OK Strawman

You STILL haven't answered the question either.

LOL!!!!

You don't understand how much nicer cycling would be if all the cars were gone from the road. That's still the question, right?

Also how small Ireland is compared to the US, cities built before cars/public transport were commonplace tend to be much more compact, with walking distance being the limiting factor. Most places in Ireland are perfectly accessible by bike.

Infact i have cycled from the east coast to the west in a single day. So, no.

But you general point of 'some rights will eventually be taken away that you do care about' - slippery slope argument.

It is also bull. The reason for removing guns is to protect citizen's right to life. Upholding rights enshrined in the UDHR does not even begin a slope.

And i've said before, i'm more than happy to go beyond disarming citizens; you can also disarm the police (once you take guns away from the citizens).

Infact i am shocked that more on the right refuse to support their boys in blue. By reducing the chances of them being shot in the line of duty.

Would you support any measures taken to protect police lives from criminals? Can you think of even a single one?

Ok straw man.

Still haven’t answered a simple yes or no question lol

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9c/d8/98/9cd8980ea21d2f9fbd9c8d8f389299ef--scare-crow-fall-scarecrows.jpg

@orathaic

typical logic of yours. you have a right not to die, so i lose my right to defend myself and my freedom.

meanwhile, violent crime continues it's disconnect from guns, illegal weapons cross hands every day.

why do you think we're immune to fascism, ora? are you really so arrogant to believe that the UK, USA, Ireland... all these western democracies have got it solved, and within the next thousand... maybe even one hundred years there is ZERO percent chance of fascism taking over?

Where do you think the illegal guns come from?

@"why do you think we're immune to fascism, ora? are you really so arrogant to believe that the UK, USA, Ireland... all these western democracies have got it solved"

No, i don't, where did i say we're immune to fascism?

I even think i suggested that the US has already been 'taken over' - at least trying to prompt a discussion of what circumstances this possible armed revolt would take place... but nobody took the bait.

"Where do you think the illegal guns come from?"

Quite a few of them came from the US Govt, that you want to regulate the guns, selling them to Mexican Drug Lords.

And who made them? Cause seriously, any serious regulation of guns will have a big impact on this industry.

You know who has the most to lose here?

Infact, as the world's largest arms exporter, the US likely also has the most powerful arms producers in the world. They all work together to prevent any reduction in weapons sales, because of course they do.

@ora

many of them are ghost guns, which are on a massive rise. meanwhile, there's a great deal of money to be made at the border, although guns there go in AND out of Mexico.

ban all guns from america and you'll only be taking the legally held ones away at first. the illegal ones will stay. look at Sweden post WWII, old stashed of grenades and guns that were not being hidden, just forgotten, are still popping up en masse.

and i know you haven't said we're immune to fascism... but you've acted like it. take all the guns away from the citizenry, and that's like taking away a body's immune system. how would we protect ourselves if the government turned fascist

I am too dizzy to answer the questions.

All your strawmen arguments have my head spinning.

Tough when you are so focused on racism and have to use your brain on another topic.

Well the weather outside is frightful
And the fire is so delightful
And since we've no place to go
Straw man yo straw man ho straw man blow

Pretty sure his definition of straw man is anything that people in his hick town do not espouse as worldview

@"and i know you haven't said we're immune to fascism... but you've acted like it. take all the guns away from the citizenry, and that's like taking away a body's immune system."

Given the experience i have of unarmed citizens and no fascism, i have to assume that guns aren't the only factor in preventing it.

Infact, with fascism on the rise in the US today, it isn't guns which people are using to oppose them.

Yes, getting rid of guns instantly would be disastrous. Smaller restrictions might be more interesting; limit guns to being held in 'militia compounds' - training grounds where anyone can go to use their own gun. If Fascism should raise it's ugly head then the militia will know what to do, and be well trained.

Address illegally held guns the same way you currently do, with armed police forces. You de-escalate crime when you take guns out of the picture; so nobody robbing a house in Ireland would typically bring a gun - because they can be virtually certain that the house holder is not armed. And the risk of getting caught with an illegal weapons AND breaking and entering would be much worse than just breaking and entering... (in the US, guns kept at home don't mean there are no burglaries, they mean these B&Es are more likely to end in someone getting killed).

Restriction the flow of new guns (not the ones people currently own) and the price will go up, so criminals will avoid using / losing guns if they become more expensive...

Lots of little steps to change behaviour.

@"All your strawmen arguments have my head spinning." - i believe you are the one who claimed that liberals were outraged at the loss of driving rights.

