Obama praises Australia's, UK's gun laws following mass shooting
400 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Toyokunari;48806586]Ok I get your point about Americans and hunting. But surely hunting isn't the only reason why Guns are so big in the states right.[/QUOTE]
Well I mean since the first colonists came to the Americas Guns have been a necessity for survival, repelling native attacks, hunting, and self defense. As we expanded further west and west guns continued to be a necessity. I mean that long history of guns being a part of American Society along with a large veteran population who continue to shoot guns for fun when they come home from the military is the best answer I can give you for why Guns are so deeply rooted in American culture.
[QUOTE=Hepburn;48806615]No, another big part is recreational shooting. Shooting at targets at a range or on private land. Plus, there is the fact that plenty use guns for self-defense, and while a pistol is ideal for carrying with you, I would much rather have an AR-15 to defend my home than a shotgun. They're easier to maneuver, easier to control say if your wife or child needed to use it, plus they penetrate less than buckshot or regular pistol rounds do.
[editline]1st October 2015[/editline]
I think he meant why guns are so popular here.[/QUOTE]
We have hunting and shooting ranges in Australia, having guns for these reasons are fine as the people doing them are usually experienced and mentally stable (At least here), we do have a lot of regulations in place for hunting though.
TBH I'm starting to think these mass shooters target schools because they had a bad experience in school (Probably bullying) and America has a very different school system to Australia
[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;48806633]All these people saying "Drink Beer" clearly have no idea what the eighteenth amendment is[/QUOTE]
We sure know the 21st
[QUOTE=Lebofly;48806640]We have hunting and shooting ranges in Australia, having guns for these reasons are fine as the people doing them are usually experienced and mentally stable (At least here), we do have a lot of regulations in place for hunting though[/QUOTE]
We have a lot of regulation for hunting here as well. 99% of gun owners in the US are usually experienced and mentally stable so I don't see your point.
[QUOTE=Hepburn;48806545]So why don't we ban all recreational activities that cause death? No more swimming, no more driving, etc.[/QUOTE]
You missed the part where I said "Leave that to gun ranges." You don't need to own a gun for recreation. If you want to play with guns, go to a gun range instead (a controlled space that promotes safe gun usage).
[QUOTE=Hepburn;48806646]We have a lot of regulation for hunting here as well. 99% of gun owners in the US are usually experienced and mentally stable so I don't see your point.[/QUOTE]
No point I was just defending gun use for hunting
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806649]You missed the part where I said "Leave that to gun ranges." You don't need to own a gun for recreation. If you want to play with guns, go to a gun range instead (a controlled space that promotes safe gun usage).[/QUOTE]
As I've been saying a lot of people who shoot guns for fun also are hunters so that idea is not gonna work
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806649]You missed the part where I said "Leave that to gun ranges." You don't need to own a gun for recreation. If you want to play with guns, go to a gun range instead (a controlled space that promotes safe gun usage).[/QUOTE]
I do not get your point. People do go to ranges. It's not like people just prop up a target in the middle of Times Square and start plinking away.
[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]
this has to be one of the completely, most absolutely fucking godawful ideas i have ever heard.
regardless of my stance on gun control, just... holy shit dude. did you spend even a second thinking about what would happen if this took place?
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806649]You missed the part where I said "Leave that to gun ranges." You don't need to own a gun for recreation. If you want to play with guns, go to a gun range instead (a controlled space that promotes safe gun usage).[/QUOTE]
Because range memberships are expensive?
If I own guns and I have the land to shoot them safely, why shouldn't I be able to? If I can hunt on that land then it's safe to shoot on, so why can't I target shoot there?
This comes up in Canada a lot, I can go shoot a .50 calibre sniper rifle up in the middle of the bush and it's perfectly legal, but if I take my .22 calibre pistol to shoot anywhere but the gun range I risk going to prison for 5 years. It's ridiculous.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806649]You missed the part where I said "Leave that to gun ranges." You don't need to own a gun for recreation. If you want to play with guns, go to a gun range instead (a controlled space that promotes safe gun usage).[/QUOTE]
How about I keep my guns and shoot them on my property in a safe and controlled manner like I have for many years now...
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806642]We sure know the 21st[/QUOTE]
And what did the 21st do, specifically?
[QUOTE=Mr. Jelly;48806729]And what did the 21st do, specifically?[/QUOTE]
made the 18th obsolete. Still doesn't mean we're going to make an amendment to make the 2nd obsolete, that'd just be foolish. Plus I don't know if we can actually make any of the bill of rights obsolete
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806736]made the 18th obsolete. Still doesn't mean we're going to make an amendment to make the 2nd obsolete, that'd just be foolish. Plus I don't know if we can actually make any of the bill of rights obsolete[/QUOTE]
Too many states would oppose an amendment that repeals the 2nd for it to ever pass.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;48806678]this has to be one of the completely, most absolutely fucking godawful ideas i have ever heard.
regardless of my stance on gun control, just... holy shit dude. did you spend even a second thinking about what would happen if this took place?[/QUOTE]
Tell me, how do you plan to enforce a ban on guns without actually removing guns?
