Same goes for the US. Assualt Rifles have been heavily regulated in the US since 1934 when they were classified as machine guns. For the most part Americans don't have access to assault rifles either.
@NotCaveJohnson, I don’t care if we ban them or not, but I think this is referring to the mass shootings that used assault rifles in the last few years. They are the reason that like 49 people die, instead of idk 9-17? Once again ban them or don’t, it doesn’t affect me and I don’t care but I’m pretty sure that’s what is being addressed here. They make it easy for somebody to kill a whole lot of people in a very short amount of time, unlike most other guns.
@Earth Chan, they didn't use assault rifles. An AR-15 is a semi automatic rifle not an assault rifle. When calling for legislation the devil is in the details and the definitions and classifications of weapons is incredibly important. An assault rifle has a specific definition and you would struggle to find a mass shooting that actually utilized one. Which is why when you call for legislation calling for a ban or restrictions on assault rifles it comes across as misinformed and ignorant. They are already heavily regulated and not used in mass shootings. Your free to have your opinion on guns in general but I hope you inform yourself enough to use the correct words and understand the terminology. Btw, Virginia Tech massacre was done with nothing but pistols. 56 casualties, 33 deaths. If Omar Mateen didn't have a rifle he would be likely to use something else. The floorplan of Pulse and the attendance that night attributed more to # of fatalities than the type of gun did.
@NotCaveJohnson, I think this was referring to the minimal shootings using actual assault Rifles and the shootings using AR-15 rifles that had Bump Stocks, so although they are not technically “Assualt Rifles” they act like them with the capability to fire fully automatically. It was merely saying that Australia doesn’t allow this caliber of weapon at all. Once again I don’t have a firm stance I think there are good points on both sides, personally I don’t see the point of having any assault weapons in the hands of citizens(meaning I just literally don’t get what the purpose would be) but also America is a different and much more violent country so I’m sure banning these types of weapons wouldn’t get rid of the problem (although it would undeniably lessen the amount, if you take away pencils people will still write but they’ll write less)
@Earth Chan, they are just rifles. Assault rifle is something else. Don't use that term unless you mean it. Youtube search "bump fire without a bump fire stock", spoiler* you can bump fire with your fingers, and "glock 26 - bump fire stick".
Bump fire methods can be used on pistols too and can be made from a piece of plywood with a metal tube through it.
You're down to lever action rifles, shotguns and revolvers if you want guns that can't bump fire bullets. It'd be nice if that was all that existed but it's not the case.
Can I ask something? What if your heard of a shooting with 30+ casualties with a lever action rifle? Or a shooter that manufactured from scratch his own fully automatic rifle? What would be your suggested course of action?
@Earth Chan, I don't agree that people will write less. They just do something else for better or worse, only time will tell. Tax cigarettes, you get vaping on a huge scale because it fit that niche. That craving. Americans just like making things go boom. Guns fill the gap for the human tendency of destruction and a little bit of patriotism, a tribal mentality. It's not hard to grasp. The US was founded on being oppositional to over bearing governments. So in a way its patriotic to be prepared to be oppositional to an over bearing government. Hence Americans buy lots and lots of guns.
@NotCaveJohnson, You seem to be under the impression that I’m against guns. I literally don’t care, I’ve had debates with people where I argue both sides. If it were me I’d ban all guns because in my opinion that would lessen the amount of murders, however I’m not for the banning of all guns simply because people seem to want them and I don’t care so if people want them let them have them. Some people switch to vaping but not all, and a lot of people switched because it’s way better for your health so that doesn’t really work as an example in our discussion because there are other factors at play. You think that if we banned pencils not even one person would write less? All I said was people would write less not that they would stop writing.
@Earth Chan, "You seem to be under the impression that I'm against guns... If it were me I'd ban all guns..." Yeah, I wonder where I got that impression.
@NotCaveJohnson, I love guns, I think they’re cool and useful tools. Just because I would ban them if it were solely up to me doesn’t mean that I’m against them, I gave my reasons for why I would ban them. I don’t think a lot of people are responsible enough in America to handle them so it ruins it for the rest of us.
@NotCaveJohnson, so what do you do when you hear of a shooting? Shake your head and strap up?
@CosmoTheKramer, if it was a vulnerable target, i would figure out how to make the target less vulnerable. And apply that to other potential targets. I'm always wondering why the gun store it was purchased from is never named and shamed. If you sell a gun to someone under investigation from the FBI that's pretty dumb if the information is there.
Sometimes my reaction is to shake my head. people will always lash out against society and break the rules. Right now someone is making bombs in Austin and leaving them as packages at homes. what's your reaction to that?
I view a lot of this gun control rhetoric as if I'm on a plane with someone who is afraid of flying and a strong bout of turbulence occurs. the other person becomes frantic and concerned, stands up, yells at the stewardess, makes the situation worse by causing a stir. I don't do that because I know that everything theyre doing won't help. it doesn't mean I'm not concerned, I just don't want to contribute to the bumdy ride.
@Earth Chan, oh, I noticed you said there are multiple shootings that used bump stocks. The Las Vegas shooting is literally the only one.
@NotCaveJohnson, thoughts and prayers, buddy, thoughts and prayers. What's a potential target?
