If you are anti-gun then you are a ******* (GTFIH FOR DEBATE THREAD)

[MightyConquerer]

Someone please come at me with some anti-gun arguments and I will swiftly inform you why you are completely wrong.
My opinions:
I live in Aus but believe that the right of the people to keep and bare arms is necessary for the preservation of liberty. In other words, everyone should be able to have access to firearms providing they are mentally healthy and do not have a criminal record. Go.

[koloxid]

lol ur a teen and in australia who gives a chit what u think

[AlexxVann]

Someone please come at me with some anti-gun arguments and I will swiftly inform you why you are completely wrong.
My opinions:
I live in Aus but believe that the right of the people to keep and bare arms is necessary for the preservation of liberty. In other words, everyone should be able to have access to firearms providing they are mentally healthy and do not have a criminal record. Go.

How do you think putting more guns on the streets in Australia will reduce crime rate/ reduce amounts of murders ect.?

[PhobosAndDeimos]

How do you think putting more guns on the streets in Australia will reduce crime rate/ reduce amounts of murders ect.?

like there are murders in aussietown in the first place lol

[thebastards]

I want everyone with waterpistols. The government can tell everyone that now water is acid poison and majority would actually believe it (faith in humanity = long gone) then we got a big waterfight.

[AlexxVann]

like there are murders in aussietown in the first place lol

There aren't many.
Because guns are difficult to obtain.

In Australia when people are raging at eachother they usually just have a punch on.
If everyone is carrying, when they're in that state of ultimate rage they could pull out their gun and bang. Someones dead.

[Jalexander1994]

There aren't many.
Because guns are difficult to obtain.

In Australia when people are raging at eachother they usually just have a punch on.
If everyone is carrying, when they're in that state of ultimate rage they could pull out their gun and bang. Someones dead.

That's not how it works in gun carrying societies..

1) not everyone will be carrying.
2) When everyone has a gun.. EVERYONE HAS A GUN. So why break into someone's house if you could get a slug to the chest?
3) Bad guys will have guns no matter what laws. So.. Why not give good guys guns?



My favorite quote for guns.

"The only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"

[AlexxVann]

That's not how it works in gun carrying societies..

1) not everyone will be carrying.
2) When everyone has a gun.. EVERYONE HAS A GUN. So why break into someone's house if you could get a slug to the chest?
3) Bad guys will have guns no matter what laws. So.. Why not give good guys guns?



My favorite quote for guns.

"The only person that can stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"

But the thing in Australia is, if you here on the news "petrol station has just been robbed" its never with a gun.
Its a knife or a machete or something. Because guns here are very hard to obtain. Srs only hardened criminals have them. Not everyday thugs.

Brb literally hardely anyone gets shot in Australia.

[Jalexander1994]

But the thing in Australia is, if you here on the news "petrol station has just been robbed" its never with a gun.
Its a knife or a machete or something. Because guns here are very hard to obtain. Srs only hardened criminals have them. Not everyday thugs.

Brb literally hardely anyone gets shot in Australia.

Odd.

[AlexxVann]

Odd.

Srs - unless I've somehow lived an incredibely sheltered life most aussie tmiscers will agree that there aren't many crimes related to guns here.

I mean I'm sure the will be pro's and con's to both side of the arguement.

But personally I don't want to see gun laws change here.

[Jalexander1994]

But the thing in Australia is, if you here on the news "petrol station has just been robbed" its never with a gun.
Its a knife or a machete or something. Because guns here are very hard to obtain. Srs only hardened criminals have them. Not everyday thugs.

Brb literally hardely anyone gets shot in Australia.

Then again.. Not odd..


If my country was an island it could probably be done too.
We get A LOT of our guns (illegally owned guns) from Mexico. So even if we banned guns, they'd get here easily.

[MightyConquerer]

But the thing in Australia is, if you here on the news "petrol station has just been robbed" its never with a gun.
Its a knife or a machete or something. Because guns here are very hard to obtain. Srs only hardened criminals have them. Not everyday thugs.

Brb literally hardely anyone gets shot in Australia.

