PDA

View Full Version : Do you think that guns should be Outlawed


Pages : [1] 2

Bondgirl
09-23-2011, 09:14 PM
In my opinion they should be banned and off the streets

I do think that police and the armed forces should have them to fight against any common ememy but normal people l would say no

Look at America and how you can just buy a gun over the counter and rthis is so wrong

In Australia we have laws against having guns and this was brought across by a shooting that happened in tasmania and this bloke went on a rampage shooting people at a local tourist area

Primienster john howard had a gun anmesty where everyone who had a gun was paid a certain amount of money to get rid of there weapons you should have seen all the guns that were crushed

I know in Australia you still have the odd gun but it is not like it was before where you didnt need a lience to have onelaw against having a gunlaw in owning a gun or do you think la

Anyway l would really like your opinion on this do you think that there should be a law on having a gun




http://www.reedercustomguns.com/special_guns/images/UltimateTen.jpg

Erroneous
09-23-2011, 09:50 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but do the British Police still not carry guns?

One thing I do not like in the Constitution is the second amendment. The right to bear arms. This was probably good in the 18th century, but I think in modern days we should get rid of it. You don't need a gun. You can buy many other forms of non lethal weapons to protect yourself or your family.

I don't buy into all that crap how the government will be the only ones with them or only the bad people will have them.

Take them away from the citizens and the police. Let the armed forces keep them and certain positions deemed necessary. Fuck all the hunters. Learn to use bows.

I have used guns and I have seen first hand what they can do. It is ugly.

Bondgirl is right. It is very easy to buy a gun in America. Laws vary from state to state, but the south is the worst.

Bondgirl
09-23-2011, 09:58 PM
I am not sure about the British police but l know that Australian police have always carryed guns and now they also have Tasers which seem to settle down some troublemakers

So you think that police shouldnt carry a gun l think they should on the people they have to confront at certain times


This is a link to the Port Arthur masscare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

What this bloke did is wha startred Australia getting rid of guns

Also even when you get rid of guns they do replace weapons with knifes is how Australia is coping with a influx of this problem

Where has the times gone where you would fight with your fists instead of using a weapon

I find it is a wimps way out of fight with guns

Tagia_Romero
09-23-2011, 10:15 PM
I am a shooter and I hold a current shooting license.

That being said, here are my general beliefs. It's good to possess a gun if:

- You are a responsible, mentally and socially sound person.
- You are aware that guns are not toys and do not weild them as such.
- You keep a secure place for your guns and you care for them responsibly.
- You respect and abide the law.

To paraphrase McBain (:p): Guns don't kill people- people kill people.

If ya need any more info, I'd be happy to share it (if it's within reasonable boundary)

Bondgirl
09-23-2011, 10:32 PM
Well in australia we have blokes who shoot wild pigs ducks ect and they hold a lience too

There are certain culls towards alot of kangaroos which when they breed wildly you have too many so you have to kill them

Also l think that they are going to have a cull of the crocodile population in Qeensland because we are getting to many of them
That is alright to a certain point if it doesnt get supervised proberly

But l still think there should be restrictions on who holds a gun lience even though in my opinion we shouldnt really need guns in this world..

Badbird
09-23-2011, 10:48 PM
I am not anti-gun, but I think it should be harder to own one. I think guns should be like cars - you should need a license and be able to pass a test in order to get one.

But I'm not a fan of all this "conceal/carry" nonsense. I think people who are obsessed about wanting to carry their guns no matter where they go have some serious issues to work out.

jaw2929
09-23-2011, 11:31 PM
Thing is, you outlaw guns in any country.... It'll be just like drugs. There will be alternative methods to get them, and if someone wants one bad enough, they'll be able to still get it.

So it doesn't really matter either way. People are fucking stupid in general, but if a stupid fuck is determined enough, it won't matter if it's legal or not.

Scotch
09-24-2011, 12:27 AM
no

The Postmaster General
09-24-2011, 01:06 AM
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.

creekin111
09-24-2011, 01:01 PM
#1 This should be moved to the politics forum. Immediately. I don't like reading this shit on this forum, sorry it makes me angry. I'm just sick and tired of political discussions bleeding into every forum.

#2 This topic question wants to paint a extremely broad stroke. So in return I'll just say this that someone who lives in a densely populated city (with enough police presence) is more likely going to say guns should be banned but someone in a sparsely populated rural area (with police presence spread far away) say they shouldn't. You can and should probably imagine why.

#3 Don't compare the laws to our country to other countries. Its like comparing apples to oranges. They have a completely different set of rules and they all have a different view of individual property rights. Some countries believe the property you own isn't yours you are just holding on to it until the state decides what to do with it, other countries respect the right to individual property a little more. Every country is different and should be respected in that regard. I'm not telling someone in Taiwan how their government should be run so I expect the same in return.

#4 All I want is for someone to tell me when was the last time a legally owned automatic weapon that was used in a crime by the owner of the gun here in the US. Just one example. Thanks.

SS-Block
09-24-2011, 01:55 PM
No, not outlawed.

There should be tight restrictions and rules.

But if its home security you wanting, there's nothing better than security cameras. They're a more obvious and effective deterrent to a potential intruder than a gun. And of course strong doors and windows too. Walls are nice. They say houses without walls suffer the most break-ins, but i've seen no actual source to prove this. Roofs! I almost forgot.

Having a gun doesn't really help you unless you know how to shoot accurately under pressure.

You can train Rottweilers and some other intelligent breeds to silently attack intruders. I would prefer that than a gun I couldn't aim right.

Maybe I just get me some piranhas and throw them at intruders. ANYONE set foot on ma front lawn, I don't care if you a little girl who fell off a tricycle, I'll be throwing ma fish at you, so help me gawd.

Dirtyfrog
09-24-2011, 04:17 PM
You can twist the "right to bear" arm as much as you want but a semi-automatic m-16 is not for protection.

Prohibition doesn't work but controlling a situation does. In Canada , we got the gun registration law since 2001 which was inspired by the Polytechnique massacre in 1989. It's not perfect but it's a good tool. The keyword is TOOL. Like a car thief usually choosing for a car easy to steal ( no alarm , no gps , no steering lock bar, etc ) , any amount of protection will not deter a thief really determined to steal your 50k$ Porsche. Same with guns. If i'm prone to road rage and wanna "kill" the guy that cut me off on the highway , not having a gun will not deter me because i'll problably use a tire iron or a knife for the same purpose but the outcome will probably be less deadly. Instead of spending the next 25 years in a federal prison ( or 10 years on death row in some US state) for an violent outburst , i'll spend 2-3 years on probation with mandatory therapy.

Even i wanted to outland guns , it will never happen in a million years. Just check the on-going "war on drugs" , billions and billions of dollars of a failure.

Changing mentality is the real answer IMO.

Dirtyfrog
09-24-2011, 04:29 PM
#4 All I want is for someone to tell me when was the last time a legally owned automatic weapon that was used in a crime by the owner of the gun here in the US. Just one example. Thanks.

Trick question since fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 ARE BANNED from ownership by private citizens in the U.S.

Vong
09-25-2011, 03:54 PM
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.

"I luvs my gun...luvs my gun!!!"

overwatch
09-25-2011, 05:10 PM
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.

lol

jaw2929
09-25-2011, 07:47 PM
If you outlaw guns in America, you might as well take a shit on the flag. Nuff said.

http://images.quickblogcast.com/8/8/2/3/1/121338-113288/kill_this_prick.jpg


Whoops!

creekin111
09-26-2011, 02:00 PM
Trick question since fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986 ARE BANNED from ownership by private citizens in the U.S.

No its not a trick question. OK, how about the same exact question only instead of "automatic weapons" its "automatic weapons manufactured before 1986." Yep none. Zero. So why do people want stronger gun laws when no law abiding citizen is committing any crimes with those? Everyone who has legally own an automatic weapon has followed the law but people still want to punish them. Whether or not you think someone needs an automatic weapon is irrelevant.

ChrisClu30
09-26-2011, 02:38 PM
After watching this video... I believe you should have to take an IQ test, and at least score above 120.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81869689/

I'll be honest... I am kind of bummed that he didn't take off part of his head.

Dirtyfrog
09-26-2011, 03:37 PM
No its not a trick question. OK, how about the same exact question only instead of "automatic weapons" its "automatic weapons manufactured before 1986." Yep none. Zero. So why do people want stronger gun laws when no law abiding citizen is committing any crimes with those? Everyone who has legally own an automatic weapon has followed the law but people still want to punish them. Whether or not you think someone needs an automatic weapon is irrelevant.

The reason I said it was a trick question is because of the 25 years ban in place , you get a rarity in the market. Prices go way up and the paperwork to acquire one is a pain so yeah those owners won't commit crimes with said weapons as most of them are collectors.

So , i'm pretty sure people want stronger gun laws on all guns and not only on pre-86 legal full automatics. Nowadays , everything is REPEATING ( like a .12 shotgun) or SELF-LOADING ( aka semi-automatic like a 9mm Glock or AR15). Of course , you can still tweak a semi-automatic AK47 to be fully automatic but that is highly illegal so i don't think someone who does that would register it.

PS. my curiosity got me and i looked on the web for a real legal automatic rifle ( like a m-16 , only one i know of ) and found this page : http://nfacentral.com/2011/04/so-you-want-to-buy-an-m16/. Interesting read.

creekin111
09-26-2011, 04:05 PM
Rarity or not the answer is still no. No crimes have been committed with any legal automatic weapon. So stricter gun laws won't make any difference here. And to say people want more stricter gun laws is another enormous broad stroke. People and their cultures are different in all walks of life and should be treated and respected as such.

Dirtyfrog
09-26-2011, 06:18 PM
ok , "So , i'm pretty sure people want stronger gun laws on all guns and not only on pre-86 legal full automatics" was badly formulated and a broad stroke indeed (as written ). What i meant was " people WHO WANTS stronger gun laws WANT it on all guns and not only pre-86 legal full automatics".

Still not sure why your focus is only on full automatic tho. This debate wasn't about that but guns in general. I know that it can be a touchy subject to some people ( like any Liberty VS Rights topic ) but i'm always up for a good discussion.

Bondgirl
09-26-2011, 09:34 PM
Well only a couple of days ago a home owner was asleep when he was woken by a intruder

Well the homeowner had his gun in his bedside draw and got it out to investigate

he confronted the intruder and there was abit of a scuffle and the gun went off

The intruder stubbled out of the house with a gunshot to the stomach

he died on the scene

Now the homeowner has been arrested for the murder of the intruder

You see the homeowner was pretecting his property but that doesnt matter he murdered someone

Anyway l said before that guns were not aloud in Australia well they are still getting through
Also the police went to a bikie hideut and found around seventy guns stashed there

It is a shame we have to ue guns and l do think we need to get rid of all of them but you will never get totally rid of them

i know having a tonchy subject about guns can rub some people up the wrong way but it is good to talk about the harm these weapon have on people

if they were only used for hunting it would be a diffrent story but guns are used in so many diffrent way some can be for good things like pretecting us from trouble makers but in other cases it can be used for volience

Dirtyfrog
09-26-2011, 11:22 PM
Contrary to some ppl , i <3 Bondgirl. Althought even as an ESL , "aloud" prolly means "allowed". You can't buy honesty.

Bondgirl
09-27-2011, 09:19 PM
Oh it is nice to be loved as a person

Well it is nice being honest and there is not much of that about these days to express how you feel about a certain subject

SS-Block
12-15-2012, 01:50 PM
.

adamjohnson
12-15-2012, 02:34 PM
More restrictions wouldnt actually solve the problem, it would just advance a "police state" era.

I'm posting right before work, so I might not go into enough detail - but I read a stat yesterday summarizing thusly: more guns = more gun-related fatalities. Whether it be homicide, suicide, or accidental. More guns means more people have access to guns, and, since 80% of all gun-related fatalities occur by guns that were once obtained legally - like the ones in Newtown - it's pretty simple. More guns = more deaths.

Data from countries around the world, and even individual states here, show an equally important trend. States/countries with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related fatalities.

More guns = more deaths.

Under no circumstance should a private citizen be allowed to purchase semi-automatic or fully-automatic rifles of any kind. Period.

And if you want to own a handgun, shotgun, or non-automatic rifle, they need to be much more controlled. To get a gun in Japan, for instance, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

A few years ago, 2006, the total gun-related fatality number for that year was 2. TWO. TWOOOOO. The next year, it jumped to 22, and it became a national scandal - prompting quick and decisive political action.

In America all you need is a State ID and a criminal history check. If you're going to a gun show, you may even not need that.

You say that explosives can easily be made by any ordinary citizen, but the reality is thats just not really true. It takes at least SOME know how to build and construct a bomb, there's greater risk of self-injury during this process as well, not to mention transportation, delivery of object, and detonation. Even a molotov cocktail isnt easy to get through security. The reality is, the number of people who could successfully build and deliver a bomb of any kind is infinitesimal in the face of a staggering gun-death rate. Literally any idiot can pull a trigger, not so with bombs, etc.

When there was a meningitis outbreak, we quickly tracked the steroid that was causing it. When bad software in Toyotas turned them into gas-powered missiles, we quickly fixed it. When something is dangerous and poses a health risk in this country WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Yet tens of thousands of people die every single year because of guns, and we're told we can't do a thing about it. Why?

Fact is, there is no easy solution. Banning guns or some guns would have a rubber band effect, be it knives, bombs, whatever, and the severity of that "snap back" may vary. But it would be PROGRESS nonetheless.

The ONLY truth from this is that inaction is not the solution.

Something MUST be done.

DaveyJoeG
12-15-2012, 02:55 PM
I don't necessarily want to ban guns, but I think it's backwards that in this country guns(tools that are potentially harmful to others) are legal, but drugs(something that is only harmful to yourself) are illegal.

SL Dubbs
12-15-2012, 03:20 PM
So it doesn't really matter either way. People are fucking stupid in general, but if a stupid fuck is determined enough, it won't matter if it's legal or not.

That's why I don't like people. I feel like Sean Penn in U-Turn.

I have automatic guns. I had them sent to me in different pieces through ups. I've also in the past had drugs sent to me through ups. The secret with that is just wrap coffee grounds around them. Guns are extremely east to come by.

creekin111
12-15-2012, 05:09 PM
More restrictions wouldnt actually solve the problem, it would just advance a "police state" era.

I'm posting right before work, so I might not go into enough detail - but I read a stat yesterday summarizing thusly: more guns = more gun-related fatalities. Whether it be homicide, suicide, or accidental. More guns means more people have access to guns, and, since 80% of all gun-related fatalities occur by guns that were once obtained legally - like the ones in Newtown - it's pretty simple. More guns = more deaths.

If you're trying to reduce fatalities then by that logic we should reduce the number of cars in this country. More cars = more deaths. If not then why are some fatalities more acceptable than others?

Data from countries around the world, and even individual states here, show an equally important trend. States/countries with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun-related fatalities.

So you're completely ignoring Switzerland and Mexico as if that could never happen here. "If the majority can do 'x' then we should be able to do 'x' and anybody who wants to do anything differently is wrong. Take no other variables into the equation."

More guns = more deaths.

More knives = more deaths.
More pain killers = more deaths.
More red meat = more deaths.
More going out in the world = more deaths.

Maybe if its the government's job to avoid fatalities at all costs then they should strap everyone in a straight jacket with their teeth pulled out so they don't bite their tongues out jailed in padded rooms.

Under no circumstance should a private citizen be allowed to purchase semi-automatic or fully-automatic rifles of any kind. Period.

How many crimes have been committed by legally obtained and unaltered "automatic weapons" here in the United States... ever?

And if you want to own a handgun, shotgun, or non-automatic rifle, they need to be much more controlled. To get a gun in Japan, for instance, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

Japan is a completely different culture than the United States so... ok? Good for them?

A few years ago, 2006, the total gun-related fatality number for that year was 2. TWO. TWOOOOO. The next year, it jumped to 22, and it became a national scandal - prompting quick and decisive political action.

So with all these gun statistics from a different country and you seem to be an authority on what other countries do tell me what Switzerland does. Tell me what Mexico does. Again if you believe the government's job is to prevent fatalities (not just crime) then where do you draw the line?

In America all you need is a State ID and a criminal history check. If you're going to a gun show, you may even not need that.

You say that explosives can easily be made by any ordinary citizen, but the reality is thats just not really true. It takes at least SOME know how to build and construct a bomb, there's greater risk of self-injury during this process as well, not to mention transportation, delivery of object, and detonation. Even a molotov cocktail isnt easy to get through security. The reality is, the number of people who could successfully build and deliver a bomb of any kind is infinitesimal in the face of a staggering gun-death rate. Literally any idiot can pull a trigger, not so with bombs, etc.

Molotov cocktails can be made by 7 year old children.

When there was a meningitis outbreak, we quickly tracked the steroid that was causing it. When bad software in Toyotas turned them into gas-powered missiles, we quickly fixed it. When something is dangerous and poses a health risk in this country WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

The more you do = the better. Doesn't matter what you do and doesn't matter what long term consequences are down the road something has to be done. Just plug up your ears, close your eyes and demand that things get done. Doing something automatically means things will get better never worse.

Yet tens of thousands of people die every single year because of guns, and we're told we can't do a thing about it. Why?

So what's your plan for nobody dying ever?

Fact is, there is no easy solution. Banning guns or some guns would have a rubber band effect, be it knives, bombs, whatever, and the severity of that "snap back" may vary. But it would be PROGRESS nonetheless.

The ONLY truth from this is that inaction is not the solution.

Something MUST be done.

Yeah and if you're looking for what "others" are doing...


Washington, D.C., has enacted a number of strict gun-restriction laws. The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 prohibited residents from owning handguns, excluding those registered prior to February 5, 1977; however, this law was subsequently overturned in March 2007 by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.[40]

The ruling was upheld in June 2008 by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller. Both courts held that the city's handgun ban violated individuals' Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

Crimes have been plummeting ever since that ruling. Also does Conn. have strong or weak gun laws? Do we even know yet if the weapons these guys had were legally obtained? If not why does legal gun ownership even come into discussion? Its like saying someone without a license ran over and killed a pedestrian so that means it should be harder for everyone who has a license to buy a car? Not my fault some lunatic 1,000 miles away tried to use a device that can be meant for killing to kill people. Cars serve a purpose and guns serve a purpose its not the government's job to weigh what serves more of a purpose than others. Red meat, alcohol, sugar etc. serves little to no purpose and kills people so we should ban it?

creekin111
12-15-2012, 05:33 PM
Not sure if this has ever been taken into account but another thing is we should be aware of is taking in the advancement of technology. Right now 3D printing is extremely limited but sooner or later there's going to be plenty of computer geeks around with the ability to make weapons. Instead of paper they would use liquid metal. Maybe not in 10 years or even 100 years but this could be a very real possibility.

adamjohnson
12-15-2012, 06:27 PM
If you're trying to reduce fatalities then by that logic we should reduce the number of cars in this country. More cars = more deaths. If not then why are some fatalities more acceptable than others?



So you're completely ignoring Switzerland and Mexico as if that could never happen here. "If the majority can do 'x' then we should be able to do 'x' and anybody who wants to do anything differently is wrong. Take no other variables into the equation."



More knives = more deaths.
More pain killers = more deaths.
More red meat = more deaths.
More going out in the world = more deaths.

Maybe if its the government's job to avoid fatalities at all costs then they should strap everyone in a straight jacket with their teeth pulled out so they don't bite their tongues out jailed in padded rooms.



How many crimes have been committed by legally obtained and unaltered "automatic weapons" here in the United States... ever?



Japan is a completely different culture than the United States so... ok? Good for them?



So with all these gun statistics from a different country and you seem to be an authority on what other countries do tell me what Switzerland does. Tell me what Mexico does. Again if you believe the government's job is to prevent fatalities (not just crime) then where do you draw the line?



Molotov cocktails can be made by 7 year old children.



The more you do = the better. Doesn't matter what you do and doesn't matter what long term consequences are down the road something has to be done. Just plug up your ears, close your eyes and demand that things get done. Doing something automatically means things will get better never worse.



So what's your plan for nobody dying ever?



Yeah and if you're looking for what "others" are doing...



Crimes have been plummeting ever since that ruling. Also does Conn. have strong or weak gun laws? Do we even know yet if the weapons these guys had were legally obtained? If not why does legal gun ownership even come into discussion? Its like saying someone without a license ran over and killed a pedestrian so that means it should be harder for everyone who has a license to buy a car? Not my fault some lunatic 1,000 miles away tried to use a device that can be meant for killing to kill people. Cars serve a purpose and guns serve a purpose its not the government's job to weigh what serves more of a purpose than others. Red meat, alcohol, sugar etc. serves little to no purpose and kills people so we should ban it?

Your argument offers nothing. It's exaggerative and foolish.

Want to know the difference between guns and red meat, alcohol, cars et al. Those all have a separate purpose. A car CAN kill - a gun, meanwhile, is designed to do so. And nothin else.

In addition, we do require people to get licenses, training, and to renew them several times to ensure they're still competently using the car. We also make people register their cars so there's a chain of possession, as well as charge mandatory insurance in case of an accident. We don't allow people that aren't safe - mentally ill, for example - to drive because its dangerous.

As it stands cars are MUCH more heavily regulated and monitored than cars are.

As far as how many crimes were committed using automatic weapons, it's not just crimes that kill. It's accidents.

You just... You do t know how foolish you sound. What possible justification can you possibly give for someone owning a semi automatic rifle. It's not even used for hunting. It's designed to kill a lot of things, and do so quickly. Honestly what's your reason for mourning a defense against stricter gun control laws?

creekin111
12-15-2012, 06:35 PM
With all due respect let us all know when you're willing or ready to have a discussion like an adult. If you're going to resort to childish insults then you've already lost your argument. Thanks.

adamjohnson
12-15-2012, 07:19 PM
Foolish isn't an insult in this case, it means you're behaving irrationally.

In any case , I'm not the one comparing guns to automobiles and red meat. My points have been very rational, and not exaggerative.

Bourne101
12-15-2012, 07:42 PM
More guns is the solution[/morons]

jolanar
12-15-2012, 08:05 PM
Making guns illegal only harms the everyday citizen. Just take a look at Mexico. 30 thousand people dead because drug gangs are running rampant and normal citizens aren't allowed to protect themselves. All it does is give criminals more power.


If we are going to strip away guns from citizens, then there is NO reason for cops to have guns either. Strip them of their guns as well. Oh whats that, they would still need them because criminals don't care about laws? Well I'll be who would known.

Bourne101
12-15-2012, 08:06 PM
.

jolanar
12-15-2012, 08:11 PM
More guns is the solution[/morons]

You should be nicer. There are rules around here you know.

creekin111
12-15-2012, 08:20 PM
You should be nicer. There are rules around here you know.

I think its their way of saying the issue is beyond debate for them and want others to know they think they know its beyond debate. It should end right there because there's really nothing to do or worth attempting.

Mr. Guiltless
12-15-2012, 08:28 PM
"Gun Free Zones" might as well be called Easy Pickin's.

DuncanIdaho
12-15-2012, 08:31 PM
Stupidity should be outlawed before guns.

SS-Block
12-15-2012, 08:33 PM
.

Bourne101
12-15-2012, 08:41 PM
I agree with your sentiment. But outlawing guns wont tackle the problem of illegal firearms. How do we get rid of all firearms? And imagine a world without nukes and guns etc, knife crimes would go up. Get rid of knives, and it would increase spear chucking crimes, and then rock throwing crimes.

There are illegal firearms in all of these countries that have a hundredth of the amount of gun deaths that America has. Of course there will be illegal firearms, but that doesn't mean that the number of gun deaths will remain the same or increase. It will most definitely decrease. And the knives argument is not a very good one. Recently a man in China stabbed 22 children on a playground and how many of them died? Zero. A knife can kill, yes, but not as easily as a gun, and in many cases, an individual with a knife could be easily subdued, unlike someone with a gun.

adamjohnson
12-15-2012, 08:53 PM
Making guns illegal only harms the everyday citizen. Just take a look at Mexico. 30 thousand people dead because drug gangs are running rampant and normal citizens aren't allowed to protect themselves. All it does is give criminals more power.


If we are going to strip away guns from citizens, then there is NO reason for cops to have guns either. Strip them of their guns as well. Oh whats that, they would still need them because criminals don't care about laws? Well I'll be who would known.

To be fair, that's fucking Mexico dude. Besides, what about accidental death?

I never said strip everyone of guns anyway. Reading comprehension.

Mr. Guiltless
12-15-2012, 08:53 PM
Only the most naive person would think that if all guns were outlawed, that suddenly all police officers would become more polite. That would be a pretty frightening place to be.

Bondgirl
12-15-2012, 09:37 PM
I started thread about guns and do still think Obama needs to do some thing about it is no use cry ing about it l still think you need to follow Australia lead on,this the primister was in couple years ago paid people to sell their guns it is amazing what,a person, does http://www.joblo.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=75 when moneyn becomes involved

Bondgirl
12-15-2012, 09:48 PM
Take no notice of the link on the above post

Bourne101
12-15-2012, 09:52 PM
l still think you need to follow Australia lead on,this the primister was in couple years ago paid people to sell their guns it is amazing what,a person, does when becomes involved

Good point Bondgirl. In Australia, there has been a 60% decrease in gun-related homicides since that happened and there have been no mass shootings.

Bondgirl
12-15-2012, 10:18 PM
Another thing Obama could do is toughen up boarder control Australia has they stopped2000 weapons from getting on our streets all these weapons were bought on the net so that is another area he needs to stop

adamjohnson
12-15-2012, 10:54 PM
"Gun Free Zones" might as well be called Easy Pickin's.

Gun free zones do not exist so that criminals otherwise wanting to enter the school will just turn and go, "oops, didnt know it was a gun free zone." Of course not.

They exist to prevent ACCIDENTAL shootings of children.

Does anyone else not remember that viral video of the big, beefy SWAT guy that was demonstrating gun safety in a classroom and the gun went off and shot him in the leg???

Guy is probably the epitome of gun training and gun safety. He's giving a lecture on it for goodness sake. Yet, thank fuck he was the one struck by the bullet and not a child.

Accidents happen. And around guns, those accidents are usually fatal.

We will never know what could have been, had this guy not had access to semi-automatic guns, which he used to kill 20 children in 5 minutes. If it was a knife, bomb, bat, whichever - we just dont know. And it's really pointless to speculate upon that. But any logical person understands that , most likely, it would not have been as severe.

adamjohnson
12-15-2012, 10:58 PM
Only the most naive person would think that if all guns were outlawed, that suddenly all police officers would become more polite. That would be a pretty frightening place to be.

Yeah, especially not right away. Like, as if the law is enacted and suddenly only hardened criminals have weapons, and its just anarchy. People firing into the air, looting store front windows, and robbing people in daylight, while the cops stand by stuffing their faces.

I can't believe that even passes for an argument.

Police would still have guns.
Ordinary citizens would still have guns.

There would just be less of them. And, since 80% of guns involved in gun fatalities were initially obtained LEGALLY, fewer legally obtained guns would equal fewer illegally obtained guns.

Simple.

adamjohnson
12-15-2012, 11:02 PM
I proposed this a while back, but why dont we make weapons insurance mandatory for all firearms? Certainly, we do this for cars.

Making people pay a $100 bucks per gun per month would surely curb people from the responsibility, since so few would be able to afford it. And, since that insured weapon would naturally be registered, there would be fewer "floating" guns out there.

In addition, any accident caused by the weapon could be paid for by the insurance, given you're not found at fault.

I also think where you can sell your weapon should be tightened. For instance, you MUST sell it back to the government when you're done with it. And you should be required to allow an inspection of the weapon at least once a year, to be certain you havent lost it or sold it somewhere you shouldnt have, like a pawn shop or gun show, or on the corner etc.

electriclite
12-15-2012, 11:23 PM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_l3kvq1CIX01qzhiqwo1_1280.png?AWSAccessKeyId =AKIAI6WLSGT7Y3ET7ADQ&Expires=1355715683&Signature=UxbGi%2FjTOQOckeENZud%2B%2BbiOjQY%3D

No, no, by all means, flood more guns into the situation without any sort of mandatory training. Absolute guaranteed smaller body count.

The answer is not banning guns and not flooding the country with them, so let's remove those two straw men from the argument. Now we're left with just the REAL issues, let's discuss those.

We have gun shows/fairs etc that have exhibitions an estimated 5000 times a year, where the ATF states only 50%-75% of the vendors posses a Federal Firearms License. It is also estimated that at the largest of these gun shows, 1000 firearms are sold in 2 days.

Now its not the amount of firearms that's alarming, its the percentage of vendors at these events that don't have an FFL to sell, meaning that between 50%-25% of these "vendors" or "private sellers", as they call themselves, are not required to keep records of what arms they sold, and in some reported cases these non-licensed vendors don't do background checks or ask for an ID. These vendors say they fall under the Firearm Owners Protection Act; that they are individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or that they only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, so they are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale. However federal law states that selling firearms to persons you have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms is illegal.

Does anyone see where there could be an issue here? My mother's husband exchanged cars with his daughter-in-law. They had to get paperwork and the cars' registrations together to do a legal transfer of ownership. But if I want to sell my gun, I can just trade it with someone like I did my McDonald's fries during lunch in gradeschool. And if someone says this person wasn't allowed to have a gun my defense is "Well they didn't tell me."?

Can we agree that we all see a problem with this?

The killer in the Virgina Tech massacre was adjudicated as mentally unsound, but since he himself didn't fill out the part of the questionnaire about his mental health, aka: court ordered outpatient treatment, when he purchased guns from TGSCOM he was able to bypass the NICS. Why, before 2007, was it merely the purchaser's responsibility to provide information against themselves when it came to buying a weapon?

You're a gun manufacturer, you want your product to be used for defense purposes and/or hunting, right? Ideally you don't want your product or your company to have a bad name, so why wouldn't you put the effort on your end to make sure your product is not used by these kinds of people?

Here's an argument: If I leave my wi-fi network unsecured and someone uses it to download movies and music illegally and they trace it back to my IP address, legally I can be the one held liable for any copyright infringements because it was my responsibility to guard my network and put a password on it to avoid this scenario. So in, comparably, the most trivial of legalities I can be held liable, but in possible life and death cases, I'm not?


Now today Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America says that the tragedy at Sandy Hook could've been averted if all those teachers in the school had been carrying. Carrying what exactly? Let's review: The killer came to the school wearing all black, a mask,a bullet proof vest, a semi-automatic rifle and two handguns, possibly semi-automatic glocks. So what? Teachers need to carry automatic rifles, Uzi's and armor piercing rounds?

Let's see what Capt. Gordon has to say about this:

Jim Gordon: We start carrying semi automatics, they buy automatics, we start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor piercing rounds...

How about something simple? Like instead of arming a population to the teeth with a multitude of weapons without requiring any sort of training on how to responsibly use, store and maintain these weapons, how about one or two armed and trained security guards/police officers posted at all schools (dependent upon size of school). Of course the argument will be made that this is financially unfeasible in this economy. Now here's my argument: Nobody argues the cost of security when they're filling body bags with dead kids.

God of War
12-15-2012, 11:24 PM
Thing is, you outlaw guns in any country.... It'll be just like drugs. There will be alternative methods to get them, and if someone wants one bad enough, they'll be able to still get it.

So it doesn't really matter either way. People are fucking stupid in general, but if a stupid fuck is determined enough, it won't matter if it's legal or not.
This exactly... :)

jeo4
12-16-2012, 12:29 AM
Seeing how the shooters mom - the teacher killed in her home and whose class he murdered - was a gun collector and had several semi-automatic weapons, some of which were used in the shootings, I'd say it's time to take a hard look at our need for assault weapons.

I'd also say it's time to take a hard look at the lunacy masquerading as parenting in this country, and how it seems to be impacting the behaviors of the children being raised.

In the army, I learned to use a lot of weapons. We took training and handling of weapons very seriously. Military training was memorable because they covered everything completely and left a very thin margin for error. As a result, I handle them with care to this day.

Looking at the events of the last few months and years, I don't see that same respect for weapons or consequences for misuse. I don't see people treating life as valuable or important. Shooters just kill at random. And nothing is being done to stop it from happening. And the ones who suffered should never have had to.

Since yesterday, we can't begin to understand how so many people have had their lives ruined. How many kids died in fear or pain. How many parents won't ever see those babies again. How many siblings lost someone they had known their whole lives. How holidays and family gatherings are destroyed forever. There's no excuse for it.

Preston_79
12-16-2012, 11:24 AM
Occasionally we see the shit hit the fan in other countries where a population is oppressed, and those people stand up to their corrupt governments and fight back, using weapons. Now you can say, "that will never happen here". Hopefully you're right, but in case it does, I want a way to fight back and protect myself. SO, no I wouldn't ban guns.

jolanar
12-16-2012, 06:28 PM
To be fair, that's fucking Mexico dude. Besides, what about accidental death?

I never said strip everyone of guns anyway. Reading comprehension.

I was just responding to the thread in general, the title of which is "Do you think guns should be outlawed?"

And your right, that is Mexico. There is no real way to compare Mexico to the United States, just like there is no way to compare places like England and Japan with the United States. But I would say we have a lot more in common with Mexico as far as gangs and drug violence and the sort. Certainly not at the scale though. Not to mention England and Japan are both tiny tiny island countries.

Mr. Guiltless
12-16-2012, 10:03 PM
Yeah, especially not right away. Like, as if the law is enacted and suddenly only hardened criminals have weapons, and its just anarchy. People firing into the air, looting store front windows, and robbing people in daylight, while the cops stand by stuffing their faces.

