The gun control advocates are having a field day

[haas mark]

*thwap* I know you are gonna at soem point pinthis on the homosexuals, so I will say this: it is because people in general are sexually active and are unwilling ot go get tested. ho knows why? I don't. But the people that don't get tested and have HIV spread it to others that don't get tested who spread it and so on and so on...

I wasn't going to turn this into a homo bashing thread, but I know from
people in the medical industry, that HIV is not the "it dies within minutes
of exposure to sunlight, hence is harmless"

HIV is a fucking VIRUS, people....there have been tests where the HIV
virus has been bombarded with lots of really nasty shit and then after
that treatment, gone on to infect lab animals....

My point is that you are blowing things out of proportion, like you always seem to manage to do, in the debates that I have watched.

EDIT: NOT TO MENTION that you act like we don't know these things....

[Darth Wong]

My point is that [Shep is] blowing things out of proportion, like you always seem to manage to do, in the debates that I have watched.

As I said, he relies upon the black/white fallacy in 99% of his arguments.

[Beowulf]

Canada... Where a significant number of people failed to register their guns?

Evasion. How does that address the point? The gun-control law was not a ban, and even if they had registered, they would still have their guns. It was just a tax grab anyway, which is why I oppose it. The concept of gun-control (not gun "bans" despite the insistent NRA strawman) is still valid.

The point is that a significant number of people decided to to defy the law, and not register their firearms. And how can you prove that that registry won't be used later down the line to do the same exact thing as was done in California? I agree that the concept is valid, but the implementation is not.

Lets take a look at California. A couple years ago, they decided to disallow a certain type of rifle, and require registration of any existing ones in CA. Some people didn't get theirs registered by the deadline, but the California Government decided to allow those rifles to be registered anyway, and set a new deadline. Then a little while afterwards, they changed their mind and decided to use that registry to take away the rifles from those who registered their rifles... (Gun control turned into gun confiscation...)

Ah, slippery-slope fallacy. Favoured friend of the NRA. The fact that it happened in one particular incident (involving one particular kind of gun) in which that was the original stated intent anyway is hardly validation of your fallacy.

It's only a fallacy if the given case is not true. In the US at least, it is the stated intent of the gun-control activists to ban all guns not used by police and military.

And let me rephrase my question... Compare the homicide rates before gun control in AU and after they implemented gun control.

See previous rebuttal addressing that question and the logical fallacy therein.

Where exactly is the fallacy in asking for a comparison between murder rates before and after this gun-control measure was passed?

Please also point out where in my argument I turned gun control into gun confiscation in my original post.

You described a gun-control law in Australia as a "ban".

I misspoke there. In any case, the gun-control law did ban some people from owning guns, so it is a "ban" just not a total one.

My belief is that people should be able to do anything they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. A good form of gun-control would be necessary to prevent people from hurting others w/ guns, but the current situtation is banning certain classes of guns just because of they're looks.

[Alyeska]

Basically I think that people have the theoretical right to own weapons, but that is only if they can follow the rules and safety procedures.

Hear hear. Of course, since that means a violent ex-con like Shep would be excluded so that only people like you and me could legally own them, he won't agree ...

When it comes to criminal records, that is something of an issue. IIRC in Montana people who served their entire prison sentence and then have 10 years with a clean record get their record "errased" so to speak. They regain their full rights and can again own guns. Other states do not do this however. But if someone comits a crime in Montana, serves the prison sentence, and then lives ten years without commiting a crime (in Montana) they have their rights restored and can go to other states and still own weapons. However cause Shep is a criminal in another state....

Shep is an idiot IMO. He doesn't know WTF he's talking about most of the time.

[Sea Skimmer]

*laughs at idiots that think owning an assault rifle would ever stop the govt. All it will do is force them to kill you.*

Tell that to the Soviet Union.

Could you elaborate, please? How does the Soviet Union's example prove that people with small-arms will be able to overthrow a military? The Soviet Union collapsed from within, due to political forces unleashed in an attempt to liberalize the state under controlled conditions; its military was never conquered by rifle-wielding militias.

Afghanistan. The resistance started with at best an Ak-47 for 1 in 50, the majority where armed with Lee Enfield that where 40-80 years old or not at all.

Ten years, millions of men deployed, three million bombing and close support sorties, the mass slaughter of entire villages where weapons where found, widespread use of chemical weapon, overwhelming artillery and armor power, control of the air opposed by light triple A only for six of those ten years, all failed to crush the resistance.

IN fact they got significantly stronger and by 1988 effectively had control of 90% of the century, and only a few areas where secure against there shelling. Not suprisingly the next year the Soviets left, defeated.

And unlike America in Vietnam they cound't even claime a partial victory of being undefeated in the field or having achived there multi national goal.

