{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
작성자: BIGH1001
6/19/2017 2:05:17 AM
46
Guns don't kill people, People kill people
I recently read a thread from max that wasn't bullshit. So i figured i'd put my 2 bob in.
For context, i live in australia. And unlike america, guns are heavily restricted and heavily red taped. We used to be alright, but after a shooting at port arthur in the late 90's a blanket ban was placed on all firearms and a buyback scheme was introduced. The dude who commited the crime was a nutjob, but i'll spare the details.
Our most recent attack which received mass news coverage was in sydney a few years back. An islam extremist held a café hostage for numerous days. This ended with the extremist killed and 2 innocent lives lost. I have 2 problems with how this unfolded.
1) both of those innocents could be alive today if the police decided to snipe the bastard instead of running in guns blazing.
2) if civilians were allowed firearms, even open carry, there would've been no need for the police to step in.
And as stated in a few replies in that one thread by max, criminals don't give a shit about the law in the first place.
And with all the shit that has been happening in europe over the last few years, i think that people are starting to realise that guns aren't the problem at hand. It's those who wish to harm others to further their own agendas.
If guns were more widespread, then the average mofo might stand a chance on a day that's clowdy with a chance of a shitstorm.
Feel free to discuss this below. I want to hear what you all have to say.
Edit: we has trends
English
#Offtopic
-
Never understood the logic behind heavy gun control. "Lets make it illegal to have all these guns! That way the [b]criminals[/b] won't break the law!" Like, I understand there need to be laws for this so that Joe Random doesn't get his hands on an AK, but do people really believe that making lots of guns illegal means that the people who break laws won't break the law to get one?
-
1 답변Australians don't need guns, just throw a rang at their ground harness and watch them fall into the sun. [spoiler]then get some Maccas[/spoiler]
-
2 답변I don't oppose owning a gun but do people really need guns that can cause mass murder for "protection"? Plus I think it should be Illegal to carry anything larger that a pistol in public.
-
작성자: Cell 6/20/2017 10:19:45 PMYou guys just need to learn to weaponise magpies and you will win every war Edit: also I want to add this in, firearms aren't particularly hard to make. In essence all you need is a barrel (rifled preferably excluding ball type shells) a bullet, and a grouping to pierce the bullet. Full autos and bursts will be more complicated sure but a single shot isn't rocket science
-
3 답변Governments don't want citizens to have guns because it means a natural check to government power. There's a reason every regime begins with disarming the population. There are many useful idiots who will argue for gun bans or registries and etc on behalf of government power, but America's system of the right to arms is the best on the planet. They are guaranteed a means of defense against others and their own government right in their constitution, and the second amendment defends not only itself but all other rights as well.
-
Anybody can get anything if they're desperate enough. The more people capable of defending themselves the better. A concealed or open carry is the most efficient way to defend against hostage or non-immediate death situations. Police can only respond so quickly, so public awareness is key.
-
1 답변[quote]1) both of those innocents could be alive today if the police decided to snipe the bastard instead of running in guns blazing. 2) if civilians were allowed firearms, even open carry, there would've been no need for the police to step in.[/quote] Both extremely naïve statements. You clearly have no idea about the events that unfolded during that siege. As for private citizens carrying concealed firearms, it would simply cause more problems than it would solve(it wouldn't solve anything). I'm honestly ashamed an Australian can come up with bullshit like this. Please, go live in the U.S.
-
1 답변작성자: hemicar156 6/19/2017 4:37:54 PM
-
작성자: Commander Tempu 6/20/2017 4:11:35 AMThe problem is not guns or people sometimes it is governments who try to control something they cannot nor will ever be able to control. I live in america and i know how to shoot a gun. My father had a few guns as i learned how to use them safely. Living in ignorance often causes people to not understand just how dangerous it would be to not learn how to safely handle one. Here accidental shootings are a minor thing. Hillary Clinton along with her supporters don't understand the real situation. Yes she lost her son to a gun. Bill Clintion had that weapons ban that expired and did it impact things? Sure for a while there but it did not stop kids who found daddys gun and started playing with it. For as long as i can remember my day gave us shooting lessons. It helped me develop and grow. As i understood how dangerous it was. People who are responsible gun owners teach others how to use a gun safely and when to use it. I have not had to ever carry a gun but i appreciated what i was taught. Nothing in life is one hundred percent. But facts are Cars kill more people than guns do. People miss that any tool can be used as a weapon. It just so happens a Gun can kill people but it takes a human behind the gun. During the age of no guns people had swords spears and all sorts of other weapons. Did you hear people talk about regulating swords or spears? You were expected to fight if war broke out for your country and defend it with the arms you had. Governments these days like old seek to control things. Unlike most country's we have the second amendment. It was to deter other nations and criminals into thinking a population would be ready to meet any armed conflict should it come to that. Sadly conflict is human history. If you don't have a weapon and your enemy does chances are he is going to take you out. These days the common man is finding it harder and harder to defend what he should have a right to. His home. Nothing is 100% certain as accidents happen but one thing is for sure. Criminals are not robbing banks with baseball bats or plan on being in the open without protection. Often gun control hurts the person who follows the law and anything that is not common sense is just irrational fear. Humans have yet to perfect a system that works let alone laws that allow people to be protected yet teach them to be safe. Accidents and irresponsibility are key factors that adjust the variables. It is hard to say what is the right balance.