@NotCaveJohnson, so as turbulence is to be expected at altitude and when flying in a plane, what does this say about guns within your comparison?
@CosmoTheKramer, The line to get through security at the airport is a pretty venerable one I always come across. Hundreds of unarmed people corralled into a densley formed line. You don't have to go through security to enter an airport on that side of the checkpoint.
It's about protecting people's freedom and not placing a floppy mess of ineffective legislation into law. Banning pieces of plastic (bump stocks) and metal boxes with springs of certain dimensions (magazines above an allowed size) in an age of 3D printing is a futile exercise to disuage concerns that have no effect on reality. I'm pointing out that it's a placebo, it creates a false sense of security and does more harm than good.
@NotCaveJohnson, what's the placebo? What's is "it"? Isn't the point of our civilized society to exist with sense of security, have we failed this then because we must be in edge and aware of potential dangers despite seeking to attain our concept of civilization? Why do other persons concerns about this issue have no effect on reality, what concerns are being dissuaded by this "placebo"?
@CosmoTheKramer, When your driving down a road do you ever wonder what would happen if you just turned into oncoming traffic? A small turn of the wheel can change everything in people's lives. What If the car driving down the road went on to the sidewalk while you were walking down it? You are always vulnerable to someone who disregards the rules. ALWAYS. Murder is illegal, death is real, life in prison is terrible, what more do I need to dissuade someone from running a truck through a market or shooting up a school. More laws for them to break? Why would they care? This world is fragile, the placebo is that you can make it more robust by banning guns.
The point of a society is subjective. Its civilized because people are held accountable for their actions. Being safe is less a hallmark of a civilized society than being accountable is. People who kill other people are either killed in the process or are held accountable for their crimes afterwards. Civilized society upheld.
@CosmoTheKramer, i take back that its upheld. I want the cop who stood outside while the shooting was happening to be held accountable, the gun store to be held accountable, the FBI to be held accountable. The parents, if applicable, the spouse of apllicable... etc.
@NotCaveJohnson, as an assault rifle owning american, thats an utter lie
@Hoban Washburne, What assualt rifle do you own?
@NotCaveJohnson, ar15 ar10. the former with an adjustable stock, flip up irons, no handrail, and an 80% lower i finished myself. the latter similar but with a solid stock and a low power scope
@Hoban Washburne, Are they in fully automatic configurations?
@Hoban Washburne, those aren't assault rifles unless they have the capability of fully automatic firing. If you've made the modification yourself and you're not a registered dealer it would be illegal. You wouldn't be able to own it unless you were law enforcement or some other dealer or manufacturer. A fully automatic AR15 is upwards of $10k. So do you have an assault rifle or a couple of nice semi auto rifles from ArmaLite?
@NotCaveJohnson, looked up the definition on merriam webster. first definition specifies automatic. second says any rifle made to mimic a military assault rifle but is limited to semiautomatic fire. i. e. ar15 ar10 by the merriam webster definition are assault rifles. and if i wanted to make them effectively automatic id just buy a 200 dollar bump stock from slidefire or a 100 binary trigger
@Hoban Washburne, You can bumpfire with just your fingers. Pull the barrel forward while firing and keep you fingers as stationary as possible, either in the air or against your body. The recoil of the gun resets the trigger and the forward force on the barrel pulls the trigger into the finger allowing you to bumpfire. Save the $200.
The dictionary is descriptive, not presciptive. It is a reference to reflect usages in common parlance. The legal definition is, on the other hand, prescriptive.
For example, literally is not supposed to mean emphasis, yet common missusage of the word has lead to a new entry in the Merriam Webster dictionary to reflect it's usage in common parlance. Use a word wrongly for long enough and it gets it's own entry. You don't own assault rifles according to the law. It doesn't matter how fast you can consecutively pull the trigger, it's still semi automatic.
@NotCaveJohnson, you cant effectively aim with a stockless bump method. you have to hip fire with the stationary stock. bump enables ADS with the hair trigger tactic.
find me a definition that agrees with you. ive found you a definition that agrees with me. an esoteric “legal definition” is nowhere near specific enough to constitute any sort of definitive citation.
@NotCaveJohnson, for instance. the CT state definition for assault rifles is inclusive of both AR15s and AR10s. used to live there
@Hoban Washburne, you can also make a bump stick for ADS. A piece of plywood and steel tube. Or 3D print them if you've got the know how.
@NotCaveJohnson, been tempted, studied electrical engineering which is inclusive of cad and 3d printing. but i dont have the desire. the functional argument is that any semi-automatic variant assault rifle is effectively automatic with very little expended effort.
@Hoban Washburne, any semi automatic GUN is very easily converted into a high fire rate weapon. They won't be buzz saws like the Vectors or P90s but they'll fire fast.
Which is why I'm not confident any banning of accecories with be effective because they can easily be circumnavigated. And weapons built for automatic are already illegal. There's not much more you can do other than strip guns away from owners.
@NotCaveJohnson, i dunno man. my .303 enfield aint shootin more than 10 a minute. and you could do a lot to make it a lot harder to do home mods. its just that folks dont wanna cuz we think having our own home auto rifles is cool. hell im as guilty as anyone. i think it’d be cool. but nobody wants to cop to their shjt and say “maybe we need to make this stuff a bit harder to get”
@Hoban Washburne, your Enfield is a bolt action, not a semi automatic. You have to do a lot more than just pull the trigger. Revolvers, lever aciton, bolt action, etc.. are not semi automatic.
@Hoban Washburne, that was a very well said comment sir.
@NotCaveJohnson, it seems to me that you are arguing semantics here. It is absolutely important to make sure you are being specific when writing a law or considering one so that there is no ambiguity in its enforcement. However, as one of the other commenters said, even the legal definition of what constitutes an assault rifle varies from state to state. That being the case, by some state’s legal definition, some of those mass shootings did involve assault rifles.
@NotCaveJohnson, moreover, why does it even matter? More people have died in this county from gun violence than any other civilized country in recent years. I’m not saying bam weapons, you and I both know that won’t solve the problems since criminals will still have guns, but why not take some steps to make modding certain weapons harder. If you ban 20 round mags for pistols for example can people still acquire them if they are driven enough? Absolutely. Is everyone who lost access to that 20 round mag going to be driven enough to get one through now illegal methods? Absolutely not. Even if it’s only 5% of people who end up being too lazy to seek out these kind of accessories after a ban isn’t that worth it if it ends up saving lives or even has the potential to save lives?
@NotCaveJohnson, the whole reason we have the right to own weapons like this anyway is the second amendment. In the context of the second amendment we have this right so that we can defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property against the government should things go awry. It’s that whole “well armed militia part.” The thing is, the way the government is today, if things went down and for some reason the armed forces (which are controlled by the government) were scrambled against the civilian population, no amount of bump stocks or assault rifles would give us even close to a fighting chance. That being the case, there is literally no point in owing those types of weapon modifications in the first place because they do not level the playing field for us. So if there’s not point why have them available at all if it costs other innocent people their lives?
@NotCaveJohnson, lastly, it’s nice to see that people can have a civil conversation here about a topic that is important. I have great respect for the fact that you, and everyone else who was involved in this comment thread, kept things professional throughout. If only our politicians could do that with this issue and all the other issues we’d be on pretty good shape.
Thanks facebook, now get out of funnypics
It honestly bothers me (as an Australian) when people look at America, look at Australia, notice the difference in gun crime and gun controls, and use that to suggest that gun control therefore works. It’s over-simplistic binary thinking. Another way of looking it it, is saying that Using 2 data points there is a correlation, and then making the age old error of saying correlation = causation.
You need to look at many many more countries than just two to get a more fair picture. Switzerland has very low gun control but also very low gun crime. Honduras has very high gun control and very high gun crime. If you were to look at just those two countries it would appear that gun control INCREASES gun crime rates. However that wouldn’t be accurate either. Looking at many different countries all together you find there is no correlation (or very weak correlation). But even if there was a correlation, it still DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION.
Before Australia moved to increase gun control it already..
@Theuns, had very very low gun crime rates adding to the argument that you cannot simply say the rates are due to the gun control. Also, in the years leading up to when it happened, our gun crime rates were going down every year already as it is, once again adding to the argument that our gun crime rates are not a direct cause of gun control. In fact, once we did get our new laws, gun crime rates started going down substantially SLOWER than they were before the gun control, which if anything suggests gun control actually hindered the process of reducing gun crime...
Sorry, rant over enjoy your day, thank you if anyone actually bothered reading this
@Theuns, For the love of god mate i applaud you. If your ever visiting the u.s i will buy you a pint or three. Why cant more aussies see this way? To many of them blindly and ignorantly bash the U.S. Please continue to be rational and logical ^-^. Cant stand people who are ignorant and arrogant on the issue running their mouth. Seriously cheers mate.
@LaDarkProphet, haha, cheers.
I don’t think it’s only the aussies bashing the US, I get the feeling it’s also the US bashing the US to try get gun control, Australia is the perfect example to use to argue their point.
In terms of the aussies, you gotta remember even before-hand we never had the same level of gun culture you have. To us (as a whole, it obviously doesn’t include everyone) losing our guns wasn’t as big of a deal. Some people were quite salty, but the rest didn’t care. Roughly 20 years on, we’ve grown used to it and moved on, so even less people are salty now (although there definitely are still people who are unhappy about it)
@Theuns, omfg... you are the second person I’ve ever heard on here from Australia have a nuanced and sane view. I honestly thought your country must be inhabited completely by ideological purist, screaming children.
@big freedom, sane? i’d hardly say so... Im a nutcase who believes the gun violence is caused by taco bell... think about it, lots of taco bells there, lots of gun violence, virtually no taco bell here, virtually no gun violence... makes sense, right?
@Theuns, Dude i cant get over with how calm and rational you are. Will ypu please go up in the comment section to one Mr.Bombastic, a fellow aussie, who is as ignorant and arrogant as they come? Maybe a fellow aussie can better explain to him the whole causation/correlation issue?
@LaDarkProphet, Well I’m not emotionally involved, which helps. The closest I am to being involved is a cousin of mine was shot and murdered, but that was in South Africa, which is a whole different scenario completely. But in terms of that, I’d say it’s easier to just get him to read this.
Although I don’t believe gun control will solve your problems, (fvcked people will do fvcked things, take away guns and they use cars as rams, acid attacks etc eg some of the stuff that’s been happening in Europe) there is no denying you DO have some pretty major problems, and although idk what it is that needs to be done, something needs to be done. Based off my past experiences with some Americans, you might not like hearing this, cause “USA USA USA best country on earth we have no issues cause we have freedom” mentality, but there’s no denying the issue, how to solve it will just need to be left for the smarter better people I guess
@Theuns, I love you
@Medic135, I love you too, internet stranger.
AR-15s does not stand for ASSAULT RIFLE, but Armalite. It is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC gun, meaning you have to pull the trigger EACH TIME to shoot. An AUTOMATIC gun, like an assault rifle, means you hold the trigger and all h3ll breaks loose.
The shooter "legally" got a semi-automatic gun through the failure of the FBI and the police not looking into the calls of concern MONTHS in advance of the shooting; whereas if they did, the already in place gun control laws would've prevent the purchase.
Now, can Facebook go away?
@ptitty1231, but what if I think AR identified as an assault rifle? You can't tell me my opinion is wrong
You know what won’t protect you against a potential police state and government tyranny?
That gun you aren’t allowed to own.
@FP Waiter, They have tanks, helis, grenade launchers, trained specialists, and any number of classified weapons you or I don't know about. The notion that everyone have an assault rifle will level the playing field is ludicrous
@Chicken0War, *looks back at our last two major wars*
@Pvt BB Ghanoush, which two are you referring to?
@Chicken0War, the numbers game sure helps. Also, you can't do everything with tanks and heavy ordinance. Imagine bombing a major city and what the actual people in the military would do. how fast they woukd abandon the process.
The nazis did things house by house, 1 area at a time.
Rifles would have been enough.
@Majesticmoose00, the nazies also swayed the large majority of people to agree and side with them. Had everyone had a gun I imagine it wouldve just resulted in more deaths from city-wide shootings.
@FP Waiter, personally I don't see that as a major looming threat, children dying in their schools however...
@FP Waiter, I really thought you were gonna say *the fvcking emus*
@Chicken0War, don’t forget the drones. Also, the USA is already a tyrannical police state. Police departments all over the states use surplus military equipment, that has no place in domestic law enforcement.
However, I believe any discussion about the whole “right to arms” thing is pointless. If it didn’t happen after Sandy Hook, it never will. If the safety of your own offspring is less important than owning a military weapon, then what is there to say to these people?
@Robenstein, “a catastrophic situation that happens regularly in history isn’t happening now, so thus it’s a non-issue”
@Mr Bombastic, tell these people how to raise their goddamn children so they don't shoot other people that's what.
@Majesticmoose00, You think the Germans conquered mainland Europe in some kind of fluffy “please don’t hurt the innocent civilians” campaign? The words “the Blitz” don’t ring any bells? Or from our side there’s the Dresden firestorm raid where the Allies dropped 4,000 tonnes of high explosives and incendiary bombs on the city.
Also, if someone in an occupied area did shoot a German soldier, they tended to respond by rounding up their family (or just some random locals, if they didn’t know who did it) and shooting a bunch of them. That tends to squash thoughts of rebellion.
@FP Waiter, Fair point. We banned guns and before we knew what had happened, the Queen unmasked herself as a Lizard Overlord, the House of Commons was replaced with an Illuminati conclave, and the Internet was banned.....
@FP Waiter, yeah that’s kind of a stupid argument
@Nellybert , read what you wrote.
Rounding up their family or other random people.
You cant round up armed people. You have to fight them.
@Nellybert , as for grtting mainland europe, that was done with heavy ordinance. 2nd amenment is for defending againt ones own government. Other governments is what a trained military is for.
@Majesticmoose00, Ah, cos in your vision everyone from the kids in kindergarten up to your old granny is packing at all times? No one is ever unarmed or taken by surprise, and the SS are polite enough not to kick your door in at 3am while you’re all asleep?
And they certainly don’t park a company of tanks on the lawn and announce that unless you come out and drop your weapons they’ll blow you up from half a mile away.
@Chicken0War, small arms have baffled the US military countless times. And 3% of ragtag colonists with muskets and some stolen cannons defeated the most powerful empire the world had ever known whose navy could level a coastal city.
@Nellybert , it sure is harder if you have access to firearms.
Of course not everyone always carries.
You can attack a trained fighter after he works out and make the fight easier. But it is harder to beat him than some random person.
concealed carry is also great. you have no idea how hard anyone is to attack.
best idea, do t attack anyone because they may br armed.
dont enter people homes because they may have access to firearms.
@Chicken0War, Afghanistan and Vietnam, where we “lost” to a bunch of “untrained farmers” with automatic weapons
@Robenstein, taking my rifle won't prevent children getting shot in schools any more than taking you license would prevent a hit and run
@Majesticmoose00, Yeah, you know the trick to winning wars? Don’t fight fair. An invading army is going to hit you when it’ll hurt the most and you can do the least about it.
@Nellybert , also, parkong tanks on the lawn would not br common. There are thousands of tanks and millions of homes. You think too highly of thr nazis.
