Oh so when a white guy commits to a mass shooting he's "mentally ill"? Makes total sense because obviously people who aren't white are never mentally ill that would be silly.
Islam is not a polar opposite of what the West stands for, the only reason it's seen as such is because that religion has been wrongly used as a justification for violence and terrorism.
Islam's "greatest" prophet was a pedophile and a terrorist who called for the killings of any no Muslim. I think you could say that is the opposite of what western civilization stands for.
I can't tell if you are being serious or not. I will put in that the US was settled by the brits, used as a prison for the brits and kept from most mass killings by the brits. When they were kicked out, look what happened. Now TRUMP is running for President and doing well, and you have more mass shootings than any other country.
I don't see how Trump has anything to do with this. Most of what the media call mass shootings are caused by one of two reasons today, Islam or someone being mentally unstable. And I promise you if there was at least one gun hidden behind the bar and the employees where all trained how to use it there would have been a lot less people shot.
What do you think Canada and US would be like today if 150 years ago Canada was the "land of opportunity" and US made Hockey and maple syrup. Would all the crime be in the country with all the diversity?
That's really blowing things out of proportion. They have guns because they have no army and have training if and when they need to defend themselves in a combat situation. The US are just batshit crazy.
Yeah, because that comment is not biased at all. Literally every single person in America is insane. It's not like you have to get a license to carry a gun or anything, which requires you to prove mental stability.
Okay, @zipthesilver, "prove mental stability" is quite a stretch. We require criminal background checks, not a psych visit. Stability is part of it, education is what's needed.
I personally think that a distinction has to be made between small caliber handguns and rifles, and assault type weaponry. There is absolutely no reason for a private citizen to be able to own an AR-15, which is a civilian version of the military's M-16. However, completely banning guns will never happen in the US. It is written into the Constitution. The right to bear arms.
Criminals don't follow laws and if someone is that devoted to Islam than I think the Boston Bombing shows that they will find a way to harm as many people as they can.
1
deleted
· 8 years ago
Criminals wont follow law so we wont, too!.
I'd like a granade lanucher. For personal defense, of course :)
We also have to look at this from another standpoint, who is going to do the regulating? Also, when you make guns illegal the only people who follow the rules are the ones who were already law abiding to begin with, criminals already don't care about laws, what's regulating going to change?
If stupid could be educated then they wouldn't be stupid? Changing gun laws doesn't mean ban all guns... and wasn't the 2ndA written when muskets were the fastest firing guns? If guns have changed so drastically, shouldn't the laws concerning then adapt to suit?
The message is not about Canada being better than America but that guns don't make you safer.Why do the rest of the world can live without guns but not America?
He was a nutcase. He Claimed a lot when he made the call and was an American born, Raised and schooled, He was just insane. He was most likely corrupted my fear caused by the media
australia hasn't had any mass shootings since *checks calendar*
oh yeah when we brought in gun control.
anyway i bet another 50 people should die before y'all change gun laws
Yes actually quite a bit. And you're completely blind if you don't think there's a gun problem. With gun control you can still HAVE guns! You just need a license to make sure it's safe for you to have one. I don't need a gun for self defence because there is nobody to defend myself against. You can still own a gun it just means you can't go out and shoot it wherever whenever you have to go to ranges and stuff which is what u should be doing anyway....
And I don't need some sniveling government twat waffle telling me when where and how I can use it. I use my firearms to defend my livestock and family.
I don't know much about livestock, but I have heard about the whole fox-chicken problem. I'm just saying you shouldn't be walking downtown with your gun in hand.
Funny as hell, I chased a fox from the chicken enclosure last week. But I carry a (legal, permitted) pistol in my pocket all day every day unless I'm at the school or town hall (cuz you know felony).
Not in hand but in a holster or sound around your arm in case you or someone else gets attacked. And the second amendment isn't about self defense it's about overthrowing a tyrannical government if need be and the second the government knows who owns guns they know who's door to show up at.
I agree with farmers having guns. Carrying a gun everywhere you go (except no-gun zones ) is stupid. All public areas should be no gun zones and I can compare guns in the US to rats. How do you get rid of a rat issue? You get rid of the rats. Poison is expensive, but works effectively. How do you get rid of a gun issue? A buy back and destroying of guns. Australia had an armistice. You gave your gun(s) to the police and they would buy them back and destroy them. No questions asked, so even Illegal guns were removed from the run. Gun restrictions were changed, With No Semi-Auto rifles allowed and No Machine Guns manufactured after 1982. No Pump or Lever Action Shotguns or over a certain Gauge etc. These laws have protected us since the 1990s and still do. Proof that gun control works. Less guns means less gun crime. Plus the whole 'Right to bear arms' thing was an Amendment. Amendments can be amended.
Thank you, and good night.
@benelenium
Yea, don't trust that government, they aren't even capable to teach their citizens how to fucking read. Cause literally nobody said any government should take all the guns back.
You are aware though that you can still have guns in Australia? And that the 2nd amendment more or less starts by mentioning well regulated militias? And that the word "infringe" had a remarkably different meaning when the 2nd amendment was phrased? And that nobody seriously thought about allowing all citizen to bear fucking war gear or carry concealed handguns before the NRA* was taken over by the dark force? (* The NRAs aim was to REGULATE gun ownership and educate gun owners in order to avoid pretty much exactly the problems there are now) .
.
Me as a non-native speaker and non-american having to explain this to you makes who exactly an idiot?
To the non non native speaker who thinks he has a clue. You have it all wrong. Regulated in 1780 vernacular meant a well drilled and practiced militia. Militia meant able bodied males capable of fielding a weapon, and ready, willing and able to do so. The people are to be not just armed, by practiced in the use of said weapon. The people were also fielding privately held cannon with powder and shot. Multi shot weapons were available but prohibitively expensive. If you are not a US citizen why do you feel that you have a say in what we, as a sovereign nation, do or don't do?
Oh, what a surprise, another emptycan who cannot read lol - None of what you said contradicts any of what I said, so wtf? And where do I state I have a say in anything you do? You're not denying my right to comment on anyfuckingthing I want, do you? If yes, fuck off to some us-american intranet, idiot.
.
As to the people living in rural areas: guess the government is lying again here, cause census.gov says it's about 20%. Ironically the same percentage as in Canada. That "ffffft" noise? That was your argument.
62.7% are in cities. With majority rule those of us "out in the sticks" are slowly losing our voice and have to bow to rules made for cities that are more crowded and less organized than ant farms. This is placing financial burdens on our school systems and town governments that are passed on to the homeowners in the form of increased property taxes.
Back to an earlier point. Yes, you can still own a gun in Australia. You do, however have to have a valid reason, have to pay a yearly renewal of near $1000 and have to do a Uni Course
Ahhh yes, let's do a buy back because the criminal elements in America will most definitely turn their weapons in. Even if they did every single gun and only the government had weapons it would be a huge disaster. I only ask that people who would like to see only have the government have guns to look up things like Waco and Operation Fast and Furious where the federal government armed the Mexican cartels. No thanks, I think I'll keep my guns
Yes, But that did happen here. There was cash reward for guns handed in. Only the government (and those with valid reason) have guns and we are fine. Our police can't shoot for shit in the dark (google fatalities of the lindt siege) and almost never shoot people (armed is the exception, where they are asked 5 times to lower the weapon, non-compliance means 3 shots to the legs), but we have a good enough government and no mass shootings.
But I ask again, is the basic human right to self preservation considered a good enough reason and if the government controls what a good reason is then it will be a lot harder to get the guns needed to over throw them if they become tyrannical.
Why do you get to decide when they are tyrannical. Why is the your choice. My answer is No. That is not a good reason. Why would you need to overthrow them. How will you overthrow them. Why haven't you already?
Yes. When it took enough time to make friends with the shooter.
If there are significantly less guns, what will they attack you with? If they have a gun, Let them do what they want, and call the police. you should have a description. If you have a gun you have to go get it, load it, turn off the safety and lift to fire. At that point, they would have shot you. So what does that achieve. I would rather have no gun and not be shot.
@belenium I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around the logic of your opinions, like the whole "if they have a gun, let them do what they want". What if they want to do is kill you? And I assure you it is inifitely quicker to assemble a pistol, load each round into the magazine then aim and fire the weapon then to wait for the police to get on scene
If what they want to do is kill you, then ballistics will find the gun and the murderer will be charged. If you pull a gun, and they already have, you WILL be shot. The police deal with gun crime. Less guns mean the Supply & Demand scale reverses. Less guns, Less gun crime. If you don't understand that, clearly there is something wrong with you, explaining your issues wrapping your head around my logic.
in aus unless your a cop all pistols are banned because they are easily concealable whereas rifles are legal with restrictions because its not easily concealable
Yeah, but Britain still has shootings. So does France. If, however people there had guns, the shooters would have been dropped like hot potatoes. And the person with the gun doesn't have to take it out in front of the shooter. You remember that terrorist attack in Texas? Of course you dont. The media kept it quiet when the terrorists were shot before anyone died.
1
deleted
· 8 years ago
Hipothetical scene:
Let's say there is a party with 100 people in it, most (90%, for example) have guns with them.
Everything is good until some random dude who wasn't even invited crashes in and starts shooting.
The people in there with guns try to get them out and answer the shots.
In the confusion, with so many people and granted that most of them with guns do not have proper training, the shooter is shot down. But some lost bullet hit someone else while at it, making him shoot blindy in response, creating a chain reaction.
You can already tell where this is going.
Having guns is not the problem, the problem is people without proper training having them. That is, no safety measures, no knowledge of communication protocols in chaos shootings (calling shots, no blind shooting, warning and identification asking if not sure of target, etc).
Sure, there have been cases where people succesfully shot them down, but there has also been shootings that could have been avoided (continues)
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
By having gun restrictions.
The most proliferant arguments pro-guns are "we need to defend ourselfs", "2nd amendment" (or however you spell it, not sure) and "it enables us to fight against a tyranic goverment":
- "Defend ourselfs". Sure, we all want to feel secure. But law and law enforcement exists for that. Do you want a country full of "vigilantes" who think they are the law? Because that's what you are getting.
- "2nd amendment". This was created way long ago, when you couldn't kill 50 people in seconds with one gun. Laws can be changed, and must be changed, in order to progress with newer times.
- "tyranic goverment". They have the military. Do you think, even for a split second, that you can fight them? Long ago a civil war could be somewhat even. Now you have citizens with guns against supersonic bombers. Please, movies aren't the real world.
My body is ready for the downvotes without proper arguments :)
PS: Fan of guns myself. All we need is training and restrictions
@belenium you're trolling right? Please tell me you don't legitimately think life works like it does in CSI and other crime shows. Also the US has a massive technological lead above militants in the Middle East but somehow they're still kicking our ass but you're telling me that armed Americans couldn't fight off our government?
2
deleted
· 8 years ago
Because it's not a full on war, they are fighting citizens, they are commanded to not shoot unless shooted (if the mission isn't already attack).
A civil war would be a full on war. If you are on the enemy's side, you are a target
In your argument against the second amendment you said that there were guns that could shoot massive amounts of people in a relatively short amount of time. Let me point you the Belton Flintlock Rifle which was capable of shooting 16 or 20 balls in 16, 10 or 5 seconds which the Founding Fathers knew about and commissioned but the deal ended up not going through because the guns were too expensive. Therefore if the Founding Fathers didn't want you to be able to buy those guns they would have specifically outlined it in the Second Amendment. And please tell me then how the First Amendment applies to the Internet.
I think it's worth mentioning that in case of civil war, a very large chunk of military and law enforcement would support the people.
Having guns would just allow the people to hold out until then.
Thank you! I'm glad there is someone on the internet that isn't completely oblivious to how things actually work in real life
1
deleted
· 8 years ago
20 in 5 seconds is nowhere near a current automatic rifle, point still stands.
Plus, you said it yourself, they didn't considered it because it was highly unlikely that a citizen could get those. Unlike today.
On the civil war argument, while some law enforcement may join the hipothetical revolution, you can't count on it. And even then, they would have trouble getting the advanced weaponry and vehicles that the goverment sided could have. Plus the goverment is more likely to have military support from outside.
But i digress. Going back to the guns debate, tell me how are you going to avoid the "vigilantes" problem, or why wouldn't you restrict it. Keep in mind my point is not banning, but correctly regulate guns. And obligatory proper training, of course.
We have a negligible number of vigilantes as it is, and further regulation would defeat the purpose of the second amendment by making the guns either super expensive, heavily monitered, unreliable, or practically useless.
Yeah I can't really see the majority of the military siding with the government in that scenario. There is a reason DHS classifies returning vets as security risks. It's because they are the only ones with the training to really do something about a government as corrupt as ours
2
deleted
· 8 years ago
No need to move anywhere, unicorns, i'm not from the US :).
And i wasn't talking about now, but rather where this is heading to (refering to the vigilantes thing).
As i said, it's not defeating the porpouse of the 2nd amendment, but rather changing it to fit the modern era.
For the military argument, it was just one example of how the whole "defeat the goverment" makes no real sense. Voting is there for that purpouse. We have evolved from those violent times.
Darkanhell, I'm going to point out to you what I have already pointed out to many people in this comment section. This isn't a vigilante or gun problem, it's a mental health and radical Islam problem.
A lot of the confusion is because we're all from different countries. It's like me going to Australia and going, hey this marmite is disgusting, let's ban it. It just wouldn't work in Australia versus going to the states from another country and saying hey, I don't like guns, let's ban them. Besides everyone keeps going on about not banning guns but restricting and regulating them. Who do you plan on doing that?
"This is (not, I guess) a vigilante or gun problem, it's a mental health and radical Islam problem." - Too fucking bad when the crazy islamist has so easy access to damned powerful gear, and has been affected from growing up in a gun crazy, trigger happy society.
.
"It's like me going to Australia and going, hey this marmite is disgusting, let's ban it. It just wouldn't work in Australia versus going to the states from another country and saying hey, I don't like guns, let's ban them" - I get it, you find Marmite disgusting, and that's actually debatable. But to compare the effect of marmite and easily accessible war gear on a respective society is really, really bizarre. Also if you're unhappy with foreigners having an opinion on what you see as your national business, go on that national intranet of yours where smelly aliens can't bother you. No wait, that's North Korea... sorry. You'll have to deal with it.
Funsubstanceuser, thank you for respectfully pointing out my typo instead of using it against me. But I would like to say that Jihadists are just going to find ways to get semi-automic hand guns even if you ban them (and I would like to remind people that fully automatic guns are restricted to very few people with licenses). And if you say we need background checks for buying guns, we already do. And if you say that because he once was under investigation by the FBI, then I will say you can't take away someone's rights without due process.
3
deleted
· 8 years ago
The problem here is that you all are getting Islam extremists in here. Guys, that is just the current trend of terrorism. Don't let the trees hide the forest.
Anyways, i'd love to keep arguing but imma be out for some days. Would be rad if we could have a more relaxed and longer conversation
I completely agree, you can't have a rational conversation when tempers flare. The reason I won't give up my guns to the us government is because they kill people with drone strikes, they've embroiled us in endless war, they supply our enemies wether it is the Mexican cartels or Islamic extremists with weapons. And they have no problem killing its own citizens wether it's through police brutality or direct action I.e. Waco Texas. I'll gladly accept mass shooting as the penalty to keep my only means of defense against an increasingly overbearing tyrannical government who seeks nothing more to consolidate its own power and wealth
I don't see anyone getting upset. You said the things I stated are conspiracy theories and I'm asking for your proof. If they are so crazy and false then they should be quickly debunked
I wasn't talking about you in particular, just the whole " the government is against the people" stuff. In some countries, that is true. It is also true that governments can be corrupt. But in America for example, they aren't actively trying to hurt us. Even if they are wrong, they think they are doing what is best for us (and them, unfortunately). At least zipthesilver isn't here to talk about lizard people or something.
While the government doesn't seem to be trying to oppress us, we never know when it could start. Just look at college campuses where a lot of the colleges are somewhat funded by the government and you have to go to free speech zones instead of just saying your opinion wherever you are in the moment.
I have something for the anti gun crowd to think about, specifically the anti gun people who also believe that Black Lives Matter has a lagitimate cause. If BLM is correct, the goverment is actively and intentionally targeting some of it's own citizens. THAT is exactly why the 2nd ammendment exists! If anyone here believes that the US government has a significant amount of corruption, you should consider the possibility of needing to protect yourself from it if need be. The idea that the government will protect you from the government is absurd!
@ronnyd I will just put in
No, I am not trolling. You can, and Australian Police regularly do, trace a bullet from the markings it leaves. Both on the casing and on the projectile.
The military would side with the people that pay them the most, and the government has a lot of money, last I checked. I agree with that.
Australia doesn't have Marmite, and Vegemite can't kill, unless suddenly everyone had a severe anaphylactic reaction. Not likely. Or possible.
If you remove guns, You remove the nuts from getting guns. Remove supply, and the Insane peoples don't get guns. Make sense?
This is my OPINION of the issue. If you disagree fine, But I base this on fact, Not Prejudice.
Thanks,
@benelenium
hahaha yes that's what I meant, vegemite, not marmite. But sure you can get the bullet and find out what kind it is but you can't trace it back to a gun if you don't have the gun in the first place. Plus who do you think the real crazies are, the people in the United States or its government. Further more you envision the military as being full of jack booted thugs. People in the US military are people to, they live here and have families too. They aren't clone soldiers, they're people, do you really think they would support a government that attacked its own country. They would especially desert if the government started bombing its own country and people. There are countless stories of human beings in militaries who did the right thing. For instance the Russian sub commander who didn't launch nukes at the us during the Cuban blockade that would have started WW3
If you find the Make/Model, you would usually have a suspect by that point. Check the National Database if they have that gun, Seize it and send it to ballistics.
I think soldiers would follow orders given. Failure to do so would get them shot.
I think the crazies in the US are the lot of you, As you seem to think Donald Trump is a political candidate.
So if people have illegally purchased arms how do you propose on doing that? I mean they are criminals for crying out loud. I doubt they would register their guns. Also I despise trump but I would rather have him than Hillary. Hillary has never done anything beneficial for anyone except herself, literally anything that woman touches is a disaster
As I said, Suspect. If they are a known criminal, or have been known to be related to gun violence, They will have their property searched. If the profile fits, They will be searched
It is in Australia. Remember, We have a lower corruption rate, Less Gun crime, Lower Homicide, Need I go on. Less guns, Less Gun Crime means a less for ballistics to deal with.
Australia is huge and sparsely populated, especially compared to the US. Also we're kind of arguing at odds since I'm discussing how things are in the US, and you're discussing how things are in Australia
None of this will matter soon. Make peace with your life, because I am going back to my eighth birthday. Look to the doves outside your window, and gain absolute faith in God.
I'd like a granade lanucher. For personal defense, of course :)
He stopped being American the instant he did that.
oh yeah when we brought in gun control.
anyway i bet another 50 people should die before y'all change gun laws
Thank you, and good night.
@benelenium
These downvotes though. Just for having a different opinion.
.
Me as a non-native speaker and non-american having to explain this to you makes who exactly an idiot?
.
As to the people living in rural areas: guess the government is lying again here, cause census.gov says it's about 20%. Ironically the same percentage as in Canada. That "ffffft" noise? That was your argument.
If there are significantly less guns, what will they attack you with? If they have a gun, Let them do what they want, and call the police. you should have a description. If you have a gun you have to go get it, load it, turn off the safety and lift to fire. At that point, they would have shot you. So what does that achieve. I would rather have no gun and not be shot.
Let's say there is a party with 100 people in it, most (90%, for example) have guns with them.
Everything is good until some random dude who wasn't even invited crashes in and starts shooting.
The people in there with guns try to get them out and answer the shots.
In the confusion, with so many people and granted that most of them with guns do not have proper training, the shooter is shot down. But some lost bullet hit someone else while at it, making him shoot blindy in response, creating a chain reaction.
You can already tell where this is going.
Having guns is not the problem, the problem is people without proper training having them. That is, no safety measures, no knowledge of communication protocols in chaos shootings (calling shots, no blind shooting, warning and identification asking if not sure of target, etc).
Sure, there have been cases where people succesfully shot them down, but there has also been shootings that could have been avoided (continues)
The most proliferant arguments pro-guns are "we need to defend ourselfs", "2nd amendment" (or however you spell it, not sure) and "it enables us to fight against a tyranic goverment":
- "Defend ourselfs". Sure, we all want to feel secure. But law and law enforcement exists for that. Do you want a country full of "vigilantes" who think they are the law? Because that's what you are getting.
- "2nd amendment". This was created way long ago, when you couldn't kill 50 people in seconds with one gun. Laws can be changed, and must be changed, in order to progress with newer times.
- "tyranic goverment". They have the military. Do you think, even for a split second, that you can fight them? Long ago a civil war could be somewhat even. Now you have citizens with guns against supersonic bombers. Please, movies aren't the real world.
My body is ready for the downvotes without proper arguments :)
PS: Fan of guns myself. All we need is training and restrictions
A civil war would be a full on war. If you are on the enemy's side, you are a target
Having guns would just allow the people to hold out until then.
Plus, you said it yourself, they didn't considered it because it was highly unlikely that a citizen could get those. Unlike today.
On the civil war argument, while some law enforcement may join the hipothetical revolution, you can't count on it. And even then, they would have trouble getting the advanced weaponry and vehicles that the goverment sided could have. Plus the goverment is more likely to have military support from outside.
But i digress. Going back to the guns debate, tell me how are you going to avoid the "vigilantes" problem, or why wouldn't you restrict it. Keep in mind my point is not banning, but correctly regulate guns. And obligatory proper training, of course.
And i wasn't talking about now, but rather where this is heading to (refering to the vigilantes thing).
As i said, it's not defeating the porpouse of the 2nd amendment, but rather changing it to fit the modern era.
For the military argument, it was just one example of how the whole "defeat the goverment" makes no real sense. Voting is there for that purpouse. We have evolved from those violent times.
.
"It's like me going to Australia and going, hey this marmite is disgusting, let's ban it. It just wouldn't work in Australia versus going to the states from another country and saying hey, I don't like guns, let's ban them" - I get it, you find Marmite disgusting, and that's actually debatable. But to compare the effect of marmite and easily accessible war gear on a respective society is really, really bizarre. Also if you're unhappy with foreigners having an opinion on what you see as your national business, go on that national intranet of yours where smelly aliens can't bother you. No wait, that's North Korea... sorry. You'll have to deal with it.
Anyways, i'd love to keep arguing but imma be out for some days. Would be rad if we could have a more relaxed and longer conversation
No, I am not trolling. You can, and Australian Police regularly do, trace a bullet from the markings it leaves. Both on the casing and on the projectile.
The military would side with the people that pay them the most, and the government has a lot of money, last I checked. I agree with that.
Australia doesn't have Marmite, and Vegemite can't kill, unless suddenly everyone had a severe anaphylactic reaction. Not likely. Or possible.
If you remove guns, You remove the nuts from getting guns. Remove supply, and the Insane peoples don't get guns. Make sense?
This is my OPINION of the issue. If you disagree fine, But I base this on fact, Not Prejudice.
Thanks,
@benelenium
I think soldiers would follow orders given. Failure to do so would get them shot.
I think the crazies in the US are the lot of you, As you seem to think Donald Trump is a political candidate.
In the us of a evreybody is free to be shot!
Fuck Canada