Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an Auto-Antonym

Post Reply New Topic

I’d wager a bet that the guns used to kill those little girls were bought off the street.I doubt they went into a store and did a background check.
Illegal guns are as available as illegal drugs.Easily obtained.
Making guns illegal wouldn’t stop gun violence.There would just be more unregistered weapons floating around.

Where are all the unregisted guns floating around Australia, bought off the street and used to kill little girls?

Why don’t you tell me all about how well the aborigines were treated by the white Australians?
You murdered plenty of them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailym ... -guns.html

Yeah, my country has sucked plenty in the past for what it did to the aboriginal people, I have no delusion that my country has a problem in this area. By the way calling them "aborigines" is perceived as insensitive with racist connotations.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/08/why-saying-aborigine-isnt-ok-8-facts-about-indigenous-people-in-australia/

But that does not answer my question of how my country has moved to stricter gun laws, and there is not the kind of mad world you think that would happen. We don't have the type of mad shootings of urban gangs that kill innocent children just minding their business, nor police scared out of the gob that every possible person could be packing a gun.

I'm guessing this is meant to be a "laws don't stop criminals" argument. While true, also misleading. Laws don't stop criminals. Laws create criminals. Because if there's no law against something, it's not a crime, therefore the commission of such act does not make one a criminal. In order to have criminals, you have to define crime. Laws don't stop people, but laws DO create a legal recourse for action. You couldn't arrest someone for assault unless there was a law against assault that specified what "assault" is, and what the penalties for it are. You couldn't arrest people for illegal guns unless there was a law that made those guns illegal. Laws don't stop criminals, but they do give you the LEGAL RECOURSE TO stop criminals. Making guns illegal would certainly at least help violence because if guns are illegal you can TAKE THEM AWAY FROM PEOPLE. There wouldn't just "be more guns, but now they're illegal" because if they're illegal you can TAKE THEM, at which point there are fewer guns, not more guns. Whereas if they're NOT illegal, you CAN'T take them. But americans get all weak-kneed if anyone utters the words "gun control".

Yeah, lets talk about australia and their treatment of indigenous people. Right after we talk about america and their treatment of indigenous people. Or Canada and their treatment of indigenous people. Or England and their treatment of indigenous people. Or maybe going "oh yeah? well, what about AUSTRALIA'S treatment of people!" is just a distraction to steer the convo away from other things.

I am well aware of the mistreatment of people all over the world.Read my past posts.
I’m pointing out hypocrisy.I get very tired of people from other countries with their own race problems acting like America is the worst.
As for making guns illegal, please tell me how to kill a rabid raccoon without one.I live in a rural area.
I’m not going to try and beat it with a stick.You try that.Tell me how it turns out for you and all about your rabies shots.

Last edited by Misslizard on 27 Jun 2020, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

https://www.creativespirits.info/aborig ... nal-people
Gang violence is usually about turf,and selling drugs in that area.
People use drugs because they are depressed and feel hopeless.Take away poverty and you reduce drug use and violence.The gangs would not exist if there wasn’t a demand for their product.Marijuana should be legal,that would help some.
Controlling the harder drugs like meth and heroin is as hard as controlling illegal guns.Basically if someone wants something bad enough they will get it.Prohibition proved that.There was shooting and cold blooded murder involved in illegal alcohol.That ended with the repeal of prohibition.
Even if you went out and bought people’s guns, like your government did,people could still find a way to acquire them.I watched a show on Afghanistan and they were making new guns out of pieces of old ones.Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Eliminate poverty and you will end most gun violence.
That’s why you don’t see gang shootings and drive bys in wealthy neighborhoods.People with full bellies usually don’t cause trouble.

The kids who die from stray bullets simply don't deserve it and skin color od those who shoot the bullets doesn't change it either way.

Was it okay that a bandit attacked me because we both were Europeans? It's ridiculous. He was a bandit, I was a random woman he met.
Why would anyone think that logic would not apply to non-Europeans?

If you look up well over your head you should see Brad's point sailing by.

America's gun violence problems are due to the large number of guns available. No, simply shutting off the tap won't resolve the problems, but that's not how Australia implemented their program. Removing them from circulation (via buy backs for example) would reduce the number of guns available to be sold on the black market after the laws change.

The USA is obviously number one when it comes to number of guns per capita. If simply the presence and availability of guns is the issue, then the second place on that list should also have serious issues with gun violence owing to the large number of guns.

*wikipedias*

Turns out it's the Falkland Islands. So, do the Falklands have over-the-top problems with gun violence? I'm asking because from what I can see, it's basically the Shire from LOTR.

I wonder how the Falklands compares to America in terms of rich/poor gap. It seems plausible that societies with less of a divide between their best and worst off would have less crime driven by poverty, as well as less crime that occurs as a result of the first type. Gun ownership certainly isn't the only factor, but that doesn't make it irrelevant or not worth understanding since some societies that share other issues with America have lower rates of gun crime and gun control appears to be a factor since America has quite liberal gun laws compared to most other similar countries.