Movie styke, we have you surrounded is not how things are always done irl.
@Nellybert , we arent talking about war. We are talking about subtle government shutdown of a population under their keep.
The 2nd amendment is NOT about defending from an invading country.
@Chicken0War, they also lost to a mob of Emus
@Medic135, their teacher concealed carrying might stop it.
@CMNDR BUbbles, further proof that access to automatic weaponry or weaponry in general does not make one much more deadly
@Majesticmoose00, possibly! Or armed security. The school in the city I work is now having a police officer patrol the grounds during class hours. It's not cheap but the children's safety and peace of mind is worth such things
@Chicken0War, who does the Australian citizens? I think I'll call bullsh!t they're barely allowed a shotgun with a single shell.
@Pvt BB Ghanoush, Afghanistan was funded by either the Russians or, indirectly, us depending on what you're referring to. And Vietnam was us deciding to stop because it was too costly. Neither of which would be the case in the event of a tyranny.
@Majesticmoose00, I’m not sure what you’re describing or how you owning a gun will stop it. If they pass a law you don’t like are you going to shoot people till they change it? Cos then we’re back to the tanks on your lawn scenario (they just have ATF painted on the side).
Just to clarify: I’m not contesting your right to own the gun - that’s in your Constitution - or suggesting any form of ban on gun types. It’s just your ‘guns=freedom’ logic I’m debating.
@Medic135, maybe. The florida shooter had security too. He quit his job after because he sat outside while the shooter did his thing.
An armed teacher bring attacked will probably be more effective than a staffed officer imo.
hopefully the officer does their job if the unfortunate situation ever pops up.
and hopefully it never happens there at all.
@Mr Bombastic, there are two types of people who side on the gun issue. People who know even a slight amount about how to define a firearm and everybody else. You fall into everybody else my friend
@Majesticmoose00, True, but you don’t have to blow up many houses before people generally fall into line. It wasn’t ‘the resistance’ that beat the Germans, it was the Allies and their armies.
@Medic135, then there shouldn’t be an issue with citizens owning them
@Nellybert , consider also that in the US this is a widely held belief. Including by people in the ATF and armed forces, the swiftly formed civilian militia in the event of tyranny would gain access to tanks and other such significant weapons very quickly
@Chicken0War, he’s referring to Iraq and Afghanistan where the enemy were armed with mostly AK 47 and 74 “assault rifles”, very similar to the M-4 (AR-15). Those same men armed only with what the military calls “small arms” defended their territory against the full night of the US military for over a decade in each country. The enemy in Iraq (loosley) became ISIS still fighting today and the Talibam still control much of Afghanistan. So those assault rifles and improvised explosives did just fine. Employed properly in an asymmetric fight small arms do just fine.
@CMNDR BUbbles, I entirely support armed citizens, and am one myself
@Medic135, “The Continental Army was formed by the Second Continental Congress after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War by the colonies that became the United States of America. Established by a resolution of the Congress on June 14, 1775, it was created to coordinate the military efforts of the Thirteen Colonies in their revolt against the rule of Great Britain.”
It wasn’t ragtag colonists with muskets that kicked our arses out of the 13 Colonies, it was 80,000 soldiers and militiamen that did it (combined with our insanely long resupply route from the opposite side of the world, which made the war an even more stupid idea from our side).
@Nellybert , the situation i am describing is something like what happened in germany, argentina, and china (to name a few). The government slowly rounded people up to kill them. They were all unarmed and unable to defend themselves from armed individuals who rounded them up.
If those people had access to firearms, that task would have been either much more difficult, or impossible.
Again, no tanks or heavy ordinance were involved in these roundups because you have to keep the general public happy. If a country say, sends full scake military into one of their own cities, they will not have the support of the people. That is where the 2nd amendment helps. Americans cannot be rounded up becausr enough of us have access to firearms that should the government try, they would fail quickly.
The country was founded by overcoming a tyranical government. It will always be able tk overcome a tyranical government. Even itself if that is needed. Government is made by the people for the people here
@BlazingBowman, if it helps you sleep at night thinking it’s about knowledge of firearms, then be my guest, but my point still stands; if Sandy Hook didn’t change your mind, nothing will.
Also, I live in a country where we value each other’s lives, and therefor don’t allow widespread ownership of any type of firearm, so I don’t really care what happens in the USA because in the end you can kill each other as much as you want, I’ll be safe at home. The discussion doesn’t affect me.
@Nellybert , my point is we should have lost since our almighty congress consisted of a few guys really hoping people would listen to their plans
@Medic135, Can you define ‘tyranny’ here. I’m still not sure under what scenario you see this civilian uprising happening.
@Medic135, it’s not about taking YOUR rifle, it’s about taking everybody’s rifle. It’s a group effort.
@Nellybert , my pleasure, tyranny is the forced suppression of the freedoms of a people or persons. Those freedoms being that of opinion/speech/religion/defense of self and generally anything that someone can do without directly damaging someone else. I see "hate speech" laws as a giant step to tyranny for example, being forced to speak a certain way by a government who decides they know what's best for you
@Mr Bombastic, come get it 😊🖕
@Nellybert , you keep focusing on the german army. It was not the german army that rounded up the jews. It was literally secret police. Yes, armies too down the german army. The jews werent against the german army, they were against the group incharge of rounding them up. There were 2 thkngs going on in ww2.
1 is the takeover kf other countries. 2 is the extermination of jews internally. They werr done by the same country, using very different tactics. Guns in the arms of civilians makes round ups impossible witbout brute force. If you show brute force on your own people, they won't follow you. A government is made up of more citizens that overlords.
If you lose the support of your population, your actions cease.
@Nellybert , germany didn't blow up their own countries homes. Again, no heavy ordinance was used on jewish roundups.
@Mr Bombastic, I value my fellow citizens lives that's why I want them to have a weapon in which it does not matter your size you can still defend yourself against an intruder. And Sandy hook you mean a lone psycho with a gun killing a bunch of kids. The lone psycho could have had a knife and it wouldn't have made a difference besides the kids dying slower.
@Medic135, don’t live in USA so don’t care if you shoot someone or get shot, keep it loser, you’ll probably end up using it on yourself anyway
@Mr Bombastic, you're so pleasant
@Medic135, Look, if a person decided that the government was now tyrannical (of the ‘infiltrated by Hydra’ level) and took up arms, which of the following seems the more likely scenario:
1) The rest of the US sees his chatroom postings on it and follows him to overrun National Guard bases and march on DC, while the regular military stands aside because he’s clearly right.
2) He builds a fertiliser bomb and ends up getting the needle after being labelled a domestic terrorist for blowing up a federal building.
I’m not against freedom of speech etc, or arguing against your right to own guns, I just can’t see it doing much to stop the elected government (you guys are still the home of democracy and land of freedom, right?) enacting laws. After all, they generally announce their policies in advance and so they’re doing what the majority voted for.
@Mr Bombastic, stats show that simply showing a firearm stops crime most often.
While there are gun related deaths, the amount of violent crimes prevented by firearms FAR outweighs gun crime.
There will always be evil people.
And there will always be ways of hurting others. Guns are an equalizer which allows everyone to defend themselves from a multitude of threats.
@BlazingBowman, again, if that helps you sleep at night. We have plenty of knives here and no one kills a bunch of kids at our schools.
@Majesticmoose00, Forget the Nazis, lets leave them out of this completely. If the US government started passing laws you didn’t like, how is your AR15 going to stop them? Especially given that you’re in a democracy, so you’d actually be fighting a democratically elected government - which makes you the terrorist in this scenario and so not too likely to win outright public support.
@Nellybert , the US being so large, majority rule and mob rule can at times be the same (which is why the electoral college exists) and at the moment no we have a few good eggs in government and we are relatively free. But the threat of people who would have it different will always exist, even in elected officials. The armed populace, which our bill of rights protects along with many other inalienable rights, is more a 'nuclear deterrent' than anything else
@Nellybert , you dont decide it is tyranical until you are in actual danger. 2nd amendment is not to promote attacking governmemt offices. It is very small scale. You do not attack the government. You defend from attacks. People are coming into your home with the intent of taking you away. Get the gun.
Someone is attacking your workplace, get out the gun.
@Nellybert , you do not attack a government for passing laws you dont like.
You attack a government if they are physically attacking you.
@Nellybert , where did you get the idea that itnwould be okay to attack the government for passing a law?
That is sooooooo incorrect it is insane.
Nobody I have ever known thinks that would be acceptable.
@Majesticmoose00, Right. So it’s an “if they come for me, I’ll be ready” thing?
I’m not trying to tell you that your opinion is wrong, I’m just trying to understand it because I’m from a different cultural background so see things from a different viewpoint and am trying to see where you’re coming from.
@Nellybert , governments historically have exterminated parts of their population. These populations were never armed or capable of defending themselves. America was founded by civilians opposing an oppressive tryanical government. We believe it is the right of the civilian to be able to defend themselves from tyrany.
Tyrany, btw, is an oppressive government
@Medic135, I’m going to have to go soon - it’s late here - so will have to wind this up now. Thank you for taking the time to explain your viewpoint to me - coming from a different cultural background, it isn’t always easy to see things from another’s point of view. I can’t say I agree with you on it all, but that could just be the different culture thing again and so I’m not going to say you’re ‘wrong’ or anything.
@Nellybert , it's cool dude, you're always respectful and few if any other countries were founded on the same principles as us so it's easy to see where one would not quite see it as I do
@Majesticmoose00, Please see my reply to Medic 135 above this. Too sleepy to re-type it all.
@Nellybert , thanks for the listen!
Out of curiosity, what country you from?
Not gonna say anything more whether you respond or not, this is a mere curiosity.
Goodnight wherever you may be!
@Majesticmoose00, Thanks for not going sweary-ranty (or ‘sweaty Randy’ as my phone tried to autocorrect that to). I find it an interesting topic, but it can be a very sensitive one.
I’m from the UK - so relatively gun free here. Didn’t even see one in person till I was 16, and that was being carried by an armed policeman at an airport. Like I said, very different cultural background on guns!
@Mr Bombastic, lol, like someone can't stab you.
@Mr Bombastic, Please. Tell me. How does the tragic Sandy Hook shooting have anything to do with legal gun ownership and the nuances of laws? 1. The U.S is ten times as populated as Australia. 2. Australia is just as rampant with gangs and crimes as anywhere else. 3. Most shootings, especially school shootings, where done by children who got them from their parents because the parents did not lock up their gun properly and teach their kids to value life. Guns do not kill people. Idiots with access to guns kill people. There are billions, and i do mean billions, of guns in the u.s and millions of them are owned legally. If the issue was only about guns and gun ownership, as you ignorantly and callously try to make it, then the entire country would look like Syria. But guess what? It doesnt. Cars kill more people in the U.S then guns do if you combined everyone killed by guns on u.s soil. Should we ban cars? What about alcohol? That also kills far more people in the U.S then guns do.
@Mr Bombastic, And you value life eh? As gangs are running amock on your streets right now using machetes and clubs to assult people in broad daylight? I can feel a lotta love there. Know what would stop your violent stupid, easily preventable, crime spree? Guns.
Now i agree. I think the u.s gun laws as they stand are far to lax. Shouldnt be able to buy a 12guage from a Wal-Mart. And this from a gun toting redneck. But my point still stands. And im glad to know that you dont care about human life. The only thing youve brought to this discussion was, " Oooo guns are scary. I know absolutely nothing about guns, the u.s culture, or why the shootings are happening but ima say all guns should be banned"
Thank you for stating how uninformed you are. And thank you for using our personal plight and tragedies for your personal feel good points without any knowledge. Know i respect you as a human being and would sacrifice my life for your freedom of speech. I doubt you would say the same.
@BlazingBowman, hahahahahahahaha... wow. You clearly don't know about our gun laws. Funny.
@Mr Bombastic, your right they just get groomed by Muslims to be fvck buckets. Raped over and over again while your cops sits on their hands in fear of being called racist.
@Autismo, I never said that. Besides, shooting someone is easier than stabbing someone, psychologically speaking.
@TheMonkeyGod, I know that you have to list a reason for buying a gun
@LaDarkProphet, please provide me with some links to these gangs running amok, killing people everywhere. Also, if guns stop gun violence, why is there never someone who shoots back?
@BlazingBowman, yes. Simply listing hunting is sufficient.
@BlazingBowman, watch a lot of Fox News? Nothing of what you claim happens over here mate, just your media keeping you scared of the world
@Chicken0War, there will he tanks, planes, and helicopters on both sides. The military would split. So yes, asked citizens would make a significant difference in manpower.
@Robenstein, the gun isn't the problem. The sick SoB who decides to pull the trigger is the problem. Take guns, they will just make bombs or run kids down as they get out of school with a truck. Where there is a will (to do good or evil) there is a way.
@Mr Bombastic, you can't provide links in funny pics but it has been covered by mainstream news outlets and it's been going on for years and still continues to go on. Google Rotherham and it's just one place in britain.
@Mr Bombastic, actually this was information from the guardian a lefty outlet.
@BlazingBowman, and how would this scenario have been better with the widespread availability of firearms? Every gun you can buy, a bad guy can buy too you know
@Mr Bombastic, if the family had firearms they could actually defend themselves instead of relying on cops who refuse to do nothing. Tens of thousands of girls have already and continue to fall victim to this right now. Because how can you fend of a gang of ten guys when you sent even allowed to wield a knife in your defence.
@Mr Bombastic, You were saying that your all safe because you guys have no guns, I just brought up the fact you can still be stabbed.
@BlazingBowman, you’re spewing unsubstantiated numbers dude, it demeans the quality of your argument. I understand what you’re saying, but more weapons is not the long term answer to problems with weapons we have now
@Chicken0War, except it’s not. Military is made up of US citizens. Think a bunch of them will not fight tyranny?
@Mr Bombastic, name dude reported by the guardian itself which is as far left as you can get. We know what's been happening we know who these people are the victims have been reporting this since the 70s nothing happens.
@Autismo, I never made such a claim, however, you are obviously not wrong, I just brought up the fact that the threshold to shoot at someone, is proven to be lower than to stab someone, because you can physically remove yourself from the fact you’re wounding someone.
@Mr Bombastic, dude the sec reports that at the bare minimum low ball numbers about 500000 lives are saved using firearms a year. Even the highest estimates of gun deaths a year that's counting suicides criminal use of guns don't even come to half of that. And if your counting mass shootings not even a hundred people a year are killed by those even when you count the new definition of 3+ people being injured instead of the old definition of 6+. But good idea disarm the populace and make it illegal to defend themselves like in Britain. Surely that's a good idea.
@BlazingBowman, okay so let’s suppose we give everyone access to firearms, like in the USA, will that stop rape and murder? Seems to me those things happen regardless, except countries with strict gun laws or bans, seem to have significantly less mass killings.
@Mr Bombastic, what are you talking about it happens in countries with strict gun control to. Ever hear of cologne on new years eve. Like Jesus Christ atleast if you give a girl a gun she stands a chance of defending herself against a big guy.
@Mr Bombastic, which is the beauty of guns. A 90 year old grandma with a shotgun has a chance of killing guys like the rock, and Mike tyson. Without one she's dead meat.
@BlazingBowman, but the big bad guy might have a bigger or better gun, there is no equalisation in a firearms race. Also, I never said it doesn’t happen, I said it happens significantly less often. And what happened in Cologne, or Nice, wouldn’t have been stopped by armed civilians spraying around a bunch of bullets.
@BlazingBowman, I’ve looked it up, statistically speaking;
Rate rape Australia is 28.6 / USA is 27.3
So there is more rape in Australia. Keep in mind that the definitions of rape can vary between countries but let’s assume they are the same. However;
Guns per 100 residents;
Australia 15 / USA 88.8
So there are vastly more residents in the USA that have a gun, yet the rape rate is nearly the same. So apparently owning a firearm does not decrease your likelihood of being raped.
Nationmaster . Com website numbers
@Mr Bombastic, umm doesn't matter if you have a bigger better gun. You get hit by a bullet in the heart or the head your going down. And for the most part people don't walk around armed especially women that's why rape statistics are around the same.
@BlazingBowman, so you agree that having a gun for defending against rape doesn’t work because woman who own a gun don’t carry it on them?
@Mr Bombastic, naw they just on average don't carry guns. Though if they had the cliche rapist hiding in the bushes wouldn't affect them. Nth though the majority of rapes are like date rapes so probably wouldn't have much use in these situation.
@Mr Bombastic, yes I would agree that shooting a roofie would not help
@Mr Bombastic, dated an Aussie the last couple years, your gun laws and self defense laws in general are fvcked. And you're blind if you don't think your country is as fvcked if not more so than the average one with crime
@Pvt BB Ghanoush, I think they had a little more weaponry than just rifles
You know what could kill everything that will kill you in Australia? A gun
@wolves on the shelve , ah you bastard. Beat me. Have an upvote
There is one anti gun human going through and disliking all the facts lol
You know what you could use to stop all of the things in Australia trying to kill you?
Not an assault rifle. Sure would be handy though, wouldn’t it? 🙂
@LV100Charizard, No, not really. Trying to kill a spider with an assault rifle isn’t very practical - a machete is much more effective and requires less repair work on the house afterwards.
@Nellybert , ah, but the assault rifle would be more satisfying. Also, I wouldnt recommend going 1 v 1 against an 18 foot saltwater crocodile with a machete.
@LV100Charizard, I wouldn’t recommend going up against an 18 foot croc with anything less than an attack helicopter!
All that said though, my grandfather did tell us a story about coming home one day to find a large hole in the porch where my grandmother had used a shotgun to take out a rather large tarantula (it was the gardener’s day off and the machetes were in the shed).
@Nellybert , have you SEEN the spiders in Australia?? I'm not using anything but an assault rifle
@Medic135, I have seen them. On the Internet, cos there’s no fukkin way I’m going to be anywhere near them in real life.
Not until I’ve finished training my legion of attack emus to defend me, anyway.
@Nellybert , there’s a bird eating spider ... I would rather use an assault rifle
@Nellybert , your grandmother sounds like a smart lady. I’m one of the psychos that leaves spiders alone because I respect their sh¡t, but I can also respect blasting buck shot at big @ss bugs. (Alliteration ftw)
Pretty sure it's the bullet that kills you
Never mind all the illegally manufactured guns turned in and confiscated every year
Do you know what won't kill you in America either and assault rifle. Fully automatic military grade weapons have been illegal here for like 3 decades. Check your facts kids.
Never in the history of mankind has a gun spontaneously killed someone, so I think you’re pretty safe.
That's because everyone knows Guns don't kill people, Australian wildlife kills people
Ooooooo look at all the cranky thumbs!
As a born and raised Canadian, I’m fascinated at the desire for Americans to own a gun. I have always felt safe in my country and I think that largely is because you never see anyone casually carrying lethal weapons or guns unless they’re law enforcement officers. I think the mentality of needing a gun to feel safe is very sad and counterproductive in finding more peace. I know it’s almost impossible to compare the two countries but when I see the difference in mindset, it makes me not want to live in the states. I personally like feeling that I don’t need a gun to be safe and to feel safe walking to school knowing for the most part that I don’t have to worry about guns. I like to live in a relatively low violent country and I think that is a mindset America could benefit from. Just my thoughts :)
Guns are expensive. I hate NRA rhetoric purely because it tries to convince poor dumb republicans to invest in these metal tubes they dont need as opposed to things that might be useful, like health insurance. Americans invest in guns like theyre useful every single day whereas most countries invest in them as if theyre useful just sometimes which is far closer to the truth.
Statistically speaking, you probably wont die from an assault rifle in America either.
Never heard of these fvckin protection rifles
Been in the US for 35 years. Still haven't come close to dying by a gun.
*thinks of comment* Yeah that's a good one, I'll say that. *opens comment section* Oh right it's a pic that's somewhat political there's no place for comments here, just arguments... On to the next pic maybe I'll get famous there...
No they double kill you
Haven’t we already had this pic? Like same punchline and everything just without the girl drinking vegemite. Even as an Australian I’m getting sick of seeing the same pics comparing us to the US, which have totally different views on gun ownership even without gun control.
Where in Australia. Yeah I do know about your gun laws.
Assault rifles can kill you anywhere.