2024 USA Presidential Election

[Silent Hill | 284]

12 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

I should also mention that I have been the victim of violent armed robbery/home invasion.  Duct-taped, firearm pressed to my head, bear sprayed, countdowns, the whole shebang.  So if anyone is sympathetic to home invasion concerns, it's me.

But I'm also a realist.  I don't have guns locked and loaded or anything like that because I know it's a 1000 times more likely my kids get a hold of them.  So it's not like I'm sitting here fantasizing about castle doctrine like so many of the gun crazies in this country.

You're lucky af my man. Thankful you lived to tell that tale. A buddy of mine was shot and paralyzed from a home invasion about 15 years ago or so and ended up dying from an overdose as becoming paralyzed sent him down a dark path. 

[Silent Hill | 284]

7 minutes ago, Brickman said:

I don’t bother with these debates with American’s anymore, they just don’t get it. The majority are brainwashed by the gun lobby and the people who do want to make a change are instantly shut down. 

Reed's right on the core issue in the US which is there are far too many guns to have any type of similar success like Australia. Of course the second amendment exacerbates things, but I can't say I really disagree with the amendment. We can make a huge dent in overall gun violence in the US if we address the root causes, which are not the physical objects themselves, though additional legislation to improve the path to acquire a gun should be welcomed. I think it would also help if reality was presented as such as events and statistics are easily sensationalized and that can cloud the messaging at times. 

[Brickman | 4,200]

4 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

Reed's right on the core issue in the US which is there are far too many guns to have any type of similar success like Australia. Of course the second amendment exacerbates things, but I can't say I really disagree with the amendment. We can make a huge dent in overall gun violence in the US if we address the root causes, which are not the physical objects themselves, though additional legislation to improve the path to acquire a gun should be welcomed. I think it would also help if reality was presented as such as events and statistics are easily sensationalized and that can cloud the messaging at times. 

You’re still able to buy guns in Australia so I don’t know why people always bring up the 2nd amendment. Australian’s still have the right to bear arms, it’s just that there are insanely strict laws and also the majority think owning a gun unless you’re on a farm is stupid. This will never happen in the US, it’s too ingrained and brain washed into people that they need to own a gun.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,912]

14 minutes ago, Brickman said:

You’re still able to buy guns in Australia so I don’t know why people always bring up the 2nd amendment. Australian’s still have the right to bear arms, it’s just that there are insanely strict laws and also the majority think owning a gun unless you’re on a farm is stupid. This will never happen in the US, it’s too ingrained and brain washed into people that they need to own a gun.

Many people think it's literally, LITERALLY, a God-given right

[Silent Hill | 284]

43 minutes ago, Brickman said:

You’re still able to buy guns in Australia so I don’t know why people always bring up the 2nd amendment. Australian’s still have the right to bear arms, it’s just that there are insanely strict laws and also the majority think owning a gun unless you’re on a farm is stupid. This will never happen in the US, it’s too ingrained and brain washed into people that they need to own a gun.

Yeah the whole "you can still buy a gun, but not for self-defense" definitely ain't going to fly in the US lol

[Brickman | 4,200]

2 minutes ago, Silent Hill said:

Yeah the whole "you can still buy a gun, but not for self-defense" definitely ain't going to fly in the US lol

Yep 100% agreed. I think the best the US can hope for is what a poster said above, increase ammo prices and tax it heavily (get the right balance so it doesn't create a black market). That way the money can be put back into education and gun related violence. Maybe it might be possible over time to ban things like assault rifles but that seems like it's too ingrained now too.

[Silent Hill | 284]

18 minutes ago, Brickman said:

Yep 100% agreed. I think the best the US can hope for is what a poster said above, increase ammo prices and tax it heavily (get the right balance so it doesn't create a black market). That way the money can be put back into education and gun related violence. Maybe it might be possible over time to ban things like assault rifles but that seems like it's too ingrained now too.

Ironically handguns are used in a majority of shootings, even mass shootings. 

[Astro Bot | 93]

Being able to DEFEND ONESELF is a God given right, and there is no better way to do that than owning a gun

Strict gun laws will never work in America for one simple reason, many Americans don't trust the people and institutions who are in power. So they will never willingly give up the right to arm and defend themselves. 

It's really that simple. 

[DefaultGen | 5,723]

24 minutes ago, Brickman said:

Yep 100% agreed. I think the best the US can hope for is what a poster said above, increase ammo prices and tax it heavily (get the right balance so it doesn't create a black market). That way the money can be put back into education and gun related violence. Maybe it might be possible over time to ban things like assault rifles but that seems like it's too ingrained now too.

I dunno how we even got automatic weapons banned here (by Ronald Reagan of all people). Conservatives should do what Ronald Jesus Reagan would've wanted and enact stricter gun control

[Brickman | 4,200]

13 minutes ago, Astro Bot said:

Being able to DEFEND ONESELF is a God given right, and there is no better way to do that than owning a gun

Strict gun laws will never work in America for one simple reason, many Americans don't trust the people and institutions who are in power. So they will never willingly give up the right to arm and defend themselves. 

It's really that simple. 

Exhibit A of brain washing 

@Link this is why a gun buyback won't work in the US.

[Astro Bot | 93]

1 hour ago, Brickman said:

Exhibit A of brain washing 

@Link this is why a gun buyback won't work in the US.

Sure. My opinions are "brain washing", but your opinions are "facts"

This is why debates are so pointless and unity is a pipe dream in 2024, because one side always has to be arrogant and narrow minded.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,912]

3 minutes ago, Astro Bot said:

Sure. My opinions are "brain washing", but your opinions are "facts"

This is why debates are so pointless and unity is a pipe dream in 2024, because one side always has to be arrogant and narrow minded.

I'll just call out he's Australian 

Maybe we can work on making the divide a global thing 

[Khromak | 836]

1 hour ago, Astro Bot said:

Being able to DEFEND ONESELF is a God given right, and there is no better way to do that than owning a gun

I don't believe in God, so I don't really think he can/should give me or my fellow citizens rights. I think that any "right to defend oneself" should be given (by a society/government, not a fantasy book) with rigid restrictions. Otherwise I can kill anyone I want and say I was defending myself, because the only other witness is dead. Especially when guns are involved. The "right" to defend oneself is not, and should not be, absolute.

1 hour ago, Astro Bot said:

Strict gun laws will never work in America for one simple reason, many Americans don't trust the people and institutions who are in power. So they will never willingly give up the right to arm and defend themselves. 

Yes, and this is an extremely big problem with our culture, which is what many of us on this thread are trying to point out. The idea that large portions of our country think they need guns to overthrown the government...is not healthy. That is a problem, not something to be proud of.

This shows the problem with the public education system, honestly. Frankly, it also gets amplified so much worse when certain members of the political system foster and feed into this as well by lying about how the justice department works.

15 minutes ago, Astro Bot said:

This is why debates are so pointless and unity is a pipe dream in 2024, because one side always has to be arrogant and narrow minded.

Agree on this one though.

[Brickman | 4,200]

34 minutes ago, Astro Bot said:

Sure. My opinions are "brain washing", but your opinions are "facts"

This is why debates are so pointless and unity is a pipe dream in 2024, because one side always has to be arrogant and narrow minded.

I never posted any facts, just my opinion, as did you.

With brain washing and constant advertisement pushed in your face it takes another level of mental concentration to realise it's happening to you. You might not realise you're being brain washed because you're inside the bubble, kind of like in cults where the members can't see what's happening to them.

Your post above highlighted some key advertising and brain washing points that organisations like the NRA will push on people in subtle ways through advertisement. 

I've spoken to a few people from the US who moved here and they admitted that their views on guns had completely changed since moving here and if they were to move back they wouldn't purchase a gun. 

I agree with you though, in the US I don't think it's possible to have a debate in 2024. Unity does seem like a pipe dream for the US. 

[guitarzombie | 935]

3 hours ago, Astro Bot said:

Being able to DEFEND ONESELF is a God given right

No it isnt.

[avatar! | 1,935]

3 hours ago, Astro Bot said:

Being able to DEFEND ONESELF is a God given right, and there is no better way to do that than owning a gun

Strict gun laws will never work in America for one simple reason, many Americans don't trust the people and institutions who are in power. So they will never willingly give up the right to arm and defend themselves. 

It's really that simple. 

I certainly agree that being able to defend yourself or your family should absolutely be a right under most circumstances, especially when you are at home. Most notably in Florida people have tried the whole "well, I felt threatened at the gas station so I opened fire like it was a video game!" and thankfully that does not appear to work --

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753929898/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-despite-stand-your-ground-defense

The shooter, Michael Drejka, was in the above case convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years behind bars. But that said, I think all of us would agree if someone would threaten our life or that of our family we have a right to take out the intruder. Also, I do think @Astro Bot makes a good point that Australia and the USA are fundamentally different since Australia does not have a fundamental right to bear arms -- I realize in practice that may be the case, but it's not ingrained in the Constitution and yeah, that's something fundamental to American culture. BUT that does not mean we should just say "well you know, mass shootings are the price we pay for that" since I think that's ridiculous! Most mass shootings are done with legally obtained weapons --

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

Common sense gun laws would greatly help alleviate this.

With regards to Australia, I'm just going by this --

https://www.guncontrolaustralia.org/how_do_you_obtain_a_firearm

(1) identify your 'genuine reason' for wanting a gun licence: sport/target shooting,  recreational hunting, primary production, pest control, business or employment, rural occupation, animal welfare, firearm collector.

(2) Depending on your genuine reason/s you will need to provide the required proof for that genuine reasons i.e.: proof of club membership, proof of employment, proof below to collector society, proof from accountant or solicitor that you are primary producer or employer that you are a security guard etc.

(3) obtain an application form for a  firearm licence

(4) Complete a multi-day firearm safety course. Pass a written test and practical assessment which will provide certificate that you have passed and completed course.

(5) Compile your firearm application form:

• Identify your genuine reasons for a firearm
• Identify Category of firearm you require: A, B, C, D and/or H. For  D (most lethal firearms. For category D (Self-loading rifles and shotguns), applicant must show "special reason" as to why the applicant needs such a firearm and why a less lethal firearm would not fit the purpose.
• attach safety training completion certificate
• declaration that you meet safe storage requirements for the firearm category you are seeking. Firearm storage is generally not inspected but random checks are allowed.

4) Firearms Registry processes your application and conduct background checks: includes - criminal record and any court ordered mental health orders and intelligence checks.

 

I agree with most of that, but not the "genuine reason" -- quite honestly, I feel it's fair (at least as an American) to say "none of your business!" but again, I've never lived in Australia so I have no idea how closely that is followed. But getting a firearm license, completing a safety course, and having background checks done (criminal and mental health) all sound appropriate to me.

[Brickman | 4,200]

24 minutes ago, avatar! said:

I certainly agree that being able to defend yourself or your family should absolutely be a right under most circumstances, especially when you are at home. Most notably in Florida people have tried the whole "well, I felt threatened at the gas station so I opened fire like it was a video game!" and thankfully that does not appear to work --

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/23/753929898/florida-man-found-guilty-of-manslaughter-despite-stand-your-ground-defense

The shooter, Michael Drejka, was in the above case convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years behind bars. But that said, I think all of us would agree if someone would threaten our life or that of our family we have a right to take out the intruder. Also, I do think @Astro Bot makes a good point that Australia and the USA are fundamentally different since Australia does not have a fundamental right to bear arms -- I realize in practice that may be the case, but it's not ingrained in the Constitution and yeah, that's something fundamental to American culture. BUT that does not mean we should just say "well you know, mass shootings are the price we pay for that" since I think that's ridiculous! Most mass shootings are done with legally obtained weapons --

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

Common sense gun laws would greatly help alleviate this.

