Gun Control Is Still Bad

>"You never asked me what kind of measures would realistically work, but I still gave you ways it will work, " So what you are saying is that you gave me unrealistic ways? Yeah that sounds about right. >"you have to show you can use it" So like I said in my last argument, having to show a government official how to operate a gun in a training course sounds well in practice, but in reality an extreme waste of taxpayer money and time. Nearly 99.99% of gun owners would past this "test" in a breeze. Criminals and the mentally ill will also past this test (except for the extremely low intelligence,or OVERT physical disability) This is extremely elementary and pointless. Tell me again EXACTLY why you want gun control in the first place, is it to stop crime? Increase safety, or just to annoy the law abiding gun owners to death? So like I said, give me gun control laws you believe would stop criminals and the mentally ill. "as well as knowing all the gun laws." Once again I repeat myself. Sounds good in practicality but it's extremely wasteful...It wouldn't stop criminals, psychopaths,mentally ill.. Only extremely low IQ people. Do I need to add that criminals will still break the law nomatter how much you make them study, and lawful people won't break the laws nomatter how much you make them study. >" Add in mental health screening and it could work" Again you have yet to describe me what "mental health screening" means in reality. It's like you are giving me a cheap buzzword. The government can't just press a button and magically find out everything about you. Mental health checks and criminal record checks only work if you have a criminal record or such an overt mental illness it needs to be labeled by the government. Most mentally ill people won't seek treatment or spill how they are feeling to a doctor. Mentally ill people that have desires to kill and harm other people won't go out and admit everything (causing him to be put on a list) unless his intelligence is EXTREMELY low. Almost every serial killer and mass murderer (around 95% for MM and 70% for SK, but estimates are rough) would pass a medical check. It's logical to believe if these SKs didn't have guns they would use knives instead, and my estimations use all deaths not just gun deaths. So like I said before, your proposed laws would only stop the EXTREMELY low intelligent mentally-ill from getting guns. All serious criminals aren't stupid enough to buy a gun of they have a criminal record, so they launder guns from people who buy them that don't have criminal records. Even gangs use the fresh members(without a record) as a bypass of the medical and criminal checks. So like I said before, your proposed laws would only stop the EXTREMELY low intelligent criminals from getting guns. >"Of course the process would change and adapt as people find ways around it but it's a work in progress." You are saying short buzzwords but not actually saying anything that makes any sense. The system is already being manipulated and no government official has been able to find ways around it. So what do you system adaptations do you propose Einstein? >" 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" Aaaaaaaand this would stop criminals and the mentally ill how? Also how much do you think it would cost the government to hire a firearms specialist to "test" every gun shooter at a range. If that system was implemented in America where gun ownership is high, it would be so outrageously expensive that it would be scrapped in the first month.Keep trying. >"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." It's a he-said-she-said argument. Not a valid source. >"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." I need a numerical graph or chart showing what you say is true, you can't give me an article where a writer says "gun violence is going down in Australia" and have me expect to take it as true and factual. Next. >"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." Then link me the sources in the article that are relevant to this debate. I don't have time to do your research for you. (EDIT).. I will actually do the research for you because I know you refuse to admit your wrong doing and keep showing me garbage as an excuse. http://thebelltowers.com... http://origin.factcheck.org... And here are government statistics http://www.aic.gov.au... There I did your own work for you, and you are wrong.Next..... >"Sorry I googled it and what came up was actually the fact that it was mainly used as a recruitment tool." Video games have been used in recruitment tools for the army, but the American military AND the Canadian military both use simulations (aka video games) in their training. Sorry but do some more research. >"Which means that the games out today are not anywhere near the level yet to be beneficial in a terrorist attack." It's situational like I said, what's so hard for you to understand? >"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." I said video games are situational, how does it prove your point? I have debunked every gun control argument you have given me. " The link you gave me is a news article" I knew you would say that. You wanted proof the refugees were committing crimes on a mass scale and article from a news agency is sufficient. I am proving to you the information exists so an article by the BBC (widely accepted News company) is relevant (or I can give you thousands of other links).. So what I am saying isn't BS. On the other hand I don't want articles as sources when it comes to disputes (When we both don't agree), because an article adds nothing positive or negative to the argument source wise. So let me ask you this, are you saying that the massive rapes in Germany (by refugees) is a lie and non-existent? Shall we debate about that? It would really be silly and only show your utter stupidity. >"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." http://www.mindframe-media.info... As you see suicides have been on a natural decline since 2002, when the firearms ban was in 1996-1997. So unless you are telling me that in those 6 years that firearm control law somehow changes anything. It didn't. If the drop in 2002 happened in 1997-1998 then perhaps I would agree with you, but it didn't so I don't. >"No one said it keeps it out of the hands of criminals 100% but it does make access harder. Australia is one country" Funny how the only country you can give me with a lower illegal gun problem is one surrounded by 5,170 km of water to the nearest smuggling point with extremely tight borders. Not to mention most of the land is forest and hard to smuggle. The laws haven't made gun crime drop in Australia but natural barriers. Many countries have similar if not more gun control laws with a more negative effect.. So cut the BS. It's like saying Hawaii is the lowest guncrime state in America because of it's gun control laws.. Give me a break. >", you still have to learn a new skill and learning a new skill takes time and patience, " This isn't building a house, this isn't fixing a car. It's on the same terms as LEGOS. You can follow step by step videos on Youtube in 5 minutes. Seriously look it up yourself. You are only making a fool of yourself to keep debating me on this issue. >" it adds in to the planning" 5 minutes >" just like anyone can learn how to make quick and simple bomb with house hold items." Yeah you're so ignorant it's a lost cause. I personally work with explosive as part of my job. Creating bombs with real destructive force (not talking about shitty gunpowder pipebombs) takes a huge amount of work and skill. Not to mention dealing with incredibly unstable chemicals. You also need primary and secondary charges as well as a detonator. This would take an inexperienced person several weeks to a month (and possibly his life). To make a simple small boom. Like I said before, your ignorance is starting to hurt my head. Please give up for your own sake. >"Actually statistically speaking the more you do something the more likely you are to get caught." That's why gangs and criminals cycle cars and people to avoid detection, they have been doing it for years with drugs. Nothing would change if they switched to guns tomorrow. >"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 which is it? are they angry? or are they psychopaths" Sigh.......Can you just not read or are you a bad troll? Let me explain it to you again, about 2-5% of the population is psychopathic/sociopathic, just because a person has these tendencies doesn't make them automatically go out and kill people, but it does EXTREMELY increase the chances of doing so because of said mental problems. "rare person that could save everyone as a terrorist" What?.........Word Limit.