I, as a foreigner, know full well "It is none of my business" to discuss any of your political issues of present or past, but, as I have family that is American, and I visit somewhat often, I'll take whatever burden I'm "allowed" as to discussing U.S political agenda. Many of the points I will bring up I have surfaced prior in another thread. Firstly, even with the dwindling economy, crippling debt, and so-so educational level, you are seen as the leader of the western civilized world. Why then, do roughly half of you hold so dearly to a concept that is as misshapen and archaic as the 2nd Amendment? You have the highest rate of Gun-Homicide in the western world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) and half of you are so attached to your precious guns that you vehemently will not give them up none of them even to alleviate the dire situation you find yourselves in. There are a few reasons you consider validating as to your retention of firearms. First and foremost is the aforementioned 2nd Amendment, which I will quote here for reference: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It can be dissected and refuted in many ways which I will list in two parts as follows: 1. It's complete lack of relevance in the modern world. The idea behind the first portion is that arms are to be held by the people, in order to defend against a corrupt government that may arise. Problem is, the definition of the word "Arms" has drastically changed over the years, it was all good and well when all that was available was a rifle (Such as... after the revolutionary war, when the constitution was written). There has grown ever since a disparity between what the government has had access to, and the civilian population. In the present age, there are Assault Helicopters, Laser-Guided Missiles and, y'know... tanks. Not so much anything that your pea-shooters can defend against. And so that argument is without merit. 2. The second portion of the the Amendment deals with the "People's" right to bear arms, meaning any old citizen that rocks on up to a gun store can buy an AR-15. The problem with this is that the law does not discriminate. There are no permits, there are no licenses, you argue against even background checks and waiting periods. Meaning any criminal, mentally deranged or affected person or person with a criminal history would be able to purchase an extremely effective firearm to have at their disposal. The problem isn't with the criminals; as in Australia in 1996, after mass shooting worse than any the U.S has ever had, we had sweeping gun control. 18 years later, the only murders involving firearms (excluding one or two isolated cases per year) have involved drugs and organized crime. And that's whom criminals generally aim their barrels, they don't go around shooting civilians and breaking into their homes to rape the inhabitants, they generally shoot at cops trying to apprehend them for engaging with other criminals, and the other criminals that they're engaging with. And then there's the paranoiac's "What about home invasion, I need to protect my family!" Yeah... it's 25 times more likely that your child will be killed with a firearm than in a home invasion (which is 100 a year vs 2555 children dying a year resultant of firearms , an average of 7 a day http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/...verage-and-we-are-as-a-country-ignoring-them/) And, referring to that previous source, 1100 children were killed by accidental discharge of a weapon in ten years, vs the 1000 average deaths caused by home invasion over the same time-span. Technically, you would be far safer in a home without any weapons at all, considering: "In 2009, 24.2 percent of victims were slain by family members; 53.8 percent were killed by someone they knew (acquaintance, neighbor, friend, boyfriend, etc.)." (https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/homicide.html). Yeah... think about that one, might want to re-think the whole "Having a kid" thing, It raises your chances of being shot more than anything. So that would kind of dispel any myths regarding the "Home-Invasion" aspect. Besides the fact that if somebody wanted to break into your house it would be to steal your possessions, not kill you. All that the current American government are asking; is that you give away Assault weapons (Or Semi-Automatic rifles, whichever falls under the definition of "A rifle firing an intermediately sized cartridge, either Semi-Automatically, or Automatically"). Basically, a modern military firearm designed to kill specifically humans. And you could say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" or something to that effect, and, as in the other thread, I will reply "But they make it awfully easy, don't they", or that they are a "tool" used for a specific purpose, that purpose of course, unlike any other tool, is effective killing. I'm not anti-gun, I'm pro-gun whenever I see a pragmatic use, such as varmint or pest control, recreational hunting or sports (Not shooting at a paper target with Barrack Obama's, or anyone else's, face on it). I frankly don't understand how somebody who isn't clinically insane, can carry around a firearm in a perfectly peaceful neighborhood, where are the shootouts? Where are the great rioting masses in your Middle-Class White societies? The most likely outcome of a death resultant of you carrying that firearm, is that you will get into an altercation with somebody, and, instead of using your fists like an actual man, you'll shoot him unnecessarily. Any other points anybody can come up with that are pro-2nd Amendment I'll gladly argue against. All the best.
1. You live on an island. Our neighbor, Mexico, has no legal private ownership of guns. The drug cartels are warring with the government and the people are caught in the middle. Our border with Mexico is not secure and we are being overrun with criminals. Most of our drugs come from Mexico. Mexico's biggest income is people illegally going to America and sending money home to Mexico for their retirement after a few years. Over 50 million people were murdered by their own governments during the 20th century. I'll take my chances armed. 2. I don't have a problem with background checks, as long as it is not a backdoor registration. We currently have backgrounds check for all purchases from a dealer. Many states have universal background checks. We have over 11 million people with CHLs carrying guns across America. These people have been fingerprinted, background checked at state and federal levels, and have been tested on proficiency with a firearm and trained in use of force laws and often situational awareness. People with CHLs are much less likely to commit a crime than the average citizen. In TX, 3% of the adult population carry guns. That 3% commits less than .2% of the crime in TX and many of those crimes are accidentally carrying in the wrong place. Nobody keeps stats on crimes prevented. It's not always reported anyway, but it more than offsets the amount of accidents and crimes committed by legal gun carriers. Our rights are individual and should be restricted individually after due process following a history of abuse. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2012.pdf Assault rifles are very rarely used in crimes. They are not practical for crime because they cannot be concealed. An assault rifle is a very good hunting rifle for certain animals. Texas has millions of feral hogs and they can grow to over 500 lbs. If you shoot one, you had better kill it before it charges you. I've carried a gun for over 5 years and nobody has ever seen my gun. Crime is rare, but it does happen. I actually knew someone who was gunned down for attending a church service. You'd better believe I carry at church, especially with the increase in terror threats.
First, you are using lying statistics from a lying site (Rawstory). Using objective data (the CDC's wisqars database, with children (I'll define as 18 and under, which is the legal definition, and in year 2011, last year on wisqars), the number of gun deaths is less than 2000. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html If you take out suicide, which IMHO is not gun related (guns and suicides are not related, suicides use whatever means is available, in gun free areas, suicides are no fewer than in gun heavy areas), that number is about 1200, or less than half of what you claim. Second, paragraphs are your friends. That mass of text you wrote is almost unreadable. Third, rifles, from hunting rifles to evil assault rifles according to FBI statistics in 2012 were used in 322 out of 12,765 murders. That is 2.5% of murders. Getting rid of assault rifles will do almost nothing to reduce gun deaths. For perspective, more than twice as many people were killed by unarmed people (678 ) than were killed by rifle wielders (322). http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls Actually, the most likely thing to happen to concealed firearms carriers is nothing. They are less likely to commit murder with firearms than are police officers. I think a lot of this is projection. I believe that most anti-gunners are very violent people, and can't imagine carrying a firearm without hurting someone with it. That is why they are so anti-gun, as they know that they themselves should never be trusted with a gun. Most of us pro-gunners think the opposite. We know that carrying a firearm is a serious responsibility, and the last thing we want to do is hurt someone with it.
I quit reading at "archaic". Let me ask you. When did Aussies loose their back bone and find great amusement or satisfaction at attacking persons in the US. No, you are not alone. Every forum has them, even forums that have usually nothing to do with politics. Yet they wish to harp on us about our Second Amendment. You are right though, its none of your business.
I apologize for the lack of paragraphs, in the small text box of which I have to write here, I lose track of my partitions. I had no idea that the "Rawstory" article I linked was possibly fraudulent, so I will rescind that argument to a point, and just say; 2555, 2000? Does it really matter, these are children in your backyard that are being shot, that otherwise wouldn't be, and aren't, here at least, there would be less that 5 instances a year, here, I'd say. And yes, the suicide statistics are necessary to include, as "Attempted Suicide" is such a thing, and gives sufferers a chance to rethink their mentality and seek help, handguns most often do not afford that luxury. The "concealed carriers kill less people that police officers" argument is quite a buckling one, considering that the police, actively head toward crime to prevent it, unlike concealed carriers. And if we would like to talk about projection I believe that most anti-gunners are very violent people, and can't imagine carrying a firearm without hurting someone with it. That is why they are so anti-gun, as they know that they themselves should never be trusted with a gun."- There's a bit of it there for you. As to the rest of the posters that did nothing to contribute anything at all to the discussion, but rather lamented my sentiments and replied thus - you have done quite a good job of indicating the Average 2nd Amendment supporters opinion, both on reading anything of length, or responding to logic. Also, the xenophobia and distrust of anybody or their opinion if they happen to not be American plays right into your stereotype. Perhaps I should have just changed my location to the States for my opinion to be valid. And please, bring up a topic about Australia, I'll happily debate it.
