What's new

5 year old kills 2 year old sister... with a birthday present.

It is one thing to keep guns out of the hands of the citizenry, it is another completely to disarm a country that already has 300,000,000 non-military guns in circulation. There is no practical or safe way to effectively take guns out of the equation. Never mind the fact that it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

So, what are you left with? Solving the real problem - people. Nah, too hard. We can't offend anyone...

I agree that current situation in USA looks like huge mess which is difficult to solve. Well, at least make it more difficult to possess guns in the future. Ban handgun sales. Create registry of gun owners. Create laws which makes it unlawful to possess gun in public places. See what Australia and UK are doing - I think that's something to learn from. Promote gas guns instead - they will defend you just fine but they would not be fatal.
 

So are guns like really hard to get in Australia now? Not really, you get get a license and get them. That's my whole beef with gun control, and most prohibition in general. It never works when there is a demand for something, with maybe the exception of having a totalitarian government that will execute you if you possess something. In this case Australia didn't even prohibit something, just restricted its access more. Since I don't live there I have no clue how many criminals have guns there. It appears that gun violence in general wasn't all that great before these restrictions were implemented, so I can't tell if it's a cultural thing or not for their criminals to just shoot people willy nilly like it is here in areas of Oakland I wouldn't go near if you paid me.
 
I agree that current situation in USA looks like huge mess which is difficult to solve. Well, at least make it more difficult to possess guns in the future. Ban handgun sales. Create registry of gun owners. Create laws which makes it unlawful to possess gun in public places. See what Australia and UK are doing - I think that's something to learn from. Promote gas guns instead - they will defend you just fine but they would not be fatal.

Yeah, I'm sure g-homie dog who is dealing crack in East St. Louis is going to give a flying f about illegally possessing a handgun.
 
I agree that current situation in USA looks like huge mess which is difficult to solve. Well, at least make it more difficult to possess guns in the future. Ban handgun sales. Create registry of gun owners. Create laws which makes it unlawful to possess gun in public places. See what Australia and UK are doing - I think that's something to learn from. Promote gas guns instead - they will defend you just fine but they would not be fatal.


No.
 
I agree that current situation in USA looks like huge mess which is difficult to solve. Well, at least make it more difficult to possess guns in the future. Ban handgun sales. Create registry of gun owners. Create laws which makes it unlawful to possess gun in public places. See what Australia and UK are doing - I think that's something to learn from. Promote gas guns instead - they will defend you just fine but they would not be fatal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't several of the shootings (Aurora, Newtown) in places that were gun free zones? Perhaps what we should focus on is educating the criminals on where they can and cannot commit a crime with a gun. Then we could create all these gun free zones and really be safe inside them. :rolleyes:
 
Areas with more citizens that carry guns have less violent crime and the numbers prove that.

Major cities have stricter gun laws because they see their streets being even more deadly when guns are prevalent. Major cities also have higher crime rates. You do understand correlation =/= causation, right?
 
So are guns like really hard to get in Australia now? Not really, you get get a license and get them. That's my whole beef with gun control, and most prohibition in general. It never works when there is a demand for something, with maybe the exception of having a totalitarian government that will execute you if you possess something. In this case Australia didn't even prohibit something, just restricted its access more. Since I don't live there I have no clue how many criminals have guns there. It appears that gun violence in general wasn't all that great before these restrictions were implemented, so I can't tell if it's a cultural thing or not for their criminals to just shoot people willy nilly like it is here in areas of Oakland I wouldn't go near if you paid me.

This was all in the wikipedia article I linked to earlier. You could at least read stuff after you ask for it. Befoe 1996, there were several mass shootings in a relative short period of time. After 1996, there have been none. Australian culture did not turn on a dime in 1996. Yes, the laws prohibited things. Yes, it worked.

1984–1996 multiple killings
From 1984 to 1996, multiple killings aroused public concern. The 1984 Milperra massacre was a major incident in a series of conflicts between various 'outlaw motorcycle gangs'. In 1987, the Hoddle Street massacre and the Queen Street massacre took place in Melbourne. In response, several states required the registration of all guns, and restricted the availability of self-loading rifles and shotguns. In the Strathfield massacre in New South Wales, 1991, two were killed with a knife, and five more with a firearm. Tasmania passed a law in 1991 for firearm purchasers to obtain a licence, though enforcement was light. Firearm laws in Tasmania and Queensland remained relatively relaxed for longarms.
Shooting massacres in Australia and other English-speaking countries often occurred close together in time. Forensic psychiatrists attribute this to copycat behaviour,[9][10] which is in many cases triggered by sensational media treatment.[11][12] Mass murderers study media reports and imitate the actions and equipment that are sensationalised in them.[13]
[edit]The Port Arthur massacre and its consequences
The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood[14] opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland,[9] this mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.

The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.

Changes included a 10-round magazine capacity limit, a calibre limit of not more than .38 inches (9.65 mm), a barrel length limit of not less than 120 mm (4.72 inches) for semi-automatic pistols and 100 mm (3.94 inches) for revolvers, and even stricter probation and attendance requirements for sporting target shooters. Whilst handguns for sporting shooters are nominally restricted to .38 inches as a maximum calibre, it is possible to obtain an endorsement allowing calibres up to .45 inches (11.43 mm) to be used for metallic silhouette or Single Action Shooting matches.
 
Yeah, I'm sure g-homie dog who is dealing crack in East St. Louis is going to give a flying f about illegally possessing a handgun.

If he doesn't need the gun, and he can be arrested just for having the gun and have his business impacted and his product lost, he'll leave the gun at home. Even "g-homie dog"s dealing crack are more interested in making money than making a statement.

Of course, perhaps you have some experience with parts of East St. Louis that I don't know about?
 
https://www.inquisitr.com/257478/more-americans-killed-in-chicago-than-in-afghanistan/

"The murder rate in Chicago is twice that of Los Angeles and four times higher than New York’s rate"

One of the highest murder rates, one of the strictest gun laws

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

Sort on murder rate. You'll notice above Chicago are cities in Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Maryland, Gerogia, Tennesee, etc., all of which allow concealed carry.

I really wonder if you could write stupider posts, sometimes.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't several of the shootings (Aurora, Newtown) in places that were gun free zones? Perhaps what we should focus on is educating the criminals on where they can and cannot commit a crime with a gun. Then we could create all these gun free zones and really be safe inside them. :rolleyes:

I agree that what you said was worth an eye-roll, but I'm surprised to see you acknowledge it.
 
I agree that what you said was worth an eye-roll, but I'm surprised to see you acknowledge it.

"Gun Free Zones" are an idiotic idea. The only thing it does is alert criminals to the fact that no one there has a weapon.

I am glad that there are enough Americans that will never budge on this issue.
 
I looked into firearm death stats in Canada. Maybe US should pay attention too.

Some 767 males and 49 females died from gun injuries in 2002, said
Statistics Canada.
Among males, that was a rate of 4.9 deaths for every 100,000 population,
down from 10.6 in 1979. For females the rate fell to 0.3 from 1.2 deaths
for every 100,000 Canadians.

"Overall, the stats are very, very favourable and there's no question
the (incidence) reporting is better than ever in the past," said Emile
Therien of the Canada Safety Council.
The figures are even more dramatic when compared with those in the
United States. An American man in 2000 was more than three times as
likely to die from a gunshot as his Canadian counterpart. American women
died seven times more often than Canadian women from gunshot wounds.

Suicides involving firearms fell from five deaths per 100,000 to two in
the period from the mid-1980s to 2002, added StatsCan.
And while other means of suicide became more common, the overall suicide
rate also declined from 14 deaths per 100,000 to 12 during the same
period - suggesting a correlation.
Ms. Wilkins said the best news in her report may be the falling
incidence of young people killed in gun accidents.
In 1979, the rate of deaths related to firearms was highest among young
people aged 15 to 24. Those age differences have largely disappeared.
In 2002, just six people under age 25 died in gun accidents.
"That's a very good news story. It probably does reflect safety and
storage (improvements)," said Ms. Wilkins.
Therien doesn't hesitate to attribute the change to tighter gun
legislation, specifically the contentious, over-budget long gun registry
of 1995 that critics love to hate.
"Forget the vocal minority that's against it," said the longtime
president of the Canada Safety Council.
"Public health officials, safety people and the police community . . .
they were all in favour of this legislation. It goes on and on. What
else do you want? It's not perfect, but it's good."
 
It will never, ever happen AKMVP. An attempt to remove firearms from the populace would be the end of America.
 
You guys are strange. You see the problem, agree that people in your country are getting killed by firearms way more then in other developed countries ( lets not talk about Honduras, Jamaica, Gwatemala or Swazilend), yet you do not want to change anything to improve it. All you do is crying about your constitutional rights to carry a gun.
Let me ask you this - how do you feel when you visit other countries where you can't have gun? Feel unsafe and scared? Looking over your shoulder all the time? I am very interested to know.
 
You guys are strange. You see the problem, agree that people in your country are getting killed by firearms way more then in other developed countries ( lets not talk about Honduras, Jamaica, Gwatemala or Swazilend), yet you do not want to change anything to improve it. All you do is crying about your constitutional rights to carry a gun.
Let me ask you this - how do you feel when you visit other countries where you can't have gun? Feel unsafe and scared? Looking over your shoulder all the time? I am very interested to know.

You misunderstand Americans as much as you misunderstand the problem. Guns are not the problem, people are.

As for Americans, there is a very large independent streak in us. I do not need the government telling me what I can and cannot own, who I can and cannot marry...yes there are exceptions but we value our independence more than other nations I think. notice I use independence instead of freedom.

Also I have been to Honduras, Canada and several of the islands in the Carribean and I never felt afraid in any of them. But that question of yours stems from your misunderstanding the problem and the motivations of the people involved.
 
Is it me or does Mom have the rifle pointed at her son's head a :21?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EJmsydrCAQ
 
You guys are strange. You see the problem, agree that people in your country are getting killed by firearms way more then in other developed countries ( lets not talk about Honduras, Jamaica, Gwatemala or Swazilend), yet you do not want to change anything to improve it. All you do is crying about your constitutional rights to carry a gun.
Let me ask you this - how do you feel when you visit other countries where you can't have gun? Feel unsafe and scared? Looking over your shoulder all the time? I am very interested to know.

Is there a greater rate of overall violence in other developed countries?

I believe there is not. Removing all guns would stop gun violence. But would it lower the rate of overall violence? If not, then what have gained by banning guns?
 
Back
Top