Society/Culture Shooting attack at Texas church

[Benny78]

Why doesn't this happen in Australia?

It's because we ignored the views of gun owners feelings and simply took their weapons. This is what needs to happen in America to solve their issues.

It's a primitive debate only because of humouring idiots. If we humoured slavers like we do gun owners then that argument would still be around too. Obviously it's inevitable at a point in time, these idiots will be shunned and their weapons revoked then their problems will go away lol.

 

[Power Raid]

Why doesn't this happen in Australia?

It's because we ignored the views of gun owners feelings and simply took their weapons. This is what needs to happen in America to solve their issues.

It's a primitive debate only because of humouring idiots. If we humoured slavers like we do gun owners then that argument would still be around too. Obviously it's inevitable at a point in time, these idiots will be shunned and their weapons revoked then their problems will go away lol.

I thought it happened because the priest and choir boys weren't armed

 

[Admiral Byng]

Why doesn't this happen in Australia?

It's because we ignored the views of gun owners feelings and simply took their weapons. This is what needs to happen in America to solve their issues.

It's a primitive debate only because of humouring idiots. If we humoured slavers like we do gun owners then that argument would still be around too. Obviously it's inevitable at a point in time, these idiots will be shunned and their weapons revoked then their problems will go away lol.

A lot of people died before the slaves in the US were set free. The issue was not decided peacefully.

 

[Power Raid]

A lot of people died before the slaves in the US were set free. The issue was not decided peacefully.

to be fair the slaves were set free because of the civil war rather than the civil war being about slaves

 

[Benny78]

A lot of people died before the slaves in the US were set free. The issue was not decided peacefully.

It's America. They can't progress like normal people. Nothing changes their archaics don't conform so another civil war is probably on the cards.

 

[kane249]

to be fair the slaves were set free because of the civil war rather than the civil war being about slaves

The civil war was about slavery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

In the 1860 presidential election, Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, supported banning slavery in all the U.S. territories. The Southern states viewed this as a violation of their constitutional rights and as the first step in a grander Republican plan to eventually abolish slavery.

 

[Admiral Byng]

to be fair the slaves were set free because of the civil war rather than the civil war being about slaves

Slavery was the issue absolutely at the centre of the secession by the southern states. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union, not to the slaves free, that policy only developed later as the war got nastier. Lincoln's initial policy was one of allowing slavery where it already existed but limiting the expansion of it into new territories and states - which was a step too far for the southern slave states who feared they would become a permanent political minority and see their slave "rights" slowly eroded and diminished over time. Even a gradual phase-out over a generation was unthinkable for them.

 

[kane249]

Slavery was the issue absolutely at the centre of the secession by the southern states. Lincoln went to war to preserve the union, not to the slaves free, that policy only developed later as the war got nastier. Lincoln's initial policy was one of allowing slavery where it already existed but limiting the expansion of it into new territories and states - which was a step too far for the southern slave states who feared they would become a permanent political minority and see their slave "rights" slowly eroded and diminished over time. Even a gradual phase-out over a generation was unthinkable for them.

It's the exact same mindset for their thoughts on gun control, it's scary just how backwards thinking and stuck in their ways yanks are.

 

[Admiral Byng]

It's the exact same mindset for their thoughts on gun control, it's scary just how backwards thinking and stuck in their ways yanks are.

Yes. Especially the link with religion and guns, and that the USA is some special holy land ordained by God to his faithful.

 

[Power Raid]

It's the exact same mindset for their thoughts on gun control, it's scary just how backwards thinking and stuck in their ways yanks are.

I'm anti-gun but......

if you were black, with all the cops shooting blacks, would you give up your guns?
if you were any colour, would you give up your guns with a president like trump, with an out of control CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies?

just a thought

 

[Power Raid]

The civil war was about slavery

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

the jewish people were treated like s**t in the UK with killings, misappropriation of property etc before the war but in the history books the treatment of jews in Axis nations is a central theme to WW2

same said with the American civil war. Like all wars, it was about money and power.

