More than 30,000 Americans die from gun violence every year...

[Fadi]

Tighter gun laws just means only the criminals have guns and yes the police would use that as an excuse to search more homes, not just criminals.

I fully understand your comment Von, and I dislike both scenarios should they eventuate. Having said that, what is the alternative in your opinion, to arm the people, to...? Basically what I'm asking you (and would sincerely appreciate an answer sir) is this: whatever system they have in the US currently, seems to be failing the nation as a whole, irrespective of the whys, as I have pointed out before. They need something different in order to arrive at a different result. What in your opinion, being a gun owner, would be that different "something"?

Moving right outside the circle if I may, would you even consider that perhaps the US is suffering from uncontrolled freedom? Too much freedom is the opposite side of that coin that has oppression and suppression stamped on it. Neither three are healthy nor productive in my opinion. A balance need to be struck, however that balance can not be achieved unless all parties agree that there is such an issue with freedom etc. Would love to get your wise feedback on this very deep subject Von. Thank you.

 

[Repacked]

Well that was great, safe afternoon at the range. No body died, and not one of the many hundreds of rounds we sent downrange resulted in a single firearms death in USA or any other country. There was an almost imperceptible increase in global temperatures and it is possible that somewhere on this blue planet, a dolphin died.

Come and take them; powerless hoplophobes.

 

[Stiffy]

United States[edit]

It has been reported that more mass shootings occur in the United States than in other countries. Although the frequency of mass shootings varies upon their definition, it has been reported that 31% of public mass shootings occur in the U.S despite the U.S. having only 5% of the world's population,[SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][16][/SUP] CNN reports that "there are more public mass shootings in the United States than in any other country in the world, according to a new study."[SUP][10][/SUP]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting

 

[Stiffy]

"The numbers do show that more restrictive gun laws make a difference. Lankford points to Australia as an example. The country had four mass shootings between 1987 and 1996. After those incidents, public opinion turned against gun ownership and Parliament passed stricter gun laws. Australia hasn't had a mass shooting since. "

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/27/health/u-s-most-mass-shootings/

 

[Fadi]

It seems that the Aussie public opinion is much more effective than the American one. Either that, or the gun lobby in the US is much more effective than the NRA here.

 

[bozodos]

Well Monash didn't qualify according to the FBI definition, but we've had mass killings since then. New Zealand hasn't had a mass shooting since 1997 and they didn't change their laws.
I still can't get over the leftist media in the US attempting to compare to Australia. It does suit their narrative though.

Your wiki article also cites the CNN as a source... The article is interesting reading, in regards to the whole copycat stuff (something I've often mentioned). Unfortunately you can reel off pretty much every high profile mass shooter of the last 20 odd years due to the never ending media coverage of them. That in itself can be motivating factor.

From that article: "In contrast, the overall U.S. homicide rate and rate of gun violence have dropped significantly over the past two decades. Some researchers believe these mass killings can be contagious: One killing or shooting increases the chances that others will occur within about two weeks, an "infection" that lasts about 13 days, researchers found in another study this year. "


"It's harder to quantify it, but I've been struck by research that shows that being famous is one of this generation's most important goals," Lankford said. "It seems like Americans are growing in their desire for fame, and there is no doubt that that there is an association between media coverage that these offenders get and the likelihood that they will act."

@Fadi; No the Australian media has force fed us this bullshit for the last 20 years that the only reason we aren't a clone of the US is thanks to Saint John Howard severely impinging on the liberties of the law abiding firearm owner and attempting to destroy the gun culture of our country, because he personally hates guns. When even now the media will quote an anti gun lobby group of 3 people with a Facebook page and an "academic" with no formal qualifications, but ignores any actual subject matter experts, it says it all.

On top of all of this, the whole forced confiscation in 1996 meant that hundreds of thousands (and that was a conservative estimate) of firearms are still out there in circulation, most likely not being kept in safes, or being reported when they are stolen etc. Even more worrying is reports about police shipments of firearms being stolen, or guns being shipped piecemeal through the post. Criminals still can and do get guns here.

 

[Fadi]

@Fadi; No the Australian media has force fed us this bullshit for the last 20 years that the only reason we aren't a clone of the US is thanks to Saint John Howard severely impinging on the liberties of the law abiding firearm owner and attempting to destroy the gun culture of our country, because he personally hates guns. When even now the media will quote an anti gun lobby group of 3 people with a Facebook page and an "academic" with no formal qualifications, but ignores any actual subject matter experts, it says it all.

On top of all of this, the whole forced confiscation in 1996 meant that hundreds of thousands (and that was a conservative estimate) of firearms are still out there in circulation, most likely not being kept in safes, or being reported when they are stolen etc. Even more worrying is reports about police shipments of firearms being stolen, or guns being shipped piecemeal through the post. Criminals still can and do get guns here.

Yes bozodos, I'm very familiar with the way the media manipulates issues to serve a particular agenda..., very much aware of that indeed.

 

[Shrek]

Thread re-opened. Keep it civil please.

 

[Stiffy]

 

[Shrek]

No rumbling... Soft low blows only. ?

 

[Fadi]

I've noticed my questions have been ignored by certain members. Have I asked the wrong type of questions, or is there some other reason I should know about?

My most fundamental of all the questions I've asked in this thread so far was this one: if the Americans choose to maintain the status quo and expect a change in return, this would be tantamount to pleading insanity. I underlined the point that irrespective of why people are getting shot under the current failing system, something a new needs to either replace it altogether, or at least modify it in such a way as to lead to some sort of progress.

Finally, I proposed that perhaps the American problem has nothing to do with what everyone in America is currently discussing or have discussed previously, and more to do with the amount of freedom allowed within such a democratic society. Could the type or level of democracy be the issue here perhaps? Whilst oppression and suppression of a society and its ideas is far from being healthy or productive, would not the flip side of that coin where too much freedom allotted, could also be damaging the core fabric of such a society?

The above were some of my questions. Would anyone like to get involved in a discussion around these points please? Thank you.

 

[bozodos]

I've noticed my questions have been ignored by certain members. Have I asked the wrong type of questions, or is there some other reason I should know about?

My most fundamental of all the questions I've asked in this thread so far was this one: if the Americans choose to maintain the status quo and expect a change in return, this would be tantamount to pleading insanity. I underlined the point that irrespective of why people are getting shot under the current failing system, something a new needs to either replace it altogether, or at least modify it in such a way as to lead to some sort of progress.

Finally, I proposed that perhaps the American problem has nothing to do with what everyone in America is currently discussing or have discussed previously, and more to do with the amount of freedom allowed within such a democratic society. Could the type or level of democracy be the issue here perhaps? Whilst oppression and suppression of a society and its ideas is far from being healthy or productive, would not the flip side of that coin where too much freedom allotted, could also be damaging the core fabric of such a society?

The above were some of my questions. Would anyone like to get involved in a discussion around these points please? Thank you.

I think most Americans would like to have the means to defend themselves in areas where currently they are not allowed to, and there is already a high incidence of gun violence (New York, Chicago, California). An armed society tends to be a polite one.

You say that perhaps America has 'too much' freedom, I'd say that perhaps a less than perfect society is the side effect of having that freedom. They are a democracy; if a majority of people want to effect a change, they have the means to do so. I envy the fact that Americans in general have more freedom to make their own choices, even if they are the wrong ones. I also think that their bill of rights is something of envy. Curtailment of freedom has already been attempted there with Prohibition. It resulted in growing a huge black market and criminal activity where before it was either non existent or minimal.

 

[Repacked]

An armed society tends to be a polite one.

Curious as to how this conclusion was reached..

 

[Stiffy]

[FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B][FONT=AdvTTb8864ccf.B]Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence from Panel Data
[/FONT][/FONT]
"In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households).
Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on nonfirearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise."

[url]http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf[/URL]

 

[Stiffy]

Curious as to how this conclusion was reached..

I think you know mate. Bozo just posts any shit that helps his cause. You've caught them out lying a number of times in this thread.

 

[Shrek]

That's not a lie, it's a bizarre statement. ?

 

[Stiffy]

That's not a lie, it's a bizarre statement. ��

Nah, @Repacked; caught Bozo lying about Chicago Gun Laws and then Von about Brazil. There'd be others as well.

Bozo is just posting shit that suits his cause. There is usually no truth or substance to a lot of what Bozo is saying. More holes in Bozo's arguments than Swiss Cheese.

 

[Fadi]

I think most Americans would like to have the means to defend themselves in areas where currently they are not allowed to, and there is already a high incidence of gun violence (New York, Chicago, California).

Thank you for taking the time bozodos, thanks mate. Now for you to say the above re these three cities, other cities from around the United States must support your views, do they? In other words, are there less gun violence in the other 47 states of that country which would go on to support your argument?

An armed society tends to be a polite one.

Is there any evidence for that bozodos?

You say that perhaps America has 'too much' freedom, I'd say that perhaps a less than perfect society is the side effect of having that freedom.

I don't quite understand. Are you agreeing with me here? That a less than perfect society is the side effect of too much freedom? Would you mind clarifying please. Thank you.

They are a democracy; if a majority of people want to effect a change, they have the means to do so.

I understand that. However I get the impression from what I hear with all those back and forth debate that are forever taking place in America whenever a mass shooting takes place, that it's somewhat an uphill battle trying to convince the gun lobby to affect any sort of change. I understand that there are about 300 million guns currently in the possession of the people. Are these people (irrespective of their race colour or creed), members of this gun lobby, that nothing ever gets changed?

I envy the fact that Americans in general have more freedom to make their own choices, even if they are the wrong ones.

Sounds great in theory, but the country is getting killed from within by its own people. Surely that can't be a state one would envy! I say that basing my argument on the population of the US and its prison population when compared with the rest of the world. With nearly 5% of the world population residing in the United States, that country has almost 25% of the world's prisoners. Not a country I would envy living in. I say that within the context of our discussion here, and in no way am I saying that other countries don't have their fair share of problems.

Curtailment of freedom has already been attempted there with Prohibition. It resulted in growing a huge black market and criminal activity where before it was either non existent or minimal.

I have already discussed this issue on this forum a while back when I discussed Islam and alcohol, and how one system succeeded where the other one has failed. People may not like to hear or read the evidence based reasons for such a success rate, but this particular issue re alcohol prohibition is out there for anyone who is interested in learning more about the subject. To make it short; telling a person they can not drink point blank and affecting some punishment if that particular law is broken would not work, as you, and the whole world has witnessed or learnt about when America brought that prohibition law back in January of 1920, 96 years ago this year.

 

[vonfram88]

I fully understand your comment Von, and I dislike both scenarios should they eventuate. Having said that, what is the alternative in your opinion, to arm the people, to...? Basically what I'm asking you (and would sincerely appreciate an answer sir) is this: whatever system they have in the US currently, seems to be failing the nation as a whole, irrespective of the whys, as I have pointed out before. They need something different in order to arrive at a different result. What in your opinion, being a gun owner, would be that different "something"?

Moving right outside the circle if I may, would you even consider that perhaps the US is suffering from uncontrolled freedom? Too much freedom is the opposite side of that coin that has oppression and suppression stamped on it. Neither three are healthy nor productive in my opinion. A balance need to be struck, however that balance can not be achieved unless all parties agree that there is such an issue with freedom etc. Would love to get your wise feedback on this very deep subject Von. Thank you.

there are solutions to the "problem" in the USA regarding crazy people gaining access to firearms and committing dreadful deeds. However it would not serve my "cause" if I appeared to falter in my pursuit of increased freedom for gun owners in a Australia.

Im actually quite moderate in my views on many subjects and possibly even a closet socialist of sorts. However, having been quite heavily invested in the gun vs no-gun dichotomy, I have learnt that conceding any ground at all to the contrary position does not serve my particular agenda and I'm quite satisfied with how weak and ineffective the anti-gun lobby is at present. I Refer to it as a "dichotomy" not because of an immature binary view of good vs evil or black versus white, but with a realisation that the most vocal of our opponents will maintain their stance and can be quite fanatical.

Gun owners and decent folk let themselves down when bullied by the government post-port Arthur and post-Monash. The ground that was surrendered and the freedom that was given up really achieved nothing at all. The pro-firearms people have learnt how to positively promote their interests now and have even regained some of the lost ground. I'm no fanatic but I must hold the line. I can't for a second consider uttering anything that would enable further compromise of freedom.

Even though I personally would not enjoy carrying an Armalite around in public or concealed carry if I had the freedom to do so (face it - it would have to be a pretty nasty society if we felt we needed to) - I can't and must not suggest that I'm against any measure that increases the availabity of firearms to suitable people.

 

[Stiffy]

there are solutions to the "problem" in the USA regarding crazy people gaining access to firearms and committing dreadful deeds. However it would not serve my "cause" if I appeared to falter in my pursuit of increased freedom for gun owners in a Australia.

Im actually quite moderate in my views on many subjects and possibly even a closet socialist of sorts. However, having been quite heavily invested in the gun vs no-gun dichotomy, I have learnt that conceding any ground at all to the contrary position does not serve my particular agenda

So just between you and me, you agree that if the U.S. introduced Australian type Gun Legislation a lot of their problems would be lessened?