I am so sick of guns - Page 7

Polaris · 19th December 2012, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

the only thing that seems to have increased at the same rate as mass shootings is news coverage of said shootings.

However, I am not going to make the argument we should stifle the 1st amendment

Actually mass shootings are down. You remember in 2001 when shark attacks were on the rise, even though there were less that year than 2000? Same phenomenon.

HotRodDeluxe · 19th December 2012, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Actually mass shootings are down. You remember in 2001 when shark attacks were on the rise, even though there were less that year than 2000? Same phenomenon.

What am I missing in this article?

This article states that there were eight mass shootings from 2005-2010 and nine from 2010-2012.

http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/

Sam.I.Am · 19th December 2012, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

Actually mass shootings are down. You remember in 2001 when shark attacks were on the rise, even though there were less that year than 2000? Same phenomenon.

Exactly. It's the media sensationalism of them that's on the rise which makes people more likely to remember them thus they perceive that they are on the rise. That same over-saturated media coverage (in my opinion) also makes it more likely that someone with mental problems will think that it's a good way to go out in a blaze of "Glory".

000063 · 19th December 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

If you were following the thread, you will see that my comments were in response to some people suggesting I had no right to have a say because I wasn't American.

Please provide examples of Tri and Stankape claiming such. No, not saying they're irritated and apologizing for their temper. Saying you should have no say solely because you're an Aussie.

Originally Posted by rikzilla

yes it is. I pulled up the first link and was awash in numbers. That's a Gish Gallop...making others wade through your pointless crap looking for the point for you. (if there even was one) next time highlight what you consider rises to the level of your point and then add a link. As it is I still don't see anything like evidence for your original point (whatever that was)...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=171
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...01#post8854101
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=173

I'm not Sentryman. I'm not even American.

Quote:

As for citing Thailand? Don't you think Germany, Canada, UK, or Australia might be a more apples to apples comparison? Thailand, South Africa, and Colombia all have higher per capita rates of gun homicide...and they all have low intensity civil wars playing out as well.

Why not compare Seattle to Vancouver? How 'bout Detroit to Windsor? Those are extremely comparable in many, many ways. Detroit had over 300 gun homicides, Windsor had none. The only thing separating these two populations is a thin body of water and an international border.

-z

You unambiguously asserted that mo' guns = mo' murder."Facts are facts. More guns = more gun deaths." Now you're trying to move the goalposts.

Originally Posted by lionking

This whole thread reinforces my long held belief. Fear of crime is worse than crime itself.

"Some people are allegedly more afraid of death then public speaking. We should just kill them if they ever have to make a speech."

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I'm not sure which of the gun threads this best fits. This one is as good as any.

Oh for the love of-

Men have it worse when it comes to mental health. They're less likely to seek help, and more likely to end up on SSRIs. More likely to commit suicide. Even the VTech shooter was found to have clear signs of mental disturbance. Not to mention that trying to pin this on all men is outright sexist. Most men are horrified by this. Most gun owners are horrified by it. Civilized society in general does not teach indiscriminate slaughter as a solution to one's problems. Even warfare is remarkably discriminate.

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Exactly. It's the media sensationalism of them that's on the rise which makes people more likely to remember them thus they perceive that they are on the rise. That same over-saturated media coverage (in my opinion) also makes it more likely that someone with mental problems will think that it's a good way to go out in a blaze of "Glory".

And now, Charlie Brooker.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Axiom_Blade · 23rd December 2012, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

(But seriously, do you REALLY think that is my argument? That we should be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPG's for fun?

Okay, so what is your argument?

Why shouldn't we be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPGs for fun?

StankApe · 23rd December 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

Okay, so what is your argument?

Why shouldn't we be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPGs for fun?

There's no safe way to use them.

unlike most fiearms, a nuke leaves fallout, has a considerable blast radius and the radiation is at the mercy of the winds.

RPG's are not sufficiently accurate to use safely at most ranges.

Unlike your avg handgun or rifle

lionking · 23rd December 2012, 11:18 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

There's no safe way to use them.

unlike most fiearms, a nuke leaves fallout, has a considerable blast radius and the radiation is at the mercy of the winds.

RPG's are not sufficiently accurate to use safely at most ranges.

