5 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Not really. According to Gallup, the number of parents that fear for their children's safety is actually at an all-time low. I'm not sure how you can know that most Americans are afraid and worried.

When some People see AR 15 Rifles in a Church, they will be shocked and the USA had enough of Mass shooting in the Last Time and you're right about free Gun, be cause your(better say NWO ZOG) US Goverment wants Disarm the People

It is different, to me, that people in this church bring there rifle with them to pray.  I do not, however, think that it is wrong.  I see this more as a statement, to would be murderers, that if they enter this building with the intent to do harm to innocent people, that they will have a fight on there hands.  

 

  I do not go anywhere without my gear knowing that at any moment someone could wish to do harm to other's. 

 

And to Giordano,

 

If you think that what Germany has is what the U.S. needs, then you should probably come to and live where I live.  You will soon find out that good people need these guns, and I mean all of them.  Could you imagine what would of happened if the racist cop's would of done to the blacks in the south if they knew who had guns?  More dead black people.

On 3/3/2018 at 4:28 AM, SpikeTerm said:

I don't see why that would be a good thing, and a happy situation for a citizen. You can't use weapons for self protection? That's a scary law...after all criminals wouldn't obey all of those laws. A government is controlling how you store your weapons in your home, and if it's loaded?! That seems like government over reach to me....

Funny that, it works in over 95% of the western world but because it isn't "the american way of life",  it automatically wouldn't be a "happy situation" and is "government over reach". The entirety of the American gun nut population needs to stop hiding behind a book written over a two hundred years ago when the most advanced weapon around at the time could only fire two to three rounds a minute. Not something that can spit of lead like it's going out of fashion. 

 

As for my opinion to the whole gun control thing:

 

The last time Australia had a massacre through some crazy twit with a gun was when almost all guns were banned and you know what the funny thing is.. WE HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE ONE SINCE.  

Also before anyone jumps on the 'two different societies' band wagon, you have to realize that up until 1996 our societies were very much the same. The only difference we have between our two cultures is we actually listen to voices of reason and when something is broken we fix it, not just keep throwing band-aids on the problem and running away as quickly as possible.

5 hours ago, HankVoight said:

 

Just a heads up. I'm American, and a libertarian (mostly) . So this gonna be a heavy read lol

 

They're "hiding" behind a 200 year old book, because it's literally the only thing that's stopping the government from taking away their guns. It is  "government over reach". The 2nd amendment is part of the bill rights. Those 10 amendments, in theory, are not supposed to be touched. I think the two different society bandwagon is a valid point. I just think it's used poorly in arguments, which is why you probably have that apathy(I think that's the right word) towards it. Unlike Australia, firearms are a big part of our culture. One can surmise that your mandatory buybacks and laws only happened not because you guys listen to voices of reason, but because guns aren't a large part of your culture. At the time of your ban, 16% of your households had firearms, and it was trending down beforehand. And it continued to go down years after the ban. US is currently at about 25%, our all time low. And you guys don't have a bill of rights like us. Even though our firearm ownership is at an all time low, a quarter of the population still owns guns. Banning guns/ or restricting the hell out of them is kinda taking a hot piss on the 80 million or so people who aren't doing much wrong, yet are having a civil liberty taken away from them, because of small and loud minority.

 

In my opinion, banning guns is putting a band-aid on the root causes. Which are much larger and complex issues. Mental health and crime. The 2 largest contributors to the US's gun problem. 60% of our gun violence deaths are simply suicides, and the events sparking all this gun debate are done by crazy people. A large portion of the remainder is simply criminals shooting each other. Many of these criminals get the guns illegally. Ban guns? Cool. Still millions of stolen guns on the streets in the hands of criminals, due to the black market pipeline down south (and irresponsible gun owners who don't lock their shit). We can't rely on the police in most places, because they're understaffed, and people want cops to have more training. Those two issues can't be addressed without money, which people don't want to pay. And there's still the people out there who want to cause mass amounts of damage to other human beings. Those people will simply get the gun illegally, or they'll read a book and learn how to make bombs. The sheer number of gun owners is reason enough to dismiss a complete ban, or heavy restrictions that will ban most guns.

 

It's a shitty world. Shouldn't take away a right because of the crazies. Crazy people spout awful garbage all the time in public, doesn't mean you should take away one's right to free speech (within reason of course lol). We shouldn't throw away the 4th amendment and let police storm into people's houses any time they want because someone is shady.  It may turn out they're a serial killer chopping bodies in their basement, but that shouldn't mean we should disregard a civil right. These are obviously extreme examples, but you get my point.

 

I feel the true gun nuts, the ones that want NO gun control at all are the problem. They're clouding the debate. The other side of the spectrum is also clouding the debate. But general guns owners support reasonable laws like the ones that were being discussed in our congress. But too many gun rights (stuff that wouldn't increase violence at all) were being proposed so the bill took a backseat.

I hear your words, but I just want to address two arguments you used that I see coming back on the table every single time something about gun control is mentioned.

 

3 hours ago, Black Jesus said:

Ban guns? Cool. Still millions of stolen guns on the streets in the hands of criminals, due to the black market pipeline down south (and irresponsible gun owners who don't lock their shit).

 

Let's be honest. What's the main provider for the black market? It's the legal market. Guns can't be manufactured from scraps. And they don't appear out of thin air, nor can they be grown and harvested like a drug would. And importing guns from abroad costs money, a price that is reflected on the price tag when said guns are sold, making them more expensive. The great majority of the guns you could find on the black market are directly coming from the legal market. Be it guns sold from one person to the other, to the next, and the next, or stolen and then sold to someone else. And because there are so many circulating, their prices are low (the good ol' law of supply and demand). The good point in all this is that the black market, like any other market, follows the laws of economy. What I mean by that is that if you put much stricter regulations on guns, or outright get rid of them, less and less guns will be in circulation. Meaning that ultimately less and less guns will be stolen or sold around. Meaning that once the product becomes more rare, prices will skyrocket (same good ol' law of supply and demand). And with skyrocketed prices, most people getting their guns from the black market won't be able to afford them anymore, drastically reducing the amount of guns available for criminals. The black market argument is a smokescreen to me that would be directly impacted by gun regulations, would they become stricter, contrary to popular belief.

 

3 hours ago, Black Jesus said:

It's a shitty world. Shouldn't take away a right because of the crazies. Crazy people spout awful garbage all the time in public, doesn't mean you should take away one's right to free speech (within reason of course lol). 

 

This is the other analogy/comparison I read or hear a lot when discussing this kind of issue. Although kudos to you for not using the "Someone can use a car to ram people, does that mean we should get rid of cars and driver licenses?", this one irritates me the most. The thing is, for your example, words weren't initially made or meant to hurt someone, they were meant to communicate with others, people just happen to twist them in order to use them to hurt or spread hatred. Same for cars, cars were never designed to hurt people, but to transport something or someone from point A to point B in the most efficient way possible, but people twist them in order to turn them into deadly rides. And I could continue like that for anything you'd like to compare guns to. Because guns, on the contrary of anything else, were designed with only one single purpose in mind: fire a projectile, to hurt or kill someone, in the most efficient way possible. That, is what makes the difference and why particular restrictions are needed for those compared to free speech, or cars, or anything else really.

 

16 hours ago, HankVoight said:

Funny that, it works in over 95% of the western world but because it isn't "the american way of life",  it automatically wouldn't be a "happy situation" and is "government over reach". The entirety of the American gun nut population needs to stop hiding behind a book written over a two hundred years ago when the most advanced weapon around at the time could only fire two to three rounds a minute. Not something that can spit of lead like it's going out of fashion. 

 

As for my opinion to the whole gun control thing:

 

The last time Australia had a massacre through some crazy twit with a gun was when almost all guns were banned and you know what the funny thing is.. WE HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE ONE SINCE.  

Also before anyone jumps on the 'two different societies' band wagon, you have to realize that up until 1996 our societies were very much the same. The only difference we have between our two cultures is we actually listen to voices of reason and when something is broken we fix it, not just keep throwing band-aids on the problem and running away as quickly as possible.

 

I always seem to see people in the UK/ Australia extremely misguided regarding the issue of firearms. 

Firstly, you had a mandatory buy back program, a CONFISCATION. Your mass shootings were a statistical anomaly so I don't believe that the manditory buy back program made anyone safer after all gun violence in Australia was already dropping before the buy back program. In the U.K for example, after they confiscated guns, the homicide and violent crime rate went up. You have to compare a country to itself before and after guns are removed.

Secondly, the Constitution is not old, it is valuable. Some countries don't even get to exercise their right to free speech. If you say something that offends someone you can face legal repercussions.  

Finally, more people protect themselves each year with firearms each year than kill. 33,000 die each year, this statistic is thrown out there without anyone actually breaking it down properly. 2/3  are suicides, and the homicides are generally caused by gangs, police shootings, justified home defense, and accidental discharges. 

Far more then 11,000-13,000 are protected each year by guns than killed, more than 33,000 too.

Australia doesn't even have a second amendment....that's why you have to compare a country to itself. 

18 hours ago, HankVoight said:

Funny that, it works in over 95% of the western world but because it isn't "the american way of life",  it automatically wouldn't be a "happy situation" and is "government over reach". The entirety of the American gun nut population needs to stop hiding behind a book written over a two hundred years ago when the most advanced weapon around at the time could only fire two to three rounds a minute. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

This rifle could fire more than 3 rounds a minute.  The Austrian military equipped a  portion of there there troops with this gun.  So your argument is trash.

 

The way that I look at it, and the way that it was made, is that the use and ownership of weapons "period" is for self preservation.  The U.S. is a country that does not bow to anyone, it is a defiant nation.

 

If you want to ban guns, then looking at the federal government to do it is the wrong way.  You would have to go to the state level of government, if it's State Constitution permits it, to ban them.  If you want the federal government to ban them, then you would have to ratify the the Constitution of the United States.  People should realize that the State's are there own country, to be frank, and the United States Government is a Union that unites the State's.  

 

  To me, and to millions of other's in this country, owning a firearm is for self preservation from evil people and government, speaking freely without the worry of imprisonment, practicing any religion without a government denying that religion, demanding a warrant prior to searches is a fair example of freedom that alot of you people in the rest of the world do not have.

 

  All that you are saying, when you want government to do something for you, is that you do not know how to live your life at all.  And wanting to control the way other's live there life is a form of insanity.

 

And if you trust your government you are a fool.  

 

If you do not trust your Government, yet you want to give them more power, you are a fool.  

I just wanted to touch off on the subject of all of you people saying that we are too attached to a 250 year old book/ paper.  You say that it is not practical in this modern age,  that times change,  well look up this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946).  It happened not that long ago.  And don't forget about this https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/index.html

 

Tell me what would of happened in your country if this was done?  

 

We are too attached to a piece of paper yet you people kneel to kings and queens, dictators and chancellor's, Genocidal maniacs, and criminals.

Edited March 4, 20188 yr by ToeBius

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

But how long until the black market prices rise until the incredible majority of criminals don't want guns? These guys (typically low level drug dealers) on average are making more than minimum wage, and a gun is an investment to them. A gun doesn't have an expiration date either. So it's not like they have to keep on dealing with high prices to get their piece, it's a one time investment (assuming they properly hide and/or ditch the gun). Like I said before, we can't rely on the state to protect us. And the gun is basically the most efficient use of force that a person can legally use against another person who is threatening them. But now you're heavily restricting a citizen's right to self preservation in a worst case scenario. So for some time, maybe years, all that will happen is the criminals with guns will keep on shooting and law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of response times.

 

And guns had that purpose even when the 2nd amendment was created. Like with any technology, it has evolved and gotten more efficient over hundreds of years. But the purpose of firearms has not changed. So heavily restricting them 200 years later, because they're doing the thing that they were always used for, seems kinda "uhm....what?" imo. Before the 90s, there were almost no mass shootings. Today we have the most gun laws and restrictions then we've ever had, yet mass shootings have had a steady trend for years. People only want gun control because of mass shootings. It makes national and international headlines. So I feel more restrictions is just a knee jerk response, like all of the gun restrictions in the last 5+ years

2 hours ago, Black Jesus said:

 

 

Wouldn't you agree that a good middle ground solution would be to have stricter gun regulations, like having much tougher conditions to obtain a gun, or having the obligation to register your weapon at the nearest police department or townhall for the officers to know who owns a gun (and therefore at least having an idea of what to expect when they arrive at a scene), while reducing the budget given to, let's say, your army, which is already monstruously gigantic (more than 500 billion $ in 2016), of just a couple billions and redirect that money to the different police departments to allow them to hire more officers or having better equipment? That way, the guns in circulation would be less (which would logically mean less chances of having random idiots shoot people for no reason), you'd still be able to get a gun if you were judged fit to have one, while having a better protection from a larger police force or better equipped one at least, to cover your back if you need it, making it safer for everyone?

Edited March 4, 20188 yr by Hystery

22 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

I agree with the middle ground solution. My argument was more targeted to people who want a ban or want the Australian model in the US. And you pretty much paraphrased the bipartisan gun control bill that was being discussed. So we're on that track, it's just a matter of getting both sides to respect the interests of one another.

 

And the feds have already given grants to departments (Around 550 million went to a select number of Sanctuary cities alone). Departments just can't find enough qualified people who want the job, and won't waste their money by failing FTO or leaving after a year. People want cops to have more training, for the same pay. And the only short term way to consistently increase staffing is to either lower qualifications (which no one wants), or make police salaries comparable to the private sector (which people here don't want to pay for). So even if you throw billions at the police, you still need people who want to be cops. But yes, in theory your idea would work.

We have this debate on literally every topic related to guns, and it ends the same way each time. The anti-gun people end up being shut down by facts, evidence, and statistics that quite simply contradict everything they say. 

 

"It worked here so it should work there. The Americans care too much about their constitutional rights. How dare they want to be a free people with liberties under a Constitution that they actually hold dear to them."

 

I'll sit this one out on the sidelines because its tiring when people are presented with facts and evidence, and either change the subject completely or present insane and illogical solutions that clearly wouldn't work.

 

I'll just show my support for those that actually have the patience to participate in the argument once again. 

Edited March 5, 20188 yr by TheDivineHustle

Why exactly are we getting into a gun debate in a topic about a wedding that had guns present and nothing significant happened?  Lets not turn every single gun thread into a gun control debate, thanks.