Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[idb]

Answer my question bitch.

I don't know.
Now, try mine...slut.

I don't know now back to mine.

Seven.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i don't know.
Now, try mine...slut.

i don't know now back to mine.

seven.

1

 

[Againsheila]

The law was instated to prevent mass shootings.

this is what we call a fail.

yes it prevented mass shootings, which catch headlines, but failed to make Aus any safer and actually made it more dangerous

It didn't make it any more dangerous, and it achieved its desired result...to stop mass shootings.

Um, I think it did make it more dangerous:

"Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women."

 

[Againsheila]

Except for it didn't stop them. So it is a fail.

But it did...so it's a win.

It stopped mass shootings, apparently, but violent crime has risen, a lot, so I think it's a wash.

 

[Brain357]

Yes the lack of a firearm has killed many people. And why was there a lack of a firearm?
Gun control?
Mentality of I don't need one?
Take your pick

The lack of a firearm has saved many people. And why was there a lack of a firearm?
Gun control?
Mentality of I don't need one?
Take your pick

At least 8000 murders how many of those killed had access to a firearm? Or where they unarmed at the time of their death?

They may have been sleeping or taken by surprise. Lots of ways to be armed and still die. Heck if both are armed you probably have 50 percent chance of survival. Having a gun is no guarantee of survival. In 2010 the was over 600 accidental gun deaths.

 

[PratchettFan]

Exactly why you can't say it didn't work. Never had a chance.

How did it never have a chance?
What were the flaws that caused it to fail, and how so?
Be specific

As was mentioned millions were in circulation. Due to this they were still easy to get. Doing a buy back and making them illegal to own would have been only way for it to be effective in such a short time period.

Aside from turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals, what exactly wiil that accomplish? You have yet to link the ownership of these magazines to anything except the ownership of these magazines.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly why you can't say it didn't work. Never had a chance.

How did it never have a chance?
What were the flaws that caused it to fail, and how so?
Be specific

As was mentioned millions were in circulation. Due to this they were still easy to get. Doing a buy back and making them illegal to own would have been only way for it to be effective in such a short time period.

So... things that will never happen are the only way to make such a ban effective.
Settles that issue.

 

[Brain357]

How did it never have a chance?
What were the flaws that caused it to fail, and how so?
Be specific

As was mentioned millions were in circulation. Due to this they were still easy to get. Doing a buy back and making them illegal to own would have been only way for it to be effective in such a short time period.

So... things that will never happen are the only way to make such a ban effective.
Settles that issue.

People in Australia probably once said the same thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How did it never have a chance?
What were the flaws that caused it to fail, and how so?
Be specific

he forgets that assault style weapons kill less people than hammers. banned or not.

I would like to hear the death statistics due to hammer. More importantly are the accidental or murder?

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

 

[Brain357]

he forgets that assault style weapons kill less people than hammers. banned or not.

I would like to hear the death statistics due to hammer. More importantly are the accidental or murder?

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

 

[PratchettFan]

I would like to hear the death statistics due to hammer. More importantly are the accidental or murder?

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

And if you look at the numbers you will see that shotguns outnumber all rifles combined. So how does that factor into an issue with magazines? I keep repeating the same question and you keep failing to answer it. What do you expect to accomplish?

 

[Brain357]

I would like to hear the death statistics due to hammer. More importantly are the accidental or murder?

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

Didn't mean to send that yet. So over 6000 handgun deaths. My argument is limiting hi cap magazines. I am certain of theses 8500 deaths hi cap magazines account for way more deaths than hammers.

 

[Brain357]

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

And if you look at the numbers you will see that shotguns outnumber all rifles combined. So how does that factor into an issue with magazines? I keep repeating the same question and you keep failing to answer it. What do you expect to accomplish?

Slow down the mass shooter obviously.

 

[JoeB131]

A better comparison would be to Washington D.C and Chicago which have strict anti-gun ownership rights and very high murder rates.

No, that's not a good comparison at all.

Besides the fact that these cities don't have really high murder rates compared to other cities or the country as a whole (only 435 of the countries 15,000 murders happened in chicago in 2012), the fact is, when you make it easy for anyone to buy a guy, the wrong people will get them.

The question you guys never ask yourselves is, why are the gun companies so opposed to keeping criminals and the insane from getting guns?

Because you won't buy them if you aren't scared.

Kind of like an arms merchant that arms both sides in a war.

 

[PratchettFan]

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

And if you look at the numbers you will see that shotguns outnumber all rifles combined. So how does that factor into an issue with magazines? I keep repeating the same question and you keep failing to answer it. What do you expect to accomplish?

Slow down the mass shooter obviously.

Well, it won't. That has already been pointed out to you. So, since what you are proposing won't accomplish your stated goal, then why do you want it?

 

[Brain357]

And if you look at the numbers you will see that shotguns outnumber all rifles combined. So how does that factor into an issue with magazines? I keep repeating the same question and you keep failing to answer it. What do you expect to accomplish?

Slow down the mass shooter obviously.

Well, it won't. That has already been pointed out to you. So, since what you are proposing won't accomplish your stated goal, then why do you want it?

As I have stated if someone is shooting at me I want them to have to reload often. They may fumble for next magazine, drop one, look away long enough for people to escape....

 

[jon_berzerk]

How did it never have a chance?
What were the flaws that caused it to fail, and how so?
Be specific

As was mentioned millions were in circulation. Due to this they were still easy to get. Doing a buy back and making them illegal to own would have been only way for it to be effective in such a short time period.

Aside from turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals, what exactly wiil that accomplish? You have yet to link the ownership of these magazines to anything except the ownership of these magazines.

notice it has moved from mere gun control

to confiscation

 

[JimH52]

This guy represents the NRA and the gun manufactorers. He is old and he will die...and more gun controls will come about. Bottom line.

 

[DiamondDave]

As was mentioned millions were in circulation. Due to this they were still easy to get. Doing a buy back and making them illegal to own would have been only way for it to be effective in such a short time period.

Aside from turning otherwise law abiding people into criminals, what exactly wiil that accomplish? You have yet to link the ownership of these magazines to anything except the ownership of these magazines.

notice it has moved from mere gun control

to confiscation

bingo

 

[M14 Shooter]

As was mentioned millions were in circulation. Due to this they were still easy to get. Doing a buy back and making them illegal to own would have been only way for it to be effective in such a short time period.

So... things that will never happen are the only way to make such a ban effective.
Settles that issue.

People in Australia probably once said the same thing.

This isn't Australia.
Issue settled.