The White House Releases New Gun Control Agenda

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Gergar12:
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.

That's a load of crap. Guns only give power in the form of threatening to murder someone.

To name the best example here: Safety from gun owners is also a form of power.

As I've stated a few times, I work as a security guard. Or customers being subject to a gun ban just like every other citizen, means the worst I'm ever going to face it knives of the category kitchen cutlery. This empowers me to be able to provide our staff and clients with safety; you can be reasonably sure that if all else fails, my strength, training and determination is the final word in a violent confrontation.

As a result, violence to get their way is not an option for anyone there, and despite that we deal with some of the worst society has to offer, it's pretty calm. I've done that work for four years now, seen thousands of people, and have only had to employ real violence twice.

So you see that the absence of guns provides safety, and in that form power for the citizens. You're relatively safe from harm, because those who might wish you harm are unarmed, and weapons violence is so rare that it's both completely unaccepted and highly classified in terms of police priority.

Allowing people to have guns on the other hand disempowers you; how on earth are you ever going to be safe if chances are that everyone you meet can murder you with firearms whenever they want? The homicide rate of the US reflects this unsafe and disempowered status of its citizens.

Blablahb:

Gergar12:
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.

That's a load of crap. Guns only give power in the form of threatening to murder someone.

To name the best example here: Safety from gun owners is also a form of power.

As I've stated a few times, I work as a security guard. Or customers being subject to a gun ban just like every other citizen, means the worst I'm ever going to face it knives of the category kitchen cutlery. This empowers me to be able to provide our staff and clients with safety; you can be reasonably sure that if all else fails, my strength, training and determination is the final word in a violent confrontation.

As a result, violence to get their way is not an option for anyone there, and despite that we deal with some of the worst society has to offer, it's pretty calm. I've done that work for four years now, seen thousands of people, and have only had to employ real violence twice.

So you see that the absence of guns provides safety, and in that form power for the citizens. You're relatively safe from harm, because those who might wish you harm are unarmed, and weapons violence is so rare that it's both completely unaccepted and highly classified in terms of police priority.

Allowing people to have guns on the other hand disempowers you; how on earth are you ever going to be safe if chances are that everyone you meet can murder you with firearms whenever they want? The homicide rate of the US reflects this unsafe and disempowered status of its citizens.

What about safety from a psychopath with a knife or a robber with ak-47 he got from Mexico. Not everyone has the money to hire guards forever. A gun, and a few clips, and ammo will ensure you are protected better than any guard will. If you want to see how dangerous it is try living in Columbus, Detroit or California. I know a German teacher from there, and she says that you does not know ONE person who has not been robbed. And you will never be safe in America these days. You guys don't have Mexico at your border, and Those countries near cuba south of you. Our border agents get shot at, and the cartels have submarines, and in some cases machine guns not the assault weapon ones, but real auto 100 round drum m-4s. Try being a bodyguard near the Mexican border than tell me we need to disarm. It's America not Ocean surrounded Australia.

Gergar12:

What about safety from a psychopath with a knife or a robber with ak-47 he got from Mexico. Not everyone has the money to hire guards forever. A gun, and a few clips, and ammo will ensure you are protected better than any guard will. If you want to see how dangerous it is try living in Columbus, Detroit or California. I know a German teacher from there, and she says that you does not know ONE person who has not been robbed. And you will never be safe in America these days. You guys don't have Mexico at your border, and Those countries near cuba south of you. Our border agents get shot at, and the cartels have submarines, and in some cases machine guns not the assault weapon ones, but real auto 100 round drum m-4s. Try being a bodyguard near the Mexican border than tell me we need to disarm. It's America not Ocean surrounded Australia.

Okay, with regards to the comment about history earlier, I already pointed out that 'the people' propped up most of those dictators in revolutions and then used the guns left lying around after the revolution to kill anyone who was less 'the people' than them.

Also, I would like you to look at a map of South East Asia, notice that while Australia is an island, we have Indonesia to our north, and whereas the US has a much smaller, weaker and less populous nation to its south (more than 300 million Americans to 112 million Mexicans) Australia has a much stronger and more populous nation to its immediate north( 22 million Australians to 240 million Indonesians . Our neighbor is also crime ridden and corrupt, but we can't just build a wall because most of their illegal actions take place over sea. You know, using that mystical invention called the boat.

Gergar12:
the cartels have submarines............... It's America not Ocean surrounded Australia.

The land border concept is a myth, see how you even contradict it yourself? Why do the Cartels bother with submarines if the land border is there? Border size and the tonnage of cargo coming in via places like ports have much greater relevance than the type of border. Some stuff will sneak over the land border, either by foot or vehicle. Just the same as you have small amounts of stuff coming over on ferries or small private boats.

The major smuggling happens in freight. Billions upon billions of tons of cargo flows across borders and only a few percent of it can ever be searched. The ships themselves are almost impossible to search as well, a team of border agents could spend three months tearing a container ship apart and not find all the hiding places. Planes are a common one as well, usually with help from corrupt staff and border agents. The cartels for example have bribed people across the globe to provide with means of smuggling large amounts of cocaine via airfreight.

Blablahb:

As I've stated a few times, I work as a security guard. Or customers being subject to a gun ban just like every other citizen, means the worst I'm ever going to face it knives of the category kitchen cutlery. This empowers me to be able to provide our staff and clients with safety; you can be reasonably sure that if all else fails, my strength, training and determination is the final word in a violent confrontation.

Just knives? What's going to stop someone from bringing a machete or axe?

also, what about those of us without strength and martial arts training? We're vulnerable to larger people still....

DaKiller:

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.

Does her study reference that and anything similar in NZ in which case, again, no difference between the 2 countries except one has stricter gun laws? Also, I didn't write there had been no mass shootings... just none showing statistical differences between strict gun laws and lax.

Really, you have to stop slinging around the hyperbole.

the clockmaker:

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.

Seriously, F them too then. But, looking at some easy to digest stuff for you,

"New Zealand's gun laws are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific and focus mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms."

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand

vs:

"Australia today has arguably some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

with no differences other than Australia is stricter than New Zealand AND goes after guns.

Are we done here now? Can you stop being wrong at the top of your lungs now?

Ghad, I now know far more about these two countries than I ever wanted to know.

Blablahb:
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...

People who take their own lives are not victims of gun violence; people who are shot and killed by murderers are. Apparently you care more about inflating a number than drawing a distinction on which people are the real victims. That's what astounds me.

Gorfias:

Seriously, F them too then. But, looking at some easy to digest stuff for you,

"New Zealand's gun laws are notably more liberal than other countries in the Pacific and focus mainly on vetting firearm owners, rather than registering firearms or banning certain types of firearms."

and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand

vs:

"Australia today has arguably some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

with no differences other than Australia is stricter than New Zealand AND goes after guns.

Are we done here now? Can you stop being wrong at the top of your lungs now?

Ghad, I now know far more about these two countries than I ever wanted to know.

I have shown you how they are similar, demonstrate to me how NZ is actually more strict not some Wikipedia quote with a [citation needed] next to it and another whose reference simply links to the laws without explaining how that supports them.
Again, I quoted the laws, you quoted something with no credibility just because it agrees with you.

Or hey, we can make a compromise, I see nothing wrong with the NZ laws, being as they are nigh on fucking identical with Aus, so I will agree that Aus will ''loosen its laws to be in line with NZ if the you agree that the US should adopt the NZ restrictions.

here, these are a list of restrictions that the US should adopt to come into line with this new paradigm

-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.
-pistols can only be taken from home to the range

and you have shown bugger all knowledge about either country.

Gorfias:

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.)

I LOLed because Coulther is referencing a study conducted by the (Aussie) NRA, while bagging Harvard for their lack of basic scientific methodology.....

The Australian academics Coulter is refering to are actually the Dr Jeanine Baker a former state president of the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran from Women in Shooting and Hunting.

The SSAA is the Australian NRA.

By this standard I can quote studies into firearm controls by the Brady Campaign.

Coulther also ignores more credible studies which show the opposite, for example the latest study was by by Leigh and Neill.

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

TechNoFear:

Coulther also ignores more credible studies which show the opposite, for example the latest study was by by Leigh and Neill.

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

Leigh is, arguably, a hack, interested in stripping the people of power and maintaining a totalitarian status and government power. Sorry, but there's nothing I can find credible about anything he'd ever report. Except maybe the part where he concedes, "Previous studies of gun buybacks have typically found that they have little effect on death
rates or violent crime (Rosenfeld, 1995; Callahan et al., 1994)."

Gorfias:

TechNoFear:

Coulther also ignores more credible studies which show the opposite, for example the latest study was by by Leigh and Neill.

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

Leigh is, arguably, a hack, interested in stripping the people of power and maintaining a totalitarian status and government power. Sorry, but there's nothing I can find credible about anything he'd ever report. Except maybe the part where he concedes, "Previous studies of gun buybacks have typically found that they have little effect on death
rates or violent crime (Rosenfeld, 1995; Callahan et al., 1994)."

Are you going to source that opinion, or is another one of those 'common sense' things?

Jux:

Are you going to source that opinion, or is another one of those 'common sense' things?

Read up on the guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Leigh

He is a politician and an academic. I was careful to write that it is MY opinion of him that he can't be trusted. I mean, if we're going to decide that someone is un-trustworty based upon affiliation, (which was done as someone I quoted apparently is part of the Australian NRA)what's good for the goose... y'know? Or is that only common sense and can be discounted. Maybe what is good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander!!!!

J Tyran:

Gergar12:
the cartels have submarines............... It's America not Ocean surrounded Australia.

The land border concept is a myth, see how you even contradict it yourself? Why do the Cartels bother with submarines if the land border is there? Border size and the tonnage of cargo coming in via places like ports have much greater relevance than the type of border. Some stuff will sneak over the land border, either by foot or vehicle. Just the same as you have small amounts of stuff coming over on ferries or small private boats.

The major smuggling happens in freight. Billions upon billions of tons of cargo flows across borders and only a few percent of it can ever be searched. The ships themselves are almost impossible to search as well, a team of border agents could spend three months tearing a container ship apart and not find all the hiding places. Planes are a common one as well, usually with help from corrupt staff and border agents. The cartels for example have bribed people across the globe to provide with means of smuggling large amounts of cocaine via airfreight.

Just want to point out that there is major smuggling on both the maritime and land fronts. The subs and boats typically are used to get product directly from places like Columbia to the more profitable areas of Florida as opposed to hauling them across the border and then transporting. According to a Justice Department publication (page 13) a majority of drugs come across the south western border, not through freight. Its cheaper and simpler in most cases.

Gorfias:

Jux:

Are you going to source that opinion, or is another one of those 'common sense' things?

Read up on the guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Leigh

He is a politician and an academic. I was careful to write that it is MY opinion of him that he can't be trusted. I mean, if we're going to decide that someone is un-trustworty based upon affiliation, (which was done as someone I quoted apparently is part of the Australian NRA)what's good for the goose... y'know? Or is that only common sense and can be discounted. Maybe what is good for the goose ISN'T good for the gander!!!!

I read the link, and I don't see anything in there that would make me dismiss him out of hand. So he's an academic and a politician. You say that like its supposed to mean something bad. Are either of those groups inherently untrustworthy?

Jux:

I read the link, and I don't see anything in there that would make me dismiss him out of hand. So he's an academic and a politician. You say that like its supposed to mean something bad. Are either of those groups inherently untrustworthy?

By being a member of those groups, he is arguably empowered by gun control. He has a reason to be biased. So, he does a study and viola! Using numbers! And paper! Maybe some charts and graphs! He comes to conclusions that further empower him.

Is there something wrong with NRA studies that find gun control worthless to harmfull?

Gorfias:

Jux:

I read the link, and I don't see anything in there that would make me dismiss him out of hand. So he's an academic and a politician. You say that like its supposed to mean something bad. Are either of those groups inherently untrustworthy?

By being a member of those groups, he is arguably empowered by gun control. He has a reason to be biased. So, he does a study and viola! Using numbers! And paper! Maybe some charts and graphs! He comes to conclusions that further empower him.

Is there something wrong with NRA studies that find gun control worthless to harmfull?

So when there are academics and politicians that side with the NRA, then what? They're unbiased? Mate, I really think you're projecting your own bias here onto others.

As for your question, nothing inherently wrong about them, though I would point out that the NRA has plenty to benefit from their own findings in studies they finance. Something you seem to gloss over and ignore.

GunsmithKitten:
Just knives? What's going to stop someone from bringing a machete or axe?

I think that if I see someone coming in with one of those, it's going to be real obvious, and we knew it days in advance because we could've observed his agression escalating. So in reality, such a thing never happens.

But the going instruction for tackling large weapons like those is to preferably keep the distance and don't confront, but if you're forced to either block them using something like furniture, or close the distance rapidly and seize the hand in control of the weapon, when they raise it above their heads is the perfect time to execute that. For one thing when someone has a weapon, all bets are off in regards to proportionality, and that's a very empowering legal handle. For instance we've had someone saying she had pepperspray on her, and it didn't take a second to close the distance and take control, after which I explained she'd just threatened with an illegal weapon, she'd be seriously hurt if she attempted to use it, and how it ended was that can being taken away from her, she received a two weeks premises ban, and the weapon was destroyed. Because I'm authorised to employ force in the circumstance of a weapon I'm empowered to keep people safe. Imagine if that weapon had been legal. I'd have had to wait for her to lose it and start spraying our clients, me and the rest of the staff, and then pray nothing too bad happens. But weapons are illegal, so the situation could be resolved without violence. Also calling in something like that puts you on the very top of the priorities list for law enforcement, and you can expect armed police in 2-10 minutes.

I tried to look up instances like that just for good measure, and it's happened exactly twice across more than a decade. One loonie killed a soldier on a train station with an axe because he believed in some conspiracy theory about Iraq, after which bystanders overpowered him, and two died in a neighbour's dispute when it escalated and the guy got a samurai sword, and police were forced to shoot him to prevent worse. 3 victims across more than a decade is not something worth mentioning as a serious risk.

Also dangerous tools like an axe are forbidden in a setting where it's likely they are meant as a weapon. This is ussually defined as having it 'within reach'. If I'm driving around with an axe in the trunk of my car, in a city, that would be illegal. And I remember an episode of a Dutch show about the work of the police which features an example of that. Shown are the Royal Marechaussee, the branch of the military which does the security on border places like airports, at Schiphol airport, catching a guy who had a knife in the glove compartment of his car.

Swords are always prohibited. The only knives which are street legal are those that can't be used to stab with, have a blade size less than six centimetres, and aren't sharped on both edges. Anything else requires in most cases a permit to have, and must be concealed and away from use when on the street even with a permit. Clearance must be obtained to have available and show such a weapon in a public area, for instance for re-enactment. It's merely a formality, but a formality that prevents loonies from walking around with melee weapons.

GunsmithKitten:
also, what about those of us without strength and martial arts training? We're vulnerable to larger people still....

That's why they hired me isn't it? They don't like the verbal abuse or physical violence, so you hire someone professional to adress that problem. The amount of agression your mere presence prevents cannot be overstated.
As for any other situation, you're still more powerfull at a disadvantage against someone stronger, then you are at their mercy because they have firearms and can kill you.

You'd be dead if that guy you claim wanted to kill you had tried a second amendment solution you know. Weapon ownership made you helpless in that situation, and it's only because that guy didn't bother to bring firearms that you're still alive.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said about thousands of others shot every year.

xDarc:
People who take their own lives are not victims of gun violence

Yes they are. Without guns, suicide attempts are far more likely to fail. This is one of the reasons why the suicide rate among men is higher than among women. Without guns, many of them would still be alive today, making them victims of gun ownership.

Blablahb:

, and it's only because that guy didn't bother to bring firearms that you're still alive.

No, by his own confession, I was only alive because I produced a firearm and forced him to stand down. He would have killed me without a gun because he had 120 pounds on me and a blade ta boot. Why do you think you know better about the attack than the assailant himself, the only other witness (me) AND the state and local police here?

That's why they hired me isn't it? They don't like the verbal abuse or physical violence, so you hire someone professional to adress that problem. The amount of agression your mere presence prevents cannot be overstated.

I can't afford bodyguards, and you support legally allowing the police to sit by and do nothing even if I'm being attacked right in front of them.

Hey, Clockmaker? Once you've finished explaining about AUS vs NZ gun laws, can you explain who is dead?

As an aside, shouldn't combining the AUS and NZ per capita gun ownership should mean taking an average, not just adding the numbers together?

the clockmaker:

Gergar12:

What about safety from a psychopath with a knife or a robber with ak-47 he got from Mexico. Not everyone has the money to hire guards forever. A gun, and a few clips, and ammo will ensure you are protected better than any guard will. If you want to see how dangerous it is try living in Columbus, Detroit or California. I know a German teacher from there, and she says that you does not know ONE person who has not been robbed. And you will never be safe in America these days. You guys don't have Mexico at your border, and Those countries near cuba south of you. Our border agents get shot at, and the cartels have submarines, and in some cases machine guns not the assault weapon ones, but real auto 100 round drum m-4s. Try being a bodyguard near the Mexican border than tell me we need to disarm. It's America not Ocean surrounded Australia.

Okay, with regards to the comment about history earlier, I already pointed out that 'the people' propped up most of those dictators in revolutions and then used the guns left lying around after the revolution to kill anyone who was less 'the people' than them.

Also, I would like you to look at a map of South East Asia, notice that while Australia is an island, we have Indonesia to our north, and whereas the US has a much smaller, weaker and less populous nation to its south (more than 300 million Americans to 112 million Mexicans) Australia has a much stronger and more populous nation to its immediate north( 22 million Australians to 240 million Indonesians . Our neighbor is also crime ridden and corrupt, but we can't just build a wall because most of their illegal actions take place over sea. You know, using that mystical invention called the boat.

Yes but you guys can stop them with sonar, and your coast guard ships, we get our border guards which are harassed daily both by people on computers saying they are nazis, getting sued for doing their job, and then the cartels which are very well funded even more some of those terrorist overseas, and can corrupt any government official at well, and threat, then we have the area below Florida to deal with as well. Our prisons are overflowing faster yours, and we have our own gangs to deal with.

Try dealing with the most powerful drug cartels in the WORLD, and say Americans don't need guns try having the Mafia, and organized crime everywhere, and widespread urban crime. There is a reason 86 percent of Americans have a gun. If we were like Australia with only having one defense front to foreign combat instead of a 3,169 km border along with the whole caribbean. Americans would gladly trade places, and if they would I doubt Australia would be able to protect itself, because it's nothing short of a nanny state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_criminal_enterprises,_gangs_and_syndicates#Organized_crime_in_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaloa_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico-United_States_border

Gorfias:

DaKiller:

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.

Does her study reference that and anything similar in NZ in which case, again, no difference between the 2 countries except one has stricter gun laws? Also, I didn't write there had been no mass shootings... just none showing statistical differences between strict gun laws and lax.

Really, you have to stop slinging around the hyperbole.

What are you talking about? What do you mean "her study"? And when did I bring up New Zealand? My research into the subject involved looking at a list of mass shootings to have occurred in Australia the decade before and after the ban and then comparing them. The findings are: 6 mass shootings with 38 dead before the ban and 1 mass shooting with 2 dead after, the difference is 5 mass shootings and 36 bodies. If I went even further and gave you all the mass shootings to occur since the ban, it would still be that one shooting. As a result of that particular shooting by the way they passed another gun law to make handguns harder to conceal. No mass shootings in the past ten years.

Blablahb:

xDarc:
People who take their own lives are not victims of gun violence

Yes they are.

No, I do believe there is a distinction between being murdered and killing yourself. Call me crazy, but isn't portraying those who killed themselves as "victims" the slightest bit offensive to actual victims?

And if they are truly victims, then what are they victims of? Perhaps what caused them to want to kill themselves in the first place? A cold, uncaring society?

Let's assume they are victims of guns. It's all the guns fault that someone killed themselves. The guy who went to wal-mart because they were having a sale on rope and hung himself from the rafters of his garage is a useless statistic; but the guy who shot himself in the head is a "victim," because you say so. Let's just assume, for one ridiculous moment, this is true.

Which guns should we ban then? You don't need a 10 round magazine to kill yourself, you don't even need a semi-automatic. Hell, you don't even need a gun. You could put a bullet in a vice facing your head and pound the primer with a hammer. It would get the job done.

You would have to get rid of all of it. Should we take all of it away because people kill themselves with it? Rope? Razors? Gas ovens? Sleeping pills?

I mean, they're all vicitms right?

So how about this, how about you start telling the truth. There are around 11,000 homicides attributed to firearms each year in the US. That's still enough corpses for your hyperbolic fanaticism isn't it?

I promise we'll try real hard to get murdered in greater numbers so you don't feel pressured to continually pad the body count in the future. Maybe some day we will be murdered as much as we die in traffic accidents! Then you can really yell, scream and jump and down fervently about how evil guns are. Wow, wouldn't that be something.

xDarc:
Let's assume they are victims of guns. It's all the guns fault that someone killed themselves. The guy who went to wal-mart because they were having a sale on rope and hung himself from the rafters of his garage is a useless statistic; but the guy who shot himself in the head is a "victim," because you say so. Let's just assume, for one ridiculous moment, this is true.

Strange as it may sound, there may be some truth in that. Now, I can't say this for sure, but there seems to be some evidence that some suicides committed with firearms would not have been committed without them. Firearms provide a quick and easy way for an impulsive person to kill themselves, and it seems that this makes them desirable for suicides.

Now, there's no way you can tell how many suicides by firearm wouldn't have been committed with other methods had firearms not been available, and even if you can, they are victims in a very different way and should be counted separately. But the basic idea might not be totally wrong.

thaluikhain:
Hey, Clockmaker? Once you've finished explaining about AUS vs NZ gun laws, can you explain who is dead?

As an aside, shouldn't combining the AUS and NZ per capita gun ownership should mean taking an average, not just adding the numbers together?

HA! Yeah it is like trying to talk to a brick wall or some kind of computer programed to never admit when it is wrong.

And the adding together thing was just to be a demonstration of how many guns the US has in comparison, not a actual statistical workaround. I just wanted to show that the US has twice the amount combined.

Gergar12:
words

Yes, you have a land border with Mexico, Imagine if mexico had twice the population they do now and you had one tenth. Imagine if you had one thirtieth the defence budget that you do. Now Indonesia, that christ is not in the middle of a drug war, but they achieved this but brutally fucking over anyone who tries. But be also aware that you have seven (according to the RAN website) seven ships to cover a tenth of the earths surface, most of is uninhabited.

Now imagine that you are the US again, the worlds largest and most technologically advanced military forces at your disposal. See civilians don't need weapons, your government just needs to get off its arse and do something.

I know your prisons are overflowing faster than ours, I know this because you have the highest rate of incarceration in the world. I suppose that is all the fault of cartels as well. Again, it is not the job of US civilians to fight the war, you have the most powerful military force in the world for that.

And calling Australia a nanny state? How are we a nanny state beyond the little things, I mean the US survives in a continent that it dominates, Australia survives as the only medium power western nation in its region.

xDarc:
No, I do believe there is a distinction between being murdered and killing yourself. Call me crazy, but isn't portraying those who killed themselves as "victims" the slightest bit offensive to actual victims?

Both categories of people are dead.

Both would still be alive if firearms had been banned.

There are no other factors influence the outcome.

Sounds like firearms victims to me.

xDarc:
Which guns should we ban then? You don't need a 10 round magazine to kill yourself, you don't even need a semi-automatic. Hell, you don't even need a gun. You could put a bullet in a vice facing your head and pound the primer with a hammer. It would get the job done.

Experiences in other countries have shown that getting rid of anything semi-automatic is a good idea, but more importantly, these need to be available only after achieving a permit.

A permit application must require a legit purpose for a firearm (and labelling "I'm scared" or "I want to defend myself" as a legit reason would be a capital mistake), pass mental fitness check, pass a background and become a member of a shooting club or hand over an existing hunting permit. Don't forget to regulate mandatory presence at a gun club so you don't get 'sleeper members' who only want guns to kill others with. Also charge a fee that covers all of those costs and a little extra. Also make safe storage in the form of a vault and keeping ammunition separately mandatory.

That way you build in a several month delay between wanting a gun and getting it, and most people who would use them for killing will be denied a permit, or not bother to go through the process.

You shouldn't be surprised if violent crime is more than cut in half after that.

thaluikhain:
Firearms provide a quick and easy way for an impulsive person to kill themselves, and it seems that this makes them desirable for suicides.

You don't need a 30 round magazine or an assault rifle to kill yourself. Counting these people as victims in the context of gun control is extremely dishonest, unless your intention is to take away all guns.

Whether or not some people who tried to kill themselves with a method other than firearms are alive today is irrelevant because suicide is a completely different problem than murder. You want to save people who kill themselves? Fine, go improve access to mental health care and educate the general population to help them identify someone who is suicidal earlier; before they get a chance to jump in front of a train or realize rope is also cheap and highly accessible. I don't think we'll see BlahBlah start a crusade against rope any time soon though.

xDarc:

thaluikhain:
Firearms provide a quick and easy way for an impulsive person to kill themselves, and it seems that this makes them desirable for suicides.

You don't need a 30 round magazine or an assault rifle to kill yourself. Counting these people as victims in the context of gun control is extremely dishonest, unless your intention is to take away all guns.

Certainly...well...to widely restrict all guns, at least.

(Oh, and the usual about assault rifles not being registered in the US since 1986)

Gergar12:

What about safety from a psychopath with a knife or a robber with ak-47 he got from Mexico.

What about the hundreds of thousands of guns in the US that 'go missing' or get stolen because they're improperly secured... a lot of which end up crossing the border.

thaluikhain:

xDarc:

thaluikhain:
Firearms provide a quick and easy way for an impulsive person to kill themselves, and it seems that this makes them desirable for suicides.

You don't need a 30 round magazine or an assault rifle to kill yourself. Counting these people as victims in the context of gun control is extremely dishonest, unless your intention is to take away all guns.

Certainly...well...to widely restrict all guns, at least.

Then come out and say it. Say, I think they should take all the guns away because people can use any gun them to kill themselves and taking away all guns would save them. Tell your friends and family. I'll let the looks you'll get from some of the people do my talking for me.

Denholm Reynholm:

the clockmaker:
[quote="Gergar12" post="528.398678.16344375"]

What about safety from a psychopath with a knife or a robber with ak-47 he got from Mexico.

What about the hundreds of thousands of guns in the US that 'go missing' or get stolen because they're improperly secured... a lot of which end up crossing the border.

You quoted the wrong bloke mate.

Jux:

Gorfias:

So when there are academics and politicians that side with the NRA, then what? They're unbiased? Mate, I really think you're projecting your own bias here onto others.

They too may be biased. Suppose a politician gets his power by siding with the NRA. One could infer that the source of his empowerment causes his views to be biased.

[quote] As for your question, nothing inherently wrong about them, though I would point out that the NRA has plenty to benefit from their own findings in studies they finance. Something you seem to gloss over and ignore.

Actually, I was responding to someone that wrote because my source was NRA affiliated, they could be discounted (though there is some validity to the view in both directions, which is what we've been posting about.) I've written more than once, I really, in the end, do not know how we know what is true and is not.

the clockmaker:

Denholm Reynholm:

the clockmaker:
[quote="Gergar12" post="528.398678.16344375"]

What about safety from a psychopath with a knife or a robber with ak-47 he got from Mexico.

What about the hundreds of thousands of guns in the US that 'go missing' or get stolen because they're improperly secured... a lot of which end up crossing the border.

You quoted the wrong bloke mate.

Woops. My bad.

Denholm Reynholm:

Gergar12:

What about safety from a psychopath with a knife or a robber with ak-47 he got from Mexico.

What about the hundreds of thousands of guns in the US that 'go missing' or get stolen because they're improperly secured... a lot of which end up crossing the border.

Yeah you mean this? Because this is why I don't trust the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

the clockmaker:

thaluikhain:
Hey, Clockmaker? Once you've finished explaining about AUS vs NZ gun laws, can you explain who is dead?

As an aside, shouldn't combining the AUS and NZ per capita gun ownership should mean taking an average, not just adding the numbers together?

HA! Yeah it is like trying to talk to a brick wall or some kind of computer programed to never admit when it is wrong.

And the adding together thing was just to be a demonstration of how many guns the US has in comparison, not a actual statistical workaround. I just wanted to show that the US has twice the amount combined.

Gergar12:
words

Yes, you have a land border with Mexico, Imagine if mexico had twice the population they do now and you had one tenth. Imagine if you had one thirtieth the defence budget that you do. Now Indonesia, that christ is not in the middle of a drug war, but they achieved this but brutally fucking over anyone who tries. But be also aware that you have seven (according to the RAN website) seven ships to cover a tenth of the earths surface, most of is uninhabited.

Now imagine that you are the US again, the worlds largest and most technologically advanced military forces at your disposal. See civilians don't need weapons, your government just needs to get off its arse and do something.

I know your prisons are overflowing faster than ours, I know this because you have the highest rate of incarceration in the world. I suppose that is all the fault of cartels as well. Again, it is not the job of US civilians to fight the war, you have the most powerful military force in the world for that.

And calling Australia a nanny state? How are we a nanny state beyond the little things, I mean the US survives in a continent that it dominates, Australia survives as the only medium power western nation in its region.

Nanny state is a term of British origin (and primary use) that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice.

Let see Video games ban, all the paperwork to get a gun-interfering with getting a gun. Not even half of what i am talking about.

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/blogs/the-backpacker/australia-the-great-nanny-state-20110503-1e6hf.html

http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2012/09/mychoice-australia-help-fight-the-nanny-state.html

Australia-nanny state

Also you guys have 100,000-200,000 illegals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration

Compare that to the U.S having Between 7 million and 20 million unauthorized(illegal) immigrants are estimated to be living in the United States.

I also doubt that our 21k border patrol agents can handle 150 thousand illegals getting into the U.s each year.

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'.

Afghanistan is also the home of the Taliban, a radical group who will kill anyone just because they're not muslim/ different tribe. And the whole point of the Second Amendment is to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. If 30,000 Taliban fighters can hold on for 10 years against the worlds greatest fighting force known to man imagine what only 1 million gun owners can do in the United States. Not to mention what would happen to another country attempting to invade us.

Blablahb:

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.

Remember that there are 300 million Americans, and watching this would probably help.

Blablahb:

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.

Magazine size has no effect on how many rounds a person can put down range. Sure, maybe a second or two can matter in an actual firefight, but when there's no one shooting back it doesn't make a lick of a difference.

At the end of this video he demonstrates that a magazine ban would have a negligible effect on firing rate.

And if they should attempt to ban anything its handguns, here http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 More people are killed by hands and feet than by rifles.

Guns are equalizers, a 120 pound women doesn't stand a chance against a 200 pound male rapist. Yeah sure, pepper-spray might temporarily delay him and probably piss the guy off more. But give that women a handgun and the tides have turned. Yea sure, the rapist might also have a handgun, but the women has a better chance at defending herself now.

Also remember that the United States has a terrible drug problem, gang problem, and a smuggling problem. I'll gladly take my chances of being armed and shooting back at a criminal than by not being armed and being forced into a fistfight. Especially if the number of criminals are greater than one. Evil lies in the heart of the individual, not in a gun. People have been killing each other long before guns were invented. Banning guns won't matter at all, especially in the US where we probably have over 300,000,000 firearms. Instead of focusing on anti-gun violence, we need to focus on violence in general. Why select one sub-type when we can deal with the entire thing at once?

Blablahb:

Both categories of people are dead.

Both would still be alive if firearms had been banned.

There are no other factors influence the outcome.

Sounds like firearms victims to me.

Because using a gun is the only way to commit suicide...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked