Name a nation greater than the US and why

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The majority of gun deaths in the US in any year I've looked up are people killed with their own firearms.
The mantra ' if we don't have guns we'll get killed' is one of those things that only sounds reasonable until you compare it with things that actually happen.

Do people kill people because they own guns? Yes or no. I don't think anyone has ever been convicted of murder with a motive solely being because they owned a firearm. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I know most liberals are scared of guns. But they don't have mind control abilities that force people to kill others because of the gun's insatiable thirst for blood.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Mark my words, banning murder will be just as effective as banning alcohol and drugs. If we do, only criminals will murder people. The only people who won't murder are law abiding citizens.

And again, banning guns will only leave the law abiding citizens unarmed and unable to defend themselves from the armed criminals who want to murder people.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Sigh....like my country?

How many guns are in Australia? Now compare that to the number of guns in the United States. Then tell me what's the miraculous plan for the disappearance of all the guns in America? Yes, if you could wave a magic wand that would make all the guns magically disappear off the face your magical earth, the gun problem would be fixed.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Nope. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are completely independent states that happen to share the same monarch. They don't have the Queen of England on their currency. They have Elizabeth Windsor who separately holds the title of Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, and Queen of Canada. In fact when the rules of succession to the Crown were changed in England the Commonwealth Realms all had to change it in their domestic law separately.

"Completely independent states who share the same monarch." That sounds nice. Well, you can keep your monarchy and the US will keep its freedom from the British monarchy that we earned. Technically, if the British monarchy ever regained power, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada would have a choice to either submit to the rule of the crown, or fight for their freedom. Don't worry. If that happens, best believe that the United States would come to you in your time of need to help you win back your "freedom".

 

[Darkhorse]

Yes, if you could wave a magic wand that would make all the guns magically disappear off the face your magical earth, the gun problem would be fixed.

That would still leave the knife problem, the bomb problem, the flamethrower problem, the acid problem...

Some would say "but we don't have those problems"
However, we certainly have in the past, and we can again.

 

[Darkhorse]

Suicides are a big chunk of it, accidental deaths are also pretty high. It’s hard to find anything concrete showing that the potential benefits of keeping a firearm outweigh the benefits.
Japan, and some other Asian cultures, have a different attitude towards suicide. The comparison, and the difference in numbers is very small, says nothing to defend the idea that people ‘need’ to be armed. In developed countries where people don’t own firearms the rate of homicide drops sharply. Some people may want to own weapons because it makes them feel safer, but having less weapons is what promotes safety, as is obvious in the comparison between the US and many other developed countries.

Suicides are a very big chunk of deaths by firearms (67%), while accidental deaths continue to drop.

Japan's high suicide rate (not a "very small" difference) is due to their culture, just like our violence against other people is due to ours. Just as Japan has their high rate of suicide without guns, we would have our high rate of violence without them. And yes, it would be just as tragic. Considering the types of injuries inflicted by the weapons in my previous post, dying from a gunshot sounds tame.

Having lived 65 years in close association with guns, I'll take them in preference to your government "safety".

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That would still leave the knife problem, the bomb problem, the flamethrower problem, the acid problem...

Some would say "but we don't have those problems"
However, we certainly have in the past, and we can again.

Don't forget the mass vehicular homicides like the ones seen in London. Oh by the way, did you know that vehicles are the number 1 cause of vehicular homicides in the world? Perhaps we should ban cars too?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Suicides are a very big chunk of deaths by firearms (67%), while accidental deaths continue to drop.

Japan's high suicide rate (not a "very small" difference) is due to their culture, just like our violence against other people is due to ours. Just as Japan has their high rate of suicide without guns, we would have our high rate of violence without them. And yes, it would be just as tragic. Considering the types of injuries inflicted by the weapons in my previous post, dying from a gunshot sounds tame.

Having lived 65 years in close association with guns, I'll take them in preference to your government "safety".

But don't you know that they aren't really suicides because it was the gun that killed them? It wasn't a suicide, a gun murdered them because of its insatiable blood lust.

 

[Gene2memE]

How many guns are in Australia?

Approximately 3.6 million in civil hands, as of the end of 2017. A rate of ownership of about 14.6 firearms per 100 people.

Now compare that to the number of guns in the United States.

About 365 million in civil hands, a rate of ownership of about 110 firearms per 100 people.

Then tell me what god are you going to pray to for the miraculous disappearance of all the guns in America?

Here's a flaming brand. Could you please set fire to that straw man for me?

In Australia, the imposition of a new STRICT gun control regime in the 1990s only dropped the rate of firearm ownership by a third (from a peak of about 21 per 100, to a low of about 13.5 per 100).

Gun control isn't about getting rid of all firearms, its about limiting access to certain categories of firearms and about limiting the access of certain people to firearms. Its about selective risk/harm minimsation.

I say this as an Australian gun owner: I wish our gun laws were STRICTER and the hurdles to firearm ownership were higher. I found it surprisingly easy to get a firearm due to a connection with primary producers.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Approximately 3.6 million in civil hands, as of the end of 2017. A rate of ownership of about 14.6 firearms per 100 people.



About 365 million in civil hands, a rate of ownership of about 110 firearms per 100 people.



Here's a flaming brand. Could you please set fire to that straw man for me?

In Australia, the imposition of a new STRICT gun control regime in the 1990s only dropped the rate of firearm ownership by a third (from a peak of about 21 per 100, to a low of about 13.5 per 100).

Gun control isn't about getting rid of all firearms, its about limiting access to certain categories of firearms and about limiting the access of certain people to firearms. Its about selective risk/harm minimsation.

I say this as an Australian gun owner: I wish our gun laws were STRICTER and the hurdles to firearm ownership were higher. I found it surprisingly easy to get a firearm due to a connection with primary producers.

Okay, perhaps the comment was a bit flaming so I revised it. However, we already discussed gun control. The cities with the strictest gun control laws has some of the highest gun violence. Furthermore, "Gun Free Zones" are the strictest form of "Gun Control" and yet they are the number one target for mass shootings. Now I am all for federal background checks but I am completely against any "gun control" that will keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. I guess my final thoughts is that I don't think any country in their right mind will want to invade the United States when US citizens are better armed than their military. Of course, they will have no problem sweeping through places like San Francisco.

 

[Speedwell]

Approximately 3.6 million in civil hands, as of the end of 2017. A rate of ownership of about 14.6 firearms per 100 people.



About 365 million in civil hands, a rate of ownership of about 110 firearms per 100 people.



Here's a flaming brand. Could you please set fire to that straw man for me?

In Australia, the imposition of a new STRICT gun control regime in the 1990s only dropped the rate of firearm ownership by a third (from a peak of about 21 per 100, to a low of about 13.5 per 100).

Gun control isn't about getting rid of all firearms, its about limiting access to certain categories of firearms and about limiting the access of certain people to firearms. Its about selective risk/harm minimsation.

I say this as an Australian gun owner: I wish our gun laws were STRICTER and the hurdles to firearm ownership were higher. I found it surprisingly easy to get a firearm due to a connection with primary producers.

It is interesting to notice that owning any kind of machine which represents a potential public danger--a car, an airplane, a motor boat, even such things a steam boiler--requires that I register it and carry liability insurance. But not a gun. Yet there is no construction of the beloved Second Amendment which rules it out.

 

[Darkhorse]

It is interesting to notice that owning any kind of machine which represents a potential public danger--a car, an airplane, a motor boat, even such things a steam boiler--requires that I register it and carry liability insurance. But not a gun. Yet there is no construction of the beloved Second Amendment which rules it out.

How many people, organizations, and governments wish to eliminate the use of cars, airplanes, motorboats and steam boilers?

That's why gun ownership is protected in the Constitution; despots don't want armed subjects.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

How many people, organizations, and governments wish to eliminate the use of cars, airplanes, motorboats and steam boilers?

That's why gun ownership is protected in the Constitution; despots don't want armed subjects.

It's funny you say that because I hear that AOC wants to eliminate cars and airplanes. Although America is far from perfect, it seems as though the worst things about the country are byproducts of failed progressive ideas and policies. But you know what they say, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

[Speedwell]

How many people, organizations, and governments wish to eliminate the use of cars, airplanes, motorboats and steam boilers?

That's why gun ownership is protected in the Constitution; despots don't want armed subjects.

But there is nothing in the Second Amendment which implies that gun ownership be kept secret from the government, indeed, just the opposite. Nor is there anything that prohibits requiring liability insurance.

 

[Arcangl86]

It's funny you say that because I hear that AOC wants to eliminate cars and airplanes. Although America is far from perfect, it seems as though the worst things about the country are byproducts of failed progressive ideas and policies. But you know what they say, "The path to hell is paved with good intentions."

Except she doesn't.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Except she doesn't.

It is all a part of her "Green New Deal". High speed rail is supposed to replace air travel and all cars are going to be replace by electric vehicles.

 

[rambot]

Nope. Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are technically still under the rule of the British monarchy as a semi-intependent states. Which is why they have the Queen of England on their currency. They absolutely did not "achieve the same goal without bloodshed".

With the exception of total independence (and I'd say there are a lot of other factors

 

[ripple the car]

@hislegacy , I love your new avatar! Yay!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

With the exception of total independence (and I'd say there are a lot of other factors

Technically, as "Head of the Commonwealth", should the British monarchy ever regain its power (as opposed to a mere symbol), the British monarchy could impose its authority over its commonwealth states like Australia and Canada. However, this is all hypothetical and unlikely to happen. However, the point is that it is a hypothetical problem that the United States doesn't have to deal with and they didn't have to wait almost 200 years to have their "freedom" given to them at the pleasure of her Majesty.

 

[Tanj]

Well since this thread is derailed beyond the point of return...

"Completely independent states who share the same monarch." That sounds nice. Well, you can keep your monarchy and the US will keep its freedom from the British monarchy that we earned. Technically, if the British monarchy ever regained power, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada would have a choice to either submit to the rule of the crown, or fight for their freedom. Don't worry. If that happens, best believe that the United States would come to you in your time of need to help you win back your "freedom".

Would it? More specifically, if the US had to choose between Britain and Australia in a war, do you think it would back Australia?