That's definitely not accurate brah, there are a tonne of armed robberies and shootings in South Australia (where I live), and it seems like you imply that hardened criminals having firearms is fine. Also, it's really simple to obtain a firearm illegally, however if you're a law abiding citizen and want to buy a firearm for lawful purposes, it takes months.

[MightyConquerer]

There aren't many.
Because guns are difficult to obtain.

In Australia when people are raging at eachother they usually just have a punch on.
If everyone is carrying, when they're in that state of ultimate rage they could pull out their gun and bang. Someones dead.

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because crime rates seem to be lower than previously since stricter firearm legislation was past, it does not imply that it was caused by then firearm legislation. In fact, if you look at data demonstrating violent crime in Australia, although there is a steady decline in violent crime after '97 (the year stricter legislation was introduced), people fail to realise that there was already a steady decline in violent crime almost a whole decade before any legislation was even proposed.

[AlexxVann]

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because crime rates seem to be lower than previously since stricter firearm legislation was past, it does not imply that it was caused by then firearm legislation. In fact, if you look at data demonstrating violent crime in Australia, although there is a steady decline in violent crime after '97 (the year stricter legislation was introduced), people fail to realise that there was already a steady decline in violent crime almost a whole decade before any legislation was even proposed.

They're still declining though.
If it aint broke don't try fix it.

[DDon1996]

But the thing in Australia is, if you here on the news "petrol station has just been robbed" its never with a gun.
Its a knife or a machete or something. Because guns here are very hard to obtain. Srs only hardened criminals have them. Not everyday thugs.

Brb literally hardely anyone gets shot in Australia.

Good thing the clerk didn't have a gun....

owait.

[hcat300]

If statistics can prove that the whole society benefits from everyone having guns then i am pro gun.

If one can prove with statistics or otherwise that anti gun laws benefit a society then i am anti gun.

OP you need to look at the bigger picture of whether or not having pro gun laws hurts society as a whole rather than just these 'blah blah wat if i get robbed and i need to save myself' individual hypothetical scenarios I see thrown around the Misc.

[Carvinge]

guns shouldnt even exist period. do much more harm than good. if nobody had a gun than the crime rate would be low as phuck. there are other ways of hunting also before somebody brings that up. lml

[NaturalFTW]

if you care about others opinions on useless topics you're a cockmuncher.

[MightyConquerer]

guns shouldnt even exist period. do much more harm than good. if nobody had a gun than the crime rate would be low as phuck. there are other ways of hunting also before somebody brings that up. lml

Either you're trolling or you are literally borderlining mentally retarted. The world isn't all hugs and kisses, guns are what put all people on equal footing with one another and are the only thing that protects your rights when governments are no longer held accountable by their own people.

[MightyConquerer]

If statistics can prove that the whole society benefits from everyone having guns then i am pro gun.

If one can prove with statistics or otherwise that anti gun laws benefit a society then i am anti gun.

OP you need to look at the bigger picture of whether or not having pro gun laws hurts society as a whole rather than just these 'blah blah wat if i get robbed and i need to save myself' individual hypothetical scenarios I see thrown around the Misc.

http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7056
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
Also, maybe you should ask some holocaust survivors if they think having guns is beneficial to the majority much more than just the individual.

Congratulations, you are now officially a pro-gun brah.

[MightyConquerer]

if you care about others opinions on useless topics you're a cockmuncher.

The firearms debate is a little bit more than a "useless topic", then again, I am a cockmuncher so what do I know?

[MightyConquerer]

They're still declining though.
If it aint broke don't try fix it.

But it still was absolutely unnecessary and did nothing but disarm lawful firearm owners and allowed the Australian government to be even less accountable for their actions than they previously were. The gun laws before '97 weren't broke, but they tried fixing it, and it did nothing. The statistics are against you, yet you still have this irrational fear of firearms as if they are something that only the government and hardened criminals should have, because afterall, the government and hardened criminals could never be bad (sarcasm).

