Creepy Condescending Wonka

For one, not all illegal drugs are "grown". (DUH!)

And I've addressed the "assault" part in this meme... imgflip.com/i/15y2te

If you know anything about rifles, you should know what's actually wrong with assault rifles as opposed to hunting rifles; Pistol grips. They're designed for MOVEMENT.

"Oh, pistol grips on rifles are illegal? I guess we can't use THESE then." --random terrorist after a ban on "assault" weapons, about his weapons cache

Oh, wait...

Yes, because any and all terrorists would be waiting for a ban before using their previously purchased weapons. Except they wouldn't.

"Oh, but they have the guns when they immigrate from ISIS!" You have no idea how anything works.

For one, you seem to ignore the obvious, that gun-running happens ALL THE TIME. A ban won't prevent their illegal importation and sales. Indeed, thinking of possible consequences leads me to think that, if pistol-gripped rifles must be smuggled in, why stop at semi-automatic? Chances are, the guns they'll be acquiring will, in fact, be full-auto, or burst. Then the attacks would be multiple-times worse than previously. It's the law of unintended consequences.

Why do bad debaters say someone is stupid just because they have a differing opinion?

Australia had an ABSOLUTE gun ban, and there has never been a mass shooting since.

Australia has not been called "the Great Satan" by terrorists. Australia has not had jihad declared against them.

Do you really think there isn't ANYBODY with an illegal gun in Australia? The fact that there hasn't been a mass-shooting is because nobody has MADE THE DECISION to have a mass-shooting.

Just like nobody took the explosive powders from fireworks, packed them into a pressure cooker with a detonator, and stashed the rig in a backpack, until someone MADE THE DECISION to do so.

Yes, because ISIS has absolutely anything to do with it.

Also, after the gun ban? EVERYTHING F**KING STOPPED.

Having looked into this further, WE HAVE BOTH made incorrect statements here. Regarding your statement above with the dark blue marker, Australia DID NOT have an "ABSOLUTE gun ban", and there WERE multiple mass-shooting events since. In my green comment, I was incorrect in corroborating that claim. And in your yellow statement, EVERYTHING DID NOT F**KING STOP (reduced, yes, but not stopped, as I'll get into below).

While I generally don't trust Wikipedia, since we're talking simple verifiable numbers, I think this can be trusted. I would recommend ignoring the numbers from before 1971, as the events aren't quite in line with the sort of acts that we are discussing here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

A few things of note:

Prior to the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996 (the VERY REASON for the gun restrictions) where 35 people were killed, there were 15 mass-shootings (defined as more than one victim). The highest number of deaths in ANY mass-shooting incident was 10, with the average being about 6. One of these was perpetrated with a .22 rifle, one with a pump-action shotgun, and one of the incidents was a shootout between rival motorcycle gangs.

Since the enacting of gun restrictions, there have been 4 mass-shooting incidents, where 2, 3, 5, and 3 people were murdered.

Prior to the gun restrictions, there was ONLY ONE mass-killing perpetrated by means OTHER THAN GUNS (namely arson) which killed 15, higher than any single GUN mass-killing in that time period (as I mentioned). After the gun restrictions were put in place, there were SIX mass-killings done by means other than guns (1 torture ring that killed 12; 3 arsons that killed 15, 10, and 11; 1 blunt instrument attack that killed 5; and 1 stabbing attack that killed 8).

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben Franklin

[image deleted]Also, "essential liberty"? You mean to tell me that you NEED to murder people? You can't just keep your gun in a safe and instead use an alarm system and a non-lethal yet efficient Thick Stick of Righteous Education?!

"If you kill [them], [they] won't learn nothing."

Again with the strawman meme comment that I can't directly reply to (the riddler).

I shouldn't let you change the subject like that, but the meme comment is so off-the-wall in relation to what we HAVE actually been discussing, and though you won't admit it, I outdebated you on the original topic (which is probably why you're trying to change the subject).

Just owning a gun doesn't make someone a killer. And since this is really the first time you're mentioning it, just who are you trying to say is getting killed?

Nice strawman argument below... Too bad I can't reply to it directly. I destroyed your argument, so to try to feel like you've won, you tried to say I made an argument that I didn't make and refuted that argument (in case you didn't know what a strawman argument was).

You said NOTHING about registration. You've been talking right along about BANNING GUNS. THAT is what I've been responding to and refuted. NOR did I say MURDER was an "essential liberty", but the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS. Try sticking to the subject and refuting only those arguments I ACTUALLY MADE.

I didn't try to strawman you. This is the SECOND TIME now that you've tried to put words in my mouth. If you can't refute what I've actually said, admit defeat.

[image deleted]