To all the Europeans and Aussie's on this forum...

[Brett Alex]

no...just no. They are illegally obtained. Colubine, Vtech, etc etc. All done with ILLEGALLY OBTAINED firearms.
They were also in GUN FREE ZONES. But guess what? criminals dont follow the law, Skippy.
By Liberal logic, making it illegal to have a gun in a place automatically makes it safe from crazy people.

You realise this isn't the wild west anymore right? We have moved on since then. Thats why we have police now, we pay them to deal with criminals so we don't have to, cause its safer for everyone (innocent bystanders, the victims, and the accused) that way.

EDIT:

Well, of all those I'll give you the Erfurt massacre, since Germany apparently has tight gun laws, although the fact it was done with legal weapons should give you something to think about.

Do you see you just defeated your own argument there?

 

[mosinmatt]

no...just no. They are illegally obtained. Colubine, Vtech, etc etc. All done with ILLEGALLY OBTAINED firearms.
They were also in GUN FREE ZONES. But guess what? criminals dont follow the law, Skippy.
By Liberal logic, making it illegal to have a gun in a place automatically makes it safe from crazy people.

You realise this isn't the wild west anymore right? We have moved on since then. Thats why we have police now, we pay them to deal with criminals so we don't have to, cause its safer for everyone (innocent bystanders, the victims, and the accused) that way.

lol, the wild west arguement. Classic.
Firearms were illegal in cities in the "wild west"
Also, private citizens use privately owned firearms to stop 2 million crimes a year.
The police are not there to protect you. They are there to protect property.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Honestly. Do you really want the government and police to be the only ones armed? Stalin would LOVE you.
OBEY!

 

[mosinmatt]

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
I will simply leave with this. Read it, and learn the REAL facts. Not the Brady Campaign lies.

 

[tthor]

no...just no. They are illegally obtained. Colubine, Vtech, etc etc. All done with ILLEGALLY OBTAINED firearms.
They were also in GUN FREE ZONES. But guess what? criminals dont follow the law, Skippy.
By Liberal logic, making it illegal to have a gun in a place automatically makes it safe from crazy people.

You realise this isn't the wild west anymore right? We have moved on since then. Thats why we have police now, we pay them to deal with criminals so we don't have to, cause its safer for everyone (innocent bystanders, the victims, and the accused) that way.

lol, the wild west arguement. Classic.
Firearms were illegal in cities in the "wild west"
Also, private citizens use privately owned firearms to stop 2 million crimes a year.
The police are not there to protect you. They are there to protect property.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Honestly. Do you really want the government and police to be the only ones armed? Stalin would LOVE you.
OBEY!

this argument brings an interesting conundrum to mind..

if we have guns(as a society), we will be able to protect ourselves, but we will also be able to harm ourselves, thus ruining the point of having the guns in the first place..

if we do not have guns(as a society), we will have little means to protect ourselves, but little means to harm ourselves as well.. but, we cant insure that everyone does not have guns, and the ones with guns will likely be the ones that aim to harm people...

 

[Brett Alex]

Honestly. Do you really want the government and police to be the only ones armed? Stalin would LOVE you.
OBEY!

Wow, what a refreshing and innovative argument. If you are concerned about your own government going all big brother on you, you should worry less about them taking away your guns, and more about something like the PATRIOT act.

Really, if the US government wanted to enact marshall law, they could. You know why? Cause the army is on their side.
A bunch of ordinary guys with berretas, colt .45's, .22s and 12 gauges Vs. A well disciplined, well structured, highly coordinated, well trained, technologically advanced Army, Navy and Air Force with assault rifles, grenades, armored vehicles, air support, and body armour.

Who do you thinks gonna win?

Face it, if your government wanted to bend you over, they wouldn't need to take away your guns, so drop the OBEY part of your argument.

 

[aussiesniper]

no...just no. They are illegally obtained. Colubine, Vtech, etc etc. All done with ILLEGALLY OBTAINED firearms.
They were also in GUN FREE ZONES. But guess what? criminals dont follow the law, Skippy.
By Liberal logic, making it illegal to have a gun in a place automatically makes it safe from crazy people.

You realise this isn't the wild west anymore right? We have moved on since then. Thats why we have police now, we pay them to deal with criminals so we don't have to, cause its safer for everyone (innocent bystanders, the victims, and the accused) that way.

lol, the wild west arguement. Classic.
Firearms were illegal in cities in the "wild west"
Also, private citizens use privately owned firearms to stop 2 million crimes a year.
The police are not there to protect you. They are there to protect property.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Honestly. Do you really want the government and police to be the only ones armed? Stalin would LOVE you.
OBEY!

I would actually prefer it if the government and police were the only ones armed with automatic, semiautomatic or anti-material weapons. What possible use does an AR15 have in civillian hands? Hunting, home defense and most other legal uses of weapons are all done adequately with a bolt-action or lever-action rifle.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

Honestly. Do you really want the government and police to be the only ones armed? Stalin would LOVE you.
OBEY!

Wow, what a refreshing and innovative argument. If you are concerned about your own government going all big brother on you, you should worry less about them taking away your guns, and more about something like the PATRIOT act.

Really, if the US government wanted to enact marshall law, they could. You know why? Cause the army is on their side.
A bunch of ordinary guys with berretas, colt .45's, .22s and 12 gauges Vs. A well disciplined, well structured, highly coordinated, well trained, technologically advanced Army, Navy and Air Force with assault rifles, grenades, armored vehicles, air support, and body armour.

Who do you thinks gonna win?

Face it, if your government wanted to bend you over, they wouldn't need to take away your guns, so drop the OBEY part of your argument.

Martial Law not Marshall Law. Jesus Christ this thread is full of stupidity on all sides. Euros and Aussies will never get America and America will never get them so might as well leave it at that.

 

[tthor]

Really, if the US government wanted to enact marshall law, they could. You know why? Cause the army is on their side.
A bunch of ordinary guys with berretas, colt .45's, .22s and 12 gauges Vs. A well disciplined, well structured, highly coordinated, well trained, technologically advanced Army, Navy and Air Force with assault rifles, grenades, armored vehicles, air support, and body armour.

Who do you thinks gonna win?

Face it, if your government wanted to bend you over, they wouldn't need to take away your guns, so drop the OBEY part of your argument.

but the general public does greatly outnumber the army, so if a entire town rallied together and coordinated a strike, they could overthrow a group of army soldiers... tho it would take quite a bit of effort on the townsppl's part to coordinate it so well

 

[mosinmatt]

this argument brings an interesting conundrum to mind..

if we have guns(as a society), we will be able to protect ourselves, but we will also be able to harm ourselves, thus ruining the point of having the guns in the first place..

if we do not have guns(as a society), we will have little means to protect ourselves, but little means to harm ourselves as well.. but, we cant insure that everyone does not have guns, and the ones with guns will likely be the ones that aim to harm people...

Exactly. The Police are not the first line of defense against 'bad people'. We are ultimately responsible for our own safety.
Many states have a castle doctrine. This lets you defend yourself, and others anywhere you are legally allowed to be.
As Americans, We have the freedom of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Second amendment also grants us the right to defend ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic.

Honestly. Do you really want the government and police to be the only ones armed? Stalin would LOVE you.
OBEY!

Wow, what a refreshing and innovative argument. If you are concerned about your own government going all big brother on you, you should worry less about them taking away your guns, and more about something like the PATRIOT act.

Really, if the US government wanted to enact marshall law, they could. You know why? Cause the army is on their side.
A bunch of ordinary guys with berretas, colt .45's, .22s and 12 gauges Vs. A well disciplined, well structured, highly coordinated, well trained, technologically advanced Army, Navy and Air Force with assault rifles, grenades, armored vehicles, air support, and body armour.

Who do you thinks gonna win?

Face it, if your government wanted to bend you over, they wouldn't need to take away your guns, so drop the OBEY part of your argument.

Sigh. Firstly. The Army is made up of civilians. Most of them wont go gun down their neighbors. Secondly, we have MUCH more than sme pistols and shotguns.
Body armor is also easily available for civilian purchase. *pats his plate carrier*
But I guess according to you the French, norwegian, and polish resistance that fight against the Nazi's were just a bunch of crazy rednecks, huh? Brilliant.

 

[Goatlemon]

You can't be living in paranoia.

No, I'm not, because guns are banned here.

But hey, if you want to talk about paranoia, let's have a look at your desperate need to have guns to defend yourself from the criminals and the government.

They have nearly all been done with illegal firearms. Even with stricter control, it still would of happened.

With less weapons in general and more control over their sale it makes it harder for the average person to obtain illegally. How many times do I need to say that?

Face it. There are crazy people out there. Why should we restrict normal people for what crazy people do?

You're right. For example only a crazy person would detonate a nuclear weapon, so why should the majority be not allowed to have them.

Nukes for all!

I know that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point of where do you draw the line? Pistols? Assault rifles? Grenades? All of those could have the same logic applied to them.

Stopping illegal guns will be nearly impossible in America. Liberals refuse to secure the border, so illegal weapons keep coming in.
It keeps coming back to ILLEGAL firearms.
Look at Chicago, All firearms are BANNED there. Yet they have the highest murder rate in the country! But that cant be....firearms are banned there. It should be the safest!

With less weapons in general and more control over their sale it makes it harder for the average person to obtain illegally.

Should I just put that sentence in my sig and be done with it?

Do you see you just defeated your own argument there?

No, I meant that line to counter mosinmatt's point about the main problem being with illegal guns, not legal ones.

 

[SpikeShinobi]

"One reason firearms are so valued in the US is that the nation was founded on them".
America may have been founded on Firearms, but most European countries were fonded on the blade or other weaponery like that. But you don't reall see legalized swords they way you see legalized firearms in America.

The harder it is to aquire a firarm, the better.

 

[mosinmatt]

You can't be living in paranoia.

No, I'm not, because guns are banned here.

But hey, if you want to talk about paranoia, let's have a look at your desperate need to have guns to defend yourself from the criminals and the government.

They have nearly all been done with illegal firearms. Even with stricter control, it still would of happened.

With less weapons in general and more control over their sale it makes it harder for the average person to obtain illegally. How many times do I need to say that?

Face it. There are crazy people out there. Why should we restrict normal people for what crazy people do?

You're right. For example only a crazy person would detonate a nuclear weapon, so why should the majority be not allowed to have them.

Nukes for all!

I know that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point of where do you draw the line? Pistols? Assault rifles? Grenades? All of those could have the same logic applied to them.

Stopping illegal guns will be nearly impossible in America. Liberals refuse to secure the border, so illegal weapons keep coming in.
It keeps coming back to ILLEGAL firearms.
Look at Chicago, All firearms are BANNED there. Yet they have the highest murder rate in the country! But that cant be....firearms are banned there. It should be the safest!

With less weapons in general and more control over their sale it makes it harder for the average person to obtain illegally.

Should I just put that sentence in my sig and be done with it?

Do you see you just defeated your own argument there?

No, I meant that line to counter mosinmatt's point about the main problem being with illegal guns, not legal ones.

I dont have them cause i am paranoid. I have them cause I like them. Target shooting (a sport) is fun. An AR15 can be used for plinking, hunting, defense, collection, etc etc. Just cause something is scary, doesnt mean it should be banned.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
Posting this again.

EDIT: You also claim that less firearms and harder to obtain would reduce crime.
Chicago is the proof this doesnt work. Amazingly high gun crime. Yet they are banned there. Yet they still get them there.

 

[falcontwin]

Exactly. The Police are not the first line of defense against 'bad people'. We are ultimately responsible for our own safety.
Many states have a castle doctrine. This lets you defend yourself, and others anywhere you are legally allowed to be.
As Americans, We have the freedom of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Second amendment also grants us the right to defend ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic.

And you think that We in other countries don't have the right to protect ourselves? We can kill someone who breaks into our home if they pose a threat to us. It's just that we probably won't need to kill them as they more than likely wont be armed with a gun (that they probably stole from the last house they broke into). We all have the right of LIFE not just Americans. It just seems that Americans think they are so important that everyone is out to take their life from them.

I'm not the slightest bit jealous of the average american I will argue that our lives here in Australia are far more free than those who proclaim they live in the land of the free. Not having an R rating for video games and a ban on semi automatic rifles is nothing compared to a country that has the patriot act which basically says the government can do what ever it wants to you if it thinks you've done something it doesn't like (including torture and permenant imprisonment without trial). Go on thinling that your safe because you have a gun if you want, or maybe take a look around at whats really going on and grow up.

Guns do not make you safe.

 

[Goatlemon]

You can't be living in paranoia.

No, I'm not, because guns are banned here.

But hey, if you want to talk about paranoia, let's have a look at your desperate need to have guns to defend yourself from the criminals and the government.

They have nearly all been done with illegal firearms. Even with stricter control, it still would of happened.

With less weapons in general and more control over their sale it makes it harder for the average person to obtain illegally. How many times do I need to say that?

Face it. There are crazy people out there. Why should we restrict normal people for what crazy people do?

You're right. For example only a crazy person would detonate a nuclear weapon, so why should the majority be not allowed to have them.

Nukes for all!

I know that's an extreme example, but it illustrates my point of where do you draw the line? Pistols? Assault rifles? Grenades? All of those could have the same logic applied to them.

Stopping illegal guns will be nearly impossible in America. Liberals refuse to secure the border, so illegal weapons keep coming in.
It keeps coming back to ILLEGAL firearms.
Look at Chicago, All firearms are BANNED there. Yet they have the highest murder rate in the country! But that cant be....firearms are banned there. It should be the safest!

With less weapons in general and more control over their sale it makes it harder for the average person to obtain illegally.

Should I just put that sentence in my sig and be done with it?

Do you see you just defeated your own argument there?

No, I meant that line to counter mosinmatt's point about the main problem being with illegal guns, not legal ones.

I dont have them cause i am paranoid. I have them cause I like them. Target shooting (a sport) is fun. An AR15 can be used for plinking, hunting, defense, collection, etc etc. Just cause something is scary, doesnt mean it should be banned.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
Posting this again.

EDIT: You also claim that less firearms and harder to obtain would reduce crime.
Chicago is the proof this doesnt work. Amazingly high gun crime. Yet they are banned there. Yet they still get them there.

Maybe because Chicago is in the same country as all those other easily obtainable illegal weapons? If you want to see results in that respect guns need to be banned everywhere, not one city.

 

[mosinmatt]

Exactly. The Police are not the first line of defense against 'bad people'. We are ultimately responsible for our own safety.
Many states have a castle doctrine. This lets you defend yourself, and others anywhere you are legally allowed to be.
As Americans, We have the freedom of LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Second amendment also grants us the right to defend ourselves against all threats, foreign and domestic.

And you think that We in other countries don't have the right to protect ourselves? We can kill someone who breaks into our home if they pose a threat to us. It's just that we probably won't need to kill them as they more than likely wont be armed with a gun (that they probably stole from the last house they broke into). We all have the right of LIFE not just Americans. It just seems that Americans think they are so important that everyone is out to take their life from them.

I'm not the slightest bit jealous of the average american I will argue that our lives here in Australia are far more free than those who proclaim they live in the land of the free. Not having an R rating for video games and a ban on semi automatic rifles is nothing compared to a country that has the patriot act which basically says the government can do what ever it wants to you if it thinks you've done something it doesn't like (including torture and permenant imprisonment without trial). Go on thinling that your safe because you have a gun if you want, or maybe take a look around at whats really going on and grow up.

Guns do not make you safe.

Skippy, I never said my gun makes me safe. You also do not under stand the patriot act. It is still unconstitutional though, and needs to be removed.

Maybe because Chicago is in the same country as all those other easily obtainable illegal weapons? If you want to see results in that respect guns need to be banned everywhere, not one city.

Wont work. Like I said. The Gang Banger culture is ingrained into their society.
Looking at places like Australia and Britian, it will not reduce crime. Knifings and other crimes INCREASED after the gun bans.
Face it, limey. People are just violent, no matter where they are from. Banned normal people from owning something wont help.

 

[Goatlemon]

Wont work. Like I said. The Gang Banger culture is ingrained into their society.
Looking at places like Australia and Britian, it will not reduce crime. Knifings and other crimes INCREASED after the gun bans.
Face it, limey. People are just violent, no matter where they are from. Banned normal people from owning something wont help.

Enough with the racial slurs! You're coming off as a complete arsehole.

You still haven't provided evidence that crimes increased after the abolition of guns. I've already provided evidence showing that is a myth, so stop saying it.

 

[mosinmatt]

Wont work. Like I said. The Gang Banger culture is ingrained into their society.
Looking at places like Australia and Britian, it will not reduce crime. Knifings and other crimes INCREASED after the gun bans.
Face it, limey. People are just violent, no matter where they are from. Banned normal people from owning something wont help.

Enough with the racial slurs! You're coming off as a complete arsehole.

You still haven't provided evidence that crimes increased after the abolition of guns. I've already provided evidence showing that is a myth, so stop saying it.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf read this, as I have said. It has EVERYTHING you need to know.

 

[Goatlemon]

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf read this, it's a huge collection of NRA propaganda and personal opinions presented as facts.

Fixed.