[Hamzzza]

first of all, i'm not telling you that you are a complete moronic retard, but your thread title is stupid as fuk - you can't generalize people like that while asking for a ''debate'' ,at least not in the same sentence

second of all: ''guns don't kill people, people kill people - MURIKA FREEDOM FUK YEAA'' - brb 10x bigger homicide rate per capita than my country

[MightyConquerer]

first of all, i'm not telling you that you are a complete moronic retard, but your thread title is stupid as fuk - you can't generalize people like that while asking for a ''debate'' ,at least not in the same sentence

second of all: ''guns don't kill people, people kill people - MURIKA FREEDOM FUK YEAA'' - brb 10x bigger homicide rate per capita than my country

Well my good friend Hamza from the distant lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina, my title is obviously not 100% literal. I mean, surely not everyone who disagrees with me is actually a homosexual. Speaking of generalisations, there's one right there! The part where you said "10x bigger homicide rate per capita than my country", doesn't that sort of generalise? I mean, does it take into account that the cities in the united states with the highest lawful gun ownership coincidentally have lower crime rates than places like the UK where firearms are virtually impossible to obtain legally? (which on the contrary have very high violent crime rates). What about the fact that in cities such as New York where there has supposedly been a 'crackdown' on guns, there are very high violent crime rates? Or perhaps the fact that you are over 16 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than an 'assault rifle' in the United States? Or the fact that the only weapon used at the sandy hook shooting was not in fact an AR-15, but multiple handguns? I don't currently hear any coherent arguments supporting an outright handgun ban? Yet between the misleading media and simple folk like yourself, everyone is going phuking nuts about getting rid of so called 'assault weapons'.

[Mattbody95]

I believe in what I call Stato di Diritto and you Rule of Law, I really like Hobbes' theory of state, State must be really powerfull and shouldn't allow any autonomy, and wearing guns is an autonomy, the State must have the power of leviathanand shouldn't allow no one to have guns but itself. And this is not my personal belief, this is the opinion of latin civilties; in our mind the State provide to our safety, and it means that we can't have guns.
You people that agree to guns posession probably came from angles countries or from the USA, you have a different conception of State, the federal governament is really powerfull with other countries, but not so much with the single states, and this because you are a federation, so you are not used to think that the state power is powerfull, you have much more freedoms, but i think you don' have freedom.
When in a group of person there are guns it's a danger, because every one would feel in danger and so he will buy an other gun and so on, this is called paradox of security: from the desire of have security of the single person, the whole country become unsafe.

[Hamzzza]

Well my good friend Hamza from the distant lands of Bosnia and Herzegovina, my title is obviously not 100% literal. I mean, surely not everyone who disagrees with me is actually a homosexual. Speaking of generalisations, there's one right there! The part where you said "10x bigger homicide rate per capita than my country", doesn't that sort of generalise? I mean, does it take into account that the cities in the united states with the highest lawful gun ownership coincidentally have lower crime rates than places like the UK where firearms are virtually impossible to obtain legally? (which on the contrary have very high violent crime rates). What about the fact that in cities such as New York where there has supposedly been a 'crackdown' on guns, there are very high violent crime rates? Or perhaps the fact that you are over 16 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than an 'assault rifle' in the United States? Or the fact that the only weapon used at the sandy hook shooting was not in fact an AR-15, but multiple handguns? I don't currently hear any coherent arguments supporting an outright handgun ban? Yet between the misleading media and simple folk like yourself, everyone is going phuking nuts about getting rid of so called 'assault weapons'.

okay so, obviously you don't know what a generalization means or you're playing stupid for the sake of argument...also my problem with the title was obviously not the literal meaning of the word ******* but the generalization in itself - caused by your lack of self-esteem for which you have to make up with by setting yourself apart from the ''simple folk like myself''


Apart from that, i don't give a **** about the gun laws in your country, whether it's the US or AUS or UK - let's just remember this, i'm here just to hear some opinions, and quite frankly i would love to learn something new, but not from flawed logistical ideas and thoughts or w/e. - i am also here purely for the lulz





maybe the guns really aren't the problems, maybe it's just the people ? either way you got a big ****ing problem to sort out





and i do hope you understand how stupid this sounds in the context of your ''arguments'' : ''Or perhaps the fact that you are over 16 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than an 'assault rifle' in the United States?''