Even in your link, the confederates declared war despite confirmation the federal govt had no lawful power to ban slavery within states and would not do so. So the motivation to declare war must have been something else.

 

[Proud SJW]

the jewish people were treated like s**t in the UK with killings, misappropriation of property etc before the war but in the history books the treatment of jews in Axis nations is a central theme to WW2

same said with the American civil war. Like all wars, it was about money and power.

Even in your link, the confederates declared war despite confirmation the federal govt had no lawful power to ban slavery within states and would not do so. So the motivation to declare war must have been something else.

Lincoln was not even really an abolitionist, as such. He was sympathetic to the ideal but not actively involved, and wasn't even planning abolition in the early years of the war..
The Emancipation Proclamation was read in 1862 not only as a union ideal, but as a bulwark in the face of rising European opposition to the civil war. The British and the French were making noises about a cease-fire and treaty of succession as they wanted peace on any terms in order to continue imports from the South into Europe, even if that meant the Confederacy were recognised as a nation in their own right.
The Civil war for the Union was not going well at all in 1862. England went as far as to move thousands of troops into Canada in move designed to not only threaten the North, but in anticipation of an intervention.
Lincoln needed a way to prevent European involvement. The Emancipation Proclamation ended all hope of a European intervention on the side of the Confederacy, as they couldn't be seen to be openly supporting slavery or in support of a nation which condoned and legalised it.
It was an idealistic move on Lincoln's part, and not one he actively disbelieved in, but was used for a very specific reason which was not specifically all about the slaves themselves. Lincoln wasn't even sure the idea would fly at all, but he needed something to give Europe pause.

Emancipation was the key to the hearts and minds of Europe, whose economic sympathies were with the Confederacy.

The slavery argument was being lobbied about in the North (primarily) by some power groups, while others which had business interests in the South depending on it were obviously against any emancipation. In the South, slaves were money and power. It was like Perth folks being told they weren't permitted to operate farms or mines anymore by a Victorian government.
But slavery itself wasn't the real issue, more a manifestation of it.

The South themselves were worried about their rights as independent entities being taken away in the face of any move by the North to abolish slavery as well - so it was not so much about the slaves themselves as it was perceived northern interference in southern affairs - "States Rights".
The vast majority of Southerners had nether slaves, nor the money to buy any, yet signed up for the Confederacy by the thousands because they simply didn't like being told what to do by a centralised government.

That the South is still, 150-odd years later, economically the worst region in the USA with regard to poverty is a testament to the fact that the South were, in fact, quite right about the effect of emancipation on them, and that their concerns about northern authoritarian influence were quite justified, as it turned out.

 

[Proud SJW]

Why doesn't this happen in Australia?

It's because we ignored the views of gun owners feelings and simply took their weapons.

Myth, primarily. For start, guns have never been "simply taken away" in Australia. We had a buyback, and made many military weapons illegal, but we haven't "taken them away".

Prior to the 80's, there were plenty of weapons in Australia, including Vietnam-era surplus and semi-automatic weapons like the AR's, but they weren't being used in mass killings at all. From the 1920's to the 1970's, there were no mass killings involving those kinds of weapons at all. None. Despite those types weapons being far more common than they are now.
There were a spate in the 80's and 90's (mostly, a couple in the 70's as well), and then Port Arthur.
Since the 1996 laws, the rate of mass murder hasn't dropped all that much - but people tend to use cars and arson now rather than guns.
The only real claim you might make is that the 1996 laws are the reason incidences of mass-murder in Australia aren't worse, but then you're entering the territory of speculation.

In addition, the statistics show clearly that rates of violence in Australia have been steadily dropping for decades, and at a very similar rate as they're still dropping now.
So while it's clear that the 1996 laws have had at least some impact in peripheral ways, any in-depth investigation into the gun issue in Australia will reveal that the gun buyback didn't do as much as politicians and people like you claim, when it comes to rate of violence.

There are currently more guns in Australia than there were before the buyback.

There is no direct correlation between rates of gun ownership and levels of violence, it's mostly a cultural issue which is far more complicated than most people like to think about - so they find convenient scapegoats.