I'm sorry, but Newtown showed us who we are as a nation.
It is what it is.
One of the dumbest things I've read. Did Oklahoma City show us America loves bombs more than it loves kids? More children died in Oklahoma City and the total death count dwarfed Sandy Hook.
Every year we also prove that we love swimming and bathing Â
(It's more common to have an unintentional drowning death than death by firearm for children aged 5-9. Which may also explain why suicide by suffocation and suicide by firearm replaces that spot at #2 and #3 above homicide in children aged 10-14)
It is what it is.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: you are way off base Â
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
"On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids." That isn't a logical comparison. That's "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"
As to the gun v car comparison - We do everything we can to make cars less deadly, right? Speed limits, airbags, seatbelts - we've cut our death rate from car accidents tremendously.
Show me a single meaningful thing we've done for gun safety that compares to that.
Yes, because we have done nothing to regulate firearms throughout our history....
We can argue the merits of each and every law passed, but something tells me you aren't going to genuine in your arguments.
I would think most folks can agree things such as not being able to purchase firearms through mail order, not being able to purchase fully automatic weapons, requiring a background check, and not being able to purchase them if you are a felon are meaningful.
But no...your argument is that none of them are meaningful...so perhaps maybe, just maybe....since none of this legislation has made a significant impact in firearm deaths....the answer isn't legislation?
(BTW- much of this legislation HAS made a significant impact, along with many other factors to reduce homicide by firearm over the years)
I'm sorry, but Newtown showed us who we are as a nation.
It is what it is.
Does the Island massacre in 2011 show us what Norway is as a nation?
It's not about the tragic event, I speak of the lack of action to change laws to prevent such tragedies.
We see mass shootings like Newtown on our TV's about once a quarter, these days. Some of us, like me - are unlucky enough to actually have it happen in our communities (Binghamton Civic Center, 2009).
But as a nation we are FROZEN by American gun culture and it's influence on our Representatives.
It is what it is.
I support strengthening our gun laws, but I don't expect change.
Because if Newtown couldn't change anything, nothing will.
America. Loves. GUNS.
More than it loves children.
Cam just showed you actual steps that were taken Â
The timeline posted by Cam didn't indicate any actual steps taken since Newtown.
I'm inclined to agree with x meadowlander. These people have made their choice. If a school full of dead babies doesn't change anything, nothing will.
I think that is a very simplistic way to look at something, especially when we are talking about constitutional rights. I've stated many times I have no problem with stricter policies, and I believe they will start heading in that direction sooner or later. But banning guns period, which is being brought up time and time again is not only unrealistic, I can actually see it making society worse.
Happy to have a discussion, but if its going to be "all guns should be banned", then it isn't something worth taking seriously.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
shootings, given that meaningful legal change is never going to happen with the second amendment and an influential NRA, you need to have a well organized, and well funded "anti NRA" that tries to change attitudes and culture about guns - advertise the stigmatization of guns and gun ownership much like the anti-crack cocaine this is your brain on drugs ads in the 80s, pay influencers on social media to promote anti-gun messages, promote cash for gun programs, organize speaking events at schools with relatives of victims of mass shootings, promote mental health awareness issues and detection causes (early warning systems), etc
Of course most people who love their guns will not suddenly change their tune and turn them in, especially in middle America, and it's not going to stop the violence, but if done well it could move the needle by reducing the demand for firearms.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Do you have anything of substance to add? You realize that people like you are never part of a reasonable solution?
Researchers at the University of Melbourne disagree with you
Quote:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Australia banned guns in 1996, since then there have been 11 mass murders using arson, knife attacks, and guns (yes even where they are banned)
in the 20 years before 1996 they had 14. Huge change.
I see they really care about kids in Australia and it's evidenced by the 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 15 years old that were knifed to death in Cairns Queensland, yet they still allow knives.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne disagree with you
Quote:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah, I've seen that debunked piece before.
Look - it's an issue you really can't change minds on. Everyone has their point of view. Enough people believe in the Second Amendment strongly enough that it is nearly impossible to enact meaningful sweeping legislative change, and yes - Australia would be what I'm talking about.
My opinion is that I hate guns. Can't express that enough. Up to me, there'd be zero private gun ownership in the US. Hunters the only exception.
But I live in a free country. That means I get my way on most issues. So I can live with the gun culture. Statistically, I've got nothing to worry about. I'll never be shot.
Give me some specifics. BTW, they aren't the only researchers who have reached a similar conclusion. The British Journal of Criminology has published multiple studies reaching similar conclusions.
Additionally, the NFA buyback program only took in approximately 600K firearms, which represents at most about 30% of the weapons in Australia. There is also a thriving black market in firearms there as a result. A simple google search will give you a number of mainstream media reports on that subject.
Finally, both the overall homicide rate and the firearm homicide rate have declined at the same time as gun control laws have liberalized in the US. If guns are the root cause of firearm homicide, shouldn't that number have skyrocketed? Shouldn't Vermont, which has virtually no restrictions whatsoever on the sale and carry of firearms, be the most dangerous place in the country?
I've gone through all this more times than I can count on here Â
So I'm out. Never should have taken the bait to begin with. I will conclude with the wisdom of Senior Drill Instructor GySgt. Hartmann: "Your rifle is only a took. It is a hard heart that kills!"
Perhaps a more productive endeavor would be to wonder why American society produces so many violent antisocial shitbags who indiscriminately murder complete strangers.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Wow.
I would hope that you've come to that conclusion by being around and knowing a lot of Billy Bob's. It would surprise me though, as it is much different than the image I have of Billy Bob.
Billy Bob the gap toothed yokel from backwoods GA huh? Â
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
First, this incident began very similarly to Sandy Hook (murdered parent then short trip to nearby school), so thankfully it turned out much less bad. That firefighter is a badass for neutralizing the shooter.
I’d like to thank buford for weighing in. She always offers a layered and incisive viewpoint on issues such as this.
While 2nd amendment absolutists/literalists (and our dear profiteer friends in their preferred lobbying group) are among the most vapid and unbearable weirdos among us, one should allow that the loose 21st century equivalent of muskets – 15 round glocks or the like – reasonably fall under the purview of that codification. In that sense (and even without the Bill of Rights’ guarantee), I think Uconn is on fairly solid ground here. I concur.
Beyond handguns (add hunting weapons), attempts to appropriate the amendment to extol the ownership of their larger friends fast becomes a silly affair (familiar terrain for the aforementioned weirdos). Right, Ronnie?
Which is not to trivialize the ongoing role that handguns play in violence in America. It’s a major problem which can hopefully be solved in part by technology.
Regarding xmead’s inelegant simplification…a majority of Americans did support certain Federal gun control measures after Sandy Hook. (Those who have an hour interested in that would like this Frontline). But that’s not how laws are made.
Why is our favorite lobbying group in the driver’s seat wrt this issue? It’s not because of money. Bloomberg has more money than they’ll have in 100 years. It’s due to Gerrymandered house districts catering to single-issue (underline, bold, italics) members who are devoutly involved in the political process and who are very effectively mobilized. Compare it loosely to how a small Florida contingent of anti-Castro Cubans for decades influenced national policy (something that’s slowly changing, as we’ve seen).
The pendulum will not swing meaningfully until their yang regularly mobilizes in a commensurate manner, which includes actually voting in midterm elections. This does not look likely to happen. Whether you lament or celebrate that depends in part on to what degree you believe the weapons themselves and access to them are responsible for these incidents, but that’s the reality.
Lastly, I resent that the name Billy Bob is employed in order to portray backward rednecks. To me, it more appropriately represents drunken, pants-pissing Santas. Which reminds me: anyone who’s hoping our leaders will come together for even basic, sensible reforms (say, the oft-mentioned “mental health” angle):
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
Is that your backpedal on this one? That you were somehow implying that you were arguing from some sort of fact based analysis of gun control polices, and not simply making an idiotic attempt at a social proof?
Nice try, no one is buying it - go back and try and figure on what concealed means, that was at least entertaining.
I don't care whether you own a gun or not, but I do think guns should be much harder to get a hold of, and automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public. IIRC, Sweden has some of the strictest gun control measures, where it takes a year to get your permit, and you're not guaranteed to get one if you have certain priors. It just seems like the most zealous supporters of the 2nd Amendment act like they're living out in the wild west.
Now how do we go about convincing states south of the Mason Dixon to enact similar laws - without even getting in to whether Conn's new legislation is worth a damn. We can't even get our wonderful Reps to agree on controls on suspected terror suspects for fear that they'll be challenged in a primary that's closer on the horizon than any actual sensible action to get guns our of the hands of nutjobs - or get regular joes and Jane's to better secure their existing guns.
Wrt Mental Health legislation as it relates to gun purchases, where do we even begin too determine what types of mental illness should preclude on from gun ownership? One in four Americans suffers from one type or another if we're to include depression. Even if we were to successfully reach a consensus on poses the greatest risk - how do we get around equal protection, since most agree it's a Constitutial right that shall not be abridged.
This is the problem. One side has dug in so deep on the issue and has done such a wonderful job of conflating and deflecting the discussion that we don't even have a starting point.
I will agree on one thing, much of CT's legislation is window-dressing, enacted under cover of darkness by legislators who were desperate to be seen as doing something.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
Many cases of mental illness go undiagnosed. Mostly because it's an inexact science, but also because we do such a poor job as a country in investing in mental health services. So any potential legislstion prohibiting say, Bi-polars or boderline personalities from owning a firearm probably won't do a heck of a lot in grand scheme of things.
It's a red herring. The answer is federal gun laws that supercede any existing legislation. Whatever that may be - so long as it's uniform and applied equally in each check state. Unfortunately, that's unlikely.
I will agree on one thing, much of CT's legislation is window-dressing, enacted under cover of darkness by legislators who were desperate to be seen as doing something.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
As I'd said earlier in the thread, I think the answer is a total ban. However, I'm not opposed to a middle ground solution of permitting gun ownership with strict background checks and uniform legislation. I think a majority of the America falls somewhere in the middle, with the zealots on either fringe driving actual policy. The far left wants all guns gone and the far right/NRA wants no restrictions.
To be clear, I was/am citing a mental illness component as the most basic of reforms. And did so in order to illustrate that even “no brainer” reform with little political opposition goes nowhere due largely to the wider digging in of heels (to which you accurately referred). Worries of a slippery slope.
It is most definitely used as a red herring by aggressively brazen profiteers, but need not necessarily be one as a portion of an overall good-faith approach to addressing the problem.
It is what it is.
It is what it is.
What a fucking stupid comment.
It is what it is.
One of the dumbest things I've read. Did Oklahoma City show us America loves bombs more than it loves kids? More children died in Oklahoma City and the total death count dwarfed Sandy Hook.
(It's more common to have an unintentional drowning death than death by firearm for children aged 5-9. Which may also explain why suicide by suffocation and suicide by firearm replaces that spot at #2 and #3 above homicide in children aged 10-14)
It is what it is.
Quote:
In comment 13148012 x meadowlander said:
Let's not be silly.
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
"On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids." That isn't a logical comparison. That's "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"
As to the gun v car comparison - We do everything we can to make cars less deadly, right? Speed limits, airbags, seatbelts - we've cut our death rate from car accidents tremendously.
Show me a single meaningful thing we've done for gun safety that compares to that.
Yes, because we have done nothing to regulate firearms throughout our history....
We can argue the merits of each and every law passed, but something tells me you aren't going to genuine in your arguments.
I would think most folks can agree things such as not being able to purchase firearms through mail order, not being able to purchase fully automatic weapons, requiring a background check, and not being able to purchase them if you are a felon are meaningful.
But no...your argument is that none of them are meaningful...so perhaps maybe, just maybe....since none of this legislation has made a significant impact in firearm deaths....the answer isn't legislation?
(BTW- much of this legislation HAS made a significant impact, along with many other factors to reduce homicide by firearm over the years)
Timeline. - ( New Window )
It is what it is.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but Newtown showed us who we are as a nation.
It is what it is.
Does the Island massacre in 2011 show us what Norway is as a nation?
We see mass shootings like Newtown on our TV's about once a quarter, these days. Some of us, like me - are unlucky enough to actually have it happen in our communities (Binghamton Civic Center, 2009).
But as a nation we are FROZEN by American gun culture and it's influence on our Representatives.
It is what it is.
I support strengthening our gun laws, but I don't expect change.
Because if Newtown couldn't change anything, nothing will.
America. Loves. GUNS.
More than it loves children.
The timeline posted by Cam didn't indicate any actual steps taken since Newtown.
I'm inclined to agree with x meadowlander. These people have made their choice. If a school full of dead babies doesn't change anything, nothing will.
Quote:
so why are you ignoring his post?
The timeline posted by Cam didn't indicate any actual steps taken since Newtown.
I'm inclined to agree with x meadowlander. These people have made their choice. If a school full of dead babies doesn't change anything, nothing will.
I think that is a very simplistic way to look at something, especially when we are talking about constitutional rights. I've stated many times I have no problem with stricter policies, and I believe they will start heading in that direction sooner or later. But banning guns period, which is being brought up time and time again is not only unrealistic, I can actually see it making society worse.
Happy to have a discussion, but if its going to be "all guns should be banned", then it isn't something worth taking seriously.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Of course most people who love their guns will not suddenly change their tune and turn them in, especially in middle America, and it's not going to stop the violence, but if done well it could move the needle by reducing the demand for firearms.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Quote:
view as x meadowlander.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Do you have anything of substance to add? You realize that people like you are never part of a reasonable solution?
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
view as x meadowlander.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Australia banned guns in 1996, since then there have been 11 mass murders using arson, knife attacks, and guns (yes even where they are banned)
in the 20 years before 1996 they had 14. Huge change.
I see they really care about kids in Australia and it's evidenced by the 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 15 years old that were knifed to death in Cairns Queensland, yet they still allow knives.
Australia loves knives more than children.
Next.
Quote:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
Link - ( New Window )
Look - it's an issue you really can't change minds on. Everyone has their point of view. Enough people believe in the Second Amendment strongly enough that it is nearly impossible to enact meaningful sweeping legislative change, and yes - Australia would be what I'm talking about.
My opinion is that I hate guns. Can't express that enough. Up to me, there'd be zero private gun ownership in the US. Hunters the only exception.
But I live in a free country. That means I get my way on most issues. So I can live with the gun culture. Statistically, I've got nothing to worry about. I'll never be shot.
Additionally, the NFA buyback program only took in approximately 600K firearms, which represents at most about 30% of the weapons in Australia. There is also a thriving black market in firearms there as a result. A simple google search will give you a number of mainstream media reports on that subject.
Finally, both the overall homicide rate and the firearm homicide rate have declined at the same time as gun control laws have liberalized in the US. If guns are the root cause of firearm homicide, shouldn't that number have skyrocketed? Shouldn't Vermont, which has virtually no restrictions whatsoever on the sale and carry of firearms, be the most dangerous place in the country?
Perhaps a more productive endeavor would be to wonder why American society produces so many violent antisocial shitbags who indiscriminately murder complete strangers.
Quote:
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Quote:
In comment 13148244 Les in TO said:
Quote:
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Wow.
I would hope that you've come to that conclusion by being around and knowing a lot of Billy Bob's. It would surprise me though, as it is much different than the image I have of Billy Bob.
Personally, I feel mystified and dismayed by Canada's lack of free expression, but que sera sera.
He sure did ruin the image of Georgia for the rest of the world.
Didn't he Les?
fixed it for you.
Personally, I feel mystified and dismayed by Canada's lack of free expression, but que sera sera.
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
Quote:
In comment 13148416 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
First, this incident began very similarly to Sandy Hook (murdered parent then short trip to nearby school), so thankfully it turned out much less bad. That firefighter is a badass for neutralizing the shooter.
I’d like to thank buford for weighing in. She always offers a layered and incisive viewpoint on issues such as this.
While 2nd amendment absolutists/literalists (and our dear profiteer friends in their preferred lobbying group) are among the most vapid and unbearable weirdos among us, one should allow that the loose 21st century equivalent of muskets – 15 round glocks or the like – reasonably fall under the purview of that codification. In that sense (and even without the Bill of Rights’ guarantee), I think Uconn is on fairly solid ground here. I concur.
Beyond handguns (add hunting weapons), attempts to appropriate the amendment to extol the ownership of their larger friends fast becomes a silly affair (familiar terrain for the aforementioned weirdos). Right, Ronnie?
Which is not to trivialize the ongoing role that handguns play in violence in America. It’s a major problem which can hopefully be solved in part by technology.
Regarding xmead’s inelegant simplification…a majority of Americans did support certain Federal gun control measures after Sandy Hook. (Those who have an hour interested in that would like this Frontline). But that’s not how laws are made.
Why is our favorite lobbying group in the driver’s seat wrt this issue? It’s not because of money. Bloomberg has more money than they’ll have in 100 years. It’s due to Gerrymandered house districts catering to single-issue (underline, bold, italics) members who are devoutly involved in the political process and who are very effectively mobilized. Compare it loosely to how a small Florida contingent of anti-Castro Cubans for decades influenced national policy (something that’s slowly changing, as we’ve seen).
The pendulum will not swing meaningfully until their yang regularly mobilizes in a commensurate manner, which includes actually voting in midterm elections. This does not look likely to happen. Whether you lament or celebrate that depends in part on to what degree you believe the weapons themselves and access to them are responsible for these incidents, but that’s the reality.
Lastly, I resent that the name Billy Bob is employed in order to portray backward rednecks. To me, it more appropriately represents drunken, pants-pissing Santas. Which reminds me: anyone who’s hoping our leaders will come together for even basic, sensible reforms (say, the oft-mentioned “mental health” angle):
Quote:
In comment 13148450 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13148416 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
Is that your backpedal on this one? That you were somehow implying that you were arguing from some sort of fact based analysis of gun control polices, and not simply making an idiotic attempt at a social proof?
Nice try, no one is buying it - go back and try and figure on what concealed means, that was at least entertaining.
We just had some great BBQ right here in North Georgia. You damn Yankees don't know what you are missing. Enjoy the snow!
Now how do we go about convincing states south of the Mason Dixon to enact similar laws - without even getting in to whether Conn's new legislation is worth a damn. We can't even get our wonderful Reps to agree on controls on suspected terror suspects for fear that they'll be challenged in a primary that's closer on the horizon than any actual sensible action to get guns our of the hands of nutjobs - or get regular joes and Jane's to better secure their existing guns.
Wrt Mental Health legislation as it relates to gun purchases, where do we even begin too determine what types of mental illness should preclude on from gun ownership? One in four Americans suffers from one type or another if we're to include depression. Even if we were to successfully reach a consensus on poses the greatest risk - how do we get around equal protection, since most agree it's a Constitutial right that shall not be abridged.
This is the problem. One side has dug in so deep on the issue and has done such a wonderful job of conflating and deflecting the discussion that we don't even have a starting point.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
It's a red herring. The answer is federal gun laws that supercede any existing legislation. Whatever that may be - so long as it's uniform and applied equally in each check state. Unfortunately, that's unlikely.
Where are automatic weapons publicly available?
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
As I'd said earlier in the thread, I think the answer is a total ban. However, I'm not opposed to a middle ground solution of permitting gun ownership with strict background checks and uniform legislation. I think a majority of the America falls somewhere in the middle, with the zealots on either fringe driving actual policy. The far left wants all guns gone and the far right/NRA wants no restrictions.
Quote:
automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public.
Where are automatic weapons publicly available?
My apologies, I meant assault weapons. I'm certainly no scholar on the subject, but there are 7 states that have banned them, right?
It is most definitely used as a red herring by aggressively brazen profiteers, but need not necessarily be one as a portion of an overall good-faith approach to addressing the problem.