[Darth Wong]

It's only a fallacy if the given case is not true.

Wrong. An example of event A leading to event B in one incident is not validation of a slippery-slope fallacy. Please purchase a book on basic logic before you embarrass yourself further.

Besides, event B was the original stated intent in this particular case anyway; they backed off to A and then went back to their original plan. That is hardly evidence of event A causing event B.

In the US at least, it is the stated intent of the gun-control activists to ban all guns not used by police and military.

And it is the stated intent of the anarchy advocates such as Shep to make extremely powerful military weapons legal for private use. So what? How does their extremism nullify the possibility of finding a workable compromise?

Buy a fucking logic textbook and look up slippery-slope fallacy, goddamn it! I'm sick of trying to explain to people like you why it's a fallacy!

Where exactly is the fallacy in asking for a comparison between murder rates before and after this gun-control measure was passed?

The gun-control measure has long-term effects, not short-term effects. It does not confiscate thousands of guns from existing gun owners, so it is ridiculous to gauge its usefulness by short-term results. Should I repeat myself a third time before it sinks in?

Please also point out where in my argument I turned gun control into gun confiscation in my original post.

You described a gun-control law in Australia as a "ban".

I misspoke there. In any case, the gun-control law did ban some people from owning guns, so it is a "ban" just not a total one.

No, it is regulation. You do not describe automotive vehicle licensing regulations as "car bans", do you?

My belief is that people should be able to do anything they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

If I drive while straddling two lanes on the highway, I am not hurting anyone. Does this mean that's OK, and that the laws regarding driving should be changed to permit it?

A good form of gun-control would be necessary to prevent people from hurting others w/ guns, but the current situtation is banning certain classes of guns just because of they're looks.

I'm just saying that the idea of gun-control makes sense. I never said that every gun control law in existence is well-designed. And it does make sense to ban certain types of guns; no one complains because bazookas are not allowed, and the logic is the same.

[haas mark]

You made Wong yell....bad idea....

[Darth Wong]

Afghanistan. The resistance started with at best an Ak-47 for 1 in 50, the majority where armed with Lee Enfield that where 40-80 years old or not at all.

Ten years, millions of men deployed, three million bombing and close support sorties, the mass slaughter of entire villages where weapons where found, widespread use of chemical weapon, overwhelming artillery and armor power, control of the air opposed by light triple A only for six of those ten years, all failed to crush the resistance.

You forget that they had firm control of the country; all its major resources, its population centres, etc; they just couldn't root the resistance out of the mountains. And the resistance was driven by religious fervour and insanity.

IN fact they got significantly stronger and by 1988 effectively had control of 90% of the century, and only a few areas where secure against there shelling. Not suprisingly the next year the Soviets left, defeated.

They got stronger as they were continually supplied with more advanced weapons by the Americans. And it is misleading to say that they had control of 90% of the country; the Soviets had total control of all the major cities, and had nominal control of all important assets. The fact that large amounts of desolate mountainous wasteland were controlled by the Mujahedin hardly validates the idea that rifle-wielding militia will defeat an army. And once again, they were never actually defeated; they merely left because it wasn't worth it.

And unlike America in Vietnam they cound't even claime a partial victory of being undefeated in the field or having achived there multi national goal.

What? They had nominal control of all major assets and all the cities!

[MKSheppard]

And it is the stated intent of the anarchy advocates such as Shep to make extremely powerful military weapons legal for private use. So what? How does their extremism nullify the possibility of finding a workable compromise?

In the last major gun control case argued before the Supreme Court,
back in the 30s, the entire argument by the government, hinged
over the argument that a sawn off shotgun was NOT a military issue
weapon....

[haas mark]

And it is the stated intent of the anarchy advocates such as Shep to make extremely powerful military weapons legal for private use. So what? How does their extremism nullify the possibility of finding a workable compromise?

In the last major gun control case argued before the Supreme Court,
back in the 30s, the entire argument by the government, hinged
over the argument that a sawn off shotgun was NOT a military issue
weapon....

The fact that you stated in the 30s says it all. THere have been plenty of amjor COut cases involving guns...I can't name any, but they have been there. And in actuality, most guns that people use for hunting (people that hunt being 90%+ of the populous that use guns properly) are the ones being banned, for minimal deaths by use of the gun. Of course it gonna friggin kill a human, it will kill a friggin deer!!!

[MKSheppard]

The fact that you stated in the 30s says it all. THere have been plenty of amjor COut cases involving guns...

That's the LAST time the Supreme Court even considered taking a MAJOR
gun control case....ever since then, they have ducked the issue repeatedly..

[haas mark]

The fact that you stated in the 30s says it all. THere have been plenty of amjor COut cases involving guns...

