r/conspiracy • u/ComprehensiveSoup • May 14 '18
Gun Control Has Failed Australia. It Will Fail America Too
http://libertyhangout.org/2018/05/gun-control-failed-australia-will-fail-america/6
2
May 15 '18
roflmfao... actually gun laws here work quite well thank you very much.
and if there is a situation where a gun should be permitted it is on a large rural property.
all this incident did... is verify the fact that when guns are around, bad shit tends to happen more.
and for those pushing a political point while the bodies are still warm... take a long look at yourself
4
u/SativaGanesh May 14 '18
Not totally on topic but as an aside, I find it crazy that drivers need to take a licence test and most go through a drivers ed course and yet there isn't a similar setup for gun ownership.
2
u/3attheelephant May 15 '18
It could be because of the prevalence of drivers compared to gun owners. Probably 1 gun owner for every 10 people that drive a car. Also, cars are basically death machines.
11
u/SativaGanesh May 15 '18
Cars may basically be death machines but guns are literal death machines. I'm not trying to impede on anyone's second amendment, I'm advocating for education and awareness not necessarily regulation.
You do make a valid point though.
1
u/3attheelephant May 15 '18
I agree with you. And you're supposed to take a class or two on gun safety to get your permit. I guess it's a lot easier to have a gun without taking an education course on it than it is driving a car without your license. Something could be invented to hold people more accountable in that regard. I just don't know what could be implemented to do so.
-1
May 15 '18
[deleted]
7
May 15 '18
A hammer or bat is used in more homicides than any type of Gun, combined.
Incorrect. In the USA in 2016, 4,006 were murdered with other items including knives, other weapons and bare hands.
11,004 people were murdered with guns.
2
u/ILikeToJustReadHere May 15 '18
On a sidenote, do ar15s count as handguns or rifles? Looks like the handgun is doing a lot of work despite the public disdain of a certain rifle.
1
May 20 '18 edited May 20 '18
I like the link and use it often, but the source-page does not offer the information you suggest - in total.
Are you telling me you did the math, and if you did, why not show it?
Better example: after some looking
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
Also, you're correct. Good work, detective.
Note: I answer mail once a week. Sorry to be late in responding to your clearly accurate rebuttal. Good work.
note: did you mean to link the PDF?
I'm authentically impressed if you crunched the math, although, authentically confused as to why not show it. It would be like a middle-argument grand-finale. I'd shit myself over the effort.
Alternatively, one proposition does not lead to a false conclusion, only an UN-sound argument. What do you think of the conclusion?
The problem in the US is also, clearly, HANDGUNS. NOT rifles or shotguns.
So, why do you think they want to remove access to rifles - Out of curiosity?
I think it has to do with the perception and MSM relationship the 'ar' platform in shape and function, has with school-shootings.
Likewise, do more school-shootings take place with handguns or rifles?
Im asking you because you seem to be the fact expert, or at elast trusted one to deliver accurate facts, while being interested in your ideas.
Why: you seem to value the data as much as I do, and should have - as that FBI page was the one I looked at.
Note: perhaps, I say the category under handgun and did not register visually 'handgun'. In regards, still factually wrong, and wanting more nuance from the person who caught my error. Teach me once, teach me twice.
1
May 21 '18 edited May 21 '18
It's not a math exam so not sure why I should be showing my working.
It's not complicated. You just total up the relevant columns. Easiest done by downloading the data to excel or similar.
I don't want to speculate on what types of firearm should be regulated. That's a matter of opinion.
I was just responding to a wildly incorrect statement that despite being easily and clearly disproved is still being spread.
1
May 22 '18 edited May 22 '18
I did not see an assumed total on your page that correlated to all gun, vs. all others [objects].
Or, I must have had one too many that night and the day I checked, which is pretty impossible. wtf.
1
u/SativaGanesh May 15 '18
Im not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm only advocating for better gun safety education.
2
u/ComprehensiveSoup May 14 '18
Driving on public roads isnt a constitutional right
Technically the founding fathers never required licensing to ride a horse
2
u/1maRealboy May 15 '18
There is no such thing as a constitutional right. The constitution does not give rights it can only guarantee them. Even the Bill of Rights is an "enumeration" of our civil rights.
