What NRA fallacy? It's government statstics that show violemt crime has gone up when more gun restrctions are put in place. (at least in the US and UK)
Who cares about what the NRA says? I no longer belong. They compromise far too much. If they get tough on repealing gun control, instead of making appeasements, perhaps they'll get money from me again.
wow dude ! i was asking about what the above poster was trying to eqeate to the nra! you need to take a breath!
Look, if alcohol is controlled, then it would be a massive hypocracy to have no gun control. Guns are not some fundamental human right, indeed they are more close to being a bane of humanity. More people have been killed wantonly by guns than have been saved by them. And the sheer fact is that people are getting more and more fucked up, so arming the mentally unstable masses is quite unwise...
Sorry. I didn't mean for it to seem as though I was responding to you. Merely trying to point out that the NRA does not speak for all American gun owners.
The point isn't whether controlling/registering guns is good or bad. The point is that it is an overly expensive way of controlling gun violence.
I think this version works better.... Government is not some fundamental human right, indeed it is more close to being a bane of humanity. More people have been killed wantonly by governments than have been saved by them.
I daresay I agree with you. However, in these times, governments are the lesser of two evils. What people need is a governing body strong enough to stand up to the evils being commited by the corporate powers (rather than bowing to their whims as conservatives tend to do). A government by the people, for the people, and of the people is the way to go. Bush was somehow elected by the people, but he is by no stretch of the imagination either of the people or for the people. Now if you are giving an anarchist rant about how governments hinder mans right to be free and equal, then i sympathize with your logic and support your beliefs. I do not if you are giving some right wing rhetoric about how the government is "thumpin your right to own guns".
If the source of handguns falls strictly (more or less) to the black market, then it is certain that we’ve done an excellent job. It is proof that the problem is “drying up” so to speak, it is becoming isolated and hence easier to strangle. The prices will sky-rocket, very few criminals will be able to afford them, and the ones who can will almost certainly not consider robbing the 7/11 or your wallet worth the trouble.
Supply and demand. Make guns scarce and the price ALWAYS goes up. "Easy to make"? Quality. Reliablity. Risk. All factors to consider.
What the U.S. and Australia have in common is a long history of firearm ownership. It may be correct that the government wants to wait. Afterall it is a social education process to reject violence instead of encouraging it. It may be easier for the short term to solve problems with violence. It isn't a long term solution for a stabile society. To de-escalate weapon violence, it doesn't suffice to "take all the guns away". The government has to do more. a) It has to be made socially unacceptable to desire to own a gun, unless someone has been assigned by the state to protect people from criminals. b) PR work has to be done to educate the public that only criminals want to have firearms and to use them to get their own way. It might help if they censored film for awhile, which depict Hollywood Rambos as real heros. c) The police force has to be increased for the period in which society transforms from a pro-firearm to a con-firearm society. Incidentally, you observed facts that crime has risen since weapon restriction was introduced in Australia, but you offer no statistics as to how much crime would have increased if no gun restriction had taken place at all. Personally I think that crime increases because of two factors: 1) economic disadvantage 2) inspiration through film/media.
I think the point being made is that would Australia have increased violence regardless of gun laws. Would the UK have increased violence regardless of guns laws... and would the cities with the toughest gun laws have just as high a murder rate if they adopted the policy of not restricting guns or would the murderers just have another weapon with which to kill people with. Maybe the anti gun states introduced anti gun policy for the exact reason that there is a huge murder rate in those states.
This is the reason why we revolutionized & you had to ask for your indepence. Foreigners that don't live in my country shouldn't even have a say in how it works. You don't see me personally attack your laws & declarational ideal's. This is why I'm not debating with you or anyone not from my personal domain on this description line. I advise others to do the same.
