Freedom USA

I think you’re grossly overestimating the numbers and the power of the ones that will fight, and underestimating the power of propaganda. If privately owned companies can systematically fool us with ease (social media), the government can.

Lets say the government wants to take away all privately owned guns. EVERY single household that has one will protect it with their life. And does the government want to eliminate its own citizens? NO, because then the country migh collapse if theres too little people. aAccording to what your saying, 1 million people need to take out 150 people per person before being K'd themselves otherwise itll be more and more per person. Then we have Ex-military, NAvy marines etc, all have guns and know how to use them

What I’m saying is that military action will be barely needed. And Australia has accomplished taking away people’s hatchets, so no, they wouldn’t protect their gun with their life. Plus, some already want the guns to be taken away.

The australians failed to take out emu's, lets not start

The Australians succeeded in taking away hatchets.

I’ll start. And that wasn’t all of my point.

stay in america, australia is not the point its "Freedom USA"

I would like to add that Australia has one of the best gun control in the entire world, and very little crime.

And you know whats higher? Ra**s

Inb4thelock

but I like guns 🎉🎊🦅

I guess I’m just confused about why someone who lives in Austria (A country with EXTREMELY LITTLE crime and especially gun crime) would want to mirror the USA, who is one of the worst countries in controlling guns and gun deaths.

Austria is a very safe country. Be thankful for that.

its not

When seconds count, help is only minutes away. Law enforcement is there as a deterrent to most, but most of the time they end up having to try and solve the crime. Personal responsibility for one’s own safety and that of the community is how a civilized society survives. Learn self defense. Get familiar with guns. Learn to shoot. Take responsibility for your own personal safety and that of those most vulnerable in your clan. 

You’re feeling upset with the violent crime being committed in your country. That’s completely fair; I am too. But just as you don’t appreciate Americans making assumptions about your country’s safety, it’s only fair that we ask the same. As an American citizen, I do feel threatened by our loose gun laws and frequent shootings, often carried out by minors. Personally, I think having a nation-wide gun ban, or at least stricter control, would make guns less accessible and therefore reduce violent crime. But that’s just me. Have a nice day. 🙂

Thank you for your comment. You make a fair point, we shouldn't assume anything, especially where we have no personal experience. In response to your suggestion of gun restrictions, I would refer you to my comment above (comment #61). I would also ask a question regarding the bigger picture. Since guns are dangerous, should we ban them? Since cars/trucks/automobiles are dangerous, should we ban them?

I would say that if guns we’re banned, which I don’t see as a likely possibility, then it wouldn’t be a matter of respecting the law, but rather a matter of getting your hands on a gun. I can’t make a firm claim that this would definitely reduce crime; it’s just a suggestion. And your question is very fair— what’s the difference between banning guns and banning automobiles? Personally, I could say that guns were designed for the sole purpose of taking life, while cars were not. What’s more, guns can be easily concealed while cars would be rather hard to ignore. That’s simply my take on the situation.

Extremely very well said. Guns probably can’t be banned (it’s honestly not a likely possibility), but stricter control certainly is. 

Guns are a technology meant solely for the purpose of killing someone. Cars were made to make travel easier.

Thank you for your suggestion and your willingness to talk about this! Much appreciated for your respect. A nationwide gun ban would certainly make it more difficult to acquire a firearm, but not impossible. And I would think that if guns did become difficult or impossible to get, then the people currently using firearms as their weapon of choice would simply switch to a different item. I believe that happened a bit in the UK; they banned guns and the number of knife attacks rose significantly. I agree with you that cars were not designed to take life while guns certainly are. That is an important distinction. However there are still many, many fatalities and injuries every year in the US because of cars, many more than are caused by firearms.

I don't want to just be negative and I do agree with almost everyone here that there is too much gun violence and we need to do something about it. My solution is to remove violence from our media and entertainment, especially where we glorify it in songs and movies and stuff. If we stop filling the heads of our youth with junk that encourages or tolerates violence, disrespectful ness, and other stupidity, there would probably be less violent crime. (In my opinion, and I'm always open to hearing yours). I think it's a culture issue, not a control issue.

I too appreciate how we can have a genuine conversation about this, instead or arguing aimlessly. And you’re completely right in saying that a gun ban wouldn’t make it impossible to acquire a weapon. I still believe, however, that it would decrease the percentage of shootings by a large margin. As for using a different weapon, that’s also a fair concern. I would say that I’d find my chances at defending myself against a person with a knife outweigh those of my facing a shooter, but that’s hardly a real answer. I do think that using a gun, one would be able to kill many more people before being apprehended than if they only had a knife at their disposal. As for the car death discussion, I would think that most automobile-related deaths were accidents rather than attempts at murder. That is not to say they all are, of course. To be honest, I don’t have a much better answer for you than that; perhaps someone else could be more articulate.

Also, regarding #98, that’s certainly an option. I’m not opposed to it, nor am I for it. Censorship is a slippery slope, though. And if someone has the mental capacity and lack of morality to end someone else’s life, can we blame that on the fact that violence is in our media? The answer very well could be yes. I, myself, enjoy the occasional “violent game,” and have never once legitimately considered taking a human life. But of course, at the end of the day I can only ever offer my personal perspective.