To those saying banning guns is bad, watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE
whoop de doo. Excuse me while I stuff my face with cheeseburgers, shoot off all of my guns at once all while sitting in front of my television.
Somewhat related. Bought a pistol last weekend. It's nice. Ruger .357 Blackhawk.
what a dumb video...I mean come on really? use australia as an example of gun control? They can't even handle the internet let alone decide what to do with guns. The laugh track was...laughable. Aaaand the daily show is anything but credible, they are a show for entertainment, like a sitcom.
W/e I have two shotguns, a bow, a crossbow, a sword, and a BB gun. My grandfather has 33 guns in his attic, and my dad has 8 guns in the gun cabinet in his room. Gun control laws are laughable. What are they going to do? get the state police to raid my house for weapons? Because there is no police force where I live.
So this type of show is what is supposed to pass for a proper discussion of the subject?
Edit: I'm not in the US, but I've noticed that the gun discussion tends to be viewed in a very narrow way at least from what i've seen from your media (focused sole on crime and/or civilian casualties or related to hunting/recreation). Civilians don't have guns where I currently live. Believe me, only the very brave, or very stupid dare question authority here. There are real freedoms at stake when it comes to gun control. It's not enough just to trivialise it in the name of giving the public a sense of security/safety or out of a genuine concern for all of the civilian casualties.
Everyone, I have a confession to make. I am actually Piers Morgan.
Checking person's background and mental health before allowing him to buy weapons that make it easy to kill dozens of people?
What a bad idea. Why would anyone do that? 
Reading up on the laws that are already on the books before introducing new laws?
What a bad idea. Why would anyone do that?
just in case what jon said went over your head...unless the firearm is pre 1876, then you do need a full background check to purchase firearms. And a mental health exam is a pre requisite to qualify for an application to get a license to carry a firearm. it isn't like any joe smoe can walk into a store and buy a rifle. at least it isn't like that in NJ. I wouldn't mind it if they didn't make you jump through hoops of fire just to buy a new hunting rifle. Thank god most of my guns are from being passed down in my family, so I don't have to deal with most of the legal BS.
Because one old man "lost" a debate? Let me tell you this: Humans with ill-intent will always find ways to harm others if they are driven to do so. Ever hear of the Oklahoma City bombing? He killed 168 people without using any kind of firearm. Did they ban box trucks? No. Did they ban ammonium nitrate? No. If some evil asshat wants to do harm against society, they will find a way to do so and obviously there are more effective ways to do so than firearms. Also, what do you do when you're in trouble? You dial 911 because you know someone with a gun is coming to save your ass....
We don't need a license like in NJ. Concealed carry, yes, but that is different. Still reading through NJ laws and it looks like a giant clusterfuck of permits, money being paid to the state, and going in for a lot of questioning.
jon666, DemonX09, Relinquis, HarbingerOne:
The point in the video I am trying to show is that when Australia (the country I live in) banned guns in the 90s, no more mass shootings occurred and homicide/suicide rates dropped significantly.
If you can argue against this evidence logically, then I'm interested in your ideas.
I have looked at too many sources of statistics for Australia that I doubt them all now. I guess what I am trying to say is that sucks that they banned guns. Luckily I don't have that problem where I live. And before you bring up any statistics I would just like to say Australias population is smaller then Canada's...statistics are easier to play with when the ratios change.
Present a statistic that shows mass shootings occurring after 1997. Or present a statistic that shows homicide/suicide rates increased/remained the same after 1997.
I'm not saying shootings never occur in Australia (like the Monash shooting in 2002) but the rate has been reduced considerably since guns were banned.
Lets be honest I really haven't understood any of the reasoning anyway has commented against gun control. Like serious faceplam, please reason...
old, re-posted every couple months when someone wants to be whiny
It's still a relevant issue.
is it? <==== (obvious bait is obvious)
just because you feel something is relevant doesn't mean it needs to be reposted every few months
relevant issues require relevant discussions, not a video that shows some idiot say retarded shit that any other idiot could tell you was retarded
we can post videos of "straw-men" showing off their stupidity all day, and don't get me wrong i would enjoy that greatly, but don't try and pass it off as anywhere near relevant
Solar. Freakin. Roadways
doesn't mean it needs to be reposted every few months
I've only seen one post on gun control and this post is inspired by it: https://teksyndicate.com/forum/politics/guns/176454
video that shows some idiot say retarded shit that any other idiot could tell you was retarded
Not sure if you're asserting John Oliver is idiotic or Philip van Cleave. I think Oliver makes exceptionally rational arguments against gun control, supports his claims with evidence and engages with Cleave's weak points. Cleave on the other hand is blatantly ignorant and stubborn and does not engage with the evidence presented to him.
don't try and pass it off as anywhere near relevant
You're spouting commands at me and not justifying anything you say. Gun control is very relevant considering the frequent shootings in the United States (i.e. the Isla Vista shooting a few weeks ago).
Not sure if you're asserting John Oliver is idiotic or Philip van Cleave. I think Oliver makes exceptionally rational arguments against gun control, supports his claims with evidence and engages with Cleave's weak points. Cleave on the other hand is blatantly ignorant and stubborn and does not engage with the evidence presented to him.
