In the wake of the Christchurch massacre, some ask that simple question. https://www.news.com.au/world/pacif...e/news-story/1d0347abe85cffc95de1c5b6acf1c37a
Is the nation of New Zealand in the united states? Does the nation of New Zealand have a keep and bear arms provision to its national constitution? If not, then there is no legitimate comparison to be made. The united states is not founded upon the notion of punishing those who have done nothing wrong, for the actions of those who have indeed done something wrong. Depriving private citizens of their legally owned property when they have done nothing wrong to warrant such is nothing more than spite and vindictiveness. Supporting such a course of action is nothing more than the mentality of petty revenge.
"The world’s most self-satisfied nation is imprisoned in a time warp dating back to the War of Independence when America was a ragtag bunch of communities full of individualists suspicious of all government interference."
The united states is not any other nation on the planet. Therefore it cannot be compared in honest terms to any other nation in the planet. The matter is quite literally as simple as that.
American exceptionalism is your rationalizing away the evidence that is obvious to the rest of the world. You cannot have gun violence without guns.
Except for the fact that it is not being stated that the united states is exceptional. Simply that it is not comparable to any other nation in the world. And yet firearms are indeed a part of the equation and everyday life in the united states. That fact is never going to change. Even if ninety nine percent of all privately owned firearms could be removed from the equation simultaneously, the united states would still have more firearms than any other country in the world, and would still have more firearm-related deaths than any other so-called "developed" nation it is compared to. These are facts of life that are simply immutable, and there is no legitimacy in denying such facts of the real world.
Rationalizing what is obvious to the rest of the world. Hmmm... why do most countries in the world have the expectation that the US will protect them? Why does he US have so many people coveting living here? Why would the US government and the majority of Americans give a S*** what other countries think?
Why did you choose to use firearms? I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing within the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines. Won’t your attack result in calls for the removal of gun rights from Whites in the United States? Yes, that is the plan all along, you said you would fight to protect your rights and the constitution, well soon will come the time. ______________________________________________ When will you give in to the demands of terrorists trying to abolish your liberty with left wingers as their proxy? Hopefully never. Let's not kid ourselves, nothing was stopping this bloke. He might have used a Truck of Peace and killed 80. Are we going to ban Thrifty truck rentals? The absolute stupidity of some people astounds me.
The US is a totally different environment than any other country on the planet in terms of gun culture/freedom which has led, sadly, to a need for the average citizen to make use of the (wide ranging) constitution and bare arms themselves for protection. I get that, I didn't a while ago but I do now. Unfortunately, possessing arms can mean from a pee shooter to a tank. Yep, tanks can be purchased with shells in US as pointed out to me on another thread. How ridiculous is that? How did that come about?...I suspect that the right to bare arms fever, with some legitimacy from the violent societies the US has developed, meant the expansion of the "well he has a gun...I need a bigger one" mentality. Or- "the police have two magazines of bullets at all times...I'll carry three". And in the case of the link I provided, NZ in one week banned semi automatic organ destroyers in one fowl swoop. Well done NZ. To be direct, I as the OP now respect the need for Americans (not other countries), to bare arms due to the far sweeping range of weapons the 2nd Amendment allowed, but, to eliminate semi automatic weapons upwards (including tanks lol) would not eliminate a ban on single shot weapons thereby sustaining the "right to bare arms" just not ALL arms. A degree of control wouldn't mean elimination. It wouldn't mean taking away all your rights. It would mean the saving of some human lives by restricting the mass of the slaughter. Rat a tat tat tat tat tat would become rat..reload single shot..a..reload...tat..reload...tat, three live saved just there in some school full of kids......or isn't that important enough? i.e. your right to bare arms- semi auto arms is of greater importance? Make no mistake, I'm only concerned with lessening the blood on the schoolbooks.
It is not because of the availability of firearms, that members of the general public must protect themselves. Rather it is because of the presence of those who have absolutely no qualms with using firearms against others in a harmful and illegal manner, that members of the general public must protect themselves. Like it or not, the united states plays host to a significant percentage of the population that sees nothing wrong with committing the act of murder. A significant portion of this particularly violent subset of the population already has disqualifying criminal convictions that legally preclude them from legal firearms possession for the duration of their natural lives, and yet they remain free in society because they are continually released back into society, no matter how many crimes they commit and are ultimately convicted of. The problem is not firearms. Rather the problem is the people themselves. But no one has the appetite to address the actual problem, as such requires individuals being held accountable for their actions, which requires the concept of personal responsibility.l Demonstrate where it has been proven that such is a problem in need of actually being addressed. Which is exactly what the terrorist in question admitted he wished to see happen. Therefore the nation of New Zealand did exactly as the terrorist told it to do. Thus indicating that if you kill enough people, you eventually get to have your way. The united state supreme court has stated otherwise in the Heller ruling, where it specified the second amendment did not apply to only single shot firearms, nor would it be satisfied with such being the case. If someone were bent on carnage, but only possessed a single-shot rifle, they could simply shoot the driver of a school bus, which would result in the bus crashing and potentially killing all that are onboard.
Many of us here in the US have taken note how strict gun laws failed to prevent this tragedy. And you cannot claim to care about human life when violence is accepted as long as a gun is not involved.
Get what? That if the poor folks in that mosque had a few concealed weapons they could've ended that lil F'er before he got his body count? Trust me, we get it
show me where I said that? I did say "A degree of control wouldn't mean elimination. It wouldn't mean taking away all your rights. It would mean the saving of some human lives by restricting the mass of the slaughter. Rat a tat tat tat tat tat would become rat..reload single shot..a..reload...tat..reload...tat, three live saved just there in some school full of kids" That statement does not say what you claim you are a part of the problem, exploding others words into assisting your own biased argument.
Your avatar says it all. Of course the occupants of that mosque should have had an Abrams tank ready.
I don't care what the terrorist wanted/demanded/had objectives. He is nothing, irrelevant. Odd way to get semi's banned by killing 50 and hurting thousands. The school bus example is cherry picking the possibles and most unlikley's. "requires individuals being held accountable for their actions".. well that isn't going to happen eh? prison populations throughout the world and more so in the USA is already overcrowded and costing blowouts. So, better to take the semi's away from the naughty boys but who are the naughty boys? Too hard to determine so take them off all like NZ and Oz have done.
That would be unwise and inneffective. A few people with concealed pistols or another person with a rifle would be far better. Tanks are woefully innefective at taking out individual people. More likely they'd've killed a lot more of eachother than the shooter, and any buildings nearby firing a tank gun.
Fact is, if I lived in the USA, with the knowledge I've now obtained through other threads discussing this topic with informed debate, I'd own a firearm there. I understand the position of the gun owners and I came to that view also based on considering a fair assessment of the differences in how society has developed. Fair enough. So I wont live there....But innocent children and adults that will be slaughtered will. That fact is like "water off a ducks back" for many...sadly.
you miss my point, it wasn't literally....it meant that the gun culture is to be ready with more guns, bigger and more in number, quicker loading etc. That argument is form USA inhabitants- no where else that I'm aware...oh...the mafia maybe.
Are you suggesting that a few armed worshippers at the mosque wouldn't have leveled the playing field? Do remember, the shooter ran away the instant one of his targets became armed...
And when that fails you will come back and want more controls and more and more. History proves me correct and you incorrect. I am part of the solution because I understand firearms are not the problem, certain types of people are the problem, something you anti-gunners refuse to accept and instead blame the tool.
Yeh returned to his car for more magazines and continued his slaughter. I disagree on the premise of semi automatics needed in society, any society. My stance isnt complicated amd would save lives.
I'll correct you. "I am not anti gunner". I am anti semi automatic weapons and any weapon more potentially lethal. Work it out yourself. I think you dont "get it"
