Shooting at live Twitch Madden tournament - four reported to be dead

So does the statistically unlikely case of the people being required to defend themselves against their own rogue government outweigh the actual deaths that happen through firearms misuse? Is that what the argument reduces to?
 
bjorkiii said:
Jumper seems extremely sharp.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am banned from London for being too pointy.
LOAM said:
This would be the government that govern the population then, like I said controlled.
Click to expand...
Yes in that case they are.
[FnG]magnolia said:
So does the statistically unlikely case of the people being required to defend themselves against their own rogue government outweigh the actual deaths that happen through firearms misuse? Is that what the argument reduces to?
Click to expand...
No. That is one small part of it. Would put all reasons in a big long list, but it would be a waste of time, because its already been done and most people here are British anyway, so they would argue against it no matter what.
 
You dont need a long list, theres only one reason and its $$$$$$. Its a $13.5B industry and the people who make the laws are either part of that industry or are paid by that industry.

Its then sold to the population by the NRA (who represent that industry) as "dey gunna take your freeeeeedom" because saying "please buy more guns and shoot each other because it makes us a ******* **** load of $$$$" sounds frankly obscene and probably unpalatable.
 
LOAM said:
You dont need a long list, theres only one reason and its $$$$$$. Its a $13.5B industry and the people who make the laws are either part of that industry or are paid by that industry.

Its then sold to the population by the NRA (who represent that industry) as "dey gunna take your freeeeeedom" because saying "please buy more guns and shoot each other because it makes us a ******* **** load of $$$$" sounds frankly obscene and probably unpalatable.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinion, if that in your eyes is the only reason why then I feel sorry for you. I would probably say the same if I had read anti gun anti corporation stuff all my life too.
 
Jumper118 said:
You are entitled to your opinion, if that in your eyes is the only reason why then I feel sorry for you. I would probably say the same if I had read anti gun anti corporation stuff all my life too.
Click to expand...

Dont feel sorry for me.

Anyway I've never read any anti gun stuff ever and I'm not anti gun at all. I am however anti unregulated gun and I am anti let everyone have a gun. I've owned guns and whilst I wouldn't own one again (I have no need of one) I'm not stupid enough to think you could disarm the USA population because as I've already stated / claimed, they are too brainwashed into thinking they need one.
 
LOAM said:
Dont feel sorry for me.

Anyway I've never read any anti gun stuff ever and I'm not anti gun at all. I am however anti unregulated gun and I am anti let everyone have a gun. I've owned guns and whilst I wouldn't own one again (I have no need of one) I'm not stupid enough to think you could disarm the USA population because as I've already stated / claimed, they are too brainwashed into thinking they need one.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the current regulations in the USA are in each state?

I am glad you don't want to disarm them, because it would go badly, but I think your reasoning is wrong.
 
Jumper118 said:
Do you know what the current regulations in the USA are in each state?

I am glad you don't want to disarm them, because it would go badly, but I think your reasoning is wrong.
Click to expand...

On a state by state basis, off hand no I don't. I know enough to know that in many states you need no permit or licence and you can carry concealed though.
 
Jumper118 said:
I would also like to add another totally valid reason to own a gun for protection in merica land is that they have very remote areas which might be too far for police to reach in an emergency, so you have to protect yourself.
Click to expand...

Australia has very remote areas too, but we get by just fine without a 2nd amendment.
 
Jumper118 said:
Australia an merica are very different.
Click to expand...

Yes... we have sensible gun laws. You need have to prove that knife crime will rise if gun laws are tightened.

there is only a mass shooting every day when the definition of mass shooting is massively twisted.
Click to expand...

Prove it.

How do you think they can better regulate them?
Click to expand...

* all self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns with a magazine capacity of >5 rounds restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters, and primary producers
* all semi-automatic rimfire rifles with a magazine capacity of >10 rounds restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters, and primary producers
* consistent laws across all states (Australia has the National Firearms Agreement, the National Firearm Trafficking Policy Agreement, and the National Handgun Control Agreement)
* handgun ownership restricted to target shooters and security guards
* handgun ownership conditional on a 6 month probationary period using club handguns
* mandatory 28 day cooling off period for firearm purchases
* universal background checks
* universal licensing
* prohibit silencers

Just for starters.

that isnt the point though is it. the point of not having a register, is so the goverment DON'T know who has what guns. That is the entire point.
Click to expand...

What is the point of ensuring that the government doesn't know who has what guns? Australia introduced gun registration in 1807. It's a sensible policy. It works. It's particularly useful for solving gun crimes.
 
Roar87 said:
Mass shootings are a small percentage of the overall gun deaths though, why put the focus on mass shootings when 33,000 people are shot dead each year? 73 being killed in Vegas is horrific but really not that significant compared to the overall numbers, the majority of which happen due to gangs and drugs.
Click to expand...

I'm putting the focus on mass shootings because they're the most devastating, and they're typically committed with firearms that should be banned or heavily restricted. Mass shootings can be greatly reduced (if not completely eradicated) via the introduction of stronger gun laws. That's a fact.

If you want to talk about regular shootings, well... they're completely out of control too. Not sure what your point is.
 