With regards to Australia, I'm just going by this --

https://www.guncontrolaustralia.org/how_do_you_obtain_a_firearm

(1) identify your 'genuine reason' for wanting a gun licence: sport/target shooting,  recreational hunting, primary production, pest control, business or employment, rural occupation, animal welfare, firearm collector.

(2) Depending on your genuine reason/s you will need to provide the required proof for that genuine reasons i.e.: proof of club membership, proof of employment, proof below to collector society, proof from accountant or solicitor that you are primary producer or employer that you are a security guard etc.

(3) obtain an application form for a  firearm licence

(4) Complete a multi-day firearm safety course. Pass a written test and practical assessment which will provide certificate that you have passed and completed course.

(5) Compile your firearm application form:

• Identify your genuine reasons for a firearm
• Identify Category of firearm you require: A, B, C, D and/or H. For  D (most lethal firearms. For category D (Self-loading rifles and shotguns), applicant must show "special reason" as to why the applicant needs such a firearm and why a less lethal firearm would not fit the purpose.
• attach safety training completion certificate
• declaration that you meet safe storage requirements for the firearm category you are seeking. Firearm storage is generally not inspected but random checks are allowed.

4) Firearms Registry processes your application and conduct background checks: includes - criminal record and any court ordered mental health orders and intelligence checks.

 

I agree with most of that, but not the "genuine reason" -- quite honestly, I feel it's fair (at least as an American) to say "none of your business!" but again, I've never lived in Australia so I have no idea how closely that is followed. But getting a firearm license, completing a safety course, and having background checks done (criminal and mental health) all sound appropriate to me.

I don't know anyone who owns a gun, or would ever even consider a gun, but I believe that the genuine reason section would be pretty strictly adhered to. I believe that the majority of Australian's wouldn't think "none of your business" they would be thinking that's a good common sense question to have on a form.

It also comes down to attitude. To an Australian, owning a gun outside of those reasons is pretty insane.  

Also, Australian's do have a right to defense in a home invasion, it just has to be proportionate to the threat. 

Ultimately I don't think the majority of the US has the same attitude that a large majority of the world has towards guns and that's probably why it will never change or will take a multi generation change. I truly wish your country luck, but as I said earlier, I realised as soon as little kids were killed in a mass shooting, and very little changed in attitudes, that America as a country don't really care. 

[DefaultGen | 5,723]

The betting market seem to think Biden's covid is him buying time to finally dip out. Kamala ahead again Now we can lose the election with Kamala Harris instead of Joe Biden

[avatar! | 1,935]

1 hour ago, Brickman said:

I don't know anyone who owns a gun, or would ever even consider a gun, but I believe that the genuine reason section would be pretty strictly adhered to. I believe that the majority of Australian's wouldn't think "none of your business" they would be thinking that's a good common sense question to have on a form.

It also comes down to attitude. To an Australian, owning a gun outside of those reasons is pretty insane.  

Also, Australian's do have a right to defense in a home invasion, it just has to be proportionate to the threat. 

Ultimately I don't think the majority of the US has the same attitude that a large majority of the world has towards guns and that's probably why it will never change or will take a multi generation change. I truly wish your country luck, but as I said earlier, I realised as soon as little kids were killed in a mass shooting, and very little changed in attitudes, that America as a country don't really care. 

As I said, the two countries share many similarities, and they clearly have their differences and gun ownership seems to be one of them

Back to crime, I did find some of these statistics interesting --

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

Off-hand, it appears there are far more burglaries and robberies in Australia than in the USA. Is it because in the USA so many people own guns? Or perhaps because in Australia more people report them? At any rate, without jumping to conclusions, I do find it interesting. In terms of attitudes towards guns, you're right that guns are here to stay in the USA. However, I am hoping there will be more comprehensive common sense laws enacted. Also, keep in mind the USA is composed of 50 different states all with their own history, traditions, and laws. I assume things are more centralized in Australia?

