5048
5049

Brazil Seeks To Copy U.S. Gun Culture "to allow embattled citizens the right to defend themselves from criminals" (time.com)

neuhmz が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]camberiu 3453ポイント3454ポイント  (287子コメント)

Brazilian here.

The only people in Brazil who does not have guns is the general population.

Criminals? Armed to the teeth.
Corrupt police? Ditto.

It is PAST time to allow people to defend themselves. If you wait for the state to do it, you are already dead.

BTW: When I say that criminals are armed to the teeth, I am not talking about pistols and shotguns. I am talking about AK-47s, AR-15s, FALs, MP5s and even RPGs.

Most of those are either smuggled in or provided by army recruits in exchange for drugs.

Edit: Thank you for the gold, kind stranger.

[–]ButtGardener -8ポイント-7ポイント  (286子コメント)

Exactly what will happen in America should guns be made illegal.

The left wing wants to make you believe that making guns illegal stops everyone from having guns, nope, it stops law abiding citizens from guns.

Guns exist in the USA, always will, there's no escaping that fact.

Good on Brazil. Welcome to freedom.

Edit: it's hilarious, during the hours the USA was awake, +80 up votes.. Overnight, when freedom hating Europe is awake and the USA is slumbering, I'm down to +10 votes. I'm British, I moved to the USA because Europe is a cesspool and doesn't have as much freedom as the USA.. This perfectly highlights my point.

Edit 2: It's funny, this thread is full of Brazilians who are finally happy they get to defend themselves and their families but the delusional Europeans who think they know better than the Brazilians themselves and that guns shouldn't exist and the police can save everybody are the ones who know better than everyone else.The world isn't like the UK... Stop applying statistics of a small island with no history of gun ownership to large countries that have lots of guns and crime. Let Brazil decide it's own fate, be happy with the Brazilians that they get to defend themselves against crime. Jesus Christ you whiny Europeans are salty as fuck when it comes to guns.

[–]Pixeleyes 179ポイント180ポイント  (169子コメント)

Very, very few people in America want to outlaw guns entirely. The far right and the NRA have been framing the debate in this manner because it is much easier to defend than the actual argument.

The actual argument is "hey guys, have you noticed how easy it is to get a gun in this country? can we please try to find a way to make it a little less likely than a lunatic will be able to easily acquire enough weapons to lay siege to a primary school?".

[–]eazydozer 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Very, very few people in America want to outlaw guns entirely. The far right and the NRA have been framing the debate in this manner because it is much easier to defend than the actual argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI

[–]gnrl2 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Anti-gunners just say anything to manipulate the argument without regard to whether it's actually true or not.

[–]KaonPlus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shock horror, "very few" doesn't actually mean "none".

[–]Anardrius 108ポイント109ポイント  (79子コメント)

Yes and no. I'm very pro 2A and I notice some things that should probably be changed. But some people seem to think part of the solution is banning the types of guns, or limiting magazine size. There is zero evidence to suggests these types of methods would have any impact on crime rate. They really only serve to make life harder for law abiding gun owners.

So when Pro-2A people talk about "the crazy left and their gun grabbers," they typically mean those types that want all guns gone, but realize that isn't going to happen so they try things like what I mentioned.

[–]sketchy_at_best 16ポイント17ポイント  (16子コメント)

This comic is the best illustration of the comment, to me.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png

[–]stop_the_broats 19ポイント20ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't care much about the gun debate in America because I'm not American, but this comic is a fucking stupid illustration of any issue. Firstly, it depicts gun rights as something that you own? "This is my cake that I own". "These are my gun rights that I own. Then it talks about compromise, implying that compromise means gun owners should owners should get something back for losing certain aspects of their gun rights? What would they get back? "Okay we're implementing a five day waiting period to buy guns but in return you can shoot at pigeons". Gun laws are about a compromise between what gun owners want, and what the rest of society wants. For example, if the rest of society wants fully-automatic weapons banned for everyone, and gun owners don't, you compromise by implementing a policy that requires criminal history and mental health checks before allowing people to buy fully-automatic weapons. The compromise attempts to satisfy the publics concerns about safety, and gun owners concerns about wanting to own guns that are powerful enough to overthrow the government or whatever.

[–]sketchy_at_best 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You completely missed the point of the comic. Of course you don't "own" your natural rights, but people believe they have an absolute, inalienable right to certain things. You might DISAGREE on the specific issue on guns, but the comic is supposed to depict someone giving away their rights when they feel they have the moral high ground. What if some politicians wanted to kill babies? Would it make sense to compromise with them by killing just the sick babies? Maybe you could call that a compromise, but you feel that killing babies is immoral, you have basically lost, without gaining anything. Again, you don't have to agree that owning a gun is a natural right, but the comic should illustrate where pro 2A is coming from.

[–]mobileDevKing -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think the idea of constitutional rights being collectively "owned" is not such a silly idea. Im not sure if your country has a constitution, but a lot of americans think of the rights protected within it as gifts, as many countries do not have them, or do not have them as well protected as under US system. I am all for gun control, but I think this illustrates an interesting viewpoint of someone who sees new attempts gun control as infringement, and you should look at a little more open minded, I know I have.

[–]Chicago1871 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

They're not gifts, they're natural rights.

Which means they're not contingent on your particular legal system, cultural beliefs, etc. They're universal to every sentient being.

Actually, natural rights and human rights, are pretty much the same thing. You have a right to life and you have a right to keep being alive to the best of your abilities aka self-defense. No government or individual can ever say different.

We can argue about regulations and etc, but the fundamental right remains.

[–]sketchy_at_best 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who in the hell downvoted this? Why don't people understand this concept of natural rights?

[–]stop_the_broats -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

The comic frames it less as the rights being collectively owned, and more as it being individually owned (or, collectively owned by a small portion of the population) and being taken away by the collective. It plays into the mindset that any government is inherently this tyrannical "other" beholden to the meaningless whims of the liberal minority, and conspiring to chip away at the power of the populace to physically defend itself against its own tyranny. Guns for self-defence? I disagree, but I get it. Guns for fun? I definitely get it. But this conspiratorial obsession with rights for the sake of rights is stupid and I won't entertain it.