"Yes, getting rid of guns instantly would be disastrous. Smaller restrictions might be more interesting; limit guns to being held in 'militia compounds' - training grounds where anyone can go to use their own gun. If Fascism should raise it's ugly head then the militia will know what to do, and be well trained."

funnily enough, the cops tend to raid these compounds and leave individual citizens alone. interesting your logical conclusion is the opposite of what we're doing... but it's not entirely counterintuitive.

as far as what you said about people's houses being broken into, just look at the UK, massive increase in "hot burglaries" and rapes in that time period.hot burglaries being burglaries when people are still home

https://books.google.com/books?id=nChWOCgeX2oC&pg=PA458&lpg=PA458&dq=hot+burlgaries+after+uk+gun+ban&source=bl&ots=LPvNFSp62E&sig=3vyVb5bv4UEWj0zrxdzbzFsuoRk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbuuia2d_WAhUB04MKHcQMBmcQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q&f=false

probably one of the better books to read on the subject, and it specifically addresses this. if you can do a "quick search into this book" on the left hand side of screen, type in "hot burglaries" and they'll show you some tables and stats.

removing guns, even when decreasing gun crimes (an already occurring trend), also make the victims even more defenseless than before.

It just amazes me how hard it is for the liberals to accept that the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally possessed guns.

Actually, the left was very much in favor of restrictions, particularly seat belt laws, helmet laws, insurance laws, and thought drunk driving laws, all to save laws and reduce costs, all of which were opposed by the right because "freedumb"

And when cars are used in terrorist attacks to kill 30,000 people a year, let me know.

Finally, yes, more mass shootings and more gun deaths is precisely what you are advocating for. We know that with so many guns so easily accessible there will be roughly 30,0000 guns deaths in the US every year, about 1.5% (around 450) will occur in mass footings. So, by advocating for the status quo, you are also advocating for those deaths. By opposing measures to reduce those numbers, your supporting keeping them high.

just research Chicago

ah the old "if you don't support my policy you therefore support those deaths" technique.

SEND EVERYONE TO PRISON THEN!

zero gun deaths, perfect security... and if you don't agree with me then you LIKE DEAD BABIES

but seriously though, we can have a rational discussion over people's right and the 2nd amendment without resorting to such stupidity Ogion. please refrain from this technique Ogion

Let us know when guns contribute to 30000 terrorist deaths in this country also.

What a stupid statement by the supposed know it all.

Kansas Boyd mentioned drunk driving. Well Australia had a culture of it being OK to drink and drive. I can remember when seat belts were introduced, and we started cracking down on drink driving in the 1970's. Yes we still have fatal accidents where alcohol and/or drugs are involved, but speed and fatigue are also significant contributing factors in fatal accidents. ( fatigue partly because of the long distances we tend to drive )
However the benefits of mandatory use of seat belts are clear, as are the benefits of reducing drink driving.
We do have some advantages in bringing in reforms, our small population, we're a wealthy nation on a per capita basis etc.
Smoking is a good example of change in our society, I can remember when smoking was very popular. But enforced changes, restrictions on tobacco advertising, compulsory warnings on cigarette packets, and most importantly, an increasingly punitive tax on tobacco products.. Our smoking rate has dropped significantly, to now about only 12% of our population. I think we are capable of actually eradicating smoking over the next few decades. There are undeniable social benefits from doing these things, mandatory use of seatbelts, child restraints in cars, cracking down on drink driving, and a determined effort to reduce tobacco use. The same goes for our gun control reforms. We've just had one of our "gun amnesties", 51,000 odd guns handed in during a three month amnesty. It's estimated that there are between 250k and 600k unregistered guns still " out there ".
Based on what I've seen, experienced, I just do not buy the " It's too hard" arguments. Because even though social reforms might not be easy, even though they might be difficult, the undeniable benefits are worth the effort, worth the struggle.
There were earlier questions about whether I had "experience using guns". Well I have opinions about abortion, but I don't have a vagina or womb. The lack of those organs does not mean I am unable to hold views about abortion, contraception.
As it happens, I do have experience with gun use. But I'd suggest that the people who have the most " relevant experience " are the people who work in Accident & Emergency departments of hospitals.
Maybe instead of listening to the NRA in the USA ( the propaganda arm of the gun industry ) Y'all should pay much more attention to the views of the doctors and nurses who work in A&E Dept's..the people who, on a daily basis, have to deal with the victims of guns.

you guys do realize that the NRA backs regulating bump stocks, right? the thing that helped the mass shooter at Los Vegas: the NRA is actually supporting restricting.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-says-bump-stocks-devices-used-by-las-vegas-shooter-should-be-regulated/

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555894008/nra-backs-regulation-of-bump-stocks-as-some-republicans-support-a-ban

You don't have to have "experience with guns" in order to be killed by them. They're a threat to my family, so I want them limited to reduce or eliminate that threat. Nobody's toys are worth a threat to my family. Period

Indeed. The courts threw out Chicago's handgun ban in 2010 and Illinois concealed carry ban in 2012 and theee years later Chicagos murder rate doubled. Great point DeeComa