Used to think "Gun Control" was the answer.

Related:
Create New Tag

3/17/2018 10:59 AM

|

3/17/2018 11:12 AM

1996 Port Arthur, Australia
That was the last gun massacre in Australia. After that, gun laws were changed.
If not familiar with it, please read up on it.

|

3/17/2018 11:20 AM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 11:47 AM

And she only looked into the cases of gun related deaths. I would invite her to look into the cases of crime stopped/lives saved due to a firearm legally owned by a law abbiding citizen.

It’s estimated that almost 200,000 women annually use a firearm against domestic/sexual abuse. You won’t hear that though.

I understand her ideas on guns have not changed, it is after all her right to choose, but I do greatly respect her looking at the issue honestly and realizing the mountain of disingenuity behind what is the gun control movement.

|

3/17/2018 11:36 AM

No doubt

|

3/17/2018 1:34 PM

easydoesit wrote:

1996 Port Arthur, Australia
That was the last gun massacre in Australia. After that, gun laws were changed.
If not familiar ...more

Australia is an island. It’s much easier to regulate firearms when you are an island.

|

3/17/2018 2:11 PM

You mean they won’t have drug cartels smuggling in weapons from an unprotected border between another country?

|

GP740
Since 1987

3/17/2018 2:18 PM

I think the horse has left the barn already. How many guns in circulation in the US? Maybe a billion? 325 billion people X how many decades?

|

3/17/2018 2:18 PM

Sorry, 325 million.

|

3/17/2018 2:20 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 2:21 PM

easydoesit wrote:

1996 Port Arthur, Australia
That was the last gun massacre in Australia. After that, gun laws were changed.
If not familiar ...more

TDeath21 wrote:

Australia is an island. It’s much easier to regulate firearms when you are an island.

Saying it is easier implies that attempts have been made at regulations.

In life, excuses are abundant action is not.

|

3/17/2018 2:28 PM

easydoesit wrote:

1996 Port Arthur, Australia
That was the last gun massacre in Australia. After that, gun laws were changed.
If not familiar ...more

Our own Anercan government massacres people on the regular.

If you want to trust your government to be the only armed humans in your region, do so at your own risk.

But Im never giving up my guns until my government gives up it’s own firearms.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 2:48 PM

easydoesit wrote:

1996 Port Arthur, Australia
That was the last gun massacre in Australia. After that, gun laws were changed.
If not familiar ...more

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

Our own Anercan government massacres people on the regular.

If you want to trust your government to be the only armed humans ...more

I get it man. I'm a gun owner.

But sensible gun laws need to be enacted.
There is no reason to have weapons designed for the military in civilian hands.

|

3/17/2018 2:57 PM

easydoesit wrote:

I get it man. I'm a gun owner.

But sensible gun laws need to be enacted.
There is no reason to have weapons designed for the ...more

“Sensible” gun laws are a slippery slope. I dont trust our government to not abuse their authority on that.

And again, as long as the military has it, I want to be able to own it. Their track record of abuse is far worse than mine.

Any country in which the government has more freedoms than it’s citizens, is not a “free” country.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 3:04 PM

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

Our own Anercan government massacres people on the regular.

If you want to trust your government to be the only armed humans ...more

easydoesit wrote:

I get it man. I'm a gun owner.

But sensible gun laws need to be enacted.
There is no reason to have weapons designed for the ...more

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

“Sensible” gun laws are a slippery slope. I dont trust our government to not abuse their authority on that.

And again, as ...more

I do agree on the slippery slope analogy.

As far as you owning assault rifle type weapons...do you think you stand a fighting chance against the US military?
Protection against a government by the civilians arming themselves might have made sense 200 years ago, but not today.

|

3/17/2018 3:12 PM

easydoesit wrote:

I get it man. I'm a gun owner.

But sensible gun laws need to be enacted.
There is no reason to have weapons designed for the ...more

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

“Sensible” gun laws are a slippery slope. I dont trust our government to not abuse their authority on that.

And again, as ...more

easydoesit wrote:

I do agree on the slippery slope analogy.

As far as you owning assault rifle type weapons...do you think you stand a fighting ...more

Well, yes actually. The reason you rule over a population is to control them and their resources. It’s not to kill them. Look what terrorist militia groups have been able to do against the US military in the last 15+ years. Despite mass superiority in every way, the US is still fighting against them and they still hold ground. Now imagine 300 million people and a MUCH larger area. Then think about that same civilian military also being conflicted on who to fight for. It would be nearly impossible for the US government to conquer its citizens through brute force.

|

3/17/2018 3:20 PM

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

“Sensible” gun laws are a slippery slope. I dont trust our government to not abuse their authority on that.