That's the LAST time the Supreme Court even considered taking a MAJOR
gun control case....ever since then, they have ducked the issue repeatedly..

Apparently I can't spell when sleep depping...Also, just because that was the last major SUPREME Court case, does NOT mean that there HAVEN'T been other cases in other courts.

[MKSheppard]

Apparently I can't spell when sleep depping...Also, just because that was the last major SUPREME Court case, does NOT mean that there HAVEN'T been other cases in other courts.

I wish the Supreme Court would just get off it's ass and rule on the 2nd
Amendment...can we own guns or not?

End this damn twaddling around and give us a fucking CLEAR answer.....

[haas mark]

Apparently I can't spell when sleep depping...Also, just because that was the last major SUPREME Court case, does NOT mean that there HAVEN'T been other cases in other courts.

I wish the Supreme Court would just get off it's ass and rule on the 2nd
Amendment...can we have it or not?

How many times have they ruled for it? Enough times. We have had it since fucking the late 1700s dipwad! It's not going away! The government just pus limitations on it because they're afraid that the people might actually get what they want! (Well, in some cases) THere are limitations, and I agree with some, but there are also those that I disagree with. BUt I digress. We have always had that Amanedment, and there will always be that amendment.

[MKSheppard]

How many times have they ruled for it? Enough times. We have had it since fucking the late 1700s dipwad! It's not going away!

*cough* Prohibition *cough*

Alcohol has been around longer than guns.....

[haas mark]

What the fuck does alcohol have to do with guns? Besides, they repealed prohibition becuase they knew it was pointless to keep it there...people were gonna get alcohol any way they can, and they'll do it with guns, as you even said it yourself.

[MKSheppard]

What the fuck does alcohol have to do with guns? Besides, they repealed prohibition becuase they knew it was pointless to keep it there...people were gonna get alcohol any way they can, and they'll do it with guns, as you even said it yourself.

Here, have some SABOT rounds......


Expect +4,000 fps speeds and devasting effects on targets upon impact.

[haas mark]

You know what, it's pointless to even argue with you anymore...you have no points to make, and you consistently switch topics becasue you can't find a reasonable way to defend yourself.

Quoting myself, and then posting what you did made no sense whatsoever.

[MKSheppard]

You know what, it's pointless to even argue with you anymore...you have no points to make, and you consistently switch topics becasue you can't find a reasonable way to defend yourself.

Quoting myself, and then posting what you did made no sense whatsoever.

Just trying to bring some fun into the entire thing.....we all know gun control
debates eventually burn out into a shouting match between two hard core
camps....but it's fun while the shouting lasts.....

[Sea Skimmer]

The Soviet goal was to secure the country for future operations against Pakistan and Iran. They where never able to come close to the level of control needed to use the country as a base, then they left and a couple years later the Union disbanded.

They got stronger as they were continually supplied with more advanced weapons by the Americans. And it is misleading to say that they had control of 90% of the country; the Soviets had total control of all the major cities, and had nominal control of all-important assets. The fact that large amounts of desolate mountainous wasteland were controlled by the Mujahedin hardly validates the idea that rifle-wielding militia will defeat an army. And once again, they were never actually defeated; they merely left because it wasn't worth it.

American aid did not show up until 1986, seven years into the war. And then it was primarily small arms and general supplies. The only thing you could call advanced they got was radios and MANPADS, about 1500 rounds total which scored a minority of Fagan kills. Triple A and land mines brought down most of them. Even this aid for the most part only reached the south eastern quarter of the country. Most of the bands did without outside assistance.

The Soviets held the cities, but those held only about 35% of the population, and where continually shelled by the resistance. Because the Soviets could not control the hills and mountains around the city they where continually harassed and suffered quite heavy losses. The reason most of Kabul is destroyed is because of the resistance attempting to hit Soviet checkpoints and patrols within the city center. And because of their height advantage country battery fire was near impossible against many batteries.

The Soviets where very defected. They wanted Afghanistan for its roads and what lay beyond. They did not have control of the roads, and attempts to open them got entire battalions destroyed in single nights several times. Because they could never do this they could never move on to Pakistan or Iran, both of which actually had things of value to them, a warm water port on the open sea.

What? They had nominal control of all major assets and all the cities!

Hooray, the Union controlled a minority of the population and a bunch of mud huts. The assets they did not have control of was the thing they invaded for and the only one of value, the road network.

[haas mark]

You know what, it's pointless to even argue with you anymore...you have no points to make, and you consistently switch topics becasue you can't find a reasonable way to defend yourself.

Quoting myself, and then posting what you did made no sense whatsoever.

Just trying to bring some fun into the entire thing.....we all know gun control
debates eventually burn out into a shouting match between two hard core
camps....but it's fun while the shouting lasts.....

I reiterate my point above...You make no sense and what you say does in no way conincide with what I am saying to you. Just leave it alobe already.