Another issue - a large part of Falklands population is military personnel. Guns held by active military personnel differ from guns circulating among civilians when it comes to social impact.

ED: I see, it's guns held by civilians.
Falklands have 3,398 civilians - like a small town or large village, everyone knows each other.
Next in line - Yemen. Oh, well.
I recommend looking at the chart itself. Play with different statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated ... by_country

This statement does not take anyting else into account. That was sort of my point. And as far as other nations go: England has laws for pistol ownership so draconian it may as well be illegal entirely. They instead have massive problems with knife crime. So it doesn't seem like targeting the weapons used gets at the actual core of the problem.




The wiki-list only counted guns held by civilians as civilians. In fact, unless all military personell has one gun owned as a private civilian, the number per capita should be higher.

Yes, I've noticed it later.
But Falklands have tiny population. If there was an island with just one citizen and he owned 2 guns, this island would be the leader. Falklands have a homogenous population comparable to a small town or a large village. Social problems don't scale down to these numbers.

When ordered by estimate of firearms in civilian possession, the leading countries are:
1. USA
2. India
3. China
4. Pakistan
5. Russia
6. Brazil
7. Mexico
8. Germany (disputed)
9. Yemen
10. Turkey

Very diverse group.

So you acknowledge all of the wrongdoing, and that it's real, you just don't like the fact that america is given the crown. Worst or not, america definitely acts like problems don't exist, and any time you point at or shine light on the problems, the response is to point at something else and go "but what about that?!" to try to get you to shine the light over there instead. Sure, people care about other nations. But sometimes people only "care" about other nations when someone wants to talk about THEIR nation.

As for "making guns illegal", it's never boring watching people morph "gun control" into "BAN ALL GUNS!" Are you aware that we already have several forms of "gun control"? "Oh, but, the slippery slope, and eventually *some* guns becomes ALL GUNS BANNED!" People have said that exact thing every time gun laws were passed in the last 100 years. There are still more guns now than ever. But "gun control" gets distorted in to "orwellian fascism" every time. And they stick to saying "ban guns" or "illegal guns", and refuse to even utter the words "gun control", cos to do so would be to acknowledge the difference.

You NEED a gun, in the odd chance that you encounter a trash panda with rabies... Why not a wolf while we're at it? Or a bear, that's even more compelling. Yes, a bear - no - BEARS! A dozen of them! All with rabies! Lying in wait to ambush you! And rob you. too!

In general, leave them alone, and you'd be ok. If you spot a rabid one, call animal control. That's literally their job. It's a rabid raccoon, not a zombie outbreak. "But what if it jumps out of nowhere and bites you!" Then it's already bitten me, and shooting it is just an act of revenge. I'd let animal control deal with it while I went to the hospital. "What if it runs at you suddenly?! Gonna hit it with a stick?!" Um. Yes? IF a rabid raccoon charged at me and I knew couldn't get away from it, a good swift kick is all I'd need. A stick would certainly be handy, still a one shot deal, but not necessary. A gun would be, *rimshot* overkill. You make it sound like a rabid raccoon is some sort of goliath ogre that can only be brought down with a silver bullet. It's a pudgy cat with an attitude. If YOU *need* a gun to deal with them, that's your trip. Doesn't mean all of us do. That's just an appeal fallacy.

If the argument is "drug laws don't stop illegal drugs, therefore therefore gun laws are a waste of time", then why bother with drug laws, since they're clearly so ineffective? If they have no effect, wouldn't it make sense to stop wasting time on them? The argument is also misleading in that NO laws actually STOP the activity from happening. The CONSEQUENCES of the law are meant as a DETERRENT to breaking the law. But you are correct. LAWS don't STOP people. Murders still happen, theft still happens, assault still happens - whats the point of all those laws if they don't STOP those things from happening?!

The idea of STOPPING crime is also misleading. If even one minor criminal act happens, even a law accidentally broken, 36 in a 35 zone going down a hill, "crime" hasn't "stopped" yet. That's why they always frame it a laws don't STOP criminals. But laws do provide a legal threat that may dissuade many from taking the risk. So while it may not STOP, it still can certainly REDUCE. Laws give you the ability to take action, and provide a possible means of prevention, even if it doesn't completely STOP the problem.

Having said all that, I support the right to own firearms. The same way I support the privilege of driving a car. With provisions. Licensing, insurance, proving you can operate one, suspension of license for excessive violations, etc. You already have to deal with most of that anyways to get a concealed carry license in almost every state that offers them.

As much as I like AR's and SAW's and big drum mags of infinite ammo and such, I would not feel like my world was coming to an end if I couldn't have one anymore, nor would I start to panic about muh freedoms just cos they added a few more guns to the list of "controlled" guns that you already either can't have altogether, or need special permits for.

I'll wait for someone to make the "home invasion" argument. This post is already getting long enough.