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

You can say that with any city
Point is it's not the population number that causes mass shootings

Darkoz said:

You can say that with any city
Point is it's not the population number that causes mass shootings

Click to expand...

I disagree, they have 10 times the population of AU, so for every nutcase we have they have 10.

Darkoz said:

You can say that with any city
Point is it's not the population number that causes mass shootings

Click to expand...

No you can't. Melbourne boundary stops and it basically stops dead. No 3.5mil Melb, 10 mil greater Melbourne area.

LA makes Melbourne look like a country town.

Sir El Stiffy said:

Dem kneegrows lol

We don't see the repeated Mass shootings that they see. They get that every month. We've only had Hoddle Street and Port Arthur etc. They get that constantly.

Click to expand...

you forgot Strathfield in '88

Grunta said:

I disagree, they have 10 times the population of AU, so for every nutcase we have they have 10.

Click to expand...

Of course you may disagree it is your right and privilage to do so, unfortunately it won' t make you right

Darkoz said:

Point is it's not the populationnumber that causes mass shootings

Click to expand...

I agree, otherwise we'd see mass shooting on a large scale around the world based on nothing more than the density of a particular country/city's population...we do not see that.

Grunta said:

I disagree, they have 10 times thepopulation of AU, so for every nutcase we have they have 10.

Click to expand...

That would be so very true Grunta if, and that's a huge if, if you equate a nutcase with shooting. In other words, just because someone is a nutcase, does not automatically qualifies him or her to some mass shooting of some sort. If you disagree with me, please persuade me to your line of thinking with some evidence/statistics etc. Thank you.

Repacked said:

Chicago has no firearm registration, allows concealed carry, does not require firearms to be secured in the home (only where minors are present), and whether a permit is required to purchase (aside from FOID) is hard to determine depending on where you look. So if this is an example of 'the toughest gun laws in the US', it's no wonder they are in the predicament they are. The reality is that Chicago firearms laws have in fact been relaxed over the past 5 years.

Another linchpin of your argument which is ridiculous is that laws within one state are the be all and end all of firearm ownership within that state, regardless of whether they neighbour states with far less stringent laws and easier access to firearms illegal in other states. How hard is it to drive to the next state to get the guns you want? In fact there is undoubtedly a lucrative market in this.

Example -

Just days ago, a Chicago man was sentenced to nearly three years in prison after pleading guilty to helping purchase 43 firearms from gun shows and individuals in Indiana to sell on Chicago's South Side.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-gun-laws-not-as-strict-as-gop-candidates-claim-20151008-story.html

And...

Chicago's gun laws are not as tough as the candidates claim, and there are some major loopholes that make it relatively easy to get guns, including our proximity to Indiana, a state with virtually no gun restrictions, according to Bloomberg.
There are no gun stores in Chicago, so where are the guns coming from?
About 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest in Chicago from 2009 to 2013 were from out of state, 24 percent were from Indiana and 22 percent were from parts of Cook County outside the city where gun laws are looser, according to a study conducted by Philip Cook, a Duke public policy professor and economist who works with the University of Chicago Crime Lab.

http://chicagoist.com/2015/10/08/_gop_presidential_candidates_donald.php


While you're here, this was good for a laugh...

The end-run around concealed carry came when aldermen imposed a requirement that Chicago restaurants that serve liquor ban firearms or lose their city licenses. Reilly said his downtown ward includes 1,100 liquor license holders who have “legitimate concerns” about allowing their patrons to bring loaded firearms into their establishments.“Even during the Wild West, when everyone and their brother was carrying a loaded firearm on their hip, many saloon keepers knew well enough to keep these guns and bullets out of their establishments because nothing good could happen,” Reilly said.


Mayor Rahm Emanuel said it “doesn’t take a masters or PhD” to know that guns and booze don’t mix. He’s not concerned that a National Rifle Association that opposed the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban would be threatening to sue — again.
“It wouldn’t be a surprise to me that they would be in favor of making sure that people are allowed, to both drink and have guns. I do not think that’s in the interest of the city of Chicago.

https://web.archive.org/web/2013091...-aldermen-approve-contradictory-gun-laws.html

Click to expand...

I think you'd find the need for a license, ban on certain semi auto rifles, NFA items like sawn off shotguns and short barreled rifles, no open carry, the requirement for concealed carry firearms to be unloaded and stored in transit (and the 16 hour course required for a CC permit in the first place) is fairly restrictive compared to most places in the US. Also the fact that any law enforcement agency can object to you getting your license to start with. On top of that the 3 day waiting period for handguns and 1 day for longarms.

"Concealed carry is prohibited on public transportation, at a bar or restaurant that gets more than half its revenue from the sale of alcohol, at a public gathering or special event that requires a permit (e.g. a street fair or festival), at a place where alcohol is sold for special events, and on private property where the owner has chosen not to allow it (and, unless the property is a private residence, has posted an appropriate sign). Concealed carry is also not allowed at any school, college or university, preschool or daycare facility, government building, courthouse, prison, jail, detention facility, hospital, playground, park, Cook County Forest Preserve area, stadium or arena for college or professional sports, amusement park, riverboat casino, off-track betting facility, library, zoo, museum, airport, nuclear facility, or place where firearms are prohibited under federal law."

While I'm on that, almost every mass shooting in the US (real mass shootings in the FBI sense) has been in a 'gun free zone'.

People always go on about out of state firearm sales, but then how come New York and California have higher incidence of gun homicides with strict gun control laws, yet the same isn't true for most of the higher gun ownership \ laxer gun control states? Possibly factors completely unrelated to gun control? Less gun control in Chicago probably won't do a great deal either way, apart from perhaps empowering more people to be able to defend themselves.

Quoting Democrat politicians like Rahm Emanuel hardly makes your point either.
@Repacked; actually our laws could be a lot better, in regards to allowing self defense as a genuine reason and not having a registry which does nothing at all (apart from keep bureaucrats in jobs), and allowing regular license owners to have semi automatic longarms. https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2008n17.pdf here is a paper about the relative ineffectiveness of our gun laws being the cause of less firearm homicide.

The NRA is fairly politically neutral and they have a track record of being involved in civil rights back to the 1950s and donates to Republicans and Democrats (but more democrats are in favor of more regulation). You need to stop drinking the kool aid of the Aussie media about the issue.

Unfortunately most of the examples given above do not really make the point of a restrictive firearm culture e.g. a ban on certain semi-autos and a one to three day waiting period depending on the type of firearm. I hadn't heard of Rahm Emanuel until today, but I assume your reference to quoting him not making my point is because he is a Democrat and not Republican ergo not as staunch-a supporter of your beloved NRA? He is a two term Mayor of Chicago, what reason do you have to not think he has a better idea of the gun problem in Chicago?

In regards to your argument about NY etc having strict gun laws, the reality is they are in the same boat as Chicago. Firearms legislation has become significantly more lax in recent years after the courts overturned many of the restrictions on the dealing and ownership of firearms.

Kool aid? I have rarely given this topic a second thought over the years, with the exception of occasional conversations with people about the good old days and such. I think you should critically analyse the NRA and the role it plays, which is a whole other can of worms. You have been sold, hook line and sinker mate. Don't get me wrong, shooters need representation but the NRA is pretty far from the answer in Australia. Fortunately I don't believe they would ever be able to make inroads to our political process. I will read the article you linked though.

Darkoz said:

You can say that with any city
Point is it's not the population number that causes mass shootings

Click to expand...

had a bit of a look into this, what constitutes "a mass shooting" I mean how many?
do the stats include gangs?

State University of New York-Oswego public justice professor Jaclyn Schildkraut and Texas State University researcher H. Jaymi Elsass have been tracking mass shooting incidents in 14 countries from 2000 to 2014. They compared the United States to 11 other countries (Canada, Finland, China, Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland), and found the United States had a lower rate of mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people than Norway, Finland and Switzerland. Other than China, these countries were all member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the common measure for “advanced” countries. But the actual count of incidents showed the United States had 133 shootings during the period, compared to a maximum of six in each of the other countries.

Disregarding the comments about sources of NRA funding, surely the quote below is food for thought -


'There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organisation develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.It’s possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people.
Notoriously, tobacco executives even attempted to form their own version of the NRA in 1993, seeing the inherent benefit to the industry that such an effort would have. Philip Morris bankrolled the National Smokers Alliance, a group that never quite had the groundswell of support the industry wanted.'

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1


If you think that this is an implausible fantasy rather than reality and cannot concede that this is likely or at least possible then there is no point continuing the debate. We'll just agree to disagree.

Goosey said:

had a bit of a look into this, what constitutes "a mass shooting" I mean how many?
do the stats include gangs?

State University of New York-Oswego public justice professor Jaclyn Schildkraut and Texas State University researcher H. Jaymi Elsass have been tracking mass shooting incidents in 14 countries from 2000 to 2014. They compared the United States to 11 other countries (Canada, Finland, China, Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland), and found the United States had a lower rate of mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people than Norway, Finland and Switzerland. Other than China, these countries were all member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the common measure for “advanced” countries. But the actual count of incidents showed the United States had 133 shootings during the period, compared to a maximum of six in each of the other countries.

Click to expand...

What' your conclusion?

Goosey said:

had a bit of a look into this, what constitutes "a mass shooting" I mean how many?
do the stats include gangs?
... found the United States had a lower rate of mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people than Norway, Finland and Switzerland.

Click to expand...

Would this not be expected when the population of these countries is tiny in comparison to the US?

I think the second statistic is more telling; as would be total fatalities from these incidents.

the thing is their forefathers lost their lives so future generations would have the right to bear arms. They didn't die so their great grand kiddies could lose what they viewed as the most basic and important god given right, the right of arming yourself and been able to defend your home and the nation your great great great grandfather created at the end of a musket and bayonet.

So 30,000 americans died from gun violence, its the price their nation pays. What price do you put on freedom and the freedom of their countrymen, 30,000 lives is a small price for the freedom of 300,000,000.

A large protion of americans view the right to bear arms the same way we view our right to clean drinking water, it is ingrained in them and obama will not succeed in gun reform, why? Because this is a free and armed populace who will go to washington with their guns and stop their rights and basic freedoms getting eroded by someone trying to gain votes over a media fad.

Heres a novel idea perhaps leave the guns alone and adress bigger social problems like lack of health care, two tiered education, racial segregation from a lost war on drugs. \

Radical ideas but would have a far wider impact then saying you didn't play nice so we are taking your toys away.

Goosey said:

had a bit of a look into this, what constitutes "a mass shooting" I mean how many?
do the stats include gangs?

State University of New York-Oswego public justice professor Jaclyn Schildkraut and Texas State University researcher H. Jaymi Elsass have been tracking mass shooting incidents in 14 countries from 2000 to 2014. They compared the United States to 11 other countries (Canada, Finland, China, Britain, Australia, France, Germany, Mexico, Norway and Switzerland), and found the United States had a lower rate of mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people than Norway, Finland and Switzerland. Other than China, these countries were all member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the common measure for “advanced” countries. But the actual count of incidents showed the United States had 133 shootings during the period, compared to a maximum of six in each of the other countries.

Click to expand...

Selecting a sample of countries the researcher knew would have lower rates than the US is not really a valid comparison. I notice they didn't include Brazil, Colombia, Syria, Jamaica. Pretty hard for people in China to own firearms, but there are state-run mass shootings every week that seem to have escaped this comparison. Very hard to find objective research!

vonfram88 said:

Selecting a sample of countries the researcher knew would have lower rates than the US is not really a valid comparison. I notice they didn't include Brazil, Colombia, Syria, Jamaica. Pretty hard for people in China to own firearms, but there are state-run mass shootings every week that seem to have escaped this comparison. Very hard to find objective research!

Click to expand...

The comparison was with other OECD 'advanced' countries.

Repacked said:

Disregarding the comments about sources of NRA funding, surely the quote below is food for thought -


'There are two reasons for the industry support for the NRA. The first is that the organisation develops and maintains a market for their products. The second, less direct function, is to absorb criticism in the event of PR crises for the gun industry.It’s possible that without the NRA, people would be protesting outside of Glock, SIG Sauer and Freedom Group — the makers of the guns used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre — and dragging the CEOs in front of cameras and Congress. That is certainly what happened to tobacco executives when their products continued killing people.
Notoriously, tobacco executives even attempted to form their own version of the NRA in 1993, seeing the inherent benefit to the industry that such an effort would have. Philip Morris bankrolled the National Smokers Alliance, a group that never quite had the groundswell of support the industry wanted.'

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1


If you think that this is an implausible fantasy rather than reality and cannot concede that this is likely or at least possible then there is no point continuing the debate. We'll just agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

If doubt that most Americans would die to protect their constitution then there is no point in continuing the debate. We will just agree to disagree.

Repacked said:

The comparison was with other OECD 'advanced' countries.

Click to expand...

Because the assumption is that rich white folk are somehow more civilised than developing nations. We're so civilised we create a shit storm wherever we self-righteously intervene and then sit back and mock them or let them die.

if you live in a place you need to carry a gun, should you not be asking what the fuck is wrong with our country? Should all thank god we live in Australia and have no real need for guns.

If america never had their obsession with guns and had the same number of guns out there as say Aus, do you think things would still be as they are?

In regards to that loaded weapons in a bar thing, in scotland people glass each other all the fucking time..its a national sport. So they banned glass in violent clubs..can't glass anyone anymore. No one sat there saying "the answer is more glass!, then you can protect yourself bla bla" an over simplified example but still has relevance.

The problem in the states is pretty simple, it is too easy for the wrong people to get their hands on a gun, be it criminals or mentally ill people.

I would much rather live in a society where when someone goes psycho they dont own an arsenal of weapons because its their "god given right"

Almost every pro gun persons views are biased and blinded by their own selfish desire to get their rocks off, as vonfram has already admitted to.

You also have to ask, at what points do your rights start to violate someone elses rights?

People that love there guns will defend there right to have guns until they are blue in the face, like Ice the less available to the general public the better, The only good thing little Johnny did was the gun reforme

Fadi said:

I agree, otherwise we'd see mass shooting on a large scale around the world based on nothing more than the density of a particular country/city's population...we do not see that.
That would be so very true Grunta if, and that's a huge if, if you equate a nutcase with shooting. In other words, just because someone is a nutcase, does not automatically qualifies him or her to some mass shooting of some sort. If you disagree with me, please persuade me to your line of thinking with some evidence/statistics etc. Thank you.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it sounds like you're saying that some one who opens up on an innocent crowd with a firearm is of a sound mind?

Not every nutcase is a mass murderer, but a sane man just wouldn't do something like that.
statistically speaking, just based on numbers, there is 10 time the chance of something happening there compared to here, period, including mass shootings.