Obama praises Australia's, UK's gun laws following mass shooting
400 replies, posted
if you outlaw gun control then only criminals will practice gun control.
An overall ban in the USA is impossible, calling it "hard" is an understatement.
I believe the solution is, besides mental healthcare blahblah, is to plug existing loopholes when it comes to private sales, and also enforcing safe gun storage, and basically just regulate everything a little closer.
About this particular shooting, do we know if the person owned the gun they used or not?
All these people saying "Ban Guns" clearly have no idea what the second amendment is
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806144]you said yourself that banning guns would not be the easy route, and implied regulation would also not be easy either[/QUOTE]
It would be easier than trying to fix our problems. Declare State of Emergency, have swarms of police and military personnel confiscate arms from everyone on the list, threaten overwhelming force if they resist.
[QUOTE=Lebofly;48806106]What Australia did IIRC was pay people to hand in their guns by a due date[/QUOTE]
Yup, national buyback. Between that and the stricter gun laws, it worked. I believe it took 18 years (from 1996 until the end of 2014) for Australia to have its next mass shooting, the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis]Sydney hostage crisis[/url]. I sure as hell can't remember any other massive shooting that occurred on Australian soil.
That's not to say that gun violence ceased entirely, but it's obvious that Australia's laws and buyback did their job in reducing massive shootings. It might be 20 years too late for USA, but it's gotta happen.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806195]Yup, national buyback. Between that and the stricter gun laws, it worked. I believe it took 18 years (from 1996 until the end of 2014) for Australia to have its next mass shooting, the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis]Sydney hostage crisis[/url]. I sure as hell can't remember any other massive shooting that occurred on Australian soil.
That's not to say that gun violence ceased entirely, but it's obvious that Australia's laws and buyback did their job in reducing massive shootings. It might be 20 years too late for USA, but it's gotta happen.[/QUOTE]
Was that really a mass shooting though?
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806172]All these people saying "Ban Guns" clearly have no idea what the second amendment is[/QUOTE]
The second amendment was written in 1791. Think about the firearms that existed then, compared to what is available now. Have you considered that the second amendment might be a [I]little bit[/I] out of date?
[QUOTE=Lebofly;48806202]Was that really a mass shooting though?[/QUOTE]
I'd consider it to be one, yeah. 18 hostages in the Sydney's central business district. Only a few were actually shot dead in the end, but it could've been a whole lot worse for everyone. The fact that it happened at all is terrible.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806188]blacks and women couldn't vote until an amendments were made, i'm sure we can get rid of one that was made in a time where it was likely that a lobsterback fuck would try to break down your door and rape your wife
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
i dont think mobilizing various forces all made of volunteers to confiscate guns would be an easy feat, a lot of idiots would resist violently and a lot of cops/military would desert and turn on the govt as well[/QUOTE]
eh no, I don't think you understand the uses of the 2nd amendment besides "Owning guns". It also is the reason why we have a national guard and people are allowed to own guns. So the people can't be oppressed by an authoritarian government god forbid a situation like it ever arise. And really, you're going to say its obsolete because it was written back then? Why don't we just get of the entire bill of rights while we're at it because "It was made a long time ago"
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806203]The second amendment was written in 1791. Think about the firearms that existed then, compared to what is available now. Have you considered that the second amendment might be a [i]little bit[/i] out of date?[/QUOTE]
No, the firearms back then could easily go hand to hand with the US military, now adays its much harder to get military grade hardware than it was back then. Also remember the majority of people don't use their guns to shoot people, recreation shooting and hunting, along with self defence make up like 99% of reasons why people buy guns
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48806186]It would be easier than trying to fix our problems. Declare State of Emergency, have swarms of police and military personnel confiscate arms from everyone on the list, threaten overwhelming force if they resist.[/QUOTE]
Can't tell if you're being facetious or serious. Dumb idea anyways, would never work. Not to mention we don't live in a fascist police state.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48806186]It would be easier than trying to fix our problems. Declare State of Emergency, have swarms of police and military personnel confiscate arms from everyone on the list, threaten overwhelming force if they resist.[/QUOTE]
:wow:
There is no national registry of firearm owners, bar people who own automatic weaponry that are [I]already[/I] watched on heavily by the government, and Concealed Carry permit holders.
Are you seriously suggesting that the police go door to door in every single home in the entire country?
