Oh come on, I can't believe you are actually that stupid to really believe that.

An article published today by our ex-Prime Minister

[www.theage.com.au]

Particularly interesting are some of the stats toward the end which run against what a lot of pro-gun Americans believe.

Oh and also just as an addition, I don't care what side of the story you sit on, the image is rubbish with regards to guns kill people / spoons made me fat. Spoons are designed for eating, guns are designed for killing. In the wrong hands, guns are a tool for killing (fact). Nobody ever made somebody ELSE fat with their spoon, but there's been plenty of people who have killed others with their gun. One you inflict upon yourself, the other you can inflict upon others.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 06:49AM by pulse.

Guns are merely tools and tools can only be made deadly by the person who uses them. Even hammers have been used to murder people there have been no calls to ban hammers. Guns would not be an issue if we were able to remove the desire from everyone to kill others. It is easier to blame the tool than to work towards what it is that makes people want to destroy other people. Many of us have lawfully killed others and most of us do not want to have to do it again but we do desire to protect the ones we love by any means necessary. Maybe you should ban all the video games, music and movies which anesthetize us to death and killing. You wouldn't get much support for that but with political correctness running amok you would get support against guns.

Also another spot

It's fucking hard to walk into a cinema and kill 12 people with a hammer. It's the efficiency of the tool at doing its job.

As stated in that article:

These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws.

So why would I need a gun? Maybe the problem isn't the guns, maybe it's the people. Maybe the rest of the westernised world isn't as fixated on killing each other? Our crime rates are lower than the US, yet we have no guns to protect ourselves from criminals. Some of our criminals do. But it's rare because they're not easily available. The chances of me being attacked are very slim, and I'm not scared to leave my home at night. And yes, I've been mugged, in the UK (and if I had a gun I still wouldn't have pulled it as I was significantly outnumbered at the time).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 12:52PM by pulse.

I think the course for this was set in the U.S. in the 1920s during alcohol prohibition. The gangs who controlled the illegal alcohol and even the mom & pop moonshiners began fighting each other and the law with guns and the affinity for guns continued after the end of prohibition. Today the majority of gun violence has to do with the illegal drug trade and at this point, just as prohibition of alcohol and drugs led to increased violence I tend to believe that prohibition of guns will spur more violence. I also pity any populace that has been disarmed by it's government when that government turns against it, something our founding fathers had in mind when crafting our constitution and which has been shown to happen in other nations since. Our national psyche, at least of the decent honest folks, is not so much one of violence but one of meeting violence with like force, ie "fuck with me and you're apt to be sorry you did". I've also seen numbers that say the majority of all gun deaths in the U.S. are due to suicide, and in that case at least I'm sure other methods will be found and suicide levels will not decrease.

The issue of the public having the right to have firearms predates the history of the US as a country, as much as we'd like to take credit for it and are seemingly so proud of it, we inherited the concept from England which was codified into law in the 1600s.

That is not meant to detract for what you said though Q and I believe you have a valid point. Gun violence in the US also got a jump during union riots.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 04:46PM by BlahX3.

I am getting so sick of hearing this argument: "Even hammers have been used to murder people there have been no calls to ban hammers". That's because hammers were designed to hit nails and have a useful and practical other purpose. Guns on the other hand are designed to shoot bullets and fast moving bullets are designed to kill things.

And as pulse said, it would be hard to kill 12 people in a cinema with a hammer.

NZ has always had tight gun control, and as pulse said Australia now is, crime is lower than the US and we don't have guns to defend ourselves.

That said, it is easier to police the movements of guns into a country when that country is an island with strict border controls at both air and sea ports. It is different for a country like the US, but that just makes it harder, not impossible.

As for it being England's fault, the law can be changed, and has been in England.

Are you trying to stir up the border issue now, GAK?

Actually I noticed something interesting when I looked at the tables here [en.wikipedia.org]
True, as compared to New Zealand, Australia, Great Britain and may other countries, the U.S. has a very high murder rate but we're still in the middle of the pack and perhaps not farther down the list due in part to the fact that many of the illegals (and legals) that come across our border with Mexico come from nations with the highest murder rates. I wonder if there is a correlation there.

Se what you started?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 08:23PM by quasi.

It is not unreasonable to assume that people bring part of their culture with them, whether that be good or bad, when they move to another country, so yes there could be a correlation.

But, no, I was not trying to stir up an immigration issue. By border controls I was meaning customs inspections, not immigration. Maybe you're the one wanting to raise the issue?

until it's not a Constitutional right, all arguments are moot. maybe after 20 or more years after it being repealed (as if that will ever happen) there may be some stats worth discussing. until then you are pissin' in the wind.

The thing about your constitutional right is that it doesn't specify what arms can or cannot be kept and borne. It also doesn't specify what regulations can or cannot be implemented around that right. That means there is a large scope for gun control laws and regulations that would still be constitutional.

no, it means there are no restrictions that can be implemented.

So the states that do have some gun control laws are being un-constitutional? I don't think so. If they were there would be litigation brought against them immediately.

it's called states rights. why do we have to explain this to you every time the comes up?

Just because you have a right to "arms" doesn't mean you have a right to ANY arms.. so why not practise some form of restrictions?

Why not start by restricting fully automatic weapons? That'd be a start. There really is no useful purpose of a machine gun. They're not useful hunting tools. Then you could look towards semi-automatic. It's still a lot harder to do mass killings with a revolver than an M16. You don't have unrestricted rights to arms. Are you allowed to walk down the street carrying an RPG? You're not allowed to go and purchase any nuclear or chemical weapons..

You already have restrictions on your armaments, yet are happy that your constitutional rights aren't being violated. Therefore, why not look at some restriction? After all, if the idea is that criminals wouldn't dare attack you because you might have a gun (which really is one of the main responses I see on this subject), then a revolver is still a significant deterrant - and they already know that you're not likely to be carrying an Uzi.

And yes, you're right - suicide numbers aren't likely to change significantly if guns were banned, but murder rates are. So are accidental gun injury rates, which are huge in the US. Whether they lead to death or not, they still cause significant pain and damage (not to mention expense).

The other thing with a murder, and maybe this is just my view. It feels easier, to me, to shoot somebody from a distance and be disconnected from the event than it would be for me to walk up to somebody and beat them to death with a hammer or stab them to death. It's also physically harder to do those things. They're just such violent events.

Since when do states rights out-weigh the constitution?

like i said, until they change it, that's all i have to say.

You remind me of an ostrich with it's head in the sand (and yes I know ostrich's don't really do that, but it's a good analogy).

was that supposed to be an insult?

Nope - it was supposed to be an analogy, which is why I called it an analogy.

i'm still laughing at that feeble attempt.

Gak, you need to do some research on Texas and it's inhabitants.
They are very special, not for the obvious reasons though...

We already have sufficient gun control laws. We are not allowed to own automatic weapons without a permit so no machine guns. People are not trying to control access to guns by criminals they are trying to remove all guns from law abiding citizens. In the country it will always be easy for criminals to obtain guns even if they are taken away from law abiding citizens. while it is true that guns are designed to kill things but using them to kill people is determined by the people who use them.

One of the first things an invading army does when they invade a country is to find all citizens who own guns and disarm them or kill them. Ever wonder why they do this? Ever wonder why we have never had a dictator in this country, even though a lot of you thought Bush would remain in office after his term was over?

More cops [www.odmp.org] died in vehicle accidents so far this year.

You need to educate yourself JG. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004 and has since failed to be renewed. You are also wrong about "People are not trying to control access to guns by criminals they are trying to remove all guns from law abiding citizens." The entire focus of gun control laws in the US is to deter criminals from having them while preserving the rights of citizens to bear arms. Almost all of the arguments and ridiculous comparisons that gun enthusiasts propose are full of crap and it doesn't take a whole lot of brain power to determine that.

As I have stated numerous times I am NOT opposed to the right of US citizens to own firearms but you guys would do much better if your arguments actually made any real sense. If you want to win a debate and accomplish something useful about the issue then use truth and logic, not the same loads of retarded crap over and over again. And stay informed, educate yourselves.

you guys? i thought you were talking to JG.

Oh, now all of a sudden Skidly starts using logic for a change. I knew you had it in you. There are a handful of "you guys" here who seem to say the same sort of uninformed BS, hence my use of the words.

all of a sudden? when have i not used complete logic. (don't you love the yak attack?)

Constantly. You couldn't follow a logical train of thought if you were shackled and chained to the caboose.