no **** sherlock, you want to tell me that it's more common for a criminal to walk in somewhere and/or use a 9mm instead of an AK-47, wow, mind=blown seriously who would've thought that

[MightyConquerer]

I believe in what I call Stato di Diritto and you Rule of Law, I really like Hobbes' theory of state, State must be really powerfull and shouldn't allow any autonomy, and wearing guns is an autonomy, the State must have the power of leviathanand shouldn't allow no one to have guns but itself. And this is not my personal belief, this is the opinion of latin civilties; in our mind the State provide to our safety, and it means that we can't have guns.
You people that agree to guns posession probably came from angles countries or from the USA, you have a different conception of State, the federal governament is really powerfull with other countries, but not so much with the single states, and this because you are a federation, so you are not used to think that the state power is powerfull, you have much more freedoms, but i think you don' have freedom.
When in a group of person there are guns it's a danger, because every one would feel in danger and so he will buy another gun and so on, this is called paradox of security: from the desire of have security of the single person, the whole country become unsafe.

That is your opinion, which is fine, but your opinion is wrong because the utmost highest necessity in life should be freedom. The state should be the very opposite of 'really powerful'. Have you ever seen a whole regime in history that was 'really powerful' and didn't end up committing democide? No. Fully grown men and women should be capable enough to manage their own lives without unnecessary state intervention into their lives, dictatorships are great fun - if you're the dictator.

[MightyConquerer]

okay so, obviously you don't know what a generalization means or you're playing stupid for the sake of argument...also my problem with the title was obviously not the literal meaning of the word ******* but the generalization in itself - caused by your lack of self-esteem for which you have to make up with by setting yourself apart from the ''simple folk like myself''


Apart from that, i don't give a **** about the gun laws in your country, whether it's the US or AUS or UK - let's just remember this, i'm here just to hear some opinions, and quite frankly i would love to learn something new, but not from flawed logistical ideas and thoughts or w/e. - i am also here purely for the lulz





maybe the guns really aren't the problems, maybe it's just the people ? either way you got a big ****ing problem to sort out





and i do hope you understand how stupid this sounds in the context of your ''arguments'' : ''Or perhaps the fact that you are over 16 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than an 'assault rifle' in the United States?''

no **** sherlock, you want to tell me that it's more common for a criminal to walk in somewhere and/or use a 9mm instead of an AK-47, wow, mind=blown seriously who would've thought that

Well it definitely doesn't sound stupid at all, considering the amount of people in the US who are currently going phuking nuts about "GETTING RID OF TEH BAD GUNZ THAT R FOR THE ARMY ONLY!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!" (ARs, AKs, etc.). Logistical? Strong choice of words brah. My opinion is what you seek, my opinion is what you will find.

[chiseledmanbeef]

I love guns (used to own a few HKs but had to sell them due to tough times) but I think human beings as a whole are too primitive to possess deadly weapons. Even a lot of law abiding, responsible citizens can't control themselves in the heat of the moment. We're too emotional. We're basically animals with access to efficient killing machines.

I'd hate for guns to be banned, but I'd vote for stricter gun laws. Attaining a gun should be a lengthy process. A criminal background check, an extensive psychological evaluation, and hours and hours of training.

[Hamzzza]

Well it definitely doesn't sound stupid at all, considering the amount of people in the US who are currently going phuking nuts about "GETTING RID OF TEH BAD GUNZ THAT R FOR THE ARMY ONLY!!!!!!!!!!1!!!1!" (ARs, AKs, etc.). Logistical? Strong choice of words brah. My opinion is what you seek, my opinion is what you will find.

that's why i said you started arguing completely irrelevant stuff, i never mentioned getting rid of only ARs, AKs etc. - put simply, you don't want a debate, you just want to copy/paste whatever you heard/read recently about the topic - even if it has nothing to do with the discussion between you and me - which your past 2 posts directed at me clearly show