stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Humerox]

It's not pending, lol. Australia. Simple.

[patriot1776]

aka breakins and rapes thereof increased 10fold

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not pending, lol. Australia. Simple.

I have one word for you: propaganda. Sorry, I just skimmed through it a bit and found some of it hard to believe. I then googled for about 2 seconds and I was presented with contradictory evidence on a lot of their claims. They try to hide a lot of evidence and use extremely biased statistics. For example,

Originally Posted by ArticlePostedPage366UnderResults;

In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the
massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass
shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead
and at least another 52 wounded (table 1).8 In the 10.5 years
since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass
shootings have occurred in Australia.

However, there is a very famous shooting that occurred in Australia in 2002 however.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Granted it wasn't on the scale as the Port Arthur massacre, but it still happened and still qualifies as a mass shooting. Mass shooting don't happen very often and have a very sporadic turn out and therefore can only be categorized as anomalous tragedies.


However, Australia did lower their gun injuries and deaths substantially after 1996 and obviously so.

Originally Posted by http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia;

2010: 236
2009: 227
2008: 232
2007: 237
2006: 246
2005: 212
2004: 234
2003: 287
2002: 292
2001: 326
2000: 324
1999: 347
1998: 312
1997: 428
1996: 516
1995: 470
1994: 516
1993: 513
1992: 608
1991: 618
1990: 595
1989: 549
1988: 674
1987: 694
1986: 677
1985: 682
1984: 675
1983: 644
1982: 689
1981: 618
1980: 687
1979: 685
Compare
Rate of All Gun Deaths per 100,000 People
ChartIn Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.0615
2009: 1.04
2008: 1.08
2007: 1.12
2006: 1.19
2005: 1.04
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

I actually tried to find some sort of overall statistical analysis from 1987-2012 in Australian crime rates, but the ABS only has records from 2008+ which really doesn't help me. I wouldn't be surprised though if the number of assaults stayed the same if not increased. Also, you can't really compare Australia to the USA. The USA has much denser and larger cities than Australia therefore crime rates are going to be higher. Also, the immigration laws in Australia are MUCH more strict than they are in the states and the USA has a lot more illegal immigrants than Australia.

What I am trying to say is that it is not simple.

[Lexical]

What I find really interesting however is that the rate of gun deaths and homicides were already on a steady decline BEFORE 1996 in Australia and if you keep looking at the statistics it follows a downward linear trend. It can be easily hypothesized through these observations that Australian gun laws did not "solve" the problem but as a culture, Australians were becoming less and less violent and lower gun violence was bound to happen.

[vaylorie]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's not pending, lol. Australia. Simple.

Proven beyond the shadow of a doubt..... Anyone can plainly see that there is an immediate and noticeable effect that the gun ban had on crime statistics. Also, I agree w/ Lexical re: other mass shootings or mass killings that somehow didn't make it in their stats. What was the hostel fire or something like that?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I sleep well at night knowing that my right to bear arms will not be infringed regardless of the feeble attempts of you lefties. Time and time again the Supreme Court has struck down restrictive gun laws and New York may be next.

I'm not against bearing arms. Outlawing assault-style weapons is common-sense. No one needs them. Your right to bear arms is already limited. Supreme Court?

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment. (Limits your freedom).

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."


"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he wrote.

So, your right to carry what you want to is already limited...and can be changed by law.

Determining what those weapons are is the common sense point we need to reach.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look, if you want to remove guns to reduce gun-based crime, you will be successful. Some of the gun crime will be turn into other types of violent crime and murder weapons and you will feel better feeling that you have solved a problem since deaths by guns will slightly decline while violent crime continues to grow. (again, look at Britain)

I prefer to look at Australia, which is much more culturally like us, albeit on a smaller scale. I can also refer to actual research.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you want to reduce violent crime (a.k.a. protect people / kids / etc.), then you have to actually evaluate the problem and statistically & historically a gun ban will not work.

Only due to half-assed enforcement and implementation. And no, gun legislation by itself won't do the trick.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you want to reduce mass murders caused by guns, which have almost the same probability of happening as getting struck by lightning, then you can ban the guns and criminals will find an alternative weapon. Like fire, bomb, illegal assault weapon, etc. which still happen despite your saying they don't. You will be 'successful' because while mass killings still happen, they aren't done with guns. I use successful carefully since mass killings represent a fraction of 1% of homicides each year so you aren't really solving the problem.

Mass killings without guns happens all the time in the US. You're arguing apples and oranges by saying that the same nuts will find another means to do the killing. I say they won't because it isn't nearly as easy, and most of the killers have been cowardly lone-wolf rejects. I can count exactly TWO incidents in Australia that were mass murders since 1986. One was a fire, and the other was a man that beat his family to death.

Originally Posted by vaylorie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you really want to reduce mass murders, you can evaluate the commonalities from mass murderers and figure out where the likely problems live. You will find one primary box checked routinely when looking at a mass murderer in hindsight. Almost every one will have 'signs of mental illness shown prior to event'. That is where our focus should be, not trying to get rid of the weapon that the crazy person used.

And I say that the focus should be on that and legislating assault-style weapons, among quite a few other legislative moves, like requiring yearly registration, no private transfer of guns, insurance, firearms courses required to own, etc.

[Humerox]

Didn't read that actual research paper I linked did ya? Still looking for skewed statistics that support your argument rather than facts.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have one word for you: propaganda. Sorry, I just skimmed through it a bit and found some of it hard to believe. I then googled for about 2 seconds and I was presented with contradictory evidence on a lot of their claims. They try to hide a lot of evidence and use extremely biased statistics. For example,



However, there is a very famous shooting that occurred in Australia in 2002 however.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

Granted it wasn't on the scale as the Port Arthur massacre, but it still happened and still qualifies as a mass shooting. Mass shooting don't happen very often and have a very sporadic turn out and therefore can only be categorized as anomalous tragedies.

I am so glad you brought up Monash...not only because I defeated that argument before, I did so handily. You didn't read up on Monash, did you?

The very fact that only 2 people were killed and 5 injured is a statement against assault style weapons in itself. Suppose Xiang had assault-style weapons? The following wouldn't have happened.

When Xiang stopped shooting and moved to switch weapons, Lee Gordon-Brown, the injured lecturer, grabbed Xiang's hands as he reached into his jacket. Gordon-Brown and a student in the room, Alastair Boast, a trained wing chun practitioner, tackled him.[3][5][8][9] Bradley Thompson later entered the room and discovered five guns in holsters around Xiang's waist, including two Berettas, a Taurus, a .357 Magnum and a .38-caliber revolver, as well as two magazines from near his hip.

Gordon-Brown and Boast were assisted by a passing lecturer from a nearby room, Brett Inder, to restrain Xiang for thirty minutes until police arrived, while Thompson and university administrator Colin Thornby, provided first aid.

[Humerox]

The Barettas were revolvers iirc...before you go ballistic on it.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am so glad you brought up Monash...not only because I defeated that argument before, I did so handily. You didn't read up on Monash, did you?

I am very proud of you, but I don't think you really read my post, and yes I did read up on Monash. I really have one question for you and all I request is that you reread my post and then answer it: What is my argument?

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The very fact that only 2 people were killed and 5 injured is a statement against assault style weapons in itself. Suppose Xiang had assault-style weapons? The following wouldn't have happened.

If this is your fabled defense, then I can only imagine the mental midgets you overcame.