[–]sketchy_at_best 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But this conspiratorial obsession with rights for the sake of rights is stupid and I won't entertain it.

The framers of the constitution did not think of them as "rights for the sake of rights."

[–]SpoonyQuake 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Kind of biased, but it shows a different point of view for sure, so that's always positive.

[–]ib_thinkin 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

That picture is a pretty good illustration of the slippery slope fearmongering peddled by the NDA.

[–]sketchy_at_best 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Tell me this...do you think that anti-gun politicians are going to stop pushing for more legislation once these "compromises" are reached? The mere fact that they are calling it a "compromise" shows you that once they get the legislation, they aren't just going to stop asking for more. Meanwhile, people that think they have an absolute right to guns don't get anything in return for acquiescing. I think maybe they agree to this stuff thinking it will keep the gun grabbers off of their back for an extended period of time, but it doesn't. Something I would call a real compromise would to be pass gun laws that includes a 25 year moratorium on gun legislation, or something along those lines.

[–]ib_thinkin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, i think they would stop.

[–]Fatsow 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Except this cake is responsible for thousands of killings per year. In the rest of the developed world we've realized that while the cake may look tasty, it's not doing us any good. http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/64891000/gif/_64891158_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif

[–]sketchy_at_best 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Saying a guns are responsible for homicides is about as absurd as saying a cake is responsible for homicides. In the case of premediated murder, banning guns isn't going to do you much good in preventing deaths. Certainly not suicides. In America anyway, you definitely aren't going to prevent any deaths among the gang bangers by outlawing guns, because they would never comply with any confiscation. And that is where most of our numbers actually come from.

コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

    [–]gnrl2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That is exactly right. Anti-gunners frame their demands as 'reasonable' and 'common sense initiatives', which is a total lie. It is all a gun grab. Then they say that they are not anti-gun, they just want guns out of criminal's hands, which is another lie. They want to abolish citizen arms in America.

    [–]nachtmere -5ポイント-4ポイント  (11子コメント)

    There is zero evidence to suggests these types of methods would have any impact on crime rate.

    Here's the thing - the NRA has fought tooth and nail to keep the CDC from being able to even research gun violence and how to stop it. It would be lovely if we could make informed decisions, but first we need to get the information to do so. It's really in the best interest of gun owners/enthusiasts to encourage research into the issue, but the NRA is pretty short-sighted and their fear mongering does more harm than good.

    [–]LieutenantJB 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I'm not saying that the research shouldn't be done. But the CDC is the Center for Disease Control. It shouldn't fall on them to do that research since firearm deaths are not a disease. It should be the FBI firearms division or the ATF, since their name is 1/3 firearms.

    [–]nachtmere 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The CDC research a lot of things that aren't diseases, but ultimately that's not my point. I don't care who does the research. The research needs to be funded if we want to make informed decisions on how to minimize negative impacts of mass gun ownership. It's not only irresponsible for the NRA to block efforts to do so, but in direct violation of their best interests - the issue will only become more polarized the more each side speculates on the outcomes of firearm policies without actual data to back it up, and the more polarized it becomes, the louder the people who want to ban guns altogether will get. It was the CDC who were researching it before, and the CDC who were barred from studying it, so it really doesn't matter to me who does get the funding - it just matters to me that it happens.

    [–]patrunic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Does it really matter where the research comes from? The CDC is about diseases, but they would most likely be far more capable of constructing a well researched paper using government sources than the FBI or ATF.

    [–]Kaiosama -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You would likely be fine if no research were done.

    Can't risk a conclusion going against the narrative.

    [–]AngryData 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

    You can't fight extreme anti-gun nuts with fair and balanced policies unless you want to lose. Its the nature of any extreme political opposition to end up with just as extreme opposition to attempt to reach the middle ground compromise. It also causes crazy shit to make it through from both sides. People support the NRA because its one of the few organizations that gets shit done. There are plenty of crazy bullshit anti-gun regulations to go along with the crazy bullshit pro-gun regulations.

    [–]nachtmere -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    The NRA is getting the wrong shit done. They should be looking for solutions to curbing gun-related violence by supporting research, not actively blocking it. They're just feeding a fire that's going to hurt them eventually - without proper research, poor and ineffective policies are made based on speculation or "common sense" that comes from misunderstanding how guns work. These policies often make gun owners upset (because they're often knee-jerk responses to recent tragedy and show a lack of understanding about guns), which polarizes the issue a bit more (which in the short term, gains them more staunch support from gun owners - but this is short sighted). Then, when the policies prove ineffective, the polarized left side starts arguing that maybe guns should be banned altogether (nobody in office is seriously pushing this, but the discussion comes up amongst the people). If the NRA supported research that gave us better guidelines to create policies from, they may prove more effective, which would eventually settle the debate. I am not arguing that there are not "crazies" on both sides - simply that the NRA are really harming themselves in the long run.

    Edit: Can I get some replies in addition to downvotes? I'd like to understand your views.

    [–]64bitHustler 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Hey, Eddie Eagle was very successful!

    [–]Oeboues -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The NRA is getting the wrong shit done. They should be looking for solutions to curbing gun-related violence by supporting research, not actively blocking it.

    They would be free to do that if they weren't constantly putting out fires started by the gun controllers. Please write to your anti-gun politicians and tell them to spend less time trying to ban and confiscate guns. Maybe then the NRA will have more time for safety education and such.

    [–]nachtmere 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Has anyone actually tried to get an entire gun ban passed? I don't know of any of my representatives even suggesting that, but maybe I should look into it more. I'm also not suggesting that the NRA should be responsible for footing the bill for research nor conducting it, but that they at least shouldn't be actively blocking or discouraging it as they have in the past. I think the government (in the form of the cdc or otherwise) should heavily invest in solving gun violence problems with as much data as they can generate so we can respond competently. This will take cooperation from both sides of the aisle agreeing that solid research is the best way forward.

    [–]Anardrius 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I do not disagree with you on a single point. I would love to see solid statistics on violence, gun violence, and all sorts of other gun related things.

    [–]nichullus 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

    Just curious, since you seem like a reasonable second amendment supporter: How would you feel about a licensing system similar to the system required to get a drivers license? Could have a written and/or physical gun safety test, perhaps "guns ed" courses. Would help prevent those who shouldn't have access to weapons (serious mental illness)from gaining access to them.

    [–]hydrogenous 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

    The only problem with that is that the classes get expensive, and licenses always have fees tacked on.

    It turns into a "poll tax" when you have to pay to exercise a right.

    [–]thatguyyoumetonce 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Aren't guns and ammunition pretty expensive as it is? You already have to spend the money - why not just tack the cost of lessons onto the bill for the gun itself, no?

    [–]hydrogenous 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's not an issue about cost in that sense-- it's a Constitutional issue. Mandatory training and mandatory licenses would not pass Constitutional muster:

    Image if they made you take a literacy test before voting. Or if they required a $200 ballot fee. These are two things that were tried in the past to restrict the rights of black people to vote.

    They were both struck down by the SCOTUS, and if this is attempted with firearms (on a National level), it would likely be struck down largely set by suffrage precedent.

    Now, if that safety training was free and perhaps offered at night in every high-school in the country, and the license was free and could be obtained easily, then that would be fine. But it's really not what the state wants:

    A lot of times with states that have gun licenses (NY, CA, MA, NJ), the state government will have a process for obtaining the license on paper-- but in practice will not issue the license. Try getting a CCL from a "red town" in Massachusetts. Or try getting a CCL in New York City.

    The precedent that anti-gun states have set with gun licenses (the sort that you want) is that the licenses aren't a way to ensure that citizens are trained or not prohibited from owning guns. They are a way for the state to deny the right to bear arms by having shall-issue licenses that are never actually issued to anyone except cops, friends of cops, rich people, their security details, and politicians..

    For that reason I am against the sort of license that we're talking about.

    [–]pwnurface999 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Guns are sometimes passed down through a family and under this new system a person inheriting a rifle may need to shell out a lot of money for the classes.

    [–]nichullus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I can see that point. My thought is ff you have adequate gun safety knowledge, you could skip the class, like you can drivers ed. If you don't have adequate gun safety knowledge, I don't think you should be allowed to wield a gun.

    [–]gnrl2 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Except that one doesn't need a license to exercise a right. That's why it's a right, and not merely a government privilege.

    [–]nichullus -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

    This is the kind of black and white thinking that makes the gun debate in America toxic. We should think creatively about what makes people safer while still protecting their rights.

    [–]gnrl2 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Oh, so we need to think 'out of the box' to take away the people's guaranteed right. Clever.

    [–]ricodued 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Not OP, but I think such a program would fail to keep idiots or criminals from legally purchasing guns. If you've ever taken a state-mandated course (say, from a minor-in-possession charge) you'd know how awful and easy those classes can be. It wouldn't stop anything.

    What they would be good for is teaching gun safety to people who want to own a gun but were never taught gun safety because they weren't in scouts or didn't have a parent that hunted or shot for sport or whatever.

    I don't think we're going to be able to stop criminals from obtaining firearms no matter what we do. The best thing we could probably do is increase the requirements to purchase a gun in the hopes that we can prevent mentally ill but otherwise law-abiding citizens from buying a gun (like school shooters). Something like a "psych physical" might be a good idea, like how to be a pilot you need a flight physical.

    There's no good solution I guess but a little extra gun education for purchasers can't be a bad thing.

    [–]KaseyKasem 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Here's my idea: Gun safety classes, gun safes, and gun locks should all be tax deductible.

    That's a winner, imo.

    [–]nichullus 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The gun safety aspect was mostly what I was thinking about, to me it's so tragic to hear about when someone dies because a gun owner didn't lock up their weapon, or because they didn't practice proper gun safety. The psych physical is a good idea as well.

    [–]Anardrius 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The people below me have done a great job explaining why licenses are probably a bad idea. I'll just add that I think funding mental healthcare and trying to reduce the stigma against it will do far more to help than regulating guns or how we get them.

    That obviously doesn't touch on most gun crime, but that's a larger issue that has nothing to do with guns. To solve the crime issue, you've got to provide better opportunities for people than they can find in criminal activity, and you have to combat a culture that sees education negatively.

    [–]the_falconator 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    guns are already regulated much more than cars, I would be very happy if we adopted the same scheme for firearms as we do for automobiles.

    [–]bigdiggernick1 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    That's not actually true, though. The American Journal of Medicine came out with a definitive study that shows increased gun ownership directly correlates with increased gun crimes.

    [–]Anardrius 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

    But does it correlate to more crime? Does high baseball bat ownership correlate with increase baseball bat crime?

    Saying more guns = more gun crime isn't useful information. It's a given. If you took all those guns away, all those crimes would still be committed without the guns.

    [–]darkflagrance -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

    But like the case of the random guy who tried to stab up a school in China, less gun crimes means less guns in crimes, and perhaps less casualties (I'm in favor of researching this further).

    [–]JBBdude 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Unfortunately, the CDC and NIH and other government agencies who actually get money to study things are banned from studying gun violence as a health risk. So... not enough research happening.

    [–]Anardrius 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    With a little planning, that guy could have used a bomb and killed more people than if he had a gun.

    My point is that if we start down the road of banning all the things people can use to hurt one another, I'll be left with nothing. Target the root cause, not the methods used.

    [–]StruckingFuggle -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    There is zero evidence to suggests these types of methods would have any impact on crime rate.

    Magazine size isn't about crime rate, it's about crime magnitude.

    [–]Anardrius 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It still does nothing. It takes a few seconds to change a magazine. Fewer rounds in a magazine means more magazines, so at best you're buying a few seconds. That's assuming the criminal cares about gun laws and only uses legal magazines.... I trust you see the absurdity there.

    [–]VladimirGluten47 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Obviously banning "scary looking guns" and boxes with springs is pretty silly but the US is still way behind with gun safety. What would you propose? Mandatory lessons and health checks before getting your licence?

    [–]throwawaycompiler -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I just want it to be harder for people to get guns. You can have your damn guns, just do somethings so that I know you're not nuts. It blows my mind that I can just walk down the street and buy a gun. I don't trust people enough. It blows my mind even more that people are ok with this.

    [–]shadownukka99 -5ポイント-4ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I still don't understand the arguement for 30 round magazines

    [–]schu2470 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    clips magazines

    FTFY

    [–]PowerhouseTerp 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    We don't make people justify why they SHOULD be allowed to own things. Instead we justify why they shouldn't and there just isn't a strong, data-driven argument against 30 round magazines.

    コメントをもっと表示する (8 返事)

      [–]Hatewrecked 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

      That's the thing, though. You have to find some sort of middle ground. Where is it?

      Guns, of course, are not illegal in Brazil, they're just extremely tough to get your hands on (unless you're in an organized gang). So if we're to tighten our gun laws, then how tight do we make them? How do we make it so that any person who lives independently (ages 18+) can protect themselves in a hassle-free process while keeping guns out of the hands of people who can't handle them?

      A lot of proposals involve psychological evaluations or simply looking at a person's psychological past, but that's not always clear-cut. If you make the requisites too loose, then people who could want to use a gun for the wrong reasons could still get their hands on them. If you make the requisites too tight, then it could start affecting good people, including you or me. I have a brief history of depression and my cousin has schizophrenia (which apparently is somewhat genetic)... would they ban me from getting a firearm? Why me and not a person who couldn't afford psychological tests, like a poor youth who is depressed and schizophrenic but never sought help? Our ideas need to be clear and precise before we offer up any change to gun control.

      [–]Pixeleyes 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Please note that I am not suggesting that gun control is easy, or that it won't involve a lot of compromises - just that people who think the gun control debate is about "outlawing all guns" is either being dishonest or has been misled.

      [–]Pacify_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That's the thing, though. You have to find some sort of middle ground. Where is it?

      Its called Australia. Its not even hard to do.

      [–]LoveLifeLiberty 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

      Do you know how much easier it is to get guns illegally in this country? Criminals don't follow the law, including gun free school zones.

      [–]Pixeleyes 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

      You are presupposing that gun ownership deters or prevents criminal violence.

      [–]LoveLifeLiberty 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

      It does in places where law abiding people are allowed to carry them. Where as the opposite seems to be true in places where gun control is rampant, like Chicago and school zones. What do you think law abiding citizens known as police use to stop crime in action? Their words?

      [–]Pacify_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

      It does in places where law abiding people are allowed to carry them.

      Show one single study that has proven this is actually true. And that the positive even begins to offset the increase in accidental gun deaths.

      Yeah go ahead and downvote, while not showing a single thing to disprove what I said.

      Americans on Reddit and their gun boners

      [–]LoveLifeLiberty 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

      http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/06/25/study-using-guns-for-defense-leads-to-fewer-injuries

      https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

      [–]Pacify_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

      Interesting, but is there any stats that even begin to suggest this (rather tenuous effect it seems, judging from the article) outweighs the insane number of accidental gun deaths that occur every year?

      [–]LoveLifeLiberty 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

      Most gun deaths are on purpose, most self inflicted.

      [–]gnrl2 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I don't need to 'presuppose'. My gun has saved my ass twice, and I didn't even need to pull the trigger. So I don't listen to the contrived argument that arms don't deter crime. I know better.

      [–]JustinCayce 8ポイント9ポイント  (14子コメント)

      Quotes from leading Democrats show the fallacy of your post, from Nancy Pelosi saying she'd ban them all if she could get the votes, to President Obama calling for programs "like Australia and Great Britain", you know, gun bans?

      [–]Pixeleyes 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

      I've never heard of Pelosi saying that, maybe you confusing the time she said she thought assault magazines should be banned?

      Guns are not banned in Australia or Great Britain so I'm not sure how to address this point.

      [–]JustinCayce 4ポイント5ポイント  (12子コメント)

      Ah, my mistake, I said Pelosi when it was Feinstein, thanks for pointing that out. As to Australia and GB, it's commonly referred to as a ban, and is it effectively banned the majority of firearms and the owning of the majority of firearms, I'm going to call it a duck.

      If you care to reply, I'm going to institute an Australian type ban on your freedom of speech, but it's okay, because I'm not banning all speech, you can still use words of one syllable and less than four letters in any reply you care to make, after all, that's not an actual ban, right?

      (Of course, if you manage a coherent and intelligent response within such parameters, I will at that point have to acknowledge that you have "won the internet" and retire from the field in shame, and awe, for that matter.)

      [–]whubbard 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      So why did they reject the Coburn amendment? The one thing that would be about background check without much of an additional burden?

      [–]0454 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That's not totally correct. You have a not insignificant number of Americans calling for the US to emulate Australia, to enact "common sense" gun laws. But Australia banned so much stuff that is in common use in America. They enacted mandatory gun buybacks. Left leaning politicians absolutely want to banish them but usually don't try since it is political suicide.

      [–]JustADouchebag 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I thank the NRA for taking what many view as an extremist position. This helps to slow the inevitable. If you pay attention to American politics you can see that they slowly and methodically shrivel away rights until they are a shell of their former self or non-existent. Patrice o'Neal had a bit where he talks about taxes and sneaker prices, like shoes were $40, then they were $80 and everyone flipped out, then they were $60 and everyone was happy again when they should have still been pissed. It's easy to envision a scenario where say...all rifles are outlawed and then there is a public outrage and it gets changed to "okay you can use these 2 rifles but that's it" and that will get viewed as a good thing when in reality your right is still getting trampled. Thank you NRA, no matter how crazy people think you sound you serve a valuable purpose in this American's opinion.

      [–]GoldenGlowEstates 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

      Why do you think your opinion on this matters? You're not American. No one here calls it primary school.

      [–]tukutz 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I'm 100% American, and my area of the country says primary school. Perhaps you should get out more?

      [–]Pixeleyes -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

      I am American, but thanks for playing.

      [–]GoldenGlowEstates -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

      You're not, literally no one here says primary school. Thanks for trying though.

      [–]Pixeleyes -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Huh. I was sure I was American. Thanks for clearing that up, I guess I was just confused. Say, you're a swell guy.

      [–]GoldenGlowEstates 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      No problem! Maybe keep your political opinions focused on your own country next time?