Unlike your avg handgun or rifle

So that just leaves bazookas then? Cool.

bit_pattern · 23rd December 2012, 11:33 PM

Australia had 13 mass shootings between 1981 - 1996. In 1996 we instituted gun control, there hasn't been a mass shooting since.

QED bitches.

lionking · 23rd December 2012, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by bit_pattern

Australia had 13 mass shootings between 1981 - 1996. In 1996 we instituted gun control, there hasn't been a mass shooting since.

QED bitches.

The only responses I've received when pointing this fact out is "but it will happen" and "Australia is not like the US". To the first point, (disgusting) wishful thinking, to the second, thank goodness.

rikzilla · 24th December 2012, 12:38 AM

Our Aussie friends have this right. Objectively so. In the USA we have people who have fetishized guns. Guns are their gris-gris. Therefore guns will never be seen as the problem, but more guns will forever be proposed as a solution.

Land of the free? Home of the brave?
not so much.
-z

triforcharity · 24th December 2012, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by rikzilla

Land of the free? Home of the brave?
not so much.
-z

Wow. Your ignorant, baseless, biased opinion is noted, and dismissed as ******* stupid. <SNIP>

Edited by Locknar:

SNIPed, breach of rule 12.

Dcdrac · 24th December 2012, 07:45 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10585322

4 firefighters shot, 2 dead in western NY

"WEBSTER, N.Y. (AP) — The police chief in Webster, N.Y., says that four firefighters were shot while responding to a blaze in the town near Rochester and that two are dead.

Chief Gerald Pickering says "one or more shooters" fired at the firefighters Monday morning. Officials say they had arrived at the scene of the blaze near the Lake Ontario shore around 6 a.m.

Officials say a fire started in one home and spread to two others and a car. Officials say there is no active shooter at the scene."

Axiom_Blade · 24th December 2012, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Wow. Your ignorant, baseless, biased opinion is noted, and dismissed as ******* stupid. <SNIP>.

Edited by Locknar:

Moderated content removed.

How is that baseless? Here's the claim: "The Australians have not had any mass shootings since they instituted gun control in 1996." Can you debunk this? Yes or no?

StankApe · 24th December 2012, 05:51 PM

Yes, I already have in another thread:

Monash University shooting

guy killed 2 wounded 5 and would have killed his entire class had the teacher and fellow students not tackled him into submission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2"

But that is incidental. If this had occured in the USA the FBI would have designated him a mass killer and profiled him as such due to the "nature of the crime" rather than it's result.

If I get foiled trying to blow up a building, I'm still considered a bomber.

Axiom_Blade · 24th December 2012, 05:57 PM

All freedoms have their downsides. For instance, one downside to freedom of speech is that somebody will say something that offends you. It happens to me, it happens to you. No matter how thick you think your skin is, sooner or later, somebody will say something that offends you. We, as a society, have decided that freedom of speech is more important than the risk of being offended.

The freedom to own a gun also has its downsides. One of them is mass shootings, like what happened in Newtown. But we, as a society, have decided that the freedom to own a gun is more important than being free from the danger of mass shootings.

I can appreciate that gun owners enjoy their hobby. I know a guy whose face lights up whenever he talks about guns, in much the same way a little boy's face will light up when he talks about video games. On the downside, you're going to occasionally have people who open fire in a crowded area, and kill dozens of innocent people who are just minding their own business. But on the upside, guns are really frickin' cool.

Axiom_Blade · 24th December 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2"

You don't think that the number of people killed matters? The argument isn't "Australia's gun laws have made it so that there will never be a shooting there, ever". Besides, I don't see how this supports your argument. We should make it easier for people like this guy to get a gun?

StankApe · 24th December 2012, 06:42 PM

No, my argument is that the existing laws in this country are fine. It's the enforcement of said laws that need improving (and the addition of requiring private sales include a background check too)

the number of people killed doesn't matter when discussing the motivation of the killer himself. Be it the guy at Monash or that nut in Norway, both intended to kill lots of people. One was more successful than the other at achieving their goals. Both would be viewed (in the USA anyway) as the same 'type" of attacker.

Axiom_Blade · 24th December 2012, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

No, my argument is that the existing laws in this country are fine. It's the enforcement of said laws that need improving (and the addition of requiring private sales include a background check too)

the number of people killed doesn't matter when discussing the motivation of the killer himself. Be it the guy at Monash or that nut in Norway, both intended to kill lots of people. One was more successful than the other at achieving their goals. Both would be viewed (in the USA anyway) as the same 'type" of attacker.

I've never heard anyone who was pro-gun control claim that gun control laws would eliminate the types of people who would go on a shooting spree. The whole point is to make it harder for those people to get guns.

You can step up enforcement, and require additional background checks, but that still doesn't stop somebody from, say, stealing the gun. Didn't the guy in Newtown steal the gun from his mother? How would "enforcement of existing laws" have prevented that?

StankApe · 24th December 2012, 06:59 PM

It wouldn't. I don't think much of anything will stop the odd tragedy from occurring. Maybe if you had a population at a low enough level where you could keep an eye on everybody. But not in a country with 320m people

Delvo · 24th December 2012, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

No matter how thick you think your skin is, sooner or later, somebody will say something that offends you.

I think not, but I won't dispute the general rule that getting something good often means accepting something bad...

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

we, as a society, have decided that the freedom to own a gun is more important than being free from the danger of mass shootings.

Actually, the freedom was established about 230 years ago by people who probably had never heard of mass shootings.

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

You don't think that the number of people killed matters?

The fact that it was a small mass shooting of random strangers doesn't mean it wasn't a mass shooting of random strangers.

Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade

The argument isn't "Australia's gun laws have made it so that there will never be a shooting there, ever".

It was that there hadn't been any since the gun control law took effect. If there was at least one, that claim was false.

If the actual argument had been just that the rate significantly decreased, then one example wouldn't be enough to disprove that claim. But one does disprove a claim of zero.

Profanz · 24th December 2012, 07:33 PM

So we have enough gun laws but they are not enforced enough? Is that state or federal? Is that judge to judge? Does it depend on how full the prisons are? It depends? What is it? Lets just keep it ambiguous right?

And don't get me wrong. I think our prisons are full enough. But lets let the people know the rules first. I'm sure we have locked up many people over guns in the last few years but it didn't prevent the last few mass shootings.

Lets have federal gun restrictions across the board. Everyone informed. Scream bloody murder all you want. It needs to be done. That or have all your guns taken away.

StankApe · 24th December 2012, 07:54 PM

well , the 2nd option simply isn't happening, not unless you think that 1/3rd+ of the population that owns guns are going to simply ignore an amendment ratification vote (which probably wouldn't happen as it would never make it through congress).

Federal gun restrictions? of what sort? there are already a ton of restrictions,red tape and hoops to jump through if you want to legally purchase any of the big stuff (even from a private seller).

It's already been pointed out that the original AWB didn't succeed in lowering gun violence one iota. So what restrictions do you have in mind?

Ranb · 26th December 2012, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Magyar

All the current local laws don't work because the NRA funded right wing machine has cut the budgets of govt groups that would/could enforce laws. Therefor I should be able to have silencers on my fully auto machine gun.

I was not aware that the NRA has done anything to make silencers and machine guns more accessible to the general public. I suppose that you have evidence that they have done so?

When I was trying to amend the WA law that prohibited silencer use for everyone in the state, the NRA ignored my requests for advice on the matter. The NRA is not a big fan of some types of firearms.

Ranb

Ranb · 26th December 2012, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

A silencer? Are you serious? You need a silencer so that when you are blowing someone away when defending your "castle", you won't be offending neighbours with the noise?

What do you have against silencers? Why would you assume that anyone needs one to break the law or harm someone? Is reducing gun noise to a dull roar really a bad idea?

Ranb

gumboot · 27th December 2012, 01:09 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Yes, I already have in another thread:

Monash University shooting

guy killed 2 wounded 5 and would have killed his entire class had the teacher and fellow students not tackled him into submission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2"

But that is incidental. If this had occured in the USA the FBI would have designated him a mass killer and profiled him as such due to the "nature of the crime" rather than it's result.

If I get foiled trying to blow up a building, I'm still considered a bomber.

I think a more pertinent counter is probably that the earlier gun controls didn't apply to handguns. After the Monash University shooting tight gun controls on handguns were implemented, and seems to have stopped any further mass shootings.

StankApe · 27th December 2012, 01:17 AM

How come nobody ever brought that particular point up until now then?

lionking · 27th December 2012, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Yes, I already have in another thread:

Monash University shooting

guy killed 2 wounded 5 and would have killed his entire class had the teacher and fellow students not tackled him into submission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2"

But that is incidental. If this had occured in the USA the FBI would have designated him a mass killer and profiled him as such due to the "nature of the crime" rather than it's result.

If I get foiled trying to blow up a building, I'm still considered a bomber.

Sigh.

A mass murder is defined as the killing of four or more. Who says so? The FBI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

Quote:

According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders.

Are you claiming greater authority than the FBI?

Just stop referring to the Monash University incident as a "mass murder".

StankApe · 27th December 2012, 01:34 AM

LOL, I never referred to the crime as a mass killing , I referred to it as being psychologically the same as far as the motivating factors of the criminal. I have explained this multiple times, and you have yet to understand because you obviously have a problem with reading comprehension

I feel sorry for you, perhaps that's the reason your countrymen shouldn't be allowed guns eh? problems reading the warning labels maybe?

"eh Bruce? wass the long bit at the end forrr?" "well Bruce I'd say thitz the end you poot the bullitz in"

lionking · 27th December 2012, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

LOL, I never referred to the crime as a mass killing , I referred to it as being psychologically the same as far as the motivating factors of the criminal. I have explained this multiple times, and you have yet to understand because you obviously have a problem with reading comprehension

I feel sorry for you, perhaps that's the reason your countrymen shouldn't be allowed guns eh? problems reading the warning labels maybe?

"eh Bruce? wass the long bit at the end forrr?" "well Bruce I'd say thitz the end you poot the bullitz in"

I'll ignore the incivility for now, but not too many more times.

I've only ever argued that our gun restrictions have prevented mass firearm murders, and I'm right. All you can come up with is something that isn't a mass murder. By your own FBI's definition. And I'm the one with reading comprehension problems?

gumboot · 27th December 2012, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by StankApe

How come nobody ever brought that particular point up until now then?

I don't know, I tend to believe such incident-specific discussions aren't particularly constructive. Mass shootings represent a statistical anomaly and are not a good measure of gun crime or the effectiveness of gun control laws. Implementing gun control laws just to prevent mass shootings is akin to reducing road deaths by passing laws to prevent petrol tankers from crashing.

I think a more valuable measure in Australia is that there was a widespread decrease in prevalence of gun crime in the aftermath of the gun bans;

-30% decrease in number of gun homicides in first year of ban
-Overall homicide rate dropped 9% in the first year
-Gun-related deaths of all type dropped to an 18 year low
-Number of armed robberies involving guns dropped to a 6 year low (despite an increase in total armed robberies)

In my opinion these sorts of statistics are far more meaningful and relevant than whether there has been a mass shooting in the last decade and a half.

Delvo · 27th December 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by gumboot

Number of armed robberies involving guns dropped to a 6 year low

Are there any reports of how?

gumboot · 27th December 2012, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Are there any reports of how?

How what?

19th December 2012, 05:21 PM	#241
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	Originally Posted by StankApe the only thing that seems to have increased at the same rate as mass shootings is news coverage of said shootings. However, I am not going to make the argument we should stifle the 1st amendment Actually mass shootings are down. You remember in 2001 when shark attacks were on the rise, even though there were less that year than 2000? Same phenomenon.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

19th December 2012, 05:40 PM	#243
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,154	Originally Posted by Polaris Actually mass shootings are down. You remember in 2001 when shark attacks were on the rise, even though there were less that year than 2000? Same phenomenon. Exactly. It's the media sensationalism of them that's on the rise which makes people more likely to remember them thus they perceive that they are on the rise. That same over-saturated media coverage (in my opinion) also makes it more likely that someone with mental problems will think that it's a good way to go out in a blaze of "Glory".
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

23rd December 2012, 11:05 PM	#246
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade Okay, so what is your argument? Why shouldn't we be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPGs for fun? There's no safe way to use them. unlike most fiearms, a nuke leaves fallout, has a considerable blast radius and the radiation is at the mercy of the winds. RPG's are not sufficiently accurate to use safely at most ranges. Unlike your avg handgun or rifle
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

23rd December 2012, 11:18 PM	#247
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,649	Originally Posted by StankApe There's no safe way to use them. unlike most fiearms, a nuke leaves fallout, has a considerable blast radius and the radiation is at the mercy of the winds. RPG's are not sufficiently accurate to use safely at most ranges. Unlike your avg handgun or rifle So that just leaves bazookas then? Cool.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

23rd December 2012, 11:33 PM	#248
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	Australia had 13 mass shootings between 1981 - 1996. In 1996 we instituted gun control, there hasn't been a mass shooting since. QED bitches.
bit_pattern Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4,349	__________________ "You are the epitome of the 'pigeon playing chess'. No matter how good I am at chess, you are just going to knock the pieces over, **** on the board and strut around like you've won something" "In this political climate, all of science is vulnerable to ideological attack when reality disagrees with political beliefs."

19th December 2012, 05:36 PM	#242
HotRodDeluxe Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Location: WTC7 Posts: 138	Originally Posted by Polaris Actually mass shootings are down. You remember in 2001 when shark attacks were on the rise, even though there were less that year than 2000? Same phenomenon. What am I missing in this article? This article states that there were eight mass shootings from 2005-2010 and nine from 2010-2012. http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/

23rd December 2012, 10:26 PM	#245
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,728	Originally Posted by triforcharity (But seriously, do you REALLY think that is my argument? That we should be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPG's for fun? Okay, so what is your argument? Why shouldn't we be able to have nuclear weapons and bazookas and RPGs for fun?

23rd December 2012, 11:57 PM	#249
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,649	Originally Posted by bit_pattern Australia had 13 mass shootings between 1981 - 1996. In 1996 we instituted gun control, there hasn't been a mass shooting since. QED bitches. The only responses I've received when pointing this fact out is "but it will happen" and "Australia is not like the US". To the first point, (disgusting) wishful thinking, to the second, thank goodness.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

24th December 2012, 12:38 AM	#250
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	Our Aussie friends have this right. Objectively so. In the USA we have people who have fetishized guns. Guns are their gris-gris. Therefore guns will never be seen as the problem, but more guns will forever be proposed as a solution. Land of the free? Home of the brave? not so much. -z
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

24th December 2012, 07:45 AM	#252
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,665	http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10585322 4 firefighters shot, 2 dead in western NY "WEBSTER, N.Y. (AP) — The police chief in Webster, N.Y., says that four firefighters were shot while responding to a blaze in the town near Rochester and that two are dead. Chief Gerald Pickering says "one or more shooters" fired at the firefighters Monday morning. Officials say they had arrived at the scene of the blaze near the Lake Ontario shore around 6 a.m. Officials say a fire started in one home and spread to two others and a car. Officials say there is no active shooter at the scene."
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,665

24th December 2012, 05:51 PM	#254
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Yes, I already have in another thread: Monash University shooting guy killed 2 wounded 5 and would have killed his entire class had the teacher and fellow students not tackled him into submission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2" But that is incidental. If this had occured in the USA the FBI would have designated him a mass killer and profiled him as such due to the "nature of the crime" rather than it's result. If I get foiled trying to blow up a building, I'm still considered a bomber.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

24th December 2012, 05:57 PM	#255
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,728	All freedoms have their downsides. For instance, one downside to freedom of speech is that somebody will say something that offends you. It happens to me, it happens to you. No matter how thick you think your skin is, sooner or later, somebody will say something that offends you. We, as a society, have decided that freedom of speech is more important than the risk of being offended. The freedom to own a gun also has its downsides. One of them is mass shootings, like what happened in Newtown. But we, as a society, have decided that the freedom to own a gun is more important than being free from the danger of mass shootings. I can appreciate that gun owners enjoy their hobby. I know a guy whose face lights up whenever he talks about guns, in much the same way a little boy's face will light up when he talks about video games. On the downside, you're going to occasionally have people who open fire in a crowded area, and kill dozens of innocent people who are just minding their own business. But on the upside, guns are really frickin' cool.

24th December 2012, 06:23 PM	#256
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,728	Originally Posted by StankApe the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2" You don't think that the number of people killed matters? The argument isn't "Australia's gun laws have made it so that there will never be a shooting there, ever". Besides, I don't see how this supports your argument. We should make it easier for people like this guy to get a gun?

24th December 2012, 06:42 PM	#257
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	No, my argument is that the existing laws in this country are fine. It's the enforcement of said laws that need improving (and the addition of requiring private sales include a background check too) the number of people killed doesn't matter when discussing the motivation of the killer himself. Be it the guy at Monash or that nut in Norway, both intended to kill lots of people. One was more successful than the other at achieving their goals. Both would be viewed (in the USA anyway) as the same 'type" of attacker.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Last edited by StankApe; 24th December 2012 at 06:44 PM.

24th December 2012, 06:52 PM	#258
Axiom_Blade Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,728	Originally Posted by StankApe No, my argument is that the existing laws in this country are fine. It's the enforcement of said laws that need improving (and the addition of requiring private sales include a background check too) the number of people killed doesn't matter when discussing the motivation of the killer himself. Be it the guy at Monash or that nut in Norway, both intended to kill lots of people. One was more successful than the other at achieving their goals. Both would be viewed (in the USA anyway) as the same 'type" of attacker. I've never heard anyone who was pro-gun control claim that gun control laws would eliminate the types of people who would go on a shooting spree. The whole point is to make it harder for those people to get guns. You can step up enforcement, and require additional background checks, but that still doesn't stop somebody from, say, stealing the gun. Didn't the guy in Newtown steal the gun from his mother? How would "enforcement of existing laws" have prevented that?

24th December 2012, 06:59 PM	#259
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	It wouldn't. I don't think much of anything will stop the odd tragedy from occurring. Maybe if you had a population at a low enough level where you could keep an eye on everybody. But not in a country with 320m people
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

24th December 2012, 07:04 PM	#260
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,881	Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade No matter how thick you think your skin is, sooner or later, somebody will say something that offends you. I think not, but I won't dispute the general rule that getting something good often means accepting something bad... Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade we, as a society, have decided that the freedom to own a gun is more important than being free from the danger of mass shootings. Actually, the freedom was established about 230 years ago by people who probably had never heard of mass shootings. Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade You don't think that the number of people killed matters? The fact that it was a small mass shooting of random strangers doesn't mean it wasn't a mass shooting of random strangers. Originally Posted by Axiom_Blade The argument isn't "Australia's gun laws have made it so that there will never be a shooting there, ever". It was that there hadn't been any since the gun control law took effect. If there was at least one, that claim was false. If the actual argument had been just that the rate significantly decreased, then one example wouldn't be enough to disprove that claim. But one does disprove a claim of zero.

24th December 2012, 07:33 PM	#261
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	So we have enough gun laws but they are not enforced enough? Is that state or federal? Is that judge to judge? Does it depend on how full the prisons are? It depends? What is it? Lets just keep it ambiguous right? And don't get me wrong. I think our prisons are full enough. But lets let the people know the rules first. I'm sure we have locked up many people over guns in the last few years but it didn't prevent the last few mass shootings. Lets have federal gun restrictions across the board. Everyone informed. Scream bloody murder all you want. It needs to be done. That or have all your guns taken away.
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

24th December 2012, 07:54 PM	#262
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	well , the 2nd option simply isn't happening, not unless you think that 1/3rd+ of the population that owns guns are going to simply ignore an amendment ratification vote (which probably wouldn't happen as it would never make it through congress). Federal gun restrictions? of what sort? there are already a ton of restrictions,red tape and hoops to jump through if you want to legally purchase any of the big stuff (even from a private seller). It's already been pointed out that the original AWB didn't succeed in lowering gun violence one iota. So what restrictions do you have in mind?
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

26th December 2012, 04:32 PM	#263
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by Magyar All the current local laws don't work because the NRA funded right wing machine has cut the budgets of govt groups that would/could enforce laws. Therefor I should be able to have silencers on my fully auto machine gun. I was not aware that the NRA has done anything to make silencers and machine guns more accessible to the general public. I suppose that you have evidence that they have done so? When I was trying to amend the WA law that prohibited silencer use for everyone in the state, the NRA ignored my requests for advice on the matter. The NRA is not a big fan of some types of firearms. Ranb

