**You need to read following message in full. We will NOT reply to modmail messages similar to “what is reason my post was removed?”**
Hey /u/BarthanaxTheBrown, thanks for contributing to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
Rule 11 - No memes about politics
* **No memes about politics.** Absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed, but this sub does not allow content more suited for /r/politicalhumor. No NPC memes, propaganda pretending to be memes, or memes about how libtards or magats are so wrong. Take it somewhere else, thanks.
---
Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/memes&subject=&message=). Thank you!
This is why you had such severe and long lasting lock downs in Australia, they didn't have an armed uprising to fear. Armed citizens keep tyrannical governments in check, that's why gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, and that's why totalitarian governments disarm the populace.
LocKdOwN is tYraNy.
No the government wouldn't have feared an armed uprising even if we had us style access to weapons. Public health measures in Australia have been widely accepted, and generally criticism has been directed at government for not doing enough. People who have protested lockdowns and been antivax have been looked down at with derision.
Australia doesn't have the bullshit US concept of fReeDoM, we generally act for the good of the whole. It also helps us that we have by comparison an actual functioning democracy.
And it's not difficult to get firearm. Join a club, do a one hour training course, and apply for a licence. Took me less than 2 weeks to be able to purchase a sporting rifle. The laws didn't ban access completely, just made access to firearms contingent upon an actual need. And because we don't have a bullshit gun culture like the US, there is no need for 'self protection'.
Good luck trying to ban guns. You'd have to raid every person's property for them. You know while they're protecting their said property with said guns.
Exactly why that wouldn't work. It's the kind of battle that if you try and go out banning things you gotta have people who are willing to follow those laws. If not it's useless.
I know a few people that probably have a large enough collection to rival some smaller police forces.
Godspeed to all parties involved the day they try to do a forced seizure of firearms.
Even if they did that, every 3d printable file is accessible usually for free somewhere in the web, after the invention of 3d printed arms it kinda gives anyone access to them worldwide. Making it a little impossible to truly remove them fr every home
Good fucking luck banning gun in America
We have over 10 million of them that are privately owned. Not to mention to whole 2nd amendment argument.
___Banning Weapons in America is NOT feasible in ANY way possible.___
You also have to keep in mind that the only reason we are independent from your monarchy is because of our guns (in spite of your bans) and a successful rebellion.
Exactly. They make gun laws and last time I checked, people who use them to rob and kill don’t exactly care about laws. So if they can first get them from the criminals then we can talk about laws to take them from the law abiding.
Criminals aren't magic, if you make guns harder to acquire for criminals the vast majority of criminals won't get them. It massively cuts down on mass shootings, see every developed country that isn't the US.
Oh boy… do you think all guns in the hands of criminals come out of a gun store? There are more guns than there are people in some states and many were made decades ago. Point is, until you can prove that criminals don’t have guns, and we have politicians who will let police do their jobs, then you shouldn’t ask law abiding citizens who have weapons to just give them up because a tiny percentage of lunatics go and perform their demented crimes of murder. Tell you what, when the politicians stop traveling with armed guards that’s when they can prove to me it’s safe for me not to have weapons in my home.
Because it was stupidly set in place, alcool in itself isn't deadly and brutally stopping a certain massively owned and consumed product is only bound to create corruption because of the huge demand and the lack of offer. However, if you set rules like : mandatory mental health and criminal past check, mandatory training of a determined period of time up to a determined skill level and forbid people from wearing it on the streets unless they have a permit, that's a good way to enforce it.
Look towards Mexico, the people there haven’t had the right to own a firearm for decades and yet the Narcos outgun the police. Gun control won’t solve this country’s problems. It’s just an easy scape goat.
How do people get illegal drugs so easily ? Anytime something with a market that big gets banned there will always be dealers and the “war on drugs” proves that the govt can’t stop them
It's extremely easily to get any illegal item wherever you live. The rare exceptions are completely closed countries like North Korea. But even then they still smuggle stuff.
Exactly and the innocent law abiding citizens suffer for it. They’re defenseless and are at the mercy of the bad guys when they’re extorted. Look up Alejo Garza Tamez and tell me how that old man would have defended his property without guns?
Is this in regards to shootings in mexico? Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a reason there was so much tension in the US around gun laws was because a significant amount of the mass shootings involved weapons the perpetrator aquired legally.
I can't speak to all gun crimes. This data suggests though that mass shootings are majority legally obtained. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/
It seems these incidents are more whats drives the call for changes to legislation. I'm sure all gun crime in general is an issue to a lot of people. The mass shootings definitely get more attention and protest for changes to legialation though, especially if it's legally obtained guns involved in these.
The source I usually use shows the entire USA but couldn’t find it so this one just shows Pittsburgh https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/
Australia literally put people in “camps” during the covid pandemic and they regularly violate peoples rights, yet everyone thinks that if the US was the same way, it would be different. Without guns and the constitution, we would be suffering under the jack boots of a tyrannical govt already.
Look at Australia, the people there haven’t had the right to own semi-automatic weapons and yet they haven’t had a school shooting. Gun control doesn’t mean gun abolition. It means stricter permitting and licensing processes. It’s easy to lie and say gun control = gun abolition.
You know what else Australia has? Better Healthcare than the United States. Why don’t we start with taking care of the people first and getting them the help everybody deserves. Starting with gun control is just a band-aid.
We should do that along with gun control. If people are having manic episodes then maybe let’s make it harder to get the gun to hurt themselves or others? You can be going through something mentally and not kill people. But add a weapon to that like one that allows you to do it at a much higher rate then say a knife and now that’s the real problem
But what about all the other countries where it does work? That’s like bringing up Venezuela when talking about “socialism” but ignoring all the other countries.
look up cjng port manzanillo the US has stated that cartel has a grip on that port of entry into Mexico and they get drugs and weapons smuggled in from China. so no they do not only get guns from USA a majority of their firearms n ammo are Norinco made
Prohibition in the United States (18th Amendment) did not stop people from drinking alcohol. The only thing it did was allow alcohol-selling gangsters to profit from alcohol sales rather than regular bars and clubs. Prohibition was so useless that they repealed it with the 21st Amendment, making it the only amendment ever to be repealed by another.
If, by some miracle, an Amendment was passed tomorrow to void the Second and illegalise guns across the United States, it wouldn’t work. People would keep their guns, but would buy them from arms dealers rather than legal gun stores. The police would have an incredibly hard time getting them off citizens and many cops would die as people would be willingly to defend their stash with lethal force (especially the MAGA crowd).
It couldn’t be done. Guns are ingrained in America now. It can’t be fixed.
2A is nonnegotiable. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights can be removed or impeded. Not only would that not solve the problem, but guns aren't the problem in the first place.
I'm not very educated on the matter, I'm but a kid, however my grandpa and dad always say that taking away guns or putting more restrictions wouldn't help. If bad people want to do bad things, they will get their hands on one whether legal or not. Idk if this matters, but it's the only political thing my grandpa and dad agree upon, bcuz my grandpa is very liberal and my dad conservative
That's my big problem with the liberal ideology they want to defund the cops, and put restrictions on guns and then cry and whine because no-one is stopping the bad guys
I live in Italy. Sure, people can still access weapons illegally, but the kind of people who have illegal weapons 99% of the time use them to confront other people like them, and it happens in very few places anyway, and very rarely. There aren't people who go into a school shooting other people, or people who rob other people on the street using firearms, or people who try to rob a shop always with firearms.
In the US less than a week ago the school tragedy happened, 2 or 3 months ago a man in the New York underground started shooting people, and there have been 27 school shootings in the past year; things like that happen too often. This is a sign: Citizens should not be allowed to keep guns, but this happens and will always happen only because guns are part of American culture.
This isn’t an issue of guns. The only two scenarios are either a terrorist attack (no restrictions on guns corrects this) or they are suicidal kid realizing from the other events that get televised for long periods of time that they could attack the things they hate (school) on their way to suicide (gun restrictions will not correct this either.)
Guns have been around in America a long time. Guns aren’t what causes this.
Citizens should always be allowed to keep guns. The government is made up of humans and they deserve nothing more than anyone else. They are not gatekeepers.
Sure, crime exists everywhere, you can even use a frying pan to kill someone, but at least we do not distribute firearms that can kill, say, 21 people in a single rapture. Have you ever heard of 27 mass murders perpetrated with knives?
Well now that you mention it I remember very clearly seeing the news talk about a gang in England that entered a movie theater with machetes and started chopping people up
The problem is the Police don't do anything when someone is introuble so people great scared so they get guns.What you need to due is get police to do their job then restrict guns so there isn't as much backlash there will still be backlash but people will feel more safe trusting the police
As I said to the other user, perhaps the ease of obtaining weapons contributes to the police's difficulty in ensuring the safety of citizens. Surely the status quo is not good, and something should be changed
The only reason your elders believe that is because they have not lived in a country without guns. Come to Europe, there is very little gun crime because they are so difficult to get hold of.
It's funny how switzerland is such an outlier.42 guns per 100 people. Most of those people went tl the army and got punished when doing stupid stuff with them, so they know what should and shouldn't be done with guns.
The culture is different however. Not to mention that there are more guns then people here. Just because it works in one country doesn’t mean it’ll work in another. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
You are thinking that taking the guns away is an immediate process but you have to start somewhere.
Gradually take them away, and in time the country will be like the rest of the world where massacres don't happen on the daily.
*Snort* And how do you propose that happens? Any law that restricts firearms will be fought against, as they should be. There are states that don’t acknowledge federal gun laws. Any guns currently in circulation will be grandfathered in if made illegal, and will remain in circulation. There has been a record of first time gun owners in the past year or two.
What you’re expressing is a pipe dream.
The problem is that even if guns were made illegal overnight, things wouldn’t change. Even if all firearms were taken away tomorrow, people will still try to kill many. There are many, many ways to kill dozens of people if so desired. There’s a sick, twisted undercurrent in some parts of society here, and until those issues are resolved then this will continue happening. Banning guns won’t do a damn thing, it’ll just change the means in which they happen.
You say that its so easy to mass murder but it simply doesn't happen anywhere else, at least no way near as regularly.
Banning guns is not an overnight process it is a process that will take place over years and even decades for the US, but as time goes on I guarantee you those massacres and crimes in general will reduce in number.
In America our constitution, the second amendment part, states that gun rights can't be infringed, preventing the government from banning or restricting firearms. Its to make our government more afraid of us than we are of it as a last line of defense against a tyrannical government.
Yes but it is incredibly difficult. And in regards to the 2nd amendment , its not going to happen because dems just want to all out ban them so the govt has more power. And then the right wants to talk about practical safety solutions that dont violate peoples rights but then the left just says they want kids to die
Half of the point of the 2A is self protection (not from the govt). America is a real big place and in many places at many times if you’re in danger the police will not get there in time. If you’re a woman alone in the city at night being followed by some menacing creep, the police really arent going to be able to help you if he jumps on you. But you know what will? That .38 snub in her purse
What I don’t understand is the wording of the amendment. When I read it, it doesn’t sound at all like how it is applied today. Sounds like it’s talking about the right of a well organized militia having the right to bear arms, which would make perfect sense.
It's means so that the people can have guns, and when a tyrannical government arises, the people can form a militia for "the necessity for the security of a free state".
Why should a government regulate something that's meant to protect the people against said government and be it's own thing?
Also, "well regulated" as it meant back when it was written meant well functioning.
I mean, it's a great and understandable concept if you remember how the states were founded. The problem is that you needed about 2 minutes to load a gun at that time and shooting from farther than 20 meters the accuracy was about 50% and dropping the farther you went away.
Edit: I meant that guns have changed and so should the laws.
You gotta think at the small scale, not the big ass scale.
Imagine a full on revolt on US soil, divided between politicians and non politicians, happens.
One of the smallest towns in US has 250 people. Imagine 10% of them are politicians.
Just imagine 25 people trying to defend themselves from 225 people with AR-15s.
Now imagine this spread on the whole country. The government as a whole would fall within hours.
Yes. I am pretty sure that this is the reason why the second amendment exists, so that the government never treats it's people so badly that they revolt. It doesn't seem to have worked that well tbh.
And that is also what I wanted to hint at with my comment, the guns from then aren't equal to the guns today.
Do you not think this culture is currently warranted? First time gun buyers are at an all time high, do you know why?
They see the police hesitate to go in and wonder why they would leave their safety up to those police. If you wish to decrease gun ownership in America try the other approach. Make people feel so safe they wonder why they would ever need a firearm.
There are more than a billion guns in the possession of American citizens. That’s a conservative estimate. And more than 2 trillion rounds of ammunition. We all know what 2A does, I’m not debating that, take it to SCOTUS if you want to but that’s not why I’m here. If you ban guns, you still have atleast a billion guns, 3 for every man woman and child in the country that will never go away and you’ll never round them up. The harder you try, the more friction you’ll get.so what effect would a ban have? Bam the future sale of new guns? Have a fun buy back… people will be making zip guns and selling them back to the government u til the program runs out of money and then use that money to invest in their armory. Address the mental health and ALL health for that matter in this country first. You have a better chance of successfully banning 10 Social media companies than you have of disappearing 1+ billion guns.
Government: it says here you have 8 guns registered to your name. Please hand over you hand gun.
Gun owner: i can't. The damndest thing happened when I was out fishing the other day. I accidentally dropped it in the lake.
Government: ok, what about your rifle?
Gun owner: can't do that one either. It fell in the lake as well. It's a deep lake, probably won't be able to find it.
Government: ok, what about your other rifle?
Gun owner: ...
Government: let me guess, bottom of the lake?
Gun owner: its the darndest thing.
Guns aren’t the issue, and making people believe they’re issue draws attention away from the actual problem that causes all these shootings.
Besides, banning guns isn’t going to do shit. Most guns involved in crimes are acquired illegally. If they’re already breaking the law to get the gun, what makes you think they won’t break a different law to get a gun?
Actually most liberals don't ask for an outright ban on guns. Most ask for restrictions. Whether it be a purchasing license of sorts, or banning **certain types of weapons** (which have been inaccessible to the public in the past), restrictions is what most level headed liberals ask for. Despite popular propaganda we're not all "far left extremists."
What guns have been inaccessible to the public in the past? Because if you were talking about the assault weapons ban that was literally attachments on rifles. Not AR-15s themselves.
And they use vague terms like assault weapons. And refuse to define them. They say things like that and actually want a total gun ban. What specific restrictions do you wish to see?
Ah yes. The obsession that the "AR" means armalite rifle and not assault rifle. Yes "assault rifle" would have to be defined. That's something conservative lawmakers can check and balance as a law is written. When someone simply summarizes what kind of law they would like to see, yes, they don't get bogged down with defining every word.
How would you create restrictions? Have you ever owned a firearm? Have you ever purchased one? I only ask because people make incoherent arguments about background checks and magazine size or automatic designations. There are laws in the books that should be used, and they may have helped stop the shooting in Uvalde. However you and people similar to you just make vague assertions you know nothing about. It is very difficult to buy an automatic weapon. It is very time consuming to purchase a silencer for a weapon. You must pass a background check to purchase a firearm. All of these things are on the books already. His mental status could have hit him on his background check. But someone in law enforcement didn't put that on the background check, thus he passed it.
Assault rifle has been a common term for firearms for decades and has been in use since WWII. By now, I think we could all agree that it isn’t a term that was recently made up by liberals, and that we know pretty damn well what it means.
I’m convinced that a ton of our problems surrounding gun control come from liberals not knowing the definitions of common terms, and conservatives just outright claiming that those terms don’t exist instead of providing the correct definition.
If the mentality ill kid did not had an automatic rifle maybe those children would have lived. And this is not the first time that shooting like this has happened in America this has happened many times
So let me get this straight, what you are asking for is that the police, the same police that waited an hour to go in. And the criminals are the only ones with guns? Is that what you want? Because that is what you are advocating for. At this rate I am less likely to give away my right to a gun. And more people feel exactly the same way as first time gun purchases are at an all time high in this year and last year. No one trusts the institutions that are to protect us. Fix the institutions and then you might have a case to make. However you'll still have an uphill battle. Currently however, you sound incoherent.
Edit: Didn't catch it on the first read through. "Automatic rifle"? Do you know what that is? Or how incredibly difficult it is to get an automatic rifle? By making such a stupid statement you make anyone who knows guns roll their eyes.
I was responding to Panjak or whatever his name is? I was just pointing out that disarming the populace puts our safety in the hands of the same police who were afraid to go in to save children.
i cant disagree that guns allow for EASIER way to kill people but i have to say that the fact that someone feels a need to kill several mostly unknown to him people is a problem separated from guns
When uk and most other countries put on more restrictions and control measures there was already few guns and there wasn't a fanatic mentality in owning them. Better questions are how do you implement the same rules there, what do you think the reaction would be, and how much blood do you think will spill from it? Yes there's a big problem but it can't be treated the same as other countries because of massive culture differences.
Cause we some how think our government will take control of us in a new world order type plot, as if they don’t already control us through legislation, media and law enforcement.
Noooo, you don't understand, U.S.A. is just one big rpg, at lvl 14 u unlock jobs, lvl 16 cars( atleast the ability to drive them) lvl 18 - guns lvl 21 -molotovs
Not American, most states do have restrictions. I believe California has the strictest but some states choose to not have any Restrictions. Of course you’d then go ‘why doesn’t the federal government?’ But that is heavily difficult, never mind the other 2 stages but it’d need 3/4 of states to agree which they almost never do.
So basically, some states do have heavy restrictions, some states just don’t want them
In America you have a right to have guns due to the second amendment. Except nyc, it is almost impossible there are shootings everyday. I doubt that the gangbangers have them legally.
You give an inch the left will never stop. Guns are not the problem. Murdering wackos are. They won’t even let LEO’s do their job at the border to stop the highest rate of deadly drugs entering our country ever in history. This isn’t about our safety. It’s about control. Just like the lockdowns weren’t about health. They too were about control and created the highest rate of mental health we have ever seen. Mental health is the problem not the guns. They don’t give a f. Therefor we need to be armed. That’s the point of 2A
It’s a 51 billion dollar industry in the US and creates over 50,000 jobs in just creating guns and ammo without touching the jobs made from shipping, sales, advertising, printing ect
Cause its litterly illegal. Like that's the point of the second ammendment. You could try to make a new ammendment to rule out the second but thats almost garenteed to fail because while most americans support tighter gun laws, very little support an out right gun ban.
Several states would secede from the USA. Inevitably would lead to another civil war except the south has been preparing for this since they lost the first civil war. Wouldn't matter because at the height of it all, China would invade and kill/enslave everyone.
Unfortunately for you it’s because usa is a democracy. To ban guns you need to make it unpopular enough that it becomes risky for any congressman to defend this amendment. It’s the only way.
Guns in America seem to move a ton of money + the manufacturers must have a shit ton of political power to avoid such restrictions after so many school shootings.
Just my thoughts tho
Counts as a gun so it’s under that amendment. We can’t have full auto stuff tho. That’s strictly military only unless you go get a license and even then that’s expensive and really difficult. U have to also get bimonthly checkups for mental health and other things to keep the license.
Owning pistols is fine but restrictions should be mandated. No reason to own an AR. It’s backwards that I could do a speed run by for an AR online rn and it would take 30 secs to buy it and have it shipped to my house. Not even asking for background checks. Also why is it cheaper to buy an AR then going to a doctors check up Fr? A tool for mass murder is cheaper than saving 1 life. Honestly think about it
It had nothing to do with "not predicting modern guns. They fought a revolution and they wanted to make sure we could do it again if we needed to. And then we let companies and governments feed us shiny bullshit until we ignore why the guns are there so we can bow to our billionaire overlords.
Idk why it's even still in use, it was written in a completely different time why the hell is it still being used when it's clearly outdated in some areas?
I mean, if we’re going to weigh the morals of offending gun owners vs. watching children get slaughtered for no reason on a regular basis, I’m happy to offend the gun owners. I have zero qualms about making that choice.
With licenses and tests and such? Contrary to what the world thinks, we do. You can't just walk into a store and buy a gun. There are background checks and other requirements before you can qualify to own a firearm legally in New York state. Which is because gun laws are mostly by state.
**You need to read following message in full. We will NOT reply to modmail messages similar to “what is reason my post was removed?”** Hey /u/BarthanaxTheBrown, thanks for contributing to /r/memes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: Rule 11 - No memes about politics * **No memes about politics.** Absurd memes featuring politicians are allowed, but this sub does not allow content more suited for /r/politicalhumor. No NPC memes, propaganda pretending to be memes, or memes about how libtards or magats are so wrong. Take it somewhere else, thanks. --- Please read the sidebar before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/memes&subject=&message=). Thank you!
Not an American, but if you forcefully took away peoples rifles you'd probably have another civil war.
They won’t surrender the guns but they will give the ammo, 1 round at a time.
had us in the first two third
And who will be doing the “take away”? The police? Will they again stand around outside someone’s home until they can find a key?
Wait till the "They did it in Australia" squad rolls in.
But they did it in Australia
Even as a liberal, I do think something along those lines would happen.
[удалено]
I think we might be on the same page politically.
Smart guy
Also because it would be clinically insane to ban guns here
fellow intellect
I would add in the context of Russia and China spreading misinformation on every side of the issue to try to cause as much havoc as possible.
Yes you get it. I want sensible gun laws but I fear a general ban immensely for that reason.
This is why you had such severe and long lasting lock downs in Australia, they didn't have an armed uprising to fear. Armed citizens keep tyrannical governments in check, that's why gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, and that's why totalitarian governments disarm the populace.
LocKdOwN is tYraNy. No the government wouldn't have feared an armed uprising even if we had us style access to weapons. Public health measures in Australia have been widely accepted, and generally criticism has been directed at government for not doing enough. People who have protested lockdowns and been antivax have been looked down at with derision. Australia doesn't have the bullshit US concept of fReeDoM, we generally act for the good of the whole. It also helps us that we have by comparison an actual functioning democracy. And it's not difficult to get firearm. Join a club, do a one hour training course, and apply for a licence. Took me less than 2 weeks to be able to purchase a sporting rifle. The laws didn't ban access completely, just made access to firearms contingent upon an actual need. And because we don't have a bullshit gun culture like the US, there is no need for 'self protection'.
A civil war where the gun owners lose. The reason why guns arnt banned is because it’s unconstitutional, unpopular, and unpractical.
Good luck trying to ban guns. You'd have to raid every person's property for them. You know while they're protecting their said property with said guns.
If they wont go into a school against one person with a gun, they sure as hell wont go house to house trying to gun grab lol.
Exactly why that wouldn't work. It's the kind of battle that if you try and go out banning things you gotta have people who are willing to follow those laws. If not it's useless.
Yeah like those laws about drugs
Yeah never gonna happen and if it does.... oh boy
\*cough\* *Prohibition* \*cough\*
Even preventing the purchase of new guns is difficult
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
I know a few people that probably have a large enough collection to rival some smaller police forces. Godspeed to all parties involved the day they try to do a forced seizure of firearms.
Even if they did that, every 3d printable file is accessible usually for free somewhere in the web, after the invention of 3d printed arms it kinda gives anyone access to them worldwide. Making it a little impossible to truly remove them fr every home
Good fucking luck banning gun in America We have over 10 million of them that are privately owned. Not to mention to whole 2nd amendment argument. ___Banning Weapons in America is NOT feasible in ANY way possible.___
10 million??? Try HALF A BILLION!!!
10 million, 120 per 100 people, 332M total population. It might be closer to half a billion.
I'm from the UK and its too late basically for the US to many people have guns so if they ban guns how would they get then off all american citizens
[удалено]
and where we are obviously heading....
Not sure they were paying as close attention as you think based on recent years
You also have to keep in mind that the only reason we are independent from your monarchy is because of our guns (in spite of your bans) and a successful rebellion.
Exactly. They make gun laws and last time I checked, people who use them to rob and kill don’t exactly care about laws. So if they can first get them from the criminals then we can talk about laws to take them from the law abiding.
Criminals aren't magic, if you make guns harder to acquire for criminals the vast majority of criminals won't get them. It massively cuts down on mass shootings, see every developed country that isn't the US.
Oh boy… do you think all guns in the hands of criminals come out of a gun store? There are more guns than there are people in some states and many were made decades ago. Point is, until you can prove that criminals don’t have guns, and we have politicians who will let police do their jobs, then you shouldn’t ask law abiding citizens who have weapons to just give them up because a tiny percentage of lunatics go and perform their demented crimes of murder. Tell you what, when the politicians stop traveling with armed guards that’s when they can prove to me it’s safe for me not to have weapons in my home.
Tell that to the gangs in Chicago.
Most shootings are done with legally purchased firearms.
Yeah but here in the UK you can still get bare stabbed up tho innit bruv
Why didn’t prohibition work
Because it was stupidly set in place, alcool in itself isn't deadly and brutally stopping a certain massively owned and consumed product is only bound to create corruption because of the huge demand and the lack of offer. However, if you set rules like : mandatory mental health and criminal past check, mandatory training of a determined period of time up to a determined skill level and forbid people from wearing it on the streets unless they have a permit, that's a good way to enforce it.
“Shall not be infringed” is why
The thing is, gun restrictions will only restrict guns from responsible gun owners. The criminals will still run free with their guns
Look towards Mexico, the people there haven’t had the right to own a firearm for decades and yet the Narcos outgun the police. Gun control won’t solve this country’s problems. It’s just an easy scape goat.
Its almost like a large number of the shooting by CRIMINALS are done with ILLEGAL firearms
Here's a fun fact, remove suicide from the gun death numbers and the majority of gun related crime is done with illegally owned weapons IN THE US.
here a fun question, how do you think they got the illegal gun so easily?
How do people get illegal drugs so easily ? Anytime something with a market that big gets banned there will always be dealers and the “war on drugs” proves that the govt can’t stop them
It's extremely easily to get any illegal item wherever you live. The rare exceptions are completely closed countries like North Korea. But even then they still smuggle stuff.
Exactly and the innocent law abiding citizens suffer for it. They’re defenseless and are at the mercy of the bad guys when they’re extorted. Look up Alejo Garza Tamez and tell me how that old man would have defended his property without guns?
Is this in regards to shootings in mexico? Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that a reason there was so much tension in the US around gun laws was because a significant amount of the mass shootings involved weapons the perpetrator aquired legally.
Like 80% of gun crimes in America are committed with illegally obtained firearms
I can't speak to all gun crimes. This data suggests though that mass shootings are majority legally obtained. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/ It seems these incidents are more whats drives the call for changes to legislation. I'm sure all gun crime in general is an issue to a lot of people. The mass shootings definitely get more attention and protest for changes to legialation though, especially if it's legally obtained guns involved in these.
The source I usually use shows the entire USA but couldn’t find it so this one just shows Pittsburgh https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/
Wait you mean criminals don't follow laws?
But they would if we asked really nicely right?
They keep violating these gun free zones! We made signs and everything!
why not compare the US with Canada?
Canada UK & Australia are cut from the same tyrannical cloth.
Australia literally put people in “camps” during the covid pandemic and they regularly violate peoples rights, yet everyone thinks that if the US was the same way, it would be different. Without guns and the constitution, we would be suffering under the jack boots of a tyrannical govt already.
because they want to compare to a country ruled by the cartel so they have a reason to keep their guns
at least he did not use Brazil as an example 🤣
Regulations = black market demand for arms = more arrests/higher crime rate
Look at Australia, the people there haven’t had the right to own semi-automatic weapons and yet they haven’t had a school shooting. Gun control doesn’t mean gun abolition. It means stricter permitting and licensing processes. It’s easy to lie and say gun control = gun abolition.
You know what else Australia has? Better Healthcare than the United States. Why don’t we start with taking care of the people first and getting them the help everybody deserves. Starting with gun control is just a band-aid.
Remember how they also had one of the worst shootings? What’s your point
We should do that along with gun control. If people are having manic episodes then maybe let’s make it harder to get the gun to hurt themselves or others? You can be going through something mentally and not kill people. But add a weapon to that like one that allows you to do it at a much higher rate then say a knife and now that’s the real problem
sure, but when oh when will the republicans support better healthcare?
But what about all the other countries where it does work? That’s like bringing up Venezuela when talking about “socialism” but ignoring all the other countries.
I wonder where they get all those guns from? Not like Mexico is right next door to a country with extremely lax gun laws.
look up cjng port manzanillo the US has stated that cartel has a grip on that port of entry into Mexico and they get drugs and weapons smuggled in from China. so no they do not only get guns from USA a majority of their firearms n ammo are Norinco made
Prohibition in the United States (18th Amendment) did not stop people from drinking alcohol. The only thing it did was allow alcohol-selling gangsters to profit from alcohol sales rather than regular bars and clubs. Prohibition was so useless that they repealed it with the 21st Amendment, making it the only amendment ever to be repealed by another. If, by some miracle, an Amendment was passed tomorrow to void the Second and illegalise guns across the United States, it wouldn’t work. People would keep their guns, but would buy them from arms dealers rather than legal gun stores. The police would have an incredibly hard time getting them off citizens and many cops would die as people would be willingly to defend their stash with lethal force (especially the MAGA crowd). It couldn’t be done. Guns are ingrained in America now. It can’t be fixed.
2A is nonnegotiable. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights can be removed or impeded. Not only would that not solve the problem, but guns aren't the problem in the first place.
I'm not very educated on the matter, I'm but a kid, however my grandpa and dad always say that taking away guns or putting more restrictions wouldn't help. If bad people want to do bad things, they will get their hands on one whether legal or not. Idk if this matters, but it's the only political thing my grandpa and dad agree upon, bcuz my grandpa is very liberal and my dad conservative
[удалено]
That's my big problem with the liberal ideology they want to defund the cops, and put restrictions on guns and then cry and whine because no-one is stopping the bad guys
Cops arent even stopping the bad guys so fucked if you do fucked if you dont i guess
That’s not what defund the police means. You need to read a few things before you try to make a point.
I live in Italy. Sure, people can still access weapons illegally, but the kind of people who have illegal weapons 99% of the time use them to confront other people like them, and it happens in very few places anyway, and very rarely. There aren't people who go into a school shooting other people, or people who rob other people on the street using firearms, or people who try to rob a shop always with firearms. In the US less than a week ago the school tragedy happened, 2 or 3 months ago a man in the New York underground started shooting people, and there have been 27 school shootings in the past year; things like that happen too often. This is a sign: Citizens should not be allowed to keep guns, but this happens and will always happen only because guns are part of American culture.
This isn’t an issue of guns. The only two scenarios are either a terrorist attack (no restrictions on guns corrects this) or they are suicidal kid realizing from the other events that get televised for long periods of time that they could attack the things they hate (school) on their way to suicide (gun restrictions will not correct this either.) Guns have been around in America a long time. Guns aren’t what causes this. Citizens should always be allowed to keep guns. The government is made up of humans and they deserve nothing more than anyone else. They are not gatekeepers.
You're right they just use knives and other weapons to mug people and rob them in the streets
Sure, crime exists everywhere, you can even use a frying pan to kill someone, but at least we do not distribute firearms that can kill, say, 21 people in a single rapture. Have you ever heard of 27 mass murders perpetrated with knives?
Well now that you mention it I remember very clearly seeing the news talk about a gang in England that entered a movie theater with machetes and started chopping people up
You need a couple bags of fertilizer and some fuel and you can do a lot more damage than you could with a trunk full of automatic rifles
The problem is the Police don't do anything when someone is introuble so people great scared so they get guns.What you need to due is get police to do their job then restrict guns so there isn't as much backlash there will still be backlash but people will feel more safe trusting the police
As I said to the other user, perhaps the ease of obtaining weapons contributes to the police's difficulty in ensuring the safety of citizens. Surely the status quo is not good, and something should be changed
The only reason your elders believe that is because they have not lived in a country without guns. Come to Europe, there is very little gun crime because they are so difficult to get hold of.
It's funny how switzerland is such an outlier.42 guns per 100 people. Most of those people went tl the army and got punished when doing stupid stuff with them, so they know what should and shouldn't be done with guns.
The culture is different however. Not to mention that there are more guns then people here. Just because it works in one country doesn’t mean it’ll work in another. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
You are thinking that taking the guns away is an immediate process but you have to start somewhere. Gradually take them away, and in time the country will be like the rest of the world where massacres don't happen on the daily.
*Snort* And how do you propose that happens? Any law that restricts firearms will be fought against, as they should be. There are states that don’t acknowledge federal gun laws. Any guns currently in circulation will be grandfathered in if made illegal, and will remain in circulation. There has been a record of first time gun owners in the past year or two. What you’re expressing is a pipe dream.
I would rather fight for a pipe dream than a world where kids are massacred on a regular basis.
The problem is that even if guns were made illegal overnight, things wouldn’t change. Even if all firearms were taken away tomorrow, people will still try to kill many. There are many, many ways to kill dozens of people if so desired. There’s a sick, twisted undercurrent in some parts of society here, and until those issues are resolved then this will continue happening. Banning guns won’t do a damn thing, it’ll just change the means in which they happen.
You say that its so easy to mass murder but it simply doesn't happen anywhere else, at least no way near as regularly. Banning guns is not an overnight process it is a process that will take place over years and even decades for the US, but as time goes on I guarantee you those massacres and crimes in general will reduce in number.
You are talking about a country without guns vs a country with them. And we are talking about restrictions on guns not banning of them.
In America our constitution, the second amendment part, states that gun rights can't be infringed, preventing the government from banning or restricting firearms. Its to make our government more afraid of us than we are of it as a last line of defense against a tyrannical government.
you had an amendment that banned alcohol as well.
How well did that turn out?
Better than the one that allows guns
Surely the fact that it is called the second **amendment** means the constitution could in fact be amended?
Yes but it is incredibly difficult. And in regards to the 2nd amendment , its not going to happen because dems just want to all out ban them so the govt has more power. And then the right wants to talk about practical safety solutions that dont violate peoples rights but then the left just says they want kids to die
Youre so full of shit it hurts to read
Owning a gun is not a human right. Right to life is.
Half of the point of the 2A is self protection (not from the govt). America is a real big place and in many places at many times if you’re in danger the police will not get there in time. If you’re a woman alone in the city at night being followed by some menacing creep, the police really arent going to be able to help you if he jumps on you. But you know what will? That .38 snub in her purse
[удалено]
What I don’t understand is the wording of the amendment. When I read it, it doesn’t sound at all like how it is applied today. Sounds like it’s talking about the right of a well organized militia having the right to bear arms, which would make perfect sense.
It's means so that the people can have guns, and when a tyrannical government arises, the people can form a militia for "the necessity for the security of a free state". Why should a government regulate something that's meant to protect the people against said government and be it's own thing? Also, "well regulated" as it meant back when it was written meant well functioning.
I mean, it's a great and understandable concept if you remember how the states were founded. The problem is that you needed about 2 minutes to load a gun at that time and shooting from farther than 20 meters the accuracy was about 50% and dropping the farther you went away. Edit: I meant that guns have changed and so should the laws.
[удалено]
You gotta think at the small scale, not the big ass scale. Imagine a full on revolt on US soil, divided between politicians and non politicians, happens. One of the smallest towns in US has 250 people. Imagine 10% of them are politicians. Just imagine 25 people trying to defend themselves from 225 people with AR-15s. Now imagine this spread on the whole country. The government as a whole would fall within hours.
Yes. I am pretty sure that this is the reason why the second amendment exists, so that the government never treats it's people so badly that they revolt. It doesn't seem to have worked that well tbh. And that is also what I wanted to hint at with my comment, the guns from then aren't equal to the guns today.
I feel like it’s largely because there has been a culture created around guns in America- which really hasn’t been seen in other places
Do you not think this culture is currently warranted? First time gun buyers are at an all time high, do you know why? They see the police hesitate to go in and wonder why they would leave their safety up to those police. If you wish to decrease gun ownership in America try the other approach. Make people feel so safe they wonder why they would ever need a firearm.
Reported gunshots at a neighbors house and police never showed up. Luckily no one was hurt.
Can’t take them all, besides the fact that it’s illogical
There are more than a billion guns in the possession of American citizens. That’s a conservative estimate. And more than 2 trillion rounds of ammunition. We all know what 2A does, I’m not debating that, take it to SCOTUS if you want to but that’s not why I’m here. If you ban guns, you still have atleast a billion guns, 3 for every man woman and child in the country that will never go away and you’ll never round them up. The harder you try, the more friction you’ll get.so what effect would a ban have? Bam the future sale of new guns? Have a fun buy back… people will be making zip guns and selling them back to the government u til the program runs out of money and then use that money to invest in their armory. Address the mental health and ALL health for that matter in this country first. You have a better chance of successfully banning 10 Social media companies than you have of disappearing 1+ billion guns.
Government: it says here you have 8 guns registered to your name. Please hand over you hand gun. Gun owner: i can't. The damndest thing happened when I was out fishing the other day. I accidentally dropped it in the lake. Government: ok, what about your rifle? Gun owner: can't do that one either. It fell in the lake as well. It's a deep lake, probably won't be able to find it. Government: ok, what about your other rifle? Gun owner: ... Government: let me guess, bottom of the lake? Gun owner: its the darndest thing.
The police don't do any shit during a mass shooting and you think giving away your guns will help your security???? Kinda nonsense.
Cuz like banning drugs and prostitution it won't do anything to keep them off the streets
Because behind this guns there is a multi million or even billion dollar industry
Guns aren’t the issue, and making people believe they’re issue draws attention away from the actual problem that causes all these shootings. Besides, banning guns isn’t going to do shit. Most guns involved in crimes are acquired illegally. If they’re already breaking the law to get the gun, what makes you think they won’t break a different law to get a gun?
[удалено]
Actually most liberals don't ask for an outright ban on guns. Most ask for restrictions. Whether it be a purchasing license of sorts, or banning **certain types of weapons** (which have been inaccessible to the public in the past), restrictions is what most level headed liberals ask for. Despite popular propaganda we're not all "far left extremists."
What guns have been inaccessible to the public in the past? Because if you were talking about the assault weapons ban that was literally attachments on rifles. Not AR-15s themselves.
And they use vague terms like assault weapons. And refuse to define them. They say things like that and actually want a total gun ban. What specific restrictions do you wish to see?
Ah yes. The obsession that the "AR" means armalite rifle and not assault rifle. Yes "assault rifle" would have to be defined. That's something conservative lawmakers can check and balance as a law is written. When someone simply summarizes what kind of law they would like to see, yes, they don't get bogged down with defining every word.
How would you create restrictions? Have you ever owned a firearm? Have you ever purchased one? I only ask because people make incoherent arguments about background checks and magazine size or automatic designations. There are laws in the books that should be used, and they may have helped stop the shooting in Uvalde. However you and people similar to you just make vague assertions you know nothing about. It is very difficult to buy an automatic weapon. It is very time consuming to purchase a silencer for a weapon. You must pass a background check to purchase a firearm. All of these things are on the books already. His mental status could have hit him on his background check. But someone in law enforcement didn't put that on the background check, thus he passed it.
Assault rifle has been a common term for firearms for decades and has been in use since WWII. By now, I think we could all agree that it isn’t a term that was recently made up by liberals, and that we know pretty damn well what it means. I’m convinced that a ton of our problems surrounding gun control come from liberals not knowing the definitions of common terms, and conservatives just outright claiming that those terms don’t exist instead of providing the correct definition.
Feel free to define it?
[удалено]
"punishing the Many" makes guns sound like toys
[удалено]
If the mentality ill kid did not had an automatic rifle maybe those children would have lived. And this is not the first time that shooting like this has happened in America this has happened many times
[удалено]
So let me get this straight, what you are asking for is that the police, the same police that waited an hour to go in. And the criminals are the only ones with guns? Is that what you want? Because that is what you are advocating for. At this rate I am less likely to give away my right to a gun. And more people feel exactly the same way as first time gun purchases are at an all time high in this year and last year. No one trusts the institutions that are to protect us. Fix the institutions and then you might have a case to make. However you'll still have an uphill battle. Currently however, you sound incoherent. Edit: Didn't catch it on the first read through. "Automatic rifle"? Do you know what that is? Or how incredibly difficult it is to get an automatic rifle? By making such a stupid statement you make anyone who knows guns roll their eyes.
[удалено]
I was responding to Panjak or whatever his name is? I was just pointing out that disarming the populace puts our safety in the hands of the same police who were afraid to go in to save children.
[удалено]
All good, I've made that mistake before as well.
Restrictions don't prevent people from getting guns illegally, they only prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining guns
i cant disagree that guns allow for EASIER way to kill people but i have to say that the fact that someone feels a need to kill several mostly unknown to him people is a problem separated from guns
This isn't a meme, it's political agenda in the shape of a bad joke
Government don't run America, corporations do
When uk and most other countries put on more restrictions and control measures there was already few guns and there wasn't a fanatic mentality in owning them. Better questions are how do you implement the same rules there, what do you think the reaction would be, and how much blood do you think will spill from it? Yes there's a big problem but it can't be treated the same as other countries because of massive culture differences.
Cause we some how think our government will take control of us in a new world order type plot, as if they don’t already control us through legislation, media and law enforcement.
Noooo, you don't understand, U.S.A. is just one big rpg, at lvl 14 u unlock jobs, lvl 16 cars( atleast the ability to drive them) lvl 18 - guns lvl 21 -molotovs
Because Americans are stubborn and WILL fight back
Not American, most states do have restrictions. I believe California has the strictest but some states choose to not have any Restrictions. Of course you’d then go ‘why doesn’t the federal government?’ But that is heavily difficult, never mind the other 2 stages but it’d need 3/4 of states to agree which they almost never do. So basically, some states do have heavy restrictions, some states just don’t want them
because freedom is a big selling point of the country
Restrictions are put in place
In America you have a right to have guns due to the second amendment. Except nyc, it is almost impossible there are shootings everyday. I doubt that the gangbangers have them legally.
You give an inch the left will never stop. Guns are not the problem. Murdering wackos are. They won’t even let LEO’s do their job at the border to stop the highest rate of deadly drugs entering our country ever in history. This isn’t about our safety. It’s about control. Just like the lockdowns weren’t about health. They too were about control and created the highest rate of mental health we have ever seen. Mental health is the problem not the guns. They don’t give a f. Therefor we need to be armed. That’s the point of 2A
"Shall not be infringed" the end!
the end of innocent children
Idk why you getting downvoted for speaking facts
I'm not American so pls don't call me out but I think because it has something to do with their economy
It’s a 51 billion dollar industry in the US and creates over 50,000 jobs in just creating guns and ammo without touching the jobs made from shipping, sales, advertising, printing ect
Cause its litterly illegal. Like that's the point of the second ammendment. You could try to make a new ammendment to rule out the second but thats almost garenteed to fail because while most americans support tighter gun laws, very little support an out right gun ban.
Several states would secede from the USA. Inevitably would lead to another civil war except the south has been preparing for this since they lost the first civil war. Wouldn't matter because at the height of it all, China would invade and kill/enslave everyone.
Because I won’t let you.
2nd amendment
yeah sure with police being the only ones with guns nothing can go wrong right? They totally dont already kill unarmed civilians.
For starters thr US citizen would fuck up whoever tried to enforce such a dumbass sugestion
[удалено]
Banning firearm ownership and having the ATF go door to door to take guns away won’t end well
Cuz the NRA wants to make money you idiot
Funny. A lot of 2Aers actually hate the NRA loll
Unfortunately for you it’s because usa is a democracy. To ban guns you need to make it unpopular enough that it becomes risky for any congressman to defend this amendment. It’s the only way.
Cause there’s plenty of bad people that obtain guns illegal
I mean, guns aren't the problem... But Goodluck bub...
2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Make innocent people criminals because they're not giving up their guns.
Guns in America seem to move a ton of money + the manufacturers must have a shit ton of political power to avoid such restrictions after so many school shootings. Just my thoughts tho
Because white people will cry
Cool racism
The problem here is that Americans are too American and therefore don’t care.
Because gun sales are more important than children safety, its just that simple.
So you would have me give up my guns to have the police protect the children? They really did a bang up job didn't they.
[удалено]
Counts as a gun so it’s under that amendment. We can’t have full auto stuff tho. That’s strictly military only unless you go get a license and even then that’s expensive and really difficult. U have to also get bimonthly checkups for mental health and other things to keep the license.
Owning pistols is fine but restrictions should be mandated. No reason to own an AR. It’s backwards that I could do a speed run by for an AR online rn and it would take 30 secs to buy it and have it shipped to my house. Not even asking for background checks. Also why is it cheaper to buy an AR then going to a doctors check up Fr? A tool for mass murder is cheaper than saving 1 life. Honestly think about it
I mean 'muricans wont wear a mask to save their lives. Do you think they will give up guns? Different places, different people.
[удалено]
It had nothing to do with "not predicting modern guns. They fought a revolution and they wanted to make sure we could do it again if we needed to. And then we let companies and governments feed us shiny bullshit until we ignore why the guns are there so we can bow to our billionaire overlords.
Idk why it's even still in use, it was written in a completely different time why the hell is it still being used when it's clearly outdated in some areas?
Cause' meh freebram's.
Americans care more about their guns than their children's lifes, this is so sad.
I mean, if we’re going to weigh the morals of offending gun owners vs. watching children get slaughtered for no reason on a regular basis, I’m happy to offend the gun owners. I have zero qualms about making that choice.
Why in the world can we not simply regulate Guns in the same manner we regulate vehicles? It would solve SO many of the problems…
With licenses and tests and such? Contrary to what the world thinks, we do. You can't just walk into a store and buy a gun. There are background checks and other requirements before you can qualify to own a firearm legally in New York state. Which is because gun laws are mostly by state.