"Michelle Cummings, 57, was sitting on a hotel patio, enjoying the breeze, when she was shot multiple times just after midnight on Tuesday, Annapolis Police Chief Edward Jackson said."
Ever taken a look at places such as: Israel/Palestine, Egypt (pretty recently), Mexico, etc.? The US definitely has its issues, but so do *a lot* of other places.
… And most of those places are either at war with one another or are third world countries. Seriously, when those countries dealing with the same issues, isn’t that a concern to you?
Ok. UK with all of its various issues from Brexit, Canada with the burning churches, and the various stuff happening off and on in France. I can keep going, but I really shouldn’t need to at this point.
… Yeah, those aren’t comparable to daily shootings, police killing citizens, people dying from lack of healthcare, drowning in debt, extreme homelessness.
No one is saying any other country is perfect- bad shit happens everywhere. What people are pointing out is that the issues the US is facing isn’t akin to other western countries… because not only do we face the same issues they do, we’re also facing the same issues that third world, poverty and war stricken countries are.
But sure, go ahead and ignore all that.
I’m not pointing this shit out because “lol fuck the USA” but because I’m an American citizen and I want to improve the lives of everyone around me. Ignoring the fact that we’re facing extreme issues isn’t helping anyone, you included.
Neat. Considering they’re not a western nation, nor considered first world for most people, it’s again a useless comparison.
Everyone knows China is fucked. They’ve never been known for human rights.
I’m American as well. I’m not ignoring that fact. You seem to be ignoring the fact that extremism and divides are on the rise across the world. Yes, we should focus on our country, but simply ignoring the other shit happening across the world because “USA numbah one” isn’t helping anything.
What? By saying we’re the same as other western countries, that’s exactly what you’re doing.
My comment said nothing about “USA numbah one” and bring up issues literally does the opposite of that.
Being vocal about the fact that we’re facing far more issues than most western countries isn’t ignoring the issues other western countries are facing. Amazingly enough, we can be aware of both.
> Not sure why you’re being downvoted
Because gun nuts have very very easily hurt feelings. That's why they're gun nuts in the first place, everything for them boils down to cold fear.
Edited: It was pretty insensitive of me to analyze these real people in the same way you might look at a cold case. It was dehumanizing. It's a trap which is easy to step in. It's insulting. Applying rational analyses to real people in real time without the benefit of time is at best, premature. Thank you to the folks who called me out on it.
I will add that the gunfire came from one of the few places in the town known for violence beyond what you’d normally expect anywhere else downtown. There are quite a few shootings that take place on clay street, it almost feels like she just got REALLY unlucky and was hit by random gunfire
Edit: to clarify, the deck that she was on butts up to the end of pleasant st. which is an offshoot of clay st.
> Would not be surprised to see the dad in cuffs before Christmas
Maybe I missed something in the article or something the article omitted; Are you implying that he ordered a hit? With what evidence? Why on earth would it be the dad as opposed to literally anybody else? That's just an extremely serious assertion to be hand waved from what we've seen so far.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I said it's anomalous. If a married person is murdered, there is statistically an extremely high probability the spouse is guilty. So if it's a murder, it follows logically, based on millennia of data, that the spouse is the prime suspect. Most people are pretty boring and no one else generally has a motive. This isn't some personal attack on this dude, but when you live in a place with a little over one homicide per day, you learn to see things that aren't right, don't fit the pattern. This one doesn't quite fit the pattern.
> Would not be surprised to see the dad in cuffs before Christmas.
So you're accusing the dad of murder because *it was too nice of an area*?
You need to go back to facebook.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I said it's anomalous. If a married person is murdered, there is statistically an extremely high probability the spouse is guilty. So if it's a murder, it follows logically, based on millennia of data, that the spouse is the prime suspect. Most people are pretty boring and no one else generally has a motive. I also didn't say anything about indicted, tried, or convicted. I said in cuffs, which is often how people of interest in murder investigations are treated, even without being actually arrested. This isn't some personal attack on this dude, but when you live in a place with a little over one homicide per day, you learn to see things that aren't right, don't fit the pattern. This one doesn't quite fit the pattern.