Roar87 said:
You think the US Military would start massacring US civilians who were rightfully protecting their constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

But what if they weren't protecting their constitutional rights? What if it was a rebellion, as in the case of the American Civil War? (Hint: the government won that one!)

BTW, the US military has already massacred US civilians who were rightly protecting their constitutional rights. There are plenty of examples from the civil rights battles of the 60s (look up Kent State Massacre for starters). Guess what? The military did not turn against the government. It obediently massacred citizens without batting an eyelid.

Most of the US Army would probably be behind them if their constitution was being violated by a tyrannical government
Click to expand...

If they were, they'd no longer have access to government weapons and vehicles. Oops!
 
Last edited:
Jumper118 said:
So the army never deploys 19 and 20 year old who have had multiple years of training to the front line.....
Click to expand...

It does, and they are largely useless. The term 'cannon fodder' exists for a reason. These kids are little more than bullet sponges.

As an untrained citizen fighting a military force, would you rather have no gun at all or a gun?
Click to expand...

I would rather have a gun. It would provide a sweet moment of false security before the drone strike wipes me off the face of the planet. :p

300,000 vs 8,000 with old 1500's weapons is totally different. They would have been fighting with sticks XD. And again when you have 300,000 people with stick vs 8000 with bigger sticks or 300,000 with no sticks vs 8000 people with bigger sticks, the 300,000 with the sticks still have a better chance than without.
Click to expand...

The peasants had more than just sticks, and their forces included companies of Landsknechte (professional German mercenaries armed with pikes, muskets, and swords). But yes, overall they were a technologically inferior force, which proves a point I made earlier in another post. So thanks for that.
 
wolfie138 said:
i wasn't talking about an uprising. and nobody needs "years of training" to pick up a guna nd kill people, i think that's been adequately demonstrated multiple times this year alone.
Click to expand...

You need years of training to fight competently in a war situation. An untrained civilian with a gun will be running for the hills at the first sound of mortar fire, and there's no guarantee he'll even hit anything if he starts shooting.

odd that you quote something that took professionally trained soldiers over a year to win :-/
Click to expand...

8,000 people fighting 300,000 people in a series of skirmishes across an entire empire. It was always going to take a while. The point is that the 8,000 won convincingly, against vastly superior numbers.
 
Minusorange said:
America abandoned Vietnam because they knew it was a war they wouldn't win, the Northern Vietnamese will was far far stronger than the South and its US allies
Click to expand...

Yes, their will was greater. But that wouldn't have made any difference if the USA had fully committed her forces to the war instead of sending over small numbers.

Is that why they're still there, encountering Taliban - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/11/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-ghazni.html and 16 years on are putting more troops back there - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/16-years-on-us-military-presence-in-afghanistan-growing.html
Click to expand...

They invaded, defeated the government easily, installed a new government, greatly their reduced troop presence, and hung around to help the government fight a civil war.

They were there for 8 years, they pulled out having not gotten full control of the country and as soon as they pulled out ISIS took over large parts
Click to expand...

As with Afghanistan: they invaded, defeated the government easily, installed a new government, greatly their reduced troop presence, and hung around to help the new government fight a civil war.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan is proof that an American civilian uprising would be capable of matching or defeating the American military.

World War 2 lasted less time than these supposedly "won" wars
Click to expand...

WWII was a completely different kind of war, fought under different rules of engagement. If the Afghan war had been waged in the same way as WWII, it would have been all over in 12 months.

It's clear your sense of victory is incredibly warped if you think any of those wars were actually won
Click to expand...

The invasion wars were won. The civil wars have not been won, but that is because local forces are insufficient and the USA is unwilling to supplement them on the scale required to ensure total victory.
 
Evangelion said:
You need years of training to fight competently in a war situation. An untrained civilian with a gun will be running for the hills at the first sound of mortar fire, and there's no guarantee he'll even hit anything if he starts shooting.
Click to expand...

It'd be a good time to invest in foot plaster stocks.
 
Tefal said:
French revolution
Click to expand...

Did not involve an inferior force matching or defeating a technologically superior one. The revolutionaries had professional armies funded by foreign sponsors, and they were assisted by foreign armies.

Chinese revolution
Click to expand...

Did not involve an inferior force matching or defeating a technologically superior one. The revolutionaries were well armed, and enjoyed sponsorship and aid from the Soviet Union. They were better prepared, and fought against a national army that was already severely weakened by war with Japan.

Russian revolution etc...
Click to expand...

Did not involve an inferior force matching or defeating a technologically superior one. The revolutionaries had their own militia (the Red Guards, who numbered 200,000 and included professional soldiers). The Russian state army could not stop them, because too many soldiers had already defected to the revolutionaries over low pay, food shortages, etc.

By the time the February Revolution took place, the Russian government was hopelessly outgunned, and could only muster 3,500 police, a handful of gendarmes, and a single garrison of soldiers (many of whom turned against the government anyway).
 
Jumper118 wpuld you approve of a national computerised data base of gun owners?

Or do you like the nra think it should be kept ad the god awful mess of paper records that have led to several people obtaining guns from stores when they should not have been able to.

Either because they have a criminal record, mental health issues etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom