Does P&W thinks gun controls work?

[Lannan13]

The more I read from Americans on this board the more I understand how the stereotypes about Americans came to be. I thought you actually had common sense and weren't a nutjob until the case of fire-arms came up. It's sad to be proved wrong, but hey.......

 

You are just showing why most of the world despises America, the f**k you attitude and all. I can't wait till the USAF leaves it's bases in the UK.

I share your sentiment. Just like I continue to pray for a United Ireland.

[Peter Quill]

It's time to go back to reddit and take that cancerous memes with you, "Onee-chan"

So this is the way you answer debates? Insults?

[Doktor Avalanche]

Once is all it takes

Pray tell, what is the difference between an armed society and an armed police force/state? Is the badge or uniform make them any different? Does one saying they are from the government any better than a neighbor down the street for making you feel any safer from harm? Its a comfortable illusion we like to believe, but recently a lot of attention has shown the police and the state are no better than the thug on the streets. I like my self-protection. I do not understand anyone who does not comprehend this.

[Lannan13]

Pray tell, what is the difference between an armed society and an armed police force/state? Is the badge or uniform make them any different? Does one saying they are from the government any better than a neighbor down the street for making you feel any safer from harm? Its a comfortable illusion we like to believe, but recently a lot of attention has shown the police and the state are no better than the thug on the streets. I like my self-protection. I do not understand anyone who does not comprehend this.

Reagan once said the 9 most feared words in the English Language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

[Fox Fire]

The more I read from Americans on this board the more I understand how the stereotypes about Americans came to be. I thought you actually had common sense and weren't a nutjob until the case of fire-arms came up. It's sad to be proved wrong, but hey.......

 

You are just showing why most of the world despises America, the f**k you attitude and all. I can't wait till the USAF leaves it's bases in the UK.

This is just because you were raised in a society without firearms being a regular thing. 

While I was growing up, knowing how to shoot a rifle was childsplay. Practically required by law. But was it just some toy we played with? !@#$ no! Adults wouldn't even hand me a loaded rifle until I proved I was responsible enough to handle it appropriately in every single aspect. Even being an adult, me and friends alike occasionally have to remind people to handle firearms as tools of death, not toys, which around here, never becomes an argument. It's basically "You're right, sorry". Or something like that.

We aren't nutjobs. We may have some uneducated people, but the vast majority of firearm owners are responsible. As much fun as it sounds to get really drunk and shoot slugs out of my single shotgun, it's just not a bright idea, so I don't do it. Regardless of how fun it might sound at the time. 

Generally speaking, the people you see arguing for gun rights and such are actually the people who obey the law. I'm fairly acquainted with the underground scene along the northwestern US and that's where shooting, even stabbings, tend to occur. Gang or drug related garbage. If you aren't part of that, you will very likely never be caught up in it.

The decision to be caught in the middle of such nonsensical things is entirely up to each and every individual person.

I've known a few people who've been killed by gun violence, but it doesn't change my opinions about guns. 

 

I believe in equality. Either everyone/houshold should own at least one gun, or else nobody should (including the military and police). But like the military, there needs to be a focus and reason to own these things. Having anything for the sake of having it does nobody any good. However, neither does restricting the power to end life to specific groups of people. All it does is breed more contempt.

Proof? BLM and all that garbage stirred up from a continuously militarized police force that's disconnected from the people they police. 

I don't think some jackass with a pistol and a black uniform is in any way more suited than I to carry a gun. And I never will.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Big Brother]

Pray tell, what is the difference between an armed society and an armed police force/state? Is the badge or uniform make them any different? Does one saying they are from the government any better than a neighbor down the street for making you feel any safer from harm? Its a comfortable illusion we like to believe, but recently a lot of attention has shown the police and the state are no better than the thug on the streets. I like my self-protection. I do not understand anyone who does not comprehend this.

 

Oh I completely understand the desire to protect yourself and those close to you, I believe that people should be allowed to purchase and bear arms if they meet certain criteria and if their situation justifies it. However, I also consider any society that requires its citizens to arm themselves in order to be safe to be flawed. If the populace of a country is forced to protect themselves in such a manner, then the government has failed to protect them and properly ensure their safety. The way I see it the less people need guns, the better.

