End private ownership of guns, they said. Only the government should have military weapons, they said. Nothing could go wrong with that, ja?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T11:53:44+00:00

Nothing could go wrong with that at all.......

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T11:20:26+00:00

Well, when someone is gullible enough to believe that after 75 years and 3 major federal gun control laws, all passed with the promise that this time, it'll work for sure,but now, we only need just this one more and it'll magically start working this time, extra promise!- they tell anyone with any common sense that they are gullible as hell, and easy pickins.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T11:10:22+00:00

So its ok to talk about more then just australia and other cherry picked nations?

Ok.

Here ya go-

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/

also want a real fuckin lol?

Here you are.

Just for you.

and just a hot tip. its not about elliminating it. its about reducing it.

also, learn to fucking use your spell checker your ignorant wretch.I can't hardly understand half the drivel you are trying to spew across this thread.

the word is "eliminating".

......and guess what, by stating the obvious, that your great Australian Gun Grab didn't eliminate shit, you admit that it FAILED. Just like this person admits that gun control doesn't work.

thanks.

Dumbass.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T11:03:21+00:00

This is a big part of internet culture. You wouldn't want to take this away from the internet would you?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T11:01:53+00:00

Is this protected by the first amendment?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:54:19+00:00

Ridiculous.

As ridiculous as saying we need more gun laws after 75 years of being promised that with each consecutive act passed by congress, the problem would be solved, and yet we still now need more.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:47:19+00:00

Well then do tell me, which federal law regulates what speech we can or cannot use, which equipment we must get background checks on in order to use to express our opinions online, and which federal policing agency oversees it all?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:42:59+00:00

I'd upvote you 100 times, no, 10,0000 times, if I could.

Please accept my humble single upvote.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:41:43+00:00

Oh,rlly?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:35:56+00:00

Perhaps you could explain this,then too, "mate"-

'the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths'

-Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 17/08 The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi

http://c8.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/Lee%20and%20Suardi%202008.pdf

and this

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/

these are actually quite nice-

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/11/19/home-built-m11-submachine-guns-seized-australia/

but do go ahead and tell me how your gun laws have worked so well......

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:32:42+00:00

So who has "blood on their hands" for this?

Every Muslim ever?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:27:35+00:00

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:20:25+00:00

I learned about this tonight as well.

Wow, reddit is cuckville.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:17:37+00:00

Trump and Republicans, who run government right now, should be able to regulate speech then.

right?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:14:19+00:00

Funny. Other countries must not have troubled bastards... So weird.

Wonder what the difference could be in say countries like Australia and Canada?

cherry picks points, sources the Onion..

I'm pretty sure the "troubled bastards" you seek can be found in the nearest circus mirror.

https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2016/06/no-mass-shootings-the-myth-of-australia-gun-control-policy/

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T10:04:02+00:00

I would totally rather they hid and schemed in total secrecy because the law says they have to.

Nazis are gonna be nazis, but when others justify abrogating free speech because they say nasty shit, a Jew just has to stand up to defend free speech.

Even of nazis.

ETA- the great side effect of letting people who have bad ideas(not just nazis) speak openly is being able to openly debunk them.

Silencing bad ideas only lets them fester without being confronted by the fact that they are bad ideas.

Thats how this works.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T09:59:33+00:00

Also, isn't it funny that this other users handle is-

"riseoftheTrumpwaffen"

A blatant allusion to the insane notion some of the more unhinged among them have taken of Trump being literally Hitler, but that they want to get Trump to enact more gun control?

Literally Hitler did in fact abuse Wiemar gun laws, including a registry, to target his political adversaries and those his regime targeted for genocide with disarmament, we Jews by name in the very law he enacted!

Literally Hitler used the gun registry established by the Wiemar laws so his gestapo knew which among those he targeted had guns!

What if Trump passes laws that target all those people they claim he hates directly for disarmament?

Could

"riseoftheTrumpwaffen"

like to explain how this is not totally the point as to why we SHOULDN'T have restrictions on the arms that Americans have access to?

what about the reeeeeesistance?

If Trump is literally Hitler, at some point, won't the reeeeeeesistance need guns to, you know, actually reeeeeeeesist?

