Arizona shooting range accident

[N4D13]

Hello! I'm surprised to see that there's no thread on the Arizona shooting range accident (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/26/us-usa-shooting-arizona-idUSKBN0GQ23820140826). Basically, a 9-year-old girl lost control of her Uzi submachine gun and accidentally shot her instructor.

Is there any restriction on these topics? I can imagine that guns must be a rather sensitive topic around here, so please feel free to close the thread if appropriate. ;)

[Gregor-y]

I mentioned it in another thread. Anyone familiar with weapons regardless of their attitude on gun control is pretty much in agreement this was a really bad idea.

[steveaki13]

Another crazy shooting. I hope one day the US comes to its senses.

In what country is an 8 year old shooting a machine gun at a place called Bullet and Burger a reasonable activity?

I have said it on threads about school shootings on here before, but the USA must come to there senses one day, surely

[Storm]

9 year old learning how to shoot a Uzi? Why? Unless she was a terrorist in training or a kidnapped by warlords in Africa and forced to be part of militia - I do not see why any 9 year old ever has to get closer to any gun, let alone a sub-machine gun.

[steveaki13]

9 year old learning how to shoot a Uzi? Why? Unless she was a terrorist in training or a kidnapped by warlords in Africa and forced to be part of militia - I do not see why any 9 year old ever has to get closer to any gun, let alone a sub-machine gun.

I agree 100% Storm

I mean if kids of 9 are pictured holding guns in Africa the west go mad, because they are a youth army. And yet the West's biggest power see's it as fine to have the same thing happen.

[Rollo]

In what country is an 8 year old shooting a machine gun at a place called Bullet and Burger a reasonable activity?


One that has second amendment rights. If only someone had a gun, they might have been able to prevent this tragedy.

[airshifter]

Based on the above, a 9 year old shouldn't be in a car either, but we do it every day. Chances are the car will be much more deadly than the guns. But that never stopped anyone from bashing the US policy that ensures us the right to be stupid if we choose.

And don't get me wrong, there were obvious flaws in what took place. The instructor was the one killed, yet should have been the one ensuring safety. Though I'm not happy anyone was killed, only fitting that it was the person that failed to properly perform their job.

[Starter]

No you don't understand. It's always the gun's fault...always. Never the person who (mis)uses it.

[N4D13]

This might come across as a completely tasteless thing to say, but the thing is, these accidents might just have a positive side to them. If these can convince parents to take measures to prevent their children from gaining access to their weapons and/or not to train them in the use of weapons until they're old enough to actually carry them, this might just be a good thing. It's just a shame that people need to die in order for others to realize how unjustified it is to train a 9-year-old in the usage of automatic guns.

[schmenke]

Based on the above, a 9 year old shouldn't be in a car either, ....

Don't understand that argument. A 9 year old is not permitted to operate a motor vehicle.

[Storm]

Yes , sitting in a car being driven by an adult and actually driving a car are different things aren't they?

[steveaki13]

Don't understand that argument. A 9 year old is not permitted to operate a motor vehicle.

I agree.

Guns have there place, but In my opinion it is not even in the hands of common people, let alone a 9 year old.

I agree with our laws in the UK, we have one of the lowest gun death rates in the world I believe.

I also never stated it was the guns fault. Its the country that lets people buy and own guns so easy thats the problem.

I admire the US in a lot of ways, but the laws on guns are crazy

[steveaki13]

Yes , sitting in a car being driven by an adult and actually driving a car are different things aren't they?

Its any defence to protect the precious guns. Every home needs at least 3. :rolleyes:

Seriously it astounds me.

Why any non licensed professional needs a gun is beyond me. There is a hunting argument, but even that should be on a license basis and not for sport, but control of animal numbers or hunting for food.

[steveaki13]

Based on the above, a 9 year old shouldn't be in a car either.

I agree. Countries which allow 9 years olds to drive on the roads are a disgrace

[steveaki13]

No you don't understand. It's always the gun's fault...always. Never the person who (mis)uses it.

Don't think anyone claimed that did they?

Its the fault of a country that lets anyone of its population own and buy guns. Especially as 95% probably shouldn't be trusted with a gun.

[555-04Q2]

My father started teaching me to fire a gun (namely a 38 Special and a .22 rifle) from when I was 6 years old. The practice and skills I learnt helped save my life a few years back.

Now I'm not advocating that all kids should be firing guns, but in a controlled environment with suitable guns it is perfectly safe. An Uzi, in auto mode, was a poor choice for a 9 year old to be firing.

[Starter]

Don't think anyone claimed that did they?

Its the fault of a country that lets anyone of its population own and buy guns. Especially as 95% probably shouldn't be trusted with a gun.
That's the major difference in philosophy between most of Europe and the US. Here the government doesn't "let" the population do anything. It's the population which "lets" the government do things.

On a secondary note, approximately 45% of US citizens own guns. So you are saying that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted? (Based on an estimated 300 million population.) That's a pretty large number of folks you've throw under the bus. Be very careful when making large sweeping statements, hyperbola tends to creep in.

[Starter]

Now I'm not advocating that all kids should be firing guns, but in a controlled environment with suitable guns it is perfectly safe. An Uzi, in auto mode, was a poor choice for a 9 year old to be firing.
A failure in the instructor's individual judgement, not in the use of guns themselves.

[555-04Q2]

That's the major difference in philosophy between most of Europe and the US. Here the government doesn't "let" the population do anything. It's the population which "lets" the government do things.

On a secondary note, approximately 45% of US citizens own guns. So you are saying that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted? (Based on an estimated 300 million population.) That's a pretty large number of folks you've throw under the bus. Be very careful when making large sweeping statements, hyperbola tends to creep in.

You need to remember that Europeans have a different view to people like you and myself as they don't experience what we do. They aren't wrong all the time and we aint always right either ;)

[555-04Q2]

A failure in the instructor's individual judgement, not in the use of guns themselves.

Exactly what I thought when I saw the video. As soon as he said put it in auto i wanted to jump through the screen!

[Starter]

You need to remember that Europeans have a different view to people like you and myself as they don't experience what we do. They aren't wrong all the time and we aint always right either ;)
Something which all of us, both sides in any discussion, need to keep in mind.

[555-04Q2]

Indeed :)

[steveaki13]

Hey I admit I may be wrong, but IMO guns and the people who use them more often and not cause trouble.

Less guns would generally mean less deaths by guns. That in my view would be a better way to look towards rather than training 9 years olds to use them.

[airshifter]

Don't understand that argument. A 9 year old is not permitted to operate a motor vehicle.

Nor did I say I 9 year old would. I said should not be in a car, as statistics show cars, whether driver or passenger, to be much more deadly than guns.

[airshifter]

Hey I admit I may be wrong, but IMO guns and the people who use them more often and not cause trouble.

Less guns would generally mean less deaths by guns. That in my view would be a better way to look towards rather than training 9 years olds to use them.

Less stairs would mean fewer deaths by stairs. Banning cars would mean fewer deaths by vehicle accidents.

In the end, removing guns from law abiding citizens has shown in the majority of cases to increase violent crime, including murder. Look at any large city for proof of that. On the flip side, areas that adopt concealed carry permits for law abiding owners lowers violent crime rates almost immediately.

So the reality is more legally owned guns reduces deaths by guns.




Having dug into this subject a number of times over the years, I've found that often many different places use the "less death caused by guns" statement, which may be true. Many of them also see an increased murder rate, suicide rates change very little, etc, etc.

If cigarettes were outlawed and it was strictly enforced, no doubt deaths caused by smoking would decline. But if all those former smokers drank themselves to death, would it have accomplished anything?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Less stairs would mean fewer deaths by stairs. Banning cars would mean fewer deaths by vehicle accidents.

In the end, removing guns from law abiding citizens has shown in the majority of cases to increase violent crime, including murder.



So why is it that the homicide rate in London is around 2.5 per 100,000 per year and is significantly lower than most large US cities?

Chicago - 15.2
LA - 7.8
NYC - 4.0
Houston 16.3

[Rollo]

On a secondary note, approximately 45% of US citizens own guns. So you are saying that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted? (Based on an estimated 300 million population.) That's a pretty large number of folks you've throw under the bus. Be very careful when making large sweeping statements, hyperbola tends to creep in.

I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

Yes, I will suggest that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted and they can not be trusted to the tune of billions a year. The United States collectively pays for it with wasted GDP on increased health care costs and associated on-costs relating to crime as well.

I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.

[Rollo]

Banning cars would mean fewer deaths by vehicle accidents.

There's a thing too:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/23/heres-what-it-would-take-for-self-driving-cars-to-catch-on/
If just 10 percent of the vehicles on the road were self-driving cars, the authors estimate, the country could save more than $37 billion a year — fewer deaths, less fuel, more free time. If we reached a point where self-driving vehicles constituted 90 percent of the cars on the road, the benefits would rise to some $447.1 billion a year.
- Washington Post, 23rd Oct 2014

If I was a large company like Pickfords or FedEx, I would seriously be looking at investing in self-driving vehicles. Self-driving vehicles where you'd remove the human element would produce fewer vehicle accidents provided the technology was good enough.


Less stairs would mean fewer deaths by stairs.
This is true.
Deaths by stairs in the US is about 1500 a year, deaths by elevator are less than 30. (I'd need to go back and find the stats for this if you like).

[Starter]

I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.
The vast majority of those who own guns here have never before, and never will, shoot another person. That does not jibe in any way with your comment. Please explain. Not to mention citing the metric you quote.


Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?
Read it again. It says the militia should be well regulated, not the people. It comes from the founding of our country and the mistrust of government and government tyranny.


I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.
If that works for you, and I'm sure it does, I support your right to have that kind of government and will make no attempt to interfere. The courtesy of reciprocal action on your part will be appreciated.

[Rollo]

It comes from the founding of our country and the mistrust of government and government tyranny.

Yes. I'd forgot about that.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/strongest-reason-people-to-retain-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-quotation
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson. Earliest known appearance in print: 1989

[airshifter]

So why is it that the homicide rate in London is around 2.5 per 100,000 per year and is significantly lower than most large US cities?

Chicago - 15.2
LA - 7.8
NYC - 4.0
Houston 16.3

If you correlate gun ownership and rights to murder rates, don't cherry pick examples and you'll find a much clearer picture. I live in a city approaching 500,00 that has a murder rate as low as London. It dropped, as did violent crime statewide, when concealed carry permits became legal in the state.

If you look at US cites as a whole, the most violent have a combination of strict gun laws, higher rates of gang activity, and a stretched or otherwise ineffective police department. And if you look at statistics virtually anywhere in the US, the vast majority of gun crime takes place at the hands of those not legal gun owners.





I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

Yes, I will suggest that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted and they can not be trusted to the tune of billions a year. The United States collectively pays for it with wasted GDP on increased health care costs and associated on-costs relating to crime as well.

I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.


If you look at the reality of statistics rather than a large stretch, you will find that somewhere in the neighborhood of 99+ percent of gun violence in the US involved illegally owned guns and/or owners prohibited from having them. Twisting facts won't help your case any, and I call BS on your statement.

Link please!


As for the later sweeping statement, laughable. Quite a few areas of crime in your country are as high as the US.

[555-04Q2]

I would suggest that the majority of people do own guns can't be trusted. I think that virtually every metric on the subject also proves this to be true.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment even says as much:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?

Yes, I will suggest that 38,475,000 of those who do own guns can't be trusted and they can not be trusted to the tune of billions a year. The United States collectively pays for it with wasted GDP on increased health care costs and associated on-costs relating to crime as well.

I will make large large sweeping statements and use hyperbolae. I happen to live in a society which is statistically thirty-five to fifty times safer than the United States precisely because people for the most part are not trusted to own guns.
If there is a capability to abuse something, it is very easy to show that it will be abused and that goes right across the board for a whole host of issues, not just gun ownership.

On the contrary, the people who legally own guns can be trusted. Its the ones with illegal guns that you have to worry about.

Over here there are an estimated 2 million illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. Imagine if we citizens couldn't protect ourselves with our guns. We'd be sitting ducks!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

On the contrary, the people who legally own guns can be trusted. Its the ones with illegal guns that you have to worry about.

Over here there are an estimated 2 million illegal weapons in the hands of criminals. Imagine if we citizens couldn't protect ourselves with our guns. We'd be sitting ducks!

But if gun restrictions had been in place there would have been fewer guns in circulation to start with and criminals would find it much harder to get their hands on one.

Did Oscar Pistorius have an illegal weapon?

[airshifter]

But if gun restrictions had been in place there would have been fewer guns in circulation to start with and criminals would find it much harder to get their hands on one.

Did Oscar Pistorius have an illegal weapon?

Did the police in the UK have illegal weapons when they gunned down an innocent kid they suspected of being a terrorist? No, but the comparisons would be very similar. Both are very isolated incidents that amount to hardly a blip in the statistics of what happens on a regular basis day to day.

The reality of day to day happenings is that in the developed word, a very tiny percentage of gun crime takes place at the hands of legal gun owners, both civilian or police/military. And in most cases where it does take place, it was simply poor judgement that takes a life, not any intentional criminal act.


IMO criminals the world over find guns if they want one, it's simply the severity of the laws about illegal ownership that keeps them from doing so in many countries. This is where the US fails, and felons, people with mental problems, etc all have access that is far too easy.

[Rollo]

If you look at the reality of statistics rather than a large stretch, you will find that somewhere in the neighborhood of 99+ percent of gun violence in the US involved illegally owned guns and/or owners prohibited from having them. Twisting facts won't help your case any, and I call BS on your statement.

Link please!

Please accept my apologies.

I must confess, it's been a while since I checked this and quite frankly, I find the stats for Australia disgraceful:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms - 11,068
- CDC Tables 2011

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02013?OpenDocument
Murder (firearms) - 41
- ABS Tables 2011

US Homicide rate/100,000 people = 3.48503
AU Homicide rate/100,000 people = 0.17826

This actually works out to be only 19 times safer. We have a serious problem in our country.

[airshifter]

Please accept my apologies.

I must confess, it's been a while since I checked this and quite frankly, I find the stats for Australia disgraceful:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms - 11,068
- CDC Tables 2011

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02013?OpenDocument
Murder (firearms) - 41
- ABS Tables 2011

US Homicide rate/100,000 people = 3.48503
AU Homicide rate/100,000 people = 0.17826

This actually works out to be only 19 times safer. We have a serious problem in our country.



Quite a comical attempt, ignoring the question at hand. Even then your numbers were obviously exaggerated. My point discussed crime with legally owned guns vs crime with illegally owned guns.

But then again, you were aware of that. And you're probably also aware that violent crime in the US has been trending down for years.... guns and all. During that time the "safe" Aussies have seen increases in many violent crimes. But I'm sure that increase and greater per capita chances of being assaulted or raped makes people feel better because they aren't allowed to have a gun to protect themselves from it. But since the murder rate by firearms was trending down in Australia before the gun ban, you somehow justify to yourself how it helped.

Again, a matter of the whole perspective vs select statistics.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't want to come over as saying rape isn't serious crime but isn't murder usually a tad more serious than assault or even rape?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

In addition:


Part of the reason the figures for sexual assault are on the increase is because women aren't as afraid to report rape as they used to. This is because of a change in our society and our attitude towards rape where police take it more seriously.

[Rollo]

My point discussed crime with legally owned guns vs crime with illegally owned guns.


Well there's a thing...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
- Forbes, 14th May 2013

I don't know how you make your claim that "that somewhere in the neighborhood of 99+ percent of gun violence in the US involved illegally owned guns" when no stats have been complied in about a decade:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
2004 (the most recent year of data available)
- same article

Do you know more than the Dept of Justice?

[odykas]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state[/I]
If people could be trusted, why would they need to be "well regulated"?



I agree, but we are talking about a piece of legislation which is almost 250 years old and totally obsolete.

[airshifter]

Well there's a thing...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
- Forbes, 14th May 2013

I don't know how you make your claim that "that somewhere in the neighborhood of 99+ percent of gun violence in the US involved illegally owned guns" when no stats have been complied in about a decade:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/
2004 (the most recent year of data available)
- same article

Do you know more than the Dept of Justice?



I really don't know which is more funny, the fact that you're linking an article that disputes your entire theory on guns, or the fact that you are trying to skew a statement within the article grossly and take it out of context completely.


For those that haven't bothered with the link made by Rollo, give it a click. The article is entitled "Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet" and it appears he read only enough of it to try to twist a statement made in the article, discarding the rest of it.

And I make no claim to know more about gun ownership statistics than the DOJ, but the FBI has huge online databases. Anyone who goes so far as to read the above article would find that a great deal of murders with guns takes place with the gang bangers too young to own one regardless of state.


But lets not let facts from the article get in the way when we can speculate and make things up.

[steveaki13]

In my opinion as rose tinted as it is, guns kill people so less guns is better. Where ever that is. Guns don't make anything better.

[Starter]

Do you know more than the Dept of Justice?
Most everybody knows more than the department of justice.

[Starter]

I agree, but we are talking about a piece of legislation which is almost 250 years old and totally obsolete.
So you are saying that the United States Bill of Rights, part of the original amendments to the Constitution, is totally obsolete?

That is perhaps the most ignorant statement I've read on here in quite some time.

[Tazio]

Arizona shooting range accident (http://www.motorsportforums.com/showthread.php?34526-Arizona-shooting-range-accident/page5)Dumb di dumb dumb..... Dumb!

[Rollo]

So you are saying that the United States Bill of Rights, part of the original amendments to the Constitution, is totally obsolete?

That is perhaps the most ignorant statement I've read on here in quite some time.

Is it working as intended though?

I'd suggest that the utility of it as it currently enforced, is poor.

The Bill of Rights 1689 (which by the way actually enshrined the right to bear arms in the colonies 87 before the invention of the United States) has this to say:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

That's a perennial question of "how free is freedom?". Why is it necessary to shout "theatre" in a crowded fire?

[odykas]

So you are saying that the United States Bill of Rights, part of the original amendments to the Constitution, is totally obsolete?

That is perhaps the most ignorant statement I've read on here in quite some time.

I'm saying that the 2nd amendment (dated 1789) is obsolete as the country and the conditions have changed dramatically since then.

[Roamy]

In my opinion as rose tinted as it is, guns kill people so less guns is better. Where ever that is. Guns don't make anything better.

Many of the people dying is a good thing

[Roamy]

I'm saying that the 2nd amendment (dated 1789) is obsolete as the country and the conditions have changed dramatically since then.


Yes we should now trade in our guns for C4

[Starter]

I'm saying that the 2nd amendment (dated 1789) is obsolete as the country and the conditions have changed dramatically since then.
Actually, you can't say that. When you become a citizen here then you get a say. Until that time it's none of your business. just as I don't get a say in some of the stupid things taking place in other countries.

[Gregor-y]

Ha, tell that to Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

And Russia.

[schmenke]

... just as I don't get a say in some of the stupid things taking place in other countries.

That is the root of the gun debate. Today, gun ownership in the U.S. is engrained in the culture of its society. It is a culture that is foreign to many outside of the country, and just because it is so does not make it wrong. It’s ignorant for any outsider to pass judgment on a particular society’s culture (customs, habits, traditions, etc.) just because it is different or contradictory to their own.
Americans are passionate about their firearms which today are integral to their daily lives. Because this passion may contradict other society’s culture does not make it wrong.

[steveaki13]

You may be right Schmenke.

But why does there never seem to be any thought or consideration of change, when so many School shootings happen?

I mean I ask an American to answer, when that happens do you question your gun laws?

If not, that strikes me as surprising.

[BDunnell]

Many of the people dying is a good thing

Says a man whose level of intelligence would render him all but useless to man or beast in any nation other than the USA.

[BDunnell]

Actually, you can't say that. When you become a citizen here then you get a say. Until that time it's none of your business. just as I don't get a say in some of the stupid things taking place in other countries.

'You can't say that'? It's not really your business to tell others what they can and can't say.

Your attitude is a bit rich coming from a person hailing from a nation whose international military interventions have, time and again, been carried out without reference to the people of the countries concerned. Did they 'get a say'? No. They simply had to put up with American bombs falling on their heads. So, I'd quit that facile line of argument if I were you. Taken to its logical conclusion, you would never comment on any issue that didn't personally concern you. I'd imagine this isn't the case.

Sadly, far too many individuals such as yourself consider the deaths of children a perfectly acceptable price to pay if it means you can keep your beloved weapons, without which your sense of insecurity is such that you feel helpless. I pity that attitude.

[BDunnell]

It is a culture that is foreign to many outside of the country, and just because it is so does not make it wrong. It’s ignorant for any outsider to pass judgment on a particular society’s culture (customs, habits, traditions, etc.) just because it is different or contradictory to their own.

I consider that a really weak argument. According to your train of 'thought', slavery would never have been abolished. It was pretty ingrained in many cultures. Racism was endemic in South African culture (may still, to some extent, be) — should we just have accepted that, too?

[Rollo]

Americans are passionate about their firearms which today are integral to their daily lives. Because this passion may contradict other society’s culture does not make it wrong.

Does it make it good, useful, sensible or economically beneficial though? Is the opportunity cost justified?

[BDunnell]

Does it make it good, useful, sensible or economically beneficial though? Is the opportunity cost justified?

The funeral industry does well out of it.

[Starter]

'You can't say that'? It's not really your business to tell others what they can and can't say.
Just as it's not your business to tell Americans what they can and can not do - like own guns.



Your attitude is a bit rich coming from a person hailing from a nation whose international military interventions have, time and again, been carried out without reference to the people of the countries concerned. Did they 'get a say'? No. They simply had to put up with American bombs falling on their heads. So, I'd quit that facile line of argument if I were you. Taken to its logical conclusion, you would never comment on any issue that didn't personally concern you. I'd imagine this isn't the case.
Since your country directly benefited from our "military intervention" it's a bit rich for you to get on a high horse about it, eh?


Sadly, far too many individuals such as yourself consider the deaths of children a perfectly acceptable price to pay if it means you can keep your beloved weapons, without which your sense of insecurity is such that you feel helpless. I pity that attitude.
Another example of your hyperbola. Nowhere have I said the deaths of children are an acceptable price for the ownership of guns. That some children die from the misuse of guns is unfortunate. Just as many, many children dying from the misuse of automobiles is unfortunate. I'm not about to ban children from riding in cars either.

[Starter]

Does it make it good, useful, sensible or economically beneficial though? Is the opportunity cost justified?
Yes.

[BDunnell]

Just as it's not your business to tell Americans what they can and can not do - like own guns.

As stated elsewhere, this is an asinine argument given the long history of unwanted military intervention.



Since your country directly benefited from our "military intervention" it's a bit rich for you to get on a high horse about it, eh?

Oh yes, how we've benefited from becoming embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to your former President's religious zeal for military action. Neither conflict has in the slightest bred a new generation of Islamic extremists.

(The above constitutes sarcasm, by the way.)



Another example of your hyperbola. Nowhere have I said the deaths of children are an acceptable price for the ownership of guns. That some children die from the misuse of guns is unfortunate. Just as many, many children dying from the misuse of automobiles is unfortunate. I'm not about to ban children from riding in cars either.

Hyperbole. If you're going to throw such remarks around, at least learn how to spell them properly.

The purpose of cars is not to kill. The purpose of guns is to kill. That you do not recognise this rather important difference suggests to me that you should be deemed unfit to wield a knife and fork, let alone a firearm.

Forgive me if I sound high-handed, but if there is one group of people to whom I will always feel morally and intellectually superior it's Americans with a love of guns, and I take great delight in doing so.

I'm sure you will now retort with a similar remark about 'liberal Europeans', but before you do I should say that it will come across as witless, so I wouldn't bother.

[Starter]

Your attitude is a bit rich coming from a person hailing from a nation whose international military interventions have, time and again, been carried out without reference to the people of the countries concerned. Did they 'get a say'? No. They simply had to put up with American bombs falling on their heads.
This is a separate subject from guns. There is a growing sentiment and weariness here about being policeman to the world. There is a fair chance that you will soon have the fun of dealing with radical Islam, Putin's Russia,and a myriad of other world problems yourself. Good luck with that (I'm sure France and others will jump right in to help). We're much larger then you and therefor have greater resources and our citizens are tired of bearing the burden of the costs, both in lives and dollars of trying to keep a lid on things.

Unfortunately, the latest fad of lopping people's heads off may force us to reengage for a while. I understand one of your folks is next in line for a reduction in height. How's that working for you?

[BDunnell]

This is a separate subject from guns.

One that you rendered entirely relevant to the discussion.


There is a growing sentiment and weariness here about being policeman to the world.

But not about kids being shot dead in order to preserve an outmoded 'right' and a meaningless concept of 'liberty'. Some sense of priorities you've got there.

[Starter]

Oh yes, how we've benefited from becoming embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to your former President's religious zeal for military action. Neither conflict has in the slightest bred a new generation of Islamic extremists.

(The above constitutes sarcasm, by the way.)
No one made you join the fun and games, so don't try to lay it on us.




Hyperbole. If you're going to throw such remarks around, at least learn how to spell them properly.
Lose the snotty attitude. Like you've never posted a typo.


The purpose of cars is not to kill. The purpose of guns is to kill. That you do not recognise this rather important difference suggests to me that you should be deemed unfit to wield a knife and fork, let alone a firearm.
It's recognize, but then I'm sure that was a typo so I won't ding you on it. I understand the difference very well and I know the proper use of all the instruments you've named.


Forgive me if I sound high-handed, but if there is one group of people to whom I will always feel morally and intellectually superior it's Americans with a love of guns, and I take great delight in doing so.
Feel free to sound anyway you'd like. Though because you feel something doesn't make it a fact. Also glad to bring joy to your life.


I'm sure you will now retort with a similar remark about 'liberal Europeans', but before you do I should say that it will come across as witless, so I wouldn't bother.
Unlike some others on this board, you among them, I don't take delight in trying to insult others.

[Starter]

But not about kids being shot dead in order to preserve an outmoded 'right' and a meaningless concept of 'liberty'. Some sense of priorities you've got there.
If you're worried about harm to children you might want to worry more about Israel and Hamas; the ebola outbreak in west Africa; the Russian proxy, and now actual, invasion of Ukraine; the kidnapping of 300 plus girls; drought and starvation across sub Saharan Africa; etc.; etc.; etc. I realize your true intent is to bash the US at every opportunity and you really could care less about kids here being shot except as it fits your agenda so I don't expect you to take up any of those subjects. Enjoy the rest of the evening.

[Rollo]

Lose the snotty attitude. Like you've never posted a typo.
It's recognize, but then I'm sure that was a typo so I won't ding you on it. I understand the difference very well and I know the proper use of all the instruments you've named.


Aye 'twasn't m'lud.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bwkwq4TCcAAPPXw.jpg

English English as far as the Oxford English Dictionary is concerned, prefers "ise" over "ize" variants.
Noah Webster made a deliberate effort to vandalise English with his "A Grammatical Institute of the English Language" in 1783 and further tweaked this in his "Compendious Dictionary" of 1806.

[odykas]

No criminal charges in fatal gun range shooting by 9-year-old girl (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/us-usa-shooting-arizona-idUSKBN0GS2JK20140828)



"Based on the video, the Sheriff's Office has determined no charges are pending," the Mohave County Sheriff's Office said in a statement, adding that the shooting was "being viewed as an industrial accident."


Industial accident?

[Rudy Tamasz]

No criminal charges in fatal gun range shooting by 9-year-old girl (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/us-usa-shooting-arizona-idUSKBN0GS2JK20140828)



Industial accident?

A lethal workplace trauma, in other words.

[BDunnell]

If you're worried about harm to children you might want to worry more about Israel and Hamas; the ebola outbreak in west Africa; the Russian proxy, and now actual, invasion of Ukraine; the kidnapping of 300 plus girls; drought and starvation across sub Saharan Africa; etc.; etc.; etc. I realize your true intent is to bash the US at every opportunity and you really could care less about kids here being shot except as it fits your agenda so I don't expect you to take up any of those subjects. Enjoy the rest of the evening.

I do worry about those things. But this thread isn't about them. It's always the refuge of the person with no argument: 'You should be concerned about X instead'. Not surprised to see it in use here.

[Rollo]

If you're worried about harm to children you might want to worry more about Israel and Hamas; the ebola outbreak in west Africa; the Russian proxy, and now actual, invasion of Ukraine; the kidnapping of 300 plus girls; drought and starvation across sub Saharan Africa; etc.; etc.; etc. I realize your true intent is to bash the US at every opportunity and you really could care less about kids here being shot except as it fits your agenda so I don't expect you to take up any of those subjects. Enjoy the rest of the evening.

I don't know about you but I can't be everywhere.

I do have an opinion about Israel and Hamas - http://rollo75.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/horse-1728-israel-and-palestine-again.html
I do worry about ebola in West Africa and support organisations like WEC monetarily - http://www.wecinternational.org/index.php/where
And I am involved personally in a mission to establish libraries across South Sudan (we're only at the very beginning of the project) - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Saidia-Australia-INC/1397237680530367

How many of those subjects would you like us to take up? They are beyond the scope of this thread and should be spun out into new ones.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I do worry about those things. But this thread isn't about them. It's always the refuge of the person with no argument: 'You should be concerned about X instead'. Not surprised to see it in use here.

BDunnell, to be perfectly fair, wasn't it you who first brought up the military intervention thing and thus diverted the discussion from its initial topic?

[schmenke]

...Your attitude is a bit rich coming from a person hailing from a nation whose international military interventions have, time and again, been carried out without reference to the people of the countries concerned. Did they 'get a say'? No. They simply had to put up with American bombs falling on their heads. ....

Not necessarily uniquely US military intervention.

Let’s not forget that the campaign to intervene in Iraq was ratified by the UN and supported by the Multi National Force (i.e. “coalition”) which included many European nations. The falling bombs to which you refer are not necessarily American.

[BDunnell]

Not necessarily uniquely US military intervention.

Let’s not forget that the campaign to intervene in Iraq was ratified by the UN and supported by the Multi National Force (i.e. “coalition”) which included many European nations. The falling bombs to which you refer are not necessarily American.

1. The subject of this thread is an American one. Therefore mention of other countries who misguidedly joined in such campaigns is not relevant.

2. I know.

[BDunnell]

BDunnell, to be perfectly fair, wasn't it you who first brought up the military intervention thing and thus diverted the discussion from its initial topic?

No. Read back. Someone else did so first.

[555-04Q2]

But if gun restrictions had been in place there would have been fewer guns in circulation to start with and criminals would find it much harder to get their hands on one.

Did Oscar Pistorius have an illegal weapon?

If there were restrictions it would be even worse. At the moment we can get illegal guns on the Mozambique border for the price of a cheap watch. For the last 10 years our government has been trying to take legal guns away from citizens. The net result? Previous legal owners now have illegal unregistered ones to replace their legal ones that were confiscated. In our society, gun control will never work. Europe's circumstance are far different to ours.

Not sure of your point about Oscar?

[Rollo]

IMO criminals the world over find guns if they want one, it's simply the severity of the laws about illegal ownership that keeps them from doing so in many countries. This is where the US fails, and felons, people with mental problems, etc all have access that is far too easy.

The thing is though that because gun ownership in the United States is so widespread, no-one can expect that all the necessary background checks can or will be done. In some cases where guns are owned legally, owners don't think about who might have access to them; especially when it's members of their own family and given that roughly 1 in 5 people will go through some degree of mental illness in their lives, the likelihood of a mentally ill person having access to firearms is greatly increased.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The thing is though that because gun ownership in the United States is so widespread, no-one can expect that all the necessary background checks can or will be done. In some cases where guns are owned legally, owners don't think about who might have access to them; especially when it's members of their own family and given that roughly 1 in 5 people will go through some degree of mental illness in their lives, the likelihood of a mentally ill person having access to firearms is greatly increased.

What do you do, then? Logically speaking, you might be right. However, culture and history has much to do with any issue as logic. In simple terms, you don't ban guns where everybody historically owns guns. That's not going to work, anyway, or it might be even counterproductive. Similarly, you don't open access to guns, where people are not used to them culturally.

[BDunnell]

What do you do, then? Logically speaking, you might be right. However, culture and history has much to do with any issue as logic. In simple terms, you don't ban guns where everybody historically owns guns. That's not going to work, anyway, or it might be even counterproductive. Similarly, you don't open access to guns, where people are not used to them culturally.

One might equally ask why open access to guns should sensibly be permitted in a country where, according to one poll, 77 per cent of people believe that aliens may have visited Earth. That, too, appears counter-intuitive.

[Rudy Tamasz]

One might equally ask why open access to guns should sensibly be permitted in a country where, according to one poll, 77 per cent of people believe that aliens may have visited Earth. That, too, appears counter-intuitive.

It's way easier to be sarcastic than to offer a reasonable solution to an issue, isn't it?

How about banning knives, Islam, freedom of movement and violent computer games in a country whose subjects travel to other countries, stage violent performances showing their virtuosity with knives and referring to the teachings of Islam all along?

[BDunnell]

It's way easier to be sarcastic than to offer a reasonable solution to an issue, isn't it?

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, but making a serious point about intellect and suitability.

[steveaki13]

I personally think only well trained professionals need to get near guns

[Rudy Tamasz]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, but making a serious point about intellect and suitability.

Rights and liberties, whatever they are, are not conditional on intellect in democratic societies, are they?

[Starter]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, but making a serious point about intellect and suitability.
Um, no you weren't.

[Rollo]

What do you do, then? Logically speaking, you might be right. However, culture and history has much to do with any issue as logic. In simple terms, you don't ban guns where everybody historically owns guns. That's not going to work, anyway, or it might be even counterproductive. Similarly, you don't open access to guns, where people are not used to them culturally.

Logically if you want to change behaviour, then you change the law and then enforce it. The problem is that in the case of the Second Amendment, it is seen as sacrosanct, despite the costs associated.
Whenever we have these sorts of threads, the same objections are raised and the same solutions offered; meanwhile the United States also asks the same questions, does nothing and then six weeks later forgets about it until the next time that someone destroys people - even if the guns are obtained legally and even if they happen to destroy innocent people.

Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!
(The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!)
- Kurt Tucholsky, Französischer Witz (1932)

America likes to yell "Freedom!" in the face of statistics.

[janvanvurpa]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, but making a serious point about intellect and suitability.

And its a good point.

You could add;
According to polls these same people, 92% claim to be Christian" and 88% "believe" in astrology.

How's that for cognitive dissonance?

And allegedly 47% of the country believe the earth and man are more or less 6,000 years old..

Are these people I want running around armed to the teeth?

Nope.

[BDunnell]

Um, no you weren't.

I think I'm in a better position than you to say whether or not I was making a serious point, thank you very much.

I will say it more pointedly: the intellect of many Americans is such that I feel they should not be trusted with weapons far less dangerous than guns.

[BDunnell]

Whenever we have these sorts of threads, the same objections are raised and the same solutions offered; meanwhile the United States also asks the same questions, does nothing and then six weeks later forgets about it until the next time that someone destroys people - even if the guns are obtained legally and even if they happen to destroy innocent people.

Which is exactly why I say again that American gun enthusiasts consider the toll of the innocent a perfectly appropriate price to pay for keeping their guns. There can be no other explanation.

[Rollo]

So you are saying that the United States Bill of Rights, part of the original amendments to the Constitution, is totally obsolete?
That is perhaps the most ignorant statement I've read on here in quite some time.

Not totally.
Some of them are pointless, one is archaic, one is barbaric and the rest are fine.

This is an 11 minute read:
http://rollo75.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/horse-1748-is-united-states-bill-of.html

I think that the existence of a Bill of Rights, limits people's vision to the extent of what's committed to paper. I for instance at common law have the right to quiet enjoyment of property, a right to travel, a right to be forgotten... the Ninth Amendment hints at this but "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Doe v. Bolton (1973).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/179/case.html

Under common law principles in Commonwealth countries, rights are assumed to exist unless hedged in by law; that includes rights which haven't been thought of yet.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I will say it more pointedly: the intellect of many Americans is such that I feel they should not be trusted with weapons far less dangerous than guns.

Wealthy and educated Brits, knives, journalists, Syrian desert...

[Rudy Tamasz]

Logically if you want to change behaviour, then you change the law and then enforce it.

You need to have popular support to enforce laws. Otherwise you'll have another case of brutal social engineering of the kind that often happened over the last hundred years.

[555-04Q2]

I personally think only well trained professionals need to get near guns

To a degree I agree with you. But I think respect is the greatest tool when it comes to handling guns. Even the most proficient people in all walks of life and fields make mistakes if they don't respect their situation.

A good dose of common sense doesn't hurt either :)

[BDunnell]

You need to have popular support to enforce laws. Otherwise you'll have another case of brutal social engineering of the kind that often happened over the last hundred years.

Many a right-wing American one encounters could, in my experience, do with a bit of brutal social engineering.

[BDunnell]

Wealthy and educated Brits, knives, journalists, Syrian desert...

Your point being?

[555-04Q2]

Many a right-wing American one encounters could, in my experience, do with a bit of brutal social engineering.

Has a bit of a chuckle when I read this :laugh:

[Rudy Tamasz]

Your point being?

Avoid making sweeping generalizations based on an individual case.

[555-04Q2]

Avoid making sweeping generalizations based on an individual case.

Well said sir.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Many a right-wing American one encounters could, in my experience, do with a bit of brutal social engineering.

Such a confident statement doesn't surprise me one single bit. I've often seen the proponents of progressive and liberal views trying to show those down somebody else's throat.

[Starter]

Such a confident statement doesn't surprise me one single bit. I've often seen the proponents of progressive and liberal views trying to show those down somebody else's throat.
The tyranny of the left is as oppressive, or sometimes more so, than the tyranny of the right. Always beware the zealots who are so sure that they "know what is good for you" (right and left). They also usually fancy themselves as smarter than those who don't agree with their way of thinking - a false premise based on the conceit that they are always right.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The tyranny of the left is as oppressive, or sometimes more so, than the tyranny of the right. Always beware the zealots who are so sure that they "know what is good for you" (right and left). They also usually fancy themselves as smarter than those who don't agree with their way of thinking - a false premise based on the conceit that they are always right.

Exactly. The logic of the "I-am-good-therefore-the-one-disagreeing-with-me-is-bad" kind is downright dangerous. When urban sophisticated liberal folks start using it, they are no different from intolerant fanatics.

[steveaki13]

A good dose of common sense doesn't hurt either :)

Absolutely, which is not applied when allowing 9 year olds to play with guns

[BDunnell]

Such a confident statement doesn't surprise me one single bit. I've often seen the proponents of progressive and liberal views trying to show those down somebody else's throat.

Oh, and the right doesn't do that at all, does it? What utterly hypocritical rot.

[BDunnell]

The tyranny of the left is as oppressive, or sometimes more so, than the tyranny of the right. Always beware the zealots who are so sure that they "know what is good for you" (right and left). They also usually fancy themselves as smarter than those who don't agree with their way of thinking - a false premise based on the conceit that they are always right.

I don't just fancy myself as smarter than the average right-wing gun-toting American; I know I actually am. Goodness, the sofa on which I'm sitting has more in the way of brain cells.

[BDunnell]

Exactly. The logic of the "I-am-good-therefore-the-one-disagreeing-with-me-is-bad" kind is downright dangerous. When urban sophisticated liberal folks start using it, they are no different from intolerant fanatics.

So, am I as dangerous as, say, a suicide bomber? Really?

The notion that the right doesn't apply exactly the same 'logic' as you describe is spectacularly fanciful.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Oh, and the right doesn't do that at all, does it? What utterly hypocritical rot.

While I've agreed with your opinion regarding the thread topic on every level, I have found the way you have expressed your opinion as quite....ungentlemanly.

And while we in Europe (even friends of mine who own guns and go shooting game every weekend) think of American gun-culture as being insane and ridiculous I have just accepted it as a quirk of their society. A quirk that has ended the lives of countless children in massacres in America, but a quirk nevertheless.

In Britain we have warm beer, in America they have automatic assault rifles. Different countries, different cultures :beer:

[Starter]

In Britain we have warm beer..... :beer:
I've heard that is because you have Lucas refrigerators. :D (I know, that's a very old joke.)

[Starter]

So, am I as dangerous as, say, a suicide bomber? Really?
You are much more so. A suicide bomber only harms a few people at at time. The zealot would stifle all expression with which they don't agree and force others to behave in accordance with their extremely narrow view of the world.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I've heard that is because you have Lucas refrigerators. :D (I know, that's a very old joke.)

I don't get it :erm:

:(

[Starter]

I don't just fancy myself as smarter than the average right-wing gun-toting American; I know I actually am. Goodness, the sofa on which I'm sitting has more in the way of brain cells.
As usual, you are wrong again. Right wing American and gun toting American are not always the same thing. There are many left leaning gun owners here and many right leaning non gun owners. You have allowed your urge to stereotype Americans to get in the way of rational thought. I'd suggest your critical faculties have migrated to the portion of your anatomy in contact with your sofa.

[Starter]

I don't get it :erm:

:(
The reference is to Lucas (also known as the prince of darkness) electrics in British cars of the 50s to 70s vintage. As I said its an old joke.

[airshifter]

I don't just fancy myself as smarter than the average right-wing gun-toting American; I know I actually am. Goodness, the sofa on which I'm sitting has more in the way of brain cells.

The fact that you have tried to apply such a shallow stereotype to a demographic you obviously know little if anything about proves your intelligence rather lacking actually.

The childish manner in which you profess your claimed superior intellect actually makes about as much sense as someone from the US claiming that everyone in the UK is just a bunch of drunks living off the government hand outs. Even us gun toting rednecks know that it really only applies to part of the UK. :laugh:


Even the simpletons could probably figure out fairly quickly that US laws and policies are not influenced very much by the will of an internet warrior from another country claiming they know the right way to do everything. But if that has escaped you, by all means keep trying.

[Rollo]

The tyranny of the left is as oppressive, or sometimes more so, than the tyranny of the right. Always beware the zealots who are so sure that they "know what is good for you" (right and left). They also usually fancy themselves as smarter than those who don't agree with their way of thinking - a false premise based on the conceit that they are always right.

What definitions of left and right are you using? On a Statist / Laissez-faire axis or a Libertarian / Authoritarianism axis?

[BDunnell]

While I've agreed with your opinion regarding the thread topic on every level, I have found the way you have expressed your opinion as quite....ungentlemanly.

Oh, I quite agree. I've been extremely rude and ungentlemanly. The reason is because I'm utterly fed up with what I view as the inane arguments used by those in favour of the status quo, especially the refusal of people to acknowledge that they consider the death toll acceptable as it is as a price to pay. Clearly they do.

[BDunnell]

Even the simpletons could probably figure out fairly quickly that US laws and policies are not influenced very much by the will of an internet warrior from another country claiming they know the right way to do everything. But if that has escaped you, by all means keep trying.

Do I expect to have influence? Obviously not. But I would imagine you have, at some point, voiced opinions on the internet on subjects over which you have no influence. That's all I'm doing here.

[555-04Q2]

Oh, I quite agree. I've been extremely rude and ungentlemanly. The reason is because I'm utterly fed up with what I view as the inane arguments used by those in favour of the status quo, especially the refusal of people to acknowledge that they consider the death toll acceptable as it is as a price to pay. Clearly they do.

Thats the beauty of individuals, we all hold our own opinions and we are all neither right nor wrong in our opinions and beliefs. Imagine not having a choice/say in life. Different cultures have different beliefs and opinions.

[airshifter]

Do I expect to have influence? Obviously not. But I would imagine you have, at some point, voiced opinions on the internet on subjects over which you have no influence. That's all I'm doing here.

Expression of an opinion is not uncommon.

In your case you are expressing an opinion, attaching shallow stereotypes, professing to be more intelligent, etc due to your opinion and little else.

Anyone who actually looked objectively at the mounds and mounds of statistics on the issue would find that it's not the everyday gun owner who commits these crimes, it's the thugs by a vast percentage. That being, the people that don't legally obtain or own their guns to begin with, and many who are by law prohibited from doing the same. There are also pages upon pages proving that the cities with the highest murder tolls are most often those cities with strict anti gun laws, the reason being that above mentioned thugs have little chance of being opposed with equal force.

The link provided earlier by Rollo shows a snapshot of the current reality. Legal un sales are soaring in the US, the population is still growing, and virtually all violent crime remains in decline for a couple of decades now. The primary argument from the anti gun crowd seems to be that more guns = more crime and death. But that doesn't agree with actual statistics.

I could attach a shallow stereotype to yourself or anyone else ignoring the facts, but this dumb redneck gun toter is smart enough to understand that shallow stereotypes are often cast due to a lack of understanding and the inability to grasp that not all of us have the same opinions.

[Lousada]

Anyone who actually looked objectively at the mounds and mounds of statistics on the issue would find that it's not the everyday gun owner who commits these crimes, it's the thugs by a vast percentage. That being, the people that don't legally obtain or own their guns to begin with, and many who are by law prohibited from doing the same. There are also pages upon pages proving that the cities with the highest murder tolls are most often those cities with strict anti gun laws, the reason being that above mentioned thugs have little chance of being opposed with equal force.

Anti-Gun laws in cities are not designed as gun-prevention. Without borderpatrols between states or around cities, it is impossible to prevent the transportation of guns within the US. It is silly therefore to claim that Anti-Gun laws in cities are not good in helping gun prevention when that is an impossible aim to begin with.
Anti-Gun laws only work when there is a clear distinction between the pro-gun and anti-gun areas. This distinction does not exist within the US. It does exist between countries, and statistics clearly show that when a country bans guns and enforces strict border controls to enforce this ban, violent crime drops. Example: Australia.


The link provided earlier by Rollo shows a snapshot of the current reality. Legal un sales are soaring in the US, the population is still growing, and virtually all violent crime remains in decline for a couple of decades now. The primary argument from the anti gun crowd seems to be that more guns = more crime and death. But that doesn't agree with actual statistics.

I could attach a shallow stereotype to yourself or anyone else ignoring the facts, but this dumb redneck gun toter is smart enough to understand that shallow stereotypes are often cast due to a lack of understanding and the inability to grasp that not all of us have the same opinions.

Violent crime is dropping everywhere in the western world also in areas where there are no guns at all. It is therefore too simple to claim that the reason for the drop is pro-gun laws.

[Roamy]

As I have mentioned. The answer is to register your gun with the Federal Gov and receive a national concealed carry license. Then they will know where the honest guns are and we can carry at will without all the stupid state and city laws. The best one right now is Arizona - If you got it pack it any way you like no license required.

[airshifter]

Anti-Gun laws in cities are not designed as gun-prevention. Without borderpatrols between states or around cities, it is impossible to prevent the transportation of guns within the US. It is silly therefore to claim that Anti-Gun laws in cities are not good in helping gun prevention when that is an impossible aim to begin with.
Anti-Gun laws only work when there is a clear distinction between the pro-gun and anti-gun areas. This distinction does not exist within the US. It does exist between countries, and statistics clearly show that when a country bans guns and enforces strict border controls to enforce this ban, violent crime drops. Example: Australia.

Example of reality: Australia

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

The murders with firearms was on the decline well before the gun ban, and the murder rate in the years surrounding the gun ban peaked years after. Shoots a big hole in the theory doesn't it?




Violent crime is dropping everywhere in the western world also in areas where there are no guns at all. It is therefore too simple to claim that the reason for the drop is pro-gun laws.

Violent crimes rates are far from dropping in much of the western world. But the US has seen declines for decades, despite more legally owned guns.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Total-crimes-per-1000# Overall crime rates realities

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html



As I've stated may posts above, what falls when guns are banned is usually only the murders committed with guns. Very rarely does it affect the murder rate. So what does it accomplish other than taking guns out of the hands of the legal owners who by statistics, will rarely if ever use them for a crime?

If the deaths by drunk drivers primarily took place at the hands of unlicensed drivers, would the solution be to ban cars?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

As I have mentioned. The answer is to register your gun with the Federal Gov and receive a national concealed carry license. Then they will know where the honest guns are and we can carry at will without all the stupid state and city laws. The best one right now is Arizona - If you got it pack it any way you like no license required.

But from my experience of my brief visit to the US different laws for state and city seems like the best solution. The rural parts of New York state I visited were like a different country to NYC with a completely different way of life. It would be ridiculous to govern the two as one.

[Rollo]

Example of reality: Australia

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

The murders with firearms was on the decline well before the gun ban, and the murder rate in the years surrounding the gun ban peaked years after. Shoots a big hole in the theory doesn't it?

Mass shootings in Australia:
1984 - Milperra Masacre - 7 people
1987 - Hoddle Street massacre - 7 people
1987 - Queen Street massacre - 9 people
1990 - Surry Hills massacre - 5 people
1991 - Strathfield massacre - 7 people
1992 - Central Coast Massacre - 6 people
1996 - Port Arthur massacre - 35 people

1997 - $350m Federal Gun Buyback Scheme - 643,000 firearms were handed in
Number of shootings where more than 3 people have been shot in a single incident since: 0
Yes, it does shoot a big hole in the theory.

Namely, that the policy worked.

[Starter]

Mass shootings in Australia:
1984 - Milperra Masacre - 7 people
1987 - Hoddle Street massacre - 7 people
1987 - Queen Street massacre - 9 people
1990 - Surry Hills massacre - 5 people
1991 - Strathfield massacre - 7 people
1992 - Central Coast Massacre - 6 people
1996 - Port Arthur massacre - 35 people

1997 - $350m Federal Gun Buyback Scheme - 643,000 firearms were handed in
Number of shootings where more than 3 people have been shot in a single incident since: 0
Yes, it does shoot a big hole in the theory.

Namely, that the policy worked.
I could be mistaken, but I believe the discussion was about shootings in general and not specifically mass shootings. So cherry picking isn't helping your point.

[Rollo]

Reading the material which you quoted might help:
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2006/fig013.png

Or if you are specifically talking about gun deaths:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxGBvQWCMAEuw1e.jpg

With a smaller sample size, any fluctuations are going to be greater.

[Starter]

Reading the material which you quoted might help:

I could be mistaken, but I believe the discussion was about shootings in general and not specifically mass shootings. So cherry picking isn't helping your point.

Mass shootings in the US are becoming more frequent, while Australia has recorded none since the buy back.
??

[airshifter]

??

Just another attempt at misdirection since the subject at hand and facts show the argument to be flawed.

But based on twisted realities, maybe we should wonder why a country such as the US has approx 15 times the population of Austalia, with gun ownership approx 10 times higher per capita, yet once again statistics don't prove the country to be 150 times as deadly.

Nor have US mass shootings managed to top the death toll of the Port Arthur shootings. With so many people and so many guns, wouldn't that be a given based on the straw man debate principles?

[Roamy]

Plus we have many many people that deserve to be shot !!

[Rollo]

But based on twisted realities, maybe we should wonder why a country such as the US has approx 15 times the population of Austalia, with gun ownership approx 10 times higher per capita, yet once again statistics don't prove the country to be 150 times as deadly.


Because 15 times a population multiplied by 10 times per capita is 150% of a population?

If gun ownership is approx 10 times higher per capita, shouldn't we expect a 10 times higher per capita rate for homicide with firearms?
wiki magic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year
Total Calculated:
US - 10.30
Aus - 1.06
10.30 / 1.06 = 9.71 (that looks about 10 times higher per capita, or thereabouts)

Homicides:
US - 3.60
Aus - 0.13
3.60 / 0.13 = 27.69

Surely you need to compare like for like.