British government now issuing blunt knives...

[Madner Kami]

You don't get it. We play Checkers, they play Chess. Or, to be more culturally appropriate, we play Chess, they play Go.

[Yukaphile]

I'm a Pokemon fan, so I don't know where you're going with this. Lots of Westerners love that too.

[Madner Kami]

Figure of Speech

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yuka stop trying to "same difference" it.

[Admiral X]

You completely ignored what I said about reasonable self defence.

I'm not ignoring it - I'm disagreeing with what your country considers to be "reasonable."

@Admiral X I never claimed that. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not, I'm simply pointing out that the police are "good guys with a gun" and that generally the anti-gun types seem to think the police will always be there to save them, which simply isn't true. Courts have upheld that even in cases where the police are literally right there, there is no legal requirement for them to save your ass. Their job is strictly law enforcement, and while that usually coincides with saving lives (when they can), there is no requirement for them to do so. You know, like that cop that ran as children were getting gunned down in that Florida school, who is probably only going to get in trouble through some convoluted legal reasoning.

I don't think even the Democrats are trying to pry guns from each and every "person's" hands when they talk about public safety. Speculation of their ulterior motives aside, they talk about limiting distribution, and their rhetoric doesn't involve stopping people from defending themselves.

Then you aren't paying attention to either their actions or even what they themselves say. Going back to the first AWB, Feinstein admitted straight up that if she could have done a totally ban on private gun ownership, she would have done so, but she knew "the votes weren't there." Everything that has been done in the name of "reasonable gun control" is just an example of gradually boiling the frog. Their ultimate goal is a total ban, but they know that can't go right for it, so they'll just slowly work to undermine the 2A a little bit at a time.

I do think we've reached a point where mass shootings are so inevitable, I want an assault weapons ban. Barring Columbine, it worked well from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s. And then that idiot Bush let it expire.

The FBI found that it literally made no difference as far as crime rates went. The most common firearm used in a crime are handguns. All the AWB did was arbitrarily ban some features on guns because some people thought they looked scarier, and helped to undermine the point of the 2A.

I find idea that regular people need assault rifles to be stupid. While there are lot of problems (including mental health related) that are root of problems in USA having free access to assault rifles has only made things worse. All because of NRA propaganda and lobbyists want to make sure that gun manufacturers can keep making profit in expense of human lives. It's so bad that there might not be anyway to fix this anymore.

Amazing. Everything you've said there is wrong. The 2A is about defense, on both the personal level and on the national level. So yes, we absolutely "need" assault rifles to help make civilians on par with the average infantryman. And speaking of propaganda, that last part is absolutely propaganda, and with the focus on profit motive, it isn't real difficult to guess where exactly that propaganda comes from.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I don't think even the Democrats are trying to pry guns from each and every "person's" hands when they talk about public safety. Speculation of their ulterior motives aside, they talk about limiting distribution, and their rhetoric doesn't involve stopping people from defending themselves.

Then you aren't paying attention to either their actions or even what they themselves say. Going back to the first AWB, Feinstein admitted straight up that if she could have done a totally ban on private gun ownership, she would have done so, but she knew "the votes weren't there." Everything that has been done in the name of "reasonable gun control" is just an example of gradually boiling the frog. Their ultimate goal is a total ban, but they know that can't go right for it, so they'll just slowly work to undermine the 2A a little bit at a time.

Your evidence so to speak is what she said she would personally do. That's not an implication of "the Democratic party". Then you went directly to a slippery slope.

edit: Though I do get that if it were the case that that is implicative of the Democrats then it would indicate as strongly a slippery slope on the matter.

[Yukaphile]

@AdmiralX And I don't think the police will be there to always save you, do I? No. That said, we should at least be willing to wanna call them if there's danger. Without that, that's endorsing vigilante justice. And that leads to chaos and anarchy. Lawlessness.

Funny we had no mass shootings like this during the period the assault weapons ban was active.

[Admiral X]

Is Britain known for being a big brother state?

Yes. It's gotten more and more ridiculous in more recent times.

[Yukaphile]

Yet clearspira is just fine with it. It's more telling about us and our innate paranoia about government outreach and how we cling to our guns and bibles as if they're the answer. That's our founding heritage.

[Admiral X]

Your evidence so to speak is what she said she would personally do. That's not an implication of "the Democratic party". Then you went directly to a slippery slope.

I just used an obvious example. You can find plenty of Democrats saying exactly the same kind of thing, especially more recently.

@AdmiralX And I don't think the police will be there to always save you, do I? No. That said, we should at least be willing to wanna call them if there's danger. Without that, that's endorsing vigilante justice. And that leads to chaos and anarchy. Lawlessness.

They are "good guys with guns," are they not? Is it not a contention on the gun-control side that the police should be able to defend everyone, and thus, common people do not need guns?

Funny we had no mass shootings like this during the period the assault weapons ban was active.

Does Columbine suddenly not count? Or any of the other school shootings that took place in the '90s? I mean, you used Columbine yourself as an example of a mass shooting to argue in favor of a renewed AWB, yet, the AWB went from 1994-2004, and Columbine happened right in the middle of that.