This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Australia has incredibly strict gun control laws, and has almost no gun deaths.
So.
Post by
Gone
This kind of flippant and insulting comment really doesn't have a place in a mature discussion.
I really don't see how that was insulting at all. All that I was doing was pointing out that firearms being restricted in the UK really doesn't prevent violent crime from happening. I wasn't trying to insult you or the place that you choose to live. You shouldn't take what I said as a personal insult any more than I would be insulted by somebody pointing out the high degree of gun deaths in the US.
Indeed, I imagine it's due to the crossing venn diagram of high population density and low social and economical standards. There are likely multiple ways to guess at a reason for an individual data point.
Again though, deciding that the higher crime rates (if we assume the data truly does back this up) is due to something you firmly believe, without serious evidence to back it up, would be another example of a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
You're misunderstanding what my point was. Yes, obviously the high crime rates are due to a multitude of factors, but my point was that restricting guns, at least in the US, has been vastly unsuccessful at curbing this. It's common knowledge that the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are a result of illegally purchased firearms. This was what I meant when I said that restricting guns only effects people who actually obey the law.
I live in the second most restrictive state in the country, and I know two places right now where I could go buy a gun off the street.
I'm not really sure why you decided I was an opponent based on my personal feeling about my (and my family's) safety but perhaps, in discussion of serious matters, we can try to get rid of notions of personal enmity moving forward.
Again, I didn't mean any personal animosity towards you. I think you were taking that a bit more personally than it was meant.
The evidence surely points to that if you want a safer society get rid off weapons.
So following this same logic, if you want a drug free society, just ban drugs. The problem is that prohibition does not work. It didn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with drugs, and it won't work with guns.
All that banning guns will do is put more power in the hands of criminals. Look how powerful drug cartels have become thanks to the US drug war. And criminals can easily get their hands on narcotics despite a nation wide ban.
Australia has incredibly strict gun control laws, and has almost no gun deaths.
So.
In the first four years after the gun bans in Australia (which were a knee jerk, fear based response to the Martin Bryant incident), assaults rose by almost 50% and robbery rose by 6%. Sexual assaults rose by 30%. There was a decrease in the murder rate, by about 30%, but this almost exactly matches a 30% drop in the murder rate in the US, which had no gun ban.
I'm not saying that these numbers are a result of guns being banned, but on the same hand you can't say that banning guns will surly put a stop to violent crime.
Post by
Monday
In the first four years after the gun bans in Australia
Look at the stats now.
Post by
Gone
In the first four years after the gun bans in Australia
Look at the stats now.
Those numbers didn't really start to drop off for more than ten years after the ban. Which could be for a number of factors. Although as for the current numbers...
You mean the ones that say that women in Australia are more than twice as likely to be raped as women in the US? Or the ones that say you're almost 50% more likely to be the victim of a potentially violent crime in Australia? You're also about twice as likely to be assaulted in a non sexual manner compared to the US.
It's true that there are more than 150 times more gun deaths in the US than in Australia, but again I'll pointing out that banning guns in the US has been widely unsuccessful in actually getting guns off the street, and a large majority of gun deaths are committed with illegally purchased weapons.
Post by
Monday
but again I'll pointing out that banning guns in the US has been widely unsuccessful in actually getting guns off the street
This is possibly due to the patchwork nature of our gun control laws. For example, people always bring up Chicago as the ultimate failing of gun control. It has super strict laws, but a high gun death rate.
Of course, it's also situated right next to Indiana, which has pretty loose laws. It's easy to buy one in Indiana and head back to Chicago.
and a large majority of gun deaths are committed with illegally purchased weapons.
Source?
Also, are you against increased regulation?
Post by
Gone
Also, are you against increased regulation?
I'm gonna respond to the other bit in a few minutes, but I wanted to leave this here before I go because I don't want to leave people with the wrong idea on where I stand.
I do believe that guns are a problem in the US and that they should be regulated. However, I think that people want to go about it in the worst possible manner. Making more and more restrictive gun laws will only make a difference with respect to people that actually obey the law for the most part anyway. I think that rather than taking weapons out of the hands of the average citizen, more effort should be made on taking guns out of the hands of criminals. Right now the ATF budget is less than half of what the DEA gets, and an even smaller fraction of what the FBI has (1.2 billion dollars to the FBI's 8.1).
In addition to giving the ATF more resources to work with, I think that the decision on who should get a license to carry should be left up to more than just the discretion of the local chief of police (in some states). This would frankly be a boon to people on both sides of the fence in this debate.
I also think that we should focus more on education and keeping guns in the right hands and out of the wring ones, than on trying to put large blanket bans in place designed to keep as many weapons out of circulation as possible.
Post by
Monday
I also think that we should focus more on education and keeping guns in the right hands and out of the wring ones
And how would you define "right hands?"
But otherwise, I can agree with you. I've never been for a blanket ban on guns. However, I don't see the purpose of huge clips, less regulation, etc. I mean, for pete's sake, we regulate CARS more than guns.
To me, that's just wrong. Cars are actually useful in a modern society. Guns tend not to be.
Post by
Squishalot
I'd just like to make it clear that guns are not
banned
in Australia. They are
heavily regulated
.
Ownership of a gun requires you to be licensed (and to maintain that license, I believe), and each firearm that you own has to be registered, no matter where it is purchased from. Any firearms that you own must not be fully or semi automatic. A license application must be accompanied with a genuine reason for for possessing a firearm, with self-protection not qualifying. Private sales of weapons are prohibited except through licensed gun dealers or police. All firearms must be registered.
Other than the self-protection marker, I don't see any reasonable reason why those regulations wouldn't work in a country like the US. Realistically, your identity is known by the government in so many other ways, that mandatory licensing and registration of firearms isn't going to hurt.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I wonder how many people here are city people versus country people. I am from the midwest. I've spent most of my life in the larger cities here, but also plenty of time in the rural parts of Minnesota as well. Guns are a way of life in the less urban settings out here. Everyone up here hunts. So many kids grow up with BB guns. Squirrels and other garden pests are routinely taken out by the 12 year olds of the neighborhood. Any boy who turns 18 has already learned how to handle and safely operate a gun. And people don't worry about the guns because anyone who even threatens to bring out a gun in violence will not find himself in a friendly place.
Maybe a one-size fits all rule isn't what we need.
Post by
Gone
Cars are actually useful in a modern society. Guns tend not to be.
That's kind of the point. Cars are used every day by a large majority of society, which the pro gun person would argue requires more regulation. Cars also kill more people every year than guns.
And before anybody puts words in my mouth, I'm not trying to set up a strawman argument about cars being more dangerous than guns, I'm just pointing out why they're more heavily regulated.
I don't think that licensing and registration for guns is a bad idea. I'm even in favor of thorough background checks. I'm not in favor of banning high capacity magazines,
semiautomatic
rifles, or putting laws in places designed to make it as difficult as possible for people to obtain a license to carry concealed handguns.
Realistically, if somebody wanted to kill a bunch of people they could build a bomb with google and stuff that they find at their local hardware store, so a lot of the bans that some of the more restrictive states have been putting in place are fairly arbitrary.
And how would you define "right hands?"
Any law abiding, non-criminal, of legal age that feels the need to own one.
Post by
Squishalot
I wonder how many people here are city people versus country people. I am from the midwest. I've spent most of my life in the larger cities here, but also plenty of time in the rural parts of Minnesota as well. Guns are a way of life in the less urban settings out here. Everyone up here hunts. So many kids grow up with BB guns. Squirrels and other garden pests are routinely taken out by the 12 year olds of the neighborhood. Any boy who turns 18 has already learned how to handle and safely operate a gun. And people don't worry about the guns because anyone who even threatens to bring out a gun in violence will not find himself in a friendly place.
Maybe a one-size fits all rule isn't what we need.
I'd like to note that the same applies in parts of country Australia as well. Maybe not in a 'hunting for fun / game' sense, but definitely in a 'hunting to eradicate pests'. Farmers in Australia are one of the social groups that have pretty free access to firearms on account of their 'genuine reasons'.
That's kind of the point. Cars are used every day by a large majority of society, which the pro gun person would argue requires more regulation. Cars also kill more people every year than guns.
And before anybody puts words in my mouth, I'm not trying to set up a strawman argument about cars being more dangerous than guns, I'm just pointing out why they're more heavily regulated.
I know you're not setting up a strawman argument. However, we also regulate nuclear weapons, which kill less people each year than either cars or guns and are used much more infrequently. By the argument you're making with cars and guns (i.e. more use => more regulation), we shouldn't be regulating nuclear weapons at all.
I'm not sure that usage should influence regulation. Shouldn't it be about risk of harm?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Monday
Any law abiding, non-criminal, of legal age that feels the need to own one.
Hmm. There's lots of problems with this, though. Look at the shootings over the past few weeks in America alone. Several people were killed by "responsible gun owners."
semiautomatic rifles
I don't know anyone who wants to ban semiautomatics.
I'm not in favor of banning high capacity magazines
Why? What purpose do high capacity magazines serve, besides making it easier for mass shooters to kill more people?
I've been hunting. I've been target shooting. I've never needed a magazine with more than 5 - 9 rounds.
That's kind of the point. Cars are used every day by a large majority of society, which the pro gun person would argue requires more regulation. Cars also kill more people every year than guns.
And before anybody puts words in my mouth, I'm not trying to set up a strawman argument about cars being more dangerous than guns, I'm just pointing out why they're more heavily regulated.
There are more deaths by cars because more people use cars. The ratio of cars to people in America is almost a 1:1. And, because they're so dangerous, they require extensive training, demonstration of competency and registration to be able to own one.
So why are guns any different? They're weapons, with one purpose: to kill. This is not needed in a civilized society. And yet you have people arguing that every person should be able to just walk out of the streets and buy a gun.
Why?
Why should guns be easy to obtain? Why should they not be held to the same standards as cars? Extensive training, requiring a certain number of hours practiced with a state certified trainer, mandatory classes and heavier registration. THAT is how guns should be treated in a civilized society.
However, until they are, I imagine we're going to continue at the rate of about one school shooting every couple weeks.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
@Squish
You really can't see a difference between handguns, cars, and nuclear weapons? I agree it should be about risk of harm, but really this directly correlates to usage. And I wasn't even really trying to make that argument.
Hmm. There's lots of problems with this, though. Look at the shootings over the past few weeks in America alone. Several people were killed by "responsible gun owners."
And it's terrible when things like this happen, but really mass shootings that gain all this media attention only account for a very small number of the total gun deaths every year. And again, background checks weed out a lot of the crazies. Take Adam Lanza for instance. he applied for a gun license, got turned down, and then stole the weapon that he used to commit the massacre. This is where education in responsible gun ownership comes in.
I don't know anyone who wants to ban semiautomatics.
Then you're not paying attention. The anti gun crowd is constantly trying to force through legislation to ban semiautomatic AR15s and AK47s, and severely limit people's ability to purchase them.
Why? What purpose do high capacity magazines serve, besides making it easier for mass shooters to kill more people?
I've been hunting. I've been target shooting. I've never needed a magazine with more than 5 - 9 rounds.
Hunting and target shooting are not the only reasons people may want high capacity magazines. By your same logic, why ever make a car that can go more than 80 miles per hour when the average person shouldn't ever have the need to legally travel that fast?
Furthermore, it's an arbitrary law. If somebody really wants to kill a lot of people they can light a fire, or build a bomb. ^&*!, you can get the job done by mixing bleach and amonia and everybody whose ever read a warning label knows this. The same day as the Sandy Hook shootings a guy in china stabbed over 20 people with a knife.
Why should guns be easy to obtain? Why should they not be held to the same standards as cars? Extensive training, requiring a certain number of hours practiced with a state certified trainer, mandatory classes and heavier registration. THAT is how guns should be treated in a civilized society.
You're basing this argument on a false premise, that guns are easier to obtain than cars, and they are not. You can take a driving test anywhere in the state, and no, you are not required to take any classes. I learned how to drive from my parents, and when I felt comfortable I went to take the test. In order to get my LTC permit I had to take a class, get a letter from my boss displaying need, find two non relative references to vouch for me, display that I don't have any history of mental illness or felonious activity, then wait three months for the chief of police in my town of residence to decide whether he felt as though I should have one. And the funny part here is that it's left entirely up to his discretion. If he decides he doesn't like your shirt, you can't carry. I drove two towns over to get an easier driving instructor for my road test, can't do that with a LTC.
Post by
Squishalot
You really can't see a difference between handguns, cars, and nuclear weapons? I agree it should be about risk of harm, but really this directly correlates to usage. And I wasn't even really trying to make that argument.
To be clear, you said:
Cars are used every day by a large majority of society, which the pro gun person would argue requires more regulation. Cars also kill more people every year than guns.
So when you say "I'm just pointing out why they're more heavily regulated", what exactly is it that you're trying to say about cars that make them more heavily regulated then? What argument are you trying to make?
1. Cars are used more, therefore they require more regulation?
2. Cars kill more people every year, therefore they require more regulation?
I think that either is a very slippery slope. It's not that hard to go from firearms to explosives to WMDs.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
You really can't see a difference between handguns, cars, and nuclear weapons? I agree it should be about risk of harm, but really this directly correlates to usage. And I wasn't even really trying to make that argument.
To be clear, you said:
Cars are used every day by a large majority of society, which the pro gun person would argue requires more regulation. Cars also kill more people every year than guns.
I also thought I made it pretty clear that I wasn't trying to make an argument equating reality with idealism. I'm saying cars are probably more heavily regulated because car fatalities are more common and everybody drives a car. I wasn't trying to say that cars
should
be more heavily regulated for these reasons, just that it's why I suspect that in some cases they are.
And the more I think about it, in many states guns are much more heavily regulated than cars, so I don't know where the Hell Funden even got the idea that they're not from.
Post by
Monday
Then you're not paying attention. The anti gun crowd is constantly trying to force through legislation to ban semiautomatic AR15s and AK47s, and severely limit people's ability to purchase them.
I would disagree. I spend at least an hour each day keeping up on politics. The only members of the "anti gun crowd" that push for bans of semiautomatics tend to be radicals (who don't have any say in the matter and aren't representative of the group as a whole). Stop stereotyping.
Hunting and target shooting are not the only reasons people may want high capacity magazines. By your same logic, why ever make a car that can go more than 80 miles per hour when the average person shouldn't ever have the need to legally travel that fast?
Furthermore, it's an arbitrary law. If somebody really wants to kill a lot of people they can light a fire, or build a bomb. ^&*!, you can get the job done by mixing bleach and amonia and everybody whose ever read a warning label knows this.
Yet this doesn't answer the question. The only reason I see here is "why not?"
I can give several reasons why not, which I just illuminated.
The same day as the Sandy Hook shootings a guy in china stabbed over 20 people with a knife.
Yup, I remember hearing it on the news.
And yet, wait for it...
... nobody died from the stab wounds. 26 people were killed by the Sandy Hook shooting, 20 of them bloody children. These two situations are not at all comparable.
and no, you are not required to take any classes.
Once again, patchwork nature. You're required to have driver's ed classes here.
And to the rest of your point, I repeat what I just said: patchwork nature. Where I live, you don't need a license to carry an unloaded, openly displayed gun. Private sales are legal, so you don't have to go through any sort of government official to purchase your gun.
Additionally, carry permits here are stupidly easy to get.
so I don't know where the Hell Funden even got the idea that they're not from.
From bloody experience.
Post by
Gone
Yet this doesn't answer the question. The only reason I see here is "why not?"
I can give several reasons why not, which I just illuminated.
The problem is you listed arbitrary reasons. People will still kill each other without high capacity magazines. And high capacity magazines are easy to get if you're willing to break the law. All weapons of any kind are banned in prison, and people still kill each other every day.
You're reasons, listing mass shootings, is the same fear based mentality that led to prohibition, and just like with that, banning high capacity magazines will only effect people who are actually willing to obey the law.
You also implied that hunting and target shooting are the only good reasons to own a gun. What about survivalists and disaster prepers? What about people that live in volatile regions or areas prone to riots? What about the growing number of people in the US alone that believe we are on the brink of some form of massive social upheaval? All of these people would have use for high capacity magazines.
Yup, I remember hearing it on the news.
And yet, wait for it...
... nobody died from the stab wounds. 26 people were killed by the Sandy Hook shooting, 20 of them bloody children. These two situations are not at all comparable.
The fact that nobody died is a small miracle. Are you really going to argue that people can't effectively kill each other without large capacity magazines? *!@#, you realize people are capable of carrying more than one gun right? It doesn't even take that long to reload. Most of the 20 round magazines used at the Sandy Hook shooting were only have emptied before the guy reloaded.
Once again, patchwork nature. You're required to have driver's ed classes here.
And to the rest of your point, I repeat what I just said: patchwork nature. Where I live, you don't need a license to carry an unloaded, openly displayed gun. Private sales are legal, so you don't have to go through any sort of government official to purchase your gun.
With this in mind then, don't make large blanket statements that cover the entire country, or it will lead to confusion.
Post by
Squishalot
You also implied that hunting and target shooting are the only good reasons to own a gun. What about survivalists and disaster prepers? What about people that live in volatile regions or areas prone to riots? What about the growing number of people in the US alone that believe we are on the brink of some form of massive social upheaval? All of these people would have use for high capacity magazines.
I think that explosives (grenades, dynamite, C4, etc.) would be a fair comparison in this regard. Should access to explosives be deregulated for those needs you indicated?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.