Gun Control Debate #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes i realize that Aus. is multicultural, and depending on where you live you see more variety in the larger cities than in country areas. Asian & people from India too here.
The U.S. also has quite a different history than Australia.

Not just Asians and Indians, many people from Muslim countries who have assimilated and from African countries too.
 
Minnesota man guilty of murdering teenage intruders

Bryon Smith claimed he was defending himself during break-in at his home, but prosecutors argued the killings were premeditated.

Prosecutors said Smith's plan was set in motion on the morning of the killings, after Smith saw a neighbor whom he believed responsible for prior burglaries drive by.

Prosecutors say Smith moved his truck to make it look like no one was home, and then settled into a chair in his basement with a book, energy bars, a bottle of water and two guns.

It’s like Americans can’t stop shooting each other!


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...n-guilty-murder-teenage-intruders-byron-smith
 
BBM. How is Australia different? What is so different in the US to Australia? We share similar heritages and settlers from the same countries.

We are different. I am not afraid in my country. Maybe I will be someday. Idk.

On the surface we are similar, but it seems, to me, at least, that your govt. realizes that it works for YOU. Ours has forgotten that.
 
I don’t understand why anyone would celebrate murder, justified or not. Yay, someone is dead? No wonder our kids are killing each other. They’re being taught not only is it okay to shoot someone but it makes you a badass.
 
Not just Asians and Indians, many people from Muslim countries who have assimilated and from African countries too.

Americans have been raised to think the USA is a great melting pot. Just like we’re raised to believe we have more freedoms than people in other countries.
 
Neighbors held burglar at gunpoint until SPD made arrest


The burglar tried to flee through the front of the house instead, but was cornered by Raymond and the neighbor with the gun.

“He just stopped in his tracks and got down on the ground. I held him down to the ground and got on him my knee on the back of his neck and and the other neighbor was had the gun on him, and we were just waiting for the cops,” Raymond said.

https://www.kxly.com/news/local-new...r-at-gunpoint-until-spd-made-arrest/616856508
 
Good one, dad. Really? A girl's father gives her boyfriend a gun as a gift? The chances of that gun killing her at sometime or another were really high. He didn't waste any time, though.

It’s so messed up. But that’s the price he paid for not thinking it through. He gave his daughter’s killer the murder weapon! Just another day in America.
 
The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws, he is really saying that gun control is worth risking violent insurrection.

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War
When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
 
79-year-old thwarts would-be robber with concealed firearm

The suspect then demanded keys to his vehicle, stating "It would be best for you to give me the keys, I want your car" and implied violence would be used, according to police.

It was then that the victim who was licensed to carry a handgun drew his concealed firearm and pointed it towards the suspect, who fled the scene on foot.
ETA Anyone want to take some shots at an old man defending himself with a gun?

http://www.cbs7.com/content/news/79...-robber-with-concealed-firearm-442515923.html
 
A primary stimulus for the 1994 law was the severe threat that assault weapons pose to law enforcement officers. Police and other law enforcement personnel were some of the first victims of the assault weapon trend that emerged in the 1980s. For example, in October 1984, a San Jose, California, police officer was gunned down with an UZI carbine.

In a high-profile shootout in April 1986, two agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) were killed by robbery suspects wielding a Ruger Mini-14 assault rifle. Five other agents were wounded in the gun battle. As high-capacity assault weapons became more commonplace, police routinely complained that they were being outgunned by suspects. As a result, major law enforcement organizations supported passage of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban.

Immediately after the 1994 law was enacted, the gun industry moved quickly to make slight, cosmetic design changes in their "post-ban" guns to evade the law, a tactic the industry dubbed "sporterization." Of the nine assault weapon brand/types listed by manufacturer in the law,5 six of the brand/types have been re-marketed in new, "sporterized" configurations.6 In fact, gunmakers openly boast of their ability to circumvent the assault weapons ban. Their success is described in an August 2001 Gun World magazine article about the new Vepr II assault rifle, a "sporterized" version of the AK-47:
In spite of assault rifle bans, bans on high capacity magazines, the rantings of the anti-gun media and the rifle's innate political incorrectness, the Kalashnikov [AK-47], in various forms and guises, has flourished. Today there are probably more models, accessories and parts to choose from than ever before.
Equally blunt was an article in the May 2003 issue of Gun World reviewing the LE Tactical Carbine, a post-ban, "sporterized" AR-15 clone:
Strange as it seems, despite the hit U.S. citizens took with the passage of the onerous crime bill of 1994 [which contained the federal assault weapons ban], ARs are far from dead. Stunned momentarily, they sprang back with a vengeance and seem better than ever. Purveyors abound producing post-ban ARs for civilians and pre-ban models for government and law enforcement agencies, and new companies are joining the fray.[SUP]7[/SUP]
Just such a post-ban AR, the Bushmaster XM15 M4 A3 assault rifle, was used by the Washington, DC-area snipers to kill 10 and injure three in October 2002. The Bushmaster is the poster child for the industry's success at evading the ban. The snipers' Bushmaster is even marketed as a "Post-Ban Carbine."

attachment.php


Where are all the LEOs on this? They're so militarized now, there's no going back for them either.


http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm
 

Attachments

  • bushpostban.jpg
    bushpostban.jpg
    57.9 KB · Views: 38
I've posted a few links tonight showing people in the United States using firearms to defend themselves against the never ending bands of miscreants who mean all of us harm.

Most of these average citizens where able to prevent themselves and their families from being harmed without firing their gun or killing anyone.

I commend them for standing up against evil and not allowing themselves to become victims. JMO
 
The Australia Gun Control Fallacy

When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws, he is really saying that gun control is worth risking violent insurrection.

You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.

Modeling Australia Means Civil War
When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/

I am not sure what that means. Civil war over a right to allow people the means to shoot kids in classrooms?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
379
Total visitors
479

Forum statistics

Threads
625,727
Messages
18,508,825
Members
240,837
Latest member
TikiTiki
Back
Top