>When someone talks about gun control
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
61 comments displayed.
#32 to #25
-
isolovegames [OP](06/13/2015) [-] 
**** like pic related is why gun control doesn't work. Because all I have to do is pick up some materials, buy bullets / shells from someone who doesn't need ID (more likely than not a criminal too) and assemble a gun like in pic related and bam- I have the means to kill someone. Hell I have blueprints for a full retard STEN.
#6 to #5
-
hamsterball (06/12/2015) [-] she can still make it half as bad as aussieland, gun control is a possiblity. Plus as the saying goes, never underestimate your enemy.[white][white]
#7 to #6
-
voltkills ONLINE (06/12/2015) [-] gun control is a possibility yes, but not even close to the scale of Australia or the UK, not at all, the best they could do is continue to place restrictions on criminals and mentally ill people buying guns, which kinda makes sense anyway. You only have to look to cases like DC v. Heller to see the supreme court will not allow flat out guns bans, and while the 2nd amendment stays where it is, this will not change.
#23 to #15
-
akimbobears (06/13/2015) [-]
the 14th ammendment applies the bill of rights to state government
#12 to #2
-
catpisseverdeen (06/13/2015) [-] She can pry my guns out of my cold dead fingers. No one is taking my **** so long as a I breathe.
#4
-
anon (06/12/2015) [-] >14 years of collection
>640k guns
>Americans all like...you mean in one town?
>640k guns
>Americans all like...you mean in one town?
#28
-
theguywhoaskswhy (06/13/2015) [-] Australia vs USA
Australia, 2003 - Number of homicides involving firearms: Less than 20 (Public records).
USA, 2003 - Number of homicides involving firearms: 16,528 (according to FBI statistics).
If you're a stickler for details, the (current) population of these countries is - USA approx 320mil and Aus approx 25mil. So the difference is clear whether you account for population or not.
At the time that Aussie gun legislation began to change the firearm mortality rate was around a quarter of that of the USA. Now its less than a tenth of the USA's total. (Thats for all forms of fire arm related deaths, suicide and manslaughter included).
I could throw a whole bunch of statistics at you, but I don't need to, because there's no valid argument for why there shouldn't be gun control.
Australia, 2003 - Number of homicides involving firearms: Less than 20 (Public records).
USA, 2003 - Number of homicides involving firearms: 16,528 (according to FBI statistics).
If you're a stickler for details, the (current) population of these countries is - USA approx 320mil and Aus approx 25mil. So the difference is clear whether you account for population or not.
At the time that Aussie gun legislation began to change the firearm mortality rate was around a quarter of that of the USA. Now its less than a tenth of the USA's total. (Thats for all forms of fire arm related deaths, suicide and manslaughter included).
I could throw a whole bunch of statistics at you, but I don't need to, because there's no valid argument for why there shouldn't be gun control.
#38 to #28
-
pathamn (06/13/2015) [-] I wrote this in another discussion:
you cant reason with people that are not capable of understanding the value of education. Dont even try.
#35 is a perfect example.
Pro gun people are like fat people. "The more guns i own, the fewer fatal shootings will happen, because everyone can protect themselves!" and "muh genetics" is pretty much the same ******** . Facts prove it.
And secondly (like reddit prove it a few days ago), when money is involved there are not only retards on the progun side, there are some real clever bastards milking those retards. That is not just an awful lot of pro people by quantity, but also by financial power. Its a war that cant be won over there. Stupidity always wins in large groups.
So , as an eurofag im pretty glad, that this gun ******** is only a discussion in a prison colony far far away.
you cant reason with people that are not capable of understanding the value of education. Dont even try.
#35 is a perfect example.
Pro gun people are like fat people. "The more guns i own, the fewer fatal shootings will happen, because everyone can protect themselves!" and "muh genetics" is pretty much the same ******** . Facts prove it.
And secondly (like reddit prove it a few days ago), when money is involved there are not only retards on the progun side, there are some real clever bastards milking those retards. That is not just an awful lot of pro people by quantity, but also by financial power. Its a war that cant be won over there. Stupidity always wins in large groups.
So , as an eurofag im pretty glad, that this gun ******** is only a discussion in a prison colony far far away.
#47 to #38
-
anon (06/13/2015) [-]
What the **** are you even talking about? Your connection between gun owners and fat people is tremendously insignificant. It seems like you're being fed CNN liberal lies based off the anti american crap you've been saying. And now you're trying to say gun owners don't value education? We ******* do, but more importantly, we actually value our ******* lives. Instead of depending on your nanny state to come to the rescue with ****** response times, why not man the **** up and defend yourself ? If you're in real danger, why would you wait 20 minutes for someone with a gun to show up and save you, when you can just cut out that middle man and be the guy with the gun yourself? Everyone deserves the right to defend themselves, no matter what ******** statistics you pull out. Anti gun statistics are just as flawed as the feminist statistic "1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted" . It's obvious that GUN crime will go down if you get rid of all guns, it's inevitable. But what everyone seems to be forgetting is that THE CRIMINALS STILL HAVE THEIR GUNS, while the rest of the population remains defenseless. So even though gun crime goes down, assault, battery, home invasion, robbery, armed robbery, rape, crimes with blunt weapons and knives all go up, because all those crimes cannot be executed if a gun is in play.
