It also has the lowest homocide rate since 1990, bans the carrying of knifes without proper cause and does not allow knifes with the main purpose of assault, like switchblades. And once again, a knife is a multipurpose object, you can't ban a steakknife. I don't know anyone who tries to cut his meat with an AR
"It also has the lowest homocide rate since 1990"
Still using Australia as your metric? I guess you don't see the flaw in this?
Australia Population 2018 - 24,663,747- 2.9 million square miles.
California Population 2018- 39,776,830- 155,959 square miles
Just one state blows Australia's population away. Despite being 19X smaller than the entire country. If I throw 10 dogs in a small room, the rates of them attacking one another will be higher than if I throw them into a state park.
If you're talking Australia, I guess you would be in favor of a buyback plan and not a total ban. Australia bought back 640,000 firearms against the estimated 90 million the USA would buyback under the same policy. This cost might be in the billions if the US paid fair market value for the weapons. So who pays for that?
Legality is also an issue when trying to compare the two. Like or not Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms. That makes gun ownership in the US an issue of civil rights, not merely public safety, as it is in countries such as Australia, which has no Second Amendment equal.
Even anti-gun super left leaning publication's have sated many times over that trying to compare Australia and the USA when it come to guns is pointless. Just google it and see for yourself. I know many gun owners that are open for debate, just not the same one that's been debunked so many times.
Not really a valid argument. One point that takes it down completely is "What is the primary purpose of those things?".
Cargo Truck = Transport
Planes = Transport
Alcohol = Consumation
Guns = To Kill People
Even with Alcohol, there is a limit to how much you are legally allowed to consume before it becomes illegal to drive. That whole argument of "Oh this object is also bad, why aren't they doing something about that?". So if someone went around on a killing spree with a frying pan, let's say he killed 40 people somehow, you would suddenly say "Oh Frying Pans are bad"? Like fuck you would.
I'm very much in the middle when it comes to the topic. On one hand, Yes guns really need to be regulated better. Nobody should need a flipping military level weapon to defend themselves.
But on the flip side, it would be hard to pass anything like that in the government. The gun culture is too much over there, with too many in the public banging on about the 2nd Amendment. Plus, rounding up the guns that would then be deemed illegal to own would be nigh on impossible, considering people would hear of it, and take measures to hide such guns if they don't wanna hand them over, and given how some of the outcry has been, some would even threaten to shoot anybody who arrived to confiscate them.
TL;DR = America is kinda fucked when it comes to guns
Thank you for proving my point and doing exactly what I said someone would do. I'm not sure you even read what I said " Now I know you're reading this and saying its not the same thing, but they are. I don't think any person needs to leave their house to drink a beer" His (TJ's) argument was why do you need it and you said what you do with them and not why you need it. So you need alcohol because it's consumed? Bars are legal because alcohol is consumed? Your emotion on the subject gets laid out when you say guns kill people as there primary purpose. With little research it's found that guns save more lives than they claim. Guns don't kill, people do. Alcohol doesn't kill, it's the person that drank that should get the blame. BTW, they have laws about how to use a gun just like they do with drinking. How come when the law is broke it's the guns fault? How come when one inanimate object kills (gun) it's the guns fault? But when someone does it with a frying pan it's the persons fault?
So I'll ask again, why do you need alcohol and bars? Remember, alcohol kills more people than guns. So saying guns kill is not a valid argument. It's merely a copout because one you like and the other you don't.
"Why would a civilian need a semi automatic weapon that can fire off 30 rounds per magazine"
So it's a psychobabble argument over needs and wants. So why would civilian need to rent a 19 tonne cargo truck that killed 84 in Nice France? Why would a civilian need a pilot's license that they could use to fly into buildings? Why do you need bars that serve alcohol or allow smoking in public places? Now I know you're reading this and saying its not the same thing, but they are. I don't think any person needs to leave their house to drink a beer. Then drive home and kill someone because they were ignorant of the dangers. Alcohol kills way more people than guns and yet it's okay to have a place that you must drive to and from. So I'll answer your question when you solve my bar/alcohol problem.
In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
The 1996 reforms introduced in Australia came just months after a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre, when Martin Bryant used two semi-automatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 23 others in Port Arthur. The reforms had the support of all major political parties.
The lead author of the study, Professor Simon Chapman, said a similar study had been conducted 10 years ago, and that the researchers had repeated it to see if gun-related deaths were continuing to decline, finding that they had.
“I’ve calculated that for every person in Australia shot in a massacre, 139 [people] are shot through firearm-related suicide or homicides, so they are much more common,” Chapman said.
“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”
I know gun reform isn't going to be the be all and end all of gun related deaths but it's a bloody start.
That chart tells me that gun bans only speed up the already trending down gun violence. Since it was trending down, could the numbers be near what they are now without the ban? Impossible to tell but easy to know that the gun ban is just one of the factors that lowered the numbers. It's a good thing it went down but comparing the 2 countries is not apples to apples.
I have no argument with people owning guns if they are licensed to own them and have had sufficient background checks. I go to my uncles farm quite a bit to go hunting. But that's with bolt action rifles and the like.
My "why do you need one" comment isn't about ALL guns its about some guns. Why do you need an AR-15 Assault rifle? (not you specifically, im talking in general)
I think your stance would make more sense if you argued against most guns. Mass shootings, suicides and violent crimes involving a gun are overwhelmingly done with hand guns. So should your stance really be just about an AR-15? Unless I'm to believe that one inanimate object is somehow worse based on how it looks. I really want to know the answer about what the difference is outside of appearance? One is far more likely used in shootings and crime and the other is big, scary and fits the anti-gun narrative.
Here is a video of people picking guns they think are worse based solely on how they look.
Humiliate them, that's exactly how to deal with this type of trash....
Talk about these type of people as very mentally ill individuals..
Feel sorry for them, not scared of them...
Keep mentally deranged people far away from access to firearms.
Make it impossible for anyone to own military style weapons... Period.
And if allowed at all, only to be stored locked away at a shooting range.... (If caught anywhere outside of a shooting range, you get a mandatory prison sentence of 1 year,, minimum)
Make it harder to get a license for higher caliber guns, than it is to get government Security Clearance.
Minimum age to own any gun over 21 years... Possibly even 26 years of age (after the last developing brain connection for consequences, is in place)
But allow those "qualified enough" to own smaller caliber guns, to some extent.
That would put a brake on many these type of incidents...
Where is the logic with some of these statements? In the case of this last shooting, government failed in their part. There are already laws in place that if big brother did the basics and followed through on their end, it could have prevented it.. Unless he obtained the firearms illegally after he failed the background check. In that case all the laws would not have stopped it. So the solution to government failure is to give them more power to enact laws and regulations when they can't even do the ones they have now. Where is your anger and hostility towards the government employee who gets paid with your money to not do their job. Instead hold all legal and law-abiding citizens to face more restrictions from the very entity that fails over and over again.
Bro, if my wife fucks up cooking eggs, I don't want her preparing a ten course meal for the family. That's what you're saying with this statement. Well I know that they suck and can't do the job, but lets give them more to do. This is the statist way of thinking. Government sucks at everything, but we need them to fix the very problems they create. How can a logical person belive this?
"Keep mentally deranged people far away from access to firearms"
I agree but who decides what mentally deranged is? According to some anti-gun people, anyone who owns a gun is mentally deranged. I've seen this argument made. How about a government psychologist/psychiatrist who needs the system to pay their bills. So you get someone elected who can tell them what mentally deranged is according to their definition? So maybe at 19 I got into a fight and paid a small fine for disorderly conduct. Could the system not deem me a mentally deranged person because I displayed anger 20 years before? This is the tricky question that comes with this thought process. Just look how bad the no fly list is. People getting flagged for nothing. politicians, kids, war heros and senior citizens who have never had a parking ticket. No way I want an agency of the state to decide who is mentally capable of owning a firearm.
"Make it impossible for anyone to own military style weapons... Period"
This is how it already is for 99.9% of the people. The fraction that can have access go through a tougher process of background checks and licensing than people joining the military or police force. On top of that the cost that comes with this is super high. That's why you don't see these people committing crimes of any kid, yet alone mass shootings.
Now if you're arguing that AR-15's are military weapons, then you don't understand the difference. The fact is that two handguns with multiple magazines could do the same damage in that school as the AR-15 did.
"Minimum age to own any gun over 21 years and maybe even 26?
Laughable in my opinion! You better be ready to make 21 or even 26 the age for drinking alcohol, driving a car, getting prescription pain killers, becoming a parent, joining the military, gamble at a casino and contact sports. When factoring in that cars, alcohol and pain-killers kill way more people than guns, So life is sacred argument can't be the defense used. So being a parent at 18 gets outlawed under your age restrictions. Unless you really think that an 18-year-old could not be a responsible gun owner but could be responsible for the health and well-being of a child. How could you say that an 18-year-old is okay to hold a weapon for government but not for his own use? Now if you argued that people of certain age be required to take safety classes and be required to pass all tests and have so many hours of training with a licensed instructor, I think most would be okay with that. But that's not what you did. You just threw out some numbers and think that should only apply to guns. That makes me think that you put no time into your argument and put that out solely based on emotion.
"But allow those "qualified enough" to own smaller caliber guns, to some extent"
Whats considered small-caliber and whats qualified enough? Again, a 9mm pistol in up close school setting can do the same damage as an AR-15. Do you think from 10-100 feet that a bullet going 1,000 feet per second is going to do any less damage than a bullet going 3,200. That's roughly the difference between and Ar-15 shot and a 9mm shot. The 9mm ammo is roughly double the grain (weight) as a AR-15 shot. Since a 9mm pistol is the most common handgun is the USA, should that be restricted even know they are a smaller caliber gun?
I'm not trying to trash you and I'm one who demands that your opinion is as important as anyone elses. Having said that, it seems that your throwing out the standard anti-gun talking points. I would love to discuss this topic with people who have differing views, but it never happens. Either the statements made are loud and emotionally charged rhetoric or just blatantly false. I for one can't stand when a politician or actor just makes statements that are 100% false. Then the anti-gun crowd does no research and repeats what fucking Jimmy Kimmel just said as if it's fact. With the ease of access to many gun myths no more than a few clicks away, it's just ignorance and laziness that keeps most of the false claims going.
Now I'm sure the debunking and emotionally ignorant crowd will just want to bash me as a heartless hillbilly who just want kids to continue to die. That seems the standard playbook anymore.
Hi, I'm Kim Jong Unbreakable and I'm a dicktator who loves giving & receiving pearl necklaces. Yes. that kind of pearl necklace before you ask. My manager said I'm a crazy fast learner and I'm way better than that loud mouth Trump. So yeah, I got that going for me. I'm gonna train for a bit and then I'll be ready to fight. I look forward to giving any Convicted Inc fighter a nice pearl necklace to take back to Karter, he'll know what to do with it.
Yes, Grant and Bjorn deserve a medal for their efforts. So here is a joke to help lighten the mood. What do the MMATC yearly awards and a lube free proctologists office have in common? They are both filled with a ton of crying assholes.