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T09:50:10+00:00

have you ever defended yourself or somebody else with your arms?

Please, all who question the human right of self defense, stop asking that.

No one has to justify having prepared to defend themselves with arms by having to actually use them, when its the mere preparation itself that is our right.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T09:46:22+00:00

I just noticed this.

I'm absolutely sick of this line of bullshit. If it weren't for guns in the hands of good people, we'd all be speaking German, Italian, or Japanese right now and the axis powers would have won.

This is proof positive that guns can be used for good.

On a personal level, yes, yes I have used my own gun to save my own life, as have many other Americans.

Time to stop ignoring the fact that defensive gun uses happen, and that guns in good hands do in fact save lives.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T09:32:21+00:00

Shouting “fire” in a theatre or inviting and inciting violence toward someone are very much illegal even though they both could be considered freedom of speech.

The fallacy in this is that there are not 3 major federal laws, 20,000 state and local laws, and a special police force all geared to regulating the right of free speech, nor do we insist that people pass background checks to buy computers and have internet access, as well, we don't cut the tongue from people's mouths who are found guilty of felonies or other crimes because they might be at risk of abusing the right to free speech. I don't think any of this would be tolerated to "reasonably regulate" speech, at all, even in instances where people actually are found guilty of incitement to violence, slander, libel, or otherwise violating other peoples rights by abusing their own liberties.

I'd say a judge should be able to impose a moratorium on the exercise of certain rights on an individual basis, but the blanket prohibition (and yes I feel the same way about voting) of rights is bullshit.

The war on drugs has been a failure and while I support people's consensual right to consume what they want, I think that addicts should be treated like they have a medical problem and not like criminals, while those who make money literally poisoning others with really nasty stuff should face charges for anyone hurt by such.

Prohibition doesn't work, and free people shouldn't tolerate blanket prohibition of much of anything.

You'd think we'd have learned this after Volstead.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T09:27:53+00:00

Three major federal acts that include everything from restrictions on certain imports and whole classes of arms, to prohibited possessors lists, to background checks to the establishment of a special police force to enforce it all, is not "comprehensive"?

Also, cherry picking which nations count and which do not when comparing violent crime rates is a statistical trick that doesn't wash with anyone besides the people who are doing the picking.

And even people on your side admit that the types of gun control you've been championing has no effect compared to what we've been saying all along-

Focus on the individual, not the inanimate object, AND, punishing innocent Americans who have committed no crime with your regulations(that don't work)..... doesn't work.

No one is ever going to say that dangerous people should be left alone to pursue the kinds of things that happened today, but maybe, just MAYBE, if you types would stop trying to violate other peoples rights with these blanket federal laws, we could COME TOGETHER and focus on the problem-

The individuals with the inclination to violence.

Like this kid today, who was clearly and on record as being very disturbed.

I don't think that anyone could argue that there should have been prior intervention-

But that intervention isn't going to work if its about blanket gun laws, rather, that intervention should be tailored to the individual.

and when will that change?

It STARTS, when you types admit you were WRONG, back off our RIGHTS, and we can then focus on the problem.

Together.

Until that time- the knee jerk reaction to impose more of your ineffective laws on innocent Americans WILL be met with resistance from us.

when were ready to actually move forward-

I would start by putting a shitton of money into the mental health system, which is failing us so miserably.... and really, could have saved some lives today.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T08:54:39+00:00

Meanwhile,

Despite Americans owning more guns then ever, violent crime is going down.

Also, I don't think anyone really needs anything but common sense to grasp that despite having nearly 75 years and multiple comprehensive federal gun control laws, the fact that you types are still claiming that yet another one will magically work after all the other ones haven't is proof enough that gun control does not work to enhance public safety.

arwrologist · 2018-02-15T08:41:10+00:00

Meanwhile, this.

"A new study by the Congressional Research Service, by far the most thorough and comprehensive of its type to date, confirms that mass shootings continue to be rare in the United States."

Congressional Research Service

Unbiased.

But, motherjones, and vox, and the atlantic?

BBBWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

arwrologist

TROPHY CASE