Fox News: Guns = Freedom and Australians have no Freedom. - Polidicks

[IMG_THUMB]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6832122-3x2-940x627.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] [QUOTE]An American Fox News anchor has claimed Australians "have no freedom" while lambasting Australia's gun laws during a live discussion on the recent Oregon shooting. "What people always throw out there, is look at Australia, they have no gun violence, they don't have guns, their citizens aren't allowed to have guns," Morris said. "But they have no freedom, you can go to prison for expressing unpopular views in Australia and people do," Carlson argued, without citing any examples[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]They have no freedom, you can go to prison for expressing unpopular views in Australia and people do. - Tucker Carlson[/QUOTE] [IMG_THUMB]http://files.firebit.co.uk/i/gun_control_chart.png[/IMG_THUMB] [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-06/fox-news-anchor-claims-australians-have-no-freedom/6831618"] Source[/URL] Translation: I should have the right to exercise muh freedoms by killing people.

[QUOTE=TheCreeper;48842293] Translation: I should have the right to exercise muh freedoms by killing people.[/QUOTE] Because everyone who owns guns owns them to kill people, right?

Oh my god, let's not fucking start again.

Well yeah, they would say that. Fox News is full of retards and panders to retards; this is a pretty tame statement for them to make honestly. [QUOTE=beanhead;48842333]Because everyone who owns guns owns them to kill people, right?[/QUOTE] Considering how many murders are committed with them here, a lot of people evidently do own them for that, yeah. Oh well.

[QUOTE=Dantz Bolrew;48842351]Oh my god, let's not fucking start again.[/QUOTE] It's too late, gotta protect muh freedom to give everyone with enough brain cells to purchase something ability to get a lethal weapon!

[QUOTE=beanhead;48842333]Because everyone who owns guns owns them to kill people, right?[/QUOTE] Other than recreational past-time purposes (e.g. shooting bottles), I assume everyone in the US owns a gun in the off-chance that they might need to kill a person for self-defence?

Pretty much, We had a massive amount of guns here before 1996 and then the government said "that's it, no more guns" after a gentlemen went on a killing spree in tassy. You can still get them its just hard and kinda a waste of time but what's interesting is the fact that our gun crime sharply dropped after that and that our sharp objects started to rise.

[QUOTE=beanhead;48842333]Because everyone who owns guns owns them to kill people, right?[/QUOTE] Not that I'm disagreeing with the sarcasm here, but I have heard absolutely nothing in the past 2 years about buying guns for hunting. The only thing people talk about now with guns is how they can't wait for intruders to come onto their property so they can pop some rounds into them. I totally agree with guns being used for protection, but honestly I hear nothing about hunting or just shooting for fun anymore.

[QUOTE=bull04;48842380]Not that I'm disagreeing with the sarcasm here, but I have heard absolutely nothing in the past 2 years about buying guns for hunting. The only thing people talk about now with guns is how they can't wait for intruders to come onto their property so they can pop some rounds into them. I totally agree with guns being used for protection, but honestly I hear nothing about hunting or just shooting for fun anymore.[/QUOTE] You don't frequent the firearms discussion in GD do you.

I read a really good op-ed in the paper today about guns in the US. It was a no bullshit article that called out everyone who is ignorant to see that while people are the issue, guns only facilitate their crimes. It also outlined, what I thought was, a good idea of taking guns off the street. It involved stopping the sale of new firearms, and only taking the arms away from those who are in contact with law enforcement (aka- used in crimes, domestic violence, mental health, etc).

[QUOTE=Code3Response;48843018]I read a really good op-ed in the paper today about guns in the US. It was a no bullshit article that called out everyone who is ignorant to see that while people are the issue, guns only facilitate their crimes. It also outlined, what I thought was, a good idea of taking guns off the street. It involved stopping the sale of new firearms, and only taking the arms away from those who are in contact with law enforcement (aka- used in crimes, domestic violence, mental health, etc).[/QUOTE] But my constitution says...

[QUOTE=Govna;48842363]Well yeah, they would say that. Fox News is full of retards and panders to retards; this is a pretty tame statement for them to make honestly. Considering how many murders are committed with them here, a lot of people evidently do own them for that, yeah. Oh well.[/QUOTE] 0.00327962962% of firearms in america are used in crimes

[QUOTE=TheCreeper;48842293]I should have the right to exercise muh freedoms by killing people.[/QUOTE] Anyone in any country has the right or the freedom to self-defense, up to deadly force. However, as it just happens, practicing self-defense (and defending property) is less restricted in the U.S., varying between states too. What else is there to say about it? Also that graph in OP, or the about 12000 people that will be dead by gun-related homicide in the U.S. come the end of year 2015, amounts to about 0,0004% of the population. And that's me ridiculously rounding the numbers. So definitely not up there in the leading causes of death. Some might say it's a non-issue.

[QUOTE=bull04;48842380]Not that I'm disagreeing with the sarcasm here, but I have heard absolutely nothing in the past 2 years about buying guns for hunting. The only thing people talk about now with guns is how they can't wait for intruders to come onto their property so they can pop some rounds into them. I totally agree with guns being used for protection, but honestly I hear nothing about hunting or just shooting for fun anymore.[/QUOTE] Because you only hear the bad

[QUOTE=bull04;48842380]Not that I'm disagreeing with the sarcasm here, but I have heard absolutely nothing in the past 2 years about buying guns for hunting. The only thing people talk about now with guns is how they can't wait for intruders to come onto their property so they can pop some rounds into them. I totally agree with guns being used for protection, but honestly I hear nothing about hunting or just shooting for fun anymore.[/QUOTE] "Man buys rifle for recreational use" doesn't hit the headlines very often

[QUOTE=benbb;48842373]Other than recreational past-time purposes (e.g. shooting bottles), I assume everyone in the US owns a gun in the off-chance that they might need to kill a person for self-defence?[/QUOTE] I'm only looking to get a weapon so I can go for some target practice on my own time. Since I'm in the National Guard, I don't get much of an opportunity to go practice shooting, and it doesn't do well for a soldier to be a piss poor marksman.

[QUOTE=Passing;48842379]Pretty much, We had a massive amount of guns here before 1996 and then the government said "that's it, no more guns" after a gentlemen went on a killing spree in tassy. You can still get them its just hard and kinda a waste of time but what's interesting is the fact that our gun crime sharply dropped after that and that our sharp objects started to rise.[/QUOTE] There's a study that states otherwise, since Austrailia's firearm homicide rate was already declining prior to the bill. [url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1540791]It's unfortunately stuck behind a paywall, but it's still worth reading.[/url]

[QUOTE=bull04;48842380]Not that I'm disagreeing with the sarcasm here, but I have heard absolutely nothing in the past 2 years about buying guns for hunting. The only thing people talk about now with guns is how they can't wait for intruders to come onto their property so they can pop some rounds into them. I totally agree with guns being used for protection, but honestly I hear nothing about hunting or just shooting for fun anymore.[/QUOTE] Buying guns for hunting is still as popular as ever, just no one really cares when someone buys an AR-15 or an AK for hunting. The media only cares when someone buys a gun for self defense. And half the time after that they usually interview an Alex Jones or Ted Nugent type to make us all sound crazy.

To be fair Australia have a sucky situation with freedom, just guns don't factor into that sucky freedom.

[QUOTE=Govna;48842363]Well yeah, they would say that. Fox News is full of retards and panders to retards; this is a pretty tame statement for them to make honestly. Considering how many murders are committed with them here, a lot of people evidently do own them for that, yeah. Oh well.[/QUOTE] Most gun murders come from illegally owned guns. Most deaths from legally owned guns are suicide, then accidents. Most murders are done by handguns. Canada per capita is very close to America in terms of owning guns, and it has one of the lowest murder rates. This isnt a gun problem. Its a culture and society problem with some mental health and people being stupid thrown in. The mindset that guns somehow are just for murdering/killing and every other purpose it fulfills is somehow negated is just fucking retarded.

[QUOTE=Passing;48842379]Pretty much, We had a massive amount of guns here before 1996 and then the government said "that's it, no more guns" after a gentlemen went on a killing spree in tassy. You can still get them its just hard and kinda a waste of time but what's interesting is the fact that our gun crime sharply dropped after that and that our sharp objects started to rise.[/QUOTE] The long term trend since the 90's has been that sharp object crime has only been increasing at about a quarter of the rate that gun crime has decreased. However that long term trend is skewed by a sharp rise (no pun intended) of sharp object crime in 2005-06, ten years after Port Arthur and associated legislative changes. The trend of sharp object crime was actually relatively flat until then. [editline]7th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;48843413]There's a study that states otherwise, since Austrailia's firearm homicide rate was already declining prior to the bill. [url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1540791]It's unfortunately stuck behind a paywall, but it's still worth reading.[/url][/QUOTE] In the years before Port Arthur, gun crime was actually slightly increasing, and since Port Arthur it declined massively. [editline]7th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rossy167;48843979]To be fair Australia have a sucky situation with freedom, just guns don't factor into that sucky freedom.[/QUOTE] Sucky situation with freedom including being one of the most-democratic countries in the world, more so than the UK and the US?

[QUOTE=beanhead;48842333]Because everyone who owns guns owns them to kill people, right?[/QUOTE] Devil's advocate here, but that's what they're for. Either killing people or killing animals, really. Either way, killing.

To those who keep harping on "mental health", exactly what aspects of mental health are we talking about here? How are these mental health issues driving people to kill? How much of a problem is it really? And how should we go about solving said problem?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48844311]To those who keep harping on "mental health", exactly what aspects of mental health are we talking about here? How are these mental health issues driving people to kill? How much of a problem is it really? And how should we go about solving said problem?[/QUOTE] It's bunk. The way that people argue that's it's all people with mental health issues makes you think that every person with depression or whatever is walking around armed and we need to stop that. They can't possibly come to figure that people are driven to act based on situational awareness or lucid moral judgment, but instead have to assign unprovable aspects to these people, like they have "mental health problems". Mental health problems don't make people shoot other people- anger, social dysfunction and marginalization do. People who are alienated and experiencing anger. Some people have mental health issues and then do these things, yes, absolutely, but much of mental health deals with one's place in society. Depression, anxiety, whatever, these sorts of things can sometimes as much be products of social position, and even then the actual push to act has to come from somewhere else. Most mass shootings aren't done by crazy people, they're done by angry people, or people who are pushed out of hopelessness. That's why the stereotypes of the loner weirdo shooting up the school, or the disgruntled postal worker shooting up the office predate the buzzword "mental health" explanation. Angry social rejects kill people. That's not a mental health issue, that's a society issue.

[QUOTE=benbb;48842373]Other than recreational past-time purposes (e.g. shooting bottles), I assume everyone in the US owns a gun in the off-chance that they might need to kill a person for self-defence?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=bull04;48842380]Not that I'm disagreeing with the sarcasm here, but I have heard absolutely nothing in the past 2 years about buying guns for hunting. The only thing people talk about now with guns is how they can't wait for intruders to come onto their property so they can pop some rounds into them. I totally agree with guns being used for protection, but honestly I hear nothing about hunting or just shooting for fun anymore.[/QUOTE] I own a gun and plan to buy more for the purpose of collection, historical interest, and things like that. If firearms get banned, it's likely going to include the antique ones I'm interested in. Some people hear gun and assume that one day I'm going to go on a massacre with a single-shot rifle re-purposed to shotgun from the late 1800's. That being said, I'm all for stricter records and requirements for those who wish to purchase guns, but in some cases you wind up with situations like in Maryland; Concealed carry is "legal" but good fucking luck getting that unless you're a cop or in something like the eyewitness program. Not necessarily something that affects me but it's a scary precedent that something can be considered legal to everyone while being nearly impossible to get. [editline]6th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;48844311]To those who keep harping on "mental health", exactly what aspects of mental health are we talking about here? How are these mental health issues driving people to kill? How much of a problem is it really? And how should we go about solving said problem?[/QUOTE] While "mental health" by the traditional definition is misused in these arguments the idea is that, the gun didn't decide to go out and commit a mass shooting, the person with the gun did. This means that the root of the shooting isn't the weapon, it's what ever caused the person with the weapon to kill people. I don't really see this as much as mental health as much as social health, as it's usually people who found themselves distanced and ostracized from the community they target. The root of the argument is really: Take away the gun, and they'll use a knife. Take away the knife, and they'll use their car. Take away every possible thing you can, and they'll use their fists. People who decide to kill people are going to do it anyway, so why take away the tool from the people who use them properly. Of course, the counter argument is, a gun is much more effective than a pair of fists, which is a solid argument. The debate reaches an ethical stalemate between how much freedom people should have versus how valuable the safety gained through bans are. This is largely a personal opinion.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];48844294']Devil's advocate here, but that's what they're for. Either killing people or killing animals, really. Either way, killing.[/QUOTE] People collect toy cars, people collect real cars, people collect stamps, people collect knives, people collect guns. Some people like to shoot guns, hearing the satisfying ring of the steel plate target. Some people just like to hold guns, run the action(things you cant do if the only guns around are at the museum or ruined by being "deactivated"), and marvel at the technology. Some people like guns in the same way other people like planes, trains (or automobiles :v: ). People buy fast cars, and the majority of the responsible ones take to the right place to use them, race tracks.

[QUOTE=beanhead;48844528]People collect toy cars, people collect real cars, people collect stamps, people collect knives, people collect guns.[/QUOTE] And we should regulate it so that insane or dangerous people aren't collecting tons of automatic rifles and make sure that they're properly stored.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48844606]And we should regulate it so that insane or dangerous people aren't collecting tons of automatic rifles and make sure that they're properly stored.[/QUOTE] Automatic firearms are already "regulated" [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act[/url]

[QUOTE=beanhead;48844528]People collect toy cars, people collect real cars, people collect stamps, people collect knives, people collect guns.[/QUOTE] So a secondary market for the weapons supersedes the primary function, the reason they exist? I mean people could collect anything, but there'd be nothing to collect if the item itself didn't exist, and the item only exists to fulfill a function. I mean yeah people collect them. They collect killing machines. Machines designed to kill. Machines that exist originally, primarily, and totally to kill. Like the number of items that exist solely as collector items are limited to trading cards and beanie babies.

[QUOTE=beanhead;48844642]Automatic firearms are already "regulated" [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act[/url][/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole[/url]