quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961





I would suggest he check out NFA regulations, which would prove it is not that fucking easy to get a fully automatic weapon in the states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961





I would suggest he check out NFA regulations, which would prove it is not that fucking easy to get a fully automatic weapon in the states.

Correction: It's not that fucking easy to get a *legal* fully automatic weapon in the states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961





I would suggest he check out NFA regulations, which would prove it is not that fucking easy to get a fully automatic weapon in the states.

Correction: It's not that fucking easy to get a *legal* fully automatic weapon in the states.

To be fair I prrety sure that is what he meant as it is what he said about 3 posts earlier

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Great. Good for you. I can give you real-world examples of how shit changes in America. In Ohio, the drunk driving limit was set to 0.1% blood acohol level. Over that, if you get caught, you're nailed. It has since been redefined as 0.08% blood alcohol level. In Ohio, not wearing a seat belt in the front seat(s) of a vehicle was a second-degree offense, meaning you could not be pulled over for not wearing it, but if you were pulled over for something else and weren't wearing your seat belt, you were ticketed for that, also. It didn't take long, but now, it's a primary offense, so a cop can actually pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, regardless of your driving.
Thus what is determined to be "reasonable" in America when the bill passes, may be exactly the same as it is in Australia. For now, anyway. But, is there a guarantee that some anti-gun group won't get enough power to require a bank-vault equivalent in the future? If you are sure that would never happen, then, yes, you are sure. If you can reasonably see that happening, then you aren't sure.

To quote from a Clint Eastwood movie (The Rookie?), "If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster"....
Overall, this is pretty much a recurring theme of the typical American pro-gun attitude.
That is, that while it's all sad & tragic & blah blah & etc etc when innocents are slaughtered, doing anything against guns or the 2nd amendment to arrest the carnage is bad; is crazy; the thin-end-of-the-wedge; won't work; is punishing the innocent gun-owner; will lead to a US dictatorship; the government will be kicking doors in; concentration camps; the British will be back - or whatever conspiracy is flavour of the movement there....
That said, it's naive to think there'll never be change. We are an evolving species, always have been. And frankly, if some anti-gun group did gain power and influence, that'd likely be democracy at work. That Americans in general have finally had enough of loved-ones being mindlessly gunned down only to be remembered by greater society as collateral damage for the "greater good" of rampant gun ownership.

quote:

Frankly, I'd like to see one pro-gun American here suggest a sensible and long overdue reform that isn't about classes, background checks or putting guards (and even more guns) in schools etc. Something that actually takes some of the guns off the street.
Any takers?
The truth is, that to you or any pro-gun American, there's no such thing as "reasonable" (re any proposed gun controls). That you regard the otherwise innocent, law-abiding gun owner as the real victim and conveniently ignore the thousands of innocent gun victims as a consequence. You all have one lousy and highly selfish sense of priorities...! You are the exception to the rule of human evolution.

quote:

Btw, in Australia, all cars come with seat belts and it's an offense for *anyone* not wearing one - FULL STOP. And yes, the driver is responsible for ALL passengers wearing them, too. IE, someone in the back isn't wearing their belt, that person and the driver are both likely to be fined.
I guess I'll never get Americans and their apparent death wish. Wtf is so hard about buckling up - I mean, it's right there and takes all of 2 seconds to put it on...!
Focus.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961





I would suggest he check out NFA regulations, which would prove it is not that fucking easy to get a fully automatic weapon in the states.

Correction: It's not that fucking easy to get a *legal* fully automatic weapon in the states.

To be fair I prrety sure that is what he meant as it is what he said about 3 posts earlier

I knew that. I just thought I would throw it in for emphasis. It seems like some people and especially a certain poster from the land of Oz (I'm referring mostly to the fantasy land obsessive compulsive mental imbalance, not just the country) probably think if unregistered automatic weapons are illegal you can't get them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

What is wrong with requiring safety classes, and improving background checking to gain a gun license/registration? Schools are "Gun Free Zones" by Federal legislation. Adding armed guards inside schools (which I don't support) won't add even more guns to the school, but will add guns to the schools.

Adam Lanza tried to buy guns, but was denied. He stole them. He gained possession of the firearms illegally. Would increased laws have prevented him from gaining firearms illegally? Perhaps the Bushmaster, but the handguns? Maybe the shotgun (which he didn't use).

quote:

How incredible! You know how to put a seat belt on and anecdotally "timed" it. Congrats. Now, tell me where I said I was against wearing a seat belt. Go on. I'll give you all the time you want. You'll never find it, though. In America, only the front seat riders are required to wear seat belts unless they are under 16, where they have to have some sort of age/development-appropriate restraint. Considering the seat belt is primarily a safety device for a rider in the car, and not wearing a seat belt does not infringe on anyone else's rights, liberties, or freedoms, what authority does Government have to force me to wear one? It's not that I wouldn't choose to wear one. And, it's not a matter of how long it takes to put on.

quote:

Punishing a law-abiding Citizen for the actions of non law-abiding Citizens is ridiculous, and a typical knee-jerk reaction of those in opposition. Both sides do it for their respective platforms, and it's no more or less ridiculous depending on which side is doing it. I'm happy you accept the laws Australia has passed (you have even expressed that you think it went too far). However, this isn't Australia we're talking about. Does your Government have a Constitution that stipulates that Citizens rights to bear arms shall not be infringed? If not, then we aren't operating under the same framework from the get-go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

Correction: It's not that fucking easy to get a *legal* fully automatic weapon in the states.

To be fair I prrety sure that is what he meant as it is what he said about 3 posts earlier

I knew that. I just thought I would throw it in for emphasis. It seems like some people and especially a certain poster from the land of Oz (I'm referring mostly to the fantasy land obsessive compulsive mental imbalance, not just the country) probably think if unregistered automatic weapons are illegal you can't get them.

Reasonable thought.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
What is wrong with requiring safety classes, and improving background checking to gain a gun license/registration? Schools are "Gun Free Zones" by Federal legislation. Adding armed guards inside schools (which I don't support) won't add even more guns to the school, but will add guns to the schools.
Adam Lanza tried to buy guns, but was denied. He stole them. He gained possession of the firearms illegally. Would increased laws have prevented him from gaining firearms illegally? Perhaps the Bushmaster, but the handguns? Maybe the shotgun (which he didn't use).

What's "wrong" is that none of these things addresses one of the most critical factors in incidental gun deaths (and injury). Means and opportunity - the prevalence of guns in your country. Demonstrated perfectly in your own words - that ol' mate didn't even use his own guns but had the means and opportunity to obtain them, nonetheless.
Over thirty thousand gun deaths in the US annually. Don't tell me they're all criminals "living by the sword". Do tell me I'm wrong to suggest a high percentage are likely from domestic disputes being settled with a gun conveniently at hand.

quote:

At the risk of getting involved in semantics, you've got me wrong. What I'm saying (and always intended) is that to go from no armed guards in schools to armed guards in schools means you're adding "even more guns" to America's gun problems - the big picture.

quote:

quote:

How incredible! You know how to put a seat belt on and anecdotally "timed" it. Congrats. Now, tell me where I said I was against wearing a seat belt. Go on. I'll give you all the time you want. You'll never find it, though. In America, only the front seat riders are required to wear seat belts unless they are under 16, where they have to have some sort of age/development-appropriate restraint. Considering the seat belt is primarily a safety device for a rider in the car, and not wearing a seat belt does not infringe on anyone else's rights, liberties, or freedoms, what authority does Government have to force me to wear one? It's not that I wouldn't choose to wear one. And, it's not a matter of how long it takes to put on.