Guns are dumb.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48806763]Tell me, how do you plan to enforce a ban on guns without actually removing guns?[/QUOTE]
He's right though, you can't start a war on the streets of your country.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48806763]Tell me, how do you plan to enforce a ban on guns without actually removing guns?[/QUOTE]
By not enforcing a ban on guns
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48806763]Tell me, how do you plan to enforce a ban on guns without actually removing guns?[/QUOTE]
You realize the minute you announce that people are going to shoot at every police officer in sight, right? That violates so many constitutional rights that it would be both political and literal suicide for whatever leader issued the order, seeing as there'd undeniably be an armed revolt against them and they'd be shot, and it'd provide the modern-day justification for the 2nd Amendment defending against tyranny that gun rights advocates keep saying they have their guns for.
Yeah, I think it would be technically a violation of eminent domain too wouldn't it? If they tried to seize all our guns.
[QUOTE=Native Hunter;48806671]As I've been saying a lot of people who shoot guns for fun also are hunters so that idea is not gonna work[/QUOTE]
I don't see why not. If you're a hunter or livestock owner, then it's reasonable that you keep your skills in check. No issue with hunters testing their skill on their own property, providing they're practicing in a safe environment.
I'm speaking solely about people who own guns for other reasons. As it stands, you don't need to be a hunter or a livestock owner to own a gun. Besides military and police work, what other functional purposes are there to own a gun? I don't believe it's enough to simply [I]want[/I] to own a gun, you don't need one if you're not going to do something useful with it. Budget cash for a gun range membership and make use of it instead.
[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
but they've been said in past threads by the same people arguing in this one[/QUOTE]
Drones can't occupy a city, run supply lines, etc. There are all links where an occupation would have men on the ground.
That's where the AR-15 comes in.
That's not counting the vast amount of AR-15s with fun switches in the hands of the soldiers who decide to stick to the oath they took.
Anyone else would honestly deserve the business end of said AR-15. You're putting too much stock in the effectiveness of drones for occupation. If some rusty AKs and SKSs in the hands of former goat farmers were enough to fuck with the US in Afghanistan, I'm sure civilians familiar with higher quality systems could really rock any occupational governments world.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;48806825]Drones can't occupy a city, run supply lines, etc. There are all links where an occupation would have men on the ground.
That's where the AR-15 comes in.[/QUOTE]
Also, something a lot of people seem to forget, is do you really, sincerely think, that most of the US military will fire upon US citizens?
[QUOTE=axelord157;48806284]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]
With the collapse of the support for the government and therefore the government. That would be the whole point of an uprising. The day predator drones fire rockets at targets in north america is the day a lot of things would change. Large part of the second amendment is allowing citizens to scrap the government if it becomes tyranical, that doesn't neccesarily require a fully won war, just a won pr campaign.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;48806793]You realize the minute you announce that people are going to shoot at every police officer in sight, right? That violates so many constitutional rights that it would be both political and literal suicide for whatever leader issued the order, seeing as there'd undeniably be an armed revolt against them and they'd be shot, and it'd provide the modern-day justification for the 2nd Amendment defending against tyranny that gun rights advocates keep saying they have their guns for.[/QUOTE]
That's the point, you can't just "ban guns" here because you either will not be able to enforce it, or you will have to use extreme force and end up proving why we have it in the first place.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806824]I don't see why not. If you're a hunter or livestock owner, then it's reasonable that you keep your skills in check. No issue with hunters testing their skill on their own property, providing they're practicing in a safe environment.
I'm speaking solely about people who own guns for other reasons. As it stands, you don't need to be a hunter or a livestock owner to own a gun. Besides military and police work, what other functional purposes are there to own a gun? I don't believe it's enough to simply [I]want[/I] to own a gun, you don't need one if you're not going to do something useful with it. Budget cash for a gun range membership and make use of it instead.[/QUOTE]
because people like to shoot guns and have hobbies of it, I mean shit I don't see the whole need for a government regulated shooting range in the first place. I mean it'd be just as easy to break into as anywhere else. And keeping all the guns in one place might not be the best idea should someone actually want to do something crazy
You can literally say that about anything.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;48806824]I don't believe it's enough to simply [I]want[/I] to own a police scanner, you don't need one if you're not going to do something useful with it. Budget cash for a shortwave radio and make use of it instead.[/QUOTE]
It's highly subjective and you can twist the same statement into anything you want.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48806873]You can literally say that about anything.
[quote]I don't believe it's enough to simply [I]want[/I] to own a police scanner, you don't need one if you're not going to do something useful with it. Budget cash for a shortwave radio and make use of it instead.[/quote]
It's highly subjective and you can twist the same statement into anything you want.[/QUOTE]
Remind me, when was the last instance of Mass Police Scanner violence in USA? Consider the context of the discussion before presenting a poor argument like that. It's a total fallacy, and it just makes you sound stupid.
[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]
And? People don't give a shit about those hundreds of young black males dying every year in his hometown. People do care about 13 kids being shot. What can you do if you're message isn't going to be heard because no one gives a shit, other than try to talk about these things at another time when people do?
I had a big post written up about Australia gun crime, the UK's general crime rate since handguns were banned in the late 90s and comparisons considering population differences to America, but apparently somebody not from the US can't understand how important it is for guns to not be massively restricted.
I can understand not banning them entirely because even here in the UK and over in Australia you can obtain a firearms license under very strict circumstances, but why would massive restrictions that limited most Americans access to them be bad? I understand that it'd be a lot of work getting rid of so many weapons after so many years of throwing more guns at gun and crime issues, but in the end wouldn't it work out for the best? It certainly did with the UK and Australia.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.