I'll just give up for now until another thread emerges, with some other sane people included in it because all anybody seems to be to doing is patting each other on the back.
1. The US doesn't have the highest number of gun homicide in the western world. Central and South America and Africa are much higher. 2. All weapons are assault weapons. 3. When you consider the amount of gun ownership in the US as compared to gun homicides the US rates very low. 4. All gun laws are ridiculous.
I wasn't talking about killing people. I was talking about committing crimes. They are 2 different things. In 2012 in Texas, CHL holders killed more criminals than police. However, they were "justified homicides" and not considered a crime. Justified homicide is killing someone to prevent, rape, aggravated robbery, arson, murder, aggravated assault, or to defend against someone breaking into an occupied home or auto. Each of those killings were to prevent crime as investigated by a grand jury. People legally carrying guns are a deterrent to crime. Crime has gone down everywhere CHLs were introduced in the last 20 years. "Gun crime" may have decreased in Australia, but what about rape, robbery, burglary, etc...?
How do we know what you are saying if you don't type complete thoughts? He said CHL holders are less likely to commit murder than police officers. Right or wrong, that's an opinion. You responded as if he said that CHL holders have never committed murder. What are you trying to say?
What do you need to know? No, you have no right to tell me how and by what means I use to defend my home and protect my family. I tell that to anyone, American or not. You are not. So a few other Americans like my post. That sends you running? Too bad, I thought between all the crocs and roos yall were straight up bad asses.
Mate, I'm as badass as a chopper riding, leather jacket wearing, confederate-flag bandanna donning, bald-eagle flying down Route 66 at 120 m/ph. And yeah, if it costs people lives, endangers people, enables paranoia and its very concept is based on a 200+ year old document, and I'm going to visit the states on a regular basis, then I can tell you whatever the hell I feel like (That's the first amendment at work). I've stated all the questions I've needed answers to, and I am yet to receive a single valid one, if you want the questions they're on the first page, but until you rednecks actually post something of pertinence to the discussion and stop adding GIFS of how proud you are of igoring valid points that I asked to be answered, I see no point. If all you're going to do is give each other Homoerotic Hand-J**s all day, I'm not going to sit around and watch.
It's some of mine though, as I do live here and I agree with him totally. AFAICT you just can't come up with any good arguments to refute his and so are just falling back on the old "shut up" routine. This IS a discussion board and anybody can discuss anything, no matter where they're from Don't be discouraged, it's largely all gun enthusiasts do. The real reason they love guns so much is just too embarrassing for them to even hint at. So, it's better to be killed than robbed, burgled or raped?
No. I said its better to kill a criminal than let them murder, rob, or rape me or my family. Would you give your life to save a guy about to rob you or rape your wife?
Maybe you're ASKING wrong. Why address us, and try to control the responses when it's a simple matter to do some research and find out why our Supreme Court rules that the 2nd. A is accurate, timely, and correct? I've been a gun owner since I was 4. I have never assaulted anyone, killed anyone, or even put a bullet into anyone. I HAVE used my guns to stop others from assaulting and/or killing myself and others. There is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon" of any kind, until or unless it is used to assault someone. There is NO SUCH THING as a "weapon", by that same criteria. I have several guns, knives, blunt instruments, strings, matches and lighters, and so forth, but there are no weapons in my possession. If you compel me to use force against you, I'm just as likely to smash your brains out with a used alternator. Sheesh. YOU gave up your rights. Live with it.
No, but I really fail to see what that has to do with the subject at hand. Australia's gun laws do not prohibit the ownership of firearms, though they do regulate them stringently.
How am I controlling the answers? The answers all of you that advocate Gun-Rights have given have been illogical, misinformed and poorly explained. Why don't you rebut some of my specific points. "I have several guns, knives, blunt instruments, strings, matches and lighters, and so forth, but there are no weapons in my possession", mate, that's just semantics and you know it, ok, not a "weapon" an "efficient tool for killing". I didn't give up my rights, my nation righted its wrongs. And Jesus that was a hostile and graphic post, "smash your brains out with a used alternator" I think you need to buy a stress ball or something.
The OP is all over the map. I'm just responding to him. He started talking about CHL holders killing people. His original post is a mile long with numerous points going in all directions. How can I be off topic?
