Law abiding gun owner here.

And he has pushed the argument forward significantly. I feel like groundhog-day posting the same arguments every time.

Having said that, I'd like to reiterate that the main difference (besides constitutional protection) between firearms and 'merican's other favorite ways of lowering longevity is simply that firearms are someone else's choice when it comes to ending your life (when it's not suicide). This is significantly different from obesity, drug addiction, smoking, etc..

spot261 you're a well meaning guy but you don't have a fucking clue. I could pick holes in just about everything you said, but there's no point. Go on ahead and indulge your delusions.
You can have your theoretical and I'll just keep my reality and we'll see how gun control plays out in the US over the years.

What's theoretical, pointing out the numerous times a thing has actually been done successfully (including in the place I live), or coming up with vague reasons why this time would (theoretically) be the exception?

You've claimed gun controls wouldn't work in America, but not explained why America is so different from the many varied countries it's already been carried out and the fact that limited trials have by and large had positive results.

You've claimed your gun controls are fine as they are, yet your gun crime is out of hand by anyone else's measure and a significant portion of the US disagree (nearly half in fact) disagree with you.

You've claimed you speak for the US, despite there being a huge movement there to restrict guns.

You've claimed an equivalency with cars, which is obviously a non starter when you actually think it through.

You've claimed I know nothing about crime. Seriously? I spend half my waking life in the company of criminals.

You've claimed an equivalency with alcohol, yet keep missing the fact there's very good reasons alcohol bans never work in practise (namely the ease of home brewing - kinda difficult to do with a gun)

Believe it or not I actually like you but you have a strangely and determinedly fatalistic attitude to a problem many others have been able to at least partially solve.

I never said gun controls won't work in the US - obviously they work to a point because we do indeed have them. We just don't control guns to your satisfaction and "by anyone else's measure" means jack shit. That said if you are a US citizen it matters, and if you are not satisfied then by all means go through the proper legal/political measure to change them.

No matter how bad gun deaths get it will still be a small percentage of the total "causes of death" - so why should a gun death carry so much emotional/political weight? Dead = dead no matter how you slice it. If not another shot was fired in the US (from cops, criminal or anyone in between) there would still be needless, preventable deaths 24/7 in every location across the land.

Sorry but my "risk versus reward" examination leads me to think that completely taking away the rights of millions of lawful gun owners is not a smart move. It's a "slippery slope" that could lead to more complete bans. No booze (DUI deaths affect everyone) would be one example.
Yes, people can make booze - but life in prison with no possibility of parole if caught might slow that down quite a bit! Five years just for drinking alcohol would slow down the demand too I suspect.

"By anyone else's measure" really does matter when kids living in the nation which professes to be the world's most advanced are being killed in ways that would be all but unthinkable in any other first world nation. Are they being listened to by the political system? Shouldn't they as US citizens be in a position to expect the very best opportunities at life?

As for booze, isn't that what they tried during prohibition?

no, prohibition didn't offer up a life sentence for making booze - maybe that's where they got off track.
And yes kids getting killed by guns is "unthinkable" in your country but are kids killed by DUI or stabbed or beaten to death "unthinkable" in your country? Guarantee it happens! Are those kids being listened to by your political system? One death is too many!

Why should you be in a position to judge what type of death is appalling savagery AKA gun deaths and what is not? Who died and left the UK boss? Or for that matter France, Mexico, Japan, Korea, etc. ?

And yes I agree you do know a lot about crime.....in your country. Every culture is different (thank fucking god for that!) of which you are well aware I'm sure.

Oh I'd love to reduce drink driving deaths, but acknowledging it's a problem doesn't justify ignoring another one. Maybe driverless cars will help, maybe they'll just result in massive job losses and a weakened labour market. In either case yes our political system has invested heavily and made massive inroads into road safety over the past few decades, as has yours, which is why per usage cars are much safer than guns on both sides of the Atlantic (yes, there is a legitimate counter to the total deaths figure - rates tell us more than gross numbers).

Those countries aren't "boss" (no offence but the idea of the US being resentful of outside intervention is really quite hilarious to be fair), but many are doing this particular thing much better and the term "cross cultural" is very important when considering that data. If we were comparing the US to one other country I'd buy the cultural difference argument, the evidence wouldn't be robust enough to warrant a prediction.

