Just now, Cameroni said:

How is one supposed to have a serious discussion about a serious topic when Leftists constantly bring penis size up as a problem?

The left has no interest in serious discussion; they most always lose. 

9 hours ago, Wingate said:

Will guns defend against these batsh!t crazy violent right wingers and MAGAnistas?

 

Michael Estes, Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein, Adam Purinton, Jeremy Christian, Wade Page, Edgar Welch, Sam Woodward, James Fields, Dylann Roof, Robert Bowers, Ian David Long, Cesar Sayoc, Gregory Bush, Stephen Paddock, Christopher Hansson

 

All those names add up to a long weekend in Chicago. Most gun deaths are by handgun. 

3 minutes ago, blaze master said:

 

All those names add up to a long weekend in Chicago. Most gun deaths are by handgun. 

The left does not care about blacks killing black in poor neighborhoods. 

5 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

The NRA had the answer (in USA) decades ago. Make it compulsory that before getting a gun that you must join the NRA and undergo their training in how to use guns.  Those nutters will never pass their tests. Either that or pay a fortune for public servants to do the same thing for 10 times the cost.  Criminals will always get access to guns - it is about training the general populace and weeding out the nutters (like this last one). 

 

Baltimore has high rates of gun murders every year - and yet guns are strictly controlled and assault weapons etc are illegal. It is not about Laws - if that was the case then why are so many People killed when murder is illegal??   Likewise Switzerland allows gun ownership and has a higher rate of ownership than USA - it is not about the number of guns.  It is about training and weeding out the nutters. Criminals mainly kill each other, or get killed when committing a crime - they dont kill that many innocents.  The problem is mentally unstable people getting access to guns. As an Australian we all know about Port Arthur - the guy was a nutter and had been for many years - he should have been locked away but the new woke liberal laws brought in the 60s closed most 'nut houses'.  Bring them back - lock more people away. A few people being wrongly forced to take medication/treatment until deemed safe, is better than 5-10 innocent people killed - that is old school logic and it worked. How many mass shootings in the 50s and before then - SFA!! 

 

Check out the stats - look at the sharp increase in mass killings in the 60s when they started closing the nut houses and there was no way to report someone as unstable and get them tested and locked away if deemed dangerous.  Marry that with an increase in the availability to get guns - and there is the disaster that is happening again and again.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

100 people detained and tested with 5 locked away VERSUS a nutter killing lots of innocent people - especially kids. 

It is that simple.  IMO - detain and test 100.

You can monitor and control the 'nut house' system to stop abuse - you cannot monitor or control nutters with a gun. 

 

LUNA - Lock Up Nutters Again.   

IMO the citing of Baltimore is flawed. If it has strict gun laws, what is to stop any citizen from traveling to another state, and obtaining a firearm there? Gun laws in America are a patchwork quilt.

 

If you are going to cite Port Arthur, get it right. Martin Bryant never was in a mental institution prior to the massacre, and Australia did not close its "nut houses" and throw people on the streets.

 

The data is undeniable. Australia has only had three mass shootings since Port Arthur, the USA has had thousands, nearly all down to semi-automatic weapons. Yet still Americans avert their eyes from the blindingly obvious.

 

Sure, you have people who are nuts. Every nation does. You don't understand your gun laws are equally nuts, and are kept that way by the NRA.

 

15 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

So you have penis envy and bought a car, I don't blame you

I drive a 19 yo Vios, and my GF has never complained I am too small.

6 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Australia has only had three mass shootings since Port Arthur

 

The Port Arthur Massacre was a mass shooting that occurred on 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur, a tourist town in the Australian state of Tasmania. The perpetrator, Martin Bryant, killed 35 people and wounded 23 others

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

 

Wow, Australians are just as crazy.

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

What a child. Go play with GI Joe.

You are the child, trying to justify your love affair with guns as something with a rational basis.

 

Have you stopped sucking your thumb yet?

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The Port Arthur Massacre was a mass shooting that occurred on 28 April 1996 at Port Arthur, a tourist town in the Australian state of Tasmania. The perpetrator, Martin Bryant, killed 35 people and wounded 23 others

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

 

Wow, Australians are just as crazy.

Australians united behind a conservative Prime Minister, realizing enough was enough. The results are there in the statistics since that time.

 

Australians are sensible people. Guys like you are not.

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I drive a 19 yo Vios, and my GF has never complained I am too small.

What about that badass .222 you were bragging about? That make you feel like a real man? 

21 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

Come on now, I know its a struggle

If you stop being sarcastic I might engage with you. 

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMO the citing of Baltimore is flawed. If it has strict gun laws, what is to stop any citizen from traveling to another state, and obtaining a firearm there? Gun laws in America are a patchwork quilt.

 

If you are going to cite Port Arthur, get it right. Martin Bryant never was in a mental institution prior to the massacre, and Australia did not close its "nut houses" and throw people on the streets.

 

The data is undeniable. Australia has only had three mass shootings since Port Arthur, the USA has had thousands, nearly all down to semi-automatic weapons. Yet still Americans avert their eyes from the blindingly obvious.

 

Sure, you have people who are nuts. Every nation does. You don't understand your gun laws are equally nuts, and are kept that way by the NRA.

 

Define "mass shooting" 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

The left does not care about blacks killing black in poor neighborhoods.

BS, you have that completely backwards. Look how the right is trying to disenfranchise blacks. 

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

You are the child, trying to justify your love affair with guns as something with a rational basis.

 

It's perfectly rational. How dare you impugn my family's long tradition of rifle collecting and IPSC shooting? 

 

Not only do guns protect your home from intruders, they are cultural objects of beauty in their own right. No wonder milions of people collect them. Feast your eyes:

 

 

How can you say it's not perfectly rational to collect such beautiful cultural objects?

23 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

How is one supposed to have a serious discussion about a serious topic when Leftists constantly bring penis size up as a problem?

It's difficult to be serious with people who are so delusional they think more guns are the solution to a gun problem.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What about that badass .222 you were bragging about? That make you feel like a real man? 

Is mogandave taking a nap?

The people of the United States have an unshakable belief that the Second Amendment means they have a right to own guns under any circumstances. At least one former Supreme Court Chief Justice disputed this interpretation. 

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger viewed the Second Amendment as a fraud perpetrated by special interests, arguing that it did not grant an unfettered individual right to gun ownership. He believed the amendment focused on the necessity of a well-regulated militia for state security and, by extension, supported public safety regulations on firearms, similar to those for automobiles. Burger even suggested that if he were writing the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment would not exist in its current form. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Felton Jarvis said:

The people of the United States have an unshakable belief that the Second Amendment means they have a right to own guns under any circumstances. At least one former Supreme Court justice disputed this interpretation. I side with Warren Burger.

Your claim is just not true. I don't know anyone that believes the Second Amendment means they have a right to own guns under any circumstances. 

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

It's perfectly rational. How dare you impugn my family's long tradition of rifle collecting and IPSC shooting? 

 

Not only do guns protect your home from intruders, they are cultural objects of beauty in their own right. No wonder milions of people collect them. Feast your eyes:

 

 

How can you say it's not perfectly rational to collect such beautiful cultural objects?

I can just see you telling a burglar to wait while you get your self-defence weapon from a gun safe. Or do you leave it out for your children to shoot themselves with? Accidentally of course.

 

The statistics are quite clear, one is far less likely to be killed by an intruder if they do not have firearms in the house.

 

Your own post betrays you love guns. That's OK, but it's the only argument for them you have.

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's difficult to be serious with people who are so delusional they think more guns are the solution to a gun problem.

More guns can solve some problems but might add another, depending on who has those guns. There is no real way to fix this easily. Americans who hunt, target shoot and carry for self defense aren't the problem, nor is having a 50 gun collection, as some are collectors of guns, seeing many of them are works of art, just like paintings, guitars, violins,  sculptures and fishing tackle. There will always be guns in the wrong hands if they're available, as some are manufactured illegally. You take away all legitimate guns from legitimate owners, that leaves only the military, police and criminals with them, which would be a major problem. Many complain about the shootings but no one has a good way to stop them, besides what's being done now. There will always be mentally ill people who will kill using anything they can find, so that should be addressed first, along with seeing the guns don't get into the wrong hands, which as i said, is near impossible. It can be curtailed by all owners using safes, and schools with armed guards and metal detectors, but that won't solve all of it. 

We have about as many deaths from drunk drivers as we do gun murders, but no one thinks we should ban alcohol or cars, 

 

Oh, that's right, the left likes alcohol and cars, but guns terrify them. 

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I can just see you telling a burglar to wait while you get your self-defence weapon from a gun safe. Or do you leave it out for your children to shoot themselves with? Accidentally of course.

 

The statistics are quite clear, one is far less likely to be killed by an intruder if they do not have firearms in the house.

 

Your own post betrays you love guns. That's OK, but it's the only argument for them you have.

What statistics? 

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I can just see you telling a burglar to wait while you get your self-defence weapon from a gun safe. Or do you leave it out for your children to shoot themselves with? Accidentally of course.

 

The statistics are quite clear, one is far less likely to be killed by an intruder if they do not have firearms in the house.

 

Your own post betrays you love guns. That's OK, but it's the only argument for them you have.

People who have guns in their homes need to have a gun safe right next to their beds in case someone breaks in, and having a gun is a lot better then not, especially if the intruder is a rapist or killer. Yes, they should be locked up so a child can't get their hands on it, in homes with children. People have saved themselves and their family with a gun in the house, so you couldn't convince them otherwise. You do need an alarm system to wake you if someone breaks in of course, so you have time to get the gun out, which takes only a few seconds in a handgun safe next to your bed. 

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

More guns can solve some problems but might add another, depending on who has those guns. There is no real way to fix this easily. Americans who hunt, target shoot and carry for self defense aren't the problem, nor is having a 50 gun collection, as some are collectors of guns, seeing many of them are works of art, just like paintings, guitars, violins,  sculptures and fishing tackle. There will always be guns in the wrong hands if they're available, as some are manufactured illegally. You take away all legitimate guns from legitimate owners, that leaves only the military, police and criminals with them, which would be a major problem. Many complain about the shootings but no one has a good way to stop them, besides what's being done now. There will always be mentally ill people who will kill using anything they can find, so that should be addressed first, along with seeing the guns don't get into the wrong hands, which as i said, is near impossible. It can be curtailed by all owners using safes, and schools with armed guards and metal detectors, but that won't solve all of it. 

I can remember being in a car with an American near Philadelphia, who told me he had 21 guns in his household. When I asked why, he said it was in case the Commies invaded.

 

This was after the fall of the Soviet Union, so it left me wondering just how paranoid Americans are.

Just now, Lacessit said:

I can remember being in a car with an American near Philadelphia, who told me he had 21 guns in his household. When I asked why, he said it was in case the Commies invaded.

 

This was after the fall of the Soviet Union, so it left me wondering just how paranoid Americans are.

True, there are those that think like him, but most gun people just like having different guns for different reasons. I only have a half dozen, a few different calibers, to handle all hunting situations, but I usually use my bow or crossbows now. I know some who have a dozen or so, but most hunters usually get by with just a few. All you need for all types of hunting are a .22, .243. 270 or 30.06, and maybe a magnum caliber for bear or moose, plus two shotguns and that will serve all purposes. if I had the cash, I would like to have maybe a few more higher grade guns. 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What statistics? 

Multiple studies have shown the risk of homicide doubles for those living there, if a firearm is kept in the house. That includes intruders, domestic disputes, and mistakes in handling.

AI Overview

 

"The number of times people use guns for self-defense annually varies widely, with estimates ranging from fewer than 1% of firearm owners to over 2.5 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year. A 2025 Rutgers University study found that less than 1% of firearm owners reported using their weapons in self-defense in the past year, and a 2025 Ammo.com study cited an annual DGU estimate of around 489,000 incidents, while also noting that other studies have reported numbers as high as 2.5 million."

 

Of course, the criminals will be the first to turn their guns in...

 

Incidentally, 1% of gun owners in the US is about 826,000. 

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

True, there are those that think like him, but most gun people just like having different guns for different reasons. I only have a half dozen, a few different calibers, to handle all hunting situations, but I usually use my bow or crossbows now. I know some who have a dozen or so, but most hunters usually get by with just a few. All you need for all types of hunting are a .22, .243. 270 or 30.06, and maybe a magnum caliber for bear or moose, plus two shotguns and that will serve all purposes. if I had the cash, I would like to have maybe a few more higher grade guns. 

It must be difficult for you, choosing the right calibre to deal with an intruder.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Multiple studies have shown the risk of homicide doubles for those living there, if a firearm is kept in the house. That includes intruders, domestic disputes, and mistakes in handling.

Which statistics? The statistics I've seen show that people protect themselves with guns over 500,000 times a year? 

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I'm Australian. I don't have to worry about getting shot. 

 

Semi-automatic weapons were banned in Australia, after the Port Arthur massacre. The world did not fall apart, I could still own two bolt-action rifles.

 

Where does it end with you guys? Trench mortars or an Abrams tank for so-called protection?

 

Every time you have a massacre, gun sales go up.

 

Freedumb. You are incapable of learning from your tragedies.

You make a good point and I think that really does apply to America, a nation that loves its guns above everything else, and seemingly adores violence, though they're very ready to say "thoughts and prayers" at a moment's notice, with the same gravity and sincerity as saying "let's get together for lunch soon". 

 

 

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

It must be difficult for you, choosing the right calibre to deal with an intruder.

I don't have any handguns yet, but will get two when I move back. One for hunting and one for defense. If someone came in my house now, the baseball bat will stop them, or the Nunchaku or machete. If they shoot me first, oh well, but most coming into a home canvas the house first. if they know a gun owner lives there, it's their funeral.