^ There are other purposes. It was discussed before.
This. It makes the debate a lot easier you can just conveniently forget all the ground that’s been covered in past debates (even in this thread above) I guess. But we’ve already point out that the gun control folks have a simplified world view, so at this point we’re just repeating ourselves into a brick wall.
Prize for the most ironic thread of 2016 goes to…
+1 makes me cringe
You may be surprised to hear that I’ve not read every single page of every thread on guns so saying that it’s been discussed before is like saying that someone made a counter point in a book at some point in time so you’re argument is wrong.
the crux of the matter is that you’ve been brought up in a culture and indoctrinated into thinking that owning a gun is a god given right and you’re never going to depart from that view. Much in the same way that portions of the population in India think that it’s ok to gangrape a woman because she went out alone, or some twats in Syrians think that anyone that puts their d in another bloke should be thrown off the highest building in whichever shithole town they happen to be in.
You may be surprised to hear it’s actually covered in this two page thread. Feel free to read the actual thread you’re posting in. The crux of the matter is that simple minded gun control advocates largely don’t take the time to educate themselves, understand the opposite side of the debate, or inform their own opinions with any actual statistics but want to air their simpleton view as equal anyway while asking why they get ignored.
This is nearly identical to your earliest comment in the thread. I’ll summarize the responses (more detail above). If you have a counterpoint, please reread to ensure you’re not simply ignoring prior valid counterpoints and repeating the identical discussion on P2 that we’ve had on P1. The response is that 1) dangerous killers will find other, equally efficacious methods as seen in Nice among other instances and 2) these guns DO serve clear purposes in both individual home defense and ensured protection from the state while also accounting for fewer than 1.5% (<150) deaths a year in the US out of approximately 12,000 non-suicide gun deaths
This is all TL;DR for me at the moment, but I will add that Australia hasn’t had a gun massacre 20 years. Just stop & marinate on that for a minute. Two decades, no gun massacres.
I’d have to contact NASA to calculate the results of gun violence/shootings/accidents/massacres in the USA.
It’s not about freedom, it’s about common sense & public safety (or I should say uncommon sense). People hear gun control & think it means blanket gun bans. It doesn’t. It means intelligent reform to stop this gun violence and gun massacre nonsense. As in Australia, you can still have guns with gun reform.
Contrary to common misconceptions in the USA, Australians can & do buy guns (although we obviously don’t have the gun culture like the USA does, born from the USA’s 2nd amendment). I have friends back home that own guns. I’m all for it. Shooting for sport looks like a lot of fun. Although with every dangerous sport, there should be common sense legislation put it place to ensure public safety.
The whole argument about needing guns for protection is babble. Absolute babble. The only real argument is that they’re fun/sport. If you like shooting guns for fun, they hey, that’s fine. But don’t sprout nonsense that even you don’t truly believe. I’m pro guns for fun, done in a smart way with the proper protections put in place.
Who wants make a bet on how many gun massacres there will be for the rest of 2016? We can’t use Australia for this, that’s too easy.
Yep. People who are the most vocal proponents don’t live in dangerous parts of the country. They’re suburbanites and rurals who wouldn’t dream of setting foot into the real hotzones in this country (where you might need protection). It’s a hobby that they like to justify by wrapping themselves in the flag without care for the consequences that others have to face. They deserve the scrutiny they will get.
Another newbie thinks they’re adding to the discussion. Always entertaining. Numerous articles and discussions regarding Australian gun control on this forum. Here’s a video offering a multi-country discussion. http://www.analystforum.com/comment/91696968#comment-91696968
What about the gun massacres in France where assault rifles are illegal? Marinate on that for a minute. (or are we just cherry picking data points?)
I’m all for state level bans. Anyhow, last I checked, assault weapons (which are the flavor du jour of gun control) account for less than 1.5% of gun deaths. So are we talking about GUN control (in the form of better background checks etc) which I’m all for or assault weapon bans, which have nothing to do with the areas you just referenced and the mass killings referenced by the Australian here?
In 'Merika, lots. And the killings will just keep increasing as the society falls apart.
You’ve got 300 million emotionally unstable apes locked in a zoo with 300 million guns, with nothing but sugar and drugs for dinner…bad things will happen. But the apes, high on corn syrup, have some statistics to share…
There’s nothing in this thread about the other uses of assault weapons other than some flippant comments about shooting a variety of small animals. there may be something buried in your tl;dr posts, god knows how many times they’ve been edited.
The problem is that your counterpoints aren’t valid. yes, people will find other methods of killing people but logically that has no bearing on whether dangerous weapons should be readily available. people that want them may well be able to get their hands on them even if they are illegal but why make it so easy.
So the only upside is shooting small animals and self defense. Whether it’s reasonable for self defense is the crux of the matter. No other developed country in the world thinks it’s reasonable. It’s just you guys, your view will never change but at least have some self awareness.
I don’t really have a dog in the fight about different types of guns. My country has had 1 mass shooting incident (at Andy Murray’s school actually) where some mad cunt shot a room full of kids with a handgun and handguns were immediately banned. God knows how many more would have died if he’d been able to walk into a supermarket and buy an automatic weapon to defend his home with. Most rational people that haven’t been brought up to think that gun ownership is linked to some absurd notion of freedom would agree that even the chance of people dying isn’t worth it
There you go. I edit solely to add (not remove) content so that similar points are rolled into one post, not that any edits I made weeks ago have anything to do with your inability to read the thread you’re posting in.
The arguments are very valid. So far this year France (who is both a smaller country and has banned assault weapons) is leading the US in casualties from mass killings and number of attacks involving assault rifles. So a logical person would step back and say that if the goal is to curb mass killings and banning them does not seem to be working for France, then maybe we should try another approach. That same person might also point out that fewer than 150 people a year in a 300+ million person country dying from more than 8 million assault weapons in circulation is probably indicative of a boogie man topic. You’re right though, the shining bastion of enduring freedom that is the UK has it all figured out. Only a silly, backwards country would think that a people could be subjugated by their government and forced to bear arms. Never mind the fact there’s an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to countries that have had to fight or suffer for their freedom from the UK within the past 200 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Resistance_to_the_British_Empire
I probably missed that line because it is such utter utter shite. much like your comment on editing only to add and not remove content, we all know that’s not true.
Well I mean, people quote my comments so you could just check there. I’d imagine in 10 years of posting there must be some good examples you can refer to. Anyhow, that’s white noise.
So why is it such utter utter shite again? Pray tell mate?
While we’re here maybe it’s worth considering that your own view is basically that of an imperialist. Of course the thought of armed subjects must turn your stomach. Rewind 40 years and ask the population of Northern Ireland how trustworthy they felt the UK government was in safely representing their interests. Because you know, a nanny state would never, ever take to the streets to lockdown their population by force and impose marshal law while people starved…
Wow!
