@notlukesfather @zombieseesmeat What I think sir-- and it has nothing to do with what country we are from-- is that society is overall much better without legalisation of firearms. It is well evidenced in areas that make them illegal.
I think it makes a whole lot of sense to forbid allowing people to freely own dangerous items-- now I can understand a military needing them; as the world is far from perfect and there are violent people out there. But, 99.9% of humans are NOT violent, and free access for everyone to lethal weaponry only serves to create danger-- ergo diminishing people's freedom of security.
@notlukesfather @willzihang @zombieseesmeat Err... I am no patriot. I hate many thing about my country (England) I hate the idea of the Royal Family, I am disgusted by our parasite Conservative government; oh, and I most certainly applaud the choice of America to go independent from my monarchistic nation. I most certainly DO NOT think we should follow any leaders out of some idiotic nationalist pride.
@zombieseesmeat You just cannot explain away the facts that America has more gun crime, and Europe has far less. There are less guns here, FAR less, and as a result, less gun crime.
You also can't use the argument "Oh, it infringes my liberty" because it isn't-- you can't just own what you want, if that thing is a danger to society. You say security, but owning a gun is a greater risk to security in itself. It is a tiny, tiny percentage of people that mean to do harm, and America is not a war-zone. How much injury, or deaths occur accidentally by guns?
Freedom is the ability to live a personalised life, to follow one's pursuits, to be allowed into society as a full member. It has nothing to do with the right to own dangerous weapons.
@zombieseesmeat @willzihang Yes: it's awful that people aren't allowed to own lethal devices.
As a result of the tyranny we have far less shootings.
Sir, it is not tyrannical to make weapons illegal. If I were to walk down the street with a samurai sword and be stopped by the police-- I think I'd rightfully have a pretty pathetic case in saying "I have a right to carry this lethal weapon, for self-defense against the 0.01% of harmful people" over their argument "You can't carry that, because it is extremely dangerous and may injure people or get into the hands of someone who means to, or lacks the self control to handle it safely (this number would be highest)" No, I would call that common sense.
@zombieseesmeat @willzihang There are many countries where guns are illegal - mine being one of them - and gun crime by ratio is far, far lower. That seems like strong evidence showing that if everyone has much less access to guns, there are far less shootings.
Yes, it is worse in some poor and very politcally corrupt countries. But America otherwise leads the way in advanced liberty, and in many other respects-- it is the most developed. Yet it has hideous gun rate crime, in contrast to this.
The second amendment was clearly made for a bygone age, when the early US needed civilian defense against colonialism. Things have changed- it's time to RE-AMEND the second AMENDment.
@VitJay @jhonMalcovich However, would you not agree the release is somewhat tasteless?
As I said earlier to a defender of guns : would you not think it tasteless for a a bathtub supporting company to release a safety in the bath simulation a month after a baby drowned in one?
I'm not sure I agree with your opinion that shooting a virtual character is violent, emphasis on virtual, and shooting and causing real destruction to an object isn't-- is it violent to punch a wall? Yes.
@ellzhimself It's business- the NRA want to sell guns, not condemn them. The only solution is for a mass American uprising to have the entire organisation abolished.
@Kingjames11 Are bathtubs made for the purpose of killing? Now, are guns? Oh, yes-- I remember that IoS game they brought out a month after "safety in the bathtub simulator". Now, please stop talking out of your anus.
willzihang's comments