The White House Releases New Gun Control Agenda

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Gorfias:
Austrailian gun control tightening is lauded as an example of these laws working, but when you compare comparable New Zealand, you see that they do not. But liberty has been lost for no good reason. That's a problem.

Only the liberty to shoot up local school classrooms.

I say nothing of value was lost, but anyone of the gun lobby is of course free to disagree.

One thing that's certain though: Australia has had no spree shootings since, while it had a steady amount of them before, proving a gun ban puts a stop, or at least severely reduces, this form of crime.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Austrailian gun control tightening is lauded as an example of these laws working, but when you compare comparable New Zealand, you see that they do not. But liberty has been lost for no good reason. That's a problem.

Only the liberty to shoot up local school classrooms.

I say nothing of value was lost, but anyone of the gun lobby is of course free to disagree.

One thing that's certain though: Australia has had no spree shootings since, while it had a steady amount of them before, proving a gun ban puts a stop, or at least severely reduces, this form of crime.

"Only the liberty to shoot up local school classrooms."
Or as is more often the case the liberty to defend yourself and your property.

Do you know what the problem really is in this debate?

There is a whole subset of people who have blind faith in government and even trust them to look out for them. The government could take away all their rights tomorrow and they wouldn't give a fuck, so long as they had a box with a couch and TV to live in where people left them alone for the most part.

They don't understand that you don't need military hardware to slaughter school children, just a sick mind and a sharp instrument. They're not taking things like assault rifles away because it's a kindergartener's Achilles heel- but they are a threat to the government.

Sometimes I hope they would just hurry up and get their new world order over with so we, humanity, can see how well that works out.

Gorfias:

jimborious:

You mean the Cumbria shootings in 2010 commited by Derrick Bird? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

So we've had a shooting on this scale at a rough rate of one per decade, how many has the US had in the same period?

The question is, I thought you guys would no longer have any such shootings! By golly, you got yourself laws and regulations!

The Derrick Bird massacre represented a complete failure in the regulations though. Firstly he had no business having a license in the first place, he was a taxi driver living in an suburban terraced house with no land and was not a member of any kind of shooting club or hunting club. Secondly there where doubts about his mental health, somewhere along the line someone dropped the ball. Either his doctor failed to make the people who annually renew licences aware of his deteriorating mental health or they ignored the GPs report. Finally the police officers obliged to inspect his storage arrangements and review the types and amounts of weapons and ammunition he purchased and owned failed to question why a taxi driver with no real reason for owning a gun was stockpiling as much as he did.

Any one of those issues should have raised red flags, all of them together should have meant his guns where taken from him. He might have got treatment, he might have still snapped and killed but without the guns he would not have been able to cause as much carnage as he did.

Gorfias:

So, now you feel safe? I think that is fool hardy. I'm familiar with a number of ways such systems can be beaten easily that include all sorts of undetectable plastics and nylon. Evil is. You should always be vigilant and stop waiting for laws and regulations to protect you.

So you believe that you should... be allowed to take your gun on a plane, that is where you are going with this?

As does mine. Your laws and regulations did not protect you.

1- Australian, why the fuck to people here keep thinking I'm a Pom?!
2- Nation with regulations had one incident in the period of 1996-2010, nation without regulations had thirtyfuckingeight. If we adjust that for population, the US had seven times the massacres per capita, which seems to be a point in regulations favor. Again, no law will ever be perfect, and your lunacy that one occurrence nullifies the effectiveness of the law shows a critical lack of understanding of how laws work.

They are freer than the Aussies, other wise similar, did not have a wave of gun control and are doing just as well. Case closed. Gun control does not make you safer.

Oi, genius, lets have a look at their firearm legislation,
-License required to own any sort of firearm
Requirements on the application
-Photo ID
-Two referees, one of which must not be related to you
-Address, phone number and full name must be supplied to police
-A safety course must be completed and another basic test is included in the application.
-All firearms are legally required to be stored securely, separate from ammo and in a place that children cannot reach them
-According to the NZ arms code (basis of the ownership system), ownership of a firearm is a privilege, not a right. (booyah)
-there are a fuckton of requirements for owning anything other than a boltack hunting rifle.
B Endorsement - Target (Competition) pistols

+Applicant must be a current member of a pistol club, a financial member of Pistol New Zealand (or in some cases membership of an approved club) and have attended at least 12 club shoots in the last 6 months before they can apply
+Applicant must be sponsored by their club
+The endorsement holder must attend at least 12 club activities (either at their home club or to another recognised club) in a financial year
+Normally limited to no more than 12 pistols registered to their licence
+Pistols must be of an approved sporting type i.e. barrel length of more than 10 cm (3.9 in)
+Pistols can only be carried to and from the range in a locked container with ammunition in a separate container or to a gunsmith
+Pistols may only be shot on a Police approved pistol club range.

C Endorsement - Restricted Weapons Pistols can also be held on the C endorsement instead of the B. Common special reasons include:

+ Collecting (must provide evidence in the form of books, club membership, collection of A type firearms), Museum curator, Family heirlooms and Theatrical.
+C category firearms must be stored in an inoperable condition
+Can never be used with live ammunition, but blanks are allowed for movie making and re-enacting
+Can only be taken to an approved display venue, re-enactment event or to another collector for sale.

D Endorsement - Dealers licence

For those that make an income from firearms. To sell restricted weapons the dealer also needs to have the appropriate endorsements.

+Renewed annually
+Further security requirements
+Must maintain a record (usually a book or register) of firearm purchases and sales.