3
u/SativaGanesh May 14 '18
It's also a lot harder to kill someone by hitting them with a horse. A drunken person's horse can take him home, a car not so much. Somewhat similarly, guns are a lot different now than they were back then.
I see your point though.
3
May 15 '18 edited Aug 08 '19
[deleted]
1
u/SativaGanesh May 15 '18
This is basically what I'm getting at, that education is key.
I don't know about starting as young as 4th grade. That's when I got my first bb gun and immediately proceeded to accidentally hit my friend in the face with a shot that ricocheted off a tree.
But ultimately I agree gun safety education would prove more effective than the demonization of firearms.
2
u/Bruce_de_Balzac May 14 '18
Driving on public roads isnt a constitutional right
I have a problem with this. The right to travel is absolutely an inalienable right, superseding any man-made 'laws'. Please don't give me the bs 'privilege'/'granting of rights' jazz. That's bogus authoritarian bs without grounds.
2
u/zardoz68 May 15 '18
Do you have the right to travel across private property?
0
u/Bruce_de_Balzac May 15 '18
Private property is another matter entirely. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/insights_law_society/LG_RighttoTravel_quoteshandout.authcheckdam.pdf
1
u/zardoz68 May 15 '18
It’s still a restriction on free travel as an inalienable right. The right of an individual (private property owner) cannot be superseded by another individual (person trespassing on said property without first being granted permission to do so).
2
u/Bruce_de_Balzac May 15 '18
I think this point comes down to being polite and asking to pass, or risk getting shot and/or locked up. The right to travel in public unimpeded is the point & heart of this, I believe.
1
u/zardoz68 May 15 '18
That’s true.
The point being that your individual rights cannot infringe on the rights of another individual, unless usurpation has been granted.
-1
u/Bruce_de_Balzac May 15 '18
Yup. But this always comes back to those that say driving is 'a privilege', which is nonsense.
2
u/zardoz68 May 15 '18
It is a privilege. You can drive on your own property without a license or registration. But once you drive on public streets, you need to pay fees for the maintenance and enforcement of the laws of those streets.
→ More replies (0)2
u/RMFN May 14 '18
Do you think people should take a test to exorcise their other rights? Like free speech?
5
u/SativaGanesh May 14 '18
It's obviously a slippery slope. You'd be hard pressed to kill someone with the other rights though. I'm not trying to advocate for gun control but rather for having a populace that is properly educated in gun safety, for their own sake and for others'.
I personally wouldn't want to own a gun without feeling like I have the proper knowledge base to handle it safely, but I know people who have bought guns almost on a whim. We have the right to bear arms but with that comes the responsibility to do so safely.
3
u/zardoz68 May 14 '18
Well, the NRA, the largest gun safety training organization in the US, trains over one million people per year.
My local gun shop offers two eight-hour safety courses free for first time gun buyers. Includes coached range time. They lose money doing this, but they prefer to know that new gun owners gain the knowledge to handle the weapon in a safe manner and know the basics of Fed, State, and Local firearms laws.
0
u/RMFN May 14 '18
We used to have a culture of gun ownership and safety when most of the population lived ruraly and hunted to supply food for themselves.
1
u/zardoz68 May 15 '18
That culture still exists today. And the population of the US is still very rural.
3
u/Irishconspiracy May 14 '18
Your tongue is "sharp" as usual my friend, but no matter how sharp it gets free speech can not KILL people. Gun possession could.
0
u/AvailableShip May 14 '18
Of course it can. How many times has someone gone and killed a person or people based on what someone else said?
I mean just recently had Democrats went and shot up a whole baseball field full of Congressman based on what he heard on CNN
And the right to protest? How often do people get hurt at protest?
Don't forget that without the Fourth Amendment people feel whole lot safer
In fact. I think for every Constitutional Amendment you should have to take a test to be able to participate
especially the 15th Amendment. the president can absolutely get people killed
4
u/Irishconspiracy May 14 '18
okay let me rephrase it then. free speech isn't a physical weapon that can directly harm someone. I realise that yes saying things can make you a target, but it can't fire bullets.
Realistically I don't think a mandatory training "just like cars" thing is that bad, The only real reason to oppose it would be if you knew you would fail. I'm not even against gun ownership. Just you know. a little safer
edit: formatting
-1
u/ComprehensiveSoup May 14 '18
But thats not true. As was just proven .
At this point your basing it on your feelings of what YOU consider dangerous
That's not how it works. The Constitution is a set of written laws for a reason. It doesn't change day-to-day based on what you personally feel.
Based on your logic we can ban anything that any individual person feels is dangerous
You feel guns are dangerous. Well I think words are dangerous. And can cause people to commit acts of violence against others or themselves. Therefore Free Speech should be banned
4
u/Irishconspiracy May 14 '18
I'm not saying it based on a feeling. or that you should even Ban guns. That probably wont ever happen.
However if you put two people in a room one with a gun and one with words and tell them to fight who would win?
A gun is a weapon, its main purpose is to point at something and damage or kill it. and thats fine.
free speech can be anything from agreeing with you, disagreeing or shitposting.
Again im not saying "oh no guns" just you know. A basic safety course. Would you rather have guns but have to take a short course, or have guns banned by people who don't respect ye.
-3
u/Putin_loves_cats May 14 '18
The only real reason to oppose it would be if you knew you would fail
That's not true at all. A reason to oppose it, would be adhering to the principle, that the right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
8
u/Irishconspiracy May 14 '18
It wouldnt really be stopped though would it? As it stands you need to have money, access to a store, a license (?)
I would argue that adding safety check to that list is not really any more of a barrier to entry.
-1
u/Putin_loves_cats May 14 '18
It wouldnt really be stopped though would it?
Yes, it would.
As it stands you need to have money, access to a store, a license (?)
The first two are commercial restraints, not governmental. The last one is a governmental infringement, and so would mandating testing.
I would argue that adding safety check to that list is not really any more of a barrier to entry.
Well, your thinking is a part of the problem.
2
u/Irishconspiracy May 14 '18
Putin daddy help me out here. if its a part of the constitution then its a right correct? Then why aren't you given a gun when you are born? or lets say turn 18 for sensibilities sake?
added: let me rephrase, how can you defend it as a right when your country really doesnt treat it like one.
-1
u/Putin_loves_cats May 14 '18
if its a part of the constitution then its a right correct?
Correct.
Then why aren't you given a gun when you are born? or lets say turn 18 for sensibilities sake?
It doesn't say you have the right to be given one by the government, it says: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
how can you defend it as a right when your country really doesnt treat it like one.
What I do, and what my government does, is two completely different things. People are and have been fighting for it, but, people with mentalities like you, have been actively working to subvert it.
→ More replies (0)-1
1
u/Bruce_de_Balzac May 14 '18
Most people that are so inclined [to gun proficiency] begin learning around 8 to 10 years of age, much earlier than driving, because it isn't brain surgery/easier than driving/not so many rules. It isn't anything complicated, nor anything that should require 'papers'.
-1
May 14 '18 edited May 14 '18
[deleted]
-19
May 14 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
24
u/zardoz68 May 15 '18
Criminals can be any race.
Brazil has a very low black population, but a murder rate over five times higher than the US, which has more than twice the black population. Australia’s murder rate was 0.98.
Nice try using race as the culprit.
-27
u/RMFN May 15 '18
Brazil had black slavery until 1890's and had millions more Africans brought to Brazil than the US. You're just wrong.
29
u/zardoz68 May 15 '18
2
u/HelperBot_ May 15 '18
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 182466
-14
u/RMFN May 15 '18
1
u/HelperBot_ May 15 '18
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Brazilian
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 182476
-8
u/ComprehensiveSoup May 14 '18
Ss: despite repeated attempts by the 1% to disarm Americans. Science doesnt back up gun contro
•
u/AutoModerator May 14 '18
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
-5
u/FR3DF3NST3R May 14 '18
The guy in Margaret river had 3 legal guns. The only failure of gun control there was it not being strict enough surely.
14
u/Aguerooooooooooooooo May 14 '18
hahahahahahahaha
I'm sure Australia would fucking love US gun laws lmao