[Utsanomiko]

I don't have a problem with most gun control, so long as it does its job properly (keeping guns out of the hands of criminals). As a non-criminal, and the proud owner of a lovely 6mm Winchester Model 70, I couldn't really care less if there are regulations that effectively reduce criminal posession, while leaving legal owners like me realativly unaffected. I can put up with liscences, background checks, waiting periods ("Two days? but I'm angry now!"), and such, as long as they're reducing the ammount of guns getting into criminals' hands.

Conversely, I feel that regulations that don't properly do this shouldn't be in effect. Inflating commercial gun prices doesn't greatly affect criminal demand on the black market, tracking individual guns has little effect (as the vast majority of guns used in crimes have been posessed illegally or have their serial numbers filed down), and such. It's absurd to expect a rule that specifically targets one group will effect the gun ownership of the other.

There are perfectly good regulations to use that won't hurt legal ownership (but the "100% no gun control" group is afraid of them), and there are ones that are all but useless in the rational purpose for gun control (some 'bleeding hearts', 'knee-jerk' gun confiscation groups support such intentionally flawed regulations, because they look good on a bill). If laws were passed with some rational goals in mind (for once), we wouldn't have to worry about the slippery-slope potentials of idiotic regulations, and we wouldn't have to remove all current gun control laws just so that nothing affects what non-felons can buy. Obviously, nothing's going to get done if we don't find a reasonable middle-ground that does the right job. Personally, I hope to buy shotguns, pistols, rifles, and such to add to my collection in the next several years. Hell, right now if I wanted to add an AK-47 to that list, I could technically shell out $10,000 and get a liscence for machine guns, if I wanted to partake in full-auto target practice. I don't plan on committing any felonies, and I want to know that laws meant to reduce crime won't effect me (well, other than taxes, but everything effects taxes).

That's about all I want to add for now.

[Darth Wong]

The Soviet goal was to secure the country for future operations against Pakistan and Iran. They where never able to come close to the level of control needed to use the country as a base, then they left and a couple years later the Union disbanded.

The American goal would be control its own territory. They wouldn't leave the way the Soviets did. And Americans will not be as desperate or fanatical as the Mujahedin. Look at the way they ferociously resisted the Patriot Act and its incursions upon individual rights.

The Soviets held the cities, but those held only about 35% of the population, and where continually shelled by the resistance.

Tell me, how do you "shell" cities with small-arms fire? Face it; the only reason they could cause any trouble at all was because they had more than just small-arms. Small-arms in the hands of private citizens will not stop a military.

Because the Soviets could not control the hills and mountains around the city they where continually harassed and suffered quite heavy losses. The reason most of Kabul is destroyed is because of the resistance attempting to hit Soviet checkpoints and patrols within the city center. And because of their height advantage country battery fire was near impossible against many batteries.

And this applies to American cities ... how?

The Soviets where very defected. They wanted Afghanistan for its roads and what lay beyond. They did not have control of the roads, and attempts to open them got entire battalions destroyed in single nights several times. Because they could never do this they could never move on to Pakistan or Iran, both of which actually had things of value to them, a warm water port on the open sea.

If the Mujahedin had only small-arms instead of mortars, rockets, RPG's, and missiles, they would not have been quite so successful.

What? They had nominal control of all major assets and all the cities!

Hooray, the Union controlled a minority of the population and a bunch of mud huts. The assets they did not have control of was the thing they invaded for and the only one of value, the road network.

And once again, this applies to an American situation ... how?

[MKSheppard]

Tell me, how do you "shell" cities with small-arms fire? Face it; the only reason they could cause any trouble at all was because they had more than just small-arms. Small-arms in the hands of private citizens will not stop a military.

Those small arms allow you to acquite heavier weapons through the spoils
of war......

We air dropeed thousands of single shot .45 caliber pistols over occupied france
during WWII

the concept was that the Maquis would get one of these one shot pistols,
walk up behind a german soldier alone on patrol, shoot him, take his
weapon and use that weapon to acquire more weapons, up to crew
served weapons.

81mm mortars are cheap and easy to aquire/make ya know?

[TrailerParkJawa]

Do you have any experience with people who have been shot repeatedly?

One of my cell mates in jail had scars all over his body, including
one right next to his heart from a .45 hollowpoint. Another guy had
been shot repeatedly by the police over and over and over when he
tried to run them over with a stolen car, and he was OK, except for
the fact that he needed a cane......at 21.

You seriously underestimate how hard it is to kill a human being. It is not
"Oh I hate you!" *Bang* and you die....

If guns are so damn inefficient, then you have no need for one do you?
Im mean, if most people can sustain multiple hits, then you obviously are not going to be able to stop federal troops with body armor.