You spelled Dog the arfcom way.  Dag.  LOL, you must be on here to much.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/&ved=0ahUKEwjikYC_mpDOAhUs_4MKHbeTBHQQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNEb-kkTfyJICXS6bnWJDMZDjMbmAQ&sig2=L9NXr7hAHEKhSAzlndB46A

They cite three studies. One says the ban helped. One says it didn't. The last says they didn't have a problem with guns to begin with so it didn't change anything.

Guncite.com that's about why the second amendment was put in place. Should be on every gun owners favorites.

Not stats but you can remind him that Columbine, the North Hollywood Shootout, and the Beltway Sniper Mass Shooting all took place while the AWB was in effect.  So much for saving lives.

Also, some fuck stick living in Shangrila for the past 20 years is completely out of touch with the average American.  Crime happens outside of their little liberal utopian bubble.

You may introduce him to murder stats in DC.

good job op, every conversation helps!  luckily i dont have very many anti,s on my facebook.  I actually dont think i have any just the occasional fem nazi.....

Probably.  Can you tell me what the point is?

I never use this argument.
One could infer that machine guns aren't being used in "recent tragedies" because they are under "federal control".
Then perhaps putting AR-15s/semi-autos under "federal control" might prevent their use in mass shootings.

The best argument is gun control laws don't work, never have, never will.

I also referred to FHRC as a man....lol



 

Best is to answer a question with a question.  What gun did the Brussels terrorists use?  The nice terrorists?  The ansbach terrorist?  The London terrorists that hacked people to death? Etc, etc, etc, etc.

Gun control works?  What about Chicago?  San Bernardino?  Paris X 2? Germany?  Etc, etc, etc, etc

Don't give explanations.  Have them explain their false narrative to you.

The truth is that Marxist filth are lying when they say they just want AR-15's and normal capacity 30 round mags banned.  They want all good, decent, peaceable human beings disarmed so that all private property can be confiscated.  They are motivated by overpowering greed and envy.  They are also lying when they say they don't like guns.  They fucking love guns!  As long as they are pointed in YOUR face and used to completely control every aspect of your existence by a demonic, corrupt group of untouchable bureaucrats.

Outstanding job OP!

I have long said that complaining to like minded people solves NOTHING. If we the people want to prevail, we need to educate and bring non like minded people into the fold. How do we do it? engage and educate.

Take that suppressed Ruger 10/22 to the range and invite non-shooters to come out also. Many people will take you up on such an offer if you invite them. Show people how enjoyable shooting is as a sport. Then, talk to them about self defense.

We have to break the cycle of people that are getting their education from biased, non-informed (like minded to the opposite mindset) people, who themselves are non-informed. Gotta take the offensive on this one folks, sitting on arfcom is not winning us anything.

Again, GOOD JOB OP!

The moron actually trotted out the nuclear weapons strawman? lol.  That's an instant disqualification.

Exactly.

this website is the only website I post on. I don't go on facebook. Never have, never will.

The point is:  There are those on social media who are undecided.  They are swayed by the posts they read.  If all they read if from the opposition, that is the direction they go.  Any attempt to slow the roll of the anti-2A gun grabbers, whether their mind is changed or not, helps to bring those undecided in the middle to OUR side.  Every vote counts (except in an electoral college).



 

Point taken.



 

Thanks.  



 

True....but here, esp in GD, you have all those anti-social media types that spout out "Golly Gee Jaw, ain't gots nos needs of no social media, all full of shit anyways.  Only wants to reads or hears about stuff I agrees ons to begins with"




*yes those extra placements of "s" was deliberate and took time due to spell check wanting to change it.

Hollywood, that's one of the very few 2A discussions I've seen that doesnt go off the rails in 30 seconds.  


Hats off to you for your civility.  That's rare on both sides of the debate.  

Most times it goes like this:






Of course, when somebody starts off with posting a Bill Maher video, well, yeah.

This is a good quote actually....  I could look it up..  But, cite??

Edit:  I guessed Jefferson, and was found to be correct.  It's a good quote.

TLDR -- But I skimmed it !  Michelle can go fuck herself!



 

That Jefferson was one Tier One Bad Ass!



 

Hey, what do I know?  

After all, I'm a racist.

And tonight at the DNC, we have poor little Trayvon's mother to look forward to.  FHRC is trotting out all the mom's with feelz dat their baby dindunuthin



 

Gotta lock down that BLM support.

Cool dinner party bro.

