I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

And that completely excuses all that happened. OK, now I understand. Thanks for straightening that out.

---

No, I just gave you an example that sometimes it's safer to not have a gun or at least to not turn it against other people. Especially when other people have the upper hand. Like Kenny Rogers would have put it:

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

No, I just gave you an example that sometimes it's safer to not have a gun or at least to not turn it against other people. Especially when other people have the upper hand.

---

So you would rather live like a "good slave", than take a chance at breaking your bonds. Telling. Very, telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

A completely false statement that flies in the face of reality. Unless you can present a convincing argument for how, on making gun ownership illegal or at least extremely difficult, you will magically make the millions of existing firearms go away. You need to look for another reason to support your stand.

---

No. A completely true statement that is backed with the weight of evidence.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian Government via a buy back scheme took 700,000 guns out of society.

News | The University of Sydney
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Australia which has far tighter gun control and which engaged in a mass buy back has a gun-related death rate which is 14.7 times lower per 100,000 people.
Having been down this road before, I can't actually make a convincing argument because it isn't accepted. What is accepted and apparently acceptable is 14.7 times the number of dead Americans as a result of guns per 100,000 people. What's also accepted is a health care system which has to cope with accidents and injuries up and down the land. America as a nation has found it acceptable to wear these costs through increased health insurance premiums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So you would rather live like a "good slave", than take a chance at breaking your bonds. Telling. .Very, telling.

---

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking generally. When there's no chance, some people do prefer to live instead of dying. In 5 card stud poker, would you go against three aces with king high?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

A person doesn't even have to be educated, just principled will do.

---

My word. I would have thought education and training in how to handle a firearm ought to rank above the individual's standpoint on the issue of gun ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

another fine example of google ads
http://i41.tinypic.com/6zy0k7.jpg

google must think I'm a completely different person based on my texan ip :laugh:

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Today most of Europe is higher in crime in almost every aspect other than murder than the US is. That's another fact

---

And with Europe having almost 50% more citizens I think that is not exactly a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. A completely true statement that is backed with the weight of evidence.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian Government via a buy back scheme took 700,000 guns out of society.

News | The University of Sydney
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Australia which has far tighter gun control and which engaged in a mass buy back has a gun-related death rate which is 14.7 times lower per 100,000 people.
Having been down this road before, I can't actually make a convincing argument because it isn't accepted. What is accepted and apparently acceptable is 14.7 times the number of dead Americans as a result of guns per 100,000 people. What's also accepted is a health care system which has to cope with accidents and injuries up and down the land. America as a nation has found it acceptable to wear these costs through increased health insurance premiums.

---

Thanks for the great examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And with Europe having almost 50% more citizens I think that is not exactly a bad thing.

---

So a larger country having a higher per capita crime rate is ok as long as it's not gun related crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

So a larger country having a higher per capita crime rate is ok as long as it's not gun related crime?

---

I was referring to having less murders then you guys have in pistol heaven.