Another gunman shooting! We need stricter gun control laws!!!

The day we all put our guns away is the day E.T doesn't phone home.

"

Septile wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

Your government spending millions every single day on warfare, I got news for you, if that day comes youre fucked. Your local police department probably has enough firepower to wipe out your entire neighbourhood, your military could destroy the entire biosphere of the planet if it wanted to and you think your rifle is going to help fight these people if it comes to it? Not going to happen.

So you really believe that if a nationwide revolt were to happen that the military and police departments would start mowing down their own people? Someone either reads too many novels or has never talked to a police officer or soldier.
I will say that in the case that they did actually mow down their own people, that it would be the same kinds of people who are making these poor arguments against guns, people who justify their beliefs off of their emotions instead of something a little less self-interested.

the same police that I see on the news tear-gassing protesters and pepper spraying students in the face? You think you can just turn up at your local police station with a few 100 armed men and they will just say yeah here you go, have the state? You would be a terrorist, there would be martial law and you can bet if you take a gun to try and take over the country your military will point a gun right back at you and say sry man, go to jail or die.

Like I said, look at waco, look at what happened to the black panthers etc, anyone who even looks like they have the potential to form an anti government militia would be wiped out with force. Those were Americans killed at waco, didnt matter. If you are taking arms against the state you are a terrorist and that means laws dont even apply to you. Your president can call a state of martial law on your country without consulting anyone if a threat to national security arises anywhere in the world, its legal, and so would be wiping out anyone who didnt obey. You can bet the American government can find someone willing to pull that trigger, and its not going to be some anti gun hippie.

"

Charanjaydemyr wrote:

"

Josephoenix wrote:

you'd be amazed how an infinitesimally small "imaginary line" mostly located on the 49th parallel is enough for me to feel about 1000x safer. Though an ocean would be appreciated. lol

I used to abuse that ocean fact so much when I was a 'kid' trolling on Battle.Net. So much easier to rile people up when you know it's a $2000 plane ride between you and their fists.

When I lived in the US, man, I found out some of them weren't even a state away. Ugh.

LOL... it's not what you think.

"

Septile wrote:

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

@Septile

Regarding the 1st amendment - if, we developed technology or changed physiologically such that certain words could be used to kill scores of people in seconds... then yes, I'd be all for changing the 1st amendment to ban those words. I think most rational people would be as well, instead of just screaming about our 'loss of liberty'.

That's not the point I was making.

Guns have evolved since the second amendment, they're significantly more effective at being guns. Hence, the second amendment should no longer apply.

Speech has evolved since the first amendment, it's significantly easier to communicate with others than ever before. Hence, the first amendment should no longer apply.

It's about the law, not morality. I don't argue against gun control from a legal perspective, I argue against it from a pragmatic perspective. but when somebody brings up the constitution they're making it solely about the law.

Not sure what you mean here.. the issue is that the constitution needs to be amended to disallow the personal ownership of weapons that have no business in the hands of citizens. You can't own a rocket launcher - but nobody is upset about that, because everyone realizes a rocket launcher is an absurd thing to allow people to own. Even if the person owning it is totally responsible in their rocket launching activities, the chance that someone else could obtain it means it's to risky to let ANYONE have it. Guns that can fire over 100 rounds in seconds are equally as absurd to allow into the hands of the general public, hell most of the general public shouldn't be allowed to drive.

People are conflating the issue at hand - nobody is taking your weapons, or asking you to disarm, they are merely asking to have a conversation as rational adults over what types of weapons should be allowed in the hands of citizens. That conversation cannot be had however, because of the NRA and all the folks who think Obama is trying to become dictator for life and who listen to FOX news (not to say that other news outlets aren't propaganda machines, they certainly are, but FOX is representative of a certain type of propaganda that is relevant to this conversation).

There are no valid reasons to have semiautomatic weapons or high capacity clips.
1. Hunting - you do not need such weapons to hunt.

2. Protection - you do not need such a weapon to protect your home. Having such a weapon will not deter the government from taking your house should they want to, or should our democracy be destroyed and some tyrant take power - they will roll over you in tanks as you fight in vain.

3. sport (fun) - this is the only reason that makes sense, shooting off weapons like this is a lot of fun. I have done it, I know its fun, but I do not think any amount of fun to be had from firing such weapons is adequate justification in light of the horrors those weapons can bring about.

4. The argument that states "making guns illegal wont prevent criminals from having them" - this is true, making a law does not deter criminals, if laws did we wouldn't need prisons any longer. However, we do not make laws to prevent crime, we make them to punish those who do not conduct themselves in the manner to which our society has deemed acceptable. If the argument that people will still get guns IS valid, then that same argument could be made to try and justify the illumination of ALL laws, or to prevent ANY further/additional laws to ever be added "why outlaw rape? people will still rape".

5. A blind thumping of the constitution is not an argument, its acting like a child. The constitution is not some hallowed commandment from the All Mighty. It was written by men over 100 years ago who had no inkling of what the world would be like today. They had just won a revolution, and feared that revolution collapsing from within or from abroad and so naturally they deemed it a right for every (white) man to own a gun. However, our democracy is not at risk of collapse, no tyrants threaten us from within or from abroad. Also, when times got rough (See the Civil War) the government suspended due process and restricted any rights they saw fit - they did this because it was necessary to do this due to the circumstances they were in. likewise, here and now, we should recognize the situation we are in and do something about it. No other country has this issue that America has, and until we can find the cause of that issue and rectify it, we should take steps to limit the horrific consequences of it.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

4. The argument that states "making guns illegal wont prevent criminals from having them" - this is true, making a law does not deter criminals, if laws did we wouldn't need prisons any longer. However, we do not make laws to prevent crime, we make them to punish those who do not conduct themselves in the manner to which our society has deemed acceptable. If the argument that people will still get guns IS valid, then that same argument could be made to try and justify the illumination of ALL laws, or to prevent ANY further/additional laws to ever be added "why outlaw rape? people will still rape".

Because, other laws do not tilt the balance in the favour of criminals quite like Gun Ownership does.

You don't obtain a Rape and then go and use it on someone, if that were the case, then I would argue that every Female should be trained, competent in the use of, and equipped with a Rape.
So rather than being the victim of a Rape she can defend herself with her own Rape.

Clearly in the above comment you replace rape with "Weapon"

Saying "its illegal to drink drive" doesn't disarm the law abiding citizens.
So you see the difference?

But we don't then turn around and say "Well people are disobeying the Speed Limits. Confiscate all cars that travel faster than 110km's per hour. Since that is the maximum speed limit anyway"
And even though that is a more rational solution to a problem, its not talked about.
For 1 big, fat, profitable reason... Media.

I don't think anyone doubts that Motor Vehicle Accidents kill more people than Mass Shootings... But there isn't a campaign to rid us of fast cars is there? No, of course not, there are just increasing fines etc.

But that doesn't change what Gun Laws are attempting to do.

Remove the Weapon from Civilian.
Watch as Black Market Merchant obtains illegal weapons.
Black Market Merchant sells weapon to Criminal.
Watch Criminal Purchases illegal weapon.
Criminal performs Mass Shooting.
Problem unresolved.
Criminal is now also able to invade homes, continue to Rob at Gunpoint, and Shoot Innocent people as they drive past a busy shopping centre.

Now we can think of a new way to punish Law Abiding Citizens for the actions of the Outlaws.

So what has been achieved?

This whole conversation is pointless anyway.
The real reason the people shoot each other and cause mayhem is Grand Theft Auto 5.

"

Wittgenstein wrote:

No other country has this issue that America has, and until we can find the cause of that issue and rectify it, we should take steps to limit the horrific consequences of it.

Are you really sure that's the position you want to take on gun related crime Globally?

I would continue to discuss on this thread but, it is turning out to be extremely antagonizing. This thread at the rate it is going, should be locked if you folks keep displaying a lack of censorship and respect for each other.

It does happen here.

It happens here more and more frequently.

Recently in Brisbane people (bystanders) have been getting shot on the Street as Bikers take their war out on each other.

And I've seen plenty of reports of Home Invasion with Fire Arms.

And why does it happen so much more in America?
Because their population Dwarfs us at 315,000,000 to 22,000,000.

And they live in much denser environment. AND they have more poverty, AND they share a border with Mexico.
AND they have a Huge Drug Problem
AND they a much greater cultural divide from state to state.

There are many factors, and in summary they preclude us from trying the route of "look at how well it works for Australia, it would work the same in America"

The perpetrators of Mass Shootings become Criminals when they decide that they are going to do harm to others, plot that harm, then illegally acquire what they require to perform that Harm.

I am not saying they are Career Criminals, in fact if they were, then Gun Laws would be EVEN MORE redundant. It would go from a metaphorical "yeah we know it wont change anything, but lets do it anyway" to a literal application of that mentality.

Also lets not forget statistics, which is something like less that 1% of Guns in America are used illegaly.

In this Case it WAS a legally obtained fire arm, and not a Semi Automatic fire arm which is what everyone is up in arms about. So had these changes been implemented 2, 4 or 5 years ago. Whenever... it STILL would have happened.

Career Criminals using fire arms on each other is nothing new, they certainly aren't concerned with Semi Automatic weapons being outlawed, it wont change the way they obtain them... Illegally. And it wont impact the Fully Automatic Weapons they use either.

So again? WHO is this targeted at, other than Law Abiding Citizens?

And Carrying a weapon is no the problem, people aren't walking down your street and going, hey you know what. I've already got this gun, I may as well barge into someone's house and visit Harm upon them.

Those are crimes carried out by people who are already sourcing those Weapons Illegally.

And the "Good Guy with a Gun takes down a Bad Guy" scenario is very real. It doesnt happen every day, but when it does, its much better that Bad Guy is dead, instead of Father of 2 shot dead in street robbery.

The Crux of the matter is. This is a Law that will have no impact on the thing it is trying to prevent. But it is being pushed for anyway as a political agenda.

PS: About Australia, if our Country Bordered with a developing Country rife with Drugs and Corruption, our population increased 15 times, our standard of living and education dropped, cultural/religious/social divides between States/Regions increased, and we suddenly became the global focal point. We would no longer have the luxury of saying "its so much better here because of X".
Add to that a crippling National Debt, and the burden of being the global Police... people may not like them for it. But somebody has be the biggest, badest Wolf, and it is America... and the fact that we have liberties like uncensored Internet, relatively liberal speech, elections and many other Luxuries we take for granted. Means that we should be very thankful for America's position in the world.
Rather than bashing them for it at every chance, as if they are the problem.

Because we would be in exactly the same boat.

Not a big deal, but here goes. Velo:

South America is not a country, it is a continent.
The USA doesn't border South America, it borders Canada and Mexico, both of which are in North America.
Mexico would arguably have a worse drug problem than the USA... although it's more of a turf war involving the suppliers of the drugs rather than the users...not entirely sure which is worse tbh.

"

Josephoenix wrote:

Not a big deal, but here goes. Velo:

South America is not a country, it is a continent.
The USA doesn't border South America, it borders Canada and Mexico, both of which are in North America.
Mexico would arguably have a worse drug problem than the USA... although it's more of a turf war involving the suppliers of the drugs rather than the users...not entirely sure which is worse tbh.

Thanks, I fixed it up a bit.

PS:I think the bigger problem is Canada.