[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Ignorantly said with only the facts given to you by the anti gun left and not the whole picture.

Hey mate calling people ignorant isn’t cool. We are meant to be having a well reasoned debate here. Not calling people names because they don’t agree with us.

Bombs hey, they’re a little bit harder to make and use for the average joes than freely available high capacity rapid fire rate guns.

At the end of the day my arguement is pointless because not matter how many mass shootings there are you’ll never change your position. So if there’s nothing that can change your mind then your position isn’t a reasonable one and therefore it’s pointless having the discussion I feel.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Associations, yes. NRA does. But it does because it is a huge organisation of common people. 5 mm

Yeah, and? You can do this with a car bomb for example too. If you want to, you can. Besides, mass shootings account for 0.01% of shooting deaths. As i said before, you actually really do have a better chance of being hit by lightning or choking to death of a bay leaf. Should we outlaw bay leaves?

It is obvious. Other countries are culturally and economically homogenous compared to here. This is why there's more killings here, not rifles.

Wrong. People with legal access to weapons don't use them. The gun crime rate of carry permit holders, myself included, are the lowest of any measurable group, including cops. Cops have access to guns, even in your country. Do they use them?

You proved my point. Terrorists do what it takes. Boston, the race in NJ, were bombs not guns. Etc etc etc

Those weapons aren't on the streets. Small concealable pistols in the hands of felons let out of jail by liberals do 90% of gun crime.

Mine too. I lost friends in 9/11 and Orlando. So you are hearing from someone directly affected.

Look. This discussion is about gun control. Those are bombings. You’re getting both mass shootings AND bombings. Just saying maybe cut it in half. The rest of the western world does have the mass shootings with anything approaching this ferocity or frequency.

You can talk about other countries bombings and trucks etc but you carry that risk in equal measure to the rest of the world. What you’ve got on top, any way you slice it is this gun issue.

It’s not cultural diversity causing your issues either. Plenty of other countries have varied nationalities. I’m tempted to go further on the undertones in your posts but I’d rather end it here.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Yw. I do that to. But whats my wife, or my 80 yr old parents gonna do? What about when facing an armed criminal? As far as illegal owners using them illegally, this IS the problem. Not the legal owners. Firearm ownership laws won't change that. They only empower the criminals and make the helpless more helpless. Sentencing for firearm illegal use is the answer.

Have a buyback. The crims will hand in their weapons for cash and then that gun is off the street forever.

Just try you won’t spontaneously combust.

[jgoens]

Talked to someone yesterday who is pro gun and he said we should have more people with guns...preferably nearly everyone..with proper training being mandatory. He said if everyone had guns crime rates would go down as everyone knows that the other guy has a gun as well. If everyone had a gun and a shooter was shooting from a building, for example, it wouldn't take long for 40, 50 or 100 people to start shooting back.

In an odd way, this makes some kind of sense as anyone who goes to rob you is basically playing Russian roulette. Who is going to go rob a store when you know the clerk and anyone one else inside has a weapon as well?

Kind of like the nuclear weapon deterrent--and why we would not have a war with Russia or China, because you know they are going to fire back with the same thing.
I know all the anti-gun people are going to say this is crazy, but he said they tried this in Switzerland and crime rates dropped.

[Red Bread]

Oh yeah, the awful Swiss crime rates. Excuse me sir, but my Ferrari is so old and depleted, I shall need to forcefully take yours.

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Oh yeah, the awful Swiss crime rates. Excuse me sir, but my Ferrari is so old and depleted, I shall need to forcefully take yours.

I don't know and haven't researched it much but they seem to do better on the gun crime rate.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...d-States/Crime

[seedyrom]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Have a buyback. The crims will hand in their weapons for cash and then that gun is off the street forever.

Just try you won’t spontaneously combust.

Yep, with an understanding that it isn’t an instant silver bullet.

Australia has had regular firearm amnesties since our 1996 ban, and the most recent one from July this year has resulted in another 50,000+ guns handed in
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-0...rearms/9023586

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by seedyrom

Yep, with an understanding that it isn’t an instant silver bullet.

Australia has had regular firearm amnesties since our 1996 ban, and the most recent one from July this year has resulted in another 50,000+ guns handed in
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-0...rearms/9023586

So, you have had a ban for 21 years and still collect 50,000+ guns. Sounds like a very effective ban.

[seedyrom]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

So, you have had a ban for 21 years and still collect 50,000+ guns. Sounds like a very effective ban.

Well, silly old bastards said “prise it out of my cold dead hands”, so they kept firearms illegally in their houses.
Then they died from old age.

Would you prefer their family to go to jail for their actions?

That’s nice. You sound like a real top bloke.


But seriously, Glad to see reading and comprehension are beyond your abilities. Sorta cements the argument

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

So, you have had a ban for 21 years and still collect 50,000+ guns. Sounds like a very effective ban.

the long game. try it. just try it America! it will reduce mass shootings over time. not terrorism in every form, it's not connected to bombs or planes we understand that.

so what do you guys think of airport security measures? are they totally pointless because we still have security threats and incidents on planes or do you think the effort is worthwhile but not perfect? What do you think would happen if they took the security measures away? Would you be...

a) just as safe as before
b) more safe
c) less safe

i think the answer is pretty obvious...

look gun restrictions aren't going to cure the problem overnight, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try

gun restrictions don't mean you can't have guns, it just means tighter restrictions so kids don't accidentally shoot their parents and stuff, so people can't get hold of high capacity magazines.

the more i go over this thread it seems to be the same 1 or 2 people who are adamant that it won't make a difference. I think the majority now see the bigger picture.

it will happen eventually and when it does the rest of the world will congratulate you for it.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Have a buyback. The crims will hand in their weapons for cash and then that gun is off the street forever.

Just try you won’t spontaneously combust.

They do that already

[seedyrom]

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

the long game. try it. just try it America! it will reduce mass shootings over time. not terrorism in every form, it's not connected to bombs or planes we understand that.

so what do you guys think of airport security measures? are they totally pointless because we still have security threats and incidents on planes or do you think the effort is worthwhile but not perfect? What do you think would happen if they took the security measures away? Would you be...

a) just as safe as before
b) more safe
c) less safe

i think the answer is pretty obvious...

look gun restrictions aren't going to cure the problem overnight, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try

gun restrictions don't mean you can't have guns, it just means tighter restrictions so kids don't accidentally shoot their parents and stuff, so people can't get hold of high capacity magazines.

the more i go over this thread it seems to be the same 1 or 2 people who are adamant that it won't make a difference. I think the majority now see the bigger picture.

it will happen eventually and when it does the rest of the world will congratulate you for it.

Ugh. Gun restrictions are the problem. If you knew the country you'd know the areas with the highest gun crime have the highest restrictions, and the ones thst introduce carry permits gun crime plummets. On top of that, the areas with the strongest gun restrictions usually have the lightest sentencing for gun crime. It's plain as day. Worry about your own murky crap countries and not ours. Maybe when your country can rival ours in anything you can talk.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by seedyrom

Misleading again. 44% of households have guns in America. This "chart" neglects to say spouses aren't included. Since it shows 22% with guns, slide over another 22% to get to 44% because of spouses. Which is go figure, the % of households with guns.

Another stupid bogus stat from the left.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...-about-it.html

[Lucky John]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

just try it America!...

it will happen eventually and when it does...

America won't be America anymore. And you just don't get that.

[seedyrom]

Happy to hear your criticism of news source.

Not happy to hear your understanding of mathematics

[seedyrom]

Originally Posted by Lucky John

America won't be America anymore. And you just don't get that.

Yeah, okay, I’m out.

Might actually give this site a miss.

It’s been eye-opening hearing American thoughts and opinions ... but they are so misaligned with progression, that it’s more disheartening than anything else.


At least I discovered bimmercode. Great app. Will bang again. A+


Later dudes.

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Look. This discussion is about gun control. Those are bombings. You’re getting both mass shootings AND bombings. Just saying maybe cut it in half. The rest of the western world does have the mass shootings with anything approaching this ferocity or frequency.

You can talk about other countries bombings and trucks etc but you carry that risk in equal measure to the rest of the world. What you’ve got on top, any way you slice it is this gun issue.

It’s not cultural diversity causing your issues either. Plenty of other countries have varied nationalities. I’m tempted to go further on the undertones in your posts but I’d rather end it here.

Am I reading this correctly?

It sounds like you just said that if we take guns away, that a crazy mad person is going to just say, hey I guess I won't mass murder people because I can't get a gun. No they will just shift to other means. Crazy people will find new and possibly even deadlier options. Bombs just being an example.

Have people already forgot Oklahoma City bombing? 168 people dead and 680 injured.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by 3rdcoast228i

Am I reading this correctly?

It sounds like you just said that if we take guns away, that a crazy mad person is going to just say, hey I guess I won't mass murder people because I can't get a gun. No they will just shift to other means. Crazy people will find new and possibly even deadlier options. Bombs just being an example.

Have people already forgot Oklahoma City bombing? 168 people dead and 680 injured.

What I’m saying is reduce the risks you face. Just because someone can drive a car through people doesn’t mean you should ignore shooting massacres.

I’ll say it again, just because you have one risk factor doesn’t mean removing others is pointless. It’s like saying I took a risk crossing the street so I may as well smoke for the rest of my life. Or I’m at risk from cancer so I may as well smoke.

Am I making any sense? Maybe not but but hey, that’s not my fault if you get my drift.

Bomb making is more difficult and requires specialist knowledge and detailed planning, as well as acquiring chemicals that are very well tracked by your many agencies. Any idiot can wield a high powered rapid rate of fire weapon. They are designed to be able to be used effectively by idiots.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Misleading again. 44% of households have guns in America. This "chart" neglects to say spouses aren't included. Since it shows 22% with guns, slide over another 22% to get to 44% because of spouses. Which is go figure, the % of households with guns.

Another stupid bogus stat from the left.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...-about-it.html

If they’re talking households it’s right. If they were saying people and counting households it would be wrong.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by jgoens

Talked to someone yesterday who is pro gun and he said we should have more people with guns...preferably nearly everyone..with proper training being mandatory. He said if everyone had guns crime rates would go down as everyone knows that the other guy has a gun as well. If everyone had a gun and a shooter was shooting from a building, for example, it wouldn't take long for 40, 50 or 100 people to start shooting back.

In an odd way, this makes some kind of sense as anyone who goes to rob you is basically playing Russian roulette. Who is going to go rob a store when you know the clerk and anyone one else inside has a weapon as well?

Kind of like the nuclear weapon deterrent--and why we would not have a war with Russia or China, because you know they are going to fire back with the same thing.
I know all the anti-gun people are going to say this is crazy, but he said they tried this in Switzerland and crime rates dropped.

So compulsory military style straining and arm the entire population?

YEEEEEEEE HAAAAAA!

You sure you weren’t talking to someone from the NRA with investments in every major gun manufacturer in the US?

Can’t take that too seriously...

[3rdcoast228i]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

What I’m saying is reduce the risks you face. Just because someone can drive a car through people doesn’t mean you should ignore shooting massacres.

I’ll say it again, just because you have one risk factor doesn’t mean removing others is pointless. It’s like saying I took a risk crossing the street so I may as well smoke for the rest of my life. Or I’m at risk from cancer so I may as well smoke.

Am I making any sense? Maybe not but but hey, that’s not my fault if you get my drift.

Bomb making is more difficult and requires specialist knowledge and detailed planning, as well as acquiring chemicals that are very well tracked by your many agencies. Any idiot can wield a high powered rapid rate of fire weapon. They are designed to be able to be used effectively by idiots.

Of course that makes sense. I only used bombs as an example. And even stated that fact.

So any idiot can drive, and trucks are easily accessible. What do you think would happen if someone drove 1 ton 4x4 dually into a crowd of 22000 people?

You can't ignore that there are many other options and just banning one does nothing. It would make you feel better, but the reality hasn't changed. Sick evil people are going to do sick evil things no matter how hard you try to make it on them.