Not even a gun owner from USA and I'm angry about the call to disarm Americans..

[poido123]

It's a lazy smear campaign to blame the guns, while totally ignoring a failed surveillance network and the failure of the health system which would/should identify and stop these individuals before they go on these sick rampages.


A gun is only dangerous when a person is motivated to use it to cause harm. The problem isn't that guns are available(knives and everything that can harm a human being should be banned if that's the case), but it's the poor surveillance of these individuals who either have history of violence or terrorist involvement. A lot more can be done for mental health, to get people like this off the street and into proper care. The system has failed, not guns.

[nathanjizzle]

geez ur stupid. did you just really compare knives to assault rifles?

[masonanddixon]

America definitely needs to get rid of guns.

Just imagine what Australia would be like if any redneck bogan could arm himself. It would be terrifying to the environment.

[NumberSix]

America definitely needs to get rid of guns.

Just imagine what Australia would be like if any redneck bogan could arm himself. It would be terrifying to the environment.
Or, imagine if it was like Switzerland where everybody can have fully automatic machine guns and has almost 0 gun crime.

[Dresta]

geez ur stupid. did you just really compare knives to assault rifles?
Did you really just call someone else stupid while using that obvious propaganda term?

[masonanddixon]

Or, imagine if it was like Switzerland where everybody can have fully automatic machine guns and has almost 0 gun crime.

Small, nearly racially homogeneous, wealthy country that doesn't have one of the most atrocious human rights history in the world.

[NumberSix]

Small, nearly racially homogeneous, wealthy country that doesn't have one of the most atrocious human rights history in the world.
Meaning what? Non-whites can't be trusted with guns? What exactly are you saying?

[masonanddixon]

Meaning what? Non-whites can't be trusted with guns? What exactly are you saying?

I am saying that multiculturalism is inherently an evil concept and has never worked in the millions of years of human existence, and is a failure especially post-capitalism and now in the era of corporatism.

Any society that is racially homogenous is less likely to experience social discord than a multicultural society. Thats simple common sense and knowledge.

Note how I referred to bogans in Australia. Thats synonymous with whites.

It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the fact that people are garbage. Once you realise this you will understand why people cannot be trusted with weaponry.

[nathanjizzle]

Did you really just call someone else stupid while using that obvious propaganda term?

i know your oblivious to many things, but "assault rifle" is an actual classification for a type of rifle, not made for propaganda. below is the difference between a rifle and an "assault rifle". poor dresta, extremely stupid.

http://www.hr1871.com/images/zoom_sbs-y43.jpg
http://www.guns.news/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2016/01/SIG-AR15.jpg

[Dresta]

i know your oblivious to many things, but "assault rifle" is an actual classification for a type of rifle, not made for propaganda. below is the difference between a rifle and an "assault rifle". poor dresta, extremely stupid.

http://www.hr1871.com/images/zoom_sbs-y43.jpg
http://www.guns.news/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2016/01/SIG-AR15.jpg
Yes, well done, but it's a classification that you don't seem to understand, because evidently your mind has been addled by propaganda:


In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

It must be an individual weapon
It must be capable of selective fire
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine[5]
And it should have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.



So yes, you are a moron, because you keep talking about "assault rifles" as if they were legal, when they aren't. This credulity is a sure sign of extreme stupidity, but on your part, not mine. The people who feed you this rubbish are trying to create a false impression by using alarmist language, and like a good sheep, you lap it up by the gross.

[~primetime~]

^^^ get ready for idiots to declare that the gun on the top is every bit as deadly as the gun on the bottom...and that the gun on the bottom just 'looks' scary :facepalm

[~primetime~]

Dresta...again overly concerned with the definition of 'assault rifle'...or 'military rifle'

how about "converted military rifles"???...if we use that term will that get you to stop your semantics rage?

[edb33]

^^^ get ready for idiots to declare that the gun on the top is every bit as deadly as the gun on the bottom...and that the gun on the bottom just 'looks' scary :facepalm


Welp time for you to call me an idiot again I guess because you don't understand guns. Technically in the pic is a single shot .243 but this exact model comes in semi auto so yes it would be deadlier than the one below it. Bigger projectile, same rate of fire, capable of holding the same amount of rounds.

[NumberSix]

i know your oblivious to many things, but "assault rifle" is an actual classification for a type of rifle, not made for propaganda. below is the difference between a rifle and an "assault rifle". poor dresta, extremely stupid.

http://www.hr1871.com/images/zoom_sbs-y43.jpg
http://www.guns.news/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2016/01/SIG-AR15.jpg
Assault rifles are illegal.