Gun Control Is Still Bad

>"You have yet to explain what kind of gun control measures will realistically work." You never asked me what kind of measures would realistically work, but I still gave you ways it will work, make it at least as difficult as getting a drivers license, you have to show you can use it, as well as knowing all the gun laws. Add in mental health screening and it could work. Of course the process would change and adapt as people find ways around it but it's a work in progress. Also add a routine check up where you must go to a designated range and show you can still adequately handle the weapons in your possessions, of course though however the program would also compensate for abnormal contingencies, such as when a person is injured and misses the scheduled check ups. >"You gave me an article that doesn't support your claims that said link is a "source". Then you told me to read the articles source.. What?" Let me be clear here cause you have confused the two links I gave you. This is the Bundy incident that I know you did not check. You wanted proof on how the situation years ago started. Why they burned the lands and crop. "The Hammonds set a fire in 2001 that ultimately burned 139 acres of BLM land. The ranchers say they began it on their own land with agency approval, but prosecutors say they were in fact seeking to cover up illegal deer hunting on the BLM acreage near their property. A second, much smaller fire in 2006 burned another acre of BLM land during a "burn ban" imposed to allow agency firefighters to combat a blaze caused by lightning." - http://thinkprogress.org... The second link consisted of data about Australia's statistics as requested when they made stricter gun laws, reducing crime rates by guns as well as a major drop in suicide rates by guns. http://www.vox.com... Now I know you only read the headlines and never read the full story so here are the links to the sources that are in the articles. these are the actual studies. http://andrewleigh.org... page 9 you have a chart Here is a link to multiple studies about gun control preventing suicide rates http://www.vox.com... >"Are you really debating this? It's common sense that it helps, by what extent varies extremely but obviously not a large amount. The American and Canadian military both incorporate video game shooting simulators AND firing ranges in their training. Why would they be doing such things if it brings no benefits to them?" Sorry I googled it and what came up was actually the fact that it was mainly used as a recruitment tool. As well as being way more realistic than ARMA or any other video games. HOWEVER the military does HOPE that game developers will make video games a lot more realistic so that they may be able to implement it so that soliders can see what effects happens depending on the actions they make on the battlefield for example during an airport hostage situation, or when dealing with diplomats. Which means that the games out today are not anywhere near the level yet to be beneficial in a terrorist attack. >"Perhaps. It's extremely situational and depending on many factors." This proves my point! It's extremely situational! Gun control would keep guns out of the hands of the people that would make things worst. >"Because you're acting like a bloody moron. It's like asking me for a source on 9/11, but okay ill take 10 seconds out of my time to link you. http://www.bbc.com... There ya go, one link out of the thousands for you to read." This is the exact reason how I know you only read headlines. The link you gave me is a news article on top of that it actual hurts your claim about refugees raping people, most of the news is them saying not to jump to conclusions about the attackers being refuges from your article "The justice minister warned against linking the crimes to the issue of migrants and refugees." >"I asked for a source, not an article. I want to be able to read the numbers." I linked the sources above that were in the article, the article gave you the numbers but it doesn't seem like you read it. So sift through the studies for the articles, however if you skipped it before ill tell you again there is a chart on page 9 of the study. >"Of course suicide rates will drop when there are less guns, but it didn't change the overall suicide numbers very much." 74% of suicide by firearms drops. that means 74 out of every 100 people would normally commit suicide by a gun survived, AS WELL AS THE RATE OF NON-GUN SUICIDE rate NOT INCREASE. That means the OVERALL suicide numbers did change "However, the paper's findings about suicide were statistically significant " and astounding. Buying back 3,500 guns correlated with a 74 percent drop in firearm suicides. Non-gun suicides didn't increase to make up the decline." >Show me a direct source(a numerical graph or chart) (not an article) showing Australias gun violence going down. The above sources shows the figures already >"What kind of criminals? Petty solo criminals with low intelligence (which makeup a small amount of the overall crime statistics) Or huge gangs and intelligent lone wolves that make up an overwhelming percentage of crime. Give me the name of any country in the world that has successfully kept guns out of the hands of criminals and gangs.(hint... you can't) (EDIT, except for North Korea).." No one said it keeps it out of the hands of criminals 100% but it does make access harder. Australia is one country >" You realize deconstructing guns isn't some huge complicated thing you make it out to be. Even a noobie with no experience can watch step by step processes that take about 5-10 minutes. This is really something I would like you to counter me on because this is a major hole in your argument." It actually is not a major hole, yes once you learn how to do it can be don easily, you still have to learn a new skill and learning a new skill takes time and patience, it adds in to the planning, just like anyone can learn how to make quick and simple bomb with house hold items. It still takes time, skills, patience that must be factored in to any planning. For example if a kid wanted to get a gun but had to sneak it across the border, he'd have to watch it on youtube over and over because you aren't going to know how to do something just watching a video once, as he watches the video over and over a parent can discover the kid is planning something that might not be good. While the son is away the the parent could discover the kids manifest and realize that their child may be planning a mass shooting. This is something that actually happened to one of my teacher's student. The kid was a bright kid and did not have an IQ under 70 and everyone thought he was a good kid. Luckily it ended with my teacher mentoring him and turning the kids life around. >"This really doesn't hinder gangs is anyway. Some gangs can border run guns faster then the waiting list to get a gun legally. What are you going to say about that?" Actually statistically speaking the more you do something the more likely you are to get caught. You contradicted yourself and just broke up my argument into two pieces. You originally said "Well the worst mass shooting was done by an Asian, but white mass shooting tend to be out of anger and not mental health issues. So that's something else." then you say most mass shooters are psychopaths, and we know most mass shooters tend to be a white male, so which is it? are they angry? or are they psychopaths >"This makes them angry and want to lash out, but most people don't actually lash out... Why?? Because they have strong humane emotions and social barriers that never take them to the next level" Actually many people do lash out, however they do so in their own ways, guns isn't the only way to relieve stress and anger, also not all Psychopaths are violent there are white collar criminals who are psychopaths as well. "You are making my point" I am not making your point. Yes we do not know how people will react once bullets began to fly in a terrorist attack. However the people that would make the situation worse should not have a gun. What if one of those people mistakes the rare person that could save everyone as a terrorist and kills that person who was a responsible gun owner?