[Brickman | 4,200]

1 hour ago, avatar! said:

As I said, the two countries share many similarities, and they clearly have their differences and gun ownership seems to be one of them

Back to crime, I did find some of these statistics interesting --

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime

Off-hand, it appears there are far more burglaries and robberies in Australia than in the USA. Is it because in the USA so many people own guns? Or perhaps because in Australia more people report them? At any rate, without jumping to conclusions, I do find it interesting. In terms of attitudes towards guns, you're right that guns are here to stay in the USA. However, I am hoping there will be more comprehensive common sense laws enacted. Also, keep in mind the USA is composed of 50 different states all with their own history, traditions, and laws. I assume things are more centralized in Australia?

I don’t really know anything about these stats so couldn’t really comment on them with authority. I will say this though, there are many unknowns with the burglaries. What was the value of the item stolen, were the occupants even at home, do Australians report theft more than Americans, do Americans just accept theft as a normal part of living so don’t even report it? So many unknowns.

One thing I can tell you is that I never fear of having a gun pulled on me in a home invasion or even worse what happened to Reed (sorry to hear that dude  that’s awful stuff).

I have had my garage robbed while I was at work of some power tools, I reported it and insurance gave me money. I don’t care because it’s just material possessions and the person waited until I was gone to avoid conflict. If guns were easy to get here I’d be way more scared.

And yeah in Australia gun laws are a national thing, there’s probably very slight variations between states but I’d be surprised if it’s anything major. Hopefully you guys can get some of the more common sense through at least.

[G-type | 2,796]

9 hours ago, Brickman said:

Ultimately I don't think the majority of the US has the same attitude that a large majority of the world has towards guns and that's probably why it will never change or will take a multi generation change. I truly wish your country luck, but as I said earlier, I realised as soon as little kids were killed in a mass shooting, and very little changed in attitudes, that America as a country don't really care. 

Reminds me of the Onion article that has been run nearly verbatim 36 times since 2014 after mass shootings:

'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

[JamesRobot | 6,022]

Dude, I love guns.  I'm not a nut, really.  I only own a 20 gauge, but I'd probably own a hand gun and a rifle if I didn't have kids.  

As far as rights go, I'd like to at least see some requisite safety training and a license to be armed.  I mean, you have to have a license to drive a car and a basic understanding of how to drive.  You even have to take a written test.  (Who am I kidding, it's more of a quiz.)

And the argument for banning "assault rifles" specifically is incredibly weak and has so much to do with the AR brand moniker.  The AR 15 is the posterchild of gun reform.

The definition of an assault rifle was largely concocted in the 90s as the left pushed the gun control agenda of the era.  And the recent congressional Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 bill defines an assault weapon as any semiautomatic pistol, shotgun, or rifle regardless of caliber or make that has one or more additional features such as a detachable magazine, pistol grip, adjustable stock, flash suppression, or threaded barrels.  It has literally nothing to do with the actual capability of the weapon other than some of the modifications that are designed to shorten the length and make it potentially concealable.  Interesting that the bill goes out of its way and specifically names "all AR models"... 

 

This is an (Armalite) AR 7 .22 caliber.  By congressional definition, an assault rifle.  It is a small caliber "survival" rifle good for hunting small game, rabbits, etc. with an effective range of ~100 yards. On its own, there is nothing that would tip this gun into the assault weapon category other than the Armalite brand.  Basically a small pistol with a stock.

 

 

This is is another small caliber .22 Ruger rifle.  It's practically a BB gun.  Totally okay.  Use it to pick off rats and plink at cans.  Effectively the same as the AR7 above.

 

Here's the same Ruger, except it's the limited collector's edition blow your fuckin head off big bad ninja sniper assault skin.  The same gun as above that you're using to nail that damn raccoon who's been dumping over your trash cans since Spring!  Maybe I'll be able to get him now that I have a scope.  Looks scary.  Totally banned.

