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

[westwall]

Bolded is a lie

You are incorrect. Hot burglaries make up 85% of the burglaries in Australia, 15% here in the States, prior to the gun ban the rates were the same between the two countries....that IS home invasion mate....

It must be fun to just invent stats and not have to share the source. What an amazing thing.

I allready presented a link to the stats idiot. Try looking a little further back before you make a further ass of yourself...though that would be hard in your case..

 

[westwall]

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

I agree, Thousands Standing Around does very little to ensure personal safety and denying people the ownership of weapons makes their victimisation more likely. Thanks for making that clear. Chicago is just one example of how effective gun bans are

America is an example of how more guns does not equal safer citizens.

There are plenty of peer reviewed criminology studies that show you to be wrong.

 

[idb]

I have friends in the NSW police departments who would say that is total BS. But they're on the ground and the MSM isn't. Who to believe?

Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research says this....

•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Additionally "hot" burglaries (where intruders enter a house KNOWING someone is inside thus making the chance of a violent encounter greater) is 85% whereas in the US it is 15%.


NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research - Bureau of Crime Stats & Research : Lawlink NSW

Are you saying that's because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands?

No, it's probably because the population had a mass movement to be trained in hand to hand self defense. Are you really this fuckin' slow, fella?

Crikey, I must be that slow...mate.
Crime has apparently gone up in Australia because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands.
Never mind that gun deaths of all kinds have continued to fall.

 

[RDD_1210]

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

And the population of the US is 350 million as opposed to Australia's 22 million. You're comparing apples to battleships. We also have a much higher percentage of other races, here in my area 90% of the violent crime is committed by hispanics. Most of whom are illegal and in gangs and they prey on their own people...because they are easy to victimise.

Would you like to compare gun murders per capita? Is that what you're saying?

 

[RDD_1210]

I agree, Thousands Standing Around does very little to ensure personal safety and denying people the ownership of weapons makes their victimisation more likely. Thanks for making that clear. Chicago is just one example of how effective gun bans are

America is an example of how more guns does not equal safer citizens.

There are plenty of peer reviewed criminology studies that show you to be wrong.

So many in fact, you couldn't even share a single one.

 

[idb]

It's already been posted in the thread. Do I really need to post it a second time?

Jeebus...

One incident, in the 15 years since the new regulations, in which two people were killed, proves that he regulations don't work to you...is that your contention?
I'll give you one of these back -

You said that mass shooting stopped. Seven people were shot that day. Are you now saying that a mass shooting has to have a threshold of casualties to be considered noteworthy?

You and the OP claimed mass SHOOTINGS STOPPED. That is, a lie. As usual from slow LOLberals.

Did I say that?
Oh well.

One mass shooting in 15 years compared to something like 13 in the 18 years previous to the new laws ( I can't be bothered to Google).
That can't be a bad thing don't you think?
Bad for the folk involved in that one incident I'll grant you but still good for all the other people that never got shot over the years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Australians have never had a constitutional right to own or use guns and handguns in particular were restricted to certain sporting classes of people even before the more recent gun laws. The results of the tightened gun laws in Australia, dating back to the 1990's, appear to correlate with a reduction of suicides in Australia since that time--studies I have read are less conclusive re whether the gun laws correlate with a reduction in other kinds of crimes or whether there has even BEEN a reduction in other kinds of crimes apart from routine and normal ebb and flow from year to year.

But one thing is certain. Comparing a country with a much smaller and much less diverse population than the USA, and with a much different form of government and social structure, is not likely to be useful in determining whether increased gun control will make American citizens more or less safe.

But I still strongly question a policy that proposes that we will somehow be safer if we take more guns away from law abiding citizens.

 

[KevinWestern]

Did I say that?
Oh well.

One mass shooting in 15 years compared to something like 13 in the 18 years previous to the new laws ( I can't be bothered to Google).
That can't be a bad thing don't you think?
Bad for the folk involved in that one incident I'll grant you but still good for all the other people that never got shot over the years.

It's always a good thing to reduce mass shootings. However...

One must consider what you're giving up. Who's to say that the US won't be facing a threat (either foreign or domestic) in 25-50 years from now that will require the citizens to be armed with somewhat capable weapons in order to overcome that threat?

History tells us that things do change, and that gov'ts do become tyrannical, and that economic collapses do happen, and countries do get invaded...

Personally, I'd rather keep the weapons. I think a lot of folks on the Left aren't approaching this issue from a holistic view; they're simply assuming that because life is good now it will always be good. This (in my view) is a flawed way of thinking. I believe they have good intentions, but (again) aren't considering the bigger picture.

.

 

[Brain357]

Are you saying that's because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands?

No, it's probably because the population had a mass movement to be trained in hand to hand self defense. Are you really this fuckin' slow, fella?

Crikey, I must be that slow...mate.
Crime has apparently gone up in Australia because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands.
Never mind that gun deaths of all kinds have continued to fall.

Makes you wonder if there is some inbetween that lowers gun deaths and keeps crime down. Maybe something like really strong background checks and magazine capacity limits.

 

[PratchettFan]

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

I don't care. I don't live in those countries.

 

[Foxfyre]

Did I say that?
Oh well.

One mass shooting in 15 years compared to something like 13 in the 18 years previous to the new laws ( I can't be bothered to Google).
That can't be a bad thing don't you think?
Bad for the folk involved in that one incident I'll grant you but still good for all the other people that never got shot over the years.

It's always a good thing to reduce mass shootings. However...

One must consider what you're giving up. Who's to say that the US won't be facing a threat (either foreign or domestic) in 25-50 years from now that will require the citizens to be armed with somewhat capable weapons in order to overcome that threat?

History tells us that things do change, and that gov'ts do become tyrannical, and that economic collapses do happen, and countries do get invaded...

Personally, I'd rather keep the weapons.

.

I honestly don't object to reasonable laws that keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them--like some of the mentally ill or convicted felons or others who should be on a 'do not sell to' list. In this day and age a universal 'do not sell to' list should not be all that difficult to compile, maintain, and made available to all gun dealers etc.

But does anybody seriously believe it is worse to get shot during a violent act than to be bludgeoned to death with a ball bat, or knifed, or blown up with an explosive, or poisoned, or whatever means somebody would use to commit mayhem? And if you are confronted by somebody determined to commit mayhem, what weapon do you prefer an option to choose to deter him?

But it is noted that in almost every single case of mass murders, they were committed in gun free zones. And if making guns illegal was a guarantee that people wouldn't have them, then making drugs, Prostitution, bootlegging, rape, robbery, and assault illegal would mean those things wouldn't exist.

I just don't see how taking rights away from law abiding citizens makes us safer.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it's probably because the population had a mass movement to be trained in hand to hand self defense. Are you really this fuckin' slow, fella?

Crikey, I must be that slow...mate.
Crime has apparently gone up in Australia because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands.
Never mind that gun deaths of all kinds have continued to fall.

Makes you wonder if there is some inbetween that lowers gun deaths and keeps crime down. Maybe something like really strong background checks and magazine capacity limits.

I doubt magazine limitation will any impact at all. With a minimum amount of practice, you can change magazines on either a rifle or pistol in 2-3 seconds. With a lot of practice, you can easily shave that in half. It is not a solution, only a gesture.

I personally have no problem with background checks. I can't think of a state which currently does not have that already.

 

[Brain357]

Crikey, I must be that slow...mate.
Crime has apparently gone up in Australia because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands.
Never mind that gun deaths of all kinds have continued to fall.

Makes you wonder if there is some inbetween that lowers gun deaths and keeps crime down. Maybe something like really strong background checks and magazine capacity limits.

I doubt magazine limitation will any impact at all. With a minimum amount of practice, you can change magazines on either a rifle or pistol in 2-3 seconds. With a lot of practice, you can easily shave that in half. It is not a solution, only a gesture.

I personally have no problem with background checks. I can't think of a state which currently does not have that already.

Well capacity limits won't hurt anything. If I'm being shot at i want the person reloading early and often. He might have to takes his eyes off you while he reloads, might fumble around to find next one, might even drop the next one. I've yet to hear an example of anyone successfully defending themselves and firing more than 10 shots to do it. Only people firing that many shots are murdering innocents.

 

[tjvh]

Gun Nuts... Exactly why the fringe left is going to loose their voting base in 2014.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you saying that's because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands?

No, it's probably because the population had a mass movement to be trained in hand to hand self defense. Are you really this fuckin' slow, fella?

Crikey, I must be that slow...mate.
Crime has apparently gone up in Australia because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands.
Never mind that gun deaths of all kinds have continued to fall.

And yet the gun control freaks always cite the shed of gun homicides as a result of the bans. Yet, the overall view is that crime of declining before the ban. So they want to have it both ways. Which is completely predictable.

And yet, the unseen consequence of disarming the public has been that assaults, rape and home invasions have gone up tremedously. But it isn't because people are disarmed. It has to be because of some other nonrelated item.

 

[Spoonman]

Of course they can work. There are enough first world countries with sensible gun control measures in place that tell us that they can and do work.

If more guns was the answer we'd already be the safest country in the world, but we're far from it. To anyone with a shred of common sense would be able to determine from this that more guns does not equal more safety.

one little fact you overlook. take any country that has passed tough gun control laws. now take the USA since we lifted clinton's assault weapons ban. What you are going to find is that our rates of reduction in gun deaths have equaled any of these countries with tough gun laws or outright gun bans. and we did it without violating people rights.

 

[RDD_1210]

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

I don't care. I don't live in those countries.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[eflatminor]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Except for the fact that violent crime increased after the ban and they still had two mass killings.

Fail.

 

[BreezeWood]

B/c they are not supposed to be.

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

If I'm attacked by a much bigger person or better fighter. What give you the right to say I get to be beaten to death b/c I can't carry an arm with me?

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.

I doubt your suggestion would stand up constitutionally. If any public entity passed such a law it would be interesting how it would be received.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Amendment [I.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.


Firearms are the issue, not "Life, Liberty, etc..." that has everything to do with being a threat to the US Constitution and the reason it is a ratified document - why even have laws or a Constitution if it is presupposed that individuals have a right to settle their issues themselves by using force of "Arms" to do so.

 

[Darkwind]

taking away our rights is funny?

Fuck you people

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In THAT order.

Why should your right to liberty (owning military weapons) trump my right to life?

If tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers can be kept out of the hands of civilians, so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.

False premise. He is NOT a danger to your life. You are more dangerous to your own life than any other individual.

Crime in Australia is up since the gun control went into effect. I see you still haven't answered how any of your non-common sense laws will keep you safer.