To be honest, America wipes out years of Australian (insert just about anything) in one weekend. It does amaze me how many Australians are absolutely obsessed with gun control in America. Life must be decidedly boring over there, as in nothing better to do than "American gun owners are EVIL!"
Are they? Possibly. Obviously they wish to look after their kids and don't want to be shot to bits when going shopping. Silly Australians. I'm in the UK so I find the concept of people running about with guns in public a strange concept. Too many nutters in the world to have that as a sensible idea, which of course the massacres proves that.
Not evil at all. Many humans are obsessed with all sorts of things and aren't evil. Exaggerate at your will. I'm advocating the preservation of human life but whatever I claim to be the gun lovers turn it around as "lefties" foreigners" etc. It's alright for you to have freedom of speech as long as its you guys that have it. It alright to participate in an international forum as long as you Americans participate in it without others opinions or concerns. I would have far more faith in your societies tackling the gun mass murders/.mass injuries (fact) if the gun lobby/owners took a more compassionate view and sort alterations combat the problem. The "problem" is obviously well beyond you all to tackle, its political to the extreme (any politician that campaigns for more gun control is politically suicidal), is a massive income industry, is a way of life, is dealing with laws introduced in musket times and attitudes are deplorable. So I'll bow out on this discussion unless there is anything reasonably mature and significant to comment on. But I must conclude by saying- I'm glad I live here in Oz, the land of the free, more likely not to get shot and if I come across a madman I'll use my milk crate...
If such cannot be guaranteed, there is little reason to support the restriction of a constitutional right on the premise that such may potentially lead to a hypothetical reduction that either cannot be proven, or will need decades of continual effort before any notable change can actually be demonstrated.
How much of a sensible idea is it to leave said "nutters" free in society where they pose the greatest risk of harm to the public? If they are too dangerous to be trusted with legal access to a firearm, they are obviously too dangerous to be trusted to not harm others who are going about their daily routines.
The problem with advocating for the preservation of human life, is that many who do such fail to recognize that not all lives are equally worth protecting at all costs. Along with failing to recognize that not everyone who is involved will hold the same notion. As has been observed in the last week, there are those who do not share the same sentiments, and regard killing others as being perfectly acceptable, and even justifiable. Some justify their killings due to racist beliefs, others justify their killings as being necessary to prevent climate change and damage to the environment. Others do not even bother with justification and instead engage in such simply because they were bored and could not think of anything better to do with their time. Trying to preserve human life ultimately means recognizing that certain lives must be ended for the benefit of others. It is simply not possible to protect and preserve everyone equally.
You mean the place where the local fuzz report they have taken in over 3000 people for online hate speech related offenses just this year? Yeah... You guys keep on with that, and we'll keep on with the whole having rights thing and all be happy as clams.
Not at all. Plenty of recent examples of knife wielding attackers going on rampages in the UK, and the only thing that stopped them was a gun. The guy who almost made it into Parliament's chambers was killing cops until an armed bodyguard with a firearm stopped him. The 3 who ran through the business district stabbing people, stopped by firearms. In a mass attack, if you want to know what will happen, all you have to do is look to the London riots 8 years ago. The first thing the police will do when they lose control is pull back, leaving you to defend yourself with your milk crate.
Read the Constitution, if you don't understand it, you probably don't need to discuss it with Americans. The struggle in America is constantly having to educate the ignorant masses from around the world who can't comprehend the notion of inalienable rights. Poor foreigners who have only the privileges granted by their governments that could be taken at a moment's notice. Such folks really have no place in the American gun rights debate...
Impossible to detect the vast majority of nutters and remember, one day you could be happy but the next day sad.
Nonnie: I'm pointing out that your government is jailing people purely for speech that others find hurts their feelings. That very concept is so ****ing abhorrent to American culture that I didn't do a good enough job pointing that fact out to a foreigner. Let me use a metaphor you might understand: You know how way back in the day, contemplating the death of the king was treason? Simply not done, you didn't even speak of it, just the thought of doing so was enough to cause outrage? Jailing people for pure speech is like that here. What I'm saying is, you enjoy being a slave over there, and I'll enjoy being free over here.
Hard to drown in a home pool if you don't have a home pool, yes. But you go ahead and you sit there and feel smugly superior about that while your government licenses your very existence back to you, dictates what words you may utter without imprisonment or legal harassment, disarms you so you may not defend yourself effectively etc. Seriously, no one is gain saying your right to be a slave in your own nation Nonnie. Please cease attempting to gainsay my right to be free in my own nation.
Aware of the contents does not give you any understanding of the contents within the context of actually living here. Yet another foreigner trying to tell they know better how to run America than we do. How pathetic...
Even if such can be done in hypothetical terms, how will anyone ever know for certain? Even when semi-automatic firearms are utilized, the body counts of most mass shootings never reach the same level as the Las Vegas incident committed by Stephen Paddock. In fact none in the history of the united states has ever reached that level. Does such ultimately mean that enough has already been done to lower the potential body count of mass shootings, since all incidents do not rival the Las Vegas incident?
Which ultimately admits that any proposal that can be had is simply not in line with one of the founding principles of the legal system in the united states, innocent until proven guilty. Therefore nothing that can be proposed in an effort to preemptively prevent individuals from legally acquiring firearms, on the basis that they may potentially be dangerous but such has not been proven, would not be constitutional. The same can apply to anyone. Yet the system that is in place, and those in charge of maintaining the system, are choosing to deliberately ignore and overlook warning signs that would indicate a greater likelihood of trouble down the line. Such was done with Nicholas Cruz, and countless other mass shooters. Often the excuse given is that the ball was dropped. But such an excuse is simply not acceptable when it leads to the loss of life.
Ultimately what is the problem with such? If one makes the decision to end their own existence, exactly what is wrong with them making such a decision, and following through with such?