However that hard work of trying it in a wide variety of cultures has already been done. Those countries who have succeeded all differ from each other as much as they do from the US but those differences didn't stop them making it work. The cultural variables which have already been successfully tested more than outnumber those potentially in play here. (Obviously Mexico isn't part of that equation - but being a drug capital partly run by the cartels is something of an issue, not to mention all the guns they....oh never mind ).

We aren't looking at a situation where cultural differences should be predicted to be a decisive factor, not when they have consistently been anything but in so many other instances. We are looking at a situation where a process has proved itself time and again in culture after culture and the claim the US is an exception is therefore a claim of a national failing on a massive scale. Against the odds it seems I have more faith in your countrymen than you do

awesome display of "theoretical" spot261! Reality of course (I'm kind of a big fan myself) will ragdoll theory's smug ass all day long and twice on Sunday.
And no I'm not resentful of outside intervention, because no country has the ability to intervene against the US - all they can do is complain.

And you have more faith in my countrymen to do what....give up our rights in a vain attempt to appease nations that are not in any way morally superior?
You better "sweeten the deal" before we ever do that. We are not failing on a national scale - to your culture we are - you are entitled to your opinion but your opinion doesn't mean we are obligated to change the way we do business.

That's it, right there. That's the crux of the whole thing. It's about eliminating our rights, "for our own good," so that we can be controlled by the benevolent State. And anyone who thinks that after the right to keep and bear arms is gone, any of the other rights won't immediately be on the chopping block is deluding themselves.

Different countries have different cultures.

And it becomes apparent that you are living in a fantasy world here, because this would not happen - the only people who would be disarmed are the honest ones, as in, not the criminals. You seem to keep forgetting that the guns are already out there, but then you also seem to discount the effectiveness of using a firearm for defense so I shouldn't find this surprising.


which the study I linked earlier shows does in fact work in practise. The legal sale of weapons is the single largest factor in supplying arms to the criminals you want to protect yourself from and that is born out not just in studies but also the real world experience of the many countries which have already banned firearms.

Because it shows just how far your country has fallen into authoritarianism.

Do you honestly think I have a problem with nudity because I'm pro-firearms? I'm pro-individual rights, so by all means, free the nipple. But speaking of, at least I don't have to pay for a license or register in any way to look at porn.

Again, what makes you think I'm for that? Maybe you haven't noticed, but I'm anti-Patriot Act, and I find it quite telling that for all the complaining the Democrats did about it while W was President, when they finally gained control, they did fuck-all about it. I can't help but be darkly amused at how the two big parties simply switch roles whenever the other is in power.

I've seen enough from your country to know otherwise. The only real difference is that people end up dead less often, but the police there are still plenty confrontational and aggressive, and that goes back quite a while. I still remember how the police constantly harassed tourists for taking pictures of various landmarks (as tourists generally do) because someone somewhere put the idea in their head that terrorists would take pictures of landmarks before blowing them up or something. Had the same problem over here and still do, though it isn't quite as bad now thanks to some important court victories.

Oh really? Seems to me you have your fair share of Helen Lovejoys over there, too.

More and more states are heading that way, much to the dismay of conservatives everywhere. Of course, at the same time, more and more is being done to prohibit the use of tobacco products, and I've seen plenty of marijuana advocates bash on alcohol sales as they try to convince voters and legislators to legalize weed. Crazy.

Yet you keep ignoring the "cross cultural" aspect of this. The data is already robust across many cultures, why would the US be the singular first world exception?

So you're ignoring the studies I've linked showing trials in the US have already mirrored what the Australian ban showed, that a ban does in fact make criminal access more difficult? Who's living in a fantasy world if I can demonstrate something works in practise and all you have is a prediction in principle?

Yet again, though, I've reiterated countless times I accept an outright ban is currently out of the question, it's almost as though you're selectively reading.

Not really no, not when we have some quite basic rights you lack but for some reason you seem focused on your right to offend or harm someone. What about the rights that don't involve making racist comments, calling for violence or shooting people? You know, basic stuff like the freedom to receive free top quality healthcare? the freedom to purchase alcohol under 21? The freedom to not swear allegiance in schools without censure?

Neither do I, despite the link you erroneously offered which said nothing of the sort. I watched some great stuff this afternoon, no license required, none on the horizon either. There are, however, several US states which would in fact restrict such material and it isn't covered by the 1st

However as for the nipples business it doesn't matter what you are or aren't in favour of, what matters is you've associated firearms with freedom from societal restrictions, yet there's a basic freedom you lack right there. It's a restriction your firearms aren't protecting you from despite all the gun free countries which are fine with it. So where's the evidence your guns are making you any more free than you would be in, say, Amsterdam?

Again, it doesn't matter for our purposes what you are for or against, the FBI and the NSA are still doing it at great expense despite your "freedoms". It's another easily refuted example of how less restrictive the US is and your guns haven't helped you one bit.

Going to have to disagree on subjective grounds here, though I have lived in the US bear in mind. The tactics there certainly seem much more aggressive and the dead bodies do seem to support that, as do the massively higher incarceration rates.

Sure we do, but I don't think you'd find many people who've experienced both sides of the pond who'd honestly disagree the US is much more censorious and prudish, both on legal and cultural levels, certainly religious fundamentalism has far more sway over policy making there than it does here. Are you really going to argue the toss on that?

How about Amsterdam? Arguably the least restrictive place in the civilised world. No guns.

Curious, where do you stand on the issue? Do you feel those drugs should be considered a freedom despite the harm they do? If so why is the US only just getting there now when there are other (unarmed) countries way ahead if guns=freedom?

Can you actually name one freedom you have and I lack which has come about as a consequence of people owning guns, other than gun ownership itself?

Seems to me I can name several instances of the opposite (where I actually have at least as many if not more freedoms) but you're floundering to actually substantiate your position.

Because it's bullshit.

And the data I saw on the Australian ban was that there was no significant drop in violence or homicide after the buyback compared to before it.

Freedom of speech has been severely curtailed in your country and here you are balking at me having a better chance at being able to defend myself.

And I'm against such censorship, so I don't know what point you think you're making. I suppose it shouldn't surprise me given that you are advocating for the further erosion of freedom.

I can keep and bear arms here and am not brainwashed into being afraid of them, just off the top of my head. Also much better freedom of speech here. As for drugs and legalized sex work, don't worry, we're working on that.

Hasn't gotten to that point yet. Or are you arguing Americans should be rising up against their government now? The thing is, while people still think there is a chance to resolve things using the system, they'll go with that route. Plus, I've never really gotten the mentality of people who argue that since the people wouldn't have much of a chance against their government if it came to that, we should just top the scales that much further.

Like I said, the only real difference is that there are less dead bodies involved in the UK, but your police are plenty confrontational and aggressive.

It's funny that Iceland has succeeded where the fundies here have failed. I've also noticed the social justice types tend to be every bit as prudish as the fundies.

Really? In what ways exactly? Can I say anything I want, or do I have to worry about offending someone? If I move there can I bring my gun collection there? What restrictions on the government are there when it comes to property rights, searches and seizures and the like?

I think if people really want to put that shit in their bodies they should be allowed to, and that it's pointless to lock people up for using it. I would treat it the same as alcohol as far as the kinds of restrictions on it and being under the influence of it in public.

Social conservatism and the influence of religion on communities.

Like the freedom of speech I keep bring up and roasting you over the coals with?

Except you haven't roasted me over any coals, in fact you're yet to demonstrate you have any freedoms at all you'd lack in most of Europe other than the right to a gun which doesn't actually make you safer. Your porn example backfired given the US is more restrictive in that regard (the first amendment doesn't apply to obscenity), your monitoring exampled likewise given you have the world's largest surveillance culture and the Patriot Act, your Freedom of Speech example is based on a commonplace misunderstanding of the legal status and interpretation of the 1st, never mind your excessive libel laws and you have whole states where anal sex is a crime. Anything else?

You do know there are in fact a whole host of exceptions to the first amendment don't you? Of course you do, you surely aren't one of those people who think it actually offers unfettered FoS?

Funnily enough a lot of those are actually protected over here, contrary to what you may have been led to believe.

You are no more free than you would be without your guns, they haven't stopped porn censorship, they certainly haven't guaranteed you actual freedom of speech, they haven't stopped the formation of the NSA, they haven't brought your drinking age down, they haven't brought you the right to free healthcare, they haven't brought you the right to harm yourself chemically. You can't even go topless unless you have a cock.

I've provided data to support the efficacy of gun bans, from worldwide studies sanctioned and published by the UN, I've provided recent data about the homicide rates in Australia (which have dropped, if you missed the link let me know and I'll re post. The drop came slowly but it did come so maybe you're looking at out of date studies), I've provided the murder rates for the US as compared to other countries, placing you well into third world territory, I've provided studies showing positive effects of partial bans within the US, all published, replicable, unbiased and peer reviewed.

That data is "cross cultural" meaning in this context the effect has been objectively shown to be robust despite cultural differences, meaning there's no a priori reason to see the US as an exception to that given every single objection raised thus far has already been shown not to impact elsewhere.

But if you really believe against all the facts that your gun is making you safer and more free, suit yourself, but a belief is all it is and that's the problem. You can't convince a creationist the world wasn't made in seven days, you can't convince a flat earther the world is round. That's just the nature of belief.

No rights are universal or unlimited. The question is where we draw the line, even here in America.

The unmistakable cry of the statist.

Actually, a realist. Sorry, but despite your pipe dreams, fearmongering, and wishes there are no universal rights that are not limited in some way.

Freedom of speech is limited because there are things you can say that are against the law and not allowed. There is disturbing the peace, promoting a riot, and slander which are all prohibited by criminal or civil statutes.
Freedom of the press is limited in that you will face penalties for slander.
Freedom of religion is limited as I cannot sacrifice humans as some religions in the past have done.

Your right to carry firearms is certainly not unlimited as there are laws restricting them from certain areas, and private land owners can prohibit them on their property. Convicted felons are not allowed to own or carry firearms.

So can you tell me what planet you live on because here in the US your rights are not universal. Feel free to go violate laws that regulate your rights and see how far you get with the police. Don't accept my word on it, but feel free to show us all how you live in reality and avoid breaking the laws of the land that restrict your rights if you wish to avoid jail.

Wiki's examples seem to strongly contradict your view. And doesn't the Official Secrets Act offer your government a chance to impose very strict restrictions with a potentially broad net?

Just a couple of months ago, Leeds Trinity Uni. (School of Journalism of all things) cautioned professors not to use ALL CAPS or words like "don't" to students. Doesn't sound like very free speech really, but then both the US and your colleges seem to be a bit demented re protection of really "free speech."

I'm not sure why you'd equate an internal memo from one particular department of one particular college with being representative of the legal system of an entire nation, but don't US colleges have guidance on how staff communicate in an official capacity?

Does a fast food chain in Kentucky telling it's employees to wish customers a nice day reflect a US policy on not upsetting people?

As for the official secrets act I'll freely confess ignorance as to why it would be seen as being restrictive on freedom of speech given it applies only to people who have actually signed it as part of their professional duties. Are members of the CIA allowed to talk about their duties with the general public and the press?

Seems to me it's a lot less restrictive than the patriot act, which was part of the reason we started
outsourcing interrogation suspects to American intelligence agencies as they have much more leeway to use indefinite detentions, extraordinary renditions and plain old fashioned torture without public oversight.

BTW dipshit, many private institutions and schools would want you to use professional language and not type in all caps because that is what working people do. That is not a violation of free speech you moron.

Yeah that was a pretty bizarre example to be honest, on a par with the shop sales figures he used the other week to illustrate the state of the economy.

So, where are we on guns? Has anyone pointed that I have...never mind.

I have more than one diamond in an unlocked vault, during business hours, every business day. And, while I will gladly help you load them into your car, I am NOT going to let you hurt me or anyone that works for me in the process.

It makes me wonder what he does for a living and why he has no insight. Even when I was young and in school and I hated writing exercises I did not think it was taking away my freedom of speech. There is professional language. I don't try terribly hard here, but even here I would not type in all caps, and I would not use certain offensive language. That is not censorship, that is communicating properly. Of course a university is going to prepare students for the way to communicate professionally. That is not removing a person's ideas, but rather expanding it.

Trump can type whatever way he wants, but he looks like a moron because of the bubble he writes.

Pretty much the same place the argument always is.

I had a vague idea he was a lawyer of some description based on things he had said about his professional life, but it really doesn't come across in here. Certainly I'd be pretty pissed if I'd paid for someone's expertise me and that was the quality of representation my case got.

They continue to be illegal in most of the civilised world, the one first world country which allows them continues to be the most dangerous.

No real change.

Could you imagine a lawyer typing out a motion all in caps? OMG they are taking away his free speech!

I wonder if you can use emojis?

Maybe @Tuttle is the right wing legally blonde bimbo. Perhaps he uses a lot of chemicals on his hair to make it look horrible like trump and they are leeching into his already overworked ganglion?

The case for the prosecution:

I guess @Tuttle would be the left boob.