To anyone against gun control

Ill put my 2 cents in. I am for gun control but not against gun ownership. There is a sizable stash on guns owned by my father on this propity. he has all the legal documentation for his collection and I dont have a problem with that. Ill be picking up my gun license in the near future. But thats the thing. The difference between Australia/NZ and similar countries compared to the states is people have to go through a basic background check to get a gun licence and while we cant purchase full assault rifles, we have rifles, shot guns, pistols and the like thogh owning a pistol requires having another licence. And every few years we have an officer who comes by and checks out that the guns are secured safely, not just sitting on the shelves and the people who own said guns are of good character.

Someone who has been convicted of violent crimes can not legally purchase guns in this country and that is great. That is what gun control should be. Yet in america you can bring a full assault rifle into your childs school classroom for protection? Come on. Thats just adding logs to the fire.

Hello as I have used Canada as a point of reference before i may as well do it now.

In Canada we have 7 million guns that are known to the government, yet we have a population of 34 million and 13,320,615 households so that is is about 0.6ish guns per home in fact the UN reported that Canada ranks third among the developed western countries (behind the United States and Norway) in the civilian ownership of firearms. Now onto my point, the real cause of mass shootings and the sky high murder rate in the USA has to do with small easy to conceal weapons IE pistols. If you see a guy walking down the street with a hunting rifle well of course you're gonna call the cops but if a guy has a 9 mm in his pants you'll never know until it's to late. That's why its fine to have hunting rifles and shotguns but a 9 mm pistol is causing problems.

 

But what about AR-15's you ask? well those are just unnecessary, the only reason anyone has to own an AR-15 is to kill some one. They lack the range to hunt, and they are to small to carry around with you, so the only reason to own one is to kill large amounts of people at one time.  

A5H, I understand your point and argument, but i think it is not the only one worth making.

Where i currently live (not USA/ not EU/ not Australia), no civilians have guns. it is not allowed. The total murder rate is very low and there are no gun related murders. Only the government shoots people here. The only people who get shot are civil rights activists and / or political dissidents. I'm sure you can think of a lot of countries like this and hope you don't mind me not mentioning the name as I already talk a lot about myself online.

My point is that it is not enough to look at the issue from just a homicide / criminology statistics point of view or that of only public safety. We're not talking about wearing seat belts while in cars. There are other things at stake.

Despite the number of armed people in the US you don't have a civil war, or politically motivated armed conflict inside the US. This means a lot. It is not trivial. I wouldn't start messing with this delicate balance without understanding the unintended consequences of disarming the American people (even if that was actually possible). Remember, the police and the state in the US is heavily militarised. It's not like in most European countries where the memory of world wars and civil conflict is relatively recent.

The onus is not on those who say people should be free to bear arms to justify themselves. The origin of things is freedom, i.e. you don't need a reason to be able to do it. The onus is those who want the authority to ban it, to justify their reasoning and actions.

Oh, and the video clip is pure propaganda. The interviewer effectively said that the government should ban all backyard swimming pools... See, anyone can make fun and trivialise an arguement to distort its meaning. This is not a good example of Socratic debate.

yeah.pretty much. I swear you need a permit to breath upon exit of the womb, and then pay an oxygen tax.

This is the first post I've seen on this issue that actually uses rational thought to construct arguments.

I don't think guns will help if a government attacks its people. If citizens owned guns, what are they going to do with them? Kill everyone in the military? Shoot a policeman to protect themselves? Use them to assert their freedom? In my opinion, the only way to avoid and solve civil dispute is through education and discourse, not violence. Arming residents for the chance that a civil war may occur in the future is not sufficient reason to risk lives in the present. And if a government did begin killing its own people, I would think allied countries would intervene; this is expecially true for the United States. I'd wager Australia for example would get involved to help American citizens.

I understand that the video is highly biased, but I still stand by the arguments made against gun control in it. The analogies used could have been substituted to less trivial ones, but the points made still make sense from my perspective.

Having read through this lengthy thread this last statement has to be one of the most irrational and illogical ones yet (and in with what you've put before in this thread that is saying something). "I don't think guns will help if a government attacks its people." The only thing that makes any sense in that statement is "I don't think". How could you possibly think that a civilian population having guns to defend themselves from a government that attacks its own people would not help them? Do you think being disarmed is going to be of any use when someone with a gun wants to use it on you?  In case you were unaware there were 13 colonies that did just that when the government of England attacked them for disagreeing with their policies and trying to use discourse which the people in power didn't particularly care for. And it turned out that it was pretty effective in stopping them. And as for other governments intervening it is not the job or obligation of any other nation to keep another country's household in order if the people living there have the ability to handle it themselves. Also It it is not my intention to be condescending but I highly doubt that Australia would be able to do diddly squat against the US military if it turned against its own people. A gun is no different than any other tool or instrument. You can use it irresponsibly, i.e. tyrannical governments that abuse their people and criminals, or you can use it responsibly to preserve your freedom, i.e. to defend yourself against those kinds of threats. Not being killed or bludgeoned into submission, something you see all over the world in countries where the civilians have no means to defend themselves, is kind of a prerequisite to assert your freedom regardless of who you are.

Dude, I know many people who hunt with their AR-15's in the states, hell, there are people who use AK's to hunt.  Plus, AR-15's are pretty accurate up to a couple hundred meters if used correctly, so please, do your research and don't post ignorant shit like this.

-ax

Agreed my friend.  Good to see that someone actually is smart enough that the human committed the crime, not the gun.

-ax

I personally think that in some states, gun laws are ridiculous.  Especially in California and in east coast states.  Hell, I have to hand over any gun that I have with a 30 round magazine because anything with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is automatically classified as an assault rifle.  Also, in California, gun laws do nothing, especially in places with poverty.  Many crime in CA is committed with unregistered firearms that have been obtained through illegal means(smuggling, black market, etc.).  I don't think that anyone living in areas that the average income is less than $40,000/yr could obtain an assault rifle without obtaining it illegally.

A5H if one day you wake up and Australia had declared itself a communist country and is taking people off the street prisoner, what would you do? Here in The United States of America the citizens would come together and fight the tyranny with our guns but what would you and the citizens of Australia do?

Having read through this lengthy thread this last statement has to be one of the most irrational and illogical ones yet (and in with what you've put before in this thread that is saying something). "I don't think guns will help if a government attacks its people." The only thing that makes any sense in that statement is "I don't think".

I appreciate that most people are against my opinions on this issue. But just because you disagree with what I say doesn't mean I'm irrational. My culture is very different to yours and others. From an outsider's perspective owning guns seems ridiculous. I find it tragic that the US possesses an attitude that guns provide a solution to conflict, rather than using peaceful means. You can disagree with this, but don't then assert that I'm being illogical.

How could you possibly think that a civilian population having guns to defend themselves from a government that attacks its own people would not help them? Do you think being disarmed is going to be of any use when someone with a gun wants to use it on you?

I'm not going to shoot someone to solve a problem, I'm not a psychopath. If I was in a situation where someone was pointing a gun at me and I had the opportunity to shoot them first, I wouldn't do it. I would live the rest of my life knowing that I terminated one's life and potentially put other lives around me at risk. The emotional trauma would be worse than the physical. Instead, I approach this possibility from a non-violent stance. I would make sure my home possesses sufficient security measures so people can't just break in and I advocate education for all people. The empowerment gained from knowledge exceeds the desire to do bad things I believe.

In case you were unaware there were 13 colonies that did just that when the government of England attacked them for disagreeing with their policies and trying to use discourse which the people in power didn't particularly care for. And it turned out that it was pretty effective in stopping them.

Bad example to use. We don't live in 17th century Europe. And don't use the American Civil War either. We don't live in the 19th century anymore either. To compare our society to other extremely violent societies is meaningless. Established countries such as the US, UK, Australia, Malayasia, etc aren't going to revert to such barbaric behaviour just like that, and then guns become useful. And even if this hypothetically did occur, killing people is not the solution.

And as for other governments intervening it is not the job or obligation of any other nation to keep another country's household in order if the people living there have the ability to handle it themselves. Also It it is not my intention to be condescending but I highly doubt that Australia would be able to do diddly squat against the US military if it turned against its own people.

I don't believe this is true. I thought the role of organisations such as the UN were to ensure the citizens of its member countries are protected from its governments. And you've dug yourself a hole here too. So you claim that American citizens can handle civil dispute themselves, but other countries military won't be any match to the American military. Using this logic, American citizens must be better at killing armed American soldiers than trained soldiers in other countries are. No, that is a ridiculous claim; it seems you are over-estimating your ability to murder people.

A gun is no different than any other tool or instrument. You can use it irresponsibly, i.e. tyrannical governments that abuse their people and criminals, or you can use it responsibly to preserve your freedom, i.e. to defend yourself against those kinds of threats. Not being killed or bludgeoned into submission, something you see all over the world in countries where the civilians have no means to defend themselves, is kind of a prerequisite to assert your freedom regardless of who you are.

Using a gun to preserve your freedom, what a joke. This is insanity in my opinion. If you seriously need to possess a weapon to protect your rights, your country needs help immediately. Like I have said numerous times, the way for one's rights to be respected is through democratic discussion and discourse, not murdering people. Having debates consistently and discussing issues openly is the way citizens can express their freedoms most constructively. And education is another key ingredient to empower a nation, again not a means to murder anyone.


I would everything in my power to prevent Australia from switching between democracy to communism before it happens. Governments don't just switch overnight. The Australian public would have a say. Dabbling in hypothetical circumstances with very limited probabilities is a futile exercise. Also see my previous responses.

I am not even going to bother reading this thread anymore...it no longer makes sense. But I will say this. If all of a sudden my government is telling me I can't take my shotgun and go hunting because it is a gun and I have no right to use it, I would have quite a rude response. If my government told me it was illegal to go to the shooting range with my buddies for the afternoon because of "gun control" I would have some strong feelings about this. I am not saying I need firearms to feel safe and free from my government. They are just part of the culture here, like surfboards are a part of the culture in Hawaii. And if someone was stupid enough to tell anyone out here that they had to hand their guns over, I am willing to bet my computer that they would have some serious words to say about it.

Interestingly, every dictatorship over the last 100-150 years started as a popular, militarised, grass-roots movement.

I'm with you on this one. Been trying to think up something reasonable without going off on op who has probably had sunshine blown up his ass his entire life. Fuck I already started. Okay enough of this for now. Time for a cigerette, I will return and post some what-if scenarios like op is talking about concerning changing of government. 

its who was pushing the gun laws that is the most messed up 
http://www.buzzfeed.com/hunterschwarz/california-candidate-indicted-for-arms-trafficking-gets-hund

and why did he support this "Money" 

Most revolutionaries look towards the criminal element to further the cause. Best example would be the Russian revolution. Even backstabbing was seen as acceptable because a "few" were sacrificed for the greater good.

Every revolution addresses a power balance. I think the Cuban revolution started with good intentions, but many of the revolutionaries didn't share the common goal that Guevara (and later Castro) held.

Tyranny comes from the bottom. The top makes it possible.

Too many quotes I can throw at you over the first section of your comment. Fuck it I'll do it anyways. Quoted from Wendell :P "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Relating to my comment from before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainland_invasion_of_the_United_States

As for a power balance...it is difficult to walk loudly and carry a big stick when everybody else is also carrying a big stick. Theodore may have been a tool, but he had one thing right. If everyone had something that would equal things out then there would be no inbalance of power. It would be a continual stalemate which also might be why some believe democracy to be a crapshoot.

I will say this, I believe democracy is the way to go simple because it allows us to transition peacefully to a "new" form of government. Whether or not the policies of the new government change is another matter. 

DemonX09 and jon666:

Rather than insulting me, try elaborating on your ideas. You're saying I'm wrong and not explaining why.

If you disagree with me then say that and explain why, I'm open to your criticism, not your patronisation.