26th December 2012, 04:35 PM	#264
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,094	Originally Posted by lionking A silencer? Are you serious? You need a silencer so that when you are blowing someone away when defending your "castle", you won't be offending neighbours with the noise? What do you have against silencers? Why would you assume that anyone needs one to break the law or harm someone? Is reducing gun noise to a dull roar really a bad idea? Ranb

27th December 2012, 01:09 AM	#265
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,103	Originally Posted by StankApe Yes, I already have in another thread: Monash University shooting guy killed 2 wounded 5 and would have killed his entire class had the teacher and fellow students not tackled him into submission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2" But that is incidental. If this had occured in the USA the FBI would have designated him a mass killer and profiled him as such due to the "nature of the crime" rather than it's result. If I get foiled trying to blow up a building, I'm still considered a bomber. I think a more pertinent counter is probably that the earlier gun controls didn't apply to handguns. After the Monash University shooting tight gun controls on handguns were implemented, and seems to have stopped any further mass shootings.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

27th December 2012, 01:17 AM	#266
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	How come nobody ever brought that particular point up until now then?
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

27th December 2012, 01:19 AM	#267
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,649	Originally Posted by StankApe Yes, I already have in another thread: Monash University shooting guy killed 2 wounded 5 and would have killed his entire class had the teacher and fellow students not tackled him into submission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting the counter argument was "it didn't count" because it "wasn't a school" and "he only killed 2" But that is incidental. If this had occured in the USA the FBI would have designated him a mass killer and profiled him as such due to the "nature of the crime" rather than it's result. If I get foiled trying to blow up a building, I'm still considered a bomber. Sigh. A mass murder is defined as the killing of four or more. Who says so? The FBI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder Quote: According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. Are you claiming greater authority than the FBI? Just stop referring to the Monash University incident as a "mass murder".
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

27th December 2012, 01:34 AM	#268
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	LOL, I never referred to the crime as a mass killing , I referred to it as being psychologically the same as far as the motivating factors of the criminal. I have explained this multiple times, and you have yet to understand because you obviously have a problem with reading comprehension I feel sorry for you, perhaps that's the reason your countrymen shouldn't be allowed guns eh? problems reading the warning labels maybe? "eh Bruce? wass the long bit at the end forrr?" "well Bruce I'd say thitz the end you poot the bullitz in"
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

27th December 2012, 01:40 AM	#269
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,649	Originally Posted by StankApe LOL, I never referred to the crime as a mass killing , I referred to it as being psychologically the same as far as the motivating factors of the criminal. I have explained this multiple times, and you have yet to understand because you obviously have a problem with reading comprehension I feel sorry for you, perhaps that's the reason your countrymen shouldn't be allowed guns eh? problems reading the warning labels maybe? "eh Bruce? wass the long bit at the end forrr?" "well Bruce I'd say thitz the end you poot the bullitz in" I'll ignore the incivility for now, but not too many more times. I've only ever argued that our gun restrictions have prevented mass firearm murders, and I'm right. All you can come up with is something that isn't a mass murder. By your own FBI's definition. And I'm the one with reading comprehension problems?
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

27th December 2012, 03:21 AM	#270
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,103	Originally Posted by StankApe How come nobody ever brought that particular point up until now then? I don't know, I tend to believe such incident-specific discussions aren't particularly constructive. Mass shootings represent a statistical anomaly and are not a good measure of gun crime or the effectiveness of gun control laws. Implementing gun control laws just to prevent mass shootings is akin to reducing road deaths by passing laws to prevent petrol tankers from crashing. I think a more valuable measure in Australia is that there was a widespread decrease in prevalence of gun crime in the aftermath of the gun bans; -30% decrease in number of gun homicides in first year of ban -Overall homicide rate dropped 9% in the first year -Gun-related deaths of all type dropped to an 18 year low -Number of armed robberies involving guns dropped to a 6 year low (despite an increase in total armed robberies) In my opinion these sorts of statistics are far more meaningful and relevant than whether there has been a mass shooting in the last decade and a half.
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

27th December 2012, 04:48 PM	#271
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,881	Originally Posted by gumboot Number of armed robberies involving guns dropped to a 6 year low Are there any reports of how?

27th December 2012, 05:24 PM	#272
gumboot lorcutus.tolere Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: New Zealand Posts: 23,103	Originally Posted by Delvo Are there any reports of how? How what?
	__________________ O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.