I can't believe that even passes for an argument.

Police would still have guns.
Ordinary citizens would still have guns.

There would just be less of them. And, since 80% of guns involved in gun fatalities were initially obtained LEGALLY, fewer legally obtained guns would equal fewer illegally obtained guns.

Simple.

I spoke to a security guy today about how easy it would be to still get guns if they were outlawed. As he was ex-military, he went to explain how gifted certain people are in that they have the eye and the skill to make weapons. He knows one of these guys. And indeed, this guy told him that if he ever needed a piece, that he would take care of him. He doesn't want cops to be the only ones who can carry guns either.

So no, I really don't think much would change. It would just be harder for people to diffuse situations like at the school. Kinda like now, but worse.

God of War
12-16-2012, 10:16 PM
Granny does not approve of this thread...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_B7hcHr6UR0M/TFl2irrneQI/AAAAAAAAAaw/zko8gYmBsqo/s1600/P1030318.JPG

adamjohnson
12-16-2012, 10:41 PM
I was just responding to the thread in general, the title of which is "Do you think guns should be outlawed?"

And your right, that is Mexico. There is no real way to compare Mexico to the United States, just like there is no way to compare places like England and Japan with the United States. But I would say we have a lot more in common with Mexico as far as gangs and drug violence and the sort. Certainly not at the scale though. Not to mention England and Japan are both tiny tiny island countries.

No, there's plenty more to compare. The latter two choices are first world countries. The first is not.

So no, I really don't think much would change. It would just be harder for people to diffuse situations like at the school. Kinda like now, but worse.

There's much more evidence to support that things WOULD change, rather than didn't. It might take a while, a decade if not more, and certainly our situation is most definitely unique in we share a border with Mexico the way we do, as was mentioned. So it might not be as equally an effective measure.

And like I said before, I'm sure doing one thing or another, whatever it is, it wont be perfect. But it'll be progress.

Can anyone agree with me that doing nothing is not the answer?

Bourne101
12-16-2012, 10:53 PM
So no, I really don't think much would change. It would just be harder for people to diffuse situations like at the school. Kinda like now, but worse.

I feel sorry for you if you actually believe this.

Bourne101
12-16-2012, 11:10 PM
.

Mr. Guiltless
12-16-2012, 11:25 PM
I feel sorry for you if you actually believe this.

Prohibition doesn't work. I feel sorry for anybody who approaches issues like this based on emotion or kindergarten logic(in your case- no guns would mean less violence). As for your pity toward me, save it for yourself. And your condescension here is basically an insult, so your argument basically self-detonates anyway.

Bourne101
12-16-2012, 11:26 PM
Prohibition doesn't work. I feel sorry for anybody who approaches issues like this based on emotion or kindergarten logic. As for your pity toward me, save it for yourself. And your condescension here is basically an insult, so your argument basically self-detonates anyway.

You show me some statistics that indicate that anything you're babbling about contains any logic whatsoever and maybe I'll begin to take you seriously.

Brando @$$ Fat
12-16-2012, 11:44 PM
People don't fucking learn. Of course guns are the problem. This mother took her autistic son and taught him how to use dangerous weapons that he eventually used on grade schoolers. This is a revealing and terrifying truth. The majority of Americans support gun control measures and yet it's being held up by a rambunctious minority that doesn't give a fuck about human life at all. It's sickening how backwards this country is on this one issue.

Erroneous
12-16-2012, 11:44 PM
Guns are not the problem. People are. I would like to point out I read a story that in China some guy just used a knife to cut up a 20 or so people in a school of grade schoolers. It is my understanding this has been a problem there this year. I will say few deaths with knives, so far. Guns are a very efficient and easy way to kill many people at one time.

Bourne101
12-16-2012, 11:55 PM
Guns are not the problem. People are. I would like to point out I read a story that in China some guy just used a knife to cut up a 20 or so people in a school of grade schoolers. It is my understanding this has been a problem there this year. I will say few deaths with knives, so far. Guns are a very efficient and easy way to kill many people at one time.

And the knives argument is not a very good one. Recently a man in China stabbed 22 children on a playground and how many of them died? Zero. A knife can kill, yes, but not as easily as a gun, and in many cases, an individual with a knife could be easily subdued, unlike someone with a gun.

.

God of War
12-16-2012, 11:59 PM
The simple fact is people with guns kill people. That's all there is to it. This will never change. It makes absolutely not one shred of difference what measures are taken to control this. There is no one miraculous solution to this problem. Tragedies such as this will happen time and again. And there's not a single thing anybody can do to stop it. So long as people as a whole want to be armed and dangerous, our society will never ever be a 100% safe place to live in. Guns in the right hands are acceptable. In the wrong hands it's totally unacceptable. It's all about the right decisions being made by the right people. Trouble is that the majority of people who own fire arms have no right to. A gun license means didly squat if the user is irresponsible with his weapons in the first place. Any whacko can go and buy a gun, pay for a license, then go kill some people. And that happens more times every year than I can even count. This will not change.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 12:04 AM
The simple fact is people with guns kill people. That's all there is to it. This will never change. It makes absolutely not one shred of difference what measures are taken to control this. There is no one miraculous solution to this problem. Tragedies such as this will happen time and again. And there's not a single thing anybody can do to stop it.

The gun control methods of dozens of countries would indicate otherwise. Of course, it's not as if gun-related death will all the sudden disappear, but no one is saying that. We're just calling for some common fucking sense.

Digifruitella
12-17-2012, 12:05 AM
People don't fucking learn. Of course guns are the problem. This mother took her autistic son and taught him how to use dangerous weapons that he eventually used on grade schoolers. This is a revealing and terrifying truth. The majority of Americans support gun control measures and yet it's being held up by a rambunctious minority that doesn't give a fuck about human life at all. It's sickening how backwards this country is on this one issue.

Let me correct you here. It's not a GUN problem. It's a PEOPLE problem. Mom taught him how to use a weapon, well there's the fucking problem. It starts with parenting. I'm not a gun supporter at all, but I also see that there are two sides to the problem.

Looper had essentially tackled this idea.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 12:14 AM
Let me correct you here. It's not a GUN problem. It's a PEOPLE problem. Mom taught him how to use a weapon, well there's the fucking problem. It starts with parenting. I'm not a gun supporter at all, but I also see that there are two sides to the problem.

Still though, you have bad parenting worldwide, but because people in most countries can't hoard semi-automatic rifles that they bought at Dick's motherfucking Sporting Goods (seriously, it is INSANE that one can do this), the bad parenting doesn't generally lead to mass shootings. The person may act out in other ways (drugs, stabbing someone, etc.), but he/she will generally not have the ability to kill 30 people in a matter of minutes.

Digifruitella
12-17-2012, 12:30 AM
Still though, you have bad parenting worldwide, but because people in most countries can't hoard semi-automatic rifles that they bought at Dick's motherfucking Sporting Goods (seriously, it is INSANE that one can do this), the bad parenting doesn't generally lead to mass shootings. The person may act out in other ways (drugs, stabbing someone, etc.), but he/she will generally not have the ability to kill 30 people in a matter of minutes.

I was waiting to retort with that though, you won't have people with the same issues, and problems as him go out and commit mass shootings - this is true of course, but it minimizes the problem when you, as a parent do your duties right. Communicate well with your kids, and have the fuckin' brains to know the difference between good and bad parenting. But obviously it wouldn't stop anything in the world. As long as people live on this earth, you'll have dictators, you'll have terrorists, and you'll have straight up lunatics.

Erroneous
12-17-2012, 12:33 AM
.

Nice to see we are reading the same stuff and that people don't think I make shit up. LOL
I did not read most of the posts here. But thanks Bourne.

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 12:45 AM
Yes his mum took the shooter to a shooting rang which was wrong also the aunt said the boy had problems all through his life but like some parents you try and ignore it but what he shoulfd have got was help also what made angry was having a gun fair the next day they had all different sort of guns and,the buyer couldn't care that all those children were shot with these weapons

Erroneous
12-17-2012, 12:47 AM
I just want to say that I do not own a gun. I used guns in the military. I have seen what bullets from guns can do. I will not ever own a gun or have a gun in my house as long as we don't fall into Mad Max's world. The biggest reason why I do not have a gun is that I fear I might use it. I feel the same way about motorcycles. I would be that guy going 150 in traffic on a bike ending up as a spot on the highway. No thanks. I feel sorry for people who feel they need to own all kinds of guns to protect themselves from the government. lol. Or they own guns for the up coming end of the world or anarchy. Hunters don't need what they own to kill animals. A couple rifles will do. The concept of home protection is a joke. More people are killed or hurt in the name of friendly fire or accidents than actual protection. I also do not buy the bullshit that if they outlaw guns that only the criminals will have them. Chances are if you own a gun you are not going to have it on you or near you when you need it when a criminal comes into your world. 99% of all guns are pretty much useless. I don't have any numbers to support this statement, but I am pretty sure that way over 90% of all shoots fired (outside of hunting) are for all the wrong reason. Police should not carrying them on their person either. It only leads to more problems. Have them in the car if the situation calls for it, take it or them out.

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 12:55 AM
Also since we have had gun laws in aus we don't have,gun shops like we used too they are all empty shops with all those four and,five year old children being killed you would think the. American government would take action why are they waiting because it will keep going and hasn't the American people had enough of all of theese shooting

Erroneous
12-17-2012, 01:03 AM
Also since we have had gun laws in aus we don't have,gun shops like we used too they are all empty shops with all those four and,five year old children being killed you would think the. American government would take action why are they waiting because it will keep going and hasn't the American people had enough of all of theese shooting

There are a few big reasons why they are not and can not do anything to get rid of guns.

1. The second Amendment in our Constitution allows people to own guns (arms). The Constitution is the basis of all our laws.

2. The gun lobby is too strong

3. Because most people feel the laws we have on the books work

4. Because a few nuts are not spoil it for everyone

5. It takes years and years for anything to get passed into law. Nothing as big as this is going to get changed quickly.

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 01:18 AM
Well it is interesting how aus was able to change the law with all its red tape but you guys can't why can't congress gett together they seem to pass other things through quick if they need too

creekin111
12-17-2012, 01:25 AM
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and not a single shot was fired. He did it with crap he bought from a hardware store. Literally.

The Postmaster General
12-17-2012, 05:21 AM
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and not a single shot was fired. He did it with crap he bought from a hardware store. Literally.

Actually, no. He obtained a lot of the materials by stealing them or committing fraud. It took him from mid-1994 through early-95 to collect all of the materials and then 2 days to build the bomb. On top of that, in making the bomb, he put himself in possession of an unregistered destructive device, which is illegal.

Now with all of this in mind, the question comes up: If Timothy McVeigh had been able to walk down the street and by bombs legally, would he have killed more, less, or about the same amount of people?

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 05:58 AM
I was watching the news tonight and Obama said gun culture needs to change since the killing of those.young children I hope this is action and not just words

SS-Block
12-17-2012, 07:45 AM
.

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 08:00 AM
why does the gun lobby groups have so much power over the government of America when the government should be in power also police should always be armed because of the poeple there really comes the timer to know who ts in charge of a nation

electriclite
12-17-2012, 08:12 AM
Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and not a single shot was fired. He did it with crap he bought from a hardware store. Literally.

And out of the x amount of people who build bombs how many end up blowing themselves up while making these bombs, compared to the number of people who buy guns to kill and end up shooting themselves dead with a gun?

Actually, no. He obtained a lot of the materials by stealing them or committing fraud. It took him from mid-1994 through early-95 to collect all of the materials and then 2 days to build the bomb. On top of that, in making the bomb, he put himself in possession of an unregistered destructive device, which is illegal.

Now with all of this in mind, the question comes up: If Timothy McVeigh had been able to walk down the street and by bombs legally, would he have killed more, less, or about the same amount of people?

BAM! (no pun intended)

bourahioro
12-17-2012, 08:27 AM
It's simple - The Right to Bear Arms is outdated. This piece of the constitution was written WAY before crazies started shooting shit up... This needs to be revamped.

The ONLY people that should have guns are Military, Police AND hunters... However, I include hunters with a few stipulations - Firstly, you should have to be tested and earn your firearms license (like you would a drivers license, not just an easy, one day test). Secondly, I believe that in addition, you should also have to undergo psychiatric examinations EVERY YEAR, if deemed unfit, you should have to surrender your license and weapons and then see a psychiatrist for a minimum period of time before having your license and weapons returned.

I don't believe that anyone that isn't a law enforcement officer or enlisted in the military should even have the option to own a handgun. Hunters should be able to own rifles and bows (If deemed fit).

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 10:25 AM
Prohibition doesn't work. I feel sorry for anybody who approaches issues like this based on emotion or kindergarten logic(in your case- no guns would mean less violence). As for your pity toward me, save it for yourself. And your condescension here is basically an insult, so your argument basically self-detonates anyway.

Facts are not kindergarten logic.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 10:25 AM
Guns are not the problem. People are. I would like to point out I read a story that in China some guy just used a knife to cut up a 20 or so people in a school of grade schoolers. It is my understanding this has been a problem there this year. I will say few deaths with knives, so far. Guns are a very efficient and easy way to kill many people at one time.

Yeah, the knife thing happened. How many died?

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 10:31 AM
There are a few big reasons why they are not and can not do anything to get rid of guns.

1. The second Amendment in our Constitution allows people to own guns (arms). The Constitution is the basis of all our laws.

2. The gun lobby is too strong

3. Because most people feel the laws we have on the books work

4. Because a few nuts are not spoil it for everyone

5. It takes years and years for anything to get passed into law. Nothing as big as this is going to get changed quickly.

I'll stop you at number 1, because that's absolutely not what the 2nd amendment is talking about. It's talking about militia, ie military. The right to "keep and bear arms" means the militia got to keep their weapons when the fighting was over, instead of handing them over after battles.

What's an 'arm' anyway? They had muskets and flint lock pistols back then, we have machine guns and atomic bombs now. Should every citizen have a right to an atomic bomb?

Of course not. Why? BECAUSE THEY KILL PEOPLE. And they do it on a mass scale. Their only purpose is to blow up and kill, yet we often cite it as a defense measure. "Nuclear deterrent." And all that.

The same exact arguments are made about guns. Oh, its for defense. Here take ten. It's crap. Guns kill things, and that's their only purpose.

How we can regulate cough syrup so that people wont make meth and not do a damn thing about the thousands of gun related deaths every year is just astounding.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 10:35 AM
And out of the x amount of people who build bombs how many end up blowing themselves up while making these bombs, compared to the number of people who buy guns to kill and end up shooting themselves dead with a gun?



BAM! (no pun intended)


You can't go into a Wal Mart and buy a bomb. Like I said before, any idiot can pull a trigger.

Besides, we regulate things like bomb making materials. If you're a farmer and you buy bulk fertilizer, the FBI shows up personally at your door to make sure you're not building bombs.

electriclite
12-17-2012, 10:43 AM
You can't go into a Wal Mart and buy a bomb. Like I said before, any idiot can pull a trigger.

Besides, we regulate things like bomb making materials. If you're a farmer and you buy bulk fertilizer, the FBI shows up personally at your door to make sure you're not building bombs.


Yes I think that's part of the point I was trying to make, thank you.

Preston_79
12-17-2012, 10:48 AM
I wonder why some countries like Switzerland that have a gun in every home have almost no gun crime?

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. But the suicide rate is about double what it is in America. Japan has the same suicide rate as Switzerland despite the citizens not having access to guns.

Many believe that we need gun laws in the United states because we don't have the same community structure that they have in Switzerland. That's the root of the problem, making well adjusted citizens, not guns control.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 10:56 AM
I wonder why some countries like Switzerland that have a gun in every home have almost no gun crime?

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. But the suicide rate is about double what it is in America. Japan has the same suicide rate as Switzerland despite the citizens not having access to guns.

Many believe that we need gun laws in the United states because we don't have the same community structure that they have in Switzerland. That's the root of the problem, making well adjusted citizens, not guns control.

I do have to agree with the last part, even though I'm not expert on Switzerland other than, "I really want to see that one day on a backpacking trip."

What I do know is that Switzerland is tiny, and is the 9th wealthiest country in the world. A small country of well-off citizens, I'd say from a common sense perspective, would obviously have less crime overall. (And I'd be right - the US has 38 times the crime rate Switzerland has.)

There are probably many cultural factors that go into each country. If we regulated gun the way other countries did, it wouldnt work THE SAME WAY as the other countries. If we did it like, England, it wouldnt be as effective; if we did it like Japan, it wouldnt be as effective - in one way or another. Our border is too big and there are already too many guns on the streets. It would take a decade at least, and the plan would likely need tweaking, with new laws made and old ones repealed every election.

Our country is full of morons. We settled women's rights fifty years ago, but jesus look at that last election, trying every which way to fuck women over by repealing access to all kinds of healthcare. Other countries were extremely confused, and yet one of those idiots was almost our commander in chief.

But it would be PROGRESS.

Preston_79
12-17-2012, 11:12 AM
I do have to agree with the last part, even though I'm not expert on Switzerland other than, "I really want to see that one day on a backpacking trip."

What I do know is that Switzerland is tiny, and is the 9th wealthiest country in the world. A small country of well-off citizens, I'd say from a common sense perspective, would obviously have less crime overall. (And I'd be right - the US has 38 times the crime rate Switzerland has.)

There are probably many cultural factors that go into each country. If we regulated gun the way other countries did, it wouldnt work THE SAME WAY as the other countries. If we did it like, England, it wouldnt be as effective; if we did it like Japan, it wouldnt be as effective - in one way or another. Our border is too big and there are already too many guns on the streets. It would take a decade at least, and the plan would likely need tweaking, with new laws made and old ones repealed every election.

Our country is full of morons. We settled women's rights fifty years ago, but jesus look at that last election, trying every which way to fuck women over by repealing access to all kinds of healthcare. Other countries were extremely confused, and yet one of those idiots was almost our commander in chief.

But it would be PROGRESS.

I've been told though that the reason crime is so low in some countries is simply because they don't have all the same laws that we have on the book here in America. Rarely in Switzerland is anyone put in jail for more than a year unless the commit murder.

DaveyJoeG
12-17-2012, 11:15 AM
I love seeing the argument against gun control is that drugs are illegal but it's still easy to obtain drugs. So criminals would still be able to get guns if they want to... but I bet those same people would never approve of legalizing drugs, despite the fact that they are only harmful to people who choose to use them, not innocent bystanders. A major problem is the gun culture of our country, we love that shit. And when our own government is kicking in doors with assault rifles and shooting up families because of the drug war, it's no wonder that we live in fear and want to pack heat ourselves. Sorry to keep bringing up the drug war, but I think there's a correlation there, and if we just start giving reefer to the crazies, we might be able to tone down some of the violence.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 11:19 AM
As of 2004, every day in the United States, 8 children are killed by guns. We're busy mourning a tragedy, but in reality it basically happens every 3 days.

Mental health care needs to be addressed, sure, but it's not really the problem. Not every gun death a mentally ill person on a shooting spree. Plenty mentally sound people kill other mentally sound people. Then there's accidental shooting, which is - statistically - much more likely to happen if you own a gun, than if not.

Firearms are the fourth leading cause of accidental deaths among children ages 5 to 14.

If, say, a child's toy, or a piece of furniture, or even a chemical found in the home was found to be the FOURTH LEADING CAUSE of accidental death among any age rate, we would all act swiftly to make sure that problem goes away permanently.

But not this. This we're not even allowed to talk about.

electriclite
12-17-2012, 11:48 AM
I wonder why some countries like Switzerland that have a gun in every home have almost no gun crime?

The army sells a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons. Purchasers of these weapons require an easily obtained cantonal license, and the weapons are registered, In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,00 fully automatic assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns. Virtually every home has a gun.

Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. But the suicide rate is about double what it is in America. Japan has the same suicide rate as Switzerland despite the citizens not having access to guns.

Many believe that we need gun laws in the United states because we don't have the same community structure that they have in Switzerland. That's the root of the problem, making well adjusted citizens, not guns control.

"Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias"
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/mythbusting-israel-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/)


Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.

Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.
JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.


Notice that Switzerland and Israel are countries where military service is compulsory for (at least) all 19 year old males. Meaning a lot more people are trained on how to use and store a weapon properly. And the Swiss actually have militias and have mandatory training every year.


Gun Politics in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 11:48 AM
Facts are not kindergarten logic.

The idea that "things"(i.e. guns) can cause us to act in ways we are unable to resist is a reversion to the kind of childhood thinking that sees power in our toys, Pez dispensers, and other material things. Such thinking presumes that we are little more than mechanisms upon which the inanimate world exercises its free will. It's totally fucking insane. But it is precisely to that level of childish thinking to which we must be reduced if we are to remain subject to institutional domination, after all.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 11:50 AM
And it is really fucking appalling that the president et al sheds "tears" for these kids all the while being responsible for the deaths of many more kids in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fucking disgusting.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 11:55 AM
The idea that "things"(i.e. guns) can cause us to act in ways we are unable to resist is a reversion to the kind of childhood thinking that sees power in our toys, Pez dispensers, and other material things. Such thinking presumes that we are little more than mechanisms upon which the inanimate world exercises its free will. It's totally fucking insane. But it is precisely to that level of childish thinking to which we must be reduced if we are to remain subject to institutional domination, after all.

Of course it's crazy. No one thinks that.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 12:02 PM
And it is really fucking appalling that the president et al sheds "tears" for these kids all the while being responsible for the deaths of many more kids in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fucking disgusting.

http://i.qkme.me/3644i9.jpg

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 12:13 PM
^What's your problem?

If the prez really was against the death of children, he would have rewarded Assange and WikiLeaks for uncovering them in those two countries, instead of trying to destroy him.

Preston_79
12-17-2012, 12:43 PM
Some studies indicate that the mere presence of a weapon increases the likelihood of a violent attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_effect

Initial evidence
Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage proposed the weapons effect in their experiment assessing the causal relation between firearms and impulse aggression. In a controlled laboratory setting, experimenters induced anger in half of the participants while the other half of participants did not receive anger induction. The participants were then placed in room containing either firearms or neutral objects, such as badminton rackets, and then given the opportunity to act aggressively by administering electrical shocks to another individual. The results showed angered participants exposed to a rifle or revolver administered significantly more electric shocks than the angered participants exposed to neutral objects.
Subsequent evidence
More recent research has shown that weapon-associated words, also known as the weapons priming effect, increase the likelihood of aggressive responses which may be mediated through weapon-use context and individual familiarity with weapons. Further research suggests that the weapons priming effect's ability to predict aggressive behavior is diminished among frequent weapons users, and a heightened potential for weapon effects exists in societies with lower levels of weapons availability.

Preston_79
12-17-2012, 12:53 PM
I'm just supplying information as it comes to me. I've only stated that I would not ban guns, but believe me, I love guns. Guns should be more regulated, but maybe mandated gun safety classes for everyone at the same time would be a good thing (everyone who's already gone through mental evaluations) and making improvements in quality of life in general, which really encompasses a lot of stuff. Tackle the problem from both ends, because the solution is not to do away with guns, or raise the price of ammunition, etc.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 01:17 PM
Notice how such little attention has been to the side effects of the psychotropic drugs which the shooter was prescribed in contrast to the gun hysteria.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 01:32 PM
Notice how such little attention has been to the side effects of the psychotropic drugs which the shooter was prescribed in contrast to the gun hysteria.

Because - again - not every gun-related death is a mentally ill person on a killing spree.

I agree that we need to talk about mental health in this country much more than we do, that our system is broken and must be fixed — but the fact is, most people with mental illness are much more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=19000

You're so busy trying to figure out exactly what was wrong with Adam Lanza — and that's a discussion to have at some point — but right now we really need to stay focused on gun control, the thing that can stop something like this from happening tomorrow. Because at the rate we're going, that possibility isn't exactly non-existent. In fact, it's basically already happening.

Again, EVERY DAY an average of 8 children die EVERY DAY in this country. This mass shooting happens EVERY THREE DAYS. A reporter picked a day and reported their stories. Here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/09/usa.usgunviolence

Yes, we can talk about both guns and mental health, but we must prioritize action on guns — it's concrete, and it's doable today. Guns are a problem, a known commodity, and we must do something about them.

Listen, no matter how good a therapist is, no matter what medications a person is on, sometimes people still kill themselves and/or others. Mental health services do need to be improved, but those services can't do it all. Some acts are inexplicable and senseless, and even within a system of excellent mental health care, there will be acts that defy explanation. We need to make it harder for these things to happen. Launching into a conversation about mental health takes away from the issue of gun control, especially in a nation this easily distracted. Especially in a nation this sick.

Think, man. A crazy person may remain a crazy person thanks to our shit healthcare, but a crazy person cant become a crazy person on a shooting spree without access to the weapons in the first place. And focusing on the other issue IGNORES the thousands of other gun-related fatalities that had NOTHING to do with mental health.

DuncanIdaho
12-17-2012, 01:54 PM
the FBI shows up personally at your door to make sure you're not building bombs.



False. You fill out a shit ton of paperwork and that is it, all provided by the company selling/manufacturing the fertilizer. If something odd shows up in the paperwork THEN the FBI might come a knockin.

The Postmaster General
12-17-2012, 02:38 PM
I love seeing the argument against gun control is that drugs are illegal but it's still easy to obtain drugs. So criminals would still be able to get guns if they want to... but I bet those same people would never approve of legalizing drugs, despite the fact that they are only harmful to people who choose to use them, not innocent bystanders. A major problem is the gun culture of our country, we love that shit. And when our own government is kicking in doors with assault rifles and shooting up families because of the drug war, it's no wonder that we live in fear and want to pack heat ourselves. Sorry to keep bringing up the drug war, but I think there's a correlation there, and if we just start giving reefer to the crazies, we might be able to tone down some of the violence.

I know what you mean. It's similar to how being exposed to murder and mayhem in the media taints people's souls, making them prone toward violence, just not the murder and mayhem that's in the bible.

False. You fill out a shit ton of paperwork and that is it, all provided by the company selling/manufacturing the fertilizer. If something odd shows up in the paperwork THEN the FBI might come a knockin.

I think the point is that in NO situation is the FBI going to show up at your door because you bought a gun. To go along with the drug comparison Davey brought up, it's similar to the federal tracking of psudoephedrine/ban on ephedrine, something that undeniably lessens the production of meth. Sure, meth is still around, but it's making it a lot harder for people to get it. (And as a personal aside, I'd much rather have access to more effective nasal decongestants)

The overall theme seems to be that saying "well people still do this" argument is silly because essentially it's saying "what's the point in even trying" -- So if we are going to compare this to that, don't stop where we need to make our point. The fact is that you can't go down to the store and buy a bomb. And to really continue completing the comparison, it's easier to make a gun than it is to make a bomb.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 02:50 PM
The overall theme seems to be that saying "well people still do this" argument is silly because essentially it's saying "what's the point in even trying" -- So if we are going to compare this to that, don't stop where we need to make our point. The fact is that you can't go down to the store and buy a bomb. And to really continue completing the comparison, it's easier to make a gun than it is to make a bomb.

Depends on the bomb. I can go to the Smart & Final next door and get what I need for a bomb right now. A "Hindenburg Bomb"(see George Heyduke) with a 2 liter of Coke and a few other supplies.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 02:57 PM
Depends on the bomb. I can go to the Smart & Final next door and get what I need for a bomb right now. A "Hindenburg Bomb"(see George Heyduke) with a 2 liter of Coke and a few other supplies.

And if that becomes a giant epidemic killing a dozen people every single day, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT NEXT. Geez.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 03:01 PM
And if that becomes a giant epidemic killing a dozen people every single day, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT NEXT. Geez.

Yeah, we'll get some Coke bans going... maybe gravity too, in case gun control leads to an uptick in the number of people being pushed off of cliffs.

creekin111
12-17-2012, 03:04 PM
Actually, no. He obtained a lot of the materials by stealing them or committing fraud. It took him from mid-1994 through early-95 to collect all of the materials and then 2 days to build the bomb. On top of that, in making the bomb, he put himself in possession of an unregistered destructive device, which is illegal.

Now with all of this in mind, the question comes up: If Timothy McVeigh had been able to walk down the street and by bombs legally, would he have killed more, less, or about the same amount of people?

Why and where would they make bombs legal?

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 03:08 PM
And if that becomes a giant epidemic killing a dozen people every single day, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT NEXT. Geez.

Since this is a movie site, this quote from Se7en immediately came to my mind after reading your post: "It's impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions."

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 03:11 PM
Yeah, we'll get some Coke bans going... maybe gravity too, in case gun control leads to an uptick in the number of people being pushed off of cliffs.

Don't be foolish.

A common, over the counter chemical was being used in making meth. So they banned it. It hasn't stopped people making meth, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt, does it. It's just inconvenienced a small group of people with stuffy noses.

If an ingredient in your bomb is going to be banned, I'm sure it falls in the "few other supplies" categories.

My point was and is, just because something ELSE is ALSO dangerous, doesnt mean we shouldnt address THIS one. That argument is, as was said, basically a "why bother" argument. And it doesnt hold up.

Why should we bother? BECAUSE IT'S PROGRESS. Because it saves lives. We dont know what the future will hold. But inaction is not going to make this problem get any better. Period.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 03:12 PM
Since this is a movie site, this quote from Se7en immediately came to my mind after reading your post: "It's impressive to see a man feeding off his emotions."

Yeah, a pretty basic ones too. Compassion. Empathy. Things like that.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 03:14 PM
Don't be foolish.

A common, over the counter chemical was being used in making meth. So they banned it. It hasn't stopped people making meth, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt, does it. It's just inconvenienced a small group of people with stuffy noses.

If an ingredient in your bomb is going to be banned, I'm sure it falls in the "few other supplies" categories.

My point was and is, just because something ELSE is ALSO dangerous, doesnt mean we shouldnt address THIS one. That argument is, as was said, basically a "why bother" argument. And it doesnt hold up.

Why should we bother? BECAUSE IT'S PROGRESS. Because it saves lives. We dont know what the future will hold. But inaction is not going to make this problem get any better. Period.

Dude, I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 03:16 PM
Yeah, a pretty basic ones too. Compassion. Empathy. Things like that.

Except that Reason. Logic. Aren't mutually exclusive with those.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 03:19 PM
Except that Reason. Logic. Aren't mutually exclusive with those.

Two things you clearly do not possess in any of your arguments.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 03:19 PM
Dude, I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you.

Getting hard to tell these days.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 03:22 PM
Getting hard to tell these days.

Yeah, that post was just an exaggerated version of what some pro-gun people expect authorities to say if guns were banned.

I'm with you 100%.

creekin111
12-17-2012, 03:25 PM
I'm sorry I just have to mention its pretty lame where this thread is going. lol

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 03:26 PM
Two things you clearly do not possess in any of your arguments.

How can they appear that way to someone who's clearly governed solely by his emotions?

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 03:27 PM
I'm sorry I just have to mention its pretty lame where this thread is going. lol

I think it's been a pretty enlightening discussion, personally. The ones on the side of stricter gun-control have argued with facts, statistics and data. The ones on the other have offered little more than rhetoric and hypotheticals, while ignoring common sense.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 03:27 PM
I'm sorry I just have to mention its pretty lame where this thread is going. lol

Truly.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 03:29 PM
How can they appear that way to someone who's clearly governed solely by his emotions?

Is that really your argument now, that because I'm mad as hell about people dying, that my argument is invalidated?

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 03:31 PM
I'm sorry I just have to mention its pretty lame where this thread is going. lol

Yeah... it gets pretty lame when one side can back up their arguments and the other clearly can't. I've yet to hear a single argument from anyone that shares your views that is backed up with any kind of statistic or fact. It gets so bad that the people on the side that are backing up their arguments start misinterpreting each others posts. The sarcasm becomes believable because there are people who would actually expect that shit to happen.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 03:46 PM
Yeah... it gets pretty lame when one side can back up their arguments and the other clearly can't. I've yet to hear a single argument from anyone that shares your views that is backed up with any kind of statistic or fact.

And these two things are not mutually inclusive. Quite to the contrary often times(See "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics").

Statistical arguments I have found to be pretty useless over the years. The real argument is from morality and you can't have a logical discussion with people on it who are in the throes of irrational hysteria.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 04:00 PM
The real argument is from morality and you can't have a logical discussion with people on it who are in the throes of irrational hysteria.

Irrational hysteria? Just because someone is upset over the mass killing of 26 people doesn't mean they are in the throes of irrational hysteria. It's not as if any of the pro-gun control individuals in this thread are going to change their minds once the coverage of this massacre ends. The only thing that is making me hysteric is the lack of common sense in any of your arguments.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 04:33 PM
Irrational hysteria? Just because someone is upset over the mass killing of 26 people doesn't mean they are in the throes of irrational hysteria. It's not as if any of the pro-gun control individuals in this thread are going to change their minds once the coverage of this massacre ends. The only thing that is making me hysteric is the lack of common sense in any of your arguments.

I was upset by it too. I just don't see any common sense in making it harder for me or you to defend ourselves(especially now); unless you hold the idea of LIFE(mine, yours, theirs) at such a negligible and abysmal level of significance.

But just for the stats-happy folks, I just looked it up, and the stats I see say that violent crime dropped 46.9%, and property crime dropped 48.3% in 2007, the year the D.C. gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court. (Like Heinlein said, an armed society is a polite society.) But if the argument is moral that humans have a right to self-defense do the statistics matter?

DuncanIdaho
12-17-2012, 04:43 PM
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/GunFacts_BFA.pdf

DaveyJoeG
12-17-2012, 05:00 PM
I know what you mean. It's similar to how being exposed to murder and mayhem in the media taints people's souls, making them prone toward violence, just not the murder and mayhem that's in the bible.

And why is pornography legal but prostitution is not? I had a political discussion with some friends the other night and I was the only one who argued both drugs and prostitution should be legal. Drugs are only harmful to yourself and the money from the drug war could be spent on rehabilitation programs, which is much more successful than incarceration.

With prostitution, you could have regulations that include mandatory condoms and regular checks for STDs. You eliminate the need for pimps and can take a lot of the potential violence out of it. You make it safer for the men and women who are just going to do it anyway, instead of just making it illegal due to moral reasoning. I mean, pornography is okay but prostitution is not, why? Because the latter is not being filmed it's more wrong?

I think it's about liberty and responsibility and people making their own decisions. What's funny is that my friends are against gun control but thought that my stance on drugs and prostitution stemmed from immorality. I wish I would have thought of the pornography argument during our discussion, also that zinger about the jerk store.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 05:33 PM
I just don't see any common sense in making it harder for me or you to defend ourselves(especially now); unless you hold the idea of LIFE(mine, yours, theirs) at such a negligible and abysmal level of significance.

Fortunately, I don't live in a country where it's normal for ordinary citizens to stockpile semi-automatic rifles or a country where, for some families, the definition of a "Sunday Afternoon Out" is going to the gun range with my children. I don't see the need to have a gun to defend myself, since unmotivated, non-drug related shootings pretty much never happen. Why do they never happen? Because we have a sensible level of gun control. You can't go to Dick's Sporting Goods and buy a semi-automatic weapon. You can't be a certified lunatic and legally buy a bunch of guns.

i.e., I don't live in a country where many citizens still think they are living in the Wild West.

But just for the stats-happy folks, I just looked it up, and the stats I see say that violent crime dropped 46.9%, and property crime dropped 48.3% in 2007, the year the D.C. gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court. (Like Heinlein said, an armed society is a polite society.)

Yep. Let's give guns to everyone. Let's strap everyone with an AK in public. Gun-related deaths will go way down!

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 05:50 PM
Fortunately, I don't live in a country where it's normal for ordinary citizens to stockpile semi-automatic rifles or a country where, for some families, the definition of a "Sunday Afternoon Out" is going to the gun range with my children. I don't see the need to have a gun to defend myself, since unmotivated, non-drug related shootings pretty much never happen. Why do they never happen? Because we have a sensible level of gun control. You can't go to Dick's Sporting Goods and buy a semi-automatic weapon. You can't be a certified lunatic and legally buy a bunch of guns.

i.e., I don't live in a country where many citizens still think they are living in the Wild West.

I know this is a movie site; but you watch too many movies. Look up how much more peaceful the anarcho-capitalist regions of the Old West were compared with when the seeds of modern law enforcement were planted. You may be surprised.

Yep. Let's give guns to everyone. Let's strap everyone with an AK in public. Gun-related deaths will go way down!

You bet. Guns are the Great Equalizers. As with Switzerland. But I agree, that the CULTure here is different and very problematic when we are taught to Support The Troops! all day long and that so-and-so is "the enemy". All this fosters is the "Might Makes Right" mentality(as does the absence of tools(guns) that even the odds between the weak and the strong) that is largely the problem. And as I said before, looking into the mind altering drugs young people are given to treat emotional problems and the dangers they possess is far more fundamental to me than just looking at tools of self-defense, pointing at them like toys that contain magical powers and then saying "BAD!" Until people can stop thinking and talking in symbols and look at the actual problems, will there be a change.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 06:02 PM
You bet. Guns are the Great Equalizers.

Yeah... I think I'll cut my responses to your posts off here. Quite frankly, your idea of what society should be creeps me the fuck out.

And as I said before, looking into the mind altering drugs young people are given to treat emotional problems and the dangers they possess is far more fundamental.

It was the drugs guys, the drugs.

pointing at them like toys that contain magical powers and then saying "BAD!"

As adamjohnson pointed out, no one is saying this. But carry on with your imaginary conversation.

DaveyJoeG
12-17-2012, 06:04 PM
I know this is a movie site; but you watch too many movies. Look up how much more peaceful the anarcho-capitalist regions of the Old West were compared with when the seeds of modern law enforcement were planted. You may be surprised.

Do you think that had anything to do with the fact that gun control was much stricter in the Old West?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

http://media.salon.com/2011/01/what_the.jpg

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 06:23 PM
Do you think that had anything to do with the fact that gun control was much stricter in the Old West?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html

http://media.salon.com/2011/01/what_the.jpg

I love it when people post bullshit from a largely bullshit periodical. The comments(I always love the comments in this paper as they are way more informative) detonate that article in seconds. It was fairly easy to see through anyway, I'll pick this one:

Wow! Winkler has a photo of a sign in 1879 Dodge City tha prohibited guns in town. He failed to mention that at that time Dodge city was called " The Wickedest City in America" whose law enforcement was run by a corrupt organization called the Dodge city Gang, which also, run most of the politics that selectively enforced laws as in the case of the " Dodge city War". Of course the law enforcement in Dodge didn't want anybody else to have guns. It was corrupt. The Professor uses that as an example? While ignoring the citizens of Northfield Min. who where armed in town that enabled them to shot at the outlaw James gang that thought they had an easy bank robbery. Deadwood was lawless town and Tombstone was run by the corrupt Earp gang that got involved in the Dodge city War. Fine Examples of the Wild West. That would be like using DC's high murder rate as the ideal city for 2011.

A hundred years from now Winklers followers will write that in 2007, DC and Chicago there were very strict gun laws; ignoring the fact that the SCOTUS ruled them Unconstitutional to justify future gun law.

BadCoverVersion
12-17-2012, 06:26 PM
I just can't fathom the desire to possess an object that is built purely to end another life. It's alien to me.

DaveyJoeG
12-17-2012, 06:31 PM
I love it when people post bullshit from a largely bullshit periodical. The comments(I always love the comments in this paper as they are way more informative) detonate that article in seconds. It was fairly easy to see through anyway, I'll pick this one:

So the anarcho-capitalist regions of the Old West weren't as peaceful as you just implied?

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 06:31 PM
Yeah... I think I'll cut my responses to your posts off here. Quite frankly, your idea of what society should be creeps me the fuck out.

By all means cut them off. Life is too short to argue with people who solely run off their emotions.

It was the drugs guys, the drugs.

Mind(twisting, really) altering consequences of FDA approved and professionally and regularly prescribed "medicines" may not concern you; but they do me.

As adamjohnson pointed out, no one is saying this. But carry on with your imaginary conversation.

You both are, actually. And until you can stop engaging in symbolism and start looking at root causes in actual reality, you have no place in a mature discussion. So I am glad that I no longer have condescending posts to look forward to from you, as in your last sentence to me. So(in your own way of communicating to me) thanks for playing and maybe we'll let you spin the big wheel after the break.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 06:39 PM
So the anarcho-capitalist regions of the Old West weren't as peaceful as you just implied?

^^Those weren't ancap. Those places were run by corrupt law enforcement.

As Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill explained in their essay "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West," the image of the Western town sheriff that is epitomized by Marshal Dillon is one of a private police force that did protect people and property. They wrote,

The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect.

Anderson and Hill provide a compelling revisionist view of "the Wild West" that accords with how it is portrayed in Zane Grey novels. They write,

Recently, however, more careful examinations of the conditions that existed cause one to doubt the accuracy of this perception. In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, W. Eugene Hollon stated that he believed "that the Western frontier was a far more civilized, more peaceful, and safer place than American society is today."[12] The legend of the "wild, wild West" lives on despite Robert Dykstra's finding that in five of the major cattle towns (Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell) for the years from 1870 to 1885, only 45 homicides were reported an average of 1.5 per cattle-trading season.[13]

In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, "nobody was killed in 1869 or 1870. In fact, nobody was killed until the advent of officers of the law, employed to prevent killings."[14]

At one time, a significant portion of what is now America was protected by private policemen who were paid by and, so, responsible to the community where they served. The Western sheriffs did protect people and property; they did rescue schoolmarms and punish cattle rustlers. Their mission was to keep the peace by preventing violence

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 06:55 PM
I just can't fathom the desire to possess an object that is built purely to end another life. It's alien to me.

Yeah, I'll never understand it.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 07:10 PM
I just can't fathom the desire to ban an object that is built purely to protect one's life and one's property from harm. It's alien to me.

Hucksta G
12-17-2012, 07:22 PM
I just can't fathom the desire to ban an object that is built purely to protect one's life and one's property from harm. It's alien to me.

How can it be built purely to protect one's life if they are using it to protect one's life from another attacking them unprovoked with the same said object?

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 07:23 PM
Well you have to say that America has had guns for as long as you can remember

But l have to say you can do without them
if a law was passed where people didnt have easy acess there wouldnt be as many killing maybe you might still see knifes which will replace the gun but a knife you can have a chance to run away from

Even knifes in Australia are illegal to 18yrs old and they can buy these things over the counter without showing id

I feel that children can feel that they can go to school without thinking that they are going to be shot for atteding

There was one surviver from the shootings two days ago and she was playing dead to survive the things that child would have seen will scar her

I would be thinking of the scars left behind which effect family who lost there children they were so young just say it was your child who attended this school you would want action from up top to stop this type of thing

One member here suports guns well that is your right but just someone in your family was killed would you still ahve the same veiw

I feel as if America needs to take a stand and stop guns you can tstop them completely but you can stop so many guns being sold

Having gun fairs where they sell automatic machine guns and other weapons should not be incouraged
These gun lobbie groups shouldnt be able to control what can come into America and control the goverment you have to amend the laws it can be done Australia did it and we dont have as many shootings these days and you can walk out of your house in peace

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 07:27 PM
I just can't fathom the desire to ban an object that is built purely to protect one's life and one's property from harm. It's alien to me.

Well America is prone for its guns and the culture of America would have to get used to not having a shot gun

Guns can cause damage as you have seen recently

Poeple used to fight with there fists maybe we need to get back to this

Do you know l feel safer living in Australia to America because we dont have so many guns on the street

Poeple should ahve the right to feel safe

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 07:34 PM
How can it be built purely to protect one's life if they are using it to protect one's life from another attacking them unprovoked with the same said object?

Would he have even tried it had he known that they had these tools to protect themselves in the first place(and if he did, you think he would have killed nearly so many)? Would you try it?

And let me set the record straight that I'm not some gun obsessed type of guy. I've just always felt that it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. I have never even wanted to own a gun until very, very recently when I have seen and been a victim of some rather harsh treatment by people inside and outside of law enforcement.

I just think it's important that we have the option. Do I want one? Yes. Do I want to use one? No.

I hope you see the difference.

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 07:38 PM
I think that you feel this way because of all the gun crimes in America and the first thing you think of is pretecting your self against this

if there were gun laws a long time ago things would be as bad as they are today



Like l said if l had the chance to go to America l would be scared because you wouldnt know if you would come out of the place alive at least in Australia you can walk the street without a gun being pointed to your head

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 07:45 PM
Well you have to say that America has had guns for as long as you can remember

But l have to say you can do without them
if a law was passed where people didnt have easy acess there wouldnt be as many killing maybe you might still see knifes which will replace the gun but a knife you can have a chance to run away from

Even knifes in Australia are illegal to 18yrs old and they can buy these things over the counter without showing id

I feel that children can feel that they can go to school without thinking that they are going to be shot for atteding

There was one surviver from the shootings two days ago and she was playing dead to survive the things that child would have seen will scar her

I would be thinking of the scars left behind which effect family who lost there children they were so young just say it was your child who attended this school you would want action from up top to stop this type of thing

One member here suports guns well that is your right but just someone in your family was killed would you still ahve the same veiw

I feel as if America needs to take a stand and stop guns you can tstop them completely but you can stop so many guns being sold

Having gun fairs where they sell automatic machine guns and other weapons should not be incouraged
These gun lobbie groups shouldnt be able to control what can come into America and control the goverment you have to amend the laws it can be done Australia did it and we dont have as many shootings these days and you can walk out of your house in peace

I'm not sure about the shootings(but I'll take your word for it); but the literature I've read about places they've outlawed guns in recent years like Australia is that violent crime rates have risen.

I am the arch enemy of physical violence, period. And I don't see an increase in the number of knifes used to inflict harm where guns would be a deterrent as a good thing. You never read about the cases where a crime is prevented by someone simply brandishing a gun; simply because in the press; it doesn't read if it doesn't bleed.

I could give you 20 reasons why I would never have kids. One of them is this sudden lapse in rational thought and responsibility that many parents automatically have where they want the government to come and babysit their kids for them(and everybody else).

I do NOT mean any of that against you as a parent; but you do know that many parents think this way. And you may know people that think like this.

Hucksta G
12-17-2012, 07:47 PM
Like l said if l had the chance to go to America l would be scared because you wouldnt know if you would come out of the place alive at least in Australia you can walk the street without a gun being pointed to your head

I'm sure the majority of people walk down American streets without a gun being pointed to their head.

Bondgirl
12-17-2012, 07:52 PM
I have to agree this generation of parents do not know how to parent and they seem to show there kids the wrong way of doing things

When l was growing up you would get a whack on the arse for being a idiot but kids today dont have much repect for anything

But that can be changed if parents gain back that control

I know that parent of that killer shouldnt have taken him to a gun range any senceable parent wouldnt do that

So yes l can see lapses in parenting and maybe parenting classes might help in this area

Crime will never go away but we can try and control it without turning a blind eye

Have you ever been to Australia you would see the diffrence between America and Australia

You guys seem to come up with that mispelt word l am sorry about that take no notice of it l wouldnt have a clue what l wrote there lol

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 07:58 PM
I would move to New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, or Australia(in that order) if I could in a heartbeat as those places have far more of a healthy contempt for the two G's(God & Government) than the US does.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 08:06 PM
the literature I've read about places they've outlawed guns in recent years like Australia is that violent crime rates have risen.

This is simply not true, at least in the case of Australia.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_austr alia_s_laws_provide_a.html
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper (http://moveleft.org/dog_ban/br_j_criminology_2006_.pdf) that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/), which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf) concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.

That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

The Postmaster General
12-17-2012, 08:15 PM
Why and where would they make bombs legal?


Nice debate tactic, but I was responding to you saying that McVeigh went down to the store to get everything he needed to make a bomb, which you wrongly asserted as some kind of defense toward to legality of guns.

But just to humor your question about why should bombs be legal: does the answer have something to do with the 2nd amendment?

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 09:19 PM
This is simply not true, at least in the case of Australia.


I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore. Nice to be forgiven so quickly. Anyway, once again, the comments in that blog assert much to the contrary, citing for one thing, that the murder rate has gone up(just no mass murders).

This video and the youtube comments make sense to the layman what is obvious to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA&feature=player_embedded#!

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 09:31 PM
I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore. Nice to be forgiven so quickly.

We are just on totally different pages and it was going nowhere, but when you state something that is factually incorrect, I'm going to correct you.

Anyway, once again, the comments in that blog assert much to the contrary, citing for one thing, that the murder rate has gone up(just no mass murders).

I'm sorry, but if gun-related murders have decreased, and non gun-related murders have not increased, then how exactly have murder rates increased? Point me to a valid statistic that shows that murder rates have gone up. And I'm probably going to take a summary by researchers at Harvard more seriously than comments from a blog.

and the youtube comments

*stops reading*

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 09:40 PM
Would he have even tried it had he known that they had these tools to protect themselves in the first place(and if he did, you think he would have killed nearly so many)? Would you try it?

And let me set the record straight that I'm not some gun obsessed type of guy. I've just always felt that it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. I have never even wanted to own a gun until very, very recently when I have seen and been a victim of some rather harsh treatment by people inside and outside of law enforcement.

I just think it's important that we have the option. Do I want one? Yes. Do I want to use one? No.

I hope you see the difference.

Again, you're not hearing this.

No one wants to take your guns.

Only to ban semi-automatic rifles that have no purpose in either self-defense or hunting and to put in place stricter regulations on the rest, in order to better make sure the wrong people don't get them, either because of a loose purchase system or as a result of loss or theft.

You want guns to protect yourself? Great. Have two.

But we need to make sure you're more capable of handling the responsibility, and to more closely monitor your usage and storage of the weapon(s) to further prevent them from ending up on the black market or be used in a crime. When you're done with them, we're gonna pay you for them, so that we know there's not another loose gun out there in the future.

You still get your guns. And if you're not a criminal, not mentally insane, and capable of handling the responsibility, you can have all the handguns and hunting rifles you can carry. Hopefully they'll be a bit more expensive so that more people understand the gravity of the responsibility, but one thing at a time.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 09:44 PM
I'm sorry, but if gun-related murders have decreased, and non gun-related murders have not increased, then how exactly have murder rates increased? Point me to a valid statistic that shows that murder rates have gone up. And I'm probably going to take a summary by researchers at Harvard more seriously than comments from a blog.

