Here’s What The World Thinks About The American Response To The Oregon Massacre

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I hate reloading.

Either that was a joke (I am really hoping it was) or you are the embodiment of everything I have tried to say in this thread.

If this conclusion is correct why does Switzerland not have a lot of mass shootings?

What would gun free countries do if their governmnt collapsed even temporarily during a hostile takeover? Oh I know it would never happen....especially in those European countries with 100,000's of refugees flooding in.

America is not Australia. We have a constitution that enables citizens to protect tthemselves. By the FBI own stats that ay least 160,000 citizens defend themselves with firearms who would have "certainly died" if they didn't use them. Would those people be dead with a confiscation?

Collecting over 50 million firearms is an impossible feat. It would be like trying to detain all the illegal aliens. It would require a rights violations in the most major way.

Semiauto rifles are about 1 percent of the homicide rate in the US why are people talking about that. Most mass shootings are done with hand guns.

How about we put more police in high crime areas. Most of the gun homicides occur there.

More gun safety course especially hand guns would help with accidents. Switzerland has anual training.

Psychotropic drugs have been involved in most mass shootings and many of the suicides.

None of the proposed restrictions would stop mass shootings. Confiscation may work but it will never pass and no not because of the gun lobby but because the constitution is very hard to change and most Americans don't want that.

The nra is not a gun lobby group the represent over 5 million members.

It's easy to come up with feel good solutions to complex problems. They are seldom thought through and even more seldom do any good. It sounds good to people who want a solution watching the news. In reality they are completely non effective.

The US and Australia is like comparing apples and bird seed. Most of the countries gun control advocates refer to don't have a third world war zone next door and don't have the same social conditions.

a reply to: Kryties

I am devoid of humor.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

Here in the US, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Except nobody wants to "outlaw" ALL your guns. Why must I keep reminding people of this?

We have seen how DHS and the DEA, IRS, FDA, FBI and others now have their own F'ing assault teams with AK's AR15's etc.. Probably fully automatic ones as well.
We have already seen how POMPOUS they are.
We have already seen how brutal and cruel they will be towards unarmed civilians.
Ruby Ridge anyone? A pregnant woman gunned down in cold blood. The shooter didn't have to turn in his F'ing gun.

OP:
What the hell do you think is going to happen if only government enforcers have guns? Will they play nice? Do they play nice now when you are unarmed? No??? If you play nice and admit to a not so bad crime and say you're sorry, does the prosecutor and judge play nice back? They put you in the big house if they can, just to make money for their mandated programs.
If there is a pill like in Limitless, only the opposite effect, you must be taking it.

The only thing stopping government already from committing their own mass murders are the fact that people are already targeting people in uniform.
If everyone was unarmed completely except for law bringers. They would bring that law to you using deadly force, then ask questions later. They already murder and maim the most weakest of society without provocation now, RIGHT NOW.

originally posted by: Kryties
How many MASS SHOOTINGS have countries like Australia, with gun restrictions, had as opposed to America?

I'll give you a hint: Australia has had NONE.

So being that your homicide rate is pretty much the same as before it is just to santize the numbers.

'You can die while drinking your giant can of beer, just not next to that fellow over there tending the barbie.'

a reply to: Kryties

The basic reason why we have guns can be summed up by the following wise saying:

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

a reply to: ColeYounger

Yeah, but every country has its problem with mental health issues and doesn't have school shootings. Look I'm not arguing with people on here your a smart bunch and know what's going on in your own country. No countries is perfect. We have a bit of an alcohol problem in the uk which is responsible for a lot of violence, but again thats a part of belonging to a free country. We all have a problems that we just have to accept

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: UnBreakable

Here in the US, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Except nobody wants to "outlaw" ALL your guns. Why must I keep reminding people of this?

What guns then do you think we should keep? and Why?

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: johnwick

I would have thought reduced murders would have been the desired outcome....meh, who am i to judge our crazy cousins?

I find myself having to ask this question AGAIN, as some people insist on deflecting from the actual topic.

How many MASS SHOOTINGS have countries like Australia, with gun restrictions, had as opposed to America?

I'll give you a hint: Australia has had NONE.

I would say that's pretty good evidence of it working.

And again, nobody claimed it would stop all murders or violence, just greatly reduce the risk of it happening and to keep guns away from nutters as best as possible. I am getting a little sick of having to repeat myself multiple times on this issue.

You just had a teenager kill somebody in front of a police building.

With a gun.

I seem to recall a siege in a cafe a while back.

He had guns.

Gun crime hasn't stopped. And has been repeatedly pointed out, it seems the Aussie murder rate hasn't changed much. Just the method.

So, as another member said, I guess Aussies are okay with the same number of people being killed as long as guns aren't used to do it?

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: UnBreakable

Here in the US, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Except nobody wants to "outlaw" ALL your guns. Why must I keep reminding people of this?

Probably because it's a blatant falsehood that you're using to bolster your argument.

"Nobody" means not one person. And that's not even true on ATS. YOU may not want to, but that doesn't mean NOBODY wants to.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
We have a bit of an alcohol problem in the uk which is responsible for a lot of violence...

You ever think about banning booze? The small percentage of violent drunkards could be curtailed by keeping demon alcohol out of everyone's hands.

a reply to: Kryties

Propagating more of your anti-gun propaganda, are you?

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: johnwick

Just most of the guns from most people right?

Come and take them!!

Seriously, come right now and take them or quit your bleeting, we are all tiredof hearing it.

Nothing but air and opportunity between you and our guns, here they are, ccome on, come and take them.

I mean it isnt like you would be afraid to help take the guns when you are pushing this right?

Please stop the deflection and outright lies. Nobody wants to take all your guns, just the powerful assault-style weapons that the general populace have no legitimate use for other than to kill large numbers of other humans. In addition, laws to help prevent nutters from getting their hands on weapons - both of these combined have been proven to work in many other countries worldwide.

This has been pointed out MANY times in this thread alone and yet you willfully choose to ignore it in favour of the "come and take them" tough guy nonsense.

If the US government really wanted to "come and take them", what exactly do you think your pea-shooters would do against

So give up our " powerful assault-style weapons" so we have nothing but " pea-shooters" against" tanks, APC's, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, airstrikes, drone strikes, etc etc?"

Ya i just think no.

We will keep our " powerful assault-style/ pea-shooters"

Lol, btw, are they powerful or pea shooters?

I dont understand.

I think you dont know much about guns.

Or any of the military equipment you were just naming off.

Many of us 28 million US vets do, and the military isnt going to turn on the people, i can tell you that now.

It isnt so cut and dry as you think.

You think vietnam or afghanistan or iraq were bad....imagine any of those same scenarios where your troops live.

They arent going to kick doors and strategically bomb apartment buildings in the US period.

a reply to: joemoe I think you have to ask why you would fear the government. I don't fear my government. I don't like them but certainly don't fear them.

Why do you all waste your breath about a topic that your voice has zero effect on? It's called being JEALOUS of what others have. It oozes out of all of your posts. I have the right to own as many firearms as I damn well want to. Nothing the Brits say. Nothing the Aussies say can change that FACT. Nothing anyone in any country other than America can do a damn thing about it. If it ever changes it will be done by Americans in our political process or thru new laws. But having other countries chime in and bitch about a supposed problem in America and how their feed up.... From this particular American I say.....who gives a shat what you all think. a reply to: Kryties

a reply to: woodwardjnr

Because government is inept, incompetent and frankly, quite dangerous. Its sole purpose is to exist in a larger and larger state every year and by necessarily doing so it advertently impinges upon each and every citizen's Constitutional Rights.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

OP:
What the hell do you think is going to happen if only government enforcers have guns?

Why do you persist with the fallacy that this is about taking ALL you guns, when nothing could be further from the truth?

Will they play nice? Do they play nice now when you are unarmed? No??? If you play nice and admit to a not so bad crime and say you're sorry, does the prosecutor and judge play nice back? They put you in the big house if they can, just to make money for their mandated programs.
If there is a pill like in Limitless, only the opposite effect, you must be taking it.

The only thing stopping government already from committing their own mass murders are the fact that people are already targeting people in uniform.
If everyone was unarmed completely except for law bringers. They would bring that law to you using deadly force, then ask questions later. They already murder and maim the most weakest of society without provocation now, RIGHT NOW.

I have asked this before and I got no answer (unsurprisingly): What exactly do you think your guns are going to do against Tanks, drones, rocket launchers, grenades, airstrikes and everything else the government has access to? You're already outgunned mate, so the excuse of needing assault rifles (don't forget, nobody is talking about taking away normal guns, just powerful ones that cause mass casualties) is complete and utter nonsense.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Kryties

Propagating more of your anti-gun propaganda, are you?

Failing to read the thread are we? Or are you willfully ignoring the fact that I have stated multiple times that this is not about taking ALL the guns?

Seriously, I have had to say this at least 10 times in the last two pages alone. PLEASE stop deflecting from the actual topic.

originally posted by: Kryties
I have asked this before and I got no answer (unsurprisingly): What exactly do you think your guns are going to do against Tanks, drones, rocket launchers, grenades, airstrikes and everything else the government has access to? You're already outgunned mate, so the excuse of needing assault rifles (don't forget, nobody is talking about taking away normal guns, just powerful ones that cause mass casualties) is complete and utter nonsense.

I would wager it would be the same as the Vietcong, Afghaninis and Iraqis except much, much worse as they would have to explain why they are carpet bombing and shelling suburbia.