Gun Control, Mental healthcare, big brother... thread (1 Viewer)

[magnifier661]

Yes it is misleading. If you increase from 10 to 11, that's an increase. But not a lot. But screaming it's an increase and therefore GUNS Я GREAT! Slightly misleading.

I thought this was supposed to decrease crime? Only thing misleading is a liberal saying the rise is not large enough to cause concern, but completely overlooks the main reason why the ban was there in the first place. Typical

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I thought this was supposed to decrease crime? Only thing misleading is a liberal saying the rise is not large enough to cause concern, but completely overlooks the main reason why the ban was there in the first place. Typical

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...hooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.


This is what happened when Australia introduced tight gun controls

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/19/world/us-australia-gun-control/

What happened in Australia? Gun violence was bad. A decade of gun massacres had seen more than 100 people shot dead. The last straw was an incident at a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, when a lone gunman killed 20 people with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds. This "pathetic social misfit," to quote the judge in the case, achieved his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing a military-style semiautomatic rifle.

What happened next? Only 12 days after the shootings, in John Howard's first major act of leadership and by far the most popular in his first year as Prime Minister, his government announced nationwide gun law reform.

What exactly happened to murder and mass killing?

In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.

In the 19 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. As Howard wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Times in 2013, "Today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate."

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The increase of gun related crimes in Australia misleading? This was directly from the site snopes.com used as a reference...

You should look at the stats since 1996 when the changes went into effect.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The way I look at gun laws is I would be much safer if I was the only one to own guns while no one else did.

Me w/guns > You w/o guns.

 

[magnifier661]

You should look at the stats since 1996 when the changes went into effect.

Thanks for the link! I will

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Australia crimes from 2010 to 2013,
1.) Gun related murder went from 16.9% to 18.9% (increase of 2%).
2.) Gun related Attempted Murder went from 24.2% to 32.7% (Increase of 7.5%).
3.) Gun related Robberies went from 7.1% to 7.6% (Not much of an increase)

Lets look at it another way...

Pretend that in 1996 blow jobs were illegal. You could get one but they cost $1000.

The government legalizes blow jobs and the price immediately drops to $100.

Then from 2010 to 2013 the price of blow jobs goes up to $102.

Mags is outraged! Government legalized blow jobs have only gone up in the last 3 years! A 2% increase is not acceptable! "I was told the price of blow jobs would go down but look, they're going up!"

Mags starts a campaign to end legalized blow jobs.

 

[e_blazer]

Lets look at it another way...

Pretend that in 1996 blow jobs were illegal. You could get one but they cost $1000.

The government legalizes blow jobs and the price immediately drops to $100.

Then from 2010 to 2013 the price of blow jobs goes up to $102.

Mags is outraged! Government legalized blow jobs have only gone up in the last 3 years! A 2% increase is not acceptable! "I was told the price of blow jobs would go down but look, they're going up!"

Mags starts a campaign to end legalized blow jobs.

Mags is presently overwhelmed and unable to respond due to thoughts of legalized blow jobs.

 

[barfo]

so what do you propose? What changes, in your opinion, need to be made on guns?

Well, if I were king, here's what I'd do. I'd make it MUCH harder to buy a gun. Not impossible. But more like getting a top-level security clearance. You've got to have references to vouch for you, you get investigated a bit. You may get interviewed in person. You go into a database and you are tracked from then on.

If everything checks out and people think you're stable, you get to buy guns. If not, you don't - and you still go into the database and get tracked.

barfo

 

[BlazerDuckSeahawkFan94]

Well, if I were king, here's what I'd do. I'd make it MUCH harder to buy a gun. Not impossible. But more like getting a top-level security clearance. You've got to have references to vouch for you, you get investigated a bit. You may get interviewed in person. You go into a database and you are tracked from then on.

If everything checks out and people think you're stable, you get to buy guns. If not, you don't - and you still go into the database and get tracked.

barfo

Holy Governmental control batman...

 

[Denny Crane]

This is the area that interests me as allowing for some measure of action within the limits of the existing Constitution and case law. A limitation on the number of rounds a magazine is allowed to hold could be one limitation permitted. Caliber of bullets for pistols might be another area. It might be possible to limit access to certain weapons shooting larger caliber bullets, or assault-style rifles, to individuals who pass a background check and a firearm safety program. I'm just spit-balling, but it seems to me that some level of restriction could be authorized without running afoul of 2nd amendment protections.

If it looks like a gun, I doubt it.

If 7 guys attack me, a gun limited to 6 bullets isn't enough of a defense. 7 bullets isn't enough if I miss.

 

[e_blazer]

If it looks like a gun, I doubt it.

If 7 guys attack me, a gun limited to 6 bullets isn't enough of a defense. 7 bullets isn't enough if I miss.

Yeah, but if you need 30 rounds to hit your target, I don't want your sorry ass anywhere near a gun.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Yeah, but if you need 30 rounds to hit your target, I don't want your sorry ass anywhere near a gun.

Denny needs 30 rounds, he would ask each assailant if they are democrat or republican. If they were republicans he would only shoot them once. If the were democrats he would shoot them each 4 times.

 

[barfo]

If it looks like a gun, I doubt it.

If 7 guys attack me, a gun limited to 6 bullets isn't enough of a defense. 7 bullets isn't enough if I miss.

If 7 guys attack you and you have time to shoot all 7 of them, then you probably didn't need 7 bullets. They are probably baby seals, and you can just club them to death.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

However, it should also be noted that gun enthusiasts are also generally misinterpreting the word "infringe". The phrase "shall not be infringed" does not mean "cannot be limited". The word "infringe" means "to actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)." Clearly, the intention was for people to be able to own and possess firearms within reason, not necessarily without restriction. If that were the intention, it is reasonable to assume that the writers would have chosen a word that actually contained that denotative meaning ("abridged", for instance, or "curtailed").

Laws requiring background checks, limiting the quantity of firearms owned by an individual, limiting magazine size, et al, do not necessarily "infringe" upon the natural right of the people for self-defense.

Infringe:

act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yeah, but if you need 30 rounds to hit your target, I don't want your sorry ass anywhere near a gun.

It is why you can't reasonably limit MY right to self defense.

"Reasonable" is only valid rhetoric if you accept the right may be infringed. There is no middle ground.

Go amend the constitution. Clearly if it is so reasonable, there won't be many people resisting the effort.

 

[julius]

Denny needs 30 rounds, he would ask each assailant if they are democrat or republican. If they were republicans he would only shoot them once. If the were democrats he would shoot them each 4 times.

No one said there'd be math here.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

No one said there'd be math here.

Just count each finger 3x.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Umm, blowjobs aren't illegal guys. Jeesh.

 

[Denny Crane]

Someone really ought to do a snopes check on SPD's facts. It seems the articles he cites are misleading.

Mass killings in Australa were rare all along. They've had mass shootings since 1996, and even in the past 2-3 years.

Crazy murderer types there have taken to arson to kill by the dozens. And hammers, axes, and stabbings.

50% less risk of being killed with a gun? 40% of homicides used to be shooting, now 20%+ are. Not zero%.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, if I were king, here's what I'd do. I'd make it MUCH harder to buy a gun. Not impossible. But more like getting a top-level security clearance. You've got to have references to vouch for you, you get investigated a bit. You may get interviewed in person. You go into a database and you are tracked from then on.

If everything checks out and people think you're stable, you get to buy guns. If not, you don't - and you still go into the database and get tracked.

barfo

Why not cut off everybody's trigger fingers?

Seems more your style.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Umm, blowjobs aren't illegal guys. Jeesh.

The way you do them they are.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Crazy murderer types there have taken to arson to kill by the dozens. And hammers, axes, and stabbings.

Only in Denny world is a hammer, axe, knife and bic lighter considered a gun.

 

[magnifier661]

Well, if I were king, here's what I'd do. I'd make it MUCH harder to buy a gun. Not impossible. But more like getting a top-level security clearance. You've got to have references to vouch for you, you get investigated a bit. You may get interviewed in person. You go into a database and you are tracked from then on.

If everything checks out and people think you're stable, you get to buy guns. If not, you don't - and you still go into the database and get tracked.

barfo

I figured as much. LOL

 

[magnifier661]

Only in Denny world is a hammer, axe, knife and bic lighter considered a gun.

But they aren't polar bears and tuna dying

 

[Denny Crane]

Only in Denny world is a hammer, axe, knife and bic lighter considered a gun.

I consider them murder weapons.

 

[barfo]

I figured as much. LOL

So what's your solution? How do you propose to heal the mentally ill?

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

I consider them murder weapons.

Or pressure cookers, fertilizer, gasoline

 

[magnifier661]

So what's your solution? What are you going to do to heal the mentally ill?

barfo

Training and education. ProActive education on safety, how to store, clean and responsible. Promote gun range time.

I know it ain't liberal... I'm not much for punishing people to exercise their rights or making money

 

[SlyPokerDog]

But they aren't polar bears and tuna dying

You're the one who keeps bringing up polar bears. I mentioned large fish and blow jobs.

 

[magnifier661]

You're the one who keeps bringing up polar bears. I mentioned large fish and blow jobs.

Polar bears and tuna kill