aladrew says

That whole thing I said was largely exaggerated, and I know that people known with previous crimes or major mental disabilities are not allowed guns. But that does not stop them from being well more available than they are here, you do mention that the population of the US is much bigger than there is of people here, that is true meaning the rate of things like shootings and the likes would go up, but that does not stop some of these things being linked to guns wide availability. To show this I want to bring up Columbine just due to how the guns were acquired, 3 guns were bought by a friend from a gun show (seriously you have gun shows...) and another was bought by another friend. Now I suspect but I may be wrong that at a gun show there was no background check + there was no paperwork to be shown or a license. I think if you really want to keep your weapons so bad you need really really strict background checks + a license and if it is of a certain degree you need paperwork

You may find these interesting:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/

https://www.atf.gov/file/56651/download

I'll copypaste the last line from the article since I think it has the most relevance to the discussion and is a statement I 100% agree with:

'More good would be done by strengthening the current background-check system by ensuring states submit felony convictions and mental health records. That’s the most effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands.'

Also, I just want to talk about the voters in the "handgun only" section of the poll. That does not help at least in my opinion as in a school, I don't think anyone will carry a gun and handguns are easier to sneak into a building than anything else, I think concealed carry is worse than having a visible gun as with concealed carry you can get stuff where it ain't supposed to be easier than anything else and without having to put it in a flower box like the terminator

That whole thing I said was largely exaggerated, and I know that people known with previous crimes or major mental disabilities are not allowed guns. But that does not stop them from being well more available than they are here, you do mention that the population of the US is much bigger than there is of people here, that is true meaning the rate of things like shootings and the likes would go up, but that does not stop some of these things being linked to guns wide availability. To show this I want to bring up Columbine just due to how the guns were acquired, 3 guns were bought by a friend from a gun show (seriously you have gun shows...) and another was bought by another friend. Now I suspect but I may be wrong that at a gun show there was no background check + there was no paperwork to be shown or a license. I think if you really want to keep your weapons so bad you need really really strict background checks + a license and if it is of a certain degree you need paperwork

lol

read that fast so i can delete it

that was t*t, not d*ck lol

We're also 3x the size of any other First World country, and have drastically different demographics than other comparable countries. Guns don't inherently make a country more or less dangerous.

You're entitled to your opinion of me, just as I'm entitled to think you're a limp-wristed pansy. Let's agree to disagree.

i really amn't butthurt, i just think you're nuts tbh.

you dudes are like highest murder rate in the first world. and have kids shooting up schools.

veryniceboy says

Pavoneo says

government

you're a delusional fck. and you got the army for foreign. and there's no domestic calls for any of those weapons

Better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them. There are over 300 million registered firearms in the United States and if they or the average gun owner were inherently dangerous, we'd all be merked. Try not to get so butthurt :^)

think on your sins mate. i'll let you at it.

haha it is real cool to hold the potential for such destruction in my hands

literally

i mean, admit that you're sick at least lol

Pavoneo says

government

you're a delusional fck. and you got the army for foreign. and there's no domestic calls for any of those weapons

Not at all. It's intended for the general populace to repel any unwanted government, foreign or domestic. Them being cool is just a plus

i think it was about piece of sht guns for protection from like the 1800's myself.

i mean does the right to bear arms or whatever protect hobbyism, is that the spirit of what that 'right' was about?

fcking kinder eggs with the little toy inside them lol. choking hazard by the ways. america is fcking nuts dudes

is that pic showing for u dudes?

my bro showed me this pic last night:

get a different hobby mate. your desire to have fun with these things isn't worth the lives they cost.

veryniceboy says

what function does an m16 or a high power sniper rifle serve as a tool outside of warfare

Hobbyism, same reason monster trucks are a thing when the roads accommodate your Prius just fine

what function does an m16 or a high power sniper rifle serve as a tool outside of warfare

aladrew says

Hey, I got an idea, lets just hand out guns to everyone who can give us like 500 bucks without any checks or training because then everyone is safe from anything... Yeah that is how it works right

Nice to see that reductio ad absurdum thrown in at the end there, really helped me gauge how informed you are about the subject. Guns aren't as easy to obtain as your favorite Occupy Democrats image would lead you to believe. Here's an example of a reporter attempting to buy a gun for the purpose of showing how easy it is to get: http://www.dailywire.com/news/6736/sun-times-reporter-tries-buy-ar-15-show-how-easy-aaron-bandler

Anybody who is lawfully proven to be a danger to others cannot own a firearm (felons, etc). I'd certainly be fine with barring a crazy person from buying a gun, which is what I think you're suggesting. But proposing that they're just handing out guns left and right is either you being willfully ignorant or grossly uninformed, and frankly I'm not sure which of the two is more embarrassing.

You're using a country 1/63 the size of the US as basis to dictate policy in United States. A country with a 96% homogenous population. A country whose largest population center is comparable to the 31st largest city in the US. A country which, I'm not 100% informed on, but I'd confidently wager doesn't have as much concentrated poverty as American cities such as Chicago and Baltimore.

'Guns stop guns' is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that they are a tool just like anything else, and our Constitutional Rights don't get easily dismissed because a person may use that Right to do wrong. Considering that nearly half of your country wants to free itself from the United Kingdom, you'd think you'd have a greater appreciation for a populaces' ability to determine its own fate.