Mass wrote

Halo wrote You try and take away the 100+ million guns in the USA, lmao.

This is what Australia did after their last massacre in 1996, we haven't had a massacre in 20 years. The government rewarded people for handing in their illegal firearms, they didn't get in trouble, they were actually rewarded, because that was one further prohibited firearm off the streets that could possibly land in the hand of a psychopath. Australia didn't ban guns, they just made the possession of them further restricted, and made firearm holders secure their weapons better.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

You're just like the government, you're slowing trying to take away our constitutional rights.

Truth be told ,There is no point in trying to argue the point on gun laws with 90% of Americans..
They are on the whole to scared and way to paranoid to listen to reason .

Have a nice day !..

M8A7 wrote

To start off, only violent people kill with guns. What about the women self-defense issues with guns? As said before, only drunk drivers kill with cars. Taking away the right to a armed weapon, is the same as taking away a car. Not all people who use guns kill other people. Again, not all people who drive cars are drunk and kill others.

One is made for transportation, and the other is made to cause damage/kill. To be fair, there are potentially other ways to defend yourself. Tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, rubber bullets, knife. I'm not arguing any of those are better than a gun, but I don't think we should ignore potential alternatives.

Gun control in the US is like a scale, you try removing them, you make it unbalance, you try being more open about it, it becomes unbalanced again.

Think of it as something where you really can't do much about it because you will either make it really bad or too effective to the point where it starts to become bad.

Yin wrote One is made for transportation, and the other is made to cause damage/kill.

One is a three thousand pound projectile, and the other is a ten pound tool that fires both lethal and nonlethal projectiles.

KingDubstep wrote

Yin wrote One is made for transportation, and the other is made to cause damage/kill.

One is a three thousand pound projectile, and the other is a ten pound tool that fires both lethal and nonlethal projectiles.

That they are. Good luck winning a war (or even just some battles) with a collection of those three thousand pound projectiles though. There is a reason we use guns in wars. There is a reason we blow up the enemy's weapon stockpiles when we can. Guns are very dangerous tools.

I think that if you are on some sort of terror/watch list, you should not be able to buy a gun.

Seems pretty logical and almost like common sense knowledge right there.

It must suck living in Australia where the government has to tell you what weapons to own Haha. I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist closer to minarchists with my libertarian tendencies but still doesn't change the fact that all the dead children and all the dead nightclubers in the world won't trump my constitutional and self governing right to own any weapon I want. It's really refreshing to know that an rifle ban won't happen or really any other ban on gun types because at least some people have the knowledge of self responsibility.

iCamp wrote I think that if you are on some sort of terror/watch list, you should not be able to buy a gun.

Seems pretty logical and almost like common sense knowledge right there.

you can be put on the terrorist watch list for posting pictures of anarchist and home made silencer books on Instagram my friend got put on it recently because of that.