Again, not gonna indulge any games of semantics and fine print. A car has seat belts. They take but a second to fit. Seat belts save lives. Where's the rocket science? Or should one ask, where's the commonsense for what should be a no-brainer?

quote:

quote:

Punishing a law-abiding Citizen for the actions of non law-abiding Citizens is ridiculous, and a typical knee-jerk reaction of those in opposition. Both sides do it for their respective platforms, and it's no more or less ridiculous depending on which side is doing it. I'm happy you accept the laws Australia has passed (you have even expressed that you think it went too far). However, this isn't Australia we're talking about. Does your Government have a Constitution that stipulates that Citizens rights to bear arms shall not be infringed? If not, then we aren't operating under the same framework from the get-go.

By saying "ridiculous", you're implying a simple choice and it just isn't! As a result of the Port Arthur massacre, our government acted for the greater good. And yes, law-abiding citizens (ie gun owners) were punished - not in dispute and not fair. There also hasn't been another spree killing since, not here. And a domestic dispute ending in gun violence is almost non-existant other than a few highly publicised Police shootings. (Police being the shooter)
Your government sits on its hands (on gun control), always has. So who speaks up for what's fair on behalf of the kids at Newtown? Not you, or any other pro-gun poster here. Still not your government. If you're gonna talk "fair", you need to consider BOTH sides of the argument and (the hard part) choose, because you don't have one without the other.
Focus.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: painman66

I take the point, but society is sadly totally reliant on motor vehicles. We have them not becasue we love them but because we need them, as they do in the US and the rest of the World. Guns are not necessary to survive in the Western World (though they may be in some parts of the third World I admit).

Guns are owned by choice, motor vehicles are rightly or wrongly a necessaity now, so hardly a fair comparison.

quote:

ORIGINAL: painman66
I take the point, but society is sadly totally reliant on motor vehicles. We have them not becasue we love them but because we need them, as they do in the US and the rest of the World. Guns are not necessary to survive in the Western World (though they may be in some parts of the third World I admit).
Guns are owned by choice, motor vehicles are rightly or wrongly a necessaity now, so hardly a fair comparison.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

No idea what the percentages are (which was why I showed interest in the numbers being broken down into gang and/or drug-related offenses). But, "domestic disputes being settled with a gun conveniently at hand" can happen pretty much anywhere.

quote:

But, would it still be adding more guns if the guards already own the guns?

quote:

I have chosen. You don't seem to be listening.

I am in favor of increased background checks. I am in favor of more stringent mental health stipulations. I have no problem with gun owners being required to provide reasonable security of their firearms. I hate the word, "reasonable" because it's subjective, and can (and will) be re-interpreted for political advantage whenever possible (both sides will do it).

quote:

15 listed, starting back in 1860. And, not all of them are mass shootings, but the most recent wasn't 1996. It was 2002.

I spose this is where I eat humble pie and admit my error....

BUT (lol)

I respect most things quoted from Wikipedia but I'm having some trouble seeing how a double homicide ranks as a spree killing. If that's the standard and I applied it to America's 30,000+ annual gun deaths, then surely there's a Newtown/Columbine/Port Arthur happening on a weekly or even daily basis in the US?

Yes, gun deaths are rare here and subsequently (homicides) make the 6pm News. But still, you'd understand if I don't recall a double homicide of a decade ago, yes? And now that I've read the story, it still doesn't ring a bell....

We butt heads pretty good but I respect you're at least "on the field" competing as opposed to certain yobs who can only barrack from the bleachers and make convenient shit up as they go along....

Kudos....

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
No idea what the percentages are (which was why I showed interest in the numbers being broken down into gang and/or drug-related offenses). But, "domestic disputes being settled with a gun conveniently at hand" can happen pretty much anywhere.

Seems like a story about obtaining illegal firearms. Already said (re Port Arthur gun reforms) that no-one believes criminals would hand in their weapons. A domestic dispute - a family home where guns are kept readily at hand like in a drawer or closet etc.

quote:

quote:

But, would it still be adding more guns if the guards already own the guns?

First off, IMO, the prospect of putting armed guards in schools is ridiculous and as usual, ignores the raging elephant in the room - that great enabler of American misery, the 2nd amendment. A typical pro-gun lobby "fix" - like background checks and firearms classes. Anything that avoids the real problem - the proliferation of weapons that enable means and opportunity.

quote:

I have no idea how many schools there are in the US but I'd venture a base number of, say, 10,000 would probably be thin. And that one guard per would likely be inadequate in bigger schools. And what of those schools that had just the one - what if he calls in sick? So there'd need to be contingency plans. - more guards to cover...
But I digress. Point is, *right now*, I'm having some difficulty imagining there's currently 10,000 unemployed armed guards sitting around in the US waiting for the go-ahead. You'd hafta recruit = MORE guns thrown at the same ole problem that has NEVER been fixed by putting more guns into American society.

quote:

quote:

I have chosen. You don't seem to be listening.
I am in favor of increased background checks. I am in favor of more stringent mental health stipulations. I have no problem with gun owners being required to provide reasonable security of their firearms. I hate the word, "reasonable" because it's subjective, and can (and will) be re-interpreted for political advantage whenever possible (both sides will do it).

I'm not listening? I put this challenge directly to you the other day (post #143) - in bolded text even, and invited other pro-gun posters to participate:
"Frankly, I'd like to see one pro-gun American here suggest a sensible and long overdue reform that isn't about classes, background checks or putting guards (and even more guns) in schools etc. Something that actually takes some of the guns off the street.
Any takers?"
And like all the others who have gone quiet - you haven't chosen at all. Collectively, you're like the alcoholic who can't take the first step of admitting there's a problem to start with. You're mostly (and begrudgingly) for "senible" reform as long as it doesn't affect your rabid gun culture or actually take one gun off the streets - 'cept for criminals, natch.

quote:

I'm talking about how our government chose. And all other modern western governments have chosen. Of who the real innocent victim is between responsible, law-abiding gun owner vs innocents' slaughtered such as Newtown & Port Arthur etc.
None of you can do it - admit there's a problem with the ancient, out-of-touch 2nd amendment. Or suggest a solitary reform that actually addresses the enabling of means and opportunity - physically taking guns off the street.
It's all psychos and criminals creating the misery and never Jo Average's fault for his inaliable right to have a dozen guns laying around the house or car in case....

quote:

quote:

15 listed, starting back in 1860. And, not all of them are mass shootings, but the most recent wasn't 1996. It was 2002.

I spose this is where I eat humble pie and admit my error....
BUT (lol)
I respect most things quoted from Wikipedia but I'm having some trouble seeing how a double homicide ranks as a spree killing. If that's the standard and I applied it to America's 30,000+ annual gun deaths, then surely there's a Newtown/Columbine/Port Arthur happening on a weekly or even daily basis in the US?
Yes, gun deaths are rare here and subsequently (homicides) make the 6pm News. But still, you'd understand if I don't recall a double homicide of a decade ago, yes? And now that I've read the story, it still doesn't ring a bell....
We butt heads pretty good but I respect you're at least "on the field" competing as opposed to certain yobs who can only barrack from the bleachers and make convenient shit up as they go along....
Kudos....
Focus.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You are assuming that this is commonplace.

quote:

Means and opportunity, huh? If some nutjob has decided to kill, he/she is going to kill. Guns may be the most common mode of killing, but it isn't the only mode. How is one to reduce the opportunity to kill, regardless of weapon? That isn't to suggest we do nothing, but I believe we have to be more general in approach to reduce the actual crime rates, rather than reduce "gun crime" rates.

quote:

Crime rates are dropping. And, if you've read carefully, I have already stated that I don't believe a solution is armed guards at schools.

quote:

You are surprised that a pro-gun American doesn't take you up on your offer when you limit their choices? Huh. Go figure. Apparently, the 2nd Amendment is part of the whole American Exceptionalism thing (which is not that we are exceptional, but that we are the exceptions).

quote:

Perhaps we won't admit there's a problem with an ancient, out-of-touch 2nd amendment because there isn't a problem with the 2nd amendment. We have had gun buy-back programs (and I disagree with the NRA's stance that voluntary yielding of weapons doesn't give law enforcement the right to destroy those weapons). Not surprisingly, there are still guns on the streets. If we banned gun manufacturing in America, know what would happen? Gun manufacturers would move out of the country (and then the Left would be screaming, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over Corporations "outsourcing") and there would be an increase in arms trafficking. Making it harder for criminals to get guns won't stop them from getting guns, if that is their intention.

quote:

Part of my point in posting the list was that there were only 15 mass murders listed in 150 years (not all involved a firearm, and that last one is iffy, at best). In 1970, someone could have stated that (whatever the response was to the 1928 mass murder) was effective since they haven't had any mass murders in 42 years. And the following year, another one happens. How you think the Australian response that has, thus far, effectively limited a problem from a once-a-decade average occurrence, would work for the US where the population is almost 15 times the size, I don't know. Do you have the prevalence of gangs that we have? Do you have the drug trafficking problem we have? If not, your solution probably won't fit here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You are assuming that this is commonplace.

With your gun culture? I'm not in the mood to Google but I'll put my balls on the line and venture that of your 30,000 annual gun deaths, at least 3,000 or 10% are domestic related, including if Police do the shooting.
Cos you're assuming domestic violence by gun isn't commonplace?

quote:

A domestic dispute - a family home where guns are kept readily at hand like in a drawer or closet etc.

quote:

quote:

Means and opportunity, huh? If some nutjob has decided to kill, he/she is going to kill. Guns may be the most common mode of killing, but it isn't the only mode. How is one to reduce the opportunity to kill, regardless of weapon? That isn't to suggest we do nothing, but I believe we have to be more general in approach to reduce the actual crime rates, rather than reduce "gun crime" rates.

Ok, this was discussed in the other and main gun control thread of a month or so ago and for me, is going around in circles. But since I don't think you participated there, I'll ask the same thing I did there. Excluding Africa and their love of machetes etc, when's the last time you heard of a spree killing using knives or blunt objects. You seriously think the death tolls at Newtown/Port Arthur/Columbine etc would've been anywhere near the same with any other non explosive type weapon?

quote:

We can all understand Jo Citizen not wanting to confront a perp with heavy firepower but someone going nuts with a knife or club etc? Someone would act and the death vs injury ratio would be much less, regardless.

quote:

quote:

Crime rates are dropping. And, if you've read carefully, I have already stated that I don't believe a solution is armed guards at schools.

US gun deaths aren't...! And this being a discussion board, understand that there are times when I say "you", the context isn't always you personally but can be you, an American, or even you, a rabid gun nut.... ;) IE, it isn't as personal as you sometimes infer.

quote:

You are surprised that a pro-gun American doesn't take you up on your offer when you limit their choices? Huh. Go figure. Apparently, the 2nd Amendment is part of the whole American Exceptionalism thing (which is not that we are exceptional, but that we are the exceptions).

Shaming them to look at the elephant in the room is to "limit their choices"? Now THAT'S a memorable analogy...! lol

quote:

quote:

Perhaps we won't admit there's a problem with an ancient, out-of-touch 2nd amendment because there isn't a problem with the 2nd amendment. We have had gun buy-back programs (and I disagree with the NRA's stance that voluntary yielding of weapons doesn't give law enforcement the right to destroy those weapons). Not surprisingly, there are still guns on the streets. If we banned gun manufacturing in America, know what would happen? Gun manufacturers would move out of the country (and then the Left would be screaming, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over Corporations "outsourcing") and there would be an increase in arms trafficking. Making it harder for criminals to get guns won't stop them from getting guns, if that is their intention.

Yep, seen this before - divert, distract, change the subject - anything but fix what's broken. That some jobs and industries need to die, or at least decline for a greater good.
You left out the affect fewer gun deaths would likely have on doctor/nurse/ambulance/mortician employment rates - their welfare and lifestyle doesn't count?

quote:

quote:

Part of my point in posting the list was that there were only 15 mass murders listed in 150 years (not all involved a firearm, and that last one is iffy, at best). In 1970, someone could have stated that (whatever the response was to the 1928 mass murder) was effective since they haven't had any mass murders in 42 years. And the following year, another one happens. How you think the Australian response that has, thus far, effectively limited a problem from a once-a-decade average occurrence, would work for the US where the population is almost 15 times the size, I don't know. Do you have the prevalence of gangs that we have? Do you have the drug trafficking problem we have? If not, your solution probably won't fit here.

Up until Port Arthur, gun laws here were the responsibility of individual states. As you can imagine, there were differences, often significant. From your own link, you can see for a decade around the 1990's, there were 3 major spree killings - in 3 different states. It was the last and worst (Port Arthur - in Tasmania) that prompted the Federal government to intervene. That enough is enough both because of the carnage and, for example, the Chinese military style weapon used in Port Arthur were illegal in my state (NSW or New South Wales).
Yes we have gangs here. Primarly the "traditional" variety of bikie gangs. The Milperra shooting of your link was primarily 2 bikie gangs shooting it out very publically.
Your more commonplace street gangs or drug gangs etc have something not available here. Gangs need muscle to survive and thrive - firepower. We don't have the 2nd amendment....
Focus.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You are assuming that this is commonplace.

With your gun culture? I'm not in the mood to Google but I'll put my balls on the line and venture that of your 30,000 annual gun deaths, at least 3,000 or 10% are domestic related, including if Police do the shooting.
Cos you're assuming domestic violence by gun isn't commonplace?

That's not what you had said, though.

quote:

A domestic dispute - a family home where guns are kept readily at hand like in a drawer or closet etc.

This is what you are assuming is commonplace. You are assuming that domestic gun violence happens in homes "where guns are kept readily at hand like in a drawer or closet etc." You really think that's commonplace?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

quote:

Means and opportunity, huh? If some nutjob has decided to kill, he/she is going to kill. Guns may be the most common mode of killing, but it isn't the only mode. How is one to reduce the opportunity to kill, regardless of weapon? That isn't to suggest we do nothing, but I believe we have to be more general in approach to reduce the actual crime rates, rather than reduce "gun crime" rates.

Ok, this was discussed in the other and main gun control thread of a month or so ago and for me, is going around in circles. But since I don't think you participated there, I'll ask the same thing I did there. Excluding Africa and their love of machetes etc, when's the last time you heard of a spree killing using knives or blunt objects. You seriously think the death tolls at Newtown/Port Arthur/Columbine etc would've been anywhere near the same with any other non explosive type weapon?

China 12/20/12. No deaths, but plenty of trauma for those school kids, no? And, China even requires registration when you buy large knives. Awesome!

quote:

We can all understand Jo Citizen not wanting to confront a perp with heavy firepower but someone going nuts with a knife or club etc? Someone would act and the death vs injury ratio would be much less, regardless.

Depends on the level of mastery the person has with the object.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

quote:

Crime rates are dropping. And, if you've read carefully, I have already stated that I don't believe a solution is armed guards at schools.

US gun deaths aren't...! And this being a discussion board, understand that there are times when I say "you", the context isn't always you personally but can be you, an American, or even you, a rabid gun nut.... ;) IE, it isn't as personal as you sometimes infer.

quote:

You are surprised that a pro-gun American doesn't take you up on your offer when you limit their choices? Huh. Go figure. Apparently, the 2nd Amendment is part of the whole American Exceptionalism thing (which is not that we are exceptional, but that we are the exceptions).

Shaming them to look at the elephant in the room is to "limit their choices"? Now THAT'S a memorable analogy...! lol

Shaming us to look at the elephant in the room?!? That's what you did? Sorry, but, no. No you didn't. You essentially said, "I don't accept as valid the solutions you are currently discussing, that you think are valid, so you can't use those. But you still have to present solutions that I will accept as valid." You are essentially giving a limited area for people to find a solution where none of your questionees believes there is a solution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

quote:

Perhaps we won't admit there's a problem with an ancient, out-of-touch 2nd amendment because there isn't a problem with the 2nd amendment.

I don't agree at all.
Just about anyone who is a non-US resident appears to believe that the 2nd is well past its sell-by date and is just not relevant in a modern western society. Those days of malitia and Joe public defending the country against the government or some indescriminate invader from overseas isn't likely to happen these days as it might have happened 200+ years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
We have had gun buy-back programs (and I disagree with the NRA's stance that voluntary yielding of weapons doesn't give law enforcement the right to destroy those weapons). Not surprisingly, there are still guns on the streets. If we banned gun manufacturing in America, know what would happen? Gun manufacturers would move out of the country (and then the Left would be screaming, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over Corporations "outsourcing") and there would be an increase in arms trafficking. Making it harder for criminals to get guns won't stop them from getting guns, if that is their intention.

Yep, seen this before - divert, distract, change the subject - anything but fix what's broken. That some jobs and industries need to die, or at least decline for a greater good.
You left out the affect fewer gun deaths would likely have on doctor/nurse/ambulance/mortician employment rates - their welfare and lifestyle doesn't count?

But, those jobs didn't die. Those industries didn't die. They just moved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

quote:

Part of my point in posting the list was that there were only 15 mass murders listed in 150 years (not all involved a firearm, and that last one is iffy, at best). In 1970, someone could have stated that (whatever the response was to the 1928 mass murder) was effective since they haven't had any mass murders in 42 years. And the following year, another one happens. How you think the Australian response that has, thus far, effectively limited a problem from a once-a-decade average occurrence, would work for the US where the population is almost 15 times the size, I don't know. Do you have the prevalence of gangs that we have? Do you have the drug trafficking problem we have? If not, your solution probably won't fit here.

Up until Port Arthur, gun laws here were the responsibility of individual states. As you can imagine, there were differences, often significant. From your own link, you can see for a decade around the 1990's, there were 3 major spree killings - in 3 different states. It was the last and worst (Port Arthur - in Tasmania) that prompted the Federal government to intervene. That enough is enough both because of the carnage and, for example, the Chinese military style weapon used in Port Arthur were illegal in my state (NSW or New South Wales).
Yes we have gangs here. Primarly the "traditional" variety of bikie gangs. The Milperra shooting of your link was primarily 2 bikie gangs shooting it out very publically.
Your more commonplace street gangs or drug gangs etc have something not available here. Gangs need muscle to survive and thrive - firepower. We don't have the 2nd amendment....
Focus.

And, where do you think gangs get their guns? Tazzy quotes ½-million guns are stolen every year (which I believe I've seen on an FBI link, so I'm not questioning it). Do you think that this is the only way they get their guns? Do you think if there weren't guns to steal that they'd kick the dirt, say, "Aw, shucks!" and not source them another way? Please.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
If the burglar/intruder didn't have a gun, you wouldn't need one for defense - a decent baseball bat would do nicely.
Does that make any sense to a pro-gun person??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Focus50

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You are assuming that this is commonplace.

With your gun culture? I'm not in the mood to Google but I'll put my balls on the line and venture that of your 30,000 annual gun deaths, at least 3,000 or 10% are domestic related, including if Police do the shooting.

Cos you're assuming domestic violence by gun isn't commonplace?

quote:

Means and opportunity, huh? If some nutjob has decided to kill, he/she is going to kill. Guns may be the most common mode of killing, but it isn't the only mode. How is one to reduce the opportunity to kill, regardless of weapon? That isn't to suggest we do nothing, but I believe we have to be more general in approach to reduce the actual crime rates, rather than reduce "gun crime" rates.

Ok, this was discussed in the other and main gun control thread of a month or so ago and for me, is going around in circles. But since I don't think you participated there, I'll ask the same thing I did there. Excluding Africa and their love of machetes etc, when's the last time you heard of a spree killing using knives or blunt objects. You seriously think the death tolls at Newtown/Port Arthur/Columbine etc would've been anywhere near the same with any other non explosive type weapon?

We can all understand Jo Citizen not wanting to confront a perp with heavy firepower but someone going nuts with a knife or club etc? Someone would act and the death vs injury ratio would be much less, regardless.

quote:

Crime rates are dropping. And, if you've read carefully, I have already stated that I don't believe a solution is armed guards at schools.

US gun deaths aren't...! And this being a discussion board, understand that there are times when I say "you", the context isn't always you personally but can be you, an American, or even you, a rabid gun nut.... ;) IE, it isn't as personal as you sometimes infer.

quote:

You are surprised that a pro-gun American doesn't take you up on your offer when you limit their choices? Huh. Go figure. Apparently, the 2nd Amendment is part of the whole American Exceptionalism thing (which is not that we are exceptional, but that we are the exceptions).

Shaming them to look at the elephant in the room is to "limit their choices"? Now THAT'S a memorable analogy...! lol

quote:

Perhaps we won't admit there's a problem with an ancient, out-of-touch 2nd amendment because there isn't a problem with the 2nd amendment. We have had gun buy-back programs (and I disagree with the NRA's stance that voluntary yielding of weapons doesn't give law enforcement the right to destroy those weapons). Not surprisingly, there are still guns on the streets. If we banned gun manufacturing in America, know what would happen? Gun manufacturers would move out of the country (and then the Left would be screaming, wailing, and gnashing their teeth over Corporations "outsourcing") and there would be an increase in arms trafficking. Making it harder for criminals to get guns won't stop them from getting guns, if that is their intention.

Yep, seen this before - divert, distract, change the subject - anything but fix what's broken. That some jobs and industries need to die, or at least decline for a greater good.

You left out the affect fewer gun deaths would likely have on doctor/nurse/ambulance/mortician employment rates - their welfare and lifestyle doesn't count?

quote:

Part of my point in posting the list was that there were only 15 mass murders listed in 150 years (not all involved a firearm, and that last one is iffy, at best). In 1970, someone could have stated that (whatever the response was to the 1928 mass murder) was effective since they haven't had any mass murders in 42 years. And the following year, another one happens. How you think the Australian response that has, thus far, effectively limited a problem from a once-a-decade average occurrence, would work for the US where the population is almost 15 times the size, I don't know. Do you have the prevalence of gangs that we have? Do you have the drug trafficking problem we have? If not, your solution probably won't fit here.

Up until Port Arthur, gun laws here were the responsibility of individual states. As you can imagine, there were differences, often significant. From your own link, you can see for a decade around the 1990's, there were 3 major spree killings - in 3 different states. It was the last and worst (Port Arthur - in Tasmania) that prompted the Federal government to intervene. That enough is enough both because of the carnage and, for example, the Chinese military style weapon used in Port Arthur were illegal in my state (NSW or New South Wales).

Yes we have gangs here. Primarly the "traditional" variety of bikie gangs. The Milperra shooting of your link was primarily 2 bikie gangs shooting it out very publically.

Your more commonplace street gangs or drug gangs etc have something not available here. Gangs need muscle to survive and thrive - firepower. We don't have the 2nd amendment....

Focus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
If the burglar/intruder didn't have a gun, you wouldn't need one for defense - a decent baseball bat would do nicely.
Does that make any sense to a pro-gun person??

A baseball bat. Does that make sense to a 90 pound woman when up against a 200 pound man? Does that make sense to rabbits?


(to rabbits it does)