attacked, would you prefer to them to have a gun to defend themselves or no?

Yes, but not 20 times worse as it is right now.

Because Japan doesn't have massive overpopulated cities that are run by corrupt Democrat administrations that thrive on poverty and crime.

You don't get it.
Police in several cases KNOW who are the criminals and are building a case to bust them. If gun possession becomes illegal, they will spot that trouble-maker dude they always wanted to arrest, search him and his car and send him to jail for years. So, that troublemaker dude won't be walking around with a gun.
Mere possession of a gun being illegal, it means the police will be enough to protect you. As Settra said, look at Romania or Australia: Once they instituted strict gun controls, crime fell.

That doesn't even make sense in the modern context.
Criminals do not "openly carry", nor do they report their guns to police. Police can theoretically protect you, but relying on that is silly, just looking at how piss-poor american law-enforcement is.
So essentially from anti-gun perspective Americans are supposed to just give up very basic considerations for their own safety and just make a leap of faith to rely on inherently corrupt and ineffective law enforcement that was never interested in protecting them in the first place.
Yeah, sounds like whoever wants that doesn't have public's best interest in mind.

And you say Japan is monoethnic and rich and all, so it is reasonable that the entire 120 million people island have less murders than Alabama (with their 5M people).

OK, let's take a poor country, struggling with high unemployment, low salaries, 10% of the people walking on the street being immigrants and refugees from the Arab Spring (half of them illegal): Greece!
Greece is the size of Ohio in population and land size. GDP per capita is about 21000$ and we are below average on many many economic indices (14.5% unemployment). We also have strict gun controls.
Ohio has the equivalent of GDP per capita of 60000$, about triple that of Greece. Ohio has 4% Unemployment, 10% and 4 times below Greece.

Poor, multi-ethnic Greece has like 70-90 murders per year. Rich Ohio has x10 as many with the same population.

Q.E.D

Even the worst Greek city hardly compares to an average Democrat-run dystopia like San-Francisco or Detroit. Greece also doesn't have Mexico to its south and an army of corrupt and criminal-minded alphabet agents that are interest in making crime rates the way they are. So no, not comparable.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's the neat part- it doesn't require source because the source is rational logic. Passing laws that prevent people from defending themselves is denying them right to self-defense. Pretty neat, huh?

Making sure law abiding citizens with proper training and no tendency to misuse them to be able to use a gun to defend themselves is not denying the right to self-defense. Rational logic does not support your assertions. What you're doing is not neat but pathetically unintelligent.

[Heathen Hammer]

Making sure law abiding citizens with proper training and no tendency to misuse them to be able to use a gun to defend themselves is not denying the right to self-defense.

So what you want is something already existing for decades, which is called background checks. I guess you now admit that US gun laws are fine then.