Thread: Interesting...

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

They didn't have guns to begin with. Read the Snopes Article.

Yet Australia is often used as an example by those on the left for tougher gun restrictions and buybacks "working"?

Originally Posted by CivilWars

This. The studies show no reduction in crime, and no faster reduction in gun crime than was already happening. But hey, at least they don't have guns, right?

Read Scion's link which basically says the numbers are a bit B.S. but for sake of argument, going to assume they are true. Thus if firearms had no effect, doesn't that take out a big piece of the argument for guns, that more guns=less crime (which this shows isn't true). With that being false, the reasons left are, "they are cool," and hunting. Considering the potential, I could (and for sake of discussion/argument will) make the case that removing guns is the better option. At the very least a better option in urban settings with hunting is going to be mostly pigeons (well cats and dogs too, if you're an asshole).

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Read Scion's link which basically says the numbers are a bit B.S. but for sake of argument, going to assume they are true. Thus if firearms had no effect, doesn't that take out a big piece of the argument for guns, that more guns=less crime (which this shows isn't true). With that being false, the reasons left are, "they are cool," and hunting. Considering the potential, I could (and for sake of discussion/argument will) make the case that removing guns is the better option. At the very least a better option in urban settings with hunting is going to be mostly pigeons (well cats and dogs too, if you're an asshole).

I do not personally claim that guns being prevalent reduces crimes. I do however claim that the same argument can be made about plenty of other things like alcohol, tobacco, and McDonald's hamburgers, and I don't want to give the government the power to tell me I can't have any of those either. Just my opinion though, so no need for Snopes.

What's your opinion on Child Labor?

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

What's your opinion on Child Labor?

How does it even relate?

Originally Posted by CivilWars

How does it even relate?

Civil, this is SmokenScion. Smoken, Civil. Let the half points, randomness and confusion begin!

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I do not personally claim that guns being prevalent reduces crimes. I do however claim that the same argument can be made about plenty of other things like alcohol, tobacco, and McDonald's hamburgers, and I don't want to give the government the power to tell me I can't have any of those either. Just my opinion though, so no need for Snopes.

The thing with alcohol, tobacco, McD's is they tend to mostly kill the user (well alcohol there is an argument about DUI, though we already have drinking and driving illegal soo yeah. Arguments on why people still do would be interesting (I've heard some mention its cultural but none were experts or anything close)). Tobacco has second hand smoke, though my understanding that was more based on the other crap put in cigarettes and less the tobacco, which is another argument (and again laws in some states have been passed to prevent smoking in certain areas).

With banning alcohol, the only time to get numbers from (that I know of) is prohibition, and these may be bullshit as well since I'm going on the assumption they aren't but for sake of not spending two days looking it up, according to the charts prohibition for the most part was increasing at the very least expenditure on distilled spirits (which I think, could be wrong, one could argue is more dangerous then beer), possibly consumption though I think that chart is a bit of wanting to see what one wants to see.
The End of Prohibition: What Happened and What Have We Learned?

Oh and their homicide chart add-on seemed pretty dumb, considering there could be so many factors besides prohibition for the increase and decrease (plus increasing before anyways).

On smoking, best I could find was a pretty limited study with issues, only posting it as reading material and something for those more attuned to studies to nitpick better. It seems a bit limited and potential selection issues which makes it a poor choice (imo) but for sake of something: Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Nonsmoking Hospitality Workers before and after a State Smoking Ban



For the record I don't really think gun bans would be effective in the U.S., way too many guns at this point (being handguns are the bigger(biggest) issue). Why I feel laws like in Chicago have little use, since you can still get a gun from outside of Chicago and bring it in. I like some more regulations on gun purchases (universal background checks, potentially stuff on straw purchases, etc.) but a full ban seems pointless. I forgot the word for it now, but like said basically arguing for more or less sake of argument (it can be interesting, do some learning, and a bit fun at times depending on the people involved).

Also don't think tobacco, alcohol or McShit's...I mean McDonald's food should be banned. Though I like smoking bans, mostly on a selfish level though the ones that ban it in open air spaces or people's cars are silly and stupid imo (I mean cars are a bit annoying when people feel the need to have the window open with their cigarette hanging out so you and everyone else can "enjoy," the smoke but still stupid to try to ban smoking in a private vehicle).

My point more being I don't want to set a precedence, or any more of one than we already have in this country, that allows the government to say guns are bad, so we are taking them away. Partly it is because I like guns, but more than that it is because I am concerned as to what they will consider "bad" next. Yes, we have laws against drunk driving, but they don't work. We also have laws against shooting someone in the face, but we see how well those work too. So logic progression is in fact that to eliminate gun crimes you must eliminate all guns. To eliminate alcohol related crimes you need to eliminate all alcohol as well.

I am sure there will be a reply soon about tin foil and what not, but IDGAF.

For all you next gen's out there buy a 3d printer before the're outlawed for private use.

I trust my neighbors more with firearms than the government including the military and police but I especially distrust the TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security. The Air Marshalls are OK I guess.

The point is that even if you really could reduce violence by taking all guns away from private citizens (I don't believe that works FYI) I still would not support a ban. I see them as both a tool for and a symbol of our freedoms. Unless you have done something to warrant the removal of the right to bear arms I don't have a problem with you owning any type of firearms with as big a magazine as you want. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns anyway.


Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk