toldailytopic: Do you support or oppose tightening gun control laws in USA?

[lightbringer]

The best way to prevent an attack/assault from an individual or even an organization is preparedness...why? Because they prey on the weak/unprepared.

How you prepare is a decision that so far is left up to you the individual.

 

[Yorzhik]

Australian gun control legislation:
- Gun murder went up 19%.
- Armed assault went up 28%.
- Armed robbery went up 69%.
- Armed home invasion went up 21%.
Australia's gun laws killed innocent people and ensured that only criminals had guns.

And, looking at per capita ownership of guns and gun deaths in Africa and Middle/South America, the number of guns have nothing to do with the number of gun deaths.

This should put to rest any argument that reducing the ability to defend one's self in the US will help reduce crime.

 

[Granite]

Australian gun control legislation:
- Gun murder went up 19%.
- Armed assault went up 28%.
- Armed robbery went up 69%.
- Armed home invasion went up 21%.
Australia's gun laws killed innocent people and ensured that only criminals had guns

.

Uh, what? Since when? Where did these figures come from? Please cite. I'd also like to know how many mass shootings they've had since Port Arthur.

And, looking at per capita ownership of guns and gun deaths in Africa and Middle/South America, the number of guns have nothing to do with the number of gun deaths.

I'm sure the Sudanese would agree.:chuckle:

 

[This Charming Manc]

If America was an unarmed populace, you think that it could arm and train its people in time to stop an invasion that is on the continental border? Even if Canada was invaded, do you really think we wouldn't go to their aid long before a foreign army could take control and make final preparations to invade America?

I am full agreement with you. I think the argument you need personal guns to defend America is a nutty and redundant one. You armed forces make that a redundant need, you would defend the borders of you and your neighbour vigorously before it was needed.

You do remember that Japan said (after the war) it wouldn't attempt an invasion on American soil because it was a well armed populace?

Should what an enemy said 60 years ago determine your domestic policy today ?

Our founding fathers made sure the right to bear arms was established due to what we learned in our revolution with you guys.

This is not to say that we will not evolve over time the way we feel about weapons and the civilian population but this country will never become unarmed through government decree/mandate.

I think a lot of Americans would be safer if you evolved a bit quicker. This isn't the 1700's and you have more than smooth bore muskets to hand now.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Lets look at the Australian gun fatalities total;

2010: 231
2009: 224
2008: 225
2007: 404
2006: 229
2003: 287
2002: 293
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

Austalian gun legislation was passed in 1996, would you agree of not we have seen a general drop in gun fatalities by that point?

Looking at gun homicides

2009: 30
2008: 19
2007: 25
2006: 29
2005: 40
2004: 32
2003: 54
2002: 45
2001: 47
2000: 57
1999: 50
1998: 57
1997: 79
1996: 104
1995: 67
1994: 76
1993: 64
1992: 96
1991: 84
1990: 79
1989: 80
1988: 123

Again we see significant drops since 1996. Also note the numbers these are per year, not per day which is the american situation.

I dont where you number come from, I have found them repeated on 1/2 dozen gun nuts websites but with no source.

My figures come from here

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

Australian gun control legislation:
- Gun murder went up 19%.
- Armed assault went up 28%.
- Armed robbery went up 69%.
- Armed home invasion went up 21%.
Australia's gun laws killed innocent people and ensured that only criminals had guns.

And, looking at per capita ownership of guns and gun deaths in Africa and Middle/South America, the number of guns have nothing to do with the number of gun deaths.

This should put to rest any argument that reducing the ability to defend one's self in the US will help reduce crime.

 

[lightbringer]

I am full agreement with you. I think the argument you need personal guns to defend America is a nutty and redundant one. You armed forces make that a redundant need, you would defend the borders of you and your neighbour vigorously before it was needed.

It was enough to make the Japanese decide not to attempt an invasion.

We do love redundancy! We got back ups for back ups.

Should what an enemy said 60 years ago determine your domestic policy today ?

You should update yourself with what the Chinese government is saying about what America should do about gun control. Why would they care? After all that is how the Chinese have controlled their populations for centuries and it's no different today.

http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-americans-to-be-disarmed/

I think a lot of Americans would be safer if you evolved a bit quicker. This isn't the 1700's and you have more than smooth bore muskets to hand now.

Good to see you're aware of the progress in weapons, now read up on world politics and how being armed may one day be very necessary.

 

[Rusha]

I don't like gun control, but if there was a ban on assault weapons that mother wouldn't have had the gun her crazy kid used in the recent school shooting. That one gun was able to go through several children in one shot.

What is the need for assault rifles?


The better option, in my opinion, would be to put armed guards in every school. We guard our money better than we guard our kids. That's sick. Armed guards would be a deterrent, as well. These cowards usually shoot themselves at the first sign of a gun that might be used against them.

I find the biggest fault with the mother who knew her son was loopy and had the guns where he could get them. Unfortunately, while most people are responsible gun owners, too many aren't.


I guess, in the end, I'd opt for more guns....in the schools...in the malls...in the hands of retired cops or trained guards.

This pretty much sums up my position.

 

[This Charming Manc]

It was enough to make the Japanese decide not to attempt an invasion.

hmmm didn't midway do that ?

You should update yourself with what the Chinese government is saying about what America should do about gun control. Why would they care? After all that is how the Chinese have controlled their populations for centuries and it's no different today.

http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-americans-to-be-disarmed/

Most people outside the USA look at your gun laws and scratch there heads and wonder why, these are you friends and enemies, the free and the oppressed.

I care little for Chinese opinions, but they cant be wrong on everything all the time.

Good to see you're aware of the progress in weapons, now read up on world politics and how being armed may one day be very necessary.

I am well versed in world politic s I may just take a different line than you.

 

[lightbringer]

hmmm didn't midway do that ?

The Battle for Midway Island was six months after the war started.

Most people outside the USA look at your gun laws and scratch there heads and wonder why, these are you friends and enemies, the free and the oppressed.

Outside the USA, we are talking about our policy's not other peoples opinions about how we should run our country.

I care little for Chinese opinions,

Funny, you want to criticize America, but when talking about a country that has killed hundreds of thousands of its own people with their governments armies, you care less? Good line to take for a Christian.

but they cant be wrong on everything all the time.

You may want to ask the Chinese populace before making that statement or read a little more on their policies, unless of course you lean towards Communism.

I am well versed in world politics I may just take a different line than you.

And you are very welcome to you're own line, just don't expect all others to roll over for you.

 

[This Charming Manc]

You have taken me down quite a few rabbit trails here haven't you , howevere I will answer them then we can try to get back to the point in question.

The Battle for Midway Island was six months after the war started.

yes and it probably had alot more to with why the Japanese never attempted attempted a land invasion of the USA. Midway was intended for them to launch an invasion of hawai, Japanese invasion of the US was never strategically on the cards, but was talked about by some the Japanese high command.

Outside the USA, we are talking about our policy's not other peoples opinions about how we should run our country.

true but friend tell friends when they are doing something stupid. or dangerous

Funny, you want to criticize America, but when talking about a country that has killed hundreds of thousands of its own people with their governments armies, you care less? Good line to take for a Christian.

I'm much more critical of china but there is no point in engaging with people who don't listen.

You may want to ask the Chinese populace before making that statement or read a little more on their policies, unless of course you lean towards Communism.

I'm much more critical of the Chinese government that anyone from mainland china is allowed to be, however to use a line of argument that says' the Chinese government suggest it so it must be bad' is plain moronic. The Chinese government is 'pro death' penalty does that make the death penalty wrong ?

 

[bigbang123]

The laws currently on the books have loopholes that need to be closed.

How can you assist our Condolencer-In-Chief?

http://youtu.be/ucS08MKnB7Y

http://WholsMyRepresentative.com

 

[Delmar]

A ban on assault weapons and high-capacity clips is fine by me.

I get that it is fine by you, but do you have any reason to believe it would help? Do you really believe that a shooter couldn't achieve the same kind of dominance in a gun free zone with a pump shotgun, an ammo belt, and a lot of practice?

Background checks for all purchases (so an end to gun shows). Also some training and even a psych test for those seeking concealed carry. I would also suggest a five-year moratorium on the sale of all firearms (excluding extraordinary circumstances) to stop the arms race we keep escalating amongst ourselves. A national time-out, so to speak.

So no new hunting rifles? All gun stores have to go out of business? What should happen to inventory?

 

[lightbringer]

You have taken me down quite a few rabbit trails here haven't you , howevere I will answer them then we can try to get back to the point in question.

Rabbit trails? Only answering your comments and adding examples.

it probably had alot more to with why the Japanese never attempted attempted a land invasion of the USA. Midway was intended for them to launch an invasion of hawai, Japanese invasion of the US was never strategically on the cards, but was talked about by some the Japanese high command.

Talking about it until some of their Admirals decided it was foolish, and then went to plan B...which was domination of the Pacific.

I'm much more critical of the Chinese government that anyone from mainland china is allowed to be.

I guess so, dissent is a capital crime there.

But you are right about one thing, we've been off topic for too long, bye!

 

[Yorzhik]

Lets look at the Australian gun fatalities total;

2010: 231
2009: 224
2008: 225
2007: 404
2006: 229
2003: 287
2002: 293
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685

Austalian gun legislation was passed in 1996, would you agree of not we have seen a general drop in gun fatalities by that point?

Looking at gun homicides

2009: 30
2008: 19
2007: 25
2006: 29
2005: 40
2004: 32
2003: 54
2002: 45
2001: 47
2000: 57
1999: 50
1998: 57
1997: 79
1996: 104
1995: 67
1994: 76
1993: 64
1992: 96
1991: 84
1990: 79
1989: 80
1988: 123

Again we see significant drops since 1996. Also note the numbers these are per year, not per day which is the american situation.

I dont where you number come from, I have found them repeated on 1/2 dozen gun nuts websites but with no source.

My figures come from here

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

My figures come from John Lott, and include your figures.

The point of taking away people's property in the form of guns isn't to drop gun violence, but it is allegedly to drop violence. Banning guns fails to do that 100% of the time.

 

[This Charming Manc]

well the australian government seem to think you guys talking aload of baloney when it comes to serious violent crime.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

assault has gone up since 1996, but we don't see the trend line before that

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html

My figures come from John Lott, and include your figures.

The point of taking away people's property in the form of guns isn't to drop gun violence, but it is allegedly to drop violence. Banning guns fails to do that 100% of the time.

 

[rocketman]

So you're saying "people won't be crooks." Uh, most people aren't crooks now. Guns or not. Being "polite" is one thing, being a "crook" is another.

I live in a will carry state.:yawn:

Did not say people would not be crooks, what I did say is if crooks know their "would be" target may be armed they are politely detered (no shots fired). The data proves it, though I am sure because you do not care for me that it will be disregarded, anyway here is a interesting read a study that shows that concealed carry prevents more crime than it creates, you don't have to use a gun for it to be a useful tool. One has to wonder, if Mr. Lanza knew that people could be armed at Sandy Hill would he have picked it for his target? :think:

http://marquettetribune.org/2012/02...events-more-crime-than-it-creates-study-says/

 

[rexlunae]

what exactly could you accomplish in a gun free zone with a semi auto rifle, that you could not accomplish with a pump shotgun, an ammo belt, and a lot of practice.

Once you've forced someone to go through a lot of practice in order to pull off one of these shootings, you've already prevented a fair amount of bloodshed. Some people will do that, but a lot of people, I suspect including this guy in Newtown, wouldn't.

Not all killers are really determined to kill. Some are just rash and willing to disregard the lives of others.

 

[Charity]

Not all killers are really determined to kill. Some are just rash and willing to disregard the lives of others.

Wonder what the difference's might be between a Killer That destroys Himself an a Killer That's Wants to Live?

In all, One can only possibly achieve whats Left, That wrong choices Made will Bring the world to the right Place.

 

[Delmar]

Once you've forced someone to go through a lot of practice in order to pull off one of these shootings, you've already prevented a fair amount of bloodshed. Some people will do that, but a lot of people, I suspect including this guy in Newtown, wouldn't.

Not all killers are really determined to kill. Some are just rash and willing to disregard the lives of others.

That is actually a rational answer, I guess. The assault weapons ban did nothing to slow down Harris and Klbold or the DC snipers, but it might make the uninitiated less effective killers.

Do you care to speculate how many lives would have been saved in Newtown had the shooter not had access to the Bushmaster and been limited to the two semi auto pistols? I am going to take a wild guess and say probably not one.

 

[rexlunae]

That is actually a rational answer, I guess. The assault weapons ban did nothing to slow down Harris and Klbold or the DC snipers, but it might make the uninitiated less effective killers.

:e4e:

I generally agree with the line that you can't stop every determined killer, like Harris and Kliebold were. But I think you can cut down the rash acts and access to guns by criminals and the mentally unfit.

Do you care to speculate how many lives would have been saved in Newtown had the shooter not had access to the Bushmaster and been limited to the two semi auto pistols? I am going to take a wild guess and say probably not one.

Hard to say. In fact, the first reports I heard said that he actually left the Bushmaster in the car. Not sure how he managed to shoot so many people, and many of them so many times with just handguns, but perhaps it is possible given certain circumstances. But the real problem, accounting for almost half of all homicides, seems to be poorly-controlled handguns.