Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Bullockist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

On the instance of rape, do those statistics take into account that different countries have different definitions of sexual assault that may not be grouped together in the same way? It could be like how the US has a lower rate of assault than the UK because your figure for assault doesn't include types of assault that are included in the UK ones. Would need to look up what Australia included in its rape bracket compared to the US.

(For example the rape accusation against Julian Assange in Sweden would not fit the criteria for rape in the UK, as Sweden has much more broad definitions of sexual assault)

From an update:

One of DeLeon's arms was covered with “some type of piece of cloth,” according to Smith. He said it was not a towel, as reported earlier.

Witnesses of the shooting have come forward, but the police car wasn't equipped with a dashcam and the officers weren't wearing body cameras

“He did not have an injury on his hand. That was not the reason he had a cloth at hand,” he said. The officer believed he was armed, and ordered him to "drop the gun," Smith said.

There was no gun.

DeLeon moved toward officers in an “aggressive fashion” and refused orders to drop his hands before the officer opened fire, Smith said. He did not say how many times the officer fired.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/06/23/52611/lapd-unarmed-man-shot-by-police-approached-in-aggr/

So, there are non-cop witnesses. That is good. We'll see what the investigation shows.

 CptJake wrote:
And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?

Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.

There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.

I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?

Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.

There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.

I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.

And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution. That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so. You CAN say you disagree with the right, and have. And as pointed out, we, in the US, have a mechanism for changing or even repealing parts of the Constitution. Have at it.

As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.

 Bullockist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

Thats because your towels aren't awesome enough to be worth dying over.

Frankly Australians should just shut the hell up. You people say you're not armed, but thats guns. I've seen all the youtubes where you people carry full auto white sharks and flip deadly uber kill spider abominations at each other for no reason whatsoever.

yea, my wife may carry a horse pistol and randomly run you over because curbs are merely guidelines, but she'd never be so cruel as to throw a freaking great white shark[i][u] at you, like you Aussies do.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

Thats because your towels aren't awesome enough to be worth dying over.

Frankly Australians should just shut the hell up. You people say you're not armed, but thats guns. I've seen all the youtubes where you people carry full auto white sharks and flip deadly uber kill spider abominations at each other for no reason whatsoever.

yea, my wife may carry a horse pistol and randomly run you over because curbs are merely guidelines, but she'd never be so cruel as to throw a freaking great white shark[i][u] at you, like you Aussies do.

This Aussie is so underarmoured:
http://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/gigantic-spider-capture.gif

Dude, wear you Space Marine Terminator armour!

 whembly wrote:

This Aussie is so underarmoured:
http://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/gigantic-spider-capture.gif

Dude, wear you Space Marine Terminator armour!

Meh, if it's that big it probably can't kill you

The real ones you have to look out for are the tiny ones you can barely see...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

This Aussie is so underarmoured:
http://www.pbh2.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/gigantic-spider-capture.gif

Dude, wear you Space Marine Terminator armour!

Meh, if it's that big it probably can't kill you

The real ones you have to look out for are the tiny ones you can barely see...

Like these babies?


This is why we should NEVER bane flame throwers!

 whembly wrote:

Like these babies?

Spoiler:

This is why we should NEVER bane flame throwers!

Yeah no please no not the spiders

 CptJake wrote:
And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution.

Firstly, I'm not wrong. I didn't say it was difficult to compare the two. It's also easy to compare apples and oranges (they are both fruit). Yet we often say "apples and oranges" because while they have things in common, they are also different, so it is unhelpful to conflate them.

That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so.

Secondly, No we don't. We are fully aware that your constitution mentions something about bearing arms (which has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times). What you seem unable to grasp is that it doesn't make any difference to the argument.

If this were a topic about legalizing canabis in Australia, and one person kept saying "Under the current Australian laws canabis is illegal!!!... Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp: CANABIS IS ILLEGAL!!!" you'd think that person was a fething idiot. We know canabis is illegal, but we're discussing whether or not the law is right. In the same way we know bearing arms is part of the constitution. But that doesn't mean gak when the conversation is about whether or not that is right.

As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.

I also have the right to defend myself in the UK (even with a gun if I happen to have one illegally). A gun being the best tool is debatable. On one hand, it's very effective, but then dynamite is also very effective at opening doors. That doesn't mean it would be my first choice when I lose my keys. The collateral damage just isn't worth it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

On the instance of rape, do those statistics take into account that different countries have different definitions of sexual assault that may not be grouped together in the same way? It could be like how the US has a lower rate of assault than the UK because your figure for assault doesn't include types of assault that are included in the UK ones. Would need to look up what Australia included in its rape bracket compared to the US.

(For example the rape accusation against Julian Assange in Sweden would not fit the criteria for rape in the UK, as Sweden has much more broad definitions of sexual assault)

I have no idea. I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?

Anecdotally, I do know that the whole "happy slapping" fad in the UK, which ultimately came here as "the knockout game," ended at least once in the "no knockout, but a justified shooting" game. That kind of reaction tends to reduce peoples' willingness to assault others for fun.

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution.

Firstly, I'm not wrong. I didn't say it was difficult to compare the two. It's also easy to compare apples and oranges (they are both fruit). Yet we often say "apples and oranges" because while they have things in common, they are also different, so it is unhelpful to conflate them.

That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so.

Secondly, No we don't. We are fully aware that your constitution mentions something about bearing arms (which has been interpreted different ways by different people at different times). What you seem unable to grasp is that it doesn't make any difference to the argument.

If this were a topic about legalizing canabis in Australia, and one person kept saying "Under the current Australian laws canabis is illegal!!!... Why is it so hard for you guys to grasp: CANABIS IS ILLEGAL!!!" you'd think that person was a fething idiot. We know canabis is illegal, but we're discussing whether or not the law is right. In the same way we know bearing arms is part of the constitution. But that doesn't mean gak when the conversation is about whether or not that is right.

As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.

I also have the right to defend myself in the UK (even with a gun if I happen to have one illegally). A gun being the best tool is debatable. On one hand, it's very effective, but then dynamite is also very effective at opening doors. That doesn't mean it would be my first choice when I lose my keys. The collateral damage just isn't worth it.

The law being 'right' is so fething subjective, and as I again look back to stats and analysis shown in this topic, most of it seems to support that gun control measures do not meaningfully reduce violence. Guns as a source of accidental death are such a TINY proportion of accidental deaths, so that point can never reasonably be used as justification to take away someone's right. Most deliberate gun deaths are criminals shooting criminals or shooting innocents. Most of the guns used are not obtained legally, so again, these are gakky reasons to take away a right of law abiding citizens. Many of these criminal uses take place in cities with very strict gun laws. Mass shootings almost exclusively occur in 'gun free' zones. You really cannot argue these, the stats prove them.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/180/653412.page#7926996

That was a post using some of the stats available. There is not a similar post in this topic refuting it with data.

Gun ownership is up and violent crime continues to go down. No one (reliable) is saying gun ownership is a causation, they are saying gun ownership is not stopping an existing trend. Higher numbers of guns is NOT causing violent crime to go up. It just isn't. So using crime stats to justify taking away rights isn't gonna work. Hence the appeal to feelings. Your side very much seems to base your arguments on emotion. You don't 'feel' it is good for folks to have guns so the law MUST be wrong.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?

This was in the news recently. Things that have been recorded as assault and actual bodily harm (violent crimes) in the UK include.

-A child who rode into his friend while performing a wheelie on his bycycle.
-A woman who threw a cookie at a man leaving a small red mark on his face.
-A child who clipped his sibling with a boxing glove.
-A child who brushed a stinging nettle across another's arm while playing.

They can also include threatening text messages. Police claim they have no discretion under government changes to way incidents are recorded.

 Smacks wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?

This was in the news recently. Things that have been recorded as assault and actual bodily harm (violent crimes) in the UK include.

-A child who rode into his friend while performing a wheelie on his bycycle.
-A woman who threw a cookie at a man leaving a small red mark on his face.
-A child who clipped his sibling with a boxing glove.
-A child who brushed a stinging nettle across another's arm while playing.

They can also include threatening text messages. Police claim they have no discretion under government changes to way incidents are recorded.

And presumably all of those people were charged with a crime? Jeez...

I'm not sure of the prevalence of these things, and you could probably find crazy examples of similar things in the US (kids being suspended for drawing guns or even biting their sandwiches so that the remains looks like a gun!), so I'd really like to see some kind of quantification rather than anecdote, but that is definitely interesting.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Australians never had t he right to bear arms enshrined in their equivalent to the bill of rights. In fact, they don't really have a Bill of rights equivalent at all. We do. And we like it. I don't try to force them to take on up in your country, perhaps they should not try to get us to relinquish ours.

Australians also don't have cops so scared of the proliferation of firearms they shoot you if you have a towel on your arm. And we like it. you can keep that

Not to engage in #whataboutery, but Australia isn't *all* rainbows and sunshine despite the extremely strict gun control. There are higher rates of rape, robbery, car theft, assault, and suicide in Australia than in the US. I think we can all agree that there are cultural, political, and economic factors at play contributing to these situations beyond the presence of firearms.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

On the instance of rape, do those statistics take into account that different countries have different definitions of sexual assault that may not be grouped together in the same way? It could be like how the US has a lower rate of assault than the UK because your figure for assault doesn't include types of assault that are included in the UK ones. Would need to look up what Australia included in its rape bracket compared to the US.

(For example the rape accusation against Julian Assange in Sweden would not fit the criteria for rape in the UK, as Sweden has much more broad definitions of sexual assault)

I have no idea. I'm also not sure that your claim about assault rates is correct - do you have more information on it?

Anecdotally, I do know that the whole "happy slapping" fad in the UK, which ultimately came here as "the knockout game," ended at least once in the "no knockout, but a justified shooting" game. That kind of reaction tends to reduce peoples' willingness to assault others for fun.

I am remembering it from a while ago but I believe that the US data for violent crime only includes Aggravated Assault, whereas the UKs data includes all forms of Assault which often makes comparisons between the two difficult.

Found this, which seems to go over it: http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

Interestingly, from that article, the US' violent crime figures for Rape apparently only includes "forcible rape" (ie rape using force) rather than all instances of rape as the UK figures do. It could be possible that this has affected the comparison US to Australia figures, too.

 CptJake wrote:
The law being 'right' is so fething subjective.

Agreed, that's why it gets discussed a lot. But that doesn't make the current state of the law any more relevant.

So using crime stats to justify taking away rights isn't gonna work. Hence the appeal to feelings. Your side very much seems to base your arguments on emotion. You don't 'feel' it is good for folks to have guns so the law MUST be wrong.

You seem to be doing a lot of arguing with yourself on my behalf. I didn't say anything about crime stats. I haven't really made any arguments against guns at all. All I've been doing so far in this topic is trying to point out errors in your arguments. For example conflating technology with behaviour.

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?

Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.

There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.

I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.

And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution. That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so. You CAN say you disagree with the right, and have. And as pointed out, we, in the US, have a mechanism for changing or even repealing parts of the Constitution. Have at it.

As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.

How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And some folks spout really mean words intending to inflict pain on others. Free speech is abused all the time. Some folks hide things they know are illegal or immoral. Should we preemptively limit speech as well? Should we preemptively weaken the 4th amendment so cops and other gov't folks can more easily search out the bad things folks hide?

Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.

There are already restrictions on broadcasting technologies, where they cause a nuisance (pirate radio), and there are lots of places where it is illegal to set up speakers or a PA system. Speech is also limited (although not pre-emptively) when it comes to things like slander and inciting violence.

I'm not sure how you would even go about pre-emptively limiting speech, even the most oppressive regimes never managed that. Pre-emptively restricting dangerous technology is easy and happens all the time (nukes for example). it's a completely different type of thing.

And you are again wrong. It is simple to compare the right to free speech to the right to bear arms, they are BOTH protected by the Constitution. That shouldn't be hard to grasp, yet you and others seem to have trouble doing so. You CAN say you disagree with the right, and have. And as pointed out, we, in the US, have a mechanism for changing or even repealing parts of the Constitution. Have at it.

As for the self defense right, you seem to agree it exists, yet are willing to believe taking the best tool to do so away from citizens is a good thing. The existence of a police force you can call is not 'self defense'.

How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.

Distance and ending power?
portability and size.
Especially for those who are not as physical adept.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.

Can you honestly find me one instance, based in reality where someone broke into another person's home with a tank? And for that, I mean, civilian on civilian crime, military action isn't "breaking in" in the same sense.


And sure, you could defend yourself with a sword, or a crossbow, or an axe... but swords and axes leave a very large mess to clean up, much larger than the blood from a "clean" bullet wound would. How many stories are out there of an elderly person in Australia, or England or France who held off a would be intruder with a cricket bat, or baseball bat? Probably next to none. I will say though, that if those stories aren't written about in much of the rest of the world, it's probably because you aren't having this same kind of discussions, or perceived fear of "dems tryin to take ma gunz!"

Dude he's from Russia. they open bottles of vodka with tanks.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.

Can you honestly find me one instance, based in reality where someone broke into another person's home with a tank? And for that, I mean, civilian on civilian crime, military action isn't "breaking in" in the same sense.


And sure, you could defend yourself with a sword, or a crossbow, or an axe... but swords and axes leave a very large mess to clean up, much larger than the blood from a "clean" bullet wound would. How many stories are out there of an elderly person in Australia, or England or France who held off a would be intruder with a cricket bat, or baseball bat? Probably next to none. I will say though, that if those stories aren't written about in much of the rest of the world, it's probably because you aren't having this same kind of discussions, or perceived fear of "dems tryin to take ma gunz!"

Welllll this thing technically "broke" into peoples houses.

Was it done with criminal intent though?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Was it done with criminal intent though?

If i remember yes.

I think it had something to do with landlords and money or something. it was a while back.

 Desubot wrote:

I think it had something to do with landlords and money or something. it was a while back.

Lol... so was it a deranged, redneck landlord trying to get his/her rent... or "that" tenant that every landlord dreads who is refusing to pay his rent?

Instead of trying to remember here it is

Marvin John Heemeyer was the guy and he did it because of zoning disputes.
Still complete criminal mischief and completely intended. also he attached a government building and the judges home.
But this is getting way OT.

 Smacks wrote:
That isn't how society works. I don't leave my door open at night hoping that people will be "law abiding". We don't have police and laws and prisons because we trust people to be law abiding. We identify things that get abused, and we try to control them so they can't be abused any more. We do it with driving, we do it with drugs. Why shouldn't law abiding people be allowed to take drugs, or drive without a licence and insurance? Why am I being punished for other people's recklessness? Hell I can't even do things like go scuba diving or cross a border without a ton of bureaucracy.

Well, for starters, driving without insurance is illegal (as is taking illicit drugs in the UK) so law abiding people by definition cannot do those things.

As for the question "[w]hy am I being punished for other people's recklessness?" This is how millions of gun owners feel when someone breaks the law and they are demonized for the actions of one individual who broke the law.

 Smacks wrote:
I don't know if you've ever taken the time to read youtube comments (or really any comment section online), but not everyone is like you. Most people are fething idiots. Illiterate, vindictive, racist, fork in toaster: idiots. I might not be allowed a gun here in the UK, but I sleep a lot sounder knowing those idiots aren't allowed one either.

Aren't allowed =/= unable to acquire as we have unfortunately seen before

 Smacks wrote:
Speech and thought are a fundamental part of being human, people are born with the capacity for speech and thought. The right to speech is more akin to the right to defend yourself. A modern repeating handgun is a just piece of technology that didn't even exist until ~1836. Comparing the right to own a gun to free speech, is like comparing the right to own PA system to self defence.

And the right to defend yourself is an integral part of your right to life.

Please don't try and claim that the right to bear arms does not encompass modern firearms. Firearms were available during the period that covered the framing of the Bill of Rights, and to claim that modern firearms are excluded from the Second Amendment is equivalent to claiming that telephone conversations, emails, texts, etc. are not covered by the First Amendment

 Desubot wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

How are guns the best tool for defending yourself? What if someone comes at you with a tank? Or fresh fruit?
In any case, you can defend yourself without guns too. At least, in the rest of the world people can.

Can you honestly find me one instance, based in reality where someone broke into another person's home with a tank? And for that, I mean, civilian on civilian crime, military action isn't "breaking in" in the same sense.


And sure, you could defend yourself with a sword, or a crossbow, or an axe... but swords and axes leave a very large mess to clean up, much larger than the blood from a "clean" bullet wound would. How many stories are out there of an elderly person in Australia, or England or France who held off a would be intruder with a cricket bat, or baseball bat? Probably next to none. I will say though, that if those stories aren't written about in much of the rest of the world, it's probably because you aren't having this same kind of discussions, or perceived fear of "dems tryin to take ma gunz!"

Welllll this thing technically "broke" into peoples houses.

Damn you Ensis your on a roll. There goes the MRAP through the front door or the Stryker firing its main gun through the front door stories

May the fleas of a thousand reindeer nest in your genitals.!!

 Jihadin wrote:

May the fleas of a thousand reindeer nest in your genitals.!!

What in the wat?

Don't spam the forum, motyak