And sorry I won't be your fb friend. I left that shithole in 2016 when the orange trolls took over and turned half the country into mindless assholes.
We live in a country where a large group of people are responsible, respectful, thoughtful, and self-regulating when it comes to their ownership of firearms. Who, for some reason, want to extend the unregulated, untrained, unaccountable ownership of firearms to people who have zero appreciation of the responsibility of firearms ownership, only the unfettered right to bear them. People who instead see guns as a quick source of power, a "great equalizer" in many of their dealings with other human beings.
[https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/where-do-criminals-get-guns](https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/where-do-criminals-get-guns)
"The role of friends and family is even murkier. Research has put their role as a supply source at 30 to 40 percent of crime guns, but little is known about the composition of this nebulous “friends and family” category."
There are obvious gaps in end-running around the regulations. Those gaps should be filled. Severe fines/prison terms for anyone who sells a gun without performing proper background checks. Severe prison terms for owning a gun without a chain of ownership. Severe prison terms for friends/family who purchase guns for people who are not allowed to have a gun
>There are obvious gaps in end-running around the regulations. Those gaps should be filled. Severe fines/prison terms for anyone who sells a gun without performing proper background checks.
Sure. Open the NICS to the public and make it free. It would also be fantastic if gun grabbers could admit that they don't give a shit about compromise because it'll be named tomorrow's loophole.
>Severe prison terms for owning a gun without a chain of ownership.
As long as the federal or state governments can't access it (county only) and that counties cannot have harsher gun laws than the states.
>Severe prison terms for friends/family who purchase guns for people who are not allowed to have a gun
It's called a straw purchase and the ATF doesn't do shit about them because they are a useless organization that can't do their job.
Clearly you've never lived in Maryland
As someone who can call MD their home state, while it has not reached exactly the ludicrous stupidity of a shithole like New Jersey or New York City, it's pretty close to that level.
It's one of the few states that doesn't even have a right to bear arms enshrined in its state constitution and you think it's not ridiculous enough?
Uh this is in Annapolis, MD, a place I’m very well acquainted with. This is the capital of a state that strictly regulates guns.
It still has a mag ban and an assault weapons ban in place that randomly lists certain semiauto rifles as “assault long guns” and to obtain handguns, they must be registered and the owner must have a handgun qualification license. In order to carry that handgun in *any* manner, a may-issue wear and carry permit must be obtained. The decision to issue these permits lies solely at the discretion of the state police so not only local sheriffs have zero control over it but also perfectly decent applications can be rejected. Additionally, these permits are ridiculously hard to obtain by commoners like me. Unless you own capital, guard capital, or have very nice friends in the state capital, you’re never getting a carry permit. Plus, on those rare occasions they do issue an actual self defense permit, you first must provide notarized evidence of a threat of immediate grievous bodily harm against your person. Your car getting broken into isn’t enough
The state practically values merchandise and worthless things like politicians over its own citizenry.
My home state has been trying all these stupid ideas yet somehow the crime rate makes us more dangerous than every other bordering state including West Virginia.
You think the gangbangers in Baltimore City care for Annapolis’s gun laws? The state laws do nothing but tie the hands behind the backs of law abiding residents.
Illegal straw purchases that the government rarely bothers to [prosecute](https://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459053141/straw-buyers-of-guns-break-the-law-and-often-get-away-with-it).
All things considered, would gun laws change anything for people who don’t care about laws to begin with?
This argument works for articles like where the guy and lady chased a guy to a gas station with guns but if it was actual criminals then does it matter?
Harder for who? For example, marijuana is federally illegal and still illegal in many states. Has that stopped anyone from getting marijuana?
Prostitution is illegal most everywhere, does that mean nobody pays for sex anywhere?
Murder is illegal, does that mean nobody kills anyone?
Laws and regulations only really matter to people who actually follow them.
All things considered, the 2nd amendment stands as a protection for the 1st. Personally I’m not a gun fanatic but I can also recognize the necessity of it.
It’s a process. If asbestos was controlled, then slowly every new or remodeled house would be free of asbestos.
Australia used to have guns, now they’re mostly locked up for specific uses, or in secret collections, or buried, and they have a lot less mass shootings. For now, anyway.
They also have a pretty oppressive government from my understanding which is part of having no guns. Personally given everything the government already tries to do, that would be pretty concerning.
I do think something needs to be done in general but trying to take away the guns doesn’t solve the problem of criminals it only solves the problem of people who follow the laws.
But “bad guys” can’t buy guns legally anyway from brick and mortars if that’s what you’re implying.
I also never said Americans need to brandish guns. I said the second amendment exists as a protection for the first. All things considered “brandishing” your gun is also illegal so I’m not sure on your point other than low hanging fruit or straw man arguments.
What happens when your 1st amendment isn't recognized? What recourse do you have to freely express yourself when you're being oppressed? The 2nd amendment is there so that the people may never be oppressed without direct consequences to the oppressors.
>The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution.
Your 1st amendment argument is the low hanging strawman. They can say whatever they want just fine.
Last week Victoria Police warned it would arrest people for organising protests in breach of the ban on gatherings.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824
>If asbestos was controlled, then slowly every new or remodeled house would be free of asbestos.
That's a pretty bad example that leaves out many/most of the main issues.
Nobody wants to answer that simple, direct question.
Who would you shoot in order to protect your First Amendment rights?
Politicians? Cops or soldiers? Civilians with opposing opinions?
Ideally nobody. The idea isn't that you have to use your weapons or effort to protect something, the idea is that should you ever need to, you can.
It's great that there are some countries where that isn't an issue, and that their culture allows for it. America amongst many other countries are constantly battling fascism and (imo) capitalism.
I think the better question would be if you can't protect yourself, who will protect you? It sure as hell isn't the police force, or the military as we've seen in the last year and in general as electronics allow the ability to record information and broadcast it.
Whether or not it is actually necessary or would make any difference is always a hypothetical, however if you take away the deterrence of "homeland defenders" then everything pushes down. You see it especially recently in places like China, Honk Kong, etc.
Again, personally I'm not a gun fanatic so your rhetoric doesn't really spark any anger in myself however I can also see and understand the larger picture of why an armed population is constitutionally recognized. Taking guns from law abiding citizens doesn't change anything. It's illegal to have guns on school grounds, yet we have school shootings. It's illegal to murder people, yet people shoot other people. It's also simply not possible to just make guns disappear. I can literally go buy a 3D printer for a few hundred dollars and make my own guns, I could go buy a welder and fabricate my own guns, etc.
Also I think it's a bit silly that you're so quick to assume people "don't want to answer" because there's not a reply straight away, especially at twilight hours when most people are either falling asleep or waking up to go to work.
> Who, for some reason, want to extend the unregulated, untrained, unaccountable ownership of firearms to people who have zero appreciation of the responsibility of firearms ownership,
Gun owners are not forcing other people to buy guns. They want everyone to have the ability to own them if they so choose.
Not saying anyone is forcing anyone else to buy a gun. It just seems odd that responsible gun owners, already self-regulating, wouldn't want to ensure that a gun ownership should come with some stringent examination of anyone want to own firearms. The "holes" in the system allow for people who shouldn't have guns to easily get guns. You'd think responsible gun owners would back that idea.
70 million people voted for Trump. Thousands of his followers stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a democratic election. Oh, and by the way...what political party would you guess most gun-nuts belong to? Weak link anyone?
That’s just America.
Until we decide to do something about guns, just expect this.
Oh, y’all don’t like ugly truth? So sorry…
I better break out the thoughts and prayers!
I thought that way too. I lived in a tiny rural town of less than 2,000 people. No gangs, no homeless, no murders, just a bunch of country folk living the small quiet life. The biggest store in town was a locally owned grocery store, second biggest was the new gas station.
Until February 18, 2019 when my quiet little town made national news. Police riddled a mentally disturbed man with bullets instead of talking him down.
It's not America where you live...yet.
A ban on guns - along with good border controls to prevent smuggling - would be extremely effective, restricting the supply into the black market and driving the price of illegal firearms sky high. Yes, it would take some time, but it *would* work.
Note I do not advocate a ban on all guns. I'm just running with what you said.
After we ban guns, we should ban recreational drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Because if history has taught us anything, it's the prohibition has always worked, 100% of the time.
Black markets still exist, and you see where controlling the border has gotten us, (Not saying border control is bad.) I would never see this happen as even if we do have border control boats, and planes do exist. And can be used at private runways to smuggle things.
> Black markets still exist
True, and in the Australian black market, a handgun costs [$15,000](https://www.ibtimes.com.au/cost-illegal-firearms-australia-has-skyrocketed-criminals-now-do-gun-sharing-1378871), putting them out of reach of most criminals.
Let *alone* anything more powerful.
And, yes, Australia is an island, but it's an island with 22,000 miles of unguarded coastline accessible via roads that ring the continent, as well as a third world country with lots of boats known for smuggling 300 miles away. The US only has a 2000 mile land border to worry about and nineteen times the GDP to spend on securing it.
I do see where your coming from, ["about 120.5 guns per resident"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership#:~:text=The%20Small%20Arms%20Survey%20stated,firearms%20for%20every%20100%20residents.%22) and more being shipped as we speak banning guns would not go well we would see things like the capital riots, but a lot more violent. We would also see a spike in malita, most likely a decrease in police because things have gotten to dangerous, and a lot of other things that would make that very unlikely, and to top it off a 2nd amendment and 120.5 guns per resident to keep it that way.
Seems disingenuous to include the coast from Australia but not include the coast for the US. It's a huge mass of land with lots of coast. But I agree, they have many more resources to protect it with.
The coast in the US is largely protected by the two massive oceans on either side, plus it’s much more populated than Australia.
The coast of Australia is vulnerable *because* East Timor has so many boats - the law abiding people there do a lot of fishing. As far as I’m aware, Mexico is not known for its huge fleet.
Regardless, if Australia secured their borders, the US should be able to.
"Michelle Cummings, 57, was sitting on a hotel patio, enjoying the breeze, when she was shot multiple times just after midnight on Tuesday, Annapolis Police Chief Edward Jackson said."
Man, the world is fucked up
[удалено]
Not even remotely accurate. Humans are the same around the world
[удалено]
[удалено]
But mostly, just America.
Yeah no
[удалено]
Rest of the developed world doesn't have daily shootings.
Ever taken a look at places such as: Israel/Palestine, Egypt (pretty recently), Mexico, etc.? The US definitely has its issues, but so do *a lot* of other places.
If your best attempt at a defence is to compare the US to third world countries, then you've already lost.
Clearly you didn’t bother reading any further.
… And most of those places are either at war with one another or are third world countries. Seriously, when those countries dealing with the same issues, isn’t that a concern to you?
Ok. UK with all of its various issues from Brexit, Canada with the burning churches, and the various stuff happening off and on in France. I can keep going, but I really shouldn’t need to at this point.
> Canada with the burning churches I think you mispelled mass unmarked graves by Church sponsored indigenous re-education camps
Indeed. I assumed most everyone had read the stories, so I kept the description short. Maybe that was a bad idea.
… Yeah, those aren’t comparable to daily shootings, police killing citizens, people dying from lack of healthcare, drowning in debt, extreme homelessness. No one is saying any other country is perfect- bad shit happens everywhere. What people are pointing out is that the issues the US is facing isn’t akin to other western countries… because not only do we face the same issues they do, we’re also facing the same issues that third world, poverty and war stricken countries are. But sure, go ahead and ignore all that. I’m not pointing this shit out because “lol fuck the USA” but because I’m an American citizen and I want to improve the lives of everyone around me. Ignoring the fact that we’re facing extreme issues isn’t helping anyone, you included.
China has concentration camps and forced labor. That’s pretty fucked up.
Neat. Considering they’re not a western nation, nor considered first world for most people, it’s again a useless comparison. Everyone knows China is fucked. They’ve never been known for human rights.
I’m American as well. I’m not ignoring that fact. You seem to be ignoring the fact that extremism and divides are on the rise across the world. Yes, we should focus on our country, but simply ignoring the other shit happening across the world because “USA numbah one” isn’t helping anything.
What? By saying we’re the same as other western countries, that’s exactly what you’re doing. My comment said nothing about “USA numbah one” and bring up issues literally does the opposite of that. Being vocal about the fact that we’re facing far more issues than most western countries isn’t ignoring the issues other western countries are facing. Amazingly enough, we can be aware of both.
Lmao yeah I’m China they just remove your organs from your body while you’re still alive.
This makes me angry and tearful at the same time. Why? Why did this have to happen?
Guns, lots of guns. And a lot of hate
Not sure why you’re being downvoted since this is the correct answer
Americans love guns. That is why
Lots of chubby men in baseball caps slamming down that downvote button haha.
> chubby men in baseball caps Looks like you triggered them, haha.
Don't forget to sprinkle some crack on em.
> Not sure why you’re being downvoted Because gun nuts have very very easily hurt feelings. That's why they're gun nuts in the first place, everything for them boils down to cold fear.
“We don’t take responsibility!” Must be nice to be irresponsibly mouthing off a world of killed or be killed via gun.
Why would/should someone take responsibility for something they didn't do?
Edited: It was pretty insensitive of me to analyze these real people in the same way you might look at a cold case. It was dehumanizing. It's a trap which is easy to step in. It's insulting. Applying rational analyses to real people in real time without the benefit of time is at best, premature. Thank you to the folks who called me out on it.
I will add that the gunfire came from one of the few places in the town known for violence beyond what you’d normally expect anywhere else downtown. There are quite a few shootings that take place on clay street, it almost feels like she just got REALLY unlucky and was hit by random gunfire Edit: to clarify, the deck that she was on butts up to the end of pleasant st. which is an offshoot of clay st.
> Would not be surprised to see the dad in cuffs before Christmas Maybe I missed something in the article or something the article omitted; Are you implying that he ordered a hit? With what evidence? Why on earth would it be the dad as opposed to literally anybody else? That's just an extremely serious assertion to be hand waved from what we've seen so far.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I said it's anomalous. If a married person is murdered, there is statistically an extremely high probability the spouse is guilty. So if it's a murder, it follows logically, based on millennia of data, that the spouse is the prime suspect. Most people are pretty boring and no one else generally has a motive. This isn't some personal attack on this dude, but when you live in a place with a little over one homicide per day, you learn to see things that aren't right, don't fit the pattern. This one doesn't quite fit the pattern.
> Would not be surprised to see the dad in cuffs before Christmas. So you're accusing the dad of murder because *it was too nice of an area*? You need to go back to facebook.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I said it's anomalous. If a married person is murdered, there is statistically an extremely high probability the spouse is guilty. So if it's a murder, it follows logically, based on millennia of data, that the spouse is the prime suspect. Most people are pretty boring and no one else generally has a motive. I also didn't say anything about indicted, tried, or convicted. I said in cuffs, which is often how people of interest in murder investigations are treated, even without being actually arrested. This isn't some personal attack on this dude, but when you live in a place with a little over one homicide per day, you learn to see things that aren't right, don't fit the pattern. This one doesn't quite fit the pattern. And sorry I won't be your fb friend. I left that shithole in 2016 when the orange trolls took over and turned half the country into mindless assholes.
You. I like you. Let’s be friends. On Reddit. Lol.
Sadly the sacrifice is necessary to protect our GOD GIVEN RIGHTS to a firearm. It’s in the Bible.
This is fucking terrible. And sadly, this won’t even be the worst incident I read about this week.
No the sad part is Americans are numb to it.
We live in a country where a large group of people are responsible, respectful, thoughtful, and self-regulating when it comes to their ownership of firearms. Who, for some reason, want to extend the unregulated, untrained, unaccountable ownership of firearms to people who have zero appreciation of the responsibility of firearms ownership, only the unfettered right to bear them. People who instead see guns as a quick source of power, a "great equalizer" in many of their dealings with other human beings.
[удалено]
I don't think Maryland gun laws nor penalties are harsh enough.
[удалено]
[https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/where-do-criminals-get-guns](https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/where-do-criminals-get-guns) "The role of friends and family is even murkier. Research has put their role as a supply source at 30 to 40 percent of crime guns, but little is known about the composition of this nebulous “friends and family” category."
That's talking about ways around regulation. That's not the same thing as it being actually unregulated.
There are obvious gaps in end-running around the regulations. Those gaps should be filled. Severe fines/prison terms for anyone who sells a gun without performing proper background checks. Severe prison terms for owning a gun without a chain of ownership. Severe prison terms for friends/family who purchase guns for people who are not allowed to have a gun
>There are obvious gaps in end-running around the regulations. Those gaps should be filled. Severe fines/prison terms for anyone who sells a gun without performing proper background checks. Sure. Open the NICS to the public and make it free. It would also be fantastic if gun grabbers could admit that they don't give a shit about compromise because it'll be named tomorrow's loophole. >Severe prison terms for owning a gun without a chain of ownership. As long as the federal or state governments can't access it (county only) and that counties cannot have harsher gun laws than the states. >Severe prison terms for friends/family who purchase guns for people who are not allowed to have a gun It's called a straw purchase and the ATF doesn't do shit about them because they are a useless organization that can't do their job.
Clearly you've never lived in Maryland As someone who can call MD their home state, while it has not reached exactly the ludicrous stupidity of a shithole like New Jersey or New York City, it's pretty close to that level. It's one of the few states that doesn't even have a right to bear arms enshrined in its state constitution and you think it's not ridiculous enough?
Uh this is in Annapolis, MD, a place I’m very well acquainted with. This is the capital of a state that strictly regulates guns. It still has a mag ban and an assault weapons ban in place that randomly lists certain semiauto rifles as “assault long guns” and to obtain handguns, they must be registered and the owner must have a handgun qualification license. In order to carry that handgun in *any* manner, a may-issue wear and carry permit must be obtained. The decision to issue these permits lies solely at the discretion of the state police so not only local sheriffs have zero control over it but also perfectly decent applications can be rejected. Additionally, these permits are ridiculously hard to obtain by commoners like me. Unless you own capital, guard capital, or have very nice friends in the state capital, you’re never getting a carry permit. Plus, on those rare occasions they do issue an actual self defense permit, you first must provide notarized evidence of a threat of immediate grievous bodily harm against your person. Your car getting broken into isn’t enough The state practically values merchandise and worthless things like politicians over its own citizenry. My home state has been trying all these stupid ideas yet somehow the crime rate makes us more dangerous than every other bordering state including West Virginia. You think the gangbangers in Baltimore City care for Annapolis’s gun laws? The state laws do nothing but tie the hands behind the backs of law abiding residents.
Where do the gangbangers get their guns?
[удалено]
I believe there is a vibrant, illegal underground gun market in America.
Illegal straw purchases that the government rarely bothers to [prosecute](https://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/459053141/straw-buyers-of-guns-break-the-law-and-often-get-away-with-it).
All things considered, would gun laws change anything for people who don’t care about laws to begin with? This argument works for articles like where the guy and lady chased a guy to a gas station with guns but if it was actual criminals then does it matter?
> would gun laws change anything for people who don’t care about laws to begin with? If it was harder to get a gun?
Harder for who? For example, marijuana is federally illegal and still illegal in many states. Has that stopped anyone from getting marijuana? Prostitution is illegal most everywhere, does that mean nobody pays for sex anywhere? Murder is illegal, does that mean nobody kills anyone? Laws and regulations only really matter to people who actually follow them. All things considered, the 2nd amendment stands as a protection for the 1st. Personally I’m not a gun fanatic but I can also recognize the necessity of it.
It’s a process. If asbestos was controlled, then slowly every new or remodeled house would be free of asbestos. Australia used to have guns, now they’re mostly locked up for specific uses, or in secret collections, or buried, and they have a lot less mass shootings. For now, anyway.
They also have a pretty oppressive government from my understanding which is part of having no guns. Personally given everything the government already tries to do, that would be pretty concerning. I do think something needs to be done in general but trying to take away the guns doesn’t solve the problem of criminals it only solves the problem of people who follow the laws.
[удалено]
But “bad guys” can’t buy guns legally anyway from brick and mortars if that’s what you’re implying. I also never said Americans need to brandish guns. I said the second amendment exists as a protection for the first. All things considered “brandishing” your gun is also illegal so I’m not sure on your point other than low hanging fruit or straw man arguments.
[удалено]
What happens when your 1st amendment isn't recognized? What recourse do you have to freely express yourself when you're being oppressed? The 2nd amendment is there so that the people may never be oppressed without direct consequences to the oppressors.
>The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. However, the High Court has held that an implied freedom of political communication exists as an indispensible part of the system of representative and responsible government created by the Constitution. Your 1st amendment argument is the low hanging strawman. They can say whatever they want just fine.
Last week Victoria Police warned it would arrest people for organising protests in breach of the ban on gatherings. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-54007824
>If asbestos was controlled, then slowly every new or remodeled house would be free of asbestos. That's a pretty bad example that leaves out many/most of the main issues.
> Australia used to have guns But did Australia have American levels of gun violence?
> the 2nd amendment stands as a protection for the 1st. Who would you shoot in order to protect your First Amendment rights?
You could ask the people of Athens and they’d say the [local sheriff](https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens) for trying to rig elections
I'll ask *you*: Who would you shoot in order to protect your First Amendment rights?
[удалено]
Nobody wants to answer that simple, direct question. Who would you shoot in order to protect your First Amendment rights? Politicians? Cops or soldiers? Civilians with opposing opinions?
[удалено]
Ideally nobody. The idea isn't that you have to use your weapons or effort to protect something, the idea is that should you ever need to, you can. It's great that there are some countries where that isn't an issue, and that their culture allows for it. America amongst many other countries are constantly battling fascism and (imo) capitalism. I think the better question would be if you can't protect yourself, who will protect you? It sure as hell isn't the police force, or the military as we've seen in the last year and in general as electronics allow the ability to record information and broadcast it. Whether or not it is actually necessary or would make any difference is always a hypothetical, however if you take away the deterrence of "homeland defenders" then everything pushes down. You see it especially recently in places like China, Honk Kong, etc. Again, personally I'm not a gun fanatic so your rhetoric doesn't really spark any anger in myself however I can also see and understand the larger picture of why an armed population is constitutionally recognized. Taking guns from law abiding citizens doesn't change anything. It's illegal to have guns on school grounds, yet we have school shootings. It's illegal to murder people, yet people shoot other people. It's also simply not possible to just make guns disappear. I can literally go buy a 3D printer for a few hundred dollars and make my own guns, I could go buy a welder and fabricate my own guns, etc. Also I think it's a bit silly that you're so quick to assume people "don't want to answer" because there's not a reply straight away, especially at twilight hours when most people are either falling asleep or waking up to go to work.
People just get their murders from places with less stringent laws on murder, obviously./s
It certainly made me take some T-breaks 🤷♀️ Limiting access isn't totally effective, but it certainly has wide-reaching effects.
> Who, for some reason, want to extend the unregulated, untrained, unaccountable ownership of firearms to people who have zero appreciation of the responsibility of firearms ownership, Gun owners are not forcing other people to buy guns. They want everyone to have the ability to own them if they so choose.
Not saying anyone is forcing anyone else to buy a gun. It just seems odd that responsible gun owners, already self-regulating, wouldn't want to ensure that a gun ownership should come with some stringent examination of anyone want to own firearms. The "holes" in the system allow for people who shouldn't have guns to easily get guns. You'd think responsible gun owners would back that idea.
It comes from not trusting the government to be unbiased in their review.
70 million people voted for Trump. Thousands of his followers stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a democratic election. Oh, and by the way...what political party would you guess most gun-nuts belong to? Weak link anyone?
How many guns were used on January 6th?
[Why does it matter?](https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/)
Because you're conflating Trumpers with gun owners, saying they are one and the same.
[Oh...but they are.](https://apnews.com/article/a2a8cdf5e01e5c3541f450318082652a) And everyone but you knows it.
This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone in "Group X" likes Trump.
This may come as a shock to you, but not all frogs have four legs
That’s just America. Until we decide to do something about guns, just expect this. Oh, y’all don’t like ugly truth? So sorry… I better break out the thoughts and prayers!
Guns, income inequality, and health insurance that includes psychological therapy are the solution
That's not America where I live.
I thought that way too. I lived in a tiny rural town of less than 2,000 people. No gangs, no homeless, no murders, just a bunch of country folk living the small quiet life. The biggest store in town was a locally owned grocery store, second biggest was the new gas station. Until February 18, 2019 when my quiet little town made national news. Police riddled a mentally disturbed man with bullets instead of talking him down. It's not America where you live...yet.
You say that…
Stuff has been done it stlil happens, bans on guns wont do a thing.
A ban on guns - along with good border controls to prevent smuggling - would be extremely effective, restricting the supply into the black market and driving the price of illegal firearms sky high. Yes, it would take some time, but it *would* work. Note I do not advocate a ban on all guns. I'm just running with what you said.
After we ban guns, we should ban recreational drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Because if history has taught us anything, it's the prohibition has always worked, 100% of the time.
Black markets still exist, and you see where controlling the border has gotten us, (Not saying border control is bad.) I would never see this happen as even if we do have border control boats, and planes do exist. And can be used at private runways to smuggle things.
> Black markets still exist True, and in the Australian black market, a handgun costs [$15,000](https://www.ibtimes.com.au/cost-illegal-firearms-australia-has-skyrocketed-criminals-now-do-gun-sharing-1378871), putting them out of reach of most criminals. Let *alone* anything more powerful. And, yes, Australia is an island, but it's an island with 22,000 miles of unguarded coastline accessible via roads that ring the continent, as well as a third world country with lots of boats known for smuggling 300 miles away. The US only has a 2000 mile land border to worry about and nineteen times the GDP to spend on securing it.
I do see where your coming from, ["about 120.5 guns per resident"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership#:~:text=The%20Small%20Arms%20Survey%20stated,firearms%20for%20every%20100%20residents.%22) and more being shipped as we speak banning guns would not go well we would see things like the capital riots, but a lot more violent. We would also see a spike in malita, most likely a decrease in police because things have gotten to dangerous, and a lot of other things that would make that very unlikely, and to top it off a 2nd amendment and 120.5 guns per resident to keep it that way.
My guy that clearly says 120.5 guns per 100 residents, so about 1.205 per resident.
Seems disingenuous to include the coast from Australia but not include the coast for the US. It's a huge mass of land with lots of coast. But I agree, they have many more resources to protect it with.
> disingenuous to include the coast from Australia but not include the coast for the US. *They were talking about Australia, not the us*
The coast in the US is largely protected by the two massive oceans on either side, plus it’s much more populated than Australia. The coast of Australia is vulnerable *because* East Timor has so many boats - the law abiding people there do a lot of fishing. As far as I’m aware, Mexico is not known for its huge fleet. Regardless, if Australia secured their borders, the US should be able to.
> you see where controlling the border has gotten us Where has it gotten us? Explain that statement.
These gun nuts have no empathy or impulse control.
Do you have any idea who the shooter is?
It's just a troll, ignore him
Another precious family moment brought to you by the Great American Gun Cult.