• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

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

So they have 30000 shooting deaths do we have 3000 a year?
 
Murders with a firearm are 22 times higher in the US than Australia. and the overall murder rate is 4 times higher.

So i think its a fair conclusion Americans enjoy shooting each other, why? because they can!

The suicide rate with a gun is also 9 times higher in the US. Im going to assume its because suicidal people there have easy access to the most effective method of killing yourself, but I may be wrong..
 
Last edited:
Clive005 said:
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
Click to expand...
I'm asking, if our PM was able to do it here, why not in the US? The replies to this question often point out to the different history of these two nations, and the way they were formed...perhaps culturally. Has anyone in the US actually tried to do what Howard did back when? Or is the American gun lobby so powerful that no president/congress would even dare risk such a move? I'm still battling with the question of potential or anticipated government tyranny. Does not the US claim to be one of the most civilised nation on the planet? Does not the US claim to have a system called democracy, whereby the world as a whole would be a better place if they would just adopt such a system? If so, then why can't they see reason, in that for the benefit of the whole, the parts may need to sacrifice somewhat. After all, what price a life?

Yes I must admit, I am guilty of falling into the emotional trap I warned about in the OP. However I feel a bit hopeless in that whilst everyone wants to hold on to their right to freedom, people are been blown away by guns. I said earlier (in the OP), that irrespective of the "whys" people are being killed, a different approach to this problem needs to be found, for to maintain the status quo and expect a different outcome is insanity personified!
 
Last edited:

they abolish slavery, so yes it could happen. Although the sheer size of the problem would make it difficult..300+ million guns in the US
 
I see your point Grunta. No of course not, that's obviously not what I meant. What I meant was, just because someone is a nutcase, does not mean he or she would go on a mass shooting spree, that's all.
 
Fadi said:
I see your point Grunta. No of course not, that's obviously not what I meant. What I meant was, just because someone is a nutcase, does not mean he or she would go on a mass shooting spree, that's all.
Click to expand...

very true, also of those that would do it in Australia..without ties to the underworld chances of them actually getting a gun are slim.
 
Erryone in Merica wants to be John Wayne but no one wants to lift big arse weights!


 
vonfram88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that and haven't indicated the contrary.

vonfram88 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know the answer to this.

If the study was conducted between first world and developing countries your would be pointing out that of course developing countries are likely to have a higher rate of violence dues to a broad range of socio economic factors. Until we can conduct a a study between parallel universes we will never be comparing apples to apples 100%. We can draw relevant conclusions without parallel universes being required.
 
[MENTION=17457]Repacked[/MENTION]; : Democrat politicians tend to be pro gun control because of an ideological standpoint (since they usually implement it). Of course those who implement policies that don't work except to deprive liberty stand up for them. The NRA also has a policy against interfering in the domestic politics of other countries. The reason they have been bashing our gun laws lately is due to Democrats expressing a desire to emulate them.

The problem is that the Democrats and media outlets keep comparing the US to here and saying that they should adopt our system. We are such totally different countries socially that the direct comparison can not be made, but still people attempt to do so. I've linked a paper to show that our National Firearms Agreement (aka the buyback) has really done bugger all, since those massacres were statistical outliers to start with. That is why groups like the NRA are in full support of controlling who can buy legal firearms and enforcing those laws rather than banning certain guns. If you think that restrictions on semi automatics etc. are why we don't have mass shootings here, then you're incredibly naive.

It doesn't help that their President keeps trying to use executive orders to enforce his own vision of gun control and sidestepping Congress. A national licensing system wouldn't hurt there, but again, since it is a constitutional right, and many have a distrust of their government to start with, nor do the states ever agree on anything.
[MENTION=2727]Fadi[/MENTION]; The US is also somewhat unique in regards to their (supposedly) very limited federal government; that was the entire reason the Second Amendment was written. Many Americans would rather not have the government poking their nose into every aspect of their lives, or rely on the government to protect them etc.

There's still a lot of violent crime in Australia, there's been 10 or so stabbings since Xmas alone. Regular shootings as well. Of course there isn't anywhere near as much media attention since in almost every case it's illegally acquired firearms, many of which paradoxically were created by the NFA (since they were not handed back).
 
A measured response. Do you legitimately think that politicians trying to implement gun control measures in the States are doing so purely to deprive citizens of their liberty or for votes, as opposed to responding to from pressure from constituents, or to bring about a level of social civility on par with other developed Western countries, or to make things safer for law enforcement, or to reduce the number of children and adults killed each year as a result of gun violence? I'm not trying to bombard with possible reasons, they are all legitimate facets politicians would consider.

I must admit I have only had a cursory look at that study, and it has been years since I have had to do any regression analysis, but one thing that does stand out immediately is the downward trend of both firearm homicides and suicide rates per 100,000 post 1996 buy-back, to almost historical all time lows in 2004 which is as recent as the raw data range gets.

I will read it in more depth when I get time.
 
Last edited:

Its well known and spoken about that Obama waited until his term was up before putting this forward. Every Politician in Yankie Land knows that the Gun Nuts would come after them. Obama certainly didn't do it to be a populist Politician. As the O.P. video shows, Obama has a social conscience, unlike Bozo and Von.
 

Call me cynical, but I think it's pure pandering to win the 'progressive' vote. IF they were serious, they'd be clamouring for stronger enforcement of current laws, or proposing licensing rather than trying to do unworkable crap like confiscation or arbitrary bans on magazine capacity etc. I don't think that selling firearms between private individuals should be free from the background check either, but loaning them should be fine (as it is in Australia to other license holders). Some of it is personal responsibility related - if people leave loaded firearms around the house which kids can get access to, perhaps they should be held responsible for said kids actions? I think it would be insane to leave guns - there's plenty of fast release safes on the market for any personal defence firearms.

A functioning healthcare system, less reliance on identify politics and a better way to curb gang behaviour would be a start as well. If people can own firearms in some states with very loose laws and not have the same incidence of violence, it seems to say a lot. Indeed there seems to be more of a correlation between poverty and gun violence.
 
Last edited:

That would be time-series analysis that you speak of.

Suicide rates by any method have increased since 1996. If we took a set of data pre-1996 and a set post 1996 my guess would be that the increase would be statistically significant on an analysis of variances.

Gun homicide rates are lower now than pre-1996 despite there being more firearms on issue in Australia than at any time in history.

If you were to analyse the data by regression to test your hypothesis, with firearm homicide rate as the independent variable, and number of firearms as the y axis you will find a loose R square and negative sloping line of fit by linear regression. The null hypothesis would hold.

There aren't a lot of empirical arguments available for the ant-gun movement to rely upon (well none that aren't based on data sets from an alternate universe) so the debate fairly rapidly deteriorates into an emotive, insult-trading "think about the children/dolphins/baby seals" involving whiny little twerps who just cant keep their noses out of other people's lawful activities.
 
Johnnie Walker said:
if you didnt enjoy shooting would you be pro gun?

dont bother answering, we already know
Click to expand...

I would have no reason to be anti-gun because its a lawful activity that poses no threat to me and in Australia there are limited empirically based arguments that would sway a rational person against firearms ownership freedom.

Yes, Genics, shooting makes my dick move and so do many other lawful things. Your infected little nipple dick seems to find delight in degrading women and drinking yourself to death.

But the thought of antagonising you and knowing how powerless and incapable you are of making any meaningful difference to my freedom as a lawful firearms owner make my willy stand up and touch my sternum.
 

Being a gun owner means I lack a social conscience? Good Grief.

Somehow I feel that my standing in the community is ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register