I didn't intended them to be snarks but my apologies if they were received that way.
Ok, but looking at your post it seems to be longer than my response. But then again you are deleting the previous quotes to save space and that can be time consuming.
I was talking about my posts too: but generally one-line points can hardly be in depth. The idea was just to try to refresh it, get the topics into vaguely organised sections rather than popping up multiple times over a post, and ideally I was hoping we wouldn't get into a debate on the brute facts which would certainly shrink the posts, but hey
When comparing specific crimes such as robbery as Rama set linked to it shows that you have a higher rate than we do. Not only that but as I said before your gun crimes skyrocketed just after the gun ban. It was only due to more police being hired to quell it did it went down. Plus on the same token our crime rate is plummeting and yet guns sales are rising. I'm not saying that's the cause but it does dispels the myth of more guns equals more crime.
Aside from the fact robbery is notably less severe than, you know, murder, that's still pretty much covered by what I said.
But sure, let's look at stats. The year in the UK is 1997 where firearms were banned:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-controlThere are several instances there. And sure, you see the rate of crimes involving guns increasing from that date: wow, does that refute everything I've been saying? Not really, because note what the statistics are actually saying. It is the quantity of offences involving guns, not the quality of them. Nothing like, for example, the school shooting that prompted the gun laws have happened since. Someone firing once into the air as a warning shot would be counted as an offence on that list: and would certainly happen more frequently because after that point a gun would become a more efficient means of intimidation. It doesn't mean more people were hurt.
And regardless, even if you could point out that this in fact means even more gun crime happened, and people went around shooting everyone, you just need to look further ahead to see the rate plummets. Not slowly decreases, outright plummets.
Skip down to Scotland, beyond an 05-07 year increase (which was a bad year for crime all around here) the average since the tremendous spike in crime
before the gun laws were enacted, there's an undeniable decrease of the average, which would only be more obvious if more data was shown on what came before.
And honestly the homicide rates compared by country says a lot.
Then go down to Australia, the time of the gun control enacted there is marked and you can see a very clear decrease. And you can see yet another source for the fact Australia has had zero mass shootings since the ban, I have no idea why you claimed they had ten.
While guns could theoretically be used in self-defence, they provide no actual benefit. As far as preventing property theft or harm goes, you'd be better off hiding in your room and calling a police.
They provide great benefits. Just read the stories I've linked. In fact a lot of them had they not been armed they wouldn't be here today. Plus I'm not about to wait for the police without something to hold the assailants off if they get to me before the police.
I didn't see that, but the link I gave refuted that. Kleck's studies are peered reviewed and sound. Even Wikipedia quoted someone on the other side saying such.
You can find anecdotes for anything, and those situations are still pointless because we don't know what would have happened if they didn't have a gun. You can't just ignore the actual statistics and facts in favour of a few personal experiences which don't even say what you're claiming. Guns don't help, end of.
(Plus accessible guns ensures anyone who breaks in will themselves be armed similarly).
Quick access safes can be anchored.
So? A criminal can get a gun elsewhere. Given that straw purchases are the only accessible illegal means for getting a gun, and that they're only possible if it's easy for someone else to buy a gun, you're going to have armed assailants pretty much all the time.
Four out of every five days (Link refers to 5/6, but the figure they give is 0.006 from 4/5) in the US see a mass shooting: lone people using a gun to kill in a decision that simply wouldn't be possible to make if guns weren't accessible.
Actually that's been the average for a long time. In fact it spiked during the assault weapons ban.
And you think that's a good thing
why?
Plus:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.pngIt's one thing to advocate. I'm all for more training and securing guns in safes. It's another to mandate it. There are states with no requirements to train in order to carry and we don't see a spike in accidents. Also you can't enforce a mandatory safe storage without infringing on many rights. And that's another thing. Our constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms so any law banning guns is a infringement.
If your arguments rely on the fact these steps are needed to actually prevent, you know, toddlers shooting themselves, I'd point out that definitely would imply training's a good thing. Take cars: would you propose people be able to buy and drive around because freedom, or should they actually know how to use the otherwise dangerous machines?
Plus, sure, your constitution lets people have guns, in something quite literally called an amendment. Amend it.
Before guns we killed each with knives and swords.
In armies, yeah. So?
I'm not sure where I said that but I think I was trying to say that police kill more people than law abiding armed citizens here in the US.
Still not a good thing.
Which is exactly why I want to arm myself. The police responds to the same scenarios as the civilian victims. Even if you are to say that tomorrow all guns are banned how are you going to do it? Their are at least 400 million privately owned guns and at least 80 million gun owners. Most of our military and police will refuse to obey and confiscate the weapons on moral and safety basis.
If you ban guns here there would be a civil war or a dead law unenforced.
If your military and police won't follow the law, you've got problems, and that really shouldn't be a defence. Do it the same way Australia did it: didn't take too long, and went pretty easily. Organise a buy-back, get people to hand their guns in.
And seriously, if you're worried as to people being shot who would try to enforce gun control, that there is perfect evidence of why you definitely need it.
If it works so well then why isn't it working with Mexico?
Because America sells guns like candy and it's right next door.
How many career criminals even would want to keep firearms around knowing it's an instant arrest?
Last issue's your claim "every gun ban led to the deaths of citizens by its own government." Love to see a source so I know what you're trying to refer to.
Nazi germany, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
Nazi Germany loosened gun regulations:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/With the exception, of course, of Jews: hardly what's being proposed.
Really hard to find any actual source on Stalin, but from what I can see the
reason he got into power was a bunch of civilians with guns.
In fact, Mao similarly only got into power because of the wide availability of guns, from what I can see. Not seeing any evidence of Pol Pot enforcing any gun legislation: a few people seem to quote 1956 as a major year, but as Pol Pot only lead the Khmer Rouge from 1963 on... And can't find evidence of much in 1956 either. Looks more like internet meme propaganda than actual facts.
The second amendment also allows for the private citizen to own guns. Also as shown in Vietnam guerrilla warfare works. It works especially when the other side are hesitant to fire on their own people and it works even more when a large portion of the other side defects and bring some of the goodies. Plus if what your saying is true then that would be even more reason to have more and bigger guns.
More and bigger guns still wouldn't help against drones. Guerilla warfare isn't going to work against drones. It's an obsolete argument (much like the Second Amendment which, after all, was written in an era in which the best guns were muskets). And I would genuinely love to see someone defect with a drone hidden under their jumper. And if it got to the stage your government was a dangerous enough threat that you needed a violent revolution, I doubt they'd hesitate to fire on the people who would, from their perspective, be terrorists.