      [–]Pixeleyes 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      You're totally right. From now on, I will only express opinions that focus on my own country, the USA. Thanks for sorting me out.

      [–]ButtGardener -1ポイント0ポイント  (17子コメント)

      Well. Whenever I go and buy guns i have to wait 30 minutes whilst a back ground check is ran through an FBI database.. That is sufficient.

      You cannot legislate for an unknown madman, its impossible. It is highly rare, and a law shouldn't infringe the rights of the 99.99%.

      As bad as mass shootings are they are still very, very rare.

      [–]Pixeleyes 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

      Mass shootings happen almost every single day.

      [–]ButtGardener 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

      That website has recorded every shooting that involves more than one person. That is not the definition of a mass shooting.

      [–]Pixeleyes -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Not exactly.

      Taken from the web site:

      The old FBI definition of Mass Murder (not even the most recent one) is four or more people murdered in one event. It is only logical that a Mass Shooting is four or more people shot in one event.

      Here at the Mass Shooting Tracker, we count the number of people shot rather than the number people killed because, "shooting" means "people shot".

      For instance, in 2012 Travis Steed and others shot 18 people total. Miraculously, he only killed one. Under the incorrect definition of mass shooting, that event would not be considered a mass shooting! Arguing that 18 people shot during one event is not a mass shooting is absurd.

      The only requirement is that four or more people are shot in a spree or setting, likely without a cooling off period. This may include the gunman himself (because they often suicide by cop or use a gun to kill themselves to escape punishment), or police shootings of civilians around the gunman. The reasoning behind the latter being that if the shooter is arrested, he will often be charged with injuring people the police actually shot, as that is a foreseeable result of a shooting spree.

      continued

      [–]ButtGardener 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Exactly. So this Web site changed the definition of mass shooting to fit their agenda.

      Please try another sensationalist link.

      [–]exvampireweekend 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

      Still very rare

      [–]Pixeleyes 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

      Also, still an arbitrary metric to determine the negative consequences of gun violence.

      Neil Degrasse Tyson tweeted some relevant statistics that help put things into perspective.

      [–]exvampireweekend 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

      I'm aware of the statistics, I don't care about them and consider them a neccacarry negative

      [–]PhanTom_lt 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Are you looking forward to the day your daughter and her 12 classmates gets shot by some dude who just wanted to be on media?

      [–]exvampireweekend 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      About the same as I'm looking forward to my daughter getting beaten or raped, and that's something she can prevent

      [–]eazydozer 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      And other people tweeted other statistics.

      [–]ApprovalNet 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That includes gang shootings, sorry but that's not what we're talking about here.

      [–]ml_lund24 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Yeah, when you buy from a gun store. Gun shows don't require jack shit in terms of checks. That's what many people want changed.

      Edit: Let me clarify, private sales between individuals at gun shows don't require jack shit in terms of checks.

      [–]eazydozer 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Gun shows don't require jack shit in terms of checks.

      Nope, businesses set up in guns shows are still required to do full background checks. The only "loophole" is that it is an organized place for private party buyers and sellers to congregate and make deals, which has always been legal. Even then, there are still existing laws in place that should prevent the selling/purchase of guns to people who should not have them; felons, mentally unstables, etc. But, the liability is ultimately on the seller and buyer.

      But yeah, you can believe propaganda instead of facts if you want.

      [–]billyup 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

      businesses set up in guns shows are still required to do full background checks.

      Private sellers aren't held to the same scrutiny. That is the main issue.

      [–]eazydozer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      So then it has nothing to do with gun shows, but universal background checks.

      [–]AngryData 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      How do you propose to stop 'lunatics' who could be anyone out of the population and many times don't have any record of mental problems, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to have access to guns?

      Certainly there are some things we can do, mandating/free gun safety courses, free gun recycling or even collection of guns for resale, free gun and trigger locks, ect.

      However, the anti-gun nuts always try to push for crazy shit that won't help anything, like registration lists that tell you who to rob for lots of guns, and who to rob that won't shoot back. Also im sure law enforcement wouldn't use those lists for anything like justifying shooting first on raids because they own a gun, who to raid for profitable asset forfeitures. And banning things that do absolutely nothing like barrel shrouds and slings. Or banning things like "high capacity magazine" which sure as fuck doesn't stop someone from reloading or for buying/making their own magazines illegally. Or even "assault weapons ban" which was implemented to stop a problem that never existed and has done nothing at all.

      [–]Youareabadperson6 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      That's not totally true. Both Barak Obama and Hiliary Clinton have praised Austrilian like Firearm Confiscation. These are not "just any one." These are two of the most influential people in one of the two major political parties in the country. These are not small things.

      [–]Killtrend 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I have a Glock 17, with a standard capacity magazine of 17 rounds. If I carry my gun where I live with more than 10 rounds, I'm immediately a felon.

      Meanwhile, the justice system hands out deals left and right, and the gun charges are always first to go.

      [–]Ketosis_Sam 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Bullshit

      [–]Buscat 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Criminals are already getting their guns illegally, why are more background checks going to solve anything?

      Anti-gun people always say they're being reasonable. "Come on, give up half your rights, let's comprimise!" you say. Maybe it's just that pro-gun people take a longer view of history, but if you're willing to give up half of something every 20 years, that's the same as giving it up entirely.

      [–]fareven 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Very, very few people in America want to outlaw guns entirely.

      The leaders of the gun control movement - who most certainly do want to outlaw guns entirely, and repeatedly say so - are more than willing to use the mass who would be OK with some gun control to help them nudge things along their path to just a little more, then just a little more, and eventually the boiled frogs are weaponless.

      [–]inexcess 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It's because they know these are tactics to slowly whittle away at the second amendment.

      [–]EnigmaticTortoise 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      The American left has been eating into the second amendment for decades, it's only in the last few years the trend has started to reverse. Name one proposal in the recent years that would have stopped any of the mass shootings that have taken place.

      [–]asshat123456 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You are a fool

      [–]ManfredH 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I don't know about that man. It wasn't that many weeks back my Facebook feed was a bunch of really extreme liberals, many of them saying they did want all guns banned. I got some serious flak for suggesting maaaybe they should chill out a bit on curbing even MORE of our civil liberties in this post-Snowden era.

      [–]durendal04 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You don't need guns to lay siege to a primary school

      [–]locke_door 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Isn't it lovely that reddit has become the mouthpiece of the NRA and GOP on all their topics? Le enlightened teens turned out to be the same sticky shit their parents and grandparents were.

      At least they don't vote and are largely irrelevant to society

      [–]peat76 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I like how you said "lay siege to a primary school" making it sound quite innocent and no one gets hurt. When you should have said "murder thousands of innocent defenceless children"

      [–]m0ondoggy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Except you have people like Hillary touting "The Australian Model" as being a great thing she'd like to try here. A "mandatory gun buyback" is code for forcing you to turn in your guns for some sum of money likely far less than you paid for them. This is confiscation, period. The far right isn't framing the debate in this manner, it's the anti-gun politicians themselves. The goal is eventual erosion of gun rights to the point of confiscation. It's already happening in places like CA, NJ and NY.

      [–]SoulScience 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Unfortunately there's a long history of forcing through whatever ill-conceived, stupid, and useless measures can be forced upon gun owners in super blue states to appease morons who like headlines while doing exactly dick to effect any real common sense change. Im not even a gun owner and I can see that the slippery slope concept is very real. I have zero faith that our elected representatives would be able to agree on sensible reforms without both sides shoving some completely batshit rules in there, (not to mention an absolutely obscene amount of pork,) which would only hurt the average gun owner and citizen. Common sense gun reform just isn't realistic in our current political climate.

      [–]engeleh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      There are some well known presidential candidates advocating for the "Australian solution". I think it is time to be honest and admit that some leaders in the Democratic party are essentially advocating for banning some if not most semi-automatic guns. The thing is, the most popular and commonly owned guns are semi-automatic. My grandfather had a semi automatic bird hunting shotgun. A famous and long term senator from California actually called for a ban on pump shotguns (which are not semi automatic and are the most popular bird hunting guns in the country). Some states have outlawed antique tube fed .22 rifles that are over 100 years old as "assault weapons" and several many thousand dollar purpose built .22 target pistols are illegal because the magazine isn't held within the grip and can hold more than 10 cartridges. These are not guns that are used in crime, they are sporting guns that serve the purpose they were built for. Until several thousand dollar rimfire target pistols, antiques, and hunting shotguns exit the debate, I am going to have a hard time taking the gun control crowd seriously.

      [–]RoboNinjaPirate 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Except that every liberal politician keeps saying we should emulate Australia... The place that more or less outlawed guns.

      [–]Pacify_ 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Outlawed guns? Fuck me, better go tell all my gun owning, hunter friends they are all breaking the law!?!

      There is still tons of guns in Australia, and its honestly not that hard to get one. You just have to get clearance, and prove you going to store it safely. That is it. They arn't "outlawed". A few certain types of weapons are, but what possible use do those weapons have in the first place? Unless you enjoy hunting with an automatic weapon, then you have some serious fucking issues.

      Also, here in Australia, we generally use guns for actual things! Like hunting! Not to put them on the wall and jack off to them like so many Americans do

      [–]Cenomaniac -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Very, very few people in America want to outlaw guns entirely.

      LOL. Bullshit. Most gun control proponents would be A-OK with banning guns, and the only reason they aren't open about it is because it confirms what gun rights advocates have been saying for decades.

      It's all about "we we have to start somewhere." And "well we have to do something, anything. Let's brainstorm about what arbitrary anti-gun things we can try to squeeze in."

      All this talk of "compromise." It's only viewed as compromise if your starting position is eliminating all guns entirely. If your starting position is the status quo, theres no "compromise" - what the fuck is offered in return? Nothing.

      [–]0Fsgivin -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Well I think the vast majority of gun owners are ok with Hand Guns being a little harder to get.

      But you start screwing with rifles and magizine sizes I got a big problem with you.

      [–]Megneous 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

      The left wing wants to make you believe that making guns illegal stops everyone from having guns, nope, it stops law abiding citizens from guns.

      In my country, no one has guns. Civilians don't have guns. Criminals don't have guns. Normal police don't have guns. The vast, vast majority of deaths via firearms are either accidents or suicides of the only people who have guns- the military, and they're not allowed to take their firearms off base unless North Korea is invading us or something crazy is going down. You have a culture problem, not a gun problem.

      [–]Foxtrot56 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

      Exactly what will happen in America should guns be made illegal.

      Then why aren't gun wielding criminals running the streets in England?

      [–]OceanRacoon 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

      In many countries in Europe where there wasn't hundreds of years of legal guns and gun culture, it's really hard to get guns, they're reasonably rare and gun deaths are very low.

      It's disturbing that you associate freedom with a tool that's solely designed to kill people.

      [–]ButtGardener -1ポイント0ポイント  (13子コメント)

      I'm the country in Europe where I am from violent crime and murder are higher per capita than in the USA. Guns aren't the only tool used to kill people.

      Also, I don't associate just having guns with freedom, I associate many other aspects of the constitution with freedom such as freedom of speech, which unfortunately isn't a right in Europe any longer.

      [–]OceanRacoon -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

      Which country?

      The level of accidental gun deaths alone is enough to make guns illegal, around hundreds of people die every year in America due to accidental gun deaths, it's just inevitable when you make guns illegal that many, many people are going to die accidentally due to them. It's just such a waste, apparently 100 children die a year and the amount of children that shoot their parents/siblings is tragic.

      [–]ButtGardener 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

      More people die drowning in swimming pools, should we ban those too?

      Are you the type of person that wants to tape Styrofoam to any sharp edge in your house? Because you sure sound like it.

      [–]OceanRacoon 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

      Pools do not exist for the sole purpose of killing someone, any comparison you draw to anything else is fallacious, guns exist to kill living creatures, that is their primary purpose.

      I'm the type of person who thinks everyone owning guns is a recipe for disaster, and America is a prime example, it's gun related homicides and deaths are completely out of step with other first world countries. I don't understand how anyone can think a culture of guns is a good idea, it has failed everywhere. Brazil should be focusing on decreasing poverty and corruption in the police force, stemming the flow of guns and removing them from the streets.

