A firearm is a tool, just like a hammer, flame, or a kitchen knife. It is only dangerous when used improperly for dangerous or reckless purposes. Young people should be taught early to handle these potentially dangerous tools correctly and with respect for their power, rather than to fear them.
@JDPhi, if only more people saw the logic in this
@JDPhi, Tool gets the work done and this tool's only job is to kill.
@Cmbdr Bubbles, No doubt guns save lives in certain situations, but it does not change the sole purpose of firearms. Your country keeps handing out weapons to every nutcase and then you have to live in constant fear, gripping your own. But hey, who am I to judge. You live by the sword and so on..
@covfefee, how many lives does it save?
@JDPhi, But also, when the boys leave they won’t be taking the guns home with them....
@CMNDR BUbbles, Are you asking how many lives banning guns can save? Hard to say - but the UK and Australia both banned most guns in the 90s and since then I think we’ve had one mass shooting and they’ve had none, so probably did save a few.
@Nellybert , still had lots of mass killings tho. Gun deaths went down but murders are still there.
@Egotiator, sure, but what is easier? chassing down a room of people with knives, or shooting a room of people with a fully loaded gun?
Edit:Also would the school shooting last wensday still have 17 victims if the guy had a knife instead a gun?
@Killing instincts , apparently the easiest way is running people down with trucks as those europe attacks killed both more than even the night club or vegas shootings did, but also the 33 dead in china from a knife attack shows either will work.
@Nellybert , so when people look up to see how many mass shootings happen after a gun ban. Do they do the logically responsible thing and follow up with research into how many mass deaths are caused by other things such as cars and knives in the wake of lack of fire arms? Do the total number of deaths go down overall.
Its easy to say gun deaths go down when there are no guns. But it doesn’t solve the overall problem of the other deaths that continue to happen via other means of murder.
A good analogy would be. I can go on a diet and start eating healthy. But I’m not going to lose weight if i eat just as much or more healthy food to make up for the lack of unhealthy food I ate before.
And if this line of thought sounds dumb or doesn’t make sense to you. Then you’re probably not equipped enough to be making a proper judgement on whats best for everyone.
The point is. Theres more to it than simply making all the guns go away.
@Egotiator, sure, but the truck was a terrorist attack 2 years ago, and the china attack was 4. apparently there have been a total of 18 school shootings this year, how many mass stabbings have there been.
Edit: after relooking up, there have not been 18 school shootings, just it was really shjtty reporting that does nothing, but make the issue harder to push.
@Seohn, If stricter gun control (I’m not specifying a form it has to take - and ‘control’ does not have to mean ‘ban’) meant a reduction in the number of teenagers walking in to schools and murdering a dozen or so children, would you support it?
No one is saying that gun control would stop murders from happening, but reducing the number of children murdered in school each year does sound like a good thing to me.
@Egotiator, Yep, murders still happen. But in 20 years we’ve had zero school shootings. How many do you think there have been in the US in that time?
I’m not advocating a ban on guns - hell, I’m not making any suggestions on what the solution is as what works here won’t necessarily work there. But if the end result is fewer children murdered in their classrooms each week, isn’t it worth actually having a proper conversation about it?
@Killing instincts , i don't understand your point. I could say more or less but my point was murders will stay the same with or without guns. Well actually in Europe they've increased recently. Addressing other factors other than the weapon of choice would probably yield less deaths. In fact, a better argument could be made for a model like the swiss where every child is taught weapons training and is encouraged to have a firearm when you come of age. If 10% of the students or faculty had guns in all schools, how many school killings would there be? Probably less than the forceful banning and confiscation of all guns. This kid also could've just drove a van into the students after school or planted a bomb either way too. People who say don't ban guns aren't heartless monsters who don't want to solve the problem, they're the emotionally level headed who don't want people's rights taken from them as a stupid ineffective and dangerous kneejerk solution that won't solve the real issue.
@Egotiator, Look at Japans crime rate. Its not low because of lack of guns. Its low because of cultural reasons. The same reason we have so many school shootings in the states.
@Nellybert , @Nellybert , look, of the past 93 shootings there have been, only two of the people were actually allowed to have guns. Any type of ban or restriction will not work. We have the strictest gun control laws in this country than we've ever had and yet we have more killings then I can remember. There is a problem happening in this country and around the world that gun control advocates are insane in their denial of it. You guys are like a broken record and are refusing to propose any other problem then firearms existing. You might be willing to give up many of your rights so that one less child dies per year, but giving up this right will not save lives. It will continue to put them at risk because we are refusing to address what's actually causing their deaths.
@Egotiator, Back up a second - at no point did I propose a ban in the US. As I said, what worked here might not work there. ‘Better gun control’ can simply mean ‘a more effective way of keeping legal firearms out of the wrong hands’. Take this Nikolas Cruz guy - if there had been better checks in place to flag him as being potentially nuts, perhaps he could have been prevented from buying the rifle he needed to kill all those people. Keeping that gun out of his hands would negate the argument for banning the gun.
I’m not advocating any particular solution, simply saying that in my personal opinion (which is simply an opinion and so I do not it claim it to be any more ‘right’ than any other opinion) there needs to be a serious and open debate about what the objective of gun law is and how best to achieve it.
@Egotiator, As a side topic - so let’s not talk about ‘gun control’ here - what, in your opinion, is what’s actually causing their deaths?
@Egotiator, 1. I never said people banning guns are heartless, and 2 while it may be implied I dont want guns banned I want them harder to purchase. My point is this, guns are way easier to kill than any alternative, a knife has the murder chasing people, a van is fast and dangerous when the intention to kill is there, but it cant chase people everywhere like inside a building, it also can't keep hiting obsticals and run properly, the hardest one to argue against is a bombs, they can be made with instructions on the internet. They alsohave the potential to harm and kill more people. My arguement on why bombs are harder to kill than a gun is that unless someone is going to decided to aluhakbar they have to make sure the bomb will not go off near them, and then have to hope that enough people are near, not to mention unless the killer has made usually bombings have 1 or 2 bombs in the act.
@Seohn, Look, I am not advocating a ban or suggesting it - I stated that what worked here won’t necessarily work there. I simply gave a fact - in 20 years we’ve had 1 mass shooting.
@Nellybert, i like you, and i actually super agree with @Seohn. We've definitely lost our way. If you look at the nations with the lowest crime rates, they are the nations that are the most culturally homogeneous. I believe Identity politics is making our once homogeneous culture divided in recent years and is causing this strife. But the world has lost its focus long ago it seems. It could be asked of any county or person: what are we fighting for? We always had an answer, but now? Now we need to fight ourselves they say. Down with men, the rich, the white, the straight, the conservatives, the liberals, the government, etc. The worst I think is our society's lack of direction for, and even demonization of, masculinity. If masculinity built our society, it can bring it down. Like a rocket without its guidance systems, it can crash and burn and destroy when let loose. We need to teach our men what it means to be men, to be the vanguards of our societies, and shown an example to follow.
@Egotiator, Guns are easy, as 1. you can fire upon an entire room and kill mulitple people with out moving an inch, not only can you follow people inside and outside but you don't need to worry about hitting anything else, in flodria a mentally unstable kid was able to walk in to a store and buy a fvcking AR. strictest gun laws my ass, bombs can be made, but why go through the trouble of DYIing a dangerous item such as a bomb, when you can buy an AR at the local gunstore along with some ammo? So while I don't think you are heartless I do not get the thought proccess of "Lets just throw some more fvcking guns in the mix, those good guys with gun will surely outway the number of bad people!"
@Killing instincts , they would tho, that's why society can function. And the kid passed his background check so the agencies responsible (most fbi's fault for not flaging after being reported) for that and the parents and teachers and doctors all should be looked at. The fact he passed, especially with that fb of his, is what should really make your blood boil.
@Egotiator, Coming from a different continent I don’t have the shared experience or culture to fully empathise with that statement - but I think I largely agree with you and understand the point you’re making.
@Nellybert , but going back to what you were advocating about, I super agree keeping guns out of the hands of people who absolutely should not have them and would only use them for harm is a good idea. This case is so sad because apparently this kid showed signs but his teachers and parents did nothing and the FBI did not add him to their database and so he passed his background check. Maybe a more proper look at mental heath would help. I like your idea of checks set up like needing psychiatric help or certain behaviors exhibited that would add him to a database that would be triggered by a background check. It sounds like a slippery slope though, and the metrics to be judged would be created by politicians with their own agendas and also how perfect can such a system be? A more fair solution could actually be to train all students in firearm use and allow everyone who is of age to carry. It would be hard for any mass anything to take place ever again, and now you could fight back.
@Nellybert , I don’t know if its been said already but guns aren’t banned d in the uk just regulated. Basically any gun that be concealed is banned. You are still able to get hand guns as long as its modified to a carbine setup
@Nellybert , what country are you from?
@Mr Moose Knuckle , You can have a shotgun or a rifle (rimfire, 0.22 calibre max). Solid slug shells are banned unless specifically licensed, no gun can have a capacity of more than 3 rounds and all have to be over 24” long. You can buy larger calibre rifles, but only single shot varieties.
You must hold a separate license (granted by the police after a face to face interview and an inspection of your locked storage case) for each firearm and provide a valid reason for owning it (not ‘self defence’). Using the gun for any other purpose (such as shooting a deer with a gun licensed for shooting foxes) can result in revocation of the license and confiscations of the gun.
To all intents and purposes, all pistols and most rifles are banned.
@Egotiator, I can’t agree with you on the idea of letting all students carry. I won’t argue it with you or try to say you’re wrong, just letting you know we have a difference of opinion there.
I have to drop off now though I’m afraid - it’s Saturday morning here and I have a leaking pipe to fix because the guy I bought this house from apparently thought that putting a handful of silicone putty on it and sealing the bath panel back up was a viable, long term solution.... Good talking to you though.
@JDPhi, or maybe nobody needs legal access to an ar-15? Especially a 19 year old who had known issues. Not saying we should ban all guns, but could you explain to me why anyone would ever need access to a gun like that?
@K1l, I'm a 19 y.o with an ar-15 and the worst thing that has ever been killed with it is a soda can.
The problem is not the gun it's that someone who would so such a thing had access to them. The reason we have access to them is the same reason that we have the right to protest, because a disarmed populous is a vulnerable one. I have advocated for a while though for some form of mental health screening but you can't avoid the problem of due process. Basically it comes down to in this case the authorities should be informed of the person, go before a judge with evidence that suggests this person shouldn't have a gun have the judge issue an order for psychological evaluation, evaluate the person in question and then the authorities and the "accused"go back to the judge, the psychologist gives a report and the "accused" has a chance to defend himself. People who pose a credible risk will be banned from having firearms but more importantly it can't be used to remove them unjustly.
@Kliment Voroshilov, You’re not getting my point. It shouldn’t be that easy for anyone to get a gun like that, that easily. I understand your point pf better mental health checks, but sometimes, people can just snap without showing any signs of issues beforehand, which has been the case.
Nobody needs a gun that powerful. There are plenty of other guns that will do more than suffice for home protection and hunting. You don’t need something like that in your home unless the terminator is coming after you. The only other argument you have left is the militant government. The chance of our government doing that is extremely low. The government would have nothing to gain from turning militant, they have much more control and influence without it. Even if it were to ever happen, it wouldn’t happen anytime soon. If they even did that right now and every citizen was armed, we’d still have no shot. They have shjt like bombs and drones, guns won’t do anything but get more of our own killed.
@K1l, I understand your point it's just incorrect. What's so bad about that gun? Statistically speaking your something like 5x more likely to be stabbed than shot with any long gun, shotgun or rifle not just the ar-15. Again the type of people who commit these mass shootings are rarely the ones who just snap in almost every case that comes to mind there was some sort of known issue that would make the system I proposed effective, this is of course not representative of the majority of gun deaths. If we want to talk terminator the ar-15 is probably the worst choice, the ammunition as I stated in a reply to you below is designed to break up and stop in flesh making it useless against armor. When it comes to the drones and bombs people made similar arguments the first time that they were going against the most powerful empire in the world (and with some help) came out on top.
@Egotiator, what your suggesting (arming teachers) is horrible for 2 reasons 1. It's essentially a police state that only breeds more violence and civil unrest to see so many armed around You, there is historical and empirical evidence for this, and 2. Is a horrible thing to expect of teachers as well to have to be ready and knowledgeable to kill someone. Also yes with gun control other types of killings went up. But the per capita rate of deaths per citizen and per killing is way down because they're just much harder to pull off, so it has saved lives
@Kliment Voroshilov, statistics are nothing unless you look at the reasons behind them. In any stabbing there is a much lower mortality rate and number affected, and the reason it's more likely is because of ubiquitous access to knives. If we made guns more accessible as people suggest it would only raise the gun rate to what we see with knives. And you can't claim anything to do with trying to solve mental health when the new budget proposal by the president slashes funding for school and campus mental health services, doing nothing about guns and making the mental health problem worse so not only is nothing being done on one end but the other side of the scale is being lifted as well. The most effective solution is attacking it from all angles but right now literally the only actions being taken are gonna make it worse
@jouze, You're exactly right that there tend to be lower mortality rates in stabings but the number of stabings means more people effected than guns. The suggestion that stabings happen because of access to knives is absurd. The proliferation of guns in America has something like doubled in the last 10 years and the rate of violent crime has decreased by something near half, Now I'm not suggesting that the two things correlate (that more guns caused the decrease) but more guns have not changed the rate of decrease. Why do you assume I support the budget? And saying that I coudlnt claim that if I did is also absurd. I don't think the school/ campus services are equipped to deal with these kind of people.
@jouze, your comment is so laughable that I assume it's a parody of liberal talking points. "arming teachers creates a police state". Lol, as if disarming all except the police does not. And why would it make civil unrest? Either way, my point wasn't arming teachers was the solution. The point was even doing that would yield better results than restricting guns further. Also empirical evidence shows arming teachers work on a large scale ie. Oklahoma and the like. Again, the point is restricting guns at all is stupid because now my rights are restricted and my chances of being killed don't change. Besides, it's so easy to mill out your own AR and glock now without the gov knowing you have it that it makes the point mute. Instead, look for other solutions, like encouraging a homogeneous culture in our schools again ie. American dream, God, work ethic, manhood, etc.
@Egotiator, it makes civil unrest because it puts people In a constant state of fear. Seeing that everyone around them is armed makes them feel that there's a reason they need to be armed makes them feel like they are in danger constantly. Lots of kids don't feel safer when they see a gun around they feel less safe. And chances are if you are a responsible gun owner your rights won't change. I don't want them to take away all your guns hell I don't want them to take away my guns but loopholes like private sales and gun shows and the lack of research into causality of gun violence need to change. What's so wrong with allowing the cdc to try to research some causative or linking factor between shootings? And if you really think brining God and the archaic form of manhood back into the classroom will make people nowadays feel better you're more delusional than the extreme liberals
@Egotiator, and the fact that you can machine guns doesn't make the point of gun control mute. Not every person enraged by something in their life is going to have the time, skill, machinery, or patience necessary to mill out a gun so if smarter gun control can stop one of those people from getting a gun it's done something effective whereas nothing is being done now
@Kliment Voroshilov, you can't just spout statistics and assume causative factors between them without looking behind it or doing studies. Yes guns have proliferated. A lot of that is people who have guns buying more, and families already with guns having kids grow up and the expansion of the us population. And the number of stabbing like I said is higher but even with that the number of mortalities is lower. And I disagree I think easy access to counselors and better rehabilitation would absolutely help at least some of these people if anything create a less tense feels around campus as more people have a manner to relieve stress
@jouze, I agree with you on your first point there and I went out of my way to say that the proliferation of firearms was not the cause of the decrease but unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion that proliferation should have led to an increase, No?
I guess where we disagree on the mental health issue is I don't think the kind of person who is willing to commit a shooting is going to be straightened out by a counselor st the school. I think they are to deeply disturbed. It probably would help some people but I question it's effectiveness in these cases specifically.
@jouze, well your loopholes don't exist. None of these shooters obtained their guns that way either, so stop thinking i can buy a gun at a gun show or private sale without a background check, cuz you can't legally. Also, any idiot can mill it out. Rent a machine at home depot and print instructions online. Also all of these killings were premeditated for weeks so that's a dumb argument too. And saying kids get scared if they think there is a gun nearby is a dumb reason to affect policy. I get scared not having a gun so does that mean i should have one? I can't even buy an AR in CA but that won't change any death rate. Banning all guns, some guns, restricting guns won't save any lives. Look at london or berlin or paris. And teaching men what being a man is instead of demonizing them and their aggression would avoid many of these shooting. How's your way going lately btw? All the archaic teachings of the past are gone. Are these problems solved yet? Did they get better? No. They haven't.
@jouze, look, I'm not trying to say anything negative. I'm simply pointing out that the reasons you and other gun control advocates list as reasons to restrict the access of firearms are not valid reasons to solving the shootings problem. That's all gun supporters are saying. When you propose closing loopholes, restricting certain weapon types, banning guns based on looks, or any other addition to the web of regulations restricting legal access to firearms, it will not stop a single shooting from occurring. Gun supporters aren't trying to stop a solution from happening, they are simply pointing out your solutions will not achieve the result you want because the reasons behind them aren't currently the reasons why the shootings occur.
@Egotiator, I disagree though, while making it harder to get guns may not entirely prevent every shooting we have evidence and cases where better control would have prevented a specific case (like a 19 year old having an ar-15) from happening. And yes something else may have happened but this specific case would not happen and something would change. And I guess then the first step is we should lift the ban on gun violence research atleast? What is so wrong with allowing research on the subject
@Nellybert , right, now people just get stabbed and robbed with knives.
@Killing instincts , ok for your name, this is a silly question. Guns make noise. Knives do not. If thought out, you could drop a lot more bodies with a knife before anyone knew what was happening, than you could with a gun.
@Caine, If that kid in Florida had walked in with a knife, do you think he would have killed 17 people or been beaten down by the football coach in two minutes flat? In fact, do you think he would have even tried? Takes a whole lot more determination to get up close & personal with a knife than just point & squeeze with a rifle.
No level of gun control will stop all crime - no one is pretending it will - but you sure can’t kill 50 people from a Vegas hotel room window with a knife.
@jouze, nothing, but the political cdc wouldn't be the right choice. We already have private studies including a massive study by congress which was already done in the late 80's, but these studies didn't have the conclusions democrats want, so they want to try again. Magically, if allowed, i think the conclusion would be different, regardless of facts. So it's being blocked for smart political reasons. Also, Columbine showed that non-ARs work very well. AR or not, he would've killed if he wanted to. A shotgun no-joke would have been FAR more deadly. Look, access to Firearms is not the reason. I believe it's culture, but only a study into the cause of shootings and not the links of guns to shootings, is what I would support and is what I think we need. I do not think today's politics though would allow an unbiased study of any kind. But universities are currently barred from studying anything like race, gender, trans mentality, So no study into culture is politically possible now.
@Egotiator, do you know the name of that study? Or the authors I want to see what they studied and their methods I haven't heard of it. And while the cdc maybe politicized funding research grants to independent researchers to study whether a change in mental health programs would have an effect or if a mental health professional could predict this would be helpful. And where does it say universities are barred from studying those things just this past issue in Springer psychology a study in transgenderism was published
@Egotiator, Question for you: Assuming no changes were made regarding the legality of existing firearms, where do you stand on the idea of legislation to allow an appropriate authority to go “this dude is nuts, no guns for him”? Sort of like the ban on felons buying guns. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation and there’s no way we could explore every scenario, just wondering what your high-level view on the idea is.
@Egotiator, the American dream came true thats why things are the way they are so that wouldnt improve our country and make things more harmonious. God also wouldnt improve things. Japans not a God fearing nation and they are doing just fine in the low crime rate. The problem is a culture taught to fight and argue over petty stuff. The divide in politics and where the blame is on others and not ones own mistakes.
A country of assholes breeds nothing but more assholes. Its a cultural issue.
all examples of people getting stabbed (one in the neck), all survived. if you are trying to kill multiple people, you have to know how to use a knife effectivly to actually kill enough people, also when you get noticed people are going to fight back if cornered.
While knives are silent, people are going to notice a dead body with blood on the floor. unless you are cleaning every crime scene.
@Seohn, which was my point. God and country united our nation in the past. What works in Japan won't work here, and they have other societal issues to address. Patriotism, faith, hard work, these are the American dream. Saying it's dead and done now has left us aimless and looking for targets. I'm not saying bring it back, but we need real effort put into homogenizing our culture and goals. The media and liberals are actively fighting against that for their own agendas and is causing many of our nation's strife i believe. Rejection of what made us great won't make anything better.
@JDPhi, my gun is a tool..I am the weapon this is my rifle there are many like it but this one is mine without it I am nothing without me it is nothing
@jouze, i can try to find it, tho my main point was that studies are politicized (republican in the 80's). The data is there to extrapolate tho and they show gun restrictions don't lower murders or killings. It's also a right and so a slippery slope if it's ok to screw with that one. I'll try to find the reports if you want to msg me on fb. The barring is a thing imposed by the universities as their pc policies. I can show examples too. Again, the point is that the conclusions can be and will be construed to fit the agenda, which right now is very liberal.
@Nellybert , in theory, it sounds great on paper. But my fear comes from who gets to judge? Who are the angels judging who should or shouldn't have arms? It's a right that now we're saying only some should have. At the state level, maybe, but definitely not at the federal level. It could go south. You in the UK already understand this. You don't have a right to freedom of speech. People in your country have been arrested over tweets deemed offensive. Who gets to judge if it's offencive? Tweeting you think all Muslims should go home could land you in prison in your country. You can't even have an opposing view anymore about immigration without appearing offensive and having consequences imposed on you simply because you are going against the state's agenda. You could apply this to any issue. So my fear is, like any policy, it can be politicised and used as a weapon. I don't see any program like this that can strip a man of his rights being in a man's best interest in any long-run.
@Nellybert , now, saying previous actions can bar man from guns, on the state level, is something I can agree with, or at least compromise on. If a man had to be committed for psychiatric treatment as a danger, or committed a felony, or posted about killing or making threats like this kid did, then I think that should put him on the FBI list so he would fail a background check. In this case he was reported to the FBI, but the FBI failed to flag him. This could have all been avoided with current laws in this country but the ball was dropped.
@Egotiator, Oh yeah, any government can take a theoretically potentially good idea and f**k it right up.
Don’t believe everything you read on twitter, we have freedom of speech. If you deliberately try to incite violence or hatred you can get done for it, but we don’t live in some kind of police state (95% of whom aren’t armed, so wouldn’t do much of a job enforcing totalitarianism anyway). 😋
@Egotiator,Just wanted to say that I’ve noticed that at no point in this discussion have you fallen back on lines like “God given right” or “it’s the Constitution and therefore can’t even be discussed” - and for that I respect you. I don’t agree with everything you’ve said, but I respect the way you’ve been willing to discuss the possibility of compromise rather than sticking to an absolute line. I hope more people can do the same and that one day some form of solution is reached which both respects the constitution and reduces mass shootings.
@Egotiator, Thats my point. What you are proposing wont work. Who’s faith? This is not a Christian nation but one of many faiths. The fact that there are Christians out there that believe that anyone talking about other religions or no religion is an attack on them. Only feeds in destroying harmony. They too are part of the problem. Since they blame rather than live and let live. The American dream isn’t dead. On the contrary this is what the American dream looks like. America is the way it is today because of the American dream. Just look around you. My point is what worked before. Will no longer work for America. It’s time to change. Have to come up with a new more creative solution because going back to the old ladies. Just will not work. Despite what certain political party say.
@Egotiator, in an ever-changing and technologically advancing world. We cannot go back to the old ways. They just don’t work with todays world. The sooner everyone comes to terms with this and learns to live harmoniously in a new world rather than restore the old one. The better all our lives will be.
@JDPhi, preach boi!
@Killing instincts , to be fair then, plenty of people survive gun shots. Beyond that, the rifle isn't concealable like a knife and niece the first body falls, there's going to be fear so it's hard to say how the coach would react tbh.
@Nellybert , statistically, the mass shootings in those countries have dropped at a slower rate than the US, so...
Also, the majority of successful stops to mass shootings are done by civilians with guns.
@Child Slapper, The UK had one mass shooting 8 years ago, that was the first in 22 years. Same goes for Australia - one mass shooting in 1996, only one since then. I don’t know what’s happened in terms of the US mass shooting rate, but as the UK has only ever had 3 mass shootings it’s basically impossible to give a statistical rate change - there just aren’t enough incidences for it. So wherever you think you got that comparison from, it’s talking bollocks.
Press [F] to pay respect
@Bad Boi Jesus, [F]
@Bad Boi Jesus, f
@Bad Boi Jesus, *breaks [F] key from respect*
@Bad Boi Jesus, can't pay respect to a fictional story. This exact story was circulating in 1999, but it was an American general, LTG Reinwald, who made the remark during an NPR interview. And years before that it was a Welsh troop master who made the exact same comment. The American general was a fictional name, but General Cosgrove is an actual retired Australian officer, with a distinguished career, who never said this.
@Bad Boi Jesus, *violenting presses [F] repeatedly "
@occasionalmutant, it might be fake but it’s fvckin beautiful destruction
@Bad Boi Jesus, oh it's a great story, well worth retelling. I just tire of people
I don't have a problem with people learning how to properly handle guns (I learned to shoot a gun in Boy Scouts), but it is too easy to buy a gun in America, many gun advertisements are frankly horrible, the gun industry directly profits off of paranoia and mass shootings, and a lot of people who can legally buy guns should not be able to.
@Depressed Panda, yeah, the kid who shot up that school a few days ago bought an ar-15 legally.
-a.) why was someone that young allowed to buy a weapon like that?
-b.) why would someone with known mental health issues have access to a weapon like that? He literally wasn’t even allowed to carry a backpack in school because the teachers thought he was “disturbed”. He was also in and out of mental health treatment
C.) why woukd anyone ever need access to a gun like that in the first place? It’s not for hunting, and it’s not logical for in home protection
@K1l, Ok I responded to your first points in a comment above but C. Is a little ridiculous. It is a perfect rifle for varmint hunting as well as home protection, using 55gr ball ammo it is designed to stop in something like 7 inches and will usually break up after passing through drywall. I keep my ar-15 locked loaded and locked away under my bed for this exact use.
@Kliment Voroshilov, Wait - you keep a loaded AR-15 under your bed for ‘varmits’? In the house? Dude, buy a mousetrap!
@Nellybert , No, I probably could have punctuated that better, I keep it there for home protection.
And varmints aren't just mice, that includes rabbits, raccoons, possums, coyotes, muskrats, groundhogs, wild boar, etc. I live in rural Ohio so there are more than just mice or rats to deal with.
@Kliment Voroshilov, That makes a little more sense - I was assuming that if you kept it loaded under your bed it would be to deal with something already inside and was wondering what kind of f**ked-up Fallout-style varmits we’re getting in to your house! 🤣
@Nellybert , Fücking Mole rats man!
@Kliment Voroshilov, That would be a valid reason. You ever find a Deathclaw nest though, just move.
@Nellybert , Nah I don't have to move for a desthclaw nest. Every house in Ohio comes with a loaded Fat Man over the fireplace, Its state law.
@Nellybert , fun fact: there os no data to support the claim that having a gun keeps you safer. That claim cones from gun manufacturers, who are conveniently the same people who made it a law that the CDC can't research guns.
@Depressed Panda, Having a gun would probably make me less safe - I’d likely get a false sense of security, do something stupid and get myself killed. But hey, that’s just me. 😋
@Depressed Panda, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/
Is this a reputable source?
Poor timing I think. Good zinger though
If only he’d been around before the emu wars...
This guy, this guy is a man. A man who created fire from rubbing two tree huggers together. A mans man.
Common sense should be common! Great response to an ignorant question!!
Guns don't kill people. People kill people
I’m a 10 year vet super proud to be an American, but I’m moving there now just to meet this guy.
It’s on their internet so it must be true
@Invisigoth, this actually happened, so yeah ur right
@TR8R, this interview b/t Peter Cosgrove and ABC’s Leigh Sales is a hoax. The argument is funny and clever anyways.
k ik this is random but i need inspiration for a comic
@Michael Jay Caboose, that's dangerous! You must be a madman degenerate!