 

We come from different places, where I'm from we have always looked to the state for solutions and for safety. It has worked out for us, because we have responsible, reliable, and trustworthy state that has succeeded in providing its citizens with what they need, including safety. There's no reason for us as a populace to mistrust the state because it's chosen by us, it's made up by us and it is made for us. Personally, I feel much more comfortable trusting the state to responsibly provide safety and protection than I feel comfortable trusting the average neighbor. Citizens hurt each other all the time, in many different ways. The thought of the state hurting its own citizens is pretty much unthinkable here, as it should be.

 

Also, I don't think it's fair to judge the government based on the actions of local and state police departments. Obviously they have a responsibility to rein in police forces that violate their mandate, but let the blame lie with the perpetrators themselves.

 

To summarize, a successful and safe society should not require its citizens to arm themselves in order to provide their own safety. The less people need guns, the better. Ideally, we wouldn't need guns at all and I believe as few people as possible outside of the police and the armed forces should possess them, if your government/state can be trusted.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Big Brother

[Doktor Avalanche]

Oh I completely understand the desire to protect yourself and those close to you, I believe that people should be allowed to purchase and bear arms if they meet certain criteria and if their situation justifies it. However, I also consider any society that requires its citizens to arm themselves in order to be safe to be flawed. If the populace of a country is forced to protect themselves in such a manner, then the government has failed to protect them and properly ensure their safety. The way I see it the less people need guns, the better.

 

We come from different places, where I'm from we have always looked to the state for solutions and for safety. It has worked out for us, because we have responsible, reliable, and trustworthy state that has succeeded in providing its citizens with what they need, including safety. There's no reason for us as a populace to mistrust the state because it's chosen by us, it's made up by us and it is made for us. Personally, I feel much more comfortable trusting the state to responsibly provide safety and protection than I feel comfortable trusting the average neighbor. Citizens hurt each other all the time, in many different ways. The thought of the state hurting its own citizens is pretty much unthinkable here, as it should be.

 

Also, I don't think it's fair to judge the government based on the actions of local and state police departments. Obviously they have a responsibility to rein in police forces that violate their mandate, but let the blame lie with the perpetrators themselves.

 

To summarize, a successful and safe society should not require its citizens to arm themselves in order to provide their own safety. The less people need guns, the better. Ideally, we wouldn't need guns at all and I believe as few people as possible outside of the police and the armed forces should possess them, if your government/state can be trusted.

The State/Government is made up of people, though. Everyone is human. This is where we differ on what we consider trustworthy and safe.

And the blame does fall on a government system that has shown for over a century that they protect their own and not the populace is why there is concern and mistrust of the system in place. he less government/state reliance=less interference. Neighbors are more trustworthy in my experiences than an officer with a badge or a government figure.

[Captain_Vietnam]

in vietnam lots of people have guns. vietnam has lowest crime rate in world and vietnam is strong

[John Henry Holliday]

As much as I like to think that people are endowed with common sense, this debate topic frequently reminds me that common sense isn't all too common. I like guns! I don't like nutcases and criminals having guns. I think that could be said for anyone. Let's go through and look at compromise that doesn't involve banning guns.

• ​Option 1: Everyone can have any guns they want(Yes, even machine-guns and destructive devices), carry them as they want, and shoot them as they want.
• ​Option 2: Those who pass background check and are mentally stable (probably verified by an independent psychologist instead of just asking "are you angry at anyone" when purchasing the weapon) can own any guns they want, carry them as they want, and shoot them as they want.
• ​Option 3: Option 2 with licensing and registration like a car. This might require having education similar to NRA programs that some states require for carry permits. The licensing and registration protects gun owners if their gun is stolen, it allows them to be recovered if they're used in a crime, and it allows police departments to track guns used in criminal acts. This would involve a huge database of the rifling of a bullet fired out of every gun, but it would still be possible.
• Option 4: Option 3 without passing background checks in Option 2.

Each of these scenarios have problems. The first has no control whatsoever and is tantamount to anarchy. The second always has the "what if the person doing the background check or stability check are politically against guns" question attached to it. The third option is restrictive because the checks in option two and the licensing in it. The last option doesn't have background checks, but requires licensing and registration -- this would be like owning a car, but not having to get checked for traffic violations. To the most independent minded, the idea of education, registration, and licensing is tyranny, but it works to keep some idiots off the road, so why can't it work for firearms?

 

Personally, I've always been a fan of Option 3 and 4 since the registration and licensing would serve to protect the right to bear arms by showing that regular people with guns are usually not the problem. It would illustrate that unlicensed and unregistered weapons cause problems, or it would illustrate that most gun-crime is committed by "law abiding citizens."

 

In my opinion, Option 4 is probably the best compromise between the left and the right on gun issues. It allows people to continue owning guns, and it placates those who want to ban them completely. If adopted on a federal level, it would also allow people licensed to carry in any state (That's the glory of the Federal Government: it overrides the state. Take that, Illinois.).

[Lilac Veritas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

Basically, proof of identity, serial numbers registered, over 18, 28 days waiting period for the licence, and must have a genuine reason (does not include self-defense)

I do believe these laws had an effect, even if it was more due to the cultural change after Port Arthur and the buyback.

The best point I can really make is that the Lindt cafe hostage crisis in Sydney was done with pre-1996 guns.

 

But I mean it's hard to compare Australia and the US, we are two very different countries in terms of culture and values ("fair shake of the sauce bottle mate" -Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister), and my personal belief is that looking solely at access is ignoring part of the problem. That being said, citizens don't need access machine guns and automatic shotguns.

[WISD0MTREE]

Also his comments on turning the other cheek. 

Turning the other cheek doesn't mean pacifism or any other bullshit. I'm done with explaining this. I need to save one of my rants on this so I can repost it. 

http://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html

 

Basically, proof of identity, serial numbers registered, over 18, 28 days waiting period for the licence, and must have a genuine reason

 

(does not include self-defense)

 

But I mean it's hard to compare Australia and the US, we are two very different countries in terms of culture and values

 

That being said, citizens don't need access machine guns and

 

automatic shotguns.

Why the waiting period if I already have a gun? If I have 200 other guns to go kill myself or chiluns (dat ned thinkin of!!!1!), then why do I need to wait? 

We already need proof of identity. (NICS check) 

 

So living in the ghetto and having shit police response times isn't a reason to buy protection? Or living in the middle of nowhere where the nearest police station is easily 15-20 minutes away? What about living in the middle of nowhere and having to wait hours for animal control to remove wild hogs or bears or shit? Why should I have to rely on someone else not near me (who is usually under-trained or under-equipped) to defend myself? What if a mob of arabic men, who also sexually harassed a police woman, try to rape and/or rob me? Why should we rely on police during/after disasters? Koreatown was abandoned by police in the LA riots. Neighborhoods were looted after Katrina. 

 

Exactly. 

 

We have to go through the ATF to (legally) get fully automatic weapons. Since you (most likely) don't live in the United States, much less go to shooting ranges, I'll give you a pointer. ATF agents are mostly !@#$ who don't know/care about the law and WILL !@#$ you over randomly. I had my perfectly legal shotgun and they claimed it was an SBR (short barreled rifle). First off, it was a shotgun meaning it would be a SBS (short barreled shotgun) under the National Firearms Act (NFA), assuming that it was too short. The barrel length was 28 and a half inches (way over the 18 inch limit) and the overall length was 45 and a half inches (way over the 26 inch limit). After an hour of them screwing with me, they finally let me go. 

 

Do you mean full or semi? 

[Solomon]

There have been rational, articulate posts from gun supporters in this topic, e.g. John Henry Holliday's, that acknowledge that the USA has a gun problem and propose some solutions. However, while there are still so many gun supporters sloganeering about the Second Amendment and "cold dead hands", and ranting paranoically about how they need guns to protect themselves against their government, I don't see constructive progress being made.

[Doktor Avalanche]

There have been rational, articulate posts from gun supporters in this topic, e.g. John Henry Holliday's, that acknowledge that the USA has a gun problem and propose some solutions. However, while there are still so many gun supporters sloganeering about the Second Amendment and "cold dead hands", and ranting paranoically about how they need guns to protect themselves against their government, I don't see constructive progress being made.

So rational by your definition is simply agreeing with you then.

[Peter Quill]

IMO America has a gun problem and it's real. 

Period.

[Fistandantilus]

For the love of God guys, read this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

California has some of the toughest guns laws in the country, and it has a death rate per capita of 3.4 per 100,000

Oregon, which has just about the most lenient gun laws in the US, has a 0.9

 

Oregon's gun laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Oregon

 

They have next to *NONE*, but are vastly safer.

 

"Common sense" gun laws *do not* work. Period. It's poverty issue, not at all a "gun issue". The cost of living in Oregon is also much cheaper, think on that to, hah

 

This is simply "The Party's" new Abortion and Gay Marriage(People got tired of hearing about abortion, and Gay Marriage is no longer an issue, so they need a new topic for their successful strategy). It's the topic they are using to continue to divide(And distract) Americans against each other so they can continue their completely un ethical government that is !@#$ing the American people in -MUCH- more meaningful ways behind the curtain. It's The people who do the research and know what they are talking about Vrs those who believe something because it sounds sensible and are persuaded by the politicians =/

Edited January 13, 2016 by Fistandantilus

[Guest Frawley]

Why the waiting period if I already have a gun? If I have 200 other guns to go kill myself or chiluns (dat ned thinkin of!!!1!), then why do I need to wait? 

We already need proof of identity. (NICS check) 

 

So living in the ghetto and having shit police response times isn't a reason to buy protection? Or living in the middle of nowhere where the nearest police station is easily 15-20 minutes away? What about living in the middle of nowhere and having to wait hours for animal control to remove wild hogs or bears or shit? Why should I have to rely on someone else not near me (who is usually under-trained or under-equipped) to defend myself? What if a mob of arabic men, who also sexually harassed a police woman, try to rape and/or rob me? Why should we rely on police during/after disasters? Koreatown was abandoned by police in the LA riots. Neighborhoods were looted after Katrina. 

 

Exactly. 

 

We have to go through the ATF to (legally) get fully automatic weapons. Since you (most likely) don't live in the United States, much less go to shooting ranges, I'll give you a pointer. ATF agents are mostly !@#$ who don't know/care about the law and WILL !@#$ you over randomly. I had my perfectly legal shotgun and they claimed it was an SBR (short barreled rifle). First off, it was a shotgun meaning it would be a SBS (short barreled shotgun) under the National Firearms Act (NFA), assuming that it was too short. The barrel length was 28 and a half inches (way over the 18 inch limit) and the overall length was 45 and a half inches (way over the 26 inch limit). After an hour of them screwing with me, they finally let me go. 

 

Do you mean full or semi? 

Waiting period is 21 days for you first firearm, 7 days for each subsequent firearm.

 

Shitty suburbs are well policed here and seeing as police don't have to worry about being shot by 'hoods', they don't kill civilians reaching for their ID.  Rural living is generally quite safe in Australia.  Owning a firearm for animal control is perfectly legal, I had a number of longarms myself for this purpose.  Our police are well trained, we have very low rates of violent crime, and black market handguns in Australia are incredibly expensive (upwards of $20,000 AUD - ~17,000 USD).  Illegally owning a firearm, not reporting a theft, allowing others access to your safe (aka non-licence holder has safe key) when they do random inspections, all come with massive penalties and multiple years prison.  In terms of your mob of 'arabic' men, I'm sure in America that mob would have more guns than the victim so the point is moot.  The fact that your Police are poorly trained and unwilling to go into areas with known high rates of gun ownership and violence is if anything more indicative of your firearm problem.

 

Semi-Automatics of any variety are illegal in this country without very special exemption for certain farming purposes (pump shotguns only).

 

Fact is banning firearms with high rates of fire and taking them out of the population (through a buyback) worked incredibly well, we went from having a mass shooting every year to not a single mass shooting since 1996.

[John Henry Holliday]

For the love of God guys, read this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

 

California has some of the toughest guns laws in the country, and it has a death rate per capita of 3.4 per 100,000

Oregon, which has just about the most lenient gun laws in the US, has a 0.9

 

Oregon's gun laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Oregon

 

They have next to *NONE*, but are vastly safer.

 

"Common sense" gun laws *do not* work. Period. It's poverty issue, not at all a "gun issue". The cost of living in Oregon is also much cheaper, think on that to, hah

 

This is simply "The Party's" new Abortion and Gay Marriage(People got tired of hearing about abortion, and Gay Marriage is no longer an issue, so they need a new topic for their successful strategy). It's the topic they are using to continue to divide(And distract) Americans against each other so they can continue their completely un ethical government that is !@#$ing the American people in -MUCH- more meaningful ways behind the curtain. It's The people who do the research and know what they are talking about Vrs those who believe something because it sounds sensible and are persuaded by the politicians =/

 

You're comparing a state with roughly 3.8 million people in it to a state with 37 million people in it (Census Bureau, 2015). Oregon doesn't have several overcrowded cities and all the problems related to them; they may have one (Portland) that is just beginning to experience problems. While you do try to make it fair by using the "per capita" violence, the conditions are not remotely similar. Although you also try to debunk the poverty issue by saying the cost of living is cheaper in Oregon, you're making a mistake that a lot of people understand: correlation-causation. Just because the cost of living is cheaper does not mean that the people there are living in poverty. How are the wages? What's the unemployment rate? How many people live below the poverty line?

 

Let's not politicize this issue into Democrats or Republicans. The gun control issue has been around since the 1930s due to gang violence (hence why the ATF had a job), but took off in the 90s due to the Brady Campaign and school shootings like Columbine. It is by no means a new issue designed to distract people as a result of some plan for control. I'm not saying the government isn't unethical though. If you look at all the scummy things the CIA did during the Cold War, like. Project MKULTRA and things disclosed in the Church Committee (U.S. Senate, 2016), then you have reason to fear and distrust the government.

 

What if it were politicized? What if it were the politicians' error that kept us in this state? Without civil discourse, unbiased statistics, and politicians willing to compromise for the benefit of their constituents, the political machine is broken. Reason has given way to emotions and stubbornness. The more close-minded we are, the deeper we fall into the maelstrom until we can no longer climb back out. The ghost of the Great Compromiser screams at how petty our issues are compared to what he dealt with, yet we'll never have another Henry Clay. The cogs in the machine grind to a halt.

 

Enter stagnation.

 

Also, I disagree with banning semi-automatic weapons like Australia did. I'm in support of any sane human being owning any gun they want as long as it can be tracked if that sane human being goes off his rocker. Ah, one day I'll get that MG42/MG3/M53 I always wanted.

 

 

 

​References (!@#$ this shit, I ain't need no hanging indent nor correct citations)

United States Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2015/index.html

 

United States Senate http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Church_Committee_Created.htm

Edited January 13, 2016 by John Henry Holliday

[Fistandantilus]

You're comparing a state with roughly 3.8 million people in it to a state with 37 million people in it (Census Bureau, 2015). Oregon doesn't have several overcrowded cities and all the problems related to them; they may have one (Portland) that is just beginning to experience problems. While you do try to make it fair by using the "per capita" violence, the conditions are not remotely similar. Although you also try to debunk the poverty issue by saying the cost of living is cheaper in Oregon, you're making a mistake that a lot of people understand: correlation-causation. Just because the cost of living is cheaper does not mean that the people there are living in poverty. How are the wages? What's the unemployment rate? How many people live below the poverty line?

 

Let's not politicize this issue into Democrats or Republicans. The gun control issue has been around since the 1930s due to gang violence (hence why the ATF had a job), but took off in the 90s due to the Brady Campaign and school shootings like Columbine. It is by no means a new issue designed to distract people as a result of some plan for control. I'm not saying the government isn't unethical though. If you look at all the scummy things the CIA did during the Cold War, like. Project MKULTRA and things disclosed in the Church Committee (U.S. Senate, 2016), then you have reason to fear and distrust the government.

 

What if it were politicized? What if it were the politicians' error that kept us in this state? Without civil discourse, unbiased statistics, and politicians willing to compromise for the benefit of their constituents, the political machine is broken. Reason has given way to emotions and stubbornness. The more close-minded we are, the deeper we fall into the maelstrom until we can no longer climb back out. The ghost of the Great Compromiser screams at how petty our issues are compared to what he dealt with, yet we'll never have another Henry Clay. The cogs in the machine grind to a halt.

 

Enter stagnation.

 

Also, I disagree with banning semi-automatic weapons like Australia did. I'm in support of any sane human being owning any gun they want as long as it can be tracked if that sane human being goes off his rocker. Ah, one day I'll get that MG42/MG3/M53 I always wanted.

 

 

 

​References (!@#$ this shit, I ain't need no hanging indent nor correct citations)

United States Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2015/index.html

 

United States Senate http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Church_Committee_Created.htm

Yes, large cities usually have more crime =X. Oregon has far less gun crime then comparable states though(As you should of noticed). But to go into detail about poverty and crime, here is something to get you started: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=poverty+causes+gun+violenceIt's been a solid correlation for decades. Poverty = Gun violence. There is a bit more to it as some of the articles will point out, but that is very close to the mark

 

Me saying: "The cost of living in Oregon is also much cheaper, think on that to, hah" is a long way from "Although you also try to debunk the poverty issue by saying the cost of living is cheaper in Oregon". Understanding English is an important part of any productive conversation!

 

And 3rdly, how the government's policies are(And have been since Bush Sr) actively destroying the lives of 90%~ of Americans to the benefit of a few ultra rich groups is far worse then MKULTRA IMO

Edited January 13, 2016 by Fistandantilus

[WISD0MTREE]

Waiting period is 21 days for you first firearm, 7 days for each subsequent firearm.

 

Shitty suburbs are well policed here and seeing as police don't have to worry about being shot by 'hoods', they don't kill civilians reaching for their ID.  Rural living is generally quite safe in Australia.  Owning a firearm for animal control is perfectly legal, I had a number of longarms myself for this purpose.  Our police are well trained, we have very low rates of violent crime, and black market handguns in Australia are incredibly expensive (upwards of $20,000 AUD - ~17,000 USD).  Illegally owning a firearm, not reporting a theft, allowing others access to your safe (aka non-licence holder has safe key) when they do random inspections, all come with massive penalties and multiple years prison.  In terms of your mob of 'arabic' men, I'm sure in America that mob would have more guns than the victim so the point is moot.  The fact that your Police are poorly trained and unwilling to go into areas with known high rates of gun ownership and violence is if anything more indicative of your firearm problem.

 

Semi-Automatics of any variety are illegal in this country without very special exemption for certain farming purposes (pump shotguns only).

 

Fact is banning firearms with high rates of fire and taking them out of the population (through a buyback) worked incredibly well, we went from having a mass shooting every year to not a single mass shooting since 1996.

You didn't answer the question. WHY do I need to wait for subsequent firearms? There is absolutely no reason for it. 

 

That's great that in Australia it worked out so well.

That's great that in Australia the police are well trained.

That's great that in Australia the police don't run from the problem.

That's great in Australia you don't have almost daily riots and raids.

That's great that in Australia there aren't wild bears and hogs trying to eat you for lunch.

 

Let's look at that with America. 

Here in America, gun control won't work out so well. 

Here in America, police aren't well trained, funded, or really in any position to enforce laws. Sometimes the police are even criminals themselves.

Here in America, police may run from the problem, leaving citizens to defend themselves.  

Here in America,  have almost daily riots peaceful protests. And on the topic of diversity, we have almost everyone. Chinese Triads, Italian Mafias, Russian Mobs, Mexican Cartels, and so on. I highly doubt Australia has all of those. 

Here in America, the wildlife will kill you. 

 

Pump shotguns aren't semi-autos. 

 

Fact is banning guns here in America won't help or even work. 

 

 

However, while there are still so many gun supporters sloganeering about the Second Amendment and "cold dead hands", and ranting paranoically about how they need guns to protect themselves against their government, I don't see constructive progress being made.

See the post above yours. 

[Solomon]

See the post above yours. 

I read it before I posted. What were you thinking when you put in the What if a mob of arabic men, who also sexually harassed a police woman, try to rape and/or rob me link?

[WISD0MTREE]

I read it before I posted. What were you thinking when you put in the What if a mob of arabic men, who also sexually harassed a police woman, try to rape and/or rob me link?

I highly doubt that they would risk their lives trying to rob someone who they know is armed, even if they were armed. 

[Lannan13]

IMO America has a gun problem and it's real. 

Period.

Do they? Or is it a sensationalism and a medical problem?

[Robert Ap Ioan]

Here in America, the wildlife will kill you. 

 

 

I hate to be pedantic, but Australia has many animals that will kill you. I would much rather live in New Zealand for this reason, controversial I know!

[WISD0MTREE]

I hate to be pedantic, but Australia has many animals that will kill you.

Which is another reason that Australia's gun restrictions are bad. 

[Hereno]

I wonder what France's crime stats are like? I am sure that similar to Britain there is very little difference. Germany has had a big immigrant population for a long time and it hasn't been treated very well. Most terrorist attacks are perpetrated by long term residents disenfranchised.

Jesus' antics in the Garden of Gethsemene kinda totally destroy your argument. Especially his comments about living by the sword. Also his comments on turning the other cheek. Jesus doesn't promote rebellion against the state, in fact quite the reverse.

Even when gun crime stats go down because of gun bans, there is no effect on overall crime rate. Gun crimes go down because there's less guns overall.

 

As much as I like to think that people are endowed with common sense, this debate topic frequently reminds me that common sense isn't all too common. I like guns! I don't like nutcases and criminals having guns. I think that could be said for anyone. Let's go through and look at compromise that doesn't involve banning guns.

Common sense doesn't exist. The most compelling argument in favor of common sense that can ever be made is "but this seems obvious to me". 9 times out of 10, that just means you don't know enough about the issue.

 

Waiting period is 21 days for you first firearm, 7 days for each subsequent firearm.

 

Shitty suburbs are well policed here and seeing as police don't have to worry about being shot by 'hoods', they don't kill civilians reaching for their ID.  Rural living is generally quite safe in Australia.  Owning a firearm for animal control is perfectly legal, I had a number of longarms myself for this purpose.  Our police are well trained, we have very low rates of violent crime, and black market handguns in Australia are incredibly expensive (upwards of $20,000 AUD - ~17,000 USD).  Illegally owning a firearm, not reporting a theft, allowing others access to your safe (aka non-licence holder has safe key) when they do random inspections, all come with massive penalties and multiple years prison.  In terms of your mob of 'arabic' men, I'm sure in America that mob would have more guns than the victim so the point is moot.  The fact that your Police are poorly trained and unwilling to go into areas with known high rates of gun ownership and violence is if anything more indicative of your firearm problem.

 

Semi-Automatics of any variety are illegal in this country without very special exemption for certain farming purposes (pump shotguns only).

 

Fact is banning firearms with high rates of fire and taking them out of the population (through a buyback) worked incredibly well, we went from having a mass shooting every year to not a single mass shooting since 1996.

Alright, but you live on an island (easy to keep people off of) that is mostly ethnically homogenous except for the indigenous population that has basically no rights and gets treated worse than black people do in America.

 

This whole "these are YOUR police" thing is another big problem. We don't see things that way. They're not our police, they're just the police. America was founded by bourgeois revolutionaries who understood that governments are made up of people with fundamentally different interests from those of the population. Calling the police, nine times out of ten, doesn't do shit except over-complicate everything in the first place.