call bull all you want, maybe one will come your way in response but its true. Josh sugar britches ran a marxist disinformation site called the "new right watch" where he tried to be a communist version of Morris Dees and the SPLC. He was fired from the Brady conspiracy against constitutional rights for admitting that handgun bans was what the group wants. He's known for his public disinformation campaign such as calling hunter's rifles-SNIPER rifles or complaining when (after the Clinton gun ban where 10 round magazines were the limit) gun makes scaled down their pistols for the ten round magazines (Example-the 17 round GLOCK 17 shrinking to the ten round GLOCK 26). Sugar britches claimed that the makers were making "deadly concealable pocket rockets" he's a liar and has no credibility
So? You excluded that from your original comparison. Banning guns is not comparable to banning body parts. You have a history of looking at a bunch of data and coming to unjustified conclusions- that's what you did in the case of Australia.
The sole way to ban guns is to amend the constitution. I doubt your side can accomplish such a major change. Thank the founders who blessed us with the right to choose to own a gun or not buy one. I submit when Alexander Hamilton was killed with a pistol, they could have then and there changed the Bill of Rights. Yet in their wisdom, that event, that vile event, did not sway them.
"Josh Sugarmann is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC) and the author of two books on gun control. Prior to founding the VPC, Sugarmann was a press officer in the national office of Amnesty International USA[1] and was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann Maybe you're confusing him with someone else.
The Violence Policy Center is the new name of the New Right Watch (NRW), a non-profit group that "researched" what it perceived as a new right-wing American political movement. NRW focused its attack on semi-automatic firearms with two releases: "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" (198, a joint effort with EFEHV, and "Assault Weapons: Analysis, New Research, and Legislation" (1989). Funding for New Right Watch was received from individual and foundation grants. http://web2.airmail.net/jcpatton/nogunorg.txt
The gun industry was quite happy to use the term "assault rifle" to describe semiautomatic versions of military assault rifles back in the 1980s. View attachment 43839
Prove I did that with Australia. I dare you to prove it. All my data about AUS comes directly from the AUS crime reports and crime database. Its on the internet available to all who are not afraid of the truth. Go get it. You will find that immediately following the implementation of the AUS gun ban in 1996, AUS suffered a huge crime wave, violent crime, rape, homicide, robbery, armed robbery, all increased dramatically. Most crime types are still at rates higher than they were before the gun ban. The rate of armed robbery just dropped below the pre-ban rate a few years ago. I stand behind everything I post about AUS and USA crime.
"Assault Rifles" hold lower and lighter caliber ammo for shooting multiple targets faster. Also the gun design is for shooting multiple targets faster. This use to be for military purposes. Today Libertarians are fighting for it to be useful to a terrorist too. When hunting, I don't need this process. I am killing for food. When defending my home I use a shotgun or pistol and still don't need this. People that just now got allowed to own Military Style Weapons live in fear of "big government" taking them away...Because they know they shouldn't be legal and know they will be illegal soon.
The current NRA and RNC constantly says that "Austrailia banned guns". Yet they didn't. They regulated guns under a Conservative. Austrailians can still own guns.
"The Violence Policy Center is the new name of the New Right Watch (NRW), " Hmmmm.... "New name of the new"
Australia banned almost all semiautomatic centerfire rifles (Category D weapons), these are limited to the government and certain people who the govt gives permission, the general public cannot own these firearms. Originally, handguns (Category H) were restricted to certain calibers and only people who demonstrated they were in competition shooting would be given permission to use such a handgun. This was relaxed recently. Other type of firearms required permission from the local authorities, you had to show a "genuine need", even to own a 22 cal rifle. In some areas, the local authorities would not recognize a genuine need making the law a ban. Yes, Australians can still own guns - but only certain firearms, and only with the permission of their master.
There are a great many firearms that those living in the nation of Australia cannot legally own, despite most of them being considered sporting firearms in other countries, such as pump-action shotguns and rifles. They are less restricted in Great Britain than they are in the nation of Australia.
The only reason the misnamed 'assault weapons' are deadly is because they are used in crime. More people are killed by the lowly .22. The reason the .22 is more deadly is because they are used in crime.
Yet many Types of guns were banned-that means Australia banned guns-not all guns but it still banned guns
This is a statement you know to be false, but chose to make it anyway. Said, not knowing that an AR-based rifles is perfectly suited for hunting. Said, not knowing that in virtually every circumstance where a shotgun is used for home defense, an AR-based rifle is a better choice. This is a statement you know to be false, but chose to make it anyway. - - - Updated - - - Oz declared a number of guns illegal, forced people to sell their existing guns to the government, and then confiscated those not sold.. How is that not a ban?
OMG! There is so much fail, inaccuracies, and just plain stupid in the above pdf document. This is what happens when a bunch of anti-gun nuts who know absolutely nothing about guns write a document about guns.
Truth is not the objective... They write propaganda for an audience that has no experience or understanding than what they get from Hollywood U...
Yet the gun activists (who claim to know so much about guns) in this thread fail miserably to articulate a better argument than the VPC. I don't find ad hominems and the regurgitation of gun lobby talking points very persuasive.
Then perhaps you'll take up the gauntlet for the liberal community and answer a simple question for me. I've asked this question at least 20 times in various threads, yet no liberal will step up to the plate and answer it. How is an AR15 more dangerous than any other firearm? Please explain your rationale.
VPC is funded by Bloomberg. They are biased to say the least, and will lie to push their agenda. Lets forget about both VPC and the gun lobby, lets focus on facts from an unbiased source... The FBI The FBI reports that gun violence has been on a downward trend for the past 20 years or so. At the same time, Firearm sales have gone through the roof.Setting record sales month after month. Carry licenses are at an all time high and setting records. This definitively proves that more guns does not equate to more gun violence.
