What if America tried Australia’s gun control?

Post Reply New Topic

All fair questions but it's a hypothetical scenario so let's say the stopping capabilities are about as good as the type of gun you'd typically use against an attacker and then it can knock them out for a good long while.

I know that with present day technology it can't be made nearly as good as a gun but who knows what they'll invent in the future.

If one or two hundred years from now such a futuristic weapon is invented, would it be favoured for self-defence over guns?

Rather than ban the semi-automatics, why not ban magazines that can hold over 10 rounds?

Better yet: guns don’t kill people; people kill people; therefore, let’s ban people!

You mean like the 10 rd mags he used to kill 17 kids? Mags don’t make a difference. The type of gun doesn’t either.
How about we ban. Othing secure schools like banks and rich people’s homes and try to fix society.

I didn’t know he used ten round mags. Just thought it was an option to banning the gun itself.

The best way to prevent school massacres is to ban children!

Media hasn’t talked about it since it came out as it doesn’t fit their agenda same reason they don’t talk about virgina tech, the navy yard shooting, the Texas church shooting, any shootings that used shotguns. Basically if it didn’t use a ar15 they brush it under the rug. So is their agenda to stop mass shootings or has it always been to ban simi auto guns and they wait for mass shootings to use to push it. Anytime this happens they rush out seconds after sayin it was an ar15 with mass murder magazines and when it comes out it was neither they drop it like a pile of poop. Who cares if lots of people were killed if it doesn’t push their agenda

I’m against any attack on my rights especially when they won’t even do anything to stop mass shootings.

30 rounds is standard size mag for ar 15
17 rounds is standard size mag for most pistols some gold 19 standard. High capacity would be something over the guns standard capacity. Colorado limited it to 15 New York said 7 it means nothing and is stupid. New York made people felons for accidentally putting 8 rounds in a 10 round mag. They also made people felons for following their order to sell their mags. New York just wants to put gun owners in prison they hate gun owners. And they selectively enforce the law. Washington DC allowed reporters to illegally bring 30 round mags into dc. The federal government turns a blind eye to anti gun people actively breaking the straw purchase law or as of late making illegal short barrel rifles.

So they selectively enforce the laws or are just too darn lazy to enforce them as in most mass shooting cases where they just didn’t put them in nics, but we should let them make more laws they won’t enforce when they choose? Sorry we have too many restrictions as is.

Why don’t mass shootings happen at private schools with armed guards?
Are rich peoples kids just more important then us peasants kids?

Today with the nation calling for more security, New York decided to remove police officers from their schools

Yeah, that's about the shape of it.
Good post

All my posts are awesome but I don't see how this one is so special.


Nonsense, I'm a conservative and we do terrible things! Most of us are reincarnated plantation overseers or concentration camp guards.

Rich kids prefer white collar crime. They grow up to cheat and embezzle but they don't shoot anyone.

What’s that false generalization have to do with it? It’s simple if a shooter went to shoot up a private school he’d be engaged by armed security. They hit places there won’t be anyone fighting back. They want to kill many people if they get stopped too soon they won’t beat the record. They are also cowards too, most stopped once police arrived they aren’t interested in being in a fire fight. They don’t want to be shot. Public schools have no defense and thus are choosen, I don’t beelive any shooting has happen at a non gun free zone. Shoots state the area being gun free is why they choose them. Als what’s his name in California was rich. Lots of middle class kids go to private schools. It’s just poor kids that get left defenseless. Why aren’t kids worth security?

Imagine if your house had no door and you keep getting robbed would you buy a door to lock or would you say we need to ban shoes as it makes it too easy for robbers to get around. If we had arm d guards at public schools led school shootings wiuodnhappen thst and let teachers carry. They won’t go to schools anymore as schools won’t be defenseless gun free zones anymore. I don’t go to gun free zones.

False generalization? Well if it's false tell me, which rich kid tried to shoot up his school?



In that case why don't they travel to Australia? Even the rich kid private schools have no cops and no armed security guards.

You get what you pay for.

True. In a perfectly fair world poor kids could go on skiing vacations every year but they can't. Does that mean poor kids are less important or just less wealthy?

So now armed security to protect kids lives is the same as a expensive unnecessary lavish vacation ?

The government provides security that’s what we pay them for. They need to have armed security at every single public school just as private schools do. It’s super annoying your all for stripping people of their right to self defense but see security as a privilege only for the rich. So you don’t reallu care about saving lives. Gun control won’t save a single life. Security will.