| Author | Message | ||
     Gaesati |
Gun control in Australia after Port Arthur massacre 17 years ago:10 mass killings in the preceding 9 years vs. none in the following 17 years. gun death rate per 100,000 population has halved. | ||
| Gaesati |
Australia has a very different culture to the U.S. and is surprisingly violent compared to my experience of the U.S.. We just seem to have a lowish rate of death from firearms by U.S. standards. | ||
| J2blue |
I call BS on those stats, Gaesati. Cite your sources and share the view of critics of gun control in your country, including critics of the claimed statistics. England has a cheesy way of bending their stats that lead to absurd results. Besides, in the time frames given in what you claim there could be many reasons to explain it that have nothing to do with gun control. For instance, was each and every massacre committed by a deranged and violent, lone gunman? Were all deaths attributed to guns? Was that previous 9 years merely a bubble or cluster statistically? How many such massacres happened in the previous 100 years? Were they in dense urban centers, or less dense or remote areas of the country? Would the bean counters even count any gun deaths now that there aren't supposed to be (m)any guns in Australia? Obviously, from the last phrase of your post guns are still involved in death, accidental or homicidal, who knows. What constitutes a "massacre" versus a simple murder? And speaking of probabilities per 100K, what are the chances that an Australian has ever been more likely to die at the hands of a fellow Aussie toting a gun? In the same places where those 10 massacre's happened, what was the probability of a person dying in a vehicle related accident per 100K? I don't think Aussie's and American's are that different culturally. Sadly they seem to share the same virulent strain of "liberal-progressivism" that is hell bent on destroying the free society they have known. | ||
| Sifo |
Gun control in Australia after Port Arthur massacre 17 years ago:10 mass killings in the preceding 9 years vs. none in the following 17 years. gun death rate per 100,000 population has halved. This "none in the following 17 years" statistic is achieved by excluding things like the 2002 Monash University shooting of 7 people. Yep, no mass shootings going on now! | ||
| Aesquire |
While I agree there are cultural differences one factor to consider is the way things get reported and spun. In England a desire by the politicians to have their anti-violence/crime measures be successful has resulted in a change in how the police report crime. In English, they cheat. If you don't report half the crime in your town, the statistics show a reduction when it has in fact gone up. I only have anecdotal evidence on this, but it is multiple reports and almost always from where you expect crime problems, Urban high density areas. Or, as my Father often says..."figures don't lie, but liars figure like crazy" http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338044/who- needs-ar-15-daniel-foster A few things to recap this last few weeks. 1. Gun free zones are death magnets. ( the Webster Christmas Ambush Suicide was not in a gun free zone, but involved a convicted felon/murderer who was forbidden guns... like that ever works ) 2. Crazy people kill people. The tools don't matter. Guns, teeth, bombs, just tools. We just went through a "well meaning" period trying to protect crazy people from society. Before THAT, The motivation for the bulk of the crazy people being set free to be crazy and die was political and financial. Politicians decided it was cheaper to let crazy people kill and die than keep them in government paid care. 3. The 24/7 continuous feed news cycle and near utter lack of actual reporting result in 24/7 repetitive mention of murderers and evil folk. Having your picture on tv every hour, every day for weeks is a temptation that certain crazy people just can't resist. If you want to blame the Kardashians, go ahead. ( whoever they are? ) 4. "Assault Weapons" is a catch phrase dating from the 1970's that means whatever you want it to mean. Unlike "Murder" or "Machine Gun" or "Constitution", "Assault Weapon" is at it's heart, in it't essence, SUPPOSED to be a lie to fool people into giving up their rights out of fear. Because it's scary sounding. It's Emotion, not reason. And it's a lie. 5. with the possible exception of the 1930's machine gun ban no anti gun law has ever saved any lives. AND the 1930's ban coincided with the end of prohibition, which in the beginning of the century, as Today, was the number one cause of crime and murder in America. Booze, then, drugs, now. 6 and last.... Tyrants always want to ban weapons for their subjects.( historical Fact, ask any subject of any tyranny ) The greatest threat that THIS government sees to Itself is US. ( a rephrase of a DHS report ) They are right. ( WE are Americans ) Have a nice day, citizens. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/337906/war- between-amendments-victor-davis-hanson | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Patrick (Aesquire), this phrase caught my interest and was well stated: 4. "Assault Weapons" is a catch phrase dating from the 1970's that means whatever you want it to mean. Unlike "Murder" or "Machine Gun" or "Constitution", "Assault Weapon" is at it's heart, in it't essence, SUPPOSED to be a lie to fool people into giving up their rights out of fear. That is correct and I will add with pictures: Assult weapon from 1776:  Assult weapon from 2013:  Its not just about self protection or hunting as most liberals want you to believe and distract us to hear. We must have near the same weapons to fight the same things; government tyranny and oppression and to insure ALL our freedoms as our founding fathers had to and to also insure what every patriot has ever fought for in this STILL greatest country in the world. It IS true we must unite this constant dividing of us all and form a "more perfect union". VOTE for the best & be prepared to fight for the worst. (Message edited by Bob_thompson on January 21, 2013) | ||
| Cityxslicker |
they finally admitted that they don't control the border ! weeee guns, we don't need no stinking guns ! (they are closing down the J-TARS low level radar blimps) granted they didnt catch foot traffic, but they did deter a fleet of DC-3 coming in ..... oh well rejoice - it should make your drugs cheaper | ||
| Nukeblue |
friend of mine just sent me this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rimil3wmfgw&feature =youtube_gdata_player | ||
| Ulyranger |
Yup, it's out in the open for all to see... ....at least those paying attention. | ||
| Fb1 |
http://youtu.be/ilUKCqmXwTQ | ||
| Thumper1203 |
MUST SEE: Crime Stats Piers Morgan & mainstream media Won't Discuss - 2013 Gun Control Debate.. This blew me away.. & worth every bit of 6 minutes to watch.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWNOiw_XIV8 won't let me embed? | ||
| Fb1 |
Thumper, interesting vid, thanks for posting. This CAN'T be discussed by the MSM, etc., of course, because it goes against the narrative. Here's your vid embedded: http://youtu.be/FWNOiw_XIV8 | ||
| Rick_a |
The most disturbing thing is the way the Constitution is being trivialized right now. The media propaganda machine is in full swing, while the President is busy lying to America. | ||
| Blake |
The corrupt media need taught a lesson. | ||
| Gaesati |
I stand corrected on the Monash University incident Sifo. I should have remembered it. Since I already stand accused of "bullshitting", I'll throw a few more subjective comments out,. Re: Assault weapons, a simplistic definition is a self-loading, either automatic or semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. As such they are force multipliers on a large scale. To illustrate by extremes, a nutter with his own fists is a dangerous man but fairly easily overpowered. A nutter, like Martin Bryant in Tasmania in 1997 (which set off the whole gun related issue in Australia) armed with "assault" weapons kills 35 and injures many more. Do we detect a difference in risk to the public here? With regard to guns in Australia we currently have a spate of gun violence occurring in the cities predominantly between outlaw motorcycle gangs and arabic and islander gangs fighting over turf and drug distribution rights. The statistics issued by the various police forces indicates that gun violence is on the rise in these gang wars but not in the wider community ,subjectively, the police estimate that there are about te same number of guns in circulation as there were in 1997. However, overall gun deaths have remained low. Clearly, academic reports and government statistics are of little use whatsoever if people choose to disregard the results. However, masses of young people in schools and public places with bullet holes through them are a little harder to disregard. Anyone willing to spend two minutes on google can come up with reams of information from reputable sources on the matter from all around the world to disregard. There are cultural differences between us. My perception, entirely subjective, is that Australians and Americans are equally friendly, Americans I have met are a tad more generous and far more polite and courteous. Certainly Americans seem to have a far greater devotion to the constitution and their rights. Australians will generally go along with their lawmakers if the laws seem reasonable. If not, they will just find ways to ignore them either openly or covertly until they can unelect the government they disapprove of. Political debate is lively in Australia but I am frankly amazed by the extreme views often put forward on this forum. Particularly, the paranoia and the oft voiced willingness to resort to gun violence. I can only conclude that the American way of doing things is distinctively American and works extremely well for Americans. If Americans choose to accept their annual death rate from guns as a reasonable price for preserving the constitution and their rights then their is no argument. The issue is purely ideological and not something amnable to statistical or scientific argument. | ||
| Aesquire |
So a century old technology, ( semi auto rifles and shotguns ) that is yes, a force multiplier, is suddenly too extreme for civilians to own? Even though over 100 years it's been just fine. We ( America ) restricted ( not banned ) machine guns back in the 1930's. People still get killed with them, but not often, and never with a legal one. ( the Chinese imported a shipload of machineguns for drugs/drug gangs and to mess with us back in the Clinton admin. ) Now a Machinegun is a pretty obvious force multiplier. Even most Americans thought it might be a good idea to get a permit for those. "Assault weapon" is a propaganda tool. Period. It can, and will, include your steak knives. The Constitution is the only thing keeping the government from going all the way to authoritarian evil. That's why it's ignored by this admin, and attacked at every chance by the Progressives. ( our Progressives are a neo-marxist authoritarian group, also about a century old that has finally attained near absolute power in government.) Only by limiting the power of government to mess with us can we live without police taking away our soft drinks and salt. See New York City and uber-rich mayor "Nanny". The authoritarian totalitarians are a tiny part of our culture, but they want to rule, not serve. Unfortunately, they were elected by the most unemployed, most paid not to work, most free stuff crowd in history. | ||
| Aesquire |
If Americans choose to accept their annual death rate from guns as a reasonable price for preserving the constitution and their rights then their is no argument. NO, we complain, and not nearly enough, about idiot laws that make it "normal" for someone to get shot every day over drug turf. The non-drug-war death rate is actually tiny. Better, per capita than most of Europe. | ||
| Fb1 |
I am frankly amazed by the extreme views often put forward on this forum. Particularly, the paranoia and the oft voiced willingness to resort to gun violence. Speaking only for myself: - I'm not paranoid. I am, however, deeply concerned over the systematic dismemberment of our Constitutional Republic and the transformation into "something else," which has shifted into overdrive under our current president. - I have ZERO interest in a "willingness to resort to gun violence." Our Founders created perhaps the best form of government in the recorded history of mankind, along with a relatively simple set of rules whereby future generations of Americans could enjoy the same freedom and liberty they fought (and in many cases died) so valiantly for. Times have changed, of course, but the concepts of freedom and liberty certainly have not: Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are as valid, vital and important today as they were two-plus centuries ago. It's a damn shame our so-called leaders don't see it that way. For all too many high-level politicians it's all about total power and control by a vast, gigantic, omnipotent, far-reaching, bloated, morbidly obese centralized federal government, just the OPPOSITE of what the Founders intended and created. The "extreme views" you refer to are likely coming from rather ordinary Americans, like me, who do NOT want to see our Constitutional Republic transformed into a monarchy, or dictatorship, or whatever particular flavor of government it is our current President is striving so diligently to achieve at our expense. I pray we're not too late. Best, FB | ||
| Kenm123t |
Well Austrailia is full of sheep that just go along with a reasonable postions. Still trying to deal with being a subject ? In the United States all power resides with the people. We grant limited power to our agents in the gov to carry out functions of state. Government is not our ruler, the point of the second amendment is to deal with a out of control government. Read the Federalist Papers before commenting on Our Constitution. It needs to be read along with our founding documents. When you read them you will understand the founding documents | ||
| Nukeblue |
amen blake!! i've been saying that for years | ||
| Rick_a |
My issue is with laws and proposals that have nothing to do with public safety, have been proven NOT to work elsewhere, and are still being put forth as the answer to gun violence. Most importantly, the "solutions" provided are largely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is not paranoia when the same thing has happened across the globe, leaving citizens unable to defend themselves from criminals and tyranny. The worst is that some of the most outspoken of these buffoons are not even Americans. The measures presented now are just a stepping stone to public disarmament. This is not paranoia. That is fact. America as we know it was founded as an armed society. Freedom is not an antiquated ideal. It is not a coincidence that "gun free" zones have become easy targets. Great idea, let's spread that around! | ||
| Ducbsa |
More thoughts on Australia: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/01/the_fa ilure_of_gun_control_in_australia.html From the link: "Sacrificing degrees of freedom for gun restrictions so some liberals can act out their contempt for clinging gun owners while smugly feeling superior about themselves and their morals is dangerous." | ||
| Kenm123t |
Read the UK Guardian and you will find out exercising free speech in the UK and EU will put you in prison. This is why we a cursed with piers morgan he would be in prison for life if still in the UK | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Not paranoid I have seen the machine at work in other parts of the world; you are a fool to think that experience and training wont be used domestically. All you have to do is look to the "Humane Society" and how many animals are actually saved, adopted, rescued vs euthanized under the name of Humane - now transfer that to public 'Health' thats goal is 'safety and health' ... Pure Masquerovka - lies and rhetoric. | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” http://www.teaparty.org/obama-asks-military-leader s-if-they-will-fire-on-us-citizens-19039/ | ||
| Just_ziptab |
Short clip from a true story: http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-At hens.html The story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281 946%29 | ||
| Gaesati |
Try looking at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm _related_death_rate or www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi /261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html One can draw any appropriate conclusions. But my stance is that gun control in the U.S. is an ideological issue best dealt with by Americans for Americans. | ||
| Slaughter |
 |