TLDR, you're an idiot if you think your government is going to save you. Stop posting that stupid ******* picture. And PS. If you're gonna argue, get some actual statistics that aren't as flawed as a feminazis, instead of just being a condescending prick towards those with a different point of view.
TLDR, you're an idiot if you think your government is going to save you. Stop posting that stupid ******* picture. And PS. If you're gonna argue, get some actual statistics that aren't as flawed as a feminazis, instead of just being a condescending prick towards those with a different point of view.
#49 to #38
-
ShadeElement (06/13/2015) [-] Wife's from Sweden. Friends in Germany. Do business in the UK.
So yeah, I've been to Europe.
Where most of your governments have castrated you and convinced you its for the best.
I'll take crime, obesity, pollution, blah blah blah. Because we don't live in a squeaky clean world, we live in a dirty, imperfect world. And I'm glad to live in a country that's (so far) not willing to sacrifice personal freedoms in an attempt to shine up a pile of **** .
So yeah, I've been to Europe.
Where most of your governments have castrated you and convinced you its for the best.
I'll take crime, obesity, pollution, blah blah blah. Because we don't live in a squeaky clean world, we live in a dirty, imperfect world. And I'm glad to live in a country that's (so far) not willing to sacrifice personal freedoms in an attempt to shine up a pile of **** .
#26
-
anon (06/13/2015) [-]
I live in Australia, not gonna lie, this post is some ignorant ******** . This is just shock jock fear mongering crap. Gun control was incredibly successful for limiting both assault and suicides. **** this post.
I'm 23, I live in a major population zone and I've never even seen a gun. Something i'm incredibly thankful for.
I'm 23, I live in a major population zone and I've never even seen a gun. Something i'm incredibly thankful for.
#13
-
anon (06/13/2015) [-]
This news report is very old. Things are not at all like that in Australia now. I would like to see those statistics updated, it's understandable that initially there would initially be a rise in crimes. Now when there is there rare case of a gun related crime the police come down so hard on it you have to make dam sure that it was worth getting guns involved. I'm not saying such extreme gun control would work for america but it sure as hell worked for Australia
#31 to #13
-
vidyagaems (06/13/2015) [-]
You're right, the stats (or at least for armed robbery) went up after the ban and then they went down again. But guess where they went down to. About the same as before the ban. Didnt really make a difference.
#37 to #13
-
tankeruber (06/13/2015) [-] Yeah, now abos have to resort to stick vs stick combat instead of not engaging in combat because stick can't hack it vs a gun, good job aussies.
#20 to #19
-
TheMather ONLINE (06/13/2015) [-] It does. Strictly speaking the government even has the legal rights to kick the people out and ban them from entering their borders ever again.
You don't like it, fine. But to claim a government doesn't have the right to do it is just self-entitled ******** , the government has the legal right to do whatever the **** it wants to, the only things holding it down being manpower, resources and the risk of foreign intervention.
You don't like it, fine. But to claim a government doesn't have the right to do it is just self-entitled ******** , the government has the legal right to do whatever the **** it wants to, the only things holding it down being manpower, resources and the risk of foreign intervention.
#22 to #21
-
TheMather ONLINE (06/13/2015) [-] Even a constitution is not legally binding for a government. The government is the law, anything they want to do is within their right.
A constitution only marks what the government cannot do without losing the backing of whoever signed it. In constitutional monarchies, this means that the parliament loses the backing of the monarchy, or vise versa (the monarch is usually the commander in chief of the armed forces, so this is why it holds importance). In the US, this means that some long dead old men would frown upon the government.
A constitution only marks what the government cannot do without losing the backing of whoever signed it. In constitutional monarchies, this means that the parliament loses the backing of the monarchy, or vise versa (the monarch is usually the commander in chief of the armed forces, so this is why it holds importance). In the US, this means that some long dead old men would frown upon the government.
#52 to #22
-
sesshii (06/13/2015) [-]
"Even a constitution is not legally binding for a government."
It kinda is. It's the law set by people who won a conquest. The job of the government is to protect the constitution. Which is why America has the 2nd amendment to protect the people wrong it's own government should it deem it's people to be a treat to it's wishes.
The founding fathers were far smarter than people are today. They lived in a time and understood how governments always goes through a cycle of being a benefit to a demerit for it's people. It will always grow and as it's size grows, it becomes totalitarian.
You mention how many people die of guns, but not how many die from baseball bats.
By your logic, we should ban baseball bats.
It kinda is. It's the law set by people who won a conquest. The job of the government is to protect the constitution. Which is why America has the 2nd amendment to protect the people wrong it's own government should it deem it's people to be a treat to it's wishes.
The founding fathers were far smarter than people are today. They lived in a time and understood how governments always goes through a cycle of being a benefit to a demerit for it's people. It will always grow and as it's size grows, it becomes totalitarian.
You mention how many people die of guns, but not how many die from baseball bats.
By your logic, we should ban baseball bats.
#53 to #52
-
TheMather ONLINE (06/13/2015) [-] "The founding fathers were far smarter than people are today." Yeah, no. They were smarter than the average rube today, but compared to anyone who's actually finished high school most of them were imbeciles.
And no, a constitution isn't a law. It's an agreement, one that is completely meaningless as anything other than a symbol unless it has powerful backers.
And no, a constitution isn't a law. It's an agreement, one that is completely meaningless as anything other than a symbol unless it has powerful backers.
#33
-
dzeusas (06/13/2015) [-] You forgot to add the part from present where the crime has dropped and even some of those opposers come to admit that the gun laws worked great.
#10
-
gettingtaters (06/12/2015) [-] I think once the general public of a country is given access to firearms there is no going back, if you ask people to hand in their guns, the regular law abiding citizen will do so, but then you are left with defenseless people against a bunch of armed criminals. I dont see a way out of it, I don't enjoy guns or the idea of people owning them but I see no safe way for a government to get rid of them
pic unrelated
pic unrelated
#30
-
gilliam (06/13/2015) [-] Australia is probably one of the few countries where i could see an actual good reason for everyone to have guns.
Because if in austrailia you catch a burglar in the middle of the night, you might be caught of guard both have to bunker down behind the couch fending off a kangaroo-spider assault on your home.
Because if in austrailia you catch a burglar in the middle of the night, you might be caught of guard both have to bunker down behind the couch fending off a kangaroo-spider assault on your home.
#14
-
manicos (06/13/2015) [-] i cried when i saw those 3 vintage lee enfields scrapped. my favorite rifle, worth close to 6000$ in good condition, gone to ******* waste, jesus christ i hate liberals who don't understand gun responsibility, in today's standard, you're not going to ******* rob a house with a 15lb rifle that fires .75 cent to 2$/rounds. the bolt is too heavy and strict for inexperienced people (untrained, inexperienced youths 16-35 years range)
it's legal to own a ******* enfield in canada IN CANADA, and never have i ever seen or heard on the news "depanneur robbed by man wielding world war one era rifle"
i find it enraging that i can own an 1866 winchester yellowboy repeater, which can do a double mad minute (60 rounds 60 seconds) by trained soldier
i love my 6 guns, and no one is seperating me from them. i already can't own my favorite guns (m1911a1, FN CFAL2, welrod etc)
it's legal to own a ******* enfield in canada IN CANADA, and never have i ever seen or heard on the news "depanneur robbed by man wielding world war one era rifle"
i find it enraging that i can own an 1866 winchester yellowboy repeater, which can do a double mad minute (60 rounds 60 seconds) by trained soldier
i love my 6 guns, and no one is seperating me from them. i already can't own my favorite guns (m1911a1, FN CFAL2, welrod etc)
#34
-
yunoknow (06/13/2015) [-] If you look at the state Australia is in now, then you'll find gun control has actually worked wonders.
#63
-
kulakski (11/21/2015) [-] sits here in england quite happy with unarmed police unarmed citizens and verry low murder rates
#62
-
keepitclassey (09/14/2015) [-]
check out the 3 part "documentary" from the daily show abput Australia and gun control. really funny and interesting
#46
-
ShadeElement (06/13/2015) [-] I love how people who are all about Fat Shaming, and rant on about personal accountability when it comes to nutrition and exercise, will then turn and be all "Yeah, ban guns to make everyone safe".
WHY AREN'T YOU TRYING TO BAN FORKS?!
WHY AREN'T YOU TRYING TO BAN FORKS?!
#56 to #55
-
ShadeElement (06/18/2015) [-] forks are good for one thing-eating.
Eating makes you fat.
So why don't people try to blame forks for people being fat?
Oh, its because only people who ABUSE forks get fat. Its the PERSONS fault, not the chunk of metal in their hand.
Hmmm.....
Or maybe you just think forks have a useful purpose and guns do not. Maybe.
Then again, maybe I'd rather have a gun than a fork when someone is breaking into my house at 3am and the police are still 5 (of the longest minutes ever) away.
Then again, maybe I'd rather have a gun than a fork when an earthquake, or flood, or storm, or hell a bad ******* sports game causes mass rioting and my block is about to be looted.
In fact, maybe if there had been one more gun and one less fork in a school cafeteria, not so many children would have died when a criminally insane sociopath wanted to kill kids.
So why don't we ban forks? Because its stupid. Fat people will still be fat, and the rest of us responsible eaters wouldn't have anything to get a salad in our face.
Same reason we don't ban guns.
Eating makes you fat.
So why don't people try to blame forks for people being fat?
Oh, its because only people who ABUSE forks get fat. Its the PERSONS fault, not the chunk of metal in their hand.
Hmmm.....
Or maybe you just think forks have a useful purpose and guns do not. Maybe.
Then again, maybe I'd rather have a gun than a fork when someone is breaking into my house at 3am and the police are still 5 (of the longest minutes ever) away.
Then again, maybe I'd rather have a gun than a fork when an earthquake, or flood, or storm, or hell a bad ******* sports game causes mass rioting and my block is about to be looted.
In fact, maybe if there had been one more gun and one less fork in a school cafeteria, not so many children would have died when a criminally insane sociopath wanted to kill kids.
So why don't we ban forks? Because its stupid. Fat people will still be fat, and the rest of us responsible eaters wouldn't have anything to get a salad in our face.
Same reason we don't ban guns.
#61 to #60
-
ShadeElement (07/12/2015) [-] Ok. Lets talk about retarded.
In the 1920s, some moral busy bodies decided alcohol was to blame for crime and violence in America. So we banned it for over a decade. Law abiding citizens could no longer responsibly enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. Meanwhile criminals became filthy rich, alcohol abuse increased, violence reached a new high.
In the 1970s a new group of moral busy bodies decided drugs were to blame for crime and violence in America. So the War on Drugs campaign was launched and drug use increasingly penalized. Again, criminals prospered to filthy riches, drug abuse increased, violence reached new highs.
Now a new group of moral busy bodies are blaming guns for crime and violence. They were wrong about alcohol. They were wrong about drugs. But GUNS, by golly this time they are right about guns....right?
And we should keep following those policies of banning and prohibiting that seem to have worked so darn well in the American past.
Now THAT is retarded.
Its retarded because only retards looks for scapegoats. Its the simple answer. Because banning guns is easy compared to addressing the real but difficult issues if economics, education, race, opportunity, population density, and poverty. All of which have real, measurable, and direct effects on violence in American society. Unlike Gun Control which time and again has had no effect (positive or negative) on gun violence. In fact those cities and states with the strictest gun control continue to be the most violent with the highest crime rates.
You know what the physical difference between me and a cop is? A badge. Thats it. We are both human armed with a firearm and the best intentions to use our training to protect ourselves and others.
Thinking that uniform grants some magical bonus that makes a cop any more qualified to carry a firearm than your average law abiding citizen is, in fact, retarded.
In the 1920s, some moral busy bodies decided alcohol was to blame for crime and violence in America. So we banned it for over a decade. Law abiding citizens could no longer responsibly enjoy a glass of wine with dinner. Meanwhile criminals became filthy rich, alcohol abuse increased, violence reached a new high.
In the 1970s a new group of moral busy bodies decided drugs were to blame for crime and violence in America. So the War on Drugs campaign was launched and drug use increasingly penalized. Again, criminals prospered to filthy riches, drug abuse increased, violence reached new highs.
Now a new group of moral busy bodies are blaming guns for crime and violence. They were wrong about alcohol. They were wrong about drugs. But GUNS, by golly this time they are right about guns....right?
And we should keep following those policies of banning and prohibiting that seem to have worked so darn well in the American past.
Now THAT is retarded.
Its retarded because only retards looks for scapegoats. Its the simple answer. Because banning guns is easy compared to addressing the real but difficult issues if economics, education, race, opportunity, population density, and poverty. All of which have real, measurable, and direct effects on violence in American society. Unlike Gun Control which time and again has had no effect (positive or negative) on gun violence. In fact those cities and states with the strictest gun control continue to be the most violent with the highest crime rates.
You know what the physical difference between me and a cop is? A badge. Thats it. We are both human armed with a firearm and the best intentions to use our training to protect ourselves and others.
Thinking that uniform grants some magical bonus that makes a cop any more qualified to carry a firearm than your average law abiding citizen is, in fact, retarded.
#45
-
ShadeElement (06/13/2015) [-] I don't own any guns. None.
Maybe I DID own a small personal arsenal, but...I sold it. Craigslist...or something. Don't remember to who.
No you can't come into my home to check. Do you have a warrant?
Maybe I DID own a small personal arsenal, but...I sold it. Craigslist...or something. Don't remember to who.
No you can't come into my home to check. Do you have a warrant?