And again, as ...more

easydoesit wrote:

I do agree on the slippery slope analogy.

As far as you owning assault rifle type weapons...do you think you stand a fighting ...more

TDeath21 wrote:

Well, yes actually. The reason you rule over a population is to control them and their resources. It’s not to kill them. Look ...more

Exactly.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 3:23 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 3:27 PM

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

“Sensible” gun laws are a slippery slope. I dont trust our government to not abuse their authority on that.

And again, as ...more

easydoesit wrote:

I do agree on the slippery slope analogy.

As far as you owning assault rifle type weapons...do you think you stand a fighting ...more

TDeath21 wrote:

Well, yes actually. The reason you rule over a population is to control them and their resources. It’s not to kill them. Look ...more

Different scenarios.
- Those terrorist militias are supplied by underground operations. They have access to weapons like no US civilian does.
- The US is fighting in a foreign country totally different. Here it would be all domestic.

If a government turned on its people, it would not need to fight the whole population. Just the bigger threat. Everyone else will fall in line.


So what do we do about the current gun massacres? Nothing.

|

3/17/2018 3:26 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 3:27 PM

easydoesit wrote:

I do agree on the slippery slope analogy.

As far as you owning assault rifle type weapons...do you think you stand a fighting ...more

Let’s say you’re right, and resistance is futile. If that is the case then you just made an argument as to exactly why the government needs to be disarmed. They’re weilding too much power.

Either way, Im not in favor of making the situation worse by further neutering the freedoms of civilians.

And as TD21 pointed out, foreign occupancys always fail over time. Despite lopsided technology advantages the opporessors may posses.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 3:34 PM

The two most impactful things a citizen can do are have a baby and vote. Neither one of those actions have any qualifiers or restrictions. Not that they should or shouldn’t. My point is, we got way bigger fish to fry than guns in this country. Let’s agree to go after the lower hanging fruit that has a greater impact on society huh?

Americans + Cars + Alcohol = way more deaths ... why isn’t this front page news topics? Why, because “guns” move the needle. And because nobody wants to talk mental health: the root issue for alcohol or gun related trauma.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 3:40 PM

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

“Sensible” gun laws are a slippery slope. I dont trust our government to not abuse their authority on that.

And again, as ...more

easydoesit wrote:

I do agree on the slippery slope analogy.

As far as you owning assault rifle type weapons...do you think you stand a fighting ...more

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

Let’s say you’re right, and resistance is futile. If that is the case then you just made an argument as to exactly why the ...more

So the answer is legislate what?
Do nothing?

If we don't tackle the gun problem directly, we are beating around the bush.

|

3/17/2018 3:46 PM

easydoesit wrote:

So the answer is legislate what?
Do nothing?

If we don't tackle the gun problem directly, we are beating around the bush.

That’s where we just have fundamentally different perspectives.

You see a “gun problem”. Whereas I see a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.

You see, we don’t even agree on what the root issue is here. And that is a major hurddle to get past if we’re gonna be solution oriented.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 3:53 PM

easydoesit wrote:

I do agree on the slippery slope analogy.

As far as you owning assault rifle type weapons...do you think you stand a fighting ...more

TDeath21 wrote:

Well, yes actually. The reason you rule over a population is to control them and their resources. It’s not to kill them. Look ...more

easydoesit wrote:

Different scenarios.
- Those terrorist militias are supplied by underground operations. They have access to weapons like no US ...more

Consider how two of the world's greatest building were taken down and all the lives lost by group of men with "box cutters".

|

Yeah, I have no clue !!!

3/17/2018 3:59 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 4:01 PM

easydoesit wrote:

I get it man. I'm a gun owner.

But sensible gun laws need to be enacted.
There is no reason to have weapons designed for the ...more

And yet most other western countries permit ownership of those military style rifles without any problems....

This is one of the problems with the gun debate though - too many people are utterly convinced that low gun crime stats are directly synonymous with bans. If you know nothing (nor care) about firearms and this line is continually pushed into your face by the media, then you're going to believe it. In my country this leads to disappointment for a tiny, tiny, insignificant minority of sports shooters who can't own certain things on the mainland (primarily handguns) for their hobby. Whereas in America I think this misconception is much more dangerous because it only retards any sensible change or suggestions i.e one side digs in to avoid the clearly ideologically motivated actions from the other.

The real reason for low gun crime is the vetting.

But again, from an emotional/ideological pov it's very difficult for the majority non firearm owning general public to get their heads round this. The UK and Australia is particularly good example because each country has effectively banned the very opposite firearms to each other, only to then cite their own bans as the primary reason for their low gun crime stats.

|

3/17/2018 4:02 PM

TDeath21 wrote:

Well, yes actually. The reason you rule over a population is to control them and their resources. It’s not to kill them. Look ...more

easydoesit wrote:

Different scenarios.
- Those terrorist militias are supplied by underground operations. They have access to weapons like no US ...more

nicko-31 wrote:

Consider how two of the world's greatest building were taken down and all the lives lost by group of men with "box cutters".

So why do people use alarms, lock their doors and secure their homes and business?
I mean if a thief REALLY wants your stuff, they WILL get it. No matter what you do.

The answer to the question above is: to make things slightly more difficult for the thief. That is all.

|

3/17/2018 4:03 PM

Motocross83 wrote:

And yet most other western countries permit ownership of those military style rifles without any problems....

This is one of ...more

The reason for the low gun crime rate in other countries has nothing to do with the vetting.

Healthier cultures equal less crime.

|

Part of Speech: Noun

Definition: A loser, poser, lame-ass. One who talks the talk, but could never walk the walk.

One who talks shit and doesn't back it up, but rather ends up eating their shit in return. A fuckin 'tard.


Usage: Slang

3/17/2018 4:05 PM

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

The reason for the low gun crime rate in other countries has nothing to do with the vetting.

Healthier cultures equal less ...more

It's ridiculous to say it has NOTHING to do with vetting. Believe me we have our share of unstable crazies.

|

3/17/2018 4:12 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 4:12 PM

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

Our own Anercan government massacres people on the regular.

If you want to trust your government to be the only armed humans ...more

easydoesit wrote:

I get it man. I'm a gun owner.

But sensible gun laws need to be enacted.
There is no reason to have weapons designed for the ...more

Motocross83 wrote:

And yet most other western countries permit ownership of those military style rifles without any problems....

This is one of ...more

Which are the Western countries that allow military style firearms?
I'm not trying to be cute, serious question. I searched and could not find any info pertaining to this.

|

3/17/2018 4:33 PM

easydoesit wrote:

Which are the Western countries that allow military style firearms?
I'm not trying to be cute, serious question. I searched ...more

Kind or wondering that myself.

Seems like I remember Switzerland citizens are armed to the teeth, which comes with required military service.

I can't recall another country that allows assault weapons

|

3/17/2018 4:42 PM

easydoesit wrote:

Which are the Western countries that allow military style firearms?
I'm not trying to be cute, serious question. I searched ...more

Most countries in Europe: Germany, Holland, France, Poland, Switzerland, Austria, Portugal, Czech Republic etc. The channel Islands, The Isle of Man, New Zealand and Canada. Even the UK allows military style box fed, slug firing semi-auto shotguns & rimfire, though nothing self loading in centrefire from a rifled barrel e.g .223 etc.

|

3/17/2018 4:50 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 4:51 PM

easydoesit wrote:

1996 Port Arthur, Australia
That was the last gun massacre in Australia. After that, gun laws were changed.
If not familiar ...more

Ghost of Jabroni wrote:

Our own Anercan government massacres people on the regular.

If you want to trust your government to be the only armed humans ...more

...

|

GP740
Since 1987

3/17/2018 4:56 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/17/2018 5:12 PM

Mr. G wrote:

I think the horse has left the barn already. How many guns in circulation in the US? Maybe a billion? 325 billion people X how ...more

Yes there are many. smile

However,under the second amendment with BATF rulings due to the 2A you can also build your own firearms.
They cannot stop you from doing that legally here in USA.

As for the assault weapons ban people....
The only thing the government can do legally as far as assault weapons go is a manufacture ban and that would be easy for the industry to get around again.
They tried to do more back during the last ban in the mid 1990's(I worked in the industry at the time and remember it all very well)...all they can get away with is a manufacture ban.
They couldnt even bring them in under the NFA and classify them as a destruction device legally...
There's a couple reasons why and it has to do with the constitution.
Existing weapons in circulation have to be grandfathered in and the prices go up for more of a profit margin due to demand.
What happened last time was the industry grew in size due to the ban.
Pre ban stuff was jacked up in price and just about ever FFL dealer in the country grew and so did the number of manufactures.There was even more of a demand. It spawned pretty much the huge gun culture you see today...and that gun culture is what funds the NRA.


This is all you will get again as far as a AW ban would go here in the USA.
Photo

|