• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

More than 30,000 Americans die from gun violence every year...

Johnnie Walker said:
cant buy fully automatic weapons, they are all semi-automatic
Click to expand...
Thanks JW, then make that a semi-automatic/high powered weapon. Do you think he would've been sold that, or do you think that perhaps there's some type of culture amongst these weapon shops that looks at a "normal" rifle as an OK seller for a young man of 13? It was nearly longer than the boy's height that thing!
 
SO sick of this "high powered" rubbish. the firearm purchased in the video is .22LR, usually used to shoot paper, cans or rabbits at close range.

You can buy full autos in the US - only those manufactured pre 86, and you have to do a much more extensive check. Most of them are $10k plus, and since 1934 there's been something like 3 crimes committed with them.

The kid was skirting legality there - yes a child can buy a rifle or shotgun, as there is no minimum age mandated in that state, but he could not purchase an "assault rifle" or handgun. It's not made clear if the 'parent' was there with the child when he made the purchase either. Most states do regulate possession or ownership of firearms to 16/18+.
 
Fadi said:
Sorry if I've upset you mate, I was simply asking JW and before him Repacked. Excuse my ignorance when it comes to guns please.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize Fadi, it's a general statement rather than being targeted at you. It seems when it comes to guns, the mainstream media are free to lie through their teeth, and attempt to twist things to push the narrative of gun ownership = bad.
 
Holy fuck that was a punish listening to her.

I don't think you'll have many people disagreeing with people being on the no fly list should also be banned from buying guns.
 
except the hard liners, like boozo no doubt.

not sure how much it would fix thought, this is murica we are talking about..still gona be able to buy a gun even if you cant get one at the store
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnnie Walker said:
except the hard liners, like boozo no doubt.

not sure how much it would fix thought, this is murica we are talking about..still gona be able to buy a gun even if you cant get one at the store
Click to expand...

Because you can't remove someone's constitutional rights without due process. Regardless of that, he'd been investigated twice by the FBI, and cleared. He was even a registered security guard.

One of the gun shops he tried to buy from called the FBI in regards to the sale due to him acting dodgy and the FBI decided not to pursue it!

The Democrats decided to vote against both pieces of legislation the Republicans brought to Congress to do something about firearms being purchased by people on the 'no fly list' today fyi.

I liked Colion Noir's response

 

Ignore the rest of it or what this guys individual situation is.

If you are on the no fly list should you be able to but a gun in your opinion?
 


excellent points.

minus the fact that the republics defeated the bills in the senate. but dont let the facts change anything.

infact your post reaks of disinformation and bias.

the republicans voted against the democrats bills to introduce their own, which the democracts then voted down as they dont want some watered down piece of crap.
 
Last edited:
I constantly hear (and read) the same argument from the "law abiding citizens" who like to carry or own guns for their own and their family's protection. On the surface, this sounds just fine, until I delve in a little bit deeper. And please do realise, that this is only my opinion based on what I see and hear around me re this subject.

If all these law abiding citizens got together and said right, we will give up our guns, yet we would still have access to them been placed under lock and key (in whichever shooting club they belonged to), then this way, the only people who would actually have guns on them (carrying them) would be the undesirable citizens and the law enforcement personnel.

I can already hear the objection and argument going as follows: if the undesirable citizens can carry their guns, then how will we protect ourselves from them? My reply to this dilemma is as follows: every time there is a shooting and killing of innocent people, everyone cries out oh yes, but such and such killer had such and such a problem, or that he has slipped under the radar of the authorities and so on. It's the same old... So basically now, everyone who has a gun license or a license to carry a gun, is a law abiding citizen, until the community is shocked and horrified to discover otherwise based on his killing spree.

When I started this thread, I asked everyone to provide an alternative to the statu quo because as things stand right now, the US is simply going in circle, no different than a dog chasing its own tale..., with no end or solution in sight.

Yesterday (we're told by some that) it was a Muslim who was radicalised by yet another radical Muslim group; the day before that it was something else, and tomorrow it would be something different again. Yet the underlying issue here is that, all these nutcases belonged to, and have fallen under that same umbrella that has these words written on top of it: Mr. and Ms. law abiding citizen.

Here's my alternative. If the police, who's job is to deal with the undesirables face to face, is able to carry an alternative weapon in addition to carrying a gun, why not Mr. and Ms. law abiding citizen? Taser guns and capsicum sprays or similar, anything that would disable an attacker. It's hard (to near impossible) to kill a group or (a gathering) of people with a Taser gun no matter how much your inner demons were commanding you to do so.
 
Last edited:
Johnnie Walker said:
in most other country's we have specialty selected responsible (in most cases) citizens to carry weapons, called the police
Click to expand...
Good point JW. Which brings me to my next point, and that is this: if for whatever reason there was a public disorder (in the US) that needed the law enforcement to bring it under control. I can assure you, I for one, would not feel safe being one of those police officers, knowing that every Tom Dick & Jane has a license to a gun. I know, we're back to square one with that same old argument..., but Fadi, those protestors would not use their right to own a gun in such a situation. When you ask and why is that? The quick (and same reply) would usually be, because they are (you've guessed it)...law abiding citizens!

If my tone's carrying bit of sarcasm to it, please forgive me (I mean no disrespect to people who wish to own guns), however this issue brings back childhood memories of the middle east , where each and every citizen (and "expert" there), seems to have a PhD in providing a solution to the problems facing that part of the world. It makes you sick to your stomach, with all the killings that are going on all over the place, and the best the "experts" could do is discuss, discuss, and discuss some more. They've been discussing the same old problem since I could remember back in 1975 at the age of 10. When will this discussion ever come to a close or to some positive fruition? Perhaps it's a human trait, where we simply do not learn from our past mistakes (or maybe we do), yet we've allowed greed and power to so overwhelm us, that we've lost both our insight to reflect, as well as our sight to see the obvious.
 
People in Aus love to get emotional about banning guns in America. What do they even mean by banning guns. Guns aren't even banned here. Banning guns is not going to happen. Simple as that.

Banning semi automatics has a chance because it was done before but still going to be tough.

Stricter background checks and cooling off periods happen in some states so that's a possibility. Many people would agree with that in theory but believe it's another step in the take over by the feministy lefty types taking away rights ect so won't go for it.

Is it going to have an effect? Who knows? There are so many guns if you really want one you can get one but at least some restrictions stop the impulse buy and shoot up a place that afternoon.
 
Yes, the US problem is a matter for the US.

I think in time there will be tougher laws against semi-automatic weapons. But, at end of day, that is the US's problem.

I am more interested in what happens here in Aust.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register