(08-23-2013, 07:46 PM)Four Wrote:

(08-23-2013, 10:05 AM)Harvey Wrote:

Quote:For one, the majority of firearms used in crimes in the U.S. are illegally bought.

I stopped reading here. If you look at my previous arguments which I've supplied evidence to support, you'll see this is far from true. Also, that document seems stupidly biased.

The only source you've used was for mass shootings.
While it may be biased, a lot of the facts are true.
Even so, you still want to illegalize guns when it would have little to no use in the U.S.

(08-26-2013, 03:40 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-23-2013, 07:46 PM)Four Wrote:

(08-23-2013, 10:05 AM)Harvey Wrote: I stopped reading here. If you look at my previous arguments which I've supplied evidence to support, you'll see this is far from true. Also, that document seems stupidly biased.

The only source you've used was for mass shootings.
While it may be biased, a lot of the facts are true.
Even so, you still want to illegalize guns when it would have little to no use in the U.S.

Why would it have little to no use?

(08-26-2013, 04:35 AM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 03:40 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-23-2013, 07:46 PM)Four Wrote: The only source you've used was for mass shootings.
While it may be biased, a lot of the facts are true.
Even so, you still want to illegalize guns when it would have little to no use in the U.S.

Why would it have little to no use?

In the United States there is an estimated 300 million civilian-owned guns. Now, imagine how many guns there are that were bought illegally and without background checks. That number is also soaring and a study I was reading earlier on the matter can be found here. Now, if we were to take guns away we would first have people resisting this, possibly causing riots or something of the sort, possibly even some small rebel groups forming. Secondly, many who owned guns and gave them away would turn to buying guns on the street. All in all not much would change except taking the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens, many who use them to hunt. Don't get me wrong Harvey, I'm not some gun nut who believe everybody should be waving a gun, I think their should be stronger background checks or something of the sort, I just don't believe we should take the guns out of the hands of everybody based on the minority who use them for illegal matters.

(08-26-2013, 05:23 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 04:35 AM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 03:40 AM)Harvey Wrote: Why would it have little to no use?

In the United States there is an estimated 300 million civilian-owned guns. Now, imagine how many guns there are that were bought illegally and without background checks. That number is also soaring and a study I was reading earlier on the matter can be found here. Now, if we were to take guns away we would first have people resisting this, possibly causing riots or something of the sort, possibly even some small rebel groups forming. Secondly, many who owned guns and gave them away would turn to buying guns on the street. All in all not much would change except taking the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens, many who use them to hunt. Don't get me wrong Harvey, I'm not some gun nut who believe everybody should be waving a gun, I think their should be stronger background checks or something of the sort, I just don't believe we should take the guns out of the hands of everybody based on the minority who use them for illegal matters.

I would truly love to agree with what you're saying. The problem is the minority, however. Background checks on law abiding gun users doesn't prevent the minority from fucking everything up still. You can be a genuine person one day, have something bad happen to you the next day, and use your gun for wrong the following day.

I fear there's no way you can keep a large number of guns in circulation and cater to those who use them for good and still prevent mass shootings. There seems to be a direct relationship between no. guns and mass shootings.

(08-26-2013, 05:44 AM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 05:23 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 04:35 AM)Four Wrote: In the United States there is an estimated 300 million civilian-owned guns. Now, imagine how many guns there are that were bought illegally and without background checks. That number is also soaring and a study I was reading earlier on the matter can be found here. Now, if we were to take guns away we would first have people resisting this, possibly causing riots or something of the sort, possibly even some small rebel groups forming. Secondly, many who owned guns and gave them away would turn to buying guns on the street. All in all not much would change except taking the guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens, many who use them to hunt. Don't get me wrong Harvey, I'm not some gun nut who believe everybody should be waving a gun, I think their should be stronger background checks or something of the sort, I just don't believe we should take the guns out of the hands of everybody based on the minority who use them for illegal matters.

I would truly love to agree with what you're saying. The problem is the minority, however. Background checks on law abiding gun users doesn't prevent the minority from fucking everything up still. You can be a genuine person one day, have something bad happen to you the next day, and use your gun for wrong the following day.

I fear there's no way you can keep a large number of guns in circulation and cater to those who use them for good and still prevent mass shootings. There seems to be a direct relationship between no. guns and mass shootings.

The problem with that is the minority can still get it off of a dealer if the guns got banned. So even if the guns got banned mass shootings would still happen. Think about it this way, if guns were banned at the time of the Aurora shooting do you think it wouldn't have happened? His house was a death trap and he could have easily gotten a gun through illegal matters if he could pull all that off. It's just that they'll take the easiest way to get the guns. If you take out the main way, they will decide to go another way for it. This again brings us back to the citizens getting their guns taken away unfairly.

(08-26-2013, 06:30 AM)YellowKnife Wrote: I believe that all guns should be illegal to own, unless you have a gun licence. (Similar to the UK) Whereby you would have passed an assessment where you are deemed safe to own a gun or not. Making all guns legal would be carnage.

(08-26-2013, 06:23 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 05:44 AM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 05:23 AM)Harvey Wrote: I would truly love to agree with what you're saying. The problem is the minority, however. Background checks on law abiding gun users doesn't prevent the minority from fucking everything up still. You can be a genuine person one day, have something bad happen to you the next day, and use your gun for wrong the following day.

I fear there's no way you can keep a large number of guns in circulation and cater to those who use them for good and still prevent mass shootings. There seems to be a direct relationship between no. guns and mass shootings.

The problem with that is the minority can still get it off of a dealer if the guns got banned. So even if the guns got banned mass shootings would still happen. Think about it this way, if guns were banned at the time of the Aurora shooting do you think it wouldn't have happened? His house was a death trap and he could have easily gotten a gun through illegal matters if he could pull all that off. It's just that they'll take the easiest way to get the guns. If you take out the main way, they will decide to go another way for it. This again brings us back to the citizens getting their guns taken away unfairly.

If this is true, why have there been zero mass shootings in Australia since gun control was introduced? Do you not think our criminals are capable of getting guns off dealers?

(08-26-2013, 07:49 AM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 06:23 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 05:44 AM)Four Wrote: The problem with that is the minority can still get it off of a dealer if the guns got banned. So even if the guns got banned mass shootings would still happen. Think about it this way, if guns were banned at the time of the Aurora shooting do you think it wouldn't have happened? His house was a death trap and he could have easily gotten a gun through illegal matters if he could pull all that off. It's just that they'll take the easiest way to get the guns. If you take out the main way, they will decide to go another way for it. This again brings us back to the citizens getting their guns taken away unfairly.

If this is true, why have there been zero mass shootings in Australia since gun control was introduced? Do you not think our criminals are capable of getting guns off dealers?

Also, you have a much smaller population than the U.S. so there wont be as many dealers, criminals, nor shooters.