32 minutes ago, bannork said:

The people have been shown to be irresponsible regarding firearms, killing innocent people

 

No they have not. The very, very VAST majority of gun owners have been shown to be responsible and sensible collectors, sports shooters and hunters.

 

Only a tiny minority has caused issues. Your argument would be the same as banning driving or flyng because of some rogue pilots and drivers.

 

33 minutes ago, bannork said:

The police and/ or army are to protect the nation and its people thus they are authorised to use guns in exceptional circumstances.

 

Sorry, in the United States the people are authorised to use guns. 

 

You come from a castrated nation where the right to bear arms has been stripped away from the people.

 

I feel sorry for you.

 

When I win my Powerball jackpot I am buyin a compound in Colorado, Wyoming or Montana, and I will kit the place out with the finest firearms sold in America. And nothing you can do about it. Because there is still a country of free men. And that is America.

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Oh, you don't have rapes in America? Wow, I never realised.

Plenty of Americans have been jailed for incitement to violence, just as people in the UK have been.

Not as many per capita as Australia 

I note you say free men, are women not included?

Free indeed, one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, lol.

In 2022, the United States had 1,808,100 inmates in adult facilities (prisons and jails), at a rate of 541 per 100,000 population. That was the 5th highest rate in the world. 

29 minutes ago, bannork said:

I note you say free men, are women not included?

 

Yes, in the kitchen, of course they're included, who'd bake the cakes otherwise?

 

29 minutes ago, bannork said:

Free indeed, one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world, lol.

 

Hey, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

 

1 hour ago, BarraMarra said:

This thread has died the gun lovers will not discuss anything. So its pointless trying to post against them. Im out of this one.

I don’t blame you. Always the same nonsense from you anyway. 

 

Go with God brother.

2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

This isn't about rape gangs mogandave, can't you answer or you only want to deflect off topic ?

What is it you want me to answer? 

 

Still waiting for you to answer how the laws should be changed to stop the shootings. 

 

 

On 9/1/2025 at 1:36 PM, Yagoda said:

Do you have facts to dispute? What in the article is not credible.?

 

On 9/1/2025 at 1:36 PM, Yagoda said:

Define it for us then. Interesting how you leave stuff out

 

What language shows that

 

Deflection. You have not addressed my questions.

 

The whole article lacks context. It is just a series of random statements. What is the premise of this article? And the conclusion: That looser gun ownership regulations save lives? 

 

You posted the link. It's up to you to explain what this report is meant to prove and the terminology used not me.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

 

Deflection. You have not addressed my questions.

 

The whole article lacks context. It is just a series of random statements. What is the premise of this article? And the conclusion: That looser gun ownership regulations save lives? 

 

You posted the link. It's up to you to explain what this report is meant to prove and the terminology used not me.

What is the question? 

 

How do you think the laws should be changed to stop the shootings?

27 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What is the question? 

 

How do you think the laws should be changed to stop the shootings?

@Will B Good and others have spelt out many specific changes that could be made.

 

Maybe the US could use the Gun Ownership laws in Australia and the UK as templates.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

@Will B Good and others have spelt out many specific changes that could be made.

 

Maybe the US could use the Gun Ownership laws in Australia and the UK as templates.

So, you have no ideas of your own, I thought not.

 

How do the gun ownership laws in Australia, and the UK differ from those in the US?

 

Again, what was the question you claim is going unanswered?

1 hour ago, RayC said:

And the conclusion: That looser gun ownership regulations save lives? 

You dont think that armed citizens save lives?

 

Do you dispute defensive gun statistics?

 

Are you able to differentiate the feral black teenagers in Democrat cities from ordinary Americans? 

 

Would you think that folks living outside fast police response areas have the right to defend themselves from folks who will evade the law?

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

It's up to you to explain what this report is meant to prove and the terminology used not me.

Well if you cant understand the terminology, you need to study. Conclusions: Firearms save the lives of decent citizens.

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You dont think that armed citizens save lives?

 

I'm sure that you can give 5 examples of when armed citizens saved lives.

In a country of 300 million, with on average 600 mass shootings a year, that would not be a problem. Right?

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You dont think that armed citizens save lives?

 

Potentially. However, in instances where the perpetrator of the crime is himself armed it begs the question, would the situation have arisen if there had been stricter gun ownership rules in place?

 

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Do you dispute defensive gun statistics?

 

How can I answer that? You haven't supplied a definition of what constituted a "defensive gun action".

 

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Are you able to differentiate the feral black teenagers in Democrat cities from ordinary Americans? 

 

Yes. I would imagine that I would be able to do so. And?

 

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Would you think that folks living outside fast police response areas have the right to defend themselves from folks who will evade the law?

 

Yes. And?

 

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Well if you cant understand the terminology, you need to study.

 

Once again. You supplied the article. rIt's up to justify its' contents and define the terminology.

 

20 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Conclusions: Firearms save the lives of decent citizens.

 

Conclusion: Nothing in your post offers a credible case to support the idea that the (virtually) unregulated right to gun ownership is anything but a bad thing for society as a whole.

10 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

I'm sure that you can give 5 examples of when armed citizens saved lives.

In a country of 300 million, with on average 600 mass shootings a year, that would not be a problem. Right?

Hell get yourself copies of the NRA magazine, they had a column called the Armed Citizen. %o years of it.

 

Heres twelve. Not good enough for you?

https://www.heritage.org/gun-rights/commentary/12-defensive-gun-uses-show-armed-citizens-make-communities-safer

15 minutes ago, RayC said:

Potentially. However, in instances where the perpetrator of the crime is himself armed it begs the question, would the situation have arisen if there had been stricter gun ownership rules in place?

So you are saying that in a country where guns are banned, criminals wont get them?

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

Once again. You supplied the article. rIt's up to justify its' contents and define the terminology.

I dont give English lessons. You dont understand it, so why are you arguing about it.

5 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Hell get yourself copies of the NRA magazine, they had a column called the Armed Citizen. %o years of it.

 

Heres twelve. Not good enough for you?

https://www.heritage.org/gun-rights/commentary/12-defensive-gun-uses-show-armed-citizens-make-communities-safer

Good try, but failed attempt.

All I see in that articles is posts about armed people who in cold blood killed some unarmed crimnals.

 

You really can't do any better than that?

6 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I dont give English lessons. You dont understand it, so why are you arguing about it.

 

Translation: I can't provide anything to back up my drivel

45 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you have no ideas of your own, I thought not.

 

I do have ideas of my own but I can't claim that the idea that unrestricted gun ownership is detrimental to society is one of them.

 

There are numerous other posters in this thread who share that belief and have supplied evidence to support this contention.

 

So far, I've seen nothing to dissuade me from the view that we are correct.

 

45 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How do the gun ownership laws in Australia, and the UK differ from those in the US?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#:~:text=In the United Kingdom%2C gun,separate system for Northern Ireland.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia#:~:text=The states issue firearms licences,sport or target shooting competitions.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States#:~:text=In the United States%2C the,v.

 

These links give a overview of gun ownership legislation in Australia, the UK and the US.

 

There is a rather nice phrase which sums up the difference between Australia/UK and the US. In Australia and the UK, gun ownership is a privilege, in the US it is a right.

 

A more practical example. Someone who does not have a criminal record, is mentally capable, but is not a hunter or a member of a gun club In Australia or the UK would almost certainly be refused a licence to own a gun; in the US such a individual would almost certainly be allowed a licence.

 

45 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, what was the question you claim is going unanswered?

 

The question I posed to @Yagoda (p11 of this thread). 

 

"You don't seriously consider that article (from ammo.com) to be a credible piece of research and, in any way, offer evidence to support unrestricted gun ownership, do you?"

 

Have a go at answering it yourself.

11 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

I dont give English lessons. You dont understand it, so why are you arguing about it.

 

Because you cited the article as evidence to support your point of view which I disagree with. For the umpteenth time, the onus is you to justify your position.

 

I don't require English lessons.

11 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Translation: I can't provide anything to back up my drivel

Isnt that a wonderful phrase? I love that you are enjoying it, your welcome.

9 minutes ago, RayC said:

I do have ideas of my own but I can't claim that the idea that unrestricted gun ownership is detrimental to society is one of them.

There is not unrestricted gun ownership in America

 

18 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

So you are saying that in a country where guns are banned, criminals wont get them?

 

No I am not saying that but it is almost certainly more difficult for criminals to obtain guns in countries where their ownership is banned - or severely restricted - compared with nations where they are relatively freely available. That much should be intuitive.

 

Your position is untenable. Your comment is, once again, just an attempt at defection.

5 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Because you cited the article as evidence to support your point of view which I disagree with. For the umpteenth time, the onus is you to justify your position.

 

I don't require English lessons.

Why would I need to justify the truth LOL. You havent cited any facts to show that armed citizens do not save lives.

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

You don't seriously consider that article (from ammo.com) to be a credible piece of research and, in any way, offer evidence to support unrestricted gun ownership, do you?"

We dont have unrestricted gun ownership in the USA

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

There is not unrestricted gun ownership in America

 

 

My bad:  "I can't claim that the idea that restricting gun ownership is detrimental to society is one of them."

 

Better?

 

You are clinging to an ever-thinning straw.

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

No I am not saying that but it is almost certainly more difficult for criminals to obtain guns in countries where their ownership is banned - or severely restricted - compared with nations where they are relatively freely available. That much should be intuitive.

You have no stats to justify that, and it defies logic.

 

Perfect example: Mexico

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

My bad:  "I can't claim that the idea that restricting gun ownership is detrimental to society is one of them."

 

Better?

 

You are clinging to an ever-thinning straw.

What straw would that be? Arguing with yourself over things you dont understand and laws you are ignorant of and then declaring yourself the winner.

 

Fact: Guns in the hands of decent citizens save lives of decent citizens.

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Why would I need to justify the truth LOL. You havent cited any facts to show that armed citizens do not save lives.

 

Look back through this thread and consider the data on the number of deaths caused by firearms. You will notice that in countries where they are tighter regulations on gun ownership, there are fewer deaths by gunshot. (Admittedly, this proves correlation not causation. I can't be bothered to search for a study proving a casual link).

 

This would suggest that on an aggregated, societal level the idea that arming citizens saves lives is - being generous - flawed.

 

That straw has just snapped.

10 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

You have no stats to justify that, and it defies logic.

 

Perfect example: Mexico

 

Funnily enough, those in possession of illegal firearms don't usually participate in surveys about the subject, so data is somewhat hard to come by.

 

In the UK, estimates of the number of illegal firearms in circulation range from several hundred thousand to over a million. Not small numbers but much fewer than the numbers there would be if restrictions on gun ownership were relaxed.

 

You are becoming increasingly desperate in your attempts to avoid admitting what is staring you in the face: Less restrictive gun ownership regulations results in more gun related deaths (and injuries).