-
LIKE A BULLET TO THE HEAD DOESN'T KILL ANYONE![spoiler]Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the “loser,” and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round. I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior. I have hypothesized that the blue M&Ms as a race cannot survive long in the intense theater of competition that is the modern candy and snack-food world. Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen, or pointier, or flatter than the rest. Almost invariably this proves to be a weakness, but on very rare occasions it gives the candy extra strength. In this way, the species continues to adapt to its environment. When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc., Hackettstown, NJ 17840-1503 U.S.A., along with a 3×5 card reading, “Please use this M&M for breeding purposes.” This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms. I consider this “grant money.” I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one. [/spoiler]
-
I don't have answer for this. I just think it's worth considering and researching into the following: - What percentage of the population have prevented a potentially lethal crime by being armed - What percentage of the population have been injured or killed due to people carrying legally purchased weapoms - What percentage of arms legally purchased have been used in illegal activities vs illegally acquired arms
-
작성자: Fartmonkey 6/20/2017 12:16:20 AMI don't think it matters, either way people will die and we have no way of telling which path will kill more people. So we can argue all we want but in the end we won't know who would still be alive if we had just outlawed guns or accepted them.
-
29 답변[quote]Guns don't kill people. People kill people.[/quote] Correct, saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. However, the gun was designed with one purpose in mind - to kill. Not only that, but to kill with more efficiency than, say, the sword used before it. Guns don't kill people, but guns are used exclusively to kill. And anyone who believes that gun control won't reduce incidents of shooting are idiots. Case and point - UK. Yes, there are other weapons, but who is more likely to successfully kill, in a modern day, urban environment - Deadshot or Deathstroke? You can run from a guy with a sword, you can't really run from a shooter. Yes, criminals can still access guns even with a ban. It will be much harder, so many less will try to do it. Even less will succeed.
-
5 답변작성자: Flee 6/18/2017 12:01:12 AMJust some thoughts on your thoughts. Guns don't kill people, but they sure do make it a lot easier. Gun shots are more lethal than, say, stabbings, and while a gun gives someone near complete control of a situation, you can run from a man with a knife or bat. As an illustration, the vast majority of all US homicides are committed with firearms. Pretty sure the special tactics units of your law enforcement force were slightly more familiar with the situation and how to deal with it than you. I hope you don't honestly think that they randomly decided not to just "snipe the bastard" but went "running in guns blazing" for no good reason. An armed populace is likely a pretty weak deterrent to massacres like this. The FBI did a study looking at every single mass shooting in almost 15 years and found that [url=http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/06/jim-rubens/jim-rubens-says-when-armed-civilians-stop-mass-sho/]only one of them[/url] (accounting for around 0.6% of all cases) was stopped by your average citizen returning fire. Your very brazen suggestion that there wouldn't even have been a need for law enforcement to step is completely ridiculous and speculative without any strong factual evidence to support this. You could just as easily suggest that if the extremist had walked in and saw the two people armed, he would not have tried taking hostages but just start shooting and end up killing more people in general. There's also evidence to suggest that more people with guns just causes more chaos, more confusion and more collateral damage (even trained police officers regularly shoot innocent bystanders). The idea that "criminals don't care about the law" is the single worst and least factual argument in this entire debate. It shows a complete lack of understanding of both the law and how the trade of weapons works. [url=https://www.armedwithreason.com/rebutting-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-and-gun-control-only-hurts-law-abiding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/]This[/url] and [url=https://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-criminals-dont-follow-laws-myth-2-0-how-criminals-respond-to-gun-control/]this[/url] explains in detail why it's such a fallacious and incorrect point. If guns were more widespread, it would indeed make it more likely for people to end up shooting attackers, but it would also make it more likely the attackers would cause more damage. There's a reason why most of the recent terror attacks in the UK only end up killing a relatively low amount, and why many news headlines are limited to "man draws knife and stabs 2 people in London/Paris - both survived" instead of "man kills 5 in shooting spree in front of Louvre". And that reason is that even though it's not impossible, it's a hell of a lot harder and more expensive to get a gun in these places. Gun control works. I don't disagree with everything you've said, but I don't think much of it is really founded in fact either. They come across as common misconceptions and kneejerk "oh yeah, that kinda makes sense" reactions that are countered relatively easily. And as always, I look forward to the no doubt well thought out responses to come from OffTopic's hardliners rather than just downvotes (lol).
-
1 답변
-
11 답변작성자: Cerberus64 6/17/2017 11:12:22 AM
-
Any easier solution and one that works well for an island nation, is to stop allowing people who refuse to assimilate into your culture access to Australia. Immigration is good, but people who intend to bring all the problems with their old country into the new country are an issue.