 

 

Now this is the gun everyone is afraid of.  The semiautomatic Armalite AR 15.  Branding aside, the adjustable stock, and pistol grip are enough to meet the assault rifle definition.  Roughly the same diameter as the .22 but is 50% heavier with three times the muzzle velocity effective up to 600 yards.  This one has the high capacity magazine.  The assault rifle.

 

 

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the classic M16.  The only difference is automatic fire for the military model. This one has a grenade launcher. Sweet!

 

So that's all fine; I would tend to agree that these AR Models are, for the most part, assault weapons (with the exception of the AR 7).

 

And if the AR is the epitome of assault rifles, then this gun is the definition of a hunting/sporting rifle.  The Ruger Mini 14.  No pistol grip, no scope, no flash suppressor, probably has a compass in that beautiful wood stock.  Not an assault rifle by a mile, right?  Right.  By definition, it would not be banned.

 

 

But the Ruger shoots virtually the same ammunition as the M16/AR-15.  It has the same stopping power and the same rate of fire.  NATO uses this gun.  It's exactly as effective as the AR.  Here's the scary assault rifle version.  Banned of course.  

 

This is the original assault rifle.  WWII era semiautomatic M1.  It shoots higher caliber .30-06 (thirty-ought-six) rounds.  Technically an antique but was in service up through Iraq and Afghanistan (according to Wikipedia).  By congressional definition, not an assault rifle.  Good for putting down deer, elk, and black bears with an effective range of 1000 yards.  This gun was developed for war to kill the enemy.  It would obliterate your head like a watermelon getting hit by a semi-truck.  Does not fit the congressional definition and is specifically excluded as an antique.  Modern .30-06s and higher caliber weapons are also totally okay of course.  As long as they don't fit the AR profile.

 

 

So, whether one is pro/anti assault weapons, just know that all guns are potential murder weapons.  And whether assault rifles are banned or not, it doesn't fucking matter because the real problem is that this is America and you can get your hands on any weapon if you really want to, like these illegal as fuck fully automatic 9 mm Glock pistols if you want to.  (I really want to!)

 

TLDR:  Whatever side of the gun debate you're on, be informed of the manipulation of the information.  All firearms, in the right hands, will kill you dead.

Ban 'em all or ban none.

[Khromak | 836]

36 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

 Interesting that the bill goes out of its way and specifically names "all AR models"...

It doesn't though? It says "All AR types" not "all AR models" and then specifically lists off the models in question. Just like "all AK types" it lists off the AK types. It doesn't say all AK models (I'm not sure if AK is a company/brand or style or what).

I'm...pretty sure this is wrong...but I'm not a lawyer, just a random person reading the bill.

Edited July 18 by Khromak

[ThePhleo | 2,265]

On the gun topic:

The toothpaste is already out of the tube.

Seriously, go ahead and make millions of people felons overnight and see how serious people take the legal system afterwards. The wild-wild-west never actually happened, but it will quickly become reality if you make law abiding citizens become felons overnight.

Also, if you come to confiscate them...well, I lost my guns in a boating accident...along with my gold. Very unfortunate, very very unfortunate. Just me and a few hundred thousand friends on a boat.

Edited July 18 by ThePhleo

[JamesRobot | 6,022]

9 minutes ago, Khromak said:

It doesn't though? It says "All AR types" not "all AR models" and then specifically lists off the models in question. Just like "all AK types" it lists off the AK types. It doesn't say all AK models (I'm not sure if AK is a company/brand or style or what).

I'm...pretty sure this is wrong...but I'm not a lawyer, just a random person reading the bill.

 

You are correct in the wording,

Quote

(ii) All AR types, including the following:

And the law is always subject to interpretation.  I'd argue that The literal meaning is, "including [but not limited to] the following:"

The wording is intentionally vague so as to include room for other brands that produce "AR" types.  I would not be surprised if whoever wrote this document believe that AR = assault rifle.  But the letter of the law literally means Armalite Rifle types.