quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
What bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
By that "logic" (slippery slope is a classic logical fallacy), ANY law would mean that everything will be illegal.

Yet...it isn't.

Your "logic" also implies that to prevent tragedies, we should do nothing. Kind of a flawed plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What a moron.

Being a nation of law and being a totalitarian state are worlds apart, idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And knowing what I know now? I opposed it from the start. Still do.

Any thing else irrelevant to the question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What a moron.

Being a nation of law and being a totalitarian state are worlds apart, idiot.

Usually when one resorts to name-calling they've all but admitted their argument holds no water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And knowing what I know now? I opposed it from the start. Still do.

Any thing else irrelevant to the question?

It's very relevant to the question because government will always attempt to increase their control of the populace as illustrated in my examples. Unfortunately, some of The People have forgotten how this country was founded and are more than willing to, gradually, allow more and more of the constitution and bill of rights to be eroded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What a moron.

Being a nation of law and being a totalitarian state are worlds apart, idiot.

Usually when one resorts to name-calling they've all but admitted their argument holds no water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And knowing what I know now? I opposed it from the start. Still do.

Any thing else irrelevant to the question?

It's very relevant to the question because government will always attempt to increase their control of the populace as illustrated in my examples. Unfortunately, some of The People have forgotten how this country was founded and are more than willing to, gradually, allow more and more of the constitution and bill of rights to be eroded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What a moron.

Being a nation of law and being a totalitarian state are worlds apart, idiot.

Usually when one resorts to name-calling they've all but admitted their argument holds no water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And knowing what I know now? I opposed it from the start. Still do.

Any thing else irrelevant to the question?

It's very relevant to the question because government will always attempt to increase their control of the populace as illustrated in my examples. Unfortunately, some of The People have forgotten how this country was founded and are more than willing to, gradually, allow more and more of the constitution and bill of rights to be eroded.

No, you made up some shit and are calling it "examples."

You're drinking your own Kool-Aid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Red Herring, kid.

When you've got an actual logical argument, bring it.

Until then, you're just empty words and attitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What a moron.

Being a nation of law and being a totalitarian state are worlds apart, idiot.

Usually when one resorts to name-calling they've all but admitted their argument holds no water.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And knowing what I know now? I opposed it from the start. Still do.

Any thing else irrelevant to the question?

It's very relevant to the question because government will always attempt to increase their control of the populace as illustrated in my examples. Unfortunately, some of The People have forgotten how this country was founded and are more than willing to, gradually, allow more and more of the constitution and bill of rights to be eroded.

in observation of your first.....cite please, and it has to be real credible, because I see that as a jingo, nothing more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
To the second, they may increase control in some ways, but then business and other special interests easily wrest that control and pervert it to their profits. Nobody forgot how this country was founded, a country of business raped the people and taxed them and would not allow them to redress their grievances or have any say in their governance as allowed to all their other citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
We have pretty much shit that away and crawled right back into that, wallowing in what we fought against intially. They were happy to pay the tax and obey the laws if they were treated equally as citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Wow you're an idiot.
Again . . . who's saying people shouldn't have guns? Exactly no one.
Now, perhaps we can be more careful about who has weaponry capable of spewing bullets into crowds.
Hard to see how that interferes with law enforcement having firearms. Except for you.

• 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: MrRodgers

Well the Aussie numbers are true in my previous posts and sites. Gun murders and gun violence has dropped dramatically since 1996 when restrictions were passed.

Plus we know that to protect yourself and your family is bullshit because for gun ownership in the house to be safe, [it] is for too inaccessible once locked away to provide that safety...to be of any use during a crime in the house.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told.

Actually.... no.
Gun control is specifically designed to stop people from killing each other with easily available (and concealable) tools that are designed to kill and mame at a distance.

It doesn't stop murders, that much is true.
But look at the stats for the US compared to everywhere else.
How many other countries have mass killings compared to the US??
The US has as many in one year alone that other countries count in decades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
There is a lot of propaganda about gun control. So much so that the truth has been lost.

Only lost in America.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations. (for the countless number of idigits out here that means not enough time has elapsed for the normal trend back up to occur)

You are comparing apples with oranges.
How about comparing murders with deaths in general??
Because thats the sort of argument you are trying to make.
You just can't compare gun control (specifically designed to curb gun deaths) with murders in general and extrapolate that gun control doesn't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Plain and simple. Gun control has no significant impact on murder rates. Removing firearms does not typically create massive lawlessness. It is a moot point. These figures aren’t a secret. Why would the governments of these nations want a disarmed populace?

Because I like my kids to be able to go to school that isn't patrolled by armed guards and looks more like a high-security prison than a school.
I like to be able to go to the mall, or a church, or wherever, without worrying that there may be a shooter lurking, about to hear voices in his head and let rip on the people around him.
I like the idea that should I ever be unfortunate enough to get an intruder, he isn't likely to want to blow my head off to steal my TV because the society is such that he's coming packed. We don't have that kind of problem here because most people don't have firearms at all.

You see, unlike the US, we have an effective police force and we aren't paranoid of our government (or our neighbours) enough to want to arm ourselves "just in case" we need to defend ourselves against them.

So I would turn the question on its head: Why would a government want an armed populace??
Or maybe: Why do the populace feel the need to have such destructive tools as guns??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The Real Reason Gun Control Will Never Work:

Poverty has a greater correlation to violent crime than access to firearms. Education and poverty are directly linked. In short, we don’t have a gun problem in the United States, we have a cultural problem. Home Depot. Most people in the gun control lobby know nothing about firearms or their construction. Everything you need to manufacture firearms is available at Home Depot. The materials needed to manufacture a 12 gauge shotgun cost about $20. If someone wanted to build a fully automatic Mac-10 style submachine gun, it would probably cost about $60. Every electrician, plumber, and handyman in the country has the materials necessary to manufacture firearms in their shop. The items are completely unregulated. They aren’t like the chemicals necessary to manufacture methamphetamines. How is the battle against that black market working out?

You are dead right about the culture problem.
However.... having guns on hand and available as easy as a loaf of bread doesn't help.
Plus, of course, you have to be paranoid enough to actually want a gun in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
We have a society that panders to the basest desires and instincts. One of those is violence. We live in a society where women are given dirty looks for breastfeeding in a restaurant, while over their heads on the wall-mounted television plays a movie that graphically depicts someone being tortured to death. We are desensitized to violence, and we have a generation of people that do not have the coping skills necessary to deal with reality.

That last bit is very true.
And it's not a 'mental health' issue either despite what the powder-puff brigade want us to believe.
It's a simple case of parents not teaching kids how to deal with the reality of the world.
Too much cotton-wool approach and "don't stress the widdle kiddie-winks too much".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Firearms are the Pandora’s Box of the United States. The box is open, it can’t be closed through legislation.

Why not??
They've done that in many countries and firearms crimes/deaths/injuries (not to mention mass killings) have plumetted.
And don't say it can't be done because of 'the constitution' because there are countries that have scrapped theirs and re-written it to suit modern times and their current situation when the ancient documents are no longer fit for purpose.
What was written by man can be un-written or modified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
If you want to change society, you have to actually change the whole of society. You can’t blame an inanimate object that’s availability has absolutely no correlation to murder and expect to end violence.

Yes, you need a dramatic societal change in gun attitudes.

As the president said earlier today, there are no other civilized countries in the world that have our level of violence and mass killings; not one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Yep the idiots want to ban guns and what do you think anyone who wants to waste a lot of people will turn to next? Yep you got, bombs. Then what? Ban 99% of household goods to prevent these people from building bombs?

But idjit insanity is the rule of the day!

As usual, a gun-nut that can't see anything past his nose.
The only insanity I see is American paranoia and an affinity with guns second to none.
...and the highest number of mass-killings anywhere in the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Wow you're an idiot.
Again . . . who's saying people shouldn't have guns? Exactly no one.
Now, perhaps we can be more careful about who has weaponry capable of spewing bullets into crowds.
Hard to see how that interferes with law enforcement having firearms. Except for you.

What legislation are you thinking?

Without breaching rights mentioned in the Constitution, what could have been done to prevent the Orlando shooter from getting his hands on some guns?

quote:

Legal analysis

The Court looked at the substance of the treaty and construed the disputed language as “that unlettered people understood it". In examining the negotiations with the Yakama nation, which was the largest of the Indian tribes, the District Court found that, "At the treaty council the United States negotiators promised, and the Indians understood, that the Yakamas would forever be able to continue the same off-reservation food gathering and fishing practices as to time, place, method, species and extent as they had or were exercising." [9] In writing for the majority, Justice McKenna stated that a “Treaty between the United States and the Indians... is not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them—a reservation of those granted." This established for the first time the so-called "reserved rights" doctrine in American Indian law. The Court noted the historical and traditional importance of fishing and hunting to the Indians, and viewed these rights as part of a larger bundle of rights preserved under the treaty.

The Court observed that the treaty foresaw the contingency of future ownership, and secured the Indians’ rights and privileges both against the United States and its grantees and against the state and its grantees. Therefore, the grant of a license to operate a fish wheel gave the respondents no power to exclude the Indians from fishing. In other words, the State of Washington could not use common law property rights to absolutely exclude the Indians from fishing on the Columbia River.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well the Aussie numbers are true in my previous posts and sites. Gun murders and gun violence has dropped dramatically since 1996 when restrictions were passed.

Plus we know that to protect yourself and your family is bullshit because for gun ownership in the house to be safe, [it] is for too inaccessible once locked away to provide that safety...to be of any use during a crime in the house.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What a moron.

Being a nation of law and being a totalitarian state are worlds apart, idiot.

And knowing what I know now? I opposed it from the start. Still do.

Any thing else irrelevant to the question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What a moron.

Being a nation of law and being a totalitarian state are worlds apart, idiot.

And knowing what I know now? I opposed it from the start. Still do.

Any thing else irrelevant to the question?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Do we need more police, or are there better ways to cut crime?

by Professor Rick Sarre, Professor of Law at UniSA February 2016

We have more police per head in Australia than ever before but Prof Rick Sarre discusses why increasing the force even further is not a guarantee to reduce crime.

Do we have enough police in Australia to manage our security needs? This is an important question because we spend more than $10 billion a year to pay for the police services that we have. Should we spend more?

Let’s start with a little history. We have more police per head of population than ever before. Australia had 129 police officers per 100,000 population a century ago. Twenty years ago the figure was 221 per 100,000. It is now 270. Of the states, South Australia tops the list with 314.

So there are more police. But if crime rates are rising, even these extra police numbers will be inadequate to meet the task of keeping us safe. True? No.

Fact: crime rates are falling

The fact of the matter is that crime rates are not rising. Over the past 15 years, generally speaking, crime has fallen – dramatically in some cases.

Figures show the following percentage changes in police-recorded crime across Australia from 2001 to 2011: fraud down 12 per cent, arson down 14 per cent, criminal damage down 22 per cent, theft down more than 30 per cent and burglaries and robberies down 50 per cent. Even the numbers of homicides, which usually remain relatively stable, decreased by 23 per cent. Car theft was down a staggering 60 per cent, a trend that continues today.

The only crimes for which police recorded increases during that period were assaults (up 12 per cent), shop theft (up 10 per cent) and sexual assaults (up 3 per cent). However, there is always a suspicion that these numbers often simply reflect levels of confidence in reporting by victims.

The above trends are mirrored by the data emerging from victimisation surveys. These are very useful in helping to eliminate the “dark” figure of crime that bedevils official police data.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) keeps very good victimisation data. The ABS reported in 2015 that the number of recorded victims across Australia decreased for the majority of offence categories between 2013 and 2014.

Robbery had the largest proportional decrease of some 16 per cent. Homicides and car theft are two of the most reliable indicators of the accuracy of victimisation figures, as they rarely suffer from reporting or counting problems. The numbers of homicide and motor vehicle theft victims fell to five-year lows, along with victims of abduction, robbery and unlawful entry with intent.


http://w3.unisa.edu.au/unisanews/2016/February/story10.asp


and:





Seems their economy is rocking while ours is in the shitter, they have nearly tripled their police visibility and as a result all crime across the board is down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
...
I'm pretty sure ifmaz is all for public masturbation being completely legal.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
...
I'm pretty sure ifmaz is all for public masturbation being completely legal.
...

It depends on who is masturbating ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Well the Aussie numbers are true in my previous posts and sites. Gun murders and gun violence has dropped dramatically since 1996 when restrictions were passed.

Plus we know that to protect yourself and your family is bullshit because for gun ownership in the house to be safe, [it] is for too inaccessible once locked away to provide that safety...to be of any use during a crime in the house.

But the number of murders hasn't really changed.