MASS SHOOTING reported at Oregon college campus 15 dead atleast MANY MORE INJURED

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Answer

Australia is not the United States so you've proved absolutely nothing.

Well spotted, Sherlock. No, Australia is not the United States, we realised a while ago that allowing civilians access to automatic assault rifles was a tad ridiculous. Apparently the US hasn't quite caught up with that simple logic yet.

Clearly you know nothing about US gun laws. Many cities have adopted gun laws nearly as strict as the UK and Australia but they saw no reduction in crime.

Methinks you don't know as much about Australian and UK gun laws as you may think you do.

So your "FACTS" are as follows:

"See this Orange? It's a citrus fruit and it is exactly the same as that Apple."

Only a fool would claim that what has (arguably) "worked" in the UK and Australia would work in the US... just because.

Errr. no. Your comparison would be correct if I were saying that Australia and the UK have strict knife/car/insert "weapon" here laws therefore the US should implement gun laws as it worked for us!

No, I am saying that strict gun laws DID work here and how the hell would the US know if it doesn't at least try? Hmm? How many more people must die just so you can keep your assault rifles hmm???

Only a fool would claim that what has (arguably) "worked"

There is nothing "arguably" about it. The laws worked. Full stop. The fact you are trying to dispute this shows you know very little about the subject at hand.

First.. most weapons sold to the public are not "full auto" Was the gun they used this time fully automatic? And honestly the laws in autralia did not work totatally. Criminals are getting them still.

You ask how many have to die before id give up my right to have one? To the very last. Alot of people feel this way.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: crazyewok

The USA has hundreds of million of guns in circulation. If they banned guns in the USA those hundreds of millions of guns wont disappear magically will they?

You just turn 300 million legal gun into 300 million illegal guns. Doesn't seem much of a improvement to me.

Tsk tsk mate. I thought you were smarter than this - the argument is not about taking ALL their guns, just the rapid fire assault style ones and implementing restrictions and background checks to keep the other guns away from the baddies as much as possible.

Nobody wants to take away ALL their guns, that's just propaganda from the nutters who want to distract and deflect from the actual argument.

This shooting did not involve a "rapid fire assault style" firearm.

The UK started with "reasonable" restrictions and kept pushing for more when those restrictions didn't work. The slippery slope argument ABSOLUTELY applies to gun control.

There are already restrictions and background checks. The anti-gun argument tends to revolve around passing laws that are already in place. Apparently, those laws are so ineffective that people don't even realize they exist.

originally posted by: vor78

Further, as you also correctly point out, there's that pesky problem of confiscating 300+ million firearms.

INCORRECTLY pointed out, you forgot that

Don't forget, nobody wants to take ALL the guns, just the assault ones that have no other purpose than to kill large numbers of other humans. You may wish to stop pretending that people want to take all 300 million guns away as this is FAR from the truth.

a reply to: Indigo5

I said THAT ?

Doesn't LOOK like I said that was the case. WHY would anyone think THAT and AT LEAST you obviously KNOW I 'm more intelligent that that so THE IDEA is your own...I'm baffled as to how you came to such a ridiculous idea ....unless of course it was NOT an honest mistake and was a case of ..MORE Prog deflection.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Power_Semi
America has 380M people of every type of religion, philosophy, socio-economic status, race, and attitude....you get it.

Well actually, only 320 million... but kinda close dude.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Indigo5

If someone wants to kill a bunch of people and kill themselves they are going to do it. With guns or not.

They are going to TRY with or without guns.

It is not debatable that a madman on a killing spree stabbing folks with a pencil is easier to subdue or stop than a madman with an AK-47 on a killing spree.

The argument of crazy is crazy and those with intent will successfully kill many despite the weapon is fundamentally flawed.

The fact that you keep using a pencil as the madman's weapon of choice shows how unwilling you are to have an honest debate.

originally posted by: yuppa

And honestly the laws in autralia did not work totatally. Criminals are getting them still.

And when was the last mass murder in Australia? Oh yeah, thats right, just BEFORE the laws were introduced over 20 years ago - and NONE since.

I think the laws worked perfectly.

You ask how many have to die before id give up my right to have one? To the very last. Alot of people feel this way.

You may be OK to die, as might your fellow gun nutters, but what makes you think you can speak for all the innocent people shot to pieces while you hug your precious guns?

I am still not sure why we are arguing on this thread about crazy people...

What makes you think they will abide by laws?

*shrugs*

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: crazyewok

The USA has hundreds of million of guns in circulation. If they banned guns in the USA those hundreds of millions of guns wont disappear magically will they?

You just turn 300 million legal gun into 300 million illegal guns. Doesn't seem much of a improvement to me.

Tsk tsk mate. I thought you were smarter than this - the argument is not about taking ALL their guns, just the rapid fire assault style ones and implementing restrictions and background checks to keep the other guns away from the baddies as much as possible.

