Discussion Americans Are Lucky

[woknows]

Maybe suicide should take a bit of an effort. This way you really want to go out and it is not just an impulse that makes the wrong decision permanent.

 

[Sherri]

I live in the UK and it sucks because even the normal police over here don't carry guns. The gangs run around threatening each other with knives which would be considered a joke in America. Americans can easily get access to a gun and blow their brains out without too much fuss.

when I visited the UK also wondered that, they carry only handcuffs. They sure are brave, and the ones I needed help with locations were all super friendly.

 

[lost_soul83]

Why do you bother with this? You know that nobody is interested in your opinion on anything. No-one has ever cared about any opinion you've ever had. Nothing you think or feel matters to anyone.

You realize no one gives a shit about the crap spewing out of your mouth, you're just a bitter, lonely, person who only tries to make everyone around you miserable so you feel better about yourself.

 

[Amumu]

In this debate we have idealism (We have the right to defend ourselves against criminals and the government) vs pragmatism (the number of murders is higher - don't compare two states within the US, compare the US and another country, it's more relevant)

Personally I'd rather give up on values to focus on numbers, but that's just me. I understand the other position.

 

[WeekofWonder]

It's not guns causing problems, it's people. There's always going to be people doing bad shit. UK banned guns then people started stabbing people.

Guns are solely designed to kill as fast and efficiently as possible. "People" can take a fuckin' knife and go to their school, they will NEVER kill as many people as they would have with an automatic rifle.
I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

 

[kite]

I live in the US and if you go to a mental hospital for a suicide attempt and they commit you essentially Making you stay longer than you want to stay. Some states are more trigger happy with giving blue papers but then you lose your right to own a gun. So I so wish I could get a gun but don't want to risk 10 years in prison.. if I am even able to get one from a private seller. You have to practice shooting...where? If you don't die with one you could get 10 years for being in possession of a gun.

I read somewhere that you can get a gun after a few years if you were involuntarily admitted, do you know how true this is?

 

[makingsure4]

I read somewhere that you can get a gun after a few years if you were involuntarily admitted, do you know how true this is?

I think in some states that may be true. But I'm not sure what the Feds think about it. It may still be private sales perhaps but maybe legal if you apply to have reinstated rights.

 

[lost_soul83]

In this debate we have idealism (We have the right to defend ourselves against criminals and the government) vs pragmatism (the number of murders is higher - don't compare two states within the US, compare the US and another country, it's more relevant)

Personally I'd rather give up on values to focus on numbers, but that's just me. I understand the other position.

Personally I'm glad to live in a country where we have the right to own firearms, but I do understand that crime rates may be higher, etc. I do understand the other position, but I still subscribe to the theory that it's not the gun's fault if the person that owns it uses it to kill someone. It's just my opinion that we shouldn't be blaming inanimate objects for crime, but the people that commit them, although I do understand that people can more easily kill or hurt someone else with a firearm. I guess there are valid points on both sides of the argument. I just don't see how more gun control laws are going to help.

 

[Tired_Tired]

People join this forum are not lucky and misfortune. Hopefully, everyone finds the peace. Good luck.

 

[Kat!]

Second Amendment UwU

 

[Kat!]

A few years ago, there was an attack on a school in my country where the perpetrator killed three people and then suicided-by-cop. His weapon of choice? A sword. Another few years back, a man packs a suitcase full of guns and ammo, and murders 67 kids on an island. Both countries have comparable gun laws, in that permit for a purpose is required. Had he been armed with a sword, do you think 67 kids would have died that day? Or how about in Las Vegas? Could the perpetrator have killed 60 people by firing arrows from a crossbow blindly at 1200 feet away? Even as a marksman, it would have been quite the feat to hit that many targets with fatal precision from that range and angle with that kind of lighting.

I could go on and on. Christchurch, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine. Guns vastly amplify the destructive capabilities of a person with intent, and unlike individual murderousness they can be controlled. I'm not of the opinion that gun ownership necessarily needs to be completely outlawed. But it should be a privilege, not a right. When the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they must have either underestimated our ability to craft so much more effective weaponry, or simply assumed that people would adapt to the times. But we're struggling to do that. There are for example no legitimate reasons for an individual to possess an assault rifle, wouldn't you say?

Psst, look up the meds they were taking, look up their pasts, it will all make sense.

Columbine, SSRIs, bullying,
Sandy Hook, improper parenting coupled with autism,
Virginia Tech, bullying,
Christchurch, bullying,
Stephen Paddock was taking an anxiety medicine, (Valium) which is known to have serious side effects if paired with sleep deprivation and alcohol, which both were present in his life.

Idk about you but guns are the last issue here.

 

[Amumu]

Psst, look up the meds they were taking, look up their pasts, it will all make sense.

Columbine, SSRIs, bullying,
Sandy Hook, improper parenting coupled with autism,
Virginia Tech, bullying,
Christchurch, bullying,
Stephen Paddock was taking an anxiety medicine, (Valium) which is known to have serious side effects if paired with sleep deprivation and alcohol, which both were present in his life.

Idk about you but guns are the last issue here.

This isn't the point. If they hadn't access to guns they wouldn't have made so much damage.

Of course guns don't kill people themselves, it's a no Brainer.

 

[Kat!]

This isn't the point. If they hadn't access to guns they wouldn't have made so much damage.

Of course guns don't kill people themselves, it's a no Brainer.

You can't curb an entire amendment because a few rotten eggs.

The media overblows these events, seriously, and people are buying it.
Curb an amendment and we're on our way to a totalitarian state.

 

[Amumu]

You can't curb an entire amendment because a few rotten eggs.

The media overblows these events, seriously, and people are buying it.
Curb an amendment and we're on our way to a totalitarian state.

Basically you're saying all the world but the US is a totalitarian state dude.

I'm not American and I'm not familiar with the curbing amendment stuff.

I'm not familiar with the American media either tbh.

Don't be rude, I'm not a naive person "buying stuff" stupidly. This is arrogant.

 

[Kat!]

Basically you're saying all the world but the US is a totalitarian state dude.

I'm not American and I'm not familiar with the curbing amendment stuff.

I'm not familiar with the American media either tbh.

Don't be rude, I'm not a naive person "buying stuff" stupidly. This is arrogant.

Because most of the modern world's constitutions were not drafted fundamentally the same way the US's was. Ours is focused towards protecting "inalienable rights", one of which happens to be the right to bear arms, because of our fight against the British.

I'm not calling you out for being a "sheep", this was just a general statement towards people in the US who are anti-second amendment.

I am just trying to point out that the day we see the government remove or revoke an amendment, is the day that the constitution has been broken, and this means that the government is no longer on the right side, that's treason.

 

[makingsure4]

There was a shooting spree on the news years ago, the one with the kindergarteners, and the news anchor asked one of the experts on the scene what type of mental illness the shooter had. The expert just said 'This isn't about mental illness. He (the shooter) was evil.' Sociopathic personality disorders are people without a conscience. So they all fall there. Not that all sociopaths would do that. Or as I believe the disorder is now called antisocial personality disorder which as my old doc said is the only one he will diagnose because PD labels in general make people feel bad. So going after all other mental health labels is useless.

 

[HopelessBorderline]

Just a thought.
The pro-lifers here in the UK are trying to restrict the sale of SN as it has been used in connection with a number of suicides, but America do not restrict the sale of guns which are used for the majority of their murders, let alone suicides... and they are very very easily accessable
Hmmmm.

 

[makingsure4]

I think the guns make the owners feel powerful so there is a lot of anger shown in the states when they try to put laws on guns.

 

[Kat!]

There was a shooting spree on the news years ago, the one with the kindergarteners, and the news anchor asked one of the experts on the scene what type of mental illness the shooter had. The expert just said 'This isn't about mental illness. He (the shooter) was evil.' Sociopathic personality disorders are people without a conscience. So they all fall there. Not that all sociopaths would do that. Or as I believe the disorder is now called antisocial personality disorder which as my old doc said is the only one he will diagnose because PD labels in general make people feel bad. So going after all other mental health labels is useless.

I'm assuming you're talking about Sandy Hook, in which this case Adam Lanza was on the spectrum, and may have has some schizophrenic-type symptoms. As a kid he drew some scary things, as well as talking about "things crawling in the walls."

Imo it's the mom's fault for not properly parenting Adam, she introduced him to guns when she knew he was internally violent and anti-social, that was a massive red flag.

It got so bad that he was talking to his mom over email, and he put tarps over his windows, rarely ever left his room.

 

[Good4Nothing]

I think the guns make the owners feel powerful so there is a lot of anger shown in the states when they try to put laws on guns.

I own several guns, and I don't feel powerful.

 

[makingsure4]

I'm assuming you're talking about Sandy Hook, in which this case Adam Lanza was on the spectrum, and may have has some schizophrenic-type symptoms. As a kid he drew some scary things, as well as talking about "things crawling in the walls."

Imo it's the mom's fault for not properly parenting Adam, she introduced him to guns when she knew he was internally violent and anti-social, that was a massive red flag.

It got so bad that he was talking to his mom over email, and he put tarps over his windows, rarely ever left his room.

I try to forget the shooters names and am mostly successful. My Dad was a big hearted softie and I remember him crying profusely over the little children and their grieving parents. I felt sad but mostly furrowed my brows and got angry at what happened. Sounds like the shooter had multiple diagnosis with evil behavior.

 

[Symbiote]

Guns are used as a means to something. Poverty will make people with guns do desperate things to survive. Most legal gun owners use guns as protection or recreational uses such as hunting or sports shooting. Guns should never be given to a mentally unstable person.

 

[Secrets1]

Guns are used as a means to something. Poverty will make people with guns do desperate things to survive. Most legal gun owners use guns as protection or recreational uses such as hunting or sports shooting. Guns should never be given to a mentally unstable person.

"Should"and "are" 2 completely different things. It's like living in la la land. In 1 group it's all about protection, in the other also boils down to protection. Of course a few legal gun owners will exploit and break the laws for profits funneling them into poverty stricken areas and to people who cannot legally own. Undercutting attempts to restrict and comparative arguments about policy between states.

And whats mentally unstable? Suicidal people?

 

[Amumu]

And whats mentally unstable? Suicidal people?

That's a good point, it's nearly impossible to clearly know people's intentions...

 

[fixitinpost]

The 2nd amendment exists so American citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government, as well as from criminals. If the government and criminals are armed with assault rifles, then so should we be. We have the rght to defend ourselves.

The way I see it is that the numbers tell a tale. How many times have you had to fight off the armed government in your lifetime? Probably zero. How many times are you gonna find yourself at gunpoint from a criminal? Well, that sadly could be greater than zero. But an assault rifle? Maybe if you find yourself in the middle of a terrorist attack or bank heist. But are you gonna carry your AR-15 with you at all times in anticipation of such an event? And are you gonna be able to summon your inner Rambo when the time comes?

That kind of escalation isn't going to work the way people imagine it will. It will most likely lead to more deaths. After school shootings, gun advocates can usually be heard saying "If only the teachers had guns, this could have been prevented". Even if we require teachers, unlike the Average Joe, to undergo rigorous firearms training - when it comes down to the reality of pointing the gun at another sentient being and pulling the trigger... well, it's not something that anyone can be taught how to do. And it's not something we should be asking someone to do.

If you're gonna keep a gun somewhere, it's most likely gonna be at home. And there could be a case for owning a small-caliber handgun for home defense. You don't want a bigger gun for that. Even a BB gun would probably suffice. But you're also opening up for a whole host of accidents, especially considering how lax the safety requirements can be.

Psst, look up the meds they were taking, look up their pasts, it will all make sense.

Columbine, SSRIs, bullying,
Sandy Hook, improper parenting coupled with autism,
Virginia Tech, bullying,
Christchurch, bullying,
Stephen Paddock was taking an anxiety medicine, (Valium) which is known to have serious side effects if paired with sleep deprivation and alcohol, which both were present in his life.

Idk about you but guns are the last issue here.

It doesn't take much to figure that someone capable of killing dozens of people in cold blood has issues. But as I said in a previous post, when you restrict the guns you restrict the individual's destructive capability. If the perpetrators of Columbine, together with friends, hadn't been able to acquire guns then they would have had to rely on their shitty bomb-making skills. The Las Vegas incident simply wouldn't have been possible without the use of guns. And in many (non-ideologically-driven) cases, the perpetrator wants to die in the process. A gun provides them with a reliable way to accomplish that, and so they may be less inhibited by the consequences of their actions as a result.

There's obviously a point to looking at the other aspects as well. There were sooooo many ways in which Columbine could have been nipped in the bud. But then you have cases like Las Vegas, where the perpetrator lead a very private life and no one was (or is) the wiser.

 

[Kat!]

The way I see it is that the numbers tell a tale. How many times have you had to fight off the armed government in your lifetime? Probably zero. How many times are you gonna find yourself at gunpoint from a criminal? Well, that sadly could be greater than zero. But an assault rifle? Maybe if you find yourself in the middle of a terrorist attack or bank heist. But are you gonna carry your AR-15 with you at all times in anticipation of such an event? And are you gonna be able to summon your inner Rambo when the time comes?

That kind of escalation isn't going to work the way people imagine it will. It will most likely lead to more deaths. After school shootings, gun advocates can usually be heard saying "If only the teachers had guns, this could have been prevented". Even if we require teachers, unlike the Average Joe, to undergo rigorous firearms training - when it comes down to the reality of pointing the gun at another sentient being and pulling the trigger... well, it's not something that anyone can be taught how to do. And it's not something we should be asking someone to do.

If you're gonna keep a gun somewhere, it's most likely gonna be at home. And there could be a case for owning a small-caliber handgun for home defense. You don't want a bigger gun for that. Even a BB gun would probably suffice. But you're also opening up for a whole host of accidents, especially considering how lax the safety requirements can be.



It doesn't take much to figure that someone capable of killing dozens of people in cold blood has issues. But as I said in a previous post, when you restrict the guns you restrict the individual's destructive capability. If the perpetrators of Columbine, together with friends, hadn't been able to acquire guns then they would have had to rely on their shitty bomb-making skills. The Las Vegas incident simply wouldn't have been possible without the use of guns. And in many (non-ideologically-driven) cases, the perpetrator wants to die in the process. A gun provides them with a reliable way to accomplish that, and so they may be less inhibited by the consequences of their actions as a result.

There's obviously a point to looking at the other aspects as well. There were sooooo many ways in which Columbine could have been nipped in the bud. But then you have cases like Las Vegas, where the perpetrator lead a very private life and no one was (or is) the wiser.

Ah here we go again.

Buddy, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. And if we are going by the term "assault rifle" which was made up during a drafted bill, it still wouldn't be one.

An "assault rifle" is a rifle that can switch between 3 or 2 firing modes, 4 or 3 in total (including safe).

Safe, Semi, and Full-Auto. Or, Safe, Semi, Full-Auto, Two or Three Round Burst.

The AR-15 (as by civilian models) can only have Semi and Safe, making it a civilian model Semi-Automatic rifle.

A gun is a tool, you can use it for a wide range of things, it's not up to the manufacturer to find out what you intend to use it for.


As for ; "How many times have you had to fight off the armed government in your lifetime?"

I suggest you read about Waco or Ruby Ridge, or the Philadelphia fire and shooting.

3 groups of law-abiding people fucked over by the government, and thus murdered.
In Waco's case it was a false gun modification charge.
In Ruby Ridge's case, the Government feared that Randy Weaver was a going to start an insurrection against the government, so they shot his son, dog, and wife.

The better question to ask yourself is, would you want to be ready when the day comes? Or do you want to be ill-prepared, and defenseless?

 

[Antigonish]

Wait you mean to tell me everyone here isn't american. Some say earth, I say america. USA!

 

[Amumu]

Because most of the modern world's constitutions were not drafted fundamentally the same way the US's was. Ours is focused towards protecting "inalienable rights", one of which happens to be the right to bear arms, because of our fight against the British.

Yes, I'm well-aware of that.

The map represents laws concerning guns.

 

[Natty]

Ah here we go again.

Buddy, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. And if we are going by the term "assault rifle" which was made up during a drafted bill, it still wouldn't be one.

An "assault rifle" is a rifle that can switch between 3 or 2 firing modes, 4 or 3 in total (including safe).

Safe, Semi, and Full-Auto. Or, Safe, Semi, Full-Auto, Two or Three Round Burst.

The AR-15 (as by civilian models) can only have Semi and Safe, making it a civilian model Semi-Automatic rifle.

A gun is a tool, you can use it for a wide range of things, it's not up to the manufacturer to find out what you intend to use it for.


As for ; "How many times have you had to fight off the armed government in your lifetime?"

I suggest you read about Waco or Ruby Ridge, or the Philadelphia fire and shooting.

3 groups of law-abiding people fucked over by the government, and thus murdered.
In Waco's case it was a false gun modification charge.
In Ruby Ridge's case, the Government feared that Randy Weaver was a going to start an insurrection against the government, so they shot his son, dog, and wife.

The better question to ask yourself is, would you want to be ready when the day comes? Or do you want to be ill-prepared, and defenseless?

this is the dumbest fucking thing i have ever read in my entire life

is this copy/pasted from a pol thread

 

[patheticpartner]

Because most of the modern world's constitutions were not drafted fundamentally the same way the US's was. Ours is focused towards protecting "inalienable rights", one of which happens to be the right to bear arms, because of our fight against the British.

I'm not calling you out for being a "sheep", this was just a general statement towards people in the US who are anti-second amendment.

I am just trying to point out that the day we see the government remove or revoke an amendment, is the day that the constitution has been broken, and this means that the government is no longer on the right side, that's treason.

I genuinely want to understand—what do you think should be done then? Are you for stricter gun laws and regulations? Mental health reform? I'd rather have my 2nd Amendment rights curbed than give "a few rotten eggs" opportunities to kill hundreds of people with their access to guns. I just want SOMETHING to be done in attempt to decrease gun violence. Japan has almost no gun violence, so why not try something, and if it doesn't work, you can have your precious 2nd amendment back.

The 2nd amendment exists so American citizens can protect themselves from a tyrannical government, as well as from criminals. If the government and criminals are armed with assault rifles, then so should we be. We have the rght to defend ourselves.

What good would our guns be against government drones, tanks, nuclear bombs? The "we have a right to defend ourselves" point never made sense to me in modern times. No matter what rights we have, the government will always have the upper hand. Having the right to bear arms is nothing compared to what the government has.

However, having the right to a single non-automatic firearm for self-defense against criminals is sufficient in my opinion.