Well you could start by watching that video and hearing it from actual Australians. See how useless the statistical route is in debates? You obviously just cherry pick what you want to fit your emotional and symbolically based conclusions(Harvard being an authority on this for you just indicates your inherent anti-gun bias. How about what is actually logically consistent and empirically verfiable? Who cares if your starting point is a blog? Just find the truth for yourself whilst dropping your opinion off at the curb for awhile.) It gets us nowhere.

You claim to be big on common sense. Well here's some for you. Only law abiding people are going to turn in their guns. Criminals, since they do not abide, will not. Where does that leave us? Think.

Bourne101
12-17-2012, 09:52 PM
Harvard being an authority on this for you just indicates your inherent anti-gun bias.

Not at all. There have been articles published from Harvard explaining reasons why gun control isn't necessarily a good idea. But we're talking about murder rates, and the opinions of people doesn't change what the murder rates actually are. You can't pull murder rates out of thin air. They are what they are.

You claim to be big on common sense. Well here's some for you. Only law abiding people are going to turn in their guns. Criminals, since they do not abide, will not. Where does that leave us? Think.

Again, you're not hearing this.

No one wants to take your guns.

Only to ban semi-automatic rifles that have no purpose in either self-defense or hunting and to put in place stricter regulations on the rest, in order to better make sure the wrong people don't get them, either because of a loose purchase system or as a result of loss or theft.

You want guns to protect yourself? Great. Have two.

But we need to make sure you're more capable of handling the responsibility, and to more closely monitor your usage and storage of the weapon(s) to further prevent them from ending up on the black market or be used in a crime. When you're done with them, we're gonna pay you for them, so that we know there's not another loose gun out there in the future.

You still get your guns. And if you're not a criminal, not mentally insane, and capable of handling the responsibility, you can have all the handguns and hunting rifles you can carry. Hopefully they'll be a bit more expensive so that more people understand the gravity of the responsibility, but one thing at a time.

adamjohnson
12-17-2012, 09:54 PM
Also, http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/188n51mnkc7lrjpg/original.jpg

Actual ad for the actual weapon used in the killings.

Americans have fetishized the power and agency guns provide ever since the Revolutionary War; guns are such a pervasive part of our national consciousness that millions of people, mostly male, spend their downtime fantasizing about them via movies and video games. Even an unabashed gun-hater such as myself knows that most people who buy guns do so because they think it's the best way to protect their family if danger arises. But since we know civilian gun-owners don't actually stop mass murderers from gunning down innocent people, we no longer have the luxury of prioritizing macho daydreams over the mass murder of elementary school students — or allowing MRA-types to feel victimized because they can't do whatever they want whenever they want to do it.

This is about one side - the "2nd amendment hating" side - desperate for a compromise, something, anything, banning all guns, banning some guns, creating stricter legislation, even making locking clips on all weapons mandatory at purchase. ANYTHING to address this epidemic of gun deaths in our country.

Then there's the other side, the NRA and the gun-lovers, the real patriots who blindly follow a 200 year old law, a mis-interpreted one at that; the ones that put their fingers in their ears and refuse to budge a single inch, to refuse compromise at every turn and call any who express an opposing viewpoint "Unamerican;" the ones with the financial support of a corrupt government lobbying system designed only to make money, even at the cost of innocent lives, even at the cost of our children.

Frankly, it's disgusting.

Mr. Guiltless
12-17-2012, 10:21 PM
I wasn't aware that I only had two factions, one of which I must belong to.

And that's one terrible advertisement.

Vong
12-18-2012, 07:48 AM
I just can't fathom the desire to possess an object that is built purely to end another life. It's alien to me.

This.

Bondgirl
12-18-2012, 08:04 AM
I was watching the news tonight and the mayot of new York is now coming into this gun debate he wants action of bring new laws and there were a few he suggested one was to fight the gun lobby groups and ban some of,the semi,automatic guns and alsoa former congress man has come into the picture supporting the same thing maybe more pollitions need to stand,up. Against guns

RustyRazor
12-18-2012, 08:30 AM
It won't happen.
Like anything, if you tell someone "you can't have this", they'll simply want it more and the wrong someone usually ends up with what was supposed to be taken away.

I want to see metal detectors like...everywhere.
And me personally, I'm interested in purchasing some flak wear. Don't remember but I don't believe those or bulletproof vests are legal to wear but in this time? Things are getting really scary.
I have no interest in taking someone else's life but I'd like a leg in protecting mine.

AspectRatio1986
12-18-2012, 08:51 AM
Sorry I'm late to the game...
Is it me or am I the only who thinks violence would actually go up if they outlawed guns? I feel like there would a shit ton more home invasions...

But yes, theres no reason for someone to have an assault weapon.

Preston_79
12-18-2012, 09:35 AM
I just can't fathom the desire to possess an object that is built purely to end another life. It's alien to me.

I'm of the frame of mind that I posses something that could save my life. Surviving, and protecting the ones I love is an instinct very real to me. Of course I don't carry a gun around everywhere I go, but I like having one in my house, and in my car when I travel.

adamjohnson
12-18-2012, 10:40 AM
I'm of the frame of mind that I posses something that could save my life. Surviving, and protecting the ones I love is an instinct very real to me. Of course I don't carry a gun around everywhere I go, but I like having one in my house, and in my car when I travel.

Maybe not in the car, but again, the solution is not to ban all guns. SO we need to stop hypothesizing on how violence will go up, home invasions will skyrocket, if we ban all guns.

No one wants to take your guns.

Another thing Ive been holding back on. I believe, and it's just rudimentary belief, that I've actually located one of the bigger SYSTEMIC issues surrounding a number of other big time problems in this country.

Government lobbying.

Government lobbying is, in a word, legal bribery whereby a lobbyist for a special interest group - firearms, alcohol, tobacco, etc - can give money or services, among other things, to politicians in order to convince them to enact/repeal laws that benefit their corporation.

Defense contractors do this all the time. Their business depends on war, right? So, of course they push politicians towards more and more battlefields.

Alcohol and tobacco pose serious health risks, and until the TRUTH campaign, the Big Tobacco companies largely remained untouched - because they were able to dodge any responsibility because of their corporate lobbyers getting into the back pockets of the legislators.

The same has gone for firearms manufacturers. Why is it all these firearm tragedies happen - for whichever reason - and yet we NEVER hear a single peep about what the MANUFACTURER is doing to prevent it, either by providing locking clips, et al?

The fact is, we just don't.

Thats corporate lobbying for you.

The NRA is a HUGE lobbyist, with millions of backers and tons and tons of cash to throw around to make sure the politicians they are bribing keep things the way they are, allowing them to make even more money, and to become even m ore influential in our government.

The best government money can buy.

It's been my belief for a long time that if we outlaw corporate lobbying, or at least put a very low cap on how much they can spend, then you'd see a NUMBER of problems in this country get better.

Politicians are bought and traded, in the sole interest of big corporations, and NOT the people.

Dead Halloween
12-18-2012, 11:51 AM
While there's a lot of horrible crimes here in Mexico, I don't think I would feel safer if guns were legal here. School shootings are almost unheard of and I prefer to keep it that way. It's already bad having to worry about drug cartel related violence with then have to worry if some sad asshole is going to shoot me because his parents didn't hug him enough.

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 01:10 PM
.

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 01:15 PM
.

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 01:23 PM
.

adamjohnson
12-18-2012, 01:26 PM
Depression is a mental illness. You don't find many genuinely happy folk going for a good ol' shoot up of random people.

Are people not hearing me?

ACCIDENTAL death is also a concern.

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 01:33 PM
.

DaveyJoeG
12-18-2012, 01:33 PM
Doing something just for the sake of action is a waste of money. We need the right moves.

http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/psy-gangnam-style-1.gif

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 01:37 PM
.

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 01:45 PM
.

DaveyJoeG
12-18-2012, 02:09 PM
There are all sorts of people out there who need protection from their own general ignorance and impressionability.

Drugs being only harmful to the consumer, if that's even true, is no reason to legalise something. If drugs were legal, there would be no obligation for the addict to be rehabilitated. Ban drugs. But i'm with you on rehabilitation (albeit, mandatory medical help) rather than punishment.

I think that eliminating incarceration for non-violent drug offenses and instead putting that money into mandatory rehabilitation is a great first step, and middle ground that would solve a lot of problems this country currently faces. Personally I would go a step further because I think there's a lot of hypocrisy in prohibiting drugs that are no more addictive or potentially harmful than anything you can get from a pharmacy. If this is a nation of freedom and personal liberty, I say extend the rights we enjoy for killing machines to recreational drugs as well. But I'd be happy to start with the rehab thing we agree on.

Preston_79
12-18-2012, 02:14 PM
Maybe not in the car, but again, the solution is not to ban all guns. SO we need to stop hypothesizing on how violence will go up, home invasions will skyrocket, if we ban all guns.

No one wants to take your guns.

Another thing Ive been holding back on. I believe, and it's just rudimentary belief, that I've actually located one of the bigger SYSTEMIC issues surrounding a number of other big time problems in this country.

Government lobbying.

Government lobbying is, in a word, legal bribery whereby a lobbyist for a special interest group - firearms, alcohol, tobacco, etc - can give money or services, among other things, to politicians in order to convince them to enact/repeal laws that benefit their corporation.

Defense contractors do this all the time. Their business depends on war, right? So, of course they push politicians towards more and more battlefields.

Alcohol and tobacco pose serious health risks, and until the TRUTH campaign, the Big Tobacco companies largely remained untouched - because they were able to dodge any responsibility because of their corporate lobbyers getting into the back pockets of the legislators.

The same has gone for firearms manufacturers. Why is it all these firearm tragedies happen - for whichever reason - and yet we NEVER hear a single peep about what the MANUFACTURER is doing to prevent it, either by providing locking clips, et al?

The fact is, we just don't.

Thats corporate lobbying for you.

The NRA is a HUGE lobbyist, with millions of backers and tons and tons of cash to throw around to make sure the politicians they are bribing keep things the way they are, allowing them to make even more money, and to become even m ore influential in our government.

The best government money can buy.

It's been my belief for a long time that if we outlaw corporate lobbying, or at least put a very low cap on how much they can spend, then you'd see a NUMBER of problems in this country get better.

Politicians are bought and traded, in the sole interest of big corporations, and NOT the people.

I don't think anyone's coming for my guns. Not a worry of mine. Nor do I think things like home invasions would increase, or anything of that nature.

Does anyone on here actually think that? Some are battling in here for the sake of argument, but I think many of us are actually on the same page. I see a lot of projecting on to people about arguments they're not even making.

Does anyone have a problem with an avid hunter owning multiple rifles that aren't automatics? Does anyone have a problem with a handgun for security reasons on your person, home, or vehicle?

Is there anyone here that actually wants to see an all out ban on firearms? I don't think so.

Preston_79
12-18-2012, 02:16 PM
If that other life has broken into my home, I would very much enjoy defending myself against the fucker. But not with the false dichotomy of shoot him he dies / don't shoot him and he lives. But guns can also be used to shoot the leg or the buttocks, as well as all other body parts unlikely to result in an instant kill. At which point good ol' smokey can come an mop up the mess, so to speak.


May as well shoot to kill so the home invader doesn't sue you later. That's if you live in the United States.

DuncanIdaho
12-18-2012, 05:26 PM
Are people not hearing me?

ACCIDENTAL death is also a concern.

Myth: Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. For
example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:
Five times more likely to burn to death
Five times more likely to drown
17 times more likely to be poisoned
17 times more likely to fall
And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Exophrine
12-18-2012, 05:58 PM
I say we nip this gun problem in the bud. Let's ban all life-ending projectile weapons in general...starting with trebuchets, catapults, and bows! We'll work our way up to guns eventually...

Exophrine
12-18-2012, 06:26 PM
Wait, I should back up...we should ban all arms from people's bodies...

Bondgirl
12-18-2012, 07:26 PM
Well you cant ban all guns but we need to look at making sure people who buy them are fit to have that gun

What l have seen is that anyone can buy a gun over the counter and that is wrong that is why you have the problem you have in America

Also the poeple who are with the gun lobby should not have power over everything

Oh in Sydeny Australia there is a crime wave and over in Sydeny there have been 130 shootings and it might be gang related

I am glad live in melbourne and not Sydeny
But the police have set up a task force to see what is going on..

In Australia we want to have control and not have people control what they can use

Like l said in a previous post we have the internet which is a black market for guns and even though we have been able to stop 2,000 weapons coming in there are some what are getting through

I still feel that Australia is trying to control gun crime but America is not even after this incident with all those children being killed

The next day after the killing people are arming thems selfs againplus they said there was a rise in people buying guns after this recent killings

Digifruitella
12-18-2012, 07:29 PM
And why is pornography legal but prostitution is not? I had a political discussion with some friends the other night and I was the only one who argued both drugs and prostitution should be legal. Drugs are only harmful to yourself and the money from the drug war could be spent on rehabilitation programs, which is much more successful than incarceration.

With prostitution, you could have regulations that include mandatory condoms and regular checks for STDs. You eliminate the need for pimps and can take a lot of the potential violence out of it. You make it safer for the men and women who are just going to do it anyway, instead of just making it illegal due to moral reasoning. I mean, pornography is okay but prostitution is not, why? Because the latter is not being filmed it's more wrong?


Fuckin' well said. Agreed on both points.

I read something interesting though the other day that argues for the right to arms act - and that the reason for it is so that people can defend themselves from an oppressive government if one would take place. It makes sense to me, however how would we go about not taking away the right to arms yet restricting easy access to it? I mean it just seems like such a grey area that it's impossible to ever take a stance. If you're pro-gun, you have logical reasons, if you're against, you also have logical reasons.

Bondgirl
12-18-2012, 07:42 PM
http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/15671176/obama-backs-bill-to-ban-assault-weapons/

Obama is backing a bill that is going to get rid of all assault rifles and there are going to be other bans

I hope he gets this through
Do you know l always thought that primemisters and presidents had more power but it is a shame you have to go through red tape and congress to get things through

it will be interesting to see what happens but at least this is a start

But there has to be proper bans put in place not just a little ban on things

Anyway have a look on the link and it will be interesting to have your opinions on this

adamjohnson
12-18-2012, 08:11 PM
Myth: Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. For
example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:
Five times more likely to burn to death
Five times more likely to drown
17 times more likely to be poisoned
17 times more likely to fall
And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Um fact. Accidental firearm death is 4th leading cause of childrens death aged 5-14.

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 08:20 PM
.

Bondgirl
12-18-2012, 08:28 PM
I think if you get rid of guns one will find other things to defend yourself

! Using your fists will help
2 Using a knife but at least if you are a victim you can run away from it with a gun it only takes one or two shots before it can hit you

There is always ways to fight in this world SS Block the gun is just a easy way of fighting a person

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 08:41 PM
.

Bondgirl
12-18-2012, 08:42 PM
http://itstvnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/strike-back.jpg?w=610

I have to say these guys are so nice looking grins

maybe we need to stop using guns in tv series or movies and video games which are looking so real when you are playing them that would stop alot of volience

Also in Australia there has been thoughts of taking toy guns off the shelf

Do you think that should be done to stop children playing with these toys

adamjohnson
12-18-2012, 08:46 PM
Ohhhhh, is that how its done. Someone should've told the civilians killed by Saddam's regime. They didn't have to die. All they had to do was put up their dukes.


Yeah, I'm sure all the people with semi-automatic rifles would mount a solid insurrection here in Amurica while they're having the shit bombed out of them by drones.

Get real.

Bondgirl
12-18-2012, 08:50 PM
Ohhhhh, is that how its done. Someone should've told the civilians killed by Saddam's regime. They didn't have to die. All they had to do was put up their dukes.

Well over in the middleeast they are all brought up with backward ideas which is sad to say

if you had got rid of all the guns over there you would be able to control these people

Well the saddam era is diffrent to westerne culture

In countrys like ours we can show means of control but over in the Middleeast it is a diffrent culture alot of it to do with religion and we have got rid of saddam someone else replaces him as leader in those countries there is no hope

I have to say l am not being racist about this

If we have some former army men on this forum who have fought over there they would ahve a understanding on how these people work

SS-Block
12-18-2012, 09:00 PM
.

Mr. Guiltless
12-18-2012, 09:06 PM
Is it me or am I the only who thinks violence would actually go up if they outlawed guns? I feel like there would a shit ton more home invasions...

It isn't just you. That's exactly what would happen(and not just by criminals either if you get my meaning).

But yes, theres no reason for someone to have an assault weapon.

This makes me think of the LA Riots. In that instance, would the shopkeeper fare better with a .38 Snubnose or an assault rifle? Plus the Department Of Homeland Security ordered over 400 million shredder rounds to use when we get like Greece or worse so......yeah I don't like the idea of only a governing body with a monopoly on assault weapons.

Bondgirl
12-18-2012, 09:46 PM
Um fact. Accidental firearm death is 4th leading cause of childrens death aged 5-14.

Well that is very true children getting the hold of guns playing with them and then it fires killing or hurting a child

Sometimes parents lock up there gus and sometimes they dont

There was two schools in NSW who took kids to a shooting school to teach them how to shoot and this was just after the incident in America and everyone kicked up a stink about it

They were going to cancel but couldnt because they food was paid for

What a lame excuse

I just feel that we need to stop this type of thing incouraging children to learn to use a gun

Alot of farmers in the country areas of Australia teach there children when they are young but is a parent with them most of the time

I thought most of these things were banned in Australia but as time goes on we still have guns for diffrent means

adamjohnson
12-19-2012, 10:34 AM
Bondgirl, you're from Australia. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt Aus also ban assault weapons following a massacre? Were there any politicians in your country at the time who were against gun control around the time, or was it rather well-received?

Dirtyfrog
12-19-2012, 11:16 AM
short answer : yes

long answer : not happening but i wish a good gun control law would be in place. Sure , if a crazy person wants to go on a rampage , not much we can do about it but if that person only have access to a baseball bat , a knife and a 9mm gun , so much damage would have been prevented ... i mean maybe 6-7 deaths instead of 28.

Who the fuck needs an assault riffle with a 30 ammo magazine ? That type of gun got no basic utility outside putting mass destruction out really fast. Hunters don't use that.

The right to bear arm is a sketchy law at best. Everyone agrees that it doesn't apply to a bazooka. We just need to draw a line somewhere.

The Connecticut shooting got a lot of attention because of the massive amount of childern killed but don't forget that dude who tried to shoot people in a Mall's food court in Oregon 2 weeks ago. His AR got jammed which is the reason only 3 peoples died (including the shooter).

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Three+dead+including+gunman+Oregon+mall+shooting/7684299/story.html

I'm not expecting any real change anyway since the NRA is already spinning the tearful Obama image as a sign of a weak president .... and the WBC trying to spin it as God's will. 'Murica fuk yeah

DuncanIdaho
12-19-2012, 11:33 AM
Um fact. Accidental firearm death is 4th leading cause of childrens death aged 5-14.

Accidental firearm deaths account for .5% of all accidental deaths, that is for all age groups. Of that percentage, children make a small number. I think the last report I read was less than 50 a year. In fact that number has been slightly declining almost yearly. Accidental deaths are more likely to come from fire, drowning, auto accidents, poisoning (which is on the rise), and falls.

Not that any accidental deaths are acceptable but you should have better things to worry about than accidental firearm deaths.

Preston_79
12-19-2012, 11:46 AM
It's not a ban on assault weapons, just a ban on their sales. No different than what we had from 1994 till 2004 if I'm not mistaken. How many school shooting happened between 1994 and 2004? The ban will make many people happy, including myself, I have doubts as to how effective it will actually be.

Still wondering if anyone on here actually believes there should be an all out ban and the government should come for our guns? Anyone, anyone?


Anyone in here worried the government could come for your weapons? Yeah, I don't think that person exists.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/28/gun-crime-continues-to-decrease-despite-increase-in-gun-ownership/
Steady drop in gun crime since 06.

Mr. Guiltless
12-19-2012, 01:13 PM
People like Michael the Draconian Menace Bloomberg would certainly like to disarm everyone except those in government. That guy is easily the most evil nanny statist I have ever seen. Another reason I'm 3000 miles away from NY.

Anyway, everyone here likes movies, right? Well to get the point across on how to stop further massacres in the future(by by allowing principals and school office personnel to carry concealed (http://www.naturalnews.com/038356_gun_free_zones_schools_concealed_carry.html )) here is the PG-13 short called How To Stop A Massacre (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4&feature=player_embedded) Enjoy.

adamjohnson
12-19-2012, 02:04 PM
You just dont get it.

Mr. Guiltless
12-19-2012, 02:14 PM
The propaganda mill? You're right. I don't.

Bourne101
12-19-2012, 02:17 PM
You just dont get it.

Haha yeah, it's like he has ignored half of your posts. That and anyone who actually thinks that principals and school personnel should carry guns at school probably shouldn't be allowed access to guns.

Oh America.

bourahioro
12-19-2012, 04:00 PM
The whole idea of teachers carrying firearms is insane. Seriously, there's a madman with a gun in your school and now instead of one person shooting and harming others, we'd have teachers shooting as well? Nothing like a firefight between 2nd period and lunch.

How's about this - If you're not a law enforcement officer or military personelle, you don't get to have anything other than a rifle or bow for hunting, and ONLY if you're mentally tested before getting your firearms license.

DuncanIdaho
12-19-2012, 04:03 PM
Haha yeah, it's like he has ignored half of your posts.


Yea because he is the only one ignoring posts/facts in this thread (>_<)

Mr. Guiltless
12-19-2012, 04:06 PM
How's about this - If you're not a law enforcement officer or military personelle, you don't get to have anything other than a rifle or bow for hunting, and ONLY if you're mentally tested before getting your firearms license.

So only sociopaths(not only criminals but the people who seek positions of power to force their will onto non-violent offenders of arbitrary laws) will have guns. That's just what happened in every other tyrannical structure. I know the propaganda out there is thick-- but geez, how people can suggest this asinine horror never ceases to amaze me.

Mr. Guiltless
12-19-2012, 04:11 PM
Yea because he is the only one ignoring posts/facts in this thread (>_<)

Did you watch the Australian video I posted? Or do you just enjoy being a bootlicking supplicant(that's not an insult, THAT is a fact) of the stasi(state)?

I had no idea there were so many people(bootlicking supplicants) who still thought this way. And I hate to keep bringing up propaganda, since we now have the internet and people can do their own research. But for fuck sake, has the internet just made people MORE lazy? I'm starting to wonder.

DaveyJoeG
12-19-2012, 04:12 PM
So only sociopaths(not only criminals but the people who seek positions of power to force their will onto non-violent offenders of arbitrary laws) will have guns. That's just what happened in every other tyrannical structure. I know the propaganda out there is thick-- but geez, how people can suggest this asinine horror never ceases to amaze me.

Just like Hey Man, he's insulting your idea; he's not insulting you as a person, so you can't be offended. He didn't call you asinine directly!

Mr. Guiltless
12-19-2012, 04:15 PM
http://picardfacepalm.com/updown.gif

DaveyJoeG
12-19-2012, 04:44 PM
Captain Picard! (http://picard.ytmnd.com/)

Bondgirl
12-19-2012, 05:11 PM
Okay l am going to be posting soon some more informtion about gun laws in aus so l just want to say we have members who are for gun laws and some who are,against change so so of cause there is debate on both sides let's just be careful on what we say or this thread will be closed l am interested what will happen if laws are passed and now Obama has started a panel about this very thing l feel as if we are going to have a lot to discuss in coming weeks

The Postmaster General
12-19-2012, 06:03 PM
Scott Scanlon: Never Forget (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEEPoi1XUEU)

Bondgirl
12-19-2012, 07:05 PM
The whole idea of teachers carrying firearms is insane. Seriously, there's a madman with a gun in your school and now instead of one person shooting and harming others, we'd have teachers shooting as well? Nothing like a firefight between 2nd period and lunch.

How's about this - If you're not a law enforcement officer or military personelle, you don't get to have anything other than a rifle or bow for hunting, and ONLY if you're mentally tested before getting your firearms license.

Yes l certainly agree that teachers carrying guns is wrong
if that idea came a head l would wonder where society is going

I also agree with you saying that police and military should be only having acess to weapons too

Also if they want to outlaw assault weapons they should get rid of hand guns and any type of gun you dont just stop at one type of weapon you go the whole hog

Bondgirl
12-19-2012, 07:15 PM
http://guncontrol.org.au/1998/07/gun-buy-back/

Gun buy back through Australia gun control

There was a thing called a Gun amnestry where people brought there guns in to be crushed Primeminster howard started this a few years back because of the Hoddle streey massscare in melbourne and the Port Aurther Masscare in Tasmania it was the masscare which Primemister howard decided to make a stand

Poeple were inticed with money to get rid of there weapons and l have to say alot of people brought guns in not just a few

We were saddened on waht happened in Tasmania and everyone joined in there efforts to go into the buy back sceme maybe obama should maybe do this and talk to Australia about waht we did




http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1720871/Australian-politicians-agree-on-gun-laws

This is Australias veiw on what happened in America and both sides of out parliment think America has to do something

I think you should read this and also there is a clip to go with this

Australia was widely effected on what has happened and maybe they same as America some people are against gun control in Austrslia but it is our goverment that make the rules not a gun lobby group or anyone does not have the right to make there own laws regarding guns

During our amnestry country areas who are known to have guns also put there guns into the police the amnestry went for 3 mths and l have to say it is only recently we have had a spat of firearms being fired in Sydeny but police have started up a task force to get on top of this you are not going to stop every gun coming into my country but doing something about it to stop what is going on is a must

You see in Sydeny there is a wide cultral groups who fight each other and we have only had that problem in the past couple of years so and it is getting worse and in recent times we had to stop diffrent groups for causing trouble

or you have diffrent multicultral groups who fight and hate each other and the goverment and police have to show these poeple it is not right to do this if you live in Australia

Anyway l am still looking for imformation on gun control and one area is all polittions are against guns in Australia as you will see from the clip

One member here on this thread asked me a couple of qestions and l am trying to find that imformation today

I am finding this thread very interesting and isnt it amazing how l started this thread and how far it has come now maybe we will see diffrent laws in America we never know ldo we

I have to say again l am not racist l am only saying about diffrent things that go on in my country Australia






http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-safer-place-after-howards-gun-buyback/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html

Here is some more imformation on what Primeminster Howard did to make Australia a safer place and also his reforms he put into place

I think Obama will get backlash but if he spoke to our former primeminster he would learn alot

What the American goverment needs to do is stick together on this and fight what is right

Every child and and adult should feel safe where ever they are and not be scared to venture into a shopping centre or school and of cause a cinema

I know that some people still want there guns but then you have some poople who want to feel e safe as they go about there life

A

Bondgirl
12-19-2012, 08:36 PM
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/mass/bryant/index_1.html

This is a story bout the Port Aurther masscare

There are several chapters from the crime libary so take your time to go through it but there are images and the man who did the shooting in it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crJdIUAnvZ8

This is the actual footage of a person who was filming this when it was happening

I am showing you these things so you can see that we have to do something about guns and if you have guns you have proper lineices and be giving a test to see if you are fit to have a gun
But in my opinion it is better to get all guns off the streets

If you dont want to watch the clip dont because it is upsetting to see and hear gun shots

In the pot Aurther masscare two beautiful children were killed and also there mum who was trying to hide them from this killer the trio run into the te=ree land thinking they would get away but he caught up with them

There are several clips here you might want to look at if you are interested it is victims and personal accounts

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Martin_Bryant.jpg/220px-Martin_Bryant.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Bryant.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant the shooter of the port aurther masscare



http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Port+Arthur+Massacre+Video+Footage&qpvt=Port+Arthur+Massacre+Video+Footage&FORM=VDRE#x0y0


Okay this is our current gun laws in Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

DuncanIdaho
12-19-2012, 09:19 PM
Did you watch the Australian video I posted? Or do you just enjoy being a bootlicking supplicant(that's not an insult, THAT is a fact) of the stasi(state)?

I had no idea there were so many people(bootlicking supplicants) who still thought this way. And I hate to keep bringing up propaganda, since we now have the internet and people can do their own research. But for fuck sake, has the internet just made people MORE lazy? I'm starting to wonder.


If anything the internet has made people not understand simple sarcasm, because you obviously missed it in my post. Get off your high horse because you make the rest of us look bad.

Bondgirl
12-19-2012, 09:24 PM
Like l said once before some members have diffrent opinions we are all not the same at times

Please do not start fighting in this thread because for gods sake it is a good topic it would be a shame if it was closed just like another thread was a day ago

DuncanIdaho
12-19-2012, 09:32 PM
Typical liberal response on video - Provide facts to a liberal and all you get is insults

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df3_1355948121

Bourne101
12-19-2012, 09:59 PM
Provide facts to a liberal and all you get is insults

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df3_1355948121

"Brits tend to do that"

Typical xenophobic nutjob.

The 2nd Amendment argument is dead. Get some perspective.

Yes, let's strap every teacher with a gun. To even have a chance against someone with a semi-automatic weapon and wearing bullet proof gear, the teachers would also need to carry a similar gun. What are teachers going to have these strapped over their shoulders? Oh sorry Jimmy, excuse my rifle while I bend over your chair to pick up some crayons.

Are you going to force them to have these guns?

Note: your job description now entails that you have to be strapped with a semi-automatic rifle. If you do not abide, you may not be a teacher.

But oh, they don't have to carry them. They can be stored, you say? In order to prevent children from having access to the gun, they would have to be locked in a case, out of reach from the children. By the time the teacher gets to the case and unlocks it, the same amount of children are dead as if there were no gun in the school at all.

But, but... we could have armed guards at the front door. Is that where we want society to head?

Piers Morgan may be loud and obnoxious, but he presents the only facts in that video that actually mean anything. You need some context for the "Our rates are lower where we have more guns" argument. Other variables could certainly be involved there.

There is a reason why the number of gun deaths in the US is exponentially higher than other countries. The failure to recognize that is baffling.

But as Mr. Guiltless suggested... let's strap every citizen with a semi-automatic weapon. Let's put semi-automatic weapons in the hands of mentally ill people who would otherwise not have access to them if there was the slightest bit of reasonable gun control. But, but... anyone can get a gun if they really want one. Well then why doesn't that increase the rate of gun related deaths in other countries?

And don't bother with your Buckeye Firearms document. A bunch of context free "facts" being listed by a bunch of gun hungry individuals who think there should be extended prison sentences for petty crime. Give me a break.

Mr. Guiltless
12-19-2012, 10:20 PM
If anything the internet has made people not understand simple sarcasm, because you obviously missed it in my post. Get off your high horse because you make the rest of us look bad.

Ah ok. You'll have to forgive my semi-automatic(pun intended) reaction to posts as the amount of rational people in this thread I can count on one hand.

adamjohnson
12-19-2012, 10:40 PM
Doesnt really matter. The President is going to draw up several things, probably a sale ban on semi-automatic rifles and big magazines, no later than January.

Yes, let's strap every teacher with a gun. To even have a chance against someone with a semi-automatic weapon and wearing bullet proof gear, the teachers would also need to carry a similar gun. What are teachers going to have these strapped over their shoulders? Oh sorry Jimmy, excuse my rifle while I bend over your chair to pick up some crayons.

Not only that, but like I've said a million time, statistically, it's more dangerous to hav a gun around, PERIOD. If every teacher carried a gun, school would become more dangerous. Not necessarily just from massacres, but just plain OVERALL.

I wouldnt want to put my kid in a school like that. I doubt many would.

And you have to figure the quality of education would go down even further. I couldnt imagine many teachers honestly being for carrying a weapon. So Education would get worse, and thats really the reason we're in this mess of a country in the first place. We're all dumb.

adamjohnson
12-19-2012, 10:42 PM
Yea because he is the only one ignoring posts/facts in this thread (>_<)

If there were any facts from the other side, I might have something to actually ignore.

More likely, it's just more "But... But! Crime will go up and we'll be defenseless!" Despite statistics featuring literally millions of citizens declaring otherwise.

I honestly think he's just trolling now. Dont feed it.

adamjohnson
12-19-2012, 10:48 PM
As for the continuing argument of "lets ban cars too!". Well, we do things all the time to make cars safer. In fact, the safest cars are typically among the highest selling. And not just for ourselves, but for the environment. Car accidents happen all the time, sure, but WE DO THINGS TO MAKE THEM SAFER.

Which is exactly why firearms will overtake car accidents as the leading cause of non-medical death by 2015.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Bondgirl
12-19-2012, 10:54 PM
Typical liberal response on video - Provide facts to a liberal and all you get is insults

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df3_1355948121

Well if you feel like that maybe it is better to not respond to that person and be look at other posts,which you might like

adamjohnson
12-19-2012, 11:19 PM
More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence?
America now has 300 million firearms, a barrage of NRA-backed gun laws—and record casualties from mass killers.
By Mark Follman on Wed. September 26, 2012 2:00 AM PDT


Update, December 15: Click here for our latest coverage of the Newtown school massacre. This story has been updated to include data from that event.

In the fierce debate that always follows the latest mass shooting, it's an argument you hear frequently from gun rights promoters: If only more people were armed, there would be a better chance of stopping these terrible events. This has plausibility problems—what are the odds that, say, a moviegoer with a pack of Twizzlers in one pocket and a Glock in the other would be mentally prepared, properly positioned, and skilled enough to take out a body-armored assailant in a smoke- and panic-filled theater? But whether you believe that would happen is ultimately a matter of theory and speculation. Instead, let's look at some facts gathered in a two-month investigation by Mother Jones.

http://assets.motherjones.com/interactives/projects/2012/12/updated-mass-shootings/GunPossUpdate_121712.gif

MoJo's map, timeline, and analysis of 30 years of mass shootings in America.

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

America has long been heavily armed relative to other societies, and our arsenal keeps growing. A precise count isn't possible because most guns in the United States aren't registered and the government has scant ability to track them, thanks to a legislative landscape shaped by powerful pro-gun groups such as the National Rifle Association. But through a combination of national surveys and manufacturing and sales data, we know that the increase in firearms has far outpaced population growth. In 1995 there were an estimated 200 million guns in private hands. Today, there are around 300 million—about a 50 percent jump. The US population, now over 314 million, grew by about 20 percent in that period. At this rate, there will be a gun for every man, woman, and child before the decade ends.

There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have already been seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed.

Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders.

Surveys suggest America's guns may be concentrated in fewer hands today: Approximately 40 percent of households had them in the past decade, versus about 50 percent in the 1980s. But far more relevant is a recent barrage of laws that have rolled back gun restrictions throughout the country. In the past four years, across 37 states, the NRA and its political allies have pushed through 99 laws making guns easier to own, easier to carry in public, and harder for the government to track.


The NRA surge: 99 laws rolling back gun controls in 37 states.

Among the more striking measures: Eight states now allow firearms in bars. Law-abiding Missourians can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if "acting in self-defense." In Kansas, permit holders can carry concealed weapons inside K-12 schools, and Louisiana allows them in houses of worship. Virginia not only repealed a law requiring handgun vendors to submit sales records, but the state also ordered the destruction of all such previous records. More than two-thirds of these laws were passed by Republican-controlled statehouses, though often with bipartisan support.

The laws have caused dramatic changes, including in the two states hit with the recent carnage. Colorado passed its concealed-carry measure in 2003, issuing 9,522 permits that year; by the end of last year the state had handed out a total of just under 120,000, according to data we obtained from the County Sheriffs of Colorado. In March of this year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that concealed weapons are legal on the state's college campuses. (It is now the fifth state explicitly allowing them.) If former neuroscience student James Holmes were still attending the University of Colorado today, the movie theater killer—who had no criminal history and obtained his weapons legally—could've gotten a permit to tote his pair of .40 caliber Glocks straight into the student union. Wisconsin's concealed-carry law went into effect just nine months before the Sikh temple shooting in suburban Milwaukee this August. During that time, the state issued a whopping 122,506 permits, according to data from Wisconsin's Department of Justice. The new law authorizes guns on college campuses, as well as in bars, state parks, and some government buildings.

And we're on our way to a situation where the most lax state permitting rules—say, Virginia's, where an online course now qualifies for firearms safety training and has drawn a flood of out-of-state applicants—are in effect national law. Eighty percent of states now recognize handgun permits from at least some other states. And gun rights activists are pushing hard for a federal reciprocity bill—passed in the House late last year, with GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan among its most ardent supporters—that would essentially make any state's permits valid nationwide.

Indeed, the country's vast arsenal of handguns—at least 118 million of them as of 2010—is increasingly mobile, with 69 of the 99 new state laws making them easier to carry. A decade ago, seven states and the District of Columbia still prohibited concealed handguns; today, it's down to just Illinois and DC. (And Illinois recently passed an exception cracking the door open to carrying). In the 62 mass shootings we analyzed, 54 of the killers packed handguns—including in all 15 of the mass shootings since the surge of pro-gun laws began in 2009.

In a certain sense the law was on their side: nearly 80 percent of the killers in our investigation obtained their weapons legally.

We used a conservative set of criteria to build a comprehensive rundown of high-profile attacks in public places—at schools, workplaces, government buildings, shopping malls—though they represent only a small fraction of the nation's overall gun violence. The FBI defines a mass murderer as someone who kills four or more people in a single incident, usually in one location. (As opposed to spree or serial killers, who strike multiple times.) We excluded cases involving armed robberies or gang violence; dropping the number of fatalities by just one, or including those motives, would add many, many more cases. (More about our criteria here.)

There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

1.6 Percent.

More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)

Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him.

How do law enforcement authorities view armed civilians getting involved? One week after the slaughter at the Dark Knight screening in July, the city of Houston—hardly a hotbed of gun control—released a new Department of Homeland Security-funded video instructing the public on how to react to such events. The six-minute production foremost advises running away or otherwise hiding, and suggests fighting back only as a last resort. It makes no mention of civilians using firearms.Screen shot: City of Houston video on mass shooters.

Law enforcement officials are the first to say that civilians should not be allowed to obtain particularly lethal weaponry, such as the AR-15 assault rifle and ultra-high-capacity, drum-style magazine used by Holmes to mow down Batman fans. The expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban under President George W. Bush in 2004 has not helped that cause: Seven killers since then have wielded assault weapons in mass shootings.

But while access to weapons is a crucial consideration for stemming the violence, stricter gun laws are no silver bullet. Another key factor is mental illness. A major New York Times investigation in 2000 examined 100 shooting rampages and found that at least half of the killers showed signs of serious mental health problems. Our own data reveals that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides: In the 62 cases we analyzed, 36 of the shooters killed themselves. Others may have committed "suicide by cop"—seven died in police shootouts. Still others simply waited, as Holmes did in the movie theater parking lot, to be apprehended by authorities. Drum-style magazine for assault rifles Brownells.com

Mental illness among the killers is no surprise, ranging from paranoid schizophrenia to suicidal depression. But while some states have improved their sharing of mental health records with federal authorities, millions of records reportedly are still missing from the FBI's database for criminal background checks.

Hargarten of the Medical College of Wisconsin argues that mass shootings need to be scrutinized as a public health emergency so that policy makers can better focus on controlling the epidemic of violence. It would be no different than if there were an outbreak of Ebola virus, he says—we'd be assembling the nation's foremost experts to stop it.

But real progress will require transcending hardened politics. For decades gun rights promoters have framed measures aimed at public safety—background checks, waiting periods for purchases, tracking of firearms—as dire attacks on constitutional freedom. They've wielded the gun issue so successfully as a political weapon that Democrats hardly dare to touch it, while Republicans have gone to new extremes in their party platform to enshrine gun rights. Political leaders have failed to advance the discussion "in a credible, thoughtful, evidence-driven way," says Hargarten.

In the meantime, the gun violence in malls and schools and religious venues continues apace. As a superintendent told his community in suburban Cleveland this February, after a shooter at Chardon High School snuffed out the lives of three students and injured three others, "We're not just any old place, Chardon. This is every place. As you've seen in the past, this can happen anywhere."

Additional research contributed by Deanna Pan and Gavin Aronsen.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

DuncanIdaho
12-19-2012, 11:46 PM
If there were any facts from the other side, I might have something to actually ignore.


I provided a link to a pdf with plenty of facts that you have ignored.

The Postmaster General
12-20-2012, 03:26 AM
As for the continuing argument of "lets ban cars too!". Well, we do things all the time to make cars safer. In fact, the safest cars are typically among the highest selling. And not just for ourselves, but for the environment. Car accidents happen all the time, sure, but WE DO THINGS TO MAKE THEM SAFER.

Which is exactly why firearms will overtake car accidents as the leading cause of non-medical death by 2015.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html


Right, and there are all sort of laws in place to minimize things like auto accidents, drownings, fires, etc. That's what gets me - the comparison of something that we don't want stricter laws on to things that have stricter laws on them, both on the basis of why the laws are/would be put in place.

Dirtyfrog
12-20-2012, 09:30 AM
Law-abiding Missourians can carry a gun while intoxicated and even fire it if "acting in self-defense."

Looks like a nice place to go on vacation.

btw loved your input and i agree with most of it but the Mother Jones chart looks deceptive.

1.trying to find the link but i read somewhere that only 2 crimes were commited with legal AR since the 30s.

2. The Sandy Hook shooter weapons were legal .... but owned by his mother who thought him to shoot them KNOWINGLY AWARE HER SON HAD A MENTAL ILLNESS. She got killed by her own guns. Talk about karma.

I'm not sure how it works in the US but here in the great white north , storage is a liability. If someone commits a crime with your guns , you are as responsible unless you can prove you stored them properly.

a- gun and ammo are kept in separated locations
b- you used a keylock protection on the trigger
c- gun are stored in a dedicated unit ( like a casing or a closet) and not lying around on a rack in the living room or a bedside drawer.

adamjohnson
12-20-2012, 09:58 AM
Looks like a nice place to go on vacation.

btw loved your input and i agree with most of it but the Mother Jones chart looks deceptive.

1.trying to find the link but i read somewhere that only 2 crimes were commited with legal AR since the 30s.

2. The Sandy Hook shooter weapons were legal .... but owned by his mother who thought him to shoot them KNOWINGLY AWARE HER SON HAD A MENTAL ILLNESS. She got killed by her own guns. Talk about karma.

I'm not sure how it works in the US but here in the great white north , storage is a liability. If someone commits a crime with your guns , you are as responsible unless you can prove you stored them properly.

a- gun and ammo are kept in separated locations
b- you used a keylock protection on the trigger
c- gun are stored in a dedicated unit ( like a casing or a closet) and not lying around on a rack in the living room or a bedside drawer.

Yeah, and that's probably something Obama is gonna look really closely at. In gun-controlled countries, proper storage is always mandated. And if he cant get guns - or even assault rifles - totally banned, he could still get that done and it would still be a positive step.

MY prediction for the next 40-50 years on this issue, is that a few little things will get passed soon, and then at some point a Republican president is going to take office, repeal them or let them expire, there will be a huge uptick in gun crimes again and we'll all do this exact dance again. Just like what we're doing with Women's Rights. (Which is also a perfect example of the stupidity/resistance to logic that the Republican party exerts.)

Preston_79
12-20-2012, 11:49 AM
Yeah, and that's probably something Obama is gonna look really closely at. In gun-controlled countries, proper storage is always mandated. And if he cant get guns - or even assault rifles - totally banned, he could still get that done and it would still be a positive step.

MY prediction for the next 40-50 years on this issue, is that a few little things will get passed soon, and then at some point a Republican president is going to take office, repeal them or let them expire, there will be a huge uptick in gun crimes again and we'll all do this exact dance again. Just like what we're doing with Women's Rights. (Which is also a perfect example of the stupidity/resistance to logic that the Republican party exerts.)

He'll get his ban on sales of assault rifles, and 30+ round ammo clips, but not much more. Believe me it's not even in the realm of possibility of an all out ban on gun sales (is anyone even entertaining this thought?), and there's no way agents start going door to door to take the assault rifles that are already out there. These things will all take so long to get done, that the emotions attached to Sandy shooting will have fizzled out. I agree completely that it's the same old song and dance routine.

DaveyJoeG
12-20-2012, 12:30 PM
Believe me it's not even in the realm of possibility of an all out ban on gun sales (is anyone even entertaining this thought?), and there's no way agents start going door to door to take the assault rifles that are already out there.

Nobody's entertaining that thought, I haven't seen it mentioned, except the fact that it will never happen.

bourahioro
12-20-2012, 01:10 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yuqDJrdRFFk/UMuZ-doOQ1I/AAAAAAAAEDI/_rdXlsZ_UR0/s400/GUN+DEATHS.jpg
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x252/Davek80501/anti%20Obama%20pics/399184_553756761318544_343489727_n1_zps8fba69c7.jp g

electriclite
12-20-2012, 01:20 PM
I have always been in favor of some sort of proper storage mandate. Considering that around half of the shootings I've read about, going as far back as 1974, have been perpetrated by teenagers who can't legally purchase or own a gun, its obvious the majority stole their weapons for their rampages.

Also speaking personally, when I was very young and growing up, both my parents owned their own grocery stores and owned a firearm for each. One day, while sneaking around my parent's bedroom, like little children are prone to do, I found their revolver under the pillow of their bed. I remember being ABSOLUTELY terrified seeing it thanks to viewing countless number of after school specials where kids were accidentally killed playing with their parents'/relatives' unstored weapons. I slowly put the pillow back on top of the gun and backed out of the room.

That was EXTREMELY stupid of my parents, and anyone else who doesn't lock up weapons when they have or have the possibility of minors or the mentally ill in their home.

The Postmaster General
12-20-2012, 01:58 PM
It is law that if someone piggybacks on my WiFi network, I am responsible for all activity that happens through that connection.

Why isn't there something like this in place for guns, outside of civil law? It seems to reason that we'd see a lot fewer cases of stolen guns, much as there are fewer cases on hijacked ISP addresses.

creekin111
12-20-2012, 02:51 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oCQo1hjxFLc/UA4uekvz5II/AAAAAAAABDU/pJq1bQ74-Jc/s1600/Gun_laws_would_prevent_shooting_sprees_Please_tell _me_more_about_how_criminals_follow_laws_Gene_Wild er_Willie_Wonka_and_the_Chocolate_Factory_internet _meme.png
http://www.bajabound.com/images/content/before/noguns2.jpg
http://www.cagle.com/working/070501/stantis.jpg
http://www.ctsportsmen.com/news/Shoots_Burglar.jpg
http://www.gangstersandoutlaws.com/sitebuilder/images/Pro-gun_cartoon001-347x445.jpg
http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/gun-free-cartoon-3.jpg

The Postmaster General
12-20-2012, 04:19 PM
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/five-subjects-behind/17wqhga23?cpkey=29b3ea1b-7264-4a44-872d-6d3d7f1baba8%257c%257c%257c%257c

Bourne101
12-20-2012, 04:24 PM
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/five-subjects-behind/17wqhga23?cpkey=29b3ea1b-7264-4a44-872d-6d3d7f1baba8%257c%257c%257c%257c

Bahahaha.

JCPhoenix
12-20-2012, 05:40 PM
This thread makes me so happy I don't live in the U.S.

Bourne101
12-20-2012, 05:41 PM
This thread makes me so happy I don't live in the U.S.

Ditto.

Vong
12-20-2012, 05:51 PM
This thread makes me so happy I don't live in the U.S.

You and me both, brother.

DuncanIdaho
12-20-2012, 06:24 PM
You and me both, brother.



You are not the only ones happy you don't live here =)

Mr. Guiltless
12-20-2012, 06:50 PM
^ :>)

Bondgirl
12-20-2012, 07:41 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yuqDJrdRFFk/UMuZ-doOQ1I/AAAAAAAAEDI/_rdXlsZ_UR0/s400/GUN+DEATHS.jpg
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x252/Davek80501/anti%20Obama%20pics/399184_553756761318544_343489727_n1_zps8fba69c7.jp g


I dont think it is as bad as the image above in Australia

I know at the momnet we are having problems in Sydeny with a few gun crimes but at least we can go to schoo; work and get on with our lifes

I feel we have more home avasions more than anything which they are trying to control

I live in melbourne on the outter suberbs and have never seen anyone with a gun umm only a policeman with his gun and taser

maude
12-20-2012, 09:19 PM
Very important and timely topic, I'm glad you guys are discussing it.
I'm pretty fried from final exam today, but am planning to read all through this thread when my head is cleared again.

Thanks in advance for the info everybody posted.

Bondgirl
12-20-2012, 09:50 PM
Hey that okay l hope you go well with your exams l know that time can be rough
I hope you will pass with flying colours

Yes l started this topic awhile back and it started being more on the support of guns but now since the recent masscare it has changed abit

I hope you do have al ook at this eventaully plus l would say there will be more to come on this topic very soon

BadCoverVersion
12-21-2012, 04:18 AM
This thread depresses me.

I can't abide Piers Morgan but after watching that video, I now have a nugget of respect for him. Larry Pratt is an aptly named fantasist.

Bondgirl
12-21-2012, 04:29 AM
Well of cause this thread can be depressing but we are looking at the pro and cons of ohaving a gun and the damage it does too

Bondgirl
12-21-2012, 04:36 AM
I also would like to know why it depresses you don't you want the. gun law changed

BadCoverVersion
12-21-2012, 05:11 AM
It depresses me to see the same redundant arguments trotted out and issues such as accidental child fatalities being duly ignored.

A child in America dies roughly every 3 days from an accidental gun-related incident. That's approximately 12-15x the sum total of people killed by firearms each year in the UK.

I personally would love to see a blanket ban on all assault weapons in the US...atrocities such as the Sandy Hook one should be few and far between. but in reality they are becoming disturbingly commonplace.

Bondgirl
12-21-2012, 05:20 AM
But if Obama has started a task force to think of ideas it means he is going further to do somethind about guns in general but I do think he has to go further t han assault rifles

The Postmaster General
12-21-2012, 06:59 AM
We'll see who doesn't need assault rifles when the zombie apocalypse starts.

Bondgirl
12-21-2012, 07:12 AM
Well dooms day was supposed to happen one hour ago no zombies postie time to put your gun down

The Postmaster General
12-21-2012, 09:52 AM
I have a constitutional right to not put my gun down and I'm exercising it! These rights are very important to me. They are part of the reason I have my own printing press in the basement also why I rummage through the pockets of anyone I see having a seizure.