Nobody wants to take away ALL their guns, that's just propaganda from the nutters who want to distract and deflect from the actual argument.

But that my point.

Those types of gun were never popular in the UK or Australia so when our bans came in nothing really changed. It was more a token law.


Those sort of gun are prolific in the USA. If you made them illegal they wont just vanish.

A gun ban in the USA to me is just pissing in the wind.

originally posted by: Kryties

Don't forget, nobody wants to take ALL the guns, just the assault ones that have no other purpose than to kill large numbers of other humans. You may wish to stop pretending that people want to take all 300 million guns away as this is FAR from the truth.

That line doesn't work on us.

It worked in some countries but we've seen what happens when they take the "assault ones" and realize that it didn't stop the shootings.

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Power_Semi

Honestly, if you can't see why this statement is utterly flawed and the crassly most stupid "argument" posted here so far, then there really is no hope for humanity.


A car related death is completely different to a gun related death

You're right, I'm obviously mistaken. One group goes home to their families at the end of the day and the other doesn't. Got it.

Even more stupid than your first statement.

Maybe you should combine the 2 and have a double whammy (if you're intellectually capable of that depth of thought) - what about drive by shootings - they encorporate cars and guns.

Of course car ACCIDENTS are unintentional, and GUN massacres are planned, as are DRIVE BY shootings - the thing the 2 deliberate actions have in common is guns - not cars.

But hey, you know what, I've come to the conclusion that the previous poster was right - it is your problem and it's up to you to sort it out or keep acting like morons.

Good luck with it, hope no one you know, your children, etc don't get shot up at school anytime soon, but if they do just remember, guns don't kill people, people kill people - and it would be wrong if those poor oppressed shooters had had their guns taken off them.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: vor78

Further, as you also correctly point out, there's that pesky problem of confiscating 300+ million firearms.

INCORRECTLY pointed out, you forgot that

Don't forget, nobody wants to take ALL the guns, just the assault ones that have no other purpose than to kill large numbers of other humans. You may wish to stop pretending that people want to take all 300 million guns away as this is FAR from the truth.

Not in a thread like this. We usually have a few who advocate it.

In your case, you're advocating Australia style laws, so basically no semi-automatic handguns or rifles. So instead of 300 million, you're down to about 100-150 million. Its still the same thing. You're going to have to go door-to-door confiscating firearms. That's not going to go well.

a reply to: queenofswords

You must seriously have 0% of a clue about Canada..we are more free than any U.S. citizen at this point other than the gun thing..you can have em..how's it working for y'all?.

originally posted by: Answer


It worked in some countries but we've seen what happens when they take the "assault ones" and realize that it didn't stop the shootings.

Except they did. Remind me again, how many mass murders has Australia had since we introduced restrictions here?

(Hint: NONE WHATSOEVER - just in case you were a little confused).

originally posted by: Power_Semi

originally posted by: crazyewok
Anyway to the people pointing our the UK and Australia as a example of gun control that worked, so it must work for the USA, your forgetting one flaw.


It worked for us as we never really had a gun culture to begin with. Even before the ban very few people had the guns that were banned.

The USA has hundreds of million of guns in circulation. If they banned guns in the USA those hundreds of millions of guns wont disappear magically will they?

You just turn 300 million legal gun into 300 million illegal guns. Doesn't seem much of a improvement to me.

Of course not, but over time it would improve.

With so many guns in circulation there is no quick fix, it's impossible, but they either carry on down the same road and see worse and worse attrocities like this, or accept it will still happen but will stop in several years time.

IF they want a civilian uprising banning People from having guns is the way to do it. Those politicians might be hanging from lightpoles if that happens.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Sure but the govt is NOT going to hit your door and take your guns..at best what will happen is more regulation and scrutiny on purchases..wouldn't hurt to have mandatory safety course like Canada

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Unfortunately for the citizens...if that would eventually happen, only the government will have firearms...exactly what the second amendment was written to avoid and protect them from.

Only the government...and the more resourceful criminals.

Even door-to-door confiscation would not get rid of 300+ million guns.

Meanwhile in our cities 20 dead every week from black on black crime and drug wars.

originally posted by: vor78

In your case, you're advocating Australia style laws, so basically no semi-automatic handguns or rifles. So instead of 300 million, you're down to about 100-150 million. Its still the same thing. You're going to have to go door-to-door confiscating firearms. That's not going to go well.

Actually there was no door-to-door here either, instead a gun amnesty was introduced which gave everyone a certain amount of time to hand in their illegal guns and register the legal ones. The govt here crushed millions of guns into scrap. After the amnesty period was over, if you were caught with an illegal gun they literally threw the book at you.

Result? No mass murders in the country since the laws began. None at all. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

Wanted to say one of the common traits of all these mass shootings is they're almost exclusively males. I cannot remember any females. Maybe I'm being sexist just saying this, but I'm being honest.

Why? How? Anyone?