Nothing makes more people unsafe than disarming them.  These cute little mass shootings are nothing compared to how many people out of control governments kill after they disarm their populace.  Governments are exponentially worse offenders than even letting all felons continue to own firearms.  (if they were allowed to)

Your "friend" has outed himself, as being unfit to responsibly own a firearm, by using incidents of crime, misuse and negligence as reasons why he doesn't own guns.
Does he also not own a pet, because so many people abuse animals?

What difference does it make.gif

Does anyone think arguing semantics about what is an isn't an assault rifle will change the opinion of a libtard?

Seriously, it's incremental steps in taking away ALL guns. No need to post why this gun isn't an assault rifle, they don't care. I like your logical arguments leading up to that which should hopefully create some cognitive dissonance.

800 million?

that estimate seems super high I've never seen an estimate that high before.  

Op, when you say things that are clearly false it hurts your credibility, even if the rest of your argument is sound.

If you are looking for a good stat to hit them with there is this.

Mass shootings (both in numbers and death rates) have been higher in the EU over the past 7 years than in the US.  

mass shootings in europe

i don't think he ran away really.... you clearly were a minor annoyance that he stopped paying attention to.

I think it's very important to point out that the left often relies on the "this doesn't happen anywhere else with the regularity it happens here" routine because it supports their narrative without admitting that they're being highly dishonest in that statement because our country has a population that far exceeds all of the countries they are comparing us to.  When you start lumping all of those countries together (like all of Europe) and the population counts become more similar, you start to see that the number of mass shootings isn't all that dissimilar.  And all those countries, for the most part, have much stiffer gun laws that we do.

Also, the person you were debating mentioned there was not increase increase in violent crime for other types of weapons after the Australian gun ban, but that is a blatant lie.    See here: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

The homicide rate stayed relatively flat after their gun control implementation in 1996.  This proves the lie that it had any affect other than hurting the law abiding gun owner.  Yet they never talk about this stat, because it obviously destroys their narrative.

They instead talk about how great a job it did at lowering gun violence, which it did, but that is the typical red herring of the left because removing a bunch of firearms from the pool is of course going to lower the overall occurrence of gun violence.  That's like saying "Wow, i don't get rained on nearly so much!" after moving from a rain forest to the desert.  If gun control is truly about saving just one life, than the Australian model shows it's an abject failure.  But the dishonest left never reports those facts.

You could also point out that while the Australian chart does show a decrease starting to occur towards the latter years of the chart, the US has seen the exact same sort of decrease at similar or accelerated rates, all while firearms proliferation has absolutely sky rocketed.   Further interject the fact that our overall homicide rate is highly skewed by gang violence, and we're not really that much different than anyone else once you account for that gang violence and drop it from the statistics.   All while having hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation.

The only thing that matters is if a law infringes on someone's right to keep and bear arms.

Arms include any man bearable weapon, including machine guns. That's all that matters. Not safety, not crime rates, not terrorism.

Give me my cake back. Show him this:

Another angle to take on this is a comparison with crime rates in New Zealand, which didn't confiscate guns, has similar culture, and saw similar movements.  Great control group to show that the confiscation was not the driving force.

I have found the argument about the terminology of assault weapons is a waste.  Focus on there being only a few hundred rifle murders.  Ask them what the number one thing killing kids is.  Ask them if they know someone with a pool, and whether they're working to ban their ownership?  After all if it saves one life.

If you look at European countries, many of them are far closer to a mono culture than the USA, which is very diverse.  From that difference stems a lot of the policy problems in implementing solutions.  Murders are 80%+ intra-racial, meaning, white people kill white people, so if you show someone the national homicide rate you're being disingenuous about THEIR specific risk.  Ask them to explain why some racial groups have such higher murder rates than others, and if it is because they have better access to guns?  If not, what is the cause?  How do you fix that?  Why aren't they pushing for that?

Since strict gun control laws were passed in Australia mass shootings have indeed ceased.

But mass murder through arson is way up.

Point taken.



 

Thanks



 

Thanks for the link



 

Noted.



 

What was the 800M?  Democide/government murder?  That's just under 300M in the 20th century I believe.
ETA: Whoops...that was guns in the US.






Looks...who cares if the guy thinks "assault weapons" are necessary.  Out of control governments have killed way, way more people than murderers, mass murderers, etc all put together.  In an armed society a madman can potentially kill dozens of people.  In a disarmed society a madman can potentially kill dozens of millions of people.



The second amendment is so there is an armed population with enough guns and good enough guns that no lunatic that somehow got in control (like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, whoever) would ever even dare think about exterminating people.
 

Op, good on you, I could never have the patience to deal with that massive amount of stupidity.

A go resource for you:  http://www.gunfacts.info/   Download the .pdf and then when you make a specific arguement you can provide the source for it.  Pretty much all statements have the data source as a reference.

good luck!

im done arguing with a bunch of 2 year olds about MY rights. Most of these little sperm blossoms arent worth a bent wheat penny or hit a lick at anything in their lives
yet they are going to tell me how to live mine ? I tell the person wanting guns confiscated so bad to get these jackboots and brown shirts on and see how long they last
going door to door asking nicely for guns.

thanks for the link!



 

That's because they are cowards.

All of the above is absolutely correct. Violent crime skyrocketed after the bans, and the rate of violence, particularly sexual violence, is stubbornly high.

Now the state and federal governments are ramping up to ban cosmetic features of currently legal firearms- pistol grips, barrel shrouds and adjustable and skeletonised stocks, and other cosmetic features that make otherwise legal firearms look like "assault rifles". I actually think that, given the exceptionally low rate of firearms death in this country (less than 150 per year) the push is by police forces wanting to end all civilian firearms ownership rather than a political push. Police in this country, outside some specific groups, are deeply opposed to civilian firearms ownership.

And violent crime that does not result in death too.

UPDATE #2



And the latest, having incorporated some of your comments and links:
Hollywood_Shooter:

• 
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  Your post give no definition for mass shootings.  What are they including?  Whatever they are including, their numbers say the number of mass shootings during the ban averaged the same as prior to the ban.  The ban achieved nothing.
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  Hollywood_Shooter:
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  Your post about "well regulated" completely misses the boat.  In the late 1700's "regulated" didn't mean governmental restrictions like we use the term today...it.meant "well trained".   The author of that article is using wishful thinking.
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  Hollywood_Shooter:
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  Do you actually read the articles that you post, or just think they make a good headline?   Your Biden-on-Newtown shared post is from 2013....and does not make your case
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  JZ:
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  The deaths during peacetime aspect seemed worth noting.
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  It appeared on my feed and seemed worth sharing
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  
  



• 
  
  
  Hollywood_Shooter:
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  
  
  

  So if you heard Obama's speech tonight, he pointed out that violent crime is down nationwide, yet gun sales have continued to grow, especially during his presidency.  So -- back to Australia --- this article, if you read the whole thing, cites 3 studies: 1 positive, 1 negative, and 1 neutral, and calls it pretty much a wash --- http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  Here's some stats directly from Australia ---
  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
  which basically shows a relatively flat number of homicides as well as gun related homicides -- again showing that the ban in 1996 had little to know dramatic effect.   You would think with all those guns being removed from the public, that the effect would be greater.
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  Yes, Australia does seem to be experiencing an accelerated rate of decline in gun deaths in recent years, but then so has the US -- all while the proliferation of gun ownership has exploded.  Further -- much of our so called 'gun violence' here in the US and the resulting homicide rate is fairly skewed by a substantial amount of gang violence not prevalent in many other countries that we are often compared to.  If you dropped the gang violence from the numbers, we'd probably see that the US is really not that different from many other equally peaceful countries, all while having FAR more firearms in civilian hands here.
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  Of course, Australia's population numbers, social and economic structures are vastly different than ours....and that should factor in as well.  Take Canada for example -- which has far greater gun control than us and is often used to compare to the United States in terms of gun violence.  Yes, WE have 9x the number of gun deaths in the US --- but we also have 10x the population.  So again, it's a wash.
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  The point being there was no hugely significant change.   It simply doesn't work as a magical solution to violence.  If gun control worked, we wouldn't have the massive number of murders in Chicago.  We wouldn't have had the tragedy in San Bernardino, or the shootings in Paris or Germany...all of which already have strict gun control.
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  Speaking of Europe --- again with far greater gun control than us --- their incidents of mass shootings far outnumber ours, as cited here:
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  In spite of what Obama would have you believe, the US is far from the most violent nation in terms of gun violence.  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  

  I've been busy with work, so that's all I've had time to put together so far, but I've got more stats for you coming soon...
  
  

  
  
  

 

UPDATE # 3
TL:DR  - He 'unfriended' me





Hollywood_Shooter:
JZ:














<<<<<<<<<<<< At this point he posts a meme to is wall that says 'assault weapons' are not mentioned in the Constitution, so therefore should be banned>>>>>>>>





Hollywood_Shooter:

















<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< And then at that point he 'un-friended' me so I couldn't respond, but I sent him a regular message anyway that said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>





Hollywood_Shooter:




Enjoy licking the boots of your Overlords

(last word and all....    , no big loss....never liked the guy even when I knew him....and so it goes )

 

 

He seems like a perfect example of what is wrong with this country.

Fuck him and those like him.

Rights are for everybody, man didn't give them, God did. The BoR is suppose to keep "man" from taking them away.