Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

[Premium Parrots]

[Crow]

It wouldn't sit well with a lot of Americans, that's for sure. The end result would be a whole lot uglier.

[Old Frothingslosh]

Elect Obama to a second term and the very same thing could happen here.

[GoVegan]

Elect Obama to a second term and the very same thing could happen here.

Where are you getting that from? It sounds like more paranoid neocon statements. I will probably vote for Obama just because I don't think Romney with all his money gives a crap about gas or groceries being expensive. I also think that much of the republican party is now hostage to ultra conservative tea baggers and the religious right who want to shove their morals down our throats. They want to bitch about deficits and then try and give everyone a tax break. Having said that, the older I get the less difference I see between Democrats and Republicans other than Republicans seem a bit meaner overall. In fact, I am still wondering sometimes why I even bother to vote at all as the outcome will be the same.

From http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/03/468...hey-stand.html

GUNS:

Obama: Has not pushed for gun control measures as president. Signed laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains. Favors "robust steps, within existing law" to address gun issues, White House says. Voices support for renewed ban on assault-type weapons but has not tried to get that done. Has not swung behind longshot Democratic bill, introduced after the Colorado movie theater shooting in July, to let only licensed dealers sell ammunition, require police to be notified after any sale of more than 1,000 rounds to an unlicensed person, and require buyers who aren't licensed dealers to show a photo ID. Backed tougher gun control as Illinois and U.S. senator, including proposals to renew the assault-weapons ban and require background checks for buyers at gun shows.

Romney: Opposes stricter gun control laws. Suggested after the Colorado shooting that he favors tougher enforcement of existing gun laws, although the theater attack was carried out with legally obtained weapons. As Massachusetts governor, vowed in 2002 to protect the state's "tough gun laws," and in 2004 signed a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. Quadrupled state's gun-licensing fee but loosened rules on the licenses and extended their duration. In 2008 primary campaign, said he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it had come to him as president, but he opposed any new gun legislation.

[wa3zrm]

[wa3zrm]

[wa3zrm]

[sgreger1]

Where are you getting that from? It sounds like more paranoid neocon statements. I will probably vote for Obama just because I don't think Romney with all his money gives a crap about gas or groceries being expensive. I also think that much of the republican party is now hostage to ultra conservative tea baggers and the religious right who want to shove their morals down our throats. They want to bitch about deficits and then try and give everyone a tax break. Having said that, the older I get the less difference I see between Democrats and Republicans other than Republicans seem a bit meaner overall. In fact, I am still wondering sometimes why I even bother to vote at all as the outcome will be the same.

From http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/03/468...hey-stand.html

GUNS:

Obama: Has not pushed for gun control measures as president. Signed laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks and in checked bags on Amtrak trains. Favors "robust steps, within existing law" to address gun issues, White House says. Voices support for renewed ban on assault-type weapons but has not tried to get that done. Has not swung behind longshot Democratic bill, introduced after the Colorado movie theater shooting in July, to let only licensed dealers sell ammunition, require police to be notified after any sale of more than 1,000 rounds to an unlicensed person, and require buyers who aren't licensed dealers to show a photo ID. Backed tougher gun control as Illinois and U.S. senator, including proposals to renew the assault-weapons ban and require background checks for buyers at gun shows.

Romney: Opposes stricter gun control laws. Suggested after the Colorado shooting that he favors tougher enforcement of existing gun laws, although the theater attack was carried out with legally obtained weapons. As Massachusetts governor, vowed in 2002 to protect the state's "tough gun laws," and in 2004 signed a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. Quadrupled state's gun-licensing fee but loosened rules on the licenses and extended their duration. In 2008 primary campaign, said he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it had come to him as president, but he opposed any new gun legislation.

GoVegan I hear you man i'm just as disinfranchised as I think everyone else is. I don't think Obama is any different from the rest, I mean he doesn't care about (nor does he have any control over) how expensive groceries or gas are, but Romney is very clearly the larger stooge in this years election. I mean his tax plan is to raise taxes on the middle class while lowering it on the wealthy, are you insane? On barackobama.com there is even a funny tax calculator where you can compare the difference in your taxes based on Romney's budget and Obama's (Hint, Romney's costs the average middle class american $2k more per year in taxes). The fact that someone like Obama has a better proposed tax policy than a republican, who should be fighting for lower taxes for ALL, is sickening in my opinion. Raising taxes on the middle class is probably the worst thing I could think of doing in a recession, where we are trying to stimulate demand.

Signed laws letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks

I spent last weekend at a national park and drove in with and fired off my weapon, concealed at times, without a bother in the world. In fact the ranger came by shortly after we got done randomly shooting off guns in the forest and asked that we please keep a closer proximity to our fire, lest it go unattended and cause some sort of dangerous situation. Then he drove on his merry way, not even a mention of that fact that we were shooting guns openly at our campsite. Where I live the SWAT team would have showed up and killed everyone in our house for even letting off one round in their presence. That is not an exaggeration, Google how many Californians are killed in their homes over such petty offenses as owning a firearm.

This video makes me sick though, seeing the freedom of the Australians being taken and watching that many assault weapons being melted down. I literally had a 1700's moment and wanted to retaliate against the government after watching it. Only an oppressive fascist regime would do such a thing, but I know most of our European friends here are okay with totalitarian governments getting rid of guns for their own protection. Despite the fact that crime rates have risen, they will no doubt go on to speak about how crazy it is that Americans are allowed to have guns. Anyone who is against personal gun ownership is crazy IMO. I know it's against the European way of doing things, but the idea of not being allowed to legally defend yourself against someone trying to take your life is just preposterous to me, if the US government ever did this on a large scale (which could never happen because we aren't so quick to give up our guns), than I would imagine there would be a lot less interviews and videos like this, and a lot more dead cops. Just my 2 cents.

Also I'd like to take a moment and say please join the NRA, they are in many ways another group who is too powerful, but they are one of the few organizations that actively lobby for our 2nd amendment rights. Costs like $40 a year. Please support them.

Edit: Also I love both videos above me. I just don't understand the mind of someone who wants women and children to be raped and killed, helpless and unable to defend themselves. Anyone who is pro-gun control is a criminal themselves IMO, crazy whacko criminals who are pro-violence and against freedom. Maybe I'm just a whacko American but as not proud of my country as I am at the moment, I am proud for the fact that this very basic freedom of defending one's self hasn't been taken away yet (though I know it will come eventually). Frankly, once they begin taking the guns than the revolution is on IMO. If it ever happens in America I hope we go down in a bloody firefight against the government rather than calmly giving up our weapons like the pussy Europeans. No offense, as I know most of you Europeans weren't there when they took your freedoms away long ago, but here in America we have a few principles we stick by and this is one of them.

[Crow]

This video makes me sick though, seeing the freedom of the Australians being taken and watching that many assault weapons being melted down. I literally had a 1700's moment and wanted to retaliate against the government after watching it. Only an oppressive fascist regime would do such a thing, but I know most of our European friends here are okay with totalitarian governments getting rid of guns for their own protection. Despite the fact that crime rates have risen, they will no doubt go on to speak about how crazy it is that Americans are allowed to have guns. Anyone who is against personal gun ownership is crazy IMO. I know it's against the European way of doing things, but the idea of not being allowed to legally defend yourself against someone trying to take your life is just preposterous to me, if the US government ever did this on a large scale (which could never happen because we aren't so quick to give up our guns), than I would imagine there would be a lot less interviews and videos like this, and a lot more dead cops. Just my 2 cents.

Well put.

Also I'd like to take a moment and say please join the NRA, they are in many ways another group who is too powerful, but they are one of the few organizations that actively lobby for our 2nd amendment rights. Costs like $40 a year. Please support them.

Now that's where I have an issue.

I have donated to the NRA in the past, but I've realised their true nature when the DOJ issued a memo to gun dealers stating that medical marijuana patients should not be allowed to purchase firearms, and for the first time, the NRA was absolutely silent.

Some NRA supporters have told me that it should be handled by NORML, and not their organisation. Well, we handled it, but I can't help but notice their hypocrisy in this one instance.

[Frosted]

Well this is where, as it stands at present, where Britain and the US are at odds yet again. The British Army are regularly piss tested for drugs. I shouldn't be remarking on these matters as they are a matter for you alone, but I wouldn't want to be using weapons alongside somebody that was a user of any drug. I'll take whatever abuse from you Crow sir but I'm totally resolute on this. But then again trying to enforce any legislation with the amount of arms privately held in the US is impossible. I think starting anywhere, whether it be banning assault weapons or legislating against weapons and drug use would be pissing in the wind.

[Crow]

I shouldn't be remarking on these matters as they are a matter for you alone, but I wouldn't want to be using weapons alongside somebody that was a user of any drug.

No one should handle ANY weapon while they're under the influence of a drug (and that includes alcohol). But does that mean we should ban firearms sales to anyone who is known to drink alcohol? Or anyone that takes prescribed medication? What about the patient that needs to defend his/her home against invaders?

I'll take whatever abuse from you Crow sir but I'm totally resolute on this.

You're entitled to your own opinion, and I respect it.

[GoVegan]

Must not comment....

[Ainkor]

Simply put, guns are to keep us safe from those that would harm us, either criminal or governmental. While I certainly hope that things chug along smoothly like they have for the last few hundred years, but if they go to shit, don't come by my house asking for a gun to protect yourself or your family.

At a minimum, everyone should know how to fire/clean/maintain a weapon.

[Frosted]

What about the patient that needs to defend his/her home against invaders?

This seems to be the crux of the matter for American citizens. You obviously feel that there's a very real threat and that threat is highly likely to happen. Here in London, and it does depend where you live, the threat of something happening is likely NOT to involve guns, if anything is actually going to happen. If anything happens it will be a beating and despite what you think, knife crime is actually quite low considering the population of London. In Northern Ireland where the population is 1.5 million there was somebody killed virtually every single day through gun violence. When I moved to London I was shocked at how peaceful it was, even the bad areas and all this in a city population of 8.1 million, so that's your comparison from a country that has guns to a country that does not on this side of the water. I admit that comparing the US and the UK is different though but it's still real.

In 2004-2006 the US had 10.27 deaths per 100,000 of the population. Northern Ireland had in 1994 6.82 per 100,000 (and this is when it was getting 'peaceful') England in 2002 had 0.46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

My conclusion is that the right to bear arms does in fact increase the threat. It is what you would find acceptable of course. I know that the 6.82 figure for Northern Ireland in a relatively peaceful time in the province was intolerable to me even though I've been numbed to the violence.

[CoderGuy]

This seems to be the crux of the matter for American citizens. You obviously feel that there's a very real threat and that threat is highly likely to happen. Here in London, and it does depend where you live, the threat of something happening is likely NOT to involve guns, if anything is actually going to happen. If anything happens it will be a beating and despite what you think, knife crime is actually quite low considering the population of London. In Northern Ireland where the population is 1.5 million there was somebody killed virtually every single day through gun violence. When I moved to London I was shocked at how peaceful it was, even the bad areas and all this in a city population of 8.1 million, so that's your comparison from a country that has guns to a country that does not on this side of the water. I admit that comparing the US and the UK is different though but it's still real.

In 2004-2006 the US had 10.27 deaths per 100,000 of the population. Northern Ireland had in 1994 6.82 per 100,000 (and this is when it was getting 'peaceful') England in 2002 had 0.46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

My conclusion is that the right to bear arms does in fact increase the threat. It is what you would find acceptable of course. I know that the 6.82 figure for Northern Ireland in a relatively peaceful time in the province was intolerable to me even though I've been numbed to the violence.

Here are some more recent stats based on state, and they are a lot higher.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

All this tells me is we need MORE guns in the hands of normal citizens, because no matter how you ban or control then guns, the criminals are not giving them up (especially with Mexico at our border and all the guns south of the border). The only possible hope we have is to make sure everyone is armed, and more importantly, trained. Once everyone is trained and ready to defend themselves, gun violence will drop (as most criminals are not trained and will lose).