This isn't even getting into the [I]massive[/I] issue of constitutionality beyond even the 2nd Amendment.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806200]what i dont get is this weird mix of "it's too late to fix this" and "actually the guns aren't the problem" sort of contradictory statements the defenders of weapon proliferation make
the first one admits guns are a problem we've let go on to long like wtf??[/QUOTE]
When arguing with different people you're gonna get different arguments
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806215]think of a situation where the government somehow turns on it's citizens and wants to kill us all or whatever
what is your ar-15 going to do against the hellfire drone about to turn your house into a pile of wood and giblets
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
but they've been said in past threads by the same people arguing in this one[/QUOTE]
By that reasoning then we should access to all Military grade weaponry. And you'd be surprised how effective Insurgencies are. But my point stands that just outright getting rid of the 2nd Amendment is ridiculous because its not just the concept of owning guns.
Americans have too many guns, that said with implementing strict and sensible gun-control rule the government should look into creating a gun buy-back program like what Australia did.
[QUOTE=Singo;48805930]Obama using a mass shooting to push his agenda once again.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Obama is only meaning to disarm you can't defend yourself when you're tied up and force-read to his Communist Manifesto co-written by Bernie Sanders!
the government drone striking american citizens would only turn more people against it, both in the neutral civilian population as well as in the military.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48806232]Americans have too many guns, that said with implementing strict and sensible gun-control rule the government should look into creating a gun buy-back program like what Australia did.[/QUOTE]
We already have gun buybacks... it would never work here.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806195]Yup, national buyback. Between that and the stricter gun laws, it worked. I believe it took 18 years (from 1996 until the end of 2014) for Australia to have its next mass shooting, the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis]Sydney hostage crisis[/url]. I sure as hell can't remember any other massive shooting that occurred on Australian soil.[/QUOTE]
The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting]Monash University shooting[/url] happened in 2002, technically not a mass shooting because the attacker was quickly tackled, but there was an attempt. It was with several legally acquired pistols, and the result was the Aussie government banning more guns and paying competitive shooters to retire.
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806200]what i dont get is this weird mix of "it's too late to fix this" and "actually the guns aren't the problem" sort of contradictory statements the defenders of weapon proliferation make
the first one admits guns are a problem we've let go on to long like wtf?[/QUOTE]
It was too late to fix it by the time the 2nd Amendment was written. To have Congress and the US President to agree to override the 2nd Amendment is something near unbelievable.
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48806232]Americans have too many guns, that said with implementing strict and sensible gun-control rule the government should look into creating a gun buy-back program like what Australia did.[/QUOTE]
People never seem to be aware that the US has tried both of this things multiple times and has yet to see any positive results from either
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806157]dude we should make airplanes illegal, some terrorists used them to kill a few thousand people IN 1 DAY
isolated incidents do not an argument make, lest the argument is about said incident (and please dont use this out of context to springboard yourself into a fit about how school shootings barely ever happen because you'd be bullshitting yourself)[/QUOTE]
mass shootings are isolated incidents. we have a mass shooting every couple of months, China has a mass stabbing every couple of months, UK has a brother and sister fucking in an elevator every other week, and Australia you hear once a month about some old dude dying and the police discovering 50 grand worth of firearms in his basement
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806209]No, the firearms back then could easily go hand to hand with the US military, now adays its much harder to get military grade hardware than it was back then.[/QUOTE]
Military firearms of 1791 still don't compare to today's firearms. 1791 was a [I]very[/I] different time.
Why does USA always fall back to a 250-year-old piece of parchment for all of its decisions? The constitution doesn't scale with modern science and technology. The second amendment in its current state should be too old to be applied here.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806215]
but they've been said in past threads by the same people arguing in this one[/QUOTE]
I don't see how "it's too late to fix the sheer number of guns in the USA" and "however the guns themselves are not what's causing all of this" are mutually exclusive statements though; the guns themselves aren't what's making these people go mental and the guns themselves aren't the reason these people can have such easy access to them; these aren't "normal" individuals.
The gun debate is old, tired, the arguments are always the same, by always the same people. Nobody's opinion has ever changed in any of these threads, ever. It's a pointless, time-wasting endeavour. I believe a more pertinent discussion is to try and figure out how these deranged people manage to get their hands on guns; for instance, was this shooter's gun HIS gun? If so, how did he get access to it? Who allowed him to purchase it? If not, who did he steal it from? How did he manage to steal it?
It's very easy to just say "oh this happened because guns and 'merica" but the issue is a little deeper than that.
Crosspost:
Media Culture is still a big part of the problem. Everyone has seen the video with the psychiatrist telling reporters how to cover a shooting, but the media doesn't care. These incidents happen in clusters, so it seems pretty telling that how much we report on a shooting has an effect on how often these shootings happen. I'm for stricter guns but there's more problems to this than ease of access to guns (Which still might play a factor) like poverty and mental health. Issues can be far more complex than "It's just guns" "It's just mental healthcare" "It's just mass media". They all play a factor.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806188]blacks and women couldn't vote until an amendments were made, [B]i'm sure we can get rid of one that was made in a time where it was likely that a lobsterback fuck would try to break down your door and rape your wife[/B]
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
i dont think mobilizing various forces all made of volunteers to confiscate guns would be an easy feat, a lot of idiots would resist violently and a lot of cops/military would desert and turn on the govt as well[/QUOTE]
Rich is right, a well-maintained militia means jackshit these days. It worked when all the big guns where primitive mass drivers (cannons) and small arms took like fifteen minutes to reload with each shot. How do you think a squad of 12 dudes with AR-15s against a predator drone ready to give them each a hellfire missle suppository would end?
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806249]i wouldn't even suggest getting rid of the 2nd amendment since guns are fun to shoot at ranges and whatnot but we have to ask ourselves if having this hobby be almost completely unrestricted is a good thing
i can keep all manner of guns just sitting throughout my house in every crevice with absolutely no repercussions, i keep it all in a good safe so shit doesn't get stolen but there are tons of people that keep guns in the open, ripe for the taking
i could sell any of my guns to another dude for some cash on the spot with no paperwork or legal binding anything, surely something is wrong there
when i talk about the 2nd amendment being irrelevant, i'm talking about how amendments can be revised and have been for a while, most nations with strict gun control don't even ban guns outright, as much as a lot of posters would seem to believe, which wouldn't violate the second amendment[/QUOTE]
you actually need a license to sell firearms manufactured past 1899. But I mean because a small number of retards keep their guns unprotected everyone should have to be deal with restrictions? I mean shit I can see your reasoning, I just don't like the idea of having strict gun laws. Background checks I can get behind, but that's about it as far as gun control goes
[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;48806281]I don't see how "it's too late to fix the sheer number of guns in the USA" and "however the guns themselves are not what's causing all of this" are mutually exclusive statements though; the guns themselves aren't what's making these people go mental and the guns themselves aren't the reason these people can have such easy access to them; these aren't "normal" individuals.
The gun debate is old, tired, the arguments are always the same, by always the same people. Nobody's opinion has ever changed in any of these threads, ever. It's a pointless, time-wasting endeavour. I believe a more pertinent discussion is to try and figure out how these deranged people manage to get their hands on guns; for instance, was this shooter's gun HIS gun? If so, how did he get access to it? Who allowed him to purchase it? If not, who did he steal it from? How did he manage to steal it?
It's very easy to just say "oh this happened because guns and 'merica" but the issue is a little deeper than that.[/QUOTE]
But that requires research and thought
Why bother doing that when you can just argue about the polarized surface parts of the issue
[QUOTE=-nesto-;48805970]It takes 13 people dying for him to say something yet HUNDREDS of young black males die every year in his hometown and he doesn't give a shit. He's trying to politicize a tragedy to push his stupid fucking agendas.[/QUOTE]
This.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806274]Military firearms of 1791 still don't compare to today's firearms. 1791 was a [i]very[/i] different time.
Why does USA always fall back to a 300-year-old piece of parchment for all of its decisions? The constitution doesn't scale with modern science and technology. The second amendment in its current state should be too old to be applied here.[/QUOTE]
Why does any country fall back to the foundation of their country? The basis of law in the country and entire concept of it. The Second Amendment in its current state is perfectly fine and acceptable, I don't see why every foreigner likes to tell us that we shouldn't be able to own guns or should have really tight restrictions on them. Even though gun culture here is ENTIRELY different than any where else in the world, with tens of millions of hunters and recreational shooters nation-wide.
Also, it's real fucked-up how one of the few gun controls laws where put into place in California because the black panthers expressed their 2nd amendment rights at a govt building. Google "Mulford Act" if you're curious.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48806249]i wouldn't even suggest getting rid of the 2nd amendment since guns are fun to shoot at ranges and whatnot but we have to ask ourselves if having this hobby be almost completely unrestricted is a good thing
i can keep all manner of guns just sitting throughout my house in every crevice with absolutely no repercussions, i keep it all in a good safe so shit doesn't get stolen but there are tons of people that keep guns in the open, ripe for the taking
i could sell any of my guns to another dude for some cash on the spot with no paperwork or legal binding anything, surely something is wrong there
when i talk about the 2nd amendment being irrelevant, i'm talking about how amendments can be revised and have been for a while, most nations with strict gun control don't even ban guns outright, as much as a lot of posters would seem to believe, which wouldn't violate the second amendment[/QUOTE]
Speaking about people owning guns because they are fun, can't the government create a program where gun owners leave their gun at their gun-ranges that are government approved? Surely there is a sensible solution that caters to gun owners who use their guns for fun. That way any gun is not ban for gun owners who use them for fun.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.