E Endorsement - Military Style Semi-Automatics (M.S.S.A)

New class of restricted weapon that was created after the Aramoana tragedy. At the time anyone with an M.S.S.A that wanted to keep it in that configuration was given a E endorsement (after going through the vetting and extra security requirements). But presently few are issued. Common reasons for wanting an E endorsement are professional pest destruction, collecting, 3-gun and service rifle shooting.((note that overthrow of the government and self defence aren't fucking listed)) Those people that did not want the extra hassle and expense of the endorsement converted their rifles into 'A' configuration by removing the components that made it an 'E'.

-note that these laws tightened in a 'wave of gun control after a massacre' and can I just say that your continued inability to get facts correct has stumbled into the comic zone now.
-Class E weapons have to come from an list approved by police.
-Your license can be revoked if you are found to be using the weapon in an unsafe way
-A weapon must never be left in a vehicle unattended
-Your license can be revoked if you are found to be operating a weapon under the influence of alcohol or drugs
-Pistols can only be fired on an approved range
-The police will check the security of your house before allowing you to own a pistol
-You can only transport your pistol from home to the range, or to a gunsmith (no concealed carry for you)
-other reasons for loss of license
+REVOCATION OF LICENCE: occurs when a licenceholder no longer complies with the 'fit and proper person' criteria. Examples include : - having an order made under the Domestic Violence Act 1995; being convicted or charged with offences involving violence, alcohol, or drugs; having an apparent mental disorder; being a person who may be a threat to himself or to others; failing to comply with provisions of the Arms Act, or associating with unsuitable persons who may gain access to the firearms. Revocations can be modified by a Court. '
-Careless use of a firearm is an offense under NZ law.
-Someone without an E class endorsement cannot even fire an E class weapon, even under supervision.
-You are legally required to have a reason to own a E class weapon
-On top of the E class license you need a permit for each individual E class weapon
-Your license will be rejected if you so much as associate with criminals
-DIRECT FUCKING QUOTE FROM THE NZ ARMS CODE "Self-defence is not a valid reason to possess firearms. The
law does not permit the possession of firearms 'in anticipation' that a firearm may need to be used in self-defence.

I am not even half way through the arms code, but I think you get the point, the point being, you don't know shit about the NZ firearm legislation, you would probably chuck a tanty if anyone suggested it for the US and it is far closer to us (Australia) than you (the US).
also closer is another fact (note when I say fact, I don't mean a grand pronouncement like some people that shall remain nameless, (but if I were to name would totally be you)
firearms per 100 people
AUS IIIII IIIII IIIII I
NZ IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII II
THE US IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII
does that make the difference clear enough for you or do I literally have to draw you a picture?

If the Constitution is irrelevant, what rules? A whole other thread. Been over it often.

Have you heard of separation of powers? The legislative arm is separated from the judicial and from the executive, the legislative makes the laws, the executive makes the decisions and the judicial enforces the laws. A constitution should serve as nothing more than the outlines for other laws, none of this near religious fervor that you seem to ascribe to it.

I'm doing my part for freedom. Others keep trying to put us on the slippery slope to tyranny and mass death. We should all do our part for freedom.

I was going to say that you are doing your part for firearm owndership, but looking at your points and evidence, you are not even doing that. Here's something for you chuckles, something that the rest of the western world stumbled upon decades ago 'guns do not equal freedom, and if they did, the US would not be last in just about every metric of freedom in the anglophone sphere. '

and again, it is more about ergonomics than how scary the weapon looks, looking for 'balanced' (by which I'm sure you mean a source that agrees with you) info as opposed to factual info is not good and simply claiming that other bad things are happening does not negate the validity of treating this issue (cancer v malaria again)

Gorfias:
This information came from a column called, "Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do".

This piece of opinion and distortion?

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/09/coulter-doing-the-research-the-new-york-times-wont-do/

For example;
"Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach "control groups" at Harvard?)"

LOL!

Actually the studies compare Australia to Australia, based on the rates that individual states implemented the 'Gun Buy Back' in 1997 and 2003.

Here is the latest of 7 studies inot the 'Gun Buy Back', try actually reading the science and not some FOX 'journalists' opinion.

"We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate."

http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Or if you can't comprehend the language used in the study;

http://www.smh.com.au/national/howards-gun-legacy--200-lives-saved-a-year-20100829-13xne.html

Gorfias:
EDIT: This from leftist, pro-gun control ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98678&page=1 It seems to concede the main point of Lott's thesis: crime rates went down as stats became concealed carry.

Lott is simply bad science, written and used to support firearm manufacturing companies via the NRA (as the NRA's major contributors are not firearm owwners, but firearm makers trying to protect their businesses).

I linked you to the reasons why Lott's methodology was flawed, try actually informing yourself of the facts, and not accepting without question the opinions FOX prefers you have.

xDarc:
There is a whole subset of people who have blind faith in government and even trust them to look out for them.

And there are a subset of people who are so paranoid that they think their government is evil and out to get them.

They also mistakenly think that in a country where less than 60% of people can be bothered to participate in democracy (ie vote) will actually get off the couch and risk their lives to stop a tyranical government.

xDarc:
Sometimes I hope they would just hurry up and get their new world order over with so we, humanity, can see how well that works out.

You are behind the times mate, Australia has had this 'new world order' for well over a decade.

We have lower violent crime, higher wages, public health care and better ecomnomy than your 'old world'.

For example; when the GFC hit the US government gave US$ billion to the banks, while the Australian government gave every tax-payer US$2,000.

Clearly tryanical to give the people money to stimulate the local micro economy in a time of finacial crisis....

Blablahb:
If you pull a gun, they have to incapacitate or kill you, or die themselves.

'

Then why didn't that happen in my situation? My attacker stood down. Explain that.

TechNoFear:

Gorfias:
This information came from a column called, "Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do".

For example;
"Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach "control groups" at Harvard?)"

LOL!

Actually the studies compare Australia to Australia

LOL. Why? That is what Ann is making fun of (and I've been made fun of for pointing out UK violent crime is up since tighter gun control.)

Gorfias:

EDIT: This from leftist, pro-gun control ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98678&page=1 It seems to concede the main point of Lott's thesis: crime rates went down as stats became concealed carry.

Lott is simply bad science, written and used to support firearm manufacturing companies via the NRA (as the NRA's major contributors are not firearm owwners, but firearm makers trying to protect their businesses).

I linked you to the reasons why Lott's methodology was flawed, try actually informing yourself of the facts, and not accepting without question the opinions FOX prefers you have.

You referenced me to an unreliable mess. I linked you to something that is on YOUR side, suggesting the major points of Lott's are correct.

the clockmaker:

Gorfias:

So, now you feel safe?... Evil is. You should always be vigilant and stop waiting for laws and regulations to protect you.

So you believe that you should... be allowed to take your gun on a plane, that is where you are going with this?

I infer from your statements that 9/11 will never happen again because of new regulations. I state, shoe bomber Richard Reed was not stopped by regulations. He was stopped by vigilant people. I don't feel perfectly safe on planes now due to regulations. I don't think I even feel safe-er. It is that vigilence that makes us safer now than in 9/11.

If the Constitution is irrelevant, what rules? A whole other thread. Been over it often.

A constitution should serve as nothing more than the outlines for other laws, none of this near religious fervor that you seem to ascribe to it.

I think that is all the USSC is doing. They're not praying. They're reading: "the right of the people... not the state but the people, to bear arms, shall not be infringed." Infringing is what I think gun grabbers want to do.

I'm doing my part for freedom. Others keep trying to put us on the slippery slope to tyranny and mass death. We should all do our part for freedom.

I was going to say that you are doing your part for firearm owndership, but looking at your points and evidence, you are not even doing that. Here's something for you chuckles, something that the rest of the western world stumbled upon decades ago 'guns do not equal freedom, and if they did, the US would not be last in just about every metric of freedom in the anglophone sphere. '

The USA is not "near last" by my metrics and that is what counts to me. Guns are freedoms teeth. Some gun control heavy regions like the UK may seem OK today, and that's fine, but a disarmed populace is a vulnerable populace. Or do you think Hitler, Mao, Stallin, Castro and the greatest gun control tyrants of recent years would be stopped by regulations?

J Tyran:

The Derrick Bird massacre represented a complete failure in the regulations

One of the reasons to put your trust in freedom and vigilance over more rules.

Gorfias:

I infer from your statements that 9/11 will never happen again because of new regulations. I state, shoe bomber Richard Reed was not stopped by regulations. He was stopped by vigilant people. I don't feel perfectly safe on planes now due to regulations. I don't think I even feel safe-er. It is that vigilence that makes us safer now than in 9/11.

So now we are off box cutters and onto bombs... focus would be nice mate.
And, for about the third or fourth time, one set of bad stuff happening does not negate the necessity to combat other bad stiff. Cancer V malaria.

I think that is all the USSC is doing. They're not praying. They're reading: "the right of the people... not the state but the people, to bear arms, shall not be infringed." Infringing is what I think gun grabbers want to do.

But they are putting the US constitution on an inviolate pedestal, instead of using it as mere outline. And when you put quotation marks around something you should really quote it, not add in something like the phrase 'not the state'. I do not give two fifths of a fuck what the US constitution says, if it does not conform to the social mores and requirements of this age, it needs to be changed. When Australia pulled its head of its arse to give aboriginals voting rights protection we had to change our constitution.

The USA is not "near last" by my metrics and that is what counts to me.

also known as the 'because I say so' defence. The only two metrics by which the US is 'winning' in the anglophone sphere are in terms of prison population and gun ownership.

Guns are freedoms teeth.

back that up please.

Some gun control heavy regions like the UK may seem OK today, and that's fine, but a disarmed populace is a vulnerable populace.

Point out a reasonable threat to freedom in the UK, Aus, NZ etc. Point out something other than your own nebulous paranoia that we should be defending ourselves against.

Or do you think Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro and the greatest gun control tyrants of recent years would be stopped by regulations?

I just explained this to you before and you ignored it, but here we fucking go again,
Hitler-popular in his own country right up until the soviets came knocking so armed revolution against him=not feasible
Mao-Came to power fighting against a foreign occupier, fought a years long civil war to take apart his opposition, his opponents were fucking armed -their guns did nothing to save them
Stalin-Came to power after a popular revolution and civil war, the common perception of him in the USSR before he was denounced to the general secretariat was that he was harsh, but necessary -the people wielded their guns in his favor
Castro- Holds power due to the fact that the people see him as less of a problem than the giant enemy off to their west -the cuban populace would rather point their guns at you than him

By all means, feel free to point out key events where a more heavily armed populace could have stopped them, but something tells me that you don't know all that much about these places beyond 'bad shit happened'.

And are you now conceding the issues regarding new Zealand and the ergonomics of weapons, because you threw that bullshit out there and have completely failed to defend it. and the tidbit that the UK has 1/7 the massacre rate of the US and the fact that Aus's is even lower

xDarc:
Do you know what the problem really is in this debate?

There is a whole subset of people who have blind faith in government and even trust them to look out for them. The government could take away all their rights tomorrow and they wouldn't give a fuck, so long as they had a box with a couch and TV to live in where people left them alone for the most part.

They don't understand that you don't need military hardware to slaughter school children, just a sick mind and a sharp instrument. They're not taking things like assault rifles away because it's a kindergartener's Achilles heel- but they are a threat to the government.

Sometimes I hope they would just hurry up and get their new world order over with so we, humanity, can see how well that works out.

Could you possibly be more insulting and hyperbolic? I'll phrase my response in kind, so you can understand how genuinely mad you appear: There's a difference between having blind faith in government, and just not being a paranoid whackadoo who spends every waking second in terror at the prospect that black helicopters are going to come for them at any moment. The majority of the civilised world outside of America don't own guns, and we've somehow managed to avoid the dystopian horror that you and your ilk are utterly convinced will happen the very instant your ludicrous fetish is curtailed.

Sometimes I wish all you gun psychos would hurry up and get your pointless and doubtlessly laughably ineffective "insurrection" over with, just so that the rest of us can stop hearing about how Obama is going to transform into Franken-Hitler and DESTROY 'MURICA.

the clockmaker:

one set of bad stuff happening does not negate the necessity to combat other bad stiff. Cancer V malaria.

It should help set priorities though. What are you doing talking about gun control when loons can kill 3,000 people with box cutters? What are you doing talking about gun control while loons shoot up schools AND throw innocents in front of moving trains?

I think that is all the USSC is doing. They're not praying. They're reading: "the right of the people... not the state but the people, to bear arms, shall not be infringed." Infringing is what I think gun grabbers want to do.

But they are putting the US constitution on an inviolate pedestal, instead of using it as mere outline.

Someone reads, "congress shall pass no law" and say, "hmmm! That means congress shall pass lots of laws!" isn't doing his/her job.

Guns are freedoms teeth.

back that up please.

.hteet smodeerf era snuG

Guns are a form of equality. Government is not the only power with deadly force. More in a moment.

Hitler-popular in his own country right up until the soviets came knocking so armed revolution against him=not feasible

An armed minority could have helped changed that nation's genocidal mind. At least my former land lady could no longer say she had no idea Jews were being rounded up and murdered. There'd have been fighting in the streets. And the Jews would have been on much more even ground rather than just waiting to be lawfully murdered. They could have been freedom's teeth.

And are you now conceding the issues regarding new Zealand and the ergonomics of weapons, because you threw that bullshit out there and have completely failed to defend it. and the tidbit that the UK has 1/7 the massacre rate of the US and the fact that Aus's is even lower

Studies trumpeted good results from Austrailia due to gun control. New Zealand is similar in every way except the gun control. Gun control = fail. What's not to get?

Magichead:
The majority of the civilised world outside of America don't own guns, and we've somehow managed to avoid the dystopian horror that you and your ilk are utterly convinced will happen the very instant your ludicrous fetish is curtailed.

lol, there's gonna be 10+ billion people on this planet inside of 30 years. What do you think is going to happen? 200 years ago, there was barely a billion people. Now there's going to be 10 real soon. How much longer do you think that shit is gonna fly for before resources become scarce, governments crack down, people are poor and rioting in the street, and civil liberties are "nostalgia"?

Things are coming to a head and they will be thrown completely out of control in your life time. Can't you feel it? Don't you look around and see what's going on out there?

Why would a government take away your rights when you're all still docile and complacent? No, they are saving that for when there are no jobs, people are broke, people are starving, there is no more carrot on a stick to keep people nice and orderly.

Trust me, when we get there, you'll wish you had an assault rifle and will wonder why in the hell you outlawed them to save a hundred lives in a few sensational shootings every year. But that's the point. It's not about public safety, it's about making you easier to control, restricting your options to fight back. So not IF, but WHEN they decide to take away your "RIGHTS," you will be easy pickings.

The writing is on the wall, it's real simple.

the clockmaker:
snip

? we were recently labeled as 7th in terms of the most free country in the world. Hell there was a thread not too long ago on this. US is not last by any stretch of the imagination (not first either). to claim otherwise (without providing proof) is anti-american bigotry.

xDarc:

Magichead:
The majority of the civilised world outside of America don't own guns, and we've somehow managed to avoid the dystopian horror that you and your ilk are utterly convinced will happen the very instant your ludicrous fetish is curtailed.

lol, there's gonna be 10+ billion people on this planet inside of 30 years. What do you think is going to happen? 200 years ago, there was barely a billion people. Now there's going to be 10 real soon. How much longer do you think that shit is gonna fly for before resources become scarce, governments crack down, people are poor and rioting in the street, and civil liberties are "nostalgia"?

Things are coming to a head and they will be thrown completely out of control in your life time. Can't you feel it? Don't you look around and see what's going on out there?

Why would a government take away your rights when you're all still docile and complacent? No, they are saving that for when there are no jobs, people are broke, people are starving, there is no more carrot on a stick to keep people nice and orderly.

Trust me, when we get there, you'll wish you had an assault rifle and will wonder why in the hell you outlawed them to save a hundred lives in a few sensational shootings every year. But that's the point. It's not about public safety, it's about making you easier to control, restricting your options to fight back. So not IF, but WHEN they decide to take away your "RIGHTS," you will be easy pickings.

The writing is on the wall, it's real simple.

Yeah yeah, and the world is going to end in 2012, the Mayans said so. Just like it was going to end in 2000 because God said so, and all the times before that it was going to end. Just like America was going to become a tyrannical hellscale if black people were allowed to vote, or when businesses couldn't post "no blacks/Jews/Irish" signs in their windows anymore. If we're all "docile and complacent", it's because psychos like you have been crying wolf pretty much constantly for the last fucking century, and guess what, still no wolf.

But I'm sure that this time you're right, and civilisation really is going to collapse.

xDarc:
...and civil liberties are "nostalgia"?

[...]

Things are coming to a head and they will be thrown completely out of control in your life time. Can't you feel it? Don't you look around and see what's going on out there?

I keep mentioning these things on this forum: Wire-tapping without warrants, executions without trials, indefinite detention, signature strikes, prosecution overreach, increased surveillance, more guards on every corner, rendition etc., but those most of the people seem to be quite alright with.
You have your toys, but you're already losing your civil liberties.
You know how this will go down? They'll let you keep your guns. There's no question about it, Obama is part of this after all. A few symbolic acts, most of which won't be put into law anyway.
But you will continue to lose your rights more and more, clutching your guns and thinking they protect your rights while they're being eroded from under your feet.
You know what those guns are? They're nothing but pacifiers to keep you quiet. They do nothing to protect you. You're entirely focusing on all the wrong things. As long as you have your guns, you're free, right? Nonsense.
They couldn't care less about a couple of hicks having some weapons. Fight back against these constant safety-over-liberty measures instead of clining to your toys that the government largely only laughs at or, at best, uses for campaigning in either direction.

It's not about public safety, it's about making you easier to control, restricting your options to fight back. So not IF, but WHEN they decide to take away your "RIGHTS," you will be easy pickings.

This is so ironic to me, considering the incredibly Authoritarian measures already in place in the USA. You didn't even notice in your fervor, did you?
I find it so odd that some people seem to think Europe is Authoritarian because we don't have access to guns, while actual civil liberties are being taken away in their own backyard.
I can only interpret that as guns being used as decoys to deflect real concerns about individual rights.

Magichead:

But I'm sure that this time you're right, and civilisation really is going to collapse.

Unless we basically figure out how to create free energy or control global population , yes it will. The major global economic players will be the last ones to go, but that's when the fun ought to really get started.

In either case, when people go into survival mode because just getting basic necessities becomes hard due to lack of work or money- that's when they can't be controlled and governments are threatened and crack down hard. You have to make people fear for their lives because things become so scarce they're already worried about their survival. That's the only way to keep control. Humans only behave when there is a reward. We're basically just a famine away from your country acting like North Korea at any given point.

Skeleon:

xDarc:
It's not about public safety, it's about making you easier to control, restricting your options to fight back. So not IF, but WHEN they decide to take away your "RIGHTS," you will be easy pickings.

This is so ironic to me, considering the incredibly Authoritarian measures already in place in the USA. You didn't even notice in your fervor, did you?

No, believe me. I noticed. I'm also well aware of everything that's been leading up to where we are now.

I gave a presentation to a highschool sociology class in 1997 about the threat of al-qaeda and global terrorism destabilizing the world. People thought I was nuts. I got phone calls from them after 9/11 asking what was going to happen next.

I was at George Bush's first inauguration in 2001 as a demonstrator.
I have been gassed in World Trade Org. riots in the late 90s. I've watched kids get beaten, mace sprayed down their throat, in fucking Ohio.
I had to take the anti-bush stickers off my car after 9/11 because a maniac tried to run me off the expressway for 2 miles until I cut over across an off ramp at the last second.
I watched them pass the Patriot act and hide behind American flags and empty slogans like support the troops.
I watched them go after Iraq on trumped up WMD charges because everyone who knew anything knew Saddam Hussein did not harbor terrorists.
Saddam Hussein may have given money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, be he didn't fund, supply or harbor them.
You should have seen how much fun that was explaining it to a bunch of people scared out of their mind talking about turning the middle east into glass with nuclear weapons.

I don't care anymore.

Nothing can be done to stop it, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the fix is in. We are on a collision course for some nasty times. And yes, as long as I have my guns- I am a force to be reckoned with. If you thought Iraqi insurgents were pesky, wait until you see the American insurrection.

Gorfias:

Studies trumpeted good results from Australia due to gun control. New Zealand is similar in every way except the gun control. Gun control = fail. What's not to get?

You're taking the piss right. I just explained in great length and pretty decent fucking detail exactly how NZ's laws are far far far closer to Australia's than the US's

I'm going to make this as obvious as I can, so I can be sure that you are actually understanding this.
NZ IS VERY FUCKING SIMILAR TO AUS IN GUN CONTROL and its firearm ownership per capita is Similar as well, its laws even came about in the wake of a massacre I feel as if I need to write it in gigantic flashing fucking letters so it gets into your head. Did you not fucking read the just shy of one thousand words I spent trying to explain what should be a very basic concept to you.

the rest of your post:

snip

Yeah, I'm not giving another word of yours the time of day until you actually recognize why you are spouting nonsense on the whole new Zealand thing because I want to be sure that you actually know how far off from reality you are.

Ryotknife:

the clockmaker:
snip

? we were recently labeled as 7th in terms of the most free country in the world. Hell there was a thread not too long ago on this. US is not last by any stretch of the imagination (not first either). to claim otherwise (without providing proof) is anti-american bigotry.

Yep, and that is why I said it was the least free in the anglophone sphere, normally defined as AUS CAN UK US NZ, and I backed it up with, oh just a whole mess of statistics. I felt comparing British descendent English speaking first world nations to British descendent English speaking first world nations was a valid action. The point was not that the US was a dystopic shithole (I used to live there and I quite liked it) but rather the prevalence of firearms is not doing quite the amount of protection of freedom that Gorifas is claiming.

Is this the new thing for the anti-legislation side, ignore things that aren't convenient for you, change the words of your opponents? Fail at basic reading comprehension? Because I tell you what, it is not doing the credibility of your side any favors

For those interested, an example case study of NZ and Australia, where banning guns in Australia has made no difference relative to similar NZ were guns are not banned: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Mass_shootings.pdf

"The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia."

But this brings us back to the topic of this thread: the President, with lousy arguments, did something illegal and imperious surrounded by children. I state again, I find this disgusting. It appears many of you are fine with it as you support more gun control.

Does surrounding himself w/ kids matter to you? Why do it?

Gorfias:
For those interested, an example case study of NZ and Australia, where banning guns in Australia has made no difference relative to similar NZ were guns are not banned: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Mass_shootings.pdf

"The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia."

But this brings us back to the topic of this thread: the President, with lousy arguments, did something illegal and imperious surrounded by children. I state again, I find this disgusting. It appears many of you are fine with it as you support more gun control.

Does surrounding himself w/ kids matter to you? Why do it?

Are you trolling, or, wait there is no second option here anymore. I have explained in great detail and then in great volume, with patience and then passion and backed it up with facts quoted directly from the NZ laws.
I am just going to quote this on every one of your posts re:firearm legislation until you either admit that you are bloody lying by continuing to use NZ as an example or actually refute their own goddamn laws on the subject.

NZ IS VERY FUCKING SIMILAR TO AUS IN GUN CONTROL (much closer than it is to the US) and its firearm ownership per capita is Similar as well, its laws even came about in the wake of a massacre

I didn't see it being explicitly mentioned but wasn't a key detail in the new gun control proposals sealing the gun show loophole which allowed people to purchase guns without a full background check?

Gorfias:

J Tyran:

The Derrick Bird massacre represented a complete failure in the regulations

One of the reasons to put your trust in freedom and vigilance over more rules.

No offense but I will stick with the freedom of being unlikely to ever see real gun in person, the laws here generally work. After the Hungerford massacre and the banning of semi automatic rifles and magazine fed/pump action shotguns there has never been another one using those weapons. After the Dunblane massacre and the handgun ban there has never been a high casualty spree shooting using them. Finally the Cumbria shootings should have been a wake up call for the authorities to do their jobs properly.

the clockmaker:

Gorfias:
For those interested, an example case study of NZ and Australia, where banning guns in Australia has made no difference relative to similar NZ were guns are not banned: http://www.cjcj.org/files/Mass_shootings.pdf

"The current paper examines the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand (a country that is socioeconomically similar to Australia, but with a different approach to firearms regulation) over a 30 year period. It does not find support for the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms has prevented mass shootings, with New Zealand not experiencing a mass shooting since 1997 despite the availability in that country of firearms banned in Australia."

But this brings us back to the topic of this thread: the President, with lousy arguments, did something illegal and imperious surrounded by children. I state again, I find this disgusting. It appears many of you are fine with it as you support more gun control.

Does surrounding himself w/ kids matter to you? Why do it?

Are you trolling

I thought you were done responding to me on this issue, which may be for the best (in this particular thread). You keep being very demonstrably wrong (see above link) on your central point and then putting it in bold and caps, sort of being wrong at the top of your voice so to speak.

I invite people to read the study I've linked, but the quote I took from it says it all. And as you wrote, you do not need to respond.

J Tyran:
[quote="Gorfias" post="528.398678.16339939"] the Cumbria shootings should have been a wake up call for the authorities to do their jobs properly.

I'm glad we're not seeing tyranny break out in liberal countries with lots of gun control. I really do think the type of people in the USA that would unilaterally ignore our constitution and impose such controls have plans for us that should make us afraid and very vigilant to protect our freedoms.

I personally do not own a gun, but I like that those that might attack me and my family do not know that.

Pyramid Head:
I didn't see it being explicitly mentioned but wasn't a key detail in the new gun control proposals sealing the gun show loophole which allowed people to purchase guns without a full background check?

Yeah that's what the background check part means. I don't even know how that can be controversial to the NRA but I'm pretty sure they disagree with it.

Gorfias:

I thought you were done responding to me on this issue, which may be for the best (in this particular thread). You keep being very demonstrably wrong (see above link) on your central point and then putting it in bold and caps, sort of being wrong at the top of your voice so to speak.

I invite people to read the study I've linked, but the quote I took from it says it all. And as you wrote, you do not need to respond.

I quoted their laws, I indicated where they were similar to aus and different to the US, you quoted a study by a anti-legislation group that in and of itself ignored that the laws were similar indicating laws in Australia as stringent and ignoring that the same laws are present in NZ, again, I quoted the laws themselves, they are free, on line, you can read them and stop trying to find some counter-factual bullshit that parrots your side.

I appologise for wording myself poorly above, I meant that I will give no other points of yours the time of day until you acknowledge that you are wrong with regards to new Zealand.

Your source by the way, claims that several types of weapon are banned in Australia (http://www.police.vic.gov.au/retrievemedia.asp?media_id=70600) there is the application for the license for the types of weapons your source claims are banned, so she bald faced lied to you buddy

I will outline the similarities again
both Aus and NZ
-require firearm licenses (which need to be renewed)
-require safe storage of weapons
-require a reason to own a weapon
-require a graduated level of license for differing types of weapon
-do not allow self defence as a reason to own a weapon
-treat weapons as privileges and not as rights
-allow licenses to be revoked in cases of negligent use or association with criminals
-require membership in a club to own a pistol
-fully automatic or otherwise fully restricted weapons must be kept in a deactivated state
-ammo and weapons must be stored separately
-a 'genuine need' as to why a semi-auto rifle as opposed to a boltack needs to be demonstrated
-a license holder cannot give or sell a weapon to an unlicensed person
-to be permitted, a weapon must come from a list approved by the police
-Weapons with greater magazine sizes are more restricted
-License fee has to be paid to keep the weapon
-all individual 'military style' weapons must be registered.
-require the address, details and history of the license holder to be stored by the police
-pistols must have barrels above a certain length.
-every semi-automatic rifle requires a separate application from police.
-tightened their laws in the wake of a major shooting (Port Arthur in Aus and Aramoana in NZ)
-have similar numbers of firearms per 100 people
AUS
IIIII IIIII IIIII I
NZ
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII II
Aus/NZ combined
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII
twice nz/aus combined
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII II
THE US
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII

Differences,
-in NZ you get a license based on what you intend to use it for (with the exception of military style weapons which get their own catagory) while in Aus you get one based on the type of weapon
-In NZ you do not have to register every firearm (with the exception of military style weapons) you only need to register yourself
-In Aus, you require a permit for every weapon, in NZ you need only a license (with the exception of military style weapons, which require a permit each)
-NZ adopted their laws in 1992 while Australia did it in 1996

Now see, I have demonstrated how you are wrong, by showing that the contention that NZ is, to quote you 'armed to the teeth' while ausralia is unarmed, is provably false I have done this by showing that
a-the difference between NZ firearm possession and Aus firearm possession is not that marked (12 extra firearms per 100 people, as opposed to the US who has more than twice the number of Aus and NZ combined) and
b-the differences between the laws of ownership is also not that marked (see the above comparisons of the laws)

You, on the other hand, quoted a 'research paper' conducted by someone outside of their field who could not be bothered to check if the weapons she claims are banned are actually banned.

But still, I am a reasonable man, show me, don't just link to some bullshit that parrots your side, actually show me how the laws differ.

the clockmaker:
snip.

From your link: "The Firearms Act 1996 requires you to have a genuine reason to obtain a Firearm Licence."

F-them. All to heck. Seriously, that is a radically aggravating outrage. ITMT: Sure, in the USA have nuclear weapons. They are not what we would think of as "arms" for a militia. You could write that they are not "banned" cuz, they're here in the USA! Yeah, try owning one.

Clearly I wasn't lied to by my link. Gun laws go after guns in Australia. There was a change there that did not occur in similar socio economic NZ which has not had these reforms is and is considered less anti gun than Aussie.

Mass shootings wise, the new gun laws in Australia made zero difference.

Glad I could clear that up for everyone.

EDIT: Though they do try there: "In March 2009 the New Zealand police bid to reclassify certain types of civilian semi-automatic firearms was overturned by the New Zealand High Court as a result of a legal challenge mounted by the New Zealand National Shooters Association (NSA) president Richard Lincoln."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand

the clockmaker:
The point was not that the US was a dystopic shithole (I used to live there and I quite liked it) but rather the prevalence of firearms is not doing quite the amount of protection of freedom that Gorifas is claiming.

Firearms don't protect against government-given freedoms or rights being taken away. They protect individual freedom when the stupid fucking economy collapses, the government loses control, and now it's about rounding motherfuckers up and putting them in camps. That's the kind of thing firearms protect you from.

I am not sure why there's confusion about this. They're really an insurance policy more than anything else.

I don't see how a study done by a bunch of dirty hippies about which country is more free has any relevance. (No I didn't read the study and I don't know it was done by dirty hippies) I already know countries are generally only as free as their people on the whole feel prosperous.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Austrailian gun control tightening is lauded as an example of these laws working, but when you compare comparable New Zealand, you see that they do not. But liberty has been lost for no good reason. That's a problem.

Only the liberty to shoot up local school classrooms.

How many times are you going to say this crap? Have you ever lived in an Armed Society before? Here in my county(In Kentucky btw) every single person I know owns some type of firearm. Actually right now my neighbors are shooting at explosive targets as we speak, but that's beside the point. By your logic we should be killing each other left and right, but no that's not the case. We have only had 1 murder in the last 25 years and it was performed by a handgun, not by a rifle or shotgun, but a pistol. And no one has ever attempted to shoot up the school. I believe a few years ago there was a bomb threat but it was a hoax. So please, stop saying that everyone with a firearm is a murder spree about to happen. Because that simply is not the case. And yes, we do own AR-15 style rifles, A LOT of them.

Gorfias:
Mass shootings wise, the new gun laws in Australia made zero difference.

Glad I could clear that up for everyone.

I am definitely not going to let that crazy lie go because in the decade after the ban there has been one mass shooting resulting in the deaths of two people. I let a lot of things pass but what you said there was straight up bull.

So what if someone has a stack clip nice to their 10 round wouldn't that make it a 1 second difference. That being said having 30 rounds is for target shooting which is a American hobby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivas_massacre
Setting fire to hotel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
A bolt action 5 rounder with fire bombs

Dozens more if you search.

Gorfias:

From your link: "The Firearms Act 1996 requires you to have a genuine reason to obtain a Firearm Licence."

F-them. All to heck. Seriously, that is a radically aggravating outrage.

genius, they have the exact same requirement in NZ. It is in the very simply worded post that you quoted, do I need to strip it down into single syllables for you?
N Z cops ask why you want guns and if you want guns you have to tell them
come on man, this is not that fucking hard.

ITMT: Sure, in the USA have nuclear weapons. They are not what we would think of as "arms" for a militia. You could write that they are not "banned" cuz, they're here in the USA! Yeah, try owning one.

I assume that this is in response to my point that firearms that often called banned in Australia are in actuality merely heavily regulated. Well, show me where the easily used civilian application to obtain a nuke is in the US, because I gave you the class D license, which can be granted to anybody here with a genuine reason, just as in exactly the same fucking way it can in NZ.

Clearly I wasn't lied to by my link.

As is said and just explained, as a civilian, you can own these types of firearms, it is just required that you have a genuine reason to do so (just as you do in NZ) your source (done by a person working outside of their field) calls them banned, your source lied to you by gross mislabeling of what could be the key term of her piece.

Gun laws go after guns in Australia.

and in NZ

There was a change there that did not occur in similar socio economic NZ which has not had these reforms is and is considered less anti gun than Aussie.

-tightened their laws in the wake of a major shooting (Port Arthur in Aus and Aramoana in NZ)
plus, you know the exact similarities that I have outlined in detail and you have ignored twice now

Mass shootings wise, the new gun laws in Australia made zero difference.

'If i keep shouting it, people will either believe me or it will spontaneously become true, facts are for pussies!'

Glad I could clear that up for everyone.

That you clearly have issues with basic reading comprehension or that your attention span is so short that you read a few words from a post before diving into a response.

Xan Krieger:

*Reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban
The old "They look scary so ban them" Also take a look at the following


You see that dude? With those handguns he killed 33 people (himself included) and wounded 23 others. That is far more damage than has been done by people with "assault weapons". Let's also look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

The massacre is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history. It was the worst act of mass murder of college students since Syracuse University lost 35 students in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and the second-deadliest act of mass murder at a US school campus, behind the Bath School disaster of 1927.

What does this tell us? Well for one that assault weapons are only being banned because they're scary and the second thing is that explosives were used in the 2 biggest attacks on school students which were already illegal.

Very good point. Handguns kill more people every year that assault rifles do and creating a law based on a emotional reaction[1] isn't going to change that.

Can't say that I agree with everything else you said though.

Sleekit:

imo that situation is a result of "the politics of fear", the sensationalist 24hr news media and to a lesser extent the prevalence of law enforcement and medical procedural dramas in the media and while that's perhaps a discussion for another time try and bear it in mind and take in that we are all probably safer from crime now than we have been at any time in living memory.

My feelings about this whole debate.

OP:
So lets see...

FizzyIzze:
*Background checks on all gun sales

That good, but um...didn't we already have something like this? Is this supposed to expand the background check or make it federally required for all states?

FizzyIzze:
*Reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban

Hmm..I have mixed feelings about that. I mean I'm all for banning such weapons in major cities where there seems to be higher rates of murder, but I feel like this also targets people who might live on in the wild by themselves and unfairly punishes them.

FizzyIzze:
*A 10-round limit on ammunition magazines

I can't speak intelligently on this do to my lack of knowledge on guns.

*Reinstatement of CDC research into the causes and prevention of gun violence

Good to know.

FizzyIzze:
*Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban

While I do support such a move, I wasn't aware of armor-piercing bullets being a issue when terrible tragedies like this occur. Also, what exactly does the "import ban" actually ban?

FizzyIzze:
*Providing resources to allow schools to hire 1,000 "school resource officers"

Again, I though this was already a thing for schools that felt like they needed these officers.

FizzyIzze:
*Providing mental health coverage in health insurance plans

I'm very curious and hopefully about this. What exactly is being covered? Is it just mental health disorders that are associated with school violence, or does it also cover other forms of mental health like Dementia, Mania, Insomnia, or even obscure disorders like Clinical Lycanthropy?

[1] I'm not downplaying what happened, my hear does go out to those that died and those families hurt by this terrible tragedy

Fisher321:
How many times are you going to say this crap?

Probably a few times more as awareness of the consequences of gun possession still seems to elude many.

By the way, pretty much everyone in Afghanistan has an ak47, does that count? Another fine example of an 'armed society'.

Fisher321:
By your logic we should be killing each other left and right, but no that's not the case

Then you must've missed that big pile of 30.000+ corpses a year, victims of gun violence. How gun advocates manage to do that truly astounds me, the smell alone should be pretty hard to ignore. People are killing eachother left and right in the US.

Gergar12:
So what if someone has a stack clip nice to their 10 round wouldn't that make it a 1 second difference.

The number of rounds fired in US spree shootings seems to contradict that claim of yours.

Blablahb:

Fisher321:
How many times are you going to say this crap?

Probably a few times more as awareness of the consequences of gun possession still seems to elude many.

By the way, pretty much everyone in Afghanistan has an ak47, does that count? Another fine example of an 'armed society'.

Fisher321:
By your logic we should be killing each other left and right, but no that's not the case

Then you must've missed that big pile of 30.000+ corpses a year, victims of gun violence. How gun advocates manage to do that truly astounds me, the smell alone should be pretty hard to ignore. People are killing eachother left and right in the US.

Gergar12:
So what if someone has a stack clip nice to their 10 round wouldn't that make it a 1 second difference.

The number of rounds fired in US spree shootings seems to contradict that claim of yours.

You give me no proof of that. You also miss how guns give a person power, and that as soon as they are taken from someone that power is taken away. Stain, Hitler, and Mao proof that.

Also 30k dead people is small vs 50 million plus dead due to not having a gun to defend themselves from genocide just ask Turkey, China, and the USSR, and the Nazis. You seem to not know your history.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked