Welcome to the non-pc.org discussion forum, you must either login or register to be able to contribute, registration is simple, free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

USA Needs More Guns

+2 votes
Stated Oct 24, 2015 in News & Current Affairs by kryptos4u (470 points)
edited Feb 21, 2017 by Admin

I recently watched the above video, which expresses the opinions of Sean Whalen, which is to say that the solution to a gun Problem (epidemic) in the USA, is to issue more guns. Thats right, you heard it, more, not less. This is the equivalent of trying to get an obese person to lose weight by insisting that they only eat fast food, and 6 meals a day!

I am really struggling to understand what kind of fucking idiot, what kind of stupid fool, would come to the nonsensical conclusion that the solution to a problem is to make the very source of the problem more readily available. To present the argument, HERE is an article which outlines the effect that strict gun control has had on countries such as England and Australia, the latter of which implementing strict controls only in relatively recent years. 

Sean, you need to see a head-shrink buddy.

1 Response

+1 vote
Responded Feb 22, 2017 by 1 more time (240 points)
I had a huge shit fight on a Disqus pro gun blog. My argument...1791 the 2nd Amendment was enacted in an age of muzzle loading pistols and rifles. The right to bear arms, a single shot weapon. Fast forward to 2017 and auto and semi auto assault rifles are rife. 36,000 gun related deaths in the US each year seems excessive. I suggested that Americans should only be allowed to carry single shot weapons as per their original Constitution. Easier taking a bone off a pit bull. The backlash was beyond belief. I got called everything from brainless dickhead to fukn troll. Their argument for being over armed was that the crims all had weapons and they had to armed to respond. Too many westerns? Or do they have a point? Thank God for John Howard...never ever thought I would say that.
commented Feb 22, 2017 by Admin (170 points)
edited Feb 22, 2017 by Admin
No. I don't think they have a point at all with that logic. As you rightfully bring up, John Howard was the one to initiate an 'Amnesty' in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre. Everyone was given an opportunity to (and was expected to) hand in their guns no-questions asked, no fines, no penalties within a finite timeline. BUT if you were caught after the deadline, big fines and jail etc..., and even though Sean Whalen references the Lindt cafe shitfight where one nutcase had a couple of screws loose, Australia's gun related issues are presently one of the lowest in the world. Trouble is, every man woman and child in USA are pumped full of this propaganda, starting from birth where they basically shit in nappies painted in the stars and stripes and are put to sleep to the sound of the star-spangled banner, its a culture that is multi-generational and engrained -- an inflexible set of train-tracks that heads in the same direction. US has over 800 Military bases all around the world, 4x(+) number of countries, and it has been at war for over 223 years out of the last 240 something, so its a huge cultural thing, which is pushed from the top down and supported by the plethora of people that simply cannot imagine their world without firearms in it. Ultimately USA people like guns, and thats what it comes down to. Many people in Australia loved guns too, but Howard basically said 'tough shit, bad luck'. Incidentally, when the amnesty was taking place, I remember all the hype and arguments where people said the same thing, ie: "If we don't have our guns, and all the criminals have guns, then how can we protect ourselves." -- looking back 20 years, this whole argument seemed to evaporate pretty quickly without much substance in the long run.

Related statements

+1 vote
0 responses 201 views
0 votes
0 responses 62 views
+2 votes
1 response 496 views
0 votes
0 responses 197 views
0 votes
0 responses 110 views