White guilt?

But I have at least 200 other items in my house that could be used to kill people.

I think what he is saying is that a gun's primary function is to kill people, were as bleach which can kill people has a different primary function, to kill bacteria.

Law abiding citizens typically don't shoot people without having a good reason for doing so, and people that murder other people aren't very well known for obeying the law, particularly gun laws. So banning certain guns is just taking away defense from the honest people, meanwhile the criminals will still have their weapons that most of them had illegally in the first place.

Law abiding citizens typically don't shoot people without having a good reason for doing so, and people that murder other people aren't very well known for obeying the law, particularly gun laws. So banning certain guns is just taking away defense from the honest people, meanwhile the criminals will still have their weapons that most of them had illegally in the first place.

True, I know I wouldn't shoot anyone unless I had too, but other people, I just don't trust them.

It would be interesting to see a nation wide ban on guns and ammo in the states but I doubt you would see positive results for a decade or more.

But I have at least 200 other items in my house that could be used to kill people.

I'd wager none of those items are as versitale and effective at killing people. That's besides the point though, was just the comparision between eating fat and owning a gun that bothered me.

The gun law discussion is so heated that I'll gladly step away from that.

i think that there are two options:
1. weapons for everyone, so "good" or "bad"
2. weapons for nobody
trying to prevent, that "evil" guys get weapons, is impossible, because you cant control that many weapons.
so you have to ask yourselve: which option is better? i think, and many statistics show, that option 2 is better.

i think that there are two options:
1. weapons for everyone, so "good" or "bad"
2. weapons for nobody
trying to prevent, that "evil" guys get weapons, is impossible, because you cant control that many weapons.
so you have to ask yourselve: which option is better? i think, and many statistics show, that option 2 is better.

I'm assuming that option 2 was a typo, because that is a pretty glaring contradiction.

I believe that is quite probable in the states but in many countries within the EU most of the petty criminals don't have access to firearms.

This whole gun debate is hard for either side to understand and is mostly pointless unless you live in the states.

We have in the EU for the most part, freedom from firearms, the threat of a criminal carrying a fire is so minimal that it doesn't cross most of our minds, however in the states where the threat of a criminal carrying a firearm is real I completely understand the want for protection.

If you have a criminal record you're not getting a weapon. It's practically impossible in dozens of states to get a weapon if you're clean as it is, due to how difficult the liberals have made it.

Also, don't talk shit about the EU being gun free. 11/20 of the heaviest fire arm owning countries are in Europe. 9/20 are in the EU. Almost all EU countries have the ability to own fire arms for assorted reasons, including self defense. Even in Ireland, the country with the strictest fire arm laws in the Western world, you can still own a fire arm if you jump through enough hoops.

Which came first? Personally, I'm not keen on the Castle Doctrine type law being enacted here. What would I do if my home was invaded? Probably use a bat or something, or MOST LIKELY, let them take whatever they wanted.

Anyway, if civilians are allowed to up-gun, then the crims will come heavy too. That's not a good place to be in, I don't think.

The Castle Doctrine was taken from the UK. It was originally a British law.

You're giving yourself 2 options there in the case of home invasion. Fight them with a baseball bat, or let them take your shit. You forgot about the invisible option where you let them take your shit and you get murdered.

I would rather the crims come heavy and me being prepared enough to handle them, than they come light and me having nothing at all. One's a level playing field, the other isn't.

And when it gets right down to it, bad people don't follow the law. In a country where there's no gun saturation to start with and a very small population, imposing firearm bans is extremely easy. See; Ireland.

In any other situation, you're far better off allowing them to continue in circulation and just keep a record of who owns what under the guarantee that your guns cannot be confiscated by law unless used as evidence in a crime, after which time it is returned to you. This means that should the restrictions ever tighten, they can't just disarm you because they have what you own on record.

If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it. Doesn't have to be legal. In countries devoid of guns to start with, this is usually a sufficient blockade to deter many people from jumping through all the hoops to get it, but in most countries they're decently easy to obtain. If you were to ban guns in America today, you'd have 300 million illegal weapons in circulation. Good luck keeping them out of the black market.

This is all besides the point, anyways. There is nothing more important to me than my life and the life of those I care about. I shouldn't be forced to entrust it to an entity that is under no obligation to actually save it, and when/if it decides to do so, has a long response time. I would think the marker of a free society is the freedom to defend oneself from all aggressors. And the marker of a safe society is to have that freedom and never needing to exercise it.

The entire Trayvon Martin case was a sign of how the US law system, in all states and general laws needs a real examination. Most laws like Stand your Ground, and the like, were more written during times of either:
A.) War.
B.) Pre-War
C.) Post War
D.) Times of American Propoganda filled Terror. (I.E. All the time )

They need to be freaking removed. He was asked NOT to follow the boy, and yet he did. And then he got into a confrontation and shot the boy. That is a sign that he profiled Trayvon Martin and that he's a fucking racist. I could have been Trayvon Martin. So all because I'm a black guy, walking around with some Ice Tea, a Hoodie, and a bag of skittles, I need to be profiled into being a dangerous horrible criminal? Fuck that. That's just another sign of the United States still having people who want to sit around and find ways to prove themselves superior to another person, cause of the color of their skin. And the people who act like, "Racism is dead. The world is not as racist as it used to be", need to wake up and smell the bullshit that they've been standing on as their soap box.

racism will always exist as long as people exist, thats just a fact. maybe animals are racist so even if we didn't exist it would still exist.

The entire Trayvon Martin case was a sign of how the US law system, in all states and general laws needs a real examination. Most laws like Stand your Ground, and the like, were more written during times of either:
A.) War.
B.) Pre-War
C.) Post War
D.) Times of American Propoganda filled Terror. (I.E. All the time )

They need to be freaking removed. He was asked NOT to follow the boy, and yet he did. And then he got into a confrontation and shot the boy. That is a sign that he profiled Trayvon Martin and that he's a fucking racist. I could have been Trayvon Martin. So all because I'm a black guy, walking around with some Ice Tea, a Hoodie, and a bag of skittles, I need to be profiled into being a dangerous horrible criminal? Fuck that. That's just another sign of the United States still having people who want to sit around and find ways to prove themselves superior to another person, cause of the color of their skin. And the people who act like, "Racism is dead. The world is not as racist as it used to be", need to wake up and smell the bullshit that they've been standing on as their soap box.

So attacking him is the best option right? And last I checked, they found weed on him. It's disgusting how there is always a massive uproar every time a non-black person kills a black person. Why does the race card always have to be pulled?

Everyone that plays the race card is just extremely ignorant. First off, he is half Hispanic (which is every bit as Hispanic as Obama is black). I've never heard of any Hispanics that are racist against blacks, this must be a first. Also if you listened to the 911 call from Zimmerman, he doesn't even mention the race until the dispatcher asked if he was white black or hispanic. And he reported many other suspicious looking people before Trayvon, including whites/hispanics. Almost everyone demanding "justice" and saying that the judicial system is flawed is just a sheep that immediately fell for the medias distorted portrayal of TM, only showing his pictures of when he was a little kid.

And I don't even think Trayvon was really the "thug" that some people make him out to be, he was probably just your average non violent pothead but the weed or whatever else was laced with it made him really paranoid. But even if Zimmerman was responsible for spooking him, he still has the right to defend himself when someone mounts him and bashes his head on a sidewalk.

Why don't we look at Australia as a case?

Gun violence is now down ever since it got banned and there aren't any massacres in Australia since. The last one, (the port arthur one) triggered the ban on guns.

The US has 300 million guns in circulation, unsecured borders, and was founded on the principle that people can arm themselves to keep the government in check. So even if it was possible to confiscate all guns and stop new ones from illegally entering the country (not possible), it isn't going to happen beccause that would be violating one of America's most basic constitutional rights.

And Australia isn't that safe, nor are the people very happy about it

Waiting for the European vs American gun control flame war.

Why don't we look at Australia as a case?

Gun violence is now down ever since it got banned and there aren't any massacres in Australia since. The last one, (the port arthur one) triggered the ban on guns.

Horrible example. Crime was already in a downward trend before gun restrictions came into effect, and it has maintained the same trend.

Massacres take place in America due to the shitty educational and mental health systems present. Not because people own guns.

It sickens me that politicians are so scummy as to play on tragedies(that are the minority of the crime stats) to push a political agenda. The Sandy Hook incident made me lose all respect for Obama and the Dems as a whole.

Waiting for the European vs American gun control flame war.

It has nothing to do with other countries really, America is the country that is having problems with firearms.

If you have a criminal record you're not getting a weapon. It's practically impossible in dozens of states to get a weapon if you're clean as it is, due to how difficult the liberals have made it.

Also, don't talk shit about the EU being gun free. 11/20 of the heaviest fire arm owning countries are in Europe. 9/20 are in the EU. Almost all EU countries have the ability to own fire arms for assorted reasons, including self defense. Even in Ireland, the country with the strictest fire arm laws in the Western world, you can still own a fire arm if you jump through enough hoops.



The Castle Doctrine was taken from the UK. It was originally a British law.

You're giving yourself 2 options there in the case of home invasion. Fight them with a baseball bat, or let them take your shit. You forgot about the invisible option where you let them take your shit and you get murdered.

I would rather the crims come heavy and me being prepared enough to handle them, than they come light and me having nothing at all. One's a level playing field, the other isn't.

And when it gets right down to it, bad people don't follow the law. In a country where there's no gun saturation to start with and a very small population, imposing firearm bans is extremely easy. See; Ireland.

In any other situation, you're far better off allowing them to continue in circulation and just keep a record of who owns what under the guarantee that your guns cannot be confiscated by law unless used as evidence in a crime, after which time it is returned to you. This means that should the restrictions ever tighten, they can't just disarm you because they have what you own on record.

If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it. Doesn't have to be legal. In countries devoid of guns to start with, this is usually a sufficient blockade to deter many people from jumping through all the hoops to get it, but in most countries they're decently easy to obtain. If you were to ban guns in America today, you'd have 300 million illegal weapons in circulation. Good luck keeping them out of the black market.

This is all besides the point, anyways. There is nothing more important to me than my life and the life of those I care about. I shouldn't be forced to entrust it to an entity that is under no obligation to actually save it, and when/if it decides to do so, has a long response time. I would think the marker of a free society is the freedom to defend oneself from all aggressors. And the marker of a safe society is to have that freedom and never needing to exercise it.

Dunno where you got those stats about gun ownership in the EU but the US is miles ahead, Switzerland is the only country even close, still about 40% less.

Even with all of its gun restrictions, the UK still has a higher violent crime % than the US

Even with all of its gun restrictions, the UK still has a higher violent crime % than the US

Because a video on youtube said so?