U.S.A.

[Firetooth]

Yes. It works fine here, and our government has more legislative power than yours. Why do common folk need guns in day-to-day life? All they provide is a means for somebody to commit a crime of passion. As I said, your guns will be absolutely worthless if for whatever reason Obama goes "gee, lets oppress/kill/enslave/whatever" the population.

What's Obama even done that makes all you guys so convinced he's going to randomly oppress the people? Don't say anything about guns, because I'm not recognizing that as a legitimate loss of your freedom, because you shouldn't have the freedom to do and own whatever you want. That's why we have laws.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

I haven't said a thing about Obama.

[Firetooth]

No, but Wyanor did, and it is certainly implied when you talk of government tyranny as a reason for Obama not to take away guns. If not tyranny from him, than who?

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Also just because something works over there doesn't mean it'll work here. Part of liberty is being able to own or do what you want so long as this does not harm another against their will. Me owning a gun hurts no one.

Obama is not the only man in government. I'm talking about the government as a whole.

[Dirty Harry]

If you took away my .44, how would I kick butt? One liners alone can't stop crime.

[Firetooth]

Also just because something works over there doesn't mean it'll work here. Part of liberty is being able to own or do what you want so long as this does not harm another against their will. Me owning a gun hurts no one.

Obama is not the only man in government. I'm talking about the government as a whole.

I agree that it may not work, I am simply pointing out that you don't need guns to have a free nation. Our government actually has more legislative power than yours (or our PM has more than the president iirc), yet nobody here is complaining of a possible civil war. Me keeping a bomb in the garage would not hurt anybody. Should I blow that bomb up in my neighbours garden in a crime of passion, though, that would hurt somebody. It's the same principle. The potential for harm is too great for something that serves no purpose in everyday life (unless you hunt).

If you took away my .44, how would I kick [Behind]? One liners alone can't stop crime.

Oh lord, he's becoming self aware!

[Kilkenne]

I have a car in my garage. It is okay there. But it would not be okay if I drove it into someone's garden. See what I am doing here?

[Firetooth]

An automatic rifle is designed to kill dozens of people in minutes. A car is not. I'm surprised you'd present such a disingenuous argument.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

Actually an automatic rifle is designed to cycle multiple rounds for as long as the trigger is held.

[Firetooth]

And those rounds are designed, primarily, to destroy things. Usually people. Don't get bogged down in semantics, because people only start arguing semantics when their underlying argument is poor.

[Kilkenne]

I'm not presenting any argument, I think arguing that people having things that can possibly kill one another is stupid. I also think that people that don't understand rural American culture (a thing that exists) that think forcibly taking/banning things is going to make any difference at all have a stupid opinion. Gun violence is caused 9/10 times in cities with handguns. Not with buzzword weapons like ASSAULT RIFLES. You people (the ones who engage in this argument) are literally ignorant 99% of the time what the words semi-automatic, automatic, and suchforth mean. Absolutely atrocious logic is only natural to follow.

[Kilkenne]

And before we bring in the "well the guy that shot down all those little kids had an automatic rifle!" Let's think about that logically. Could he have just as easily dispatched all those toddlers with a pistol?  (Which would still be legal if you took every single weapon that looks scary because you're not educated about firearms) The answer is yes. They have little legs, it's not like they can run very fast, and a 9mm bullet at point blank range will dispatch just about anyone equally readily.

[Ungatt Trunn II]

It is irrational to try to peg intent onto an inanimate object. Furthermore, it is corrupt to take away a man's right to defend himself. To do this is an act of aggression towards that man, an action of force. The only sensible reaction would be an opposing force. To preserve our liberties we must always be ready and willing to fight for them. Whether you think it'd be effective or not is immaterial and a matter of opinion.

[Firetooth]

I know automatic assault rifles only account for a small amount of violent crime. The point is, there is no excuse for owning an automatic assault rifle, besides "democide!!!" I don't know in what earth an "assault rifle" is a buzzword, because guess what: it does what it says on the tin.

I'm no gun-nut, but automatic guns output the most round-per-min, do they not? Hence, they are the most effective weapons for mass-shooting. See the Batman shooting, and in that case the gun jammed (and I believe was only semi-auto). Compare the US figures on school massacres with those of China, where guns are controlled.

But hey, if you can present a valid argument for why you need an automatic rifle, go ahead.

It is irrational to try to peg intent onto an inanimate object. Furthermore, it is corrupt to take away a man's right to defend himself. To do this is an act of aggression towards that man, an action of force. The only sensible reaction would be an opposing force. To preserve our liberties we must always be ready and willing to fight for them. Whether you think it'd be effective or not is immaterial and a matter of opinion.

Who is "pegging intent on an inanimate object?" I'm not, the gun doesn't want to kill. The wo/man, however, does want to kill. So depriving them of the resources to prevents, or at least significantly reduces (compare US and Chinese figures on school massacres) their ability to kill.

You can defend yourself without a gun. Giving an untrained civilian a gun puts them and their family at a lot of risk, I'd argue. Also, just because somebody robs your house or threatens you, does not justify shooting them.

I agree that sometimes fighting for liberties is required, however it is hugely ironic for you to argue such in one of the freest countries in the world. I'd take you more seriously if you'd ever actually experienced oppression. Btw, top down, not bottom up, is the best and least violent way to resolve issues like this. A revolution of the people should be a last resort.

[Firetooth]

And before we bring in the "well the guy that shot down all those little kids had an automatic rifle!" Let's think about that logically. Could he have just as easily dispatched all those toddlers with a pistol?  (Which would still be legal if you took every single weapon that looks scary because you're not educated about firearms) The answer is yes. They have little legs, it's not like they can run very fast, and a 9mm bullet at point blank range will dispatch just about anyone equally readily.

You know those figures I mentioned? There is a correlation between rounds fired per minute and body county. Ofc he still could've killed some of those kids; in countries with gun control, he could still with a knife. However, his ability to kill is reduced, thus the body count is reduced.