      But that's never going to happen so they're throwing more guns at the problem and more people are going to die.

      [–]ButtGardener 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

      We will see what happens and let the facts speak for themselves. Guns are a tool just like a drill or a car.. You can use those to kill also.

      I like living in a free country where the government gives us the freedom to choose. I have the right to buy a gun as a law abiding citizen as you have a right not to buy a gun. In other countries the government's remove that right from you.

      When i was younger, my house was robbed and I was threatened. All i could do is grab a frying pan but they had a knife... Its all well and good speaking from a place of privilege where you've never had to deal with crime or threats of violence to spout off claims of utopian belief with no guns. The reality is, the world isn't like that.

      [–]OceanRacoon 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

      I grew up in a crime ridden area where people I know were shot, in a country with practically no guns, and I still believe guns should be illegal, so you're talking shite and know nothing about my life.

      The comedian Jim Jeffries had his house broken into by two guys with machetes who held him, his friend and girlfriends hostage, they threatened to rape her and cut his head. He is still vehemently opposed to guns be legal, because a gun in that situation wasn't going to help him, he wouldn't have had it on him, and who knows what could have happened if the home invaders did. There are plenty of people who have dealt with the harsh side of crime that still believe guns should be illegal.

      Guns being legal is stupid and results in countless pointless deaths, the facts have already spoken, you're just a gun nut.

      [–]Paradoxums -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Well, the government doesn't give you the rights you have. It just recognizes your natural rights. Such as keeping and bearing arms.

      コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

        [–]TMc51 3ポイント4ポイント  (21子コメント)

        It's already that way in states with the harshest gun control laws.

        [–]ButtGardener 3ポイント4ポイント  (18子コメント)

        Chicago. Detroit.

        [–]ApprovalNet 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I'm fully in favor of gun rights, but I'm from Detroit and I have to correct the record - we do not have strict gun laws here. Not that it would matter though, almost nobody in Detroit obeys laws anyway.

        Besides, the Chief of Police went on record and said citizens need to arm themselves and shoot intruders. Thankfully, many homeowners have taken him up on that advice too.

        [–]gnrl2 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Let's not forget good old Washington, D.C.

        [–]KerbalGoBoom 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        South Central L.A. as well.

        [–]Hotbbqwing -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Both of those cities are right next to areas with practically no gun laws. Gun control doesn't work if you only have to go 60 miles to get to a place that has no control.

        [–]WakingMusic -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

        New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, Oregon, even California. It's easy to cherry pick examples and ignore the vast body of evidence contradicting your position. There is a strong positive correlation between gun ownership per capita and gun homicides per capita. Guns may help some people in under-policed, high crime areas, but they are not necessary in Europe or in most of the Northeast.

        [–]pween 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

        Vermont

        vermont has virtually no gun control laws, high gun ownership and the least or very close to the least gun crime per capita in the usa, for the record. one of the only states you can conceal carry without a permit. you can buy/own a gun at 16. open carry is legal. etc.

        [–]WakingMusic -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        I was actually skeptical of charts I had seen published by left-leaning sites showing the positive correlation between homicides and gun ownership, and so I scraped homicide data and population statistics from the FBI and US census, and here is what I found. These both compare percentage gun ownership in a state to gun homicides per 100000.

        http://imgur.com/tekNB7h

        This is what I had seen originally, but it was on Mother Jones, so I was justifiably dubious:

        http://imgur.com/HRHd4FA

        The point is that states with higher gun ownership rates invariably have higher homicide rates. There are other explanations for at least a part of the observed correlation, but your assertion is demonstrably false and the positive correlation does exist even after density and size have been accounted for.

        [–]RafTheKillJoy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Good thing they have guards and metal detectors on the borders of those states to check every car and person entering.

        /s

        [–]narp7 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

        What the fuck are you talking about? In 19 of 20 states with the most gun deaths per person, there is no permit required to buy a gun. The top 20 states for gun deaths in order are Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Tennessee, South Carolina, Missouri, West Virginia, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Kentucky, Indiana, Georgia, and Utah.

        I would hardly call those the states with the harshest gun laws. In fact, that list of states is basically a list of states with highest rates of gun ownership. Of the states with the 10 most strict gun laws, none of them appear on the list of 20 states with most gun deaths. I don't know what you're smoking, but your claim is 100% false.

        [–]whubbard 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Exactly what will happen in America should guns be made illegal.

        This is the one truth that I'm always surprised the gun control movement doesn't simply accept. I don't understand the delusion that they think 300+ million guns, especially those owned by criminals are going to vanish in any time frame.

        [–]TheKharmeleon 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I don't understand the delusion that they think 300+ million guns, especially those owned by criminals are going to vanish in any time frame.

        Who has actually made this claim? It sounds like you're just making up a dumb argument no one makes just to prove your own made up point. No one believes guns will simply vanish if we ban them. Clearly there would need to be phases and steps taken to have them dealt with.

        [–]whubbard 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Hillary Clinton believes we can accomplish a buyback (it was unclear if it was mandatory or optional) as they did in Australia. Save the fact optional buybacks have been an entire failure in the US.

        What is your solution (phases and steps) to have the 300M+ guns "dealt with?" Genuinely curious.

        [–]AdinM 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        I dont think guns buy freedom, what about all the countries without guns with freedom, NZ, australia, pretty much most european countries? In most western non-corrupt societies you don't need guns to have freedom unless you have a very specific problem like brazil

        [–]ButtGardener -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Guns don't buy freedom. Nobody said that. The right to bear arms is one small facet of being a free human being.

        [–]AdinM 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

        That being said though, freedom isn't free, and by letting anyone have guns means that they can take the freedom from others with hardly a clench of the palm, we used to have lax gun laws in Australia but we didn't believe the cost, the massacres that happened in Australia, were worth it, and since they brought in gun regulations after Port Arthur we haven't had a massacre and remain the 4th most free country (behind Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand) according to the 2015 heritage.org index
        http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking
        I don't think guns are needed to feel or be free as a human being, and if you feel that they are then in Australia there are pathways open to you to have that option (armed forces, police, farming, shooting ranges etc) but to use them in a trained or productive manner

        [–]ButtGardener 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

        Australia. An island where you can control import of guns very easily. USA, connected to Mexico. Can't compare the two.

        [–]Arkiasis 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Yes, because Mexico is the cause of America's problems. Alright there Mr. Trump.

        [–]ButtGardener 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Its the cause of some of out problems definitely. My point is if the USA was an island.. Making guns illegal would be easier, like in Australia as controlling the influx of gums is easy.

        As it stands, we have a border that is thousands of miles long and un patrolled.. We make guns illegal criminals are still going to be armed to the teeth.

        But don't let my logic get in the way of your straw man arguments.

        [–]AdinM 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Well to be fair then you have to mention that Australia has one of the smallest millitaries and hundreds of barely guarded coastline near asian countries which are very prone to corruption

        [–]Ketosis_Sam 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Yep, guns will get smuggled in along with all the drugs and people being smuggled in by the millions.

        [–]TwilightVulpine 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        It sounds simple, but law abiding citizens are only law abiding for as long as they are law abiding. There would need to be enough regulation to guarantee the gun owner is a responsible person, and I don't know if we can do it, when we can't even guarantee the level-headedness of our police officers. And with the rise in vigilantism, and the innocent deaths that come along, it's difficult to trust the average person. Even though we do need some way to defend ourselves.

        In our situation it just sounds like a double-edged blade. Between misunderstandings and futile fights, this may cause it's own share of harm, even along with some possible protection.

        [–]umphish41 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        No. The left wants to make it more difficult to obtain guns and make sure they stay out of the hands of crazy people. Nobody advocates getting rid of all guns -- that is stupid.

        [–]leafsfan_89 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        So why is it that the USA has the highest rate of gun related fatalities in the developed world, with legal gun possession, while all other developed countries which ban and/or limit gun possession have much lower gun related fatalities (and far lower homicide rate in general)?

        [–]YourTokenGinger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        It's important to note that should the federal government make guns illegal, 'who' will take your guns? The enforcement capable of physically removing your guns are the police and the military; both are very pro-gun groups. They'd have to very enticed to act on the ban, not likely to happen. That, or the federal government could do something similar as they are doing with health insurance: tax registered gun owners to the point that owning a gun is too costly for most people. Then you'd just get a bunch of criminal, unregistered gun owners.

        [–]mudcrabwrestler 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Freedom, YEAH! More guns Amirite? Are you a real person?

        [–]anweisz 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        No, the rule of law in Brazil and the rule of law in America are two completely different things. Even if you were to pick America's worst. The cultural, social, political, climates are veeery different, not to mention the population itself.

        [–]RedSnowBird 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Yeah the freedom to get shot in theaters while watching a movie, the freedom to get shot in a school or university, etc.

        Seems like there is a new mass shooting story once a week.

        Has any law abiding citizen with a gun stopped any mass shooting ever?

        [–]ButtGardener 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Yes you just don't see it in the news because it doesn't make liberals like you jizz their pants.

        [–]wonmean 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Wait, but what about the other developed countries where guns are much harder to obtain...?

        Are they all suffering from Brazil-like gun violence?

        [–]erbie_ancock 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Can you name someone who is arguing for making all guns illegal in USA? This is a strawman-argument

        [–]sha742 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        I keep forgetting how the political stability in San Diego and Fargo is entirely balanced on the presence of good ol' boys with guns.

        The only silver lining of gun ownership is that those that have then are much more likely to kill themselves before using it on anyone else.

        [–]damnthisboxishot 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        You realize first world countries, like Japan, have proven this logic is incorrect?

        A corrupt nation, like brAzil or Mexico is different than the US

        Cops and criminals don't runaround mowing civilians down with guns here

        [–]dharma-body 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

        No. Absolutely not. More guns will just lead to escalation in violence. The whole freedom argument is just bullshit.

        [–]ButtGardener 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

        Time will tell. Countries like the USA have less per capita violence than countries like the UK.. So your opinion doesn't always hold water.

        [–]dharma-body 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

        U.S. has more mass shootings. And introducing more guns to the equation of crime just ups the severity of the crime not decrease the frequency.

        [–]Meryilla -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

        Lmao, that isn't true in the slightest. Keep making up shite mate you're pretty good at it.

        [–]ButtGardener -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Ahh, the good old way of a loser to win an argument. Simply not debate any points. Lol. K.

        [–]AdolfHarden 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

        Freedom is when no one has guns and you don't need to fear for your life. Freedom is not having to buy a gun to protect yourself from murderers. Raise your fucking standards.

        [–]gnrl2 -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

        Groovy, except reality kind of gets in the way. That definition of 'freedom' has never existed on the planet.

        [–]AdolfHarden 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

        I'd recommend changing countries if you don't think it's possible.

        [–]gnrl2 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

        I'm not the one complaining about it, you are. So prove your high standard of freedom and go baby go someplace else that has it!

        コメントをもっと表示する (12 返事)

          [–]wmegenney -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yes! Thank you!

          [–]StruckingFuggle -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Exactly what will happen in America should guns be made illegal.

          In your fantasies.

          [–]TheKharmeleon -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Other countries have already done this. That's not what happens.

          [–]opolaski -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Yeah and America has historically had 3 to 4 times (and more if you get towards the early 20th century) the homicide rates of other developed places.

          Liberia has a better homicide rate than the US of A.

          India has a better homicide rate than the USA.

          You guys have a people and culture problem. And if people are the problem why is it easier to get a gun than to lease a car?

          On the other hand, Brazil has a homicide rate 18 times higher than the USA. Maybe weapons are useful.

          But I think it's pretty reasonable than a tool explicitly made to harm people, even in self-defense, should have a better system in place to stop mistakes from happening. Like selling guns to people who sell guns to criminals.

          [–]StSpider -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          How about having serious gun control BEFORE criminals get armed? That way nobody but police needs to have weapons. That's how it works in Europe.

          If you think "Freedom" means "Freedom to be endangered by having guns everywhere" you can keep your your "Freedom".

          [–]JeffersonSpicoli -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I don't say this often, but I legitimately hate that people like you exist

          コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)