[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38861805]The ability to own a gun in Australia is not guaranteed by law so stop acting like you are being punished. You presumably own a gun and can use it while the current laws apply, state governments are giving you the freedom to own one while protecting the collective interests of a overwhelmingly gun-disinterested public.[/QUOTE]
I take it you're in your late teens, early twenties. How do you feel, as a safe and law abiding driver, about being punished with ridiculous restrictions (as are in many states, no passengers after some hours of the night, restricted vehicles, etc) because some knob goes and speeds, then crashes into a tree?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38862037]I don't think the Australian public are uneducated. They probably had legitimate reasons for their laws.[/QUOTE]
This is all speculation and really terrible debate material. You can't just say "Well I don't think X." See, I actually know how gun regulation works in Australia, and it's all very, very ridiculous stuff based off asinine firearm "categories," of which, none are quite more lethal than the other.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38862083]This is all speculation and really terrible debate material. You can't just say "Well I don't think X." See, I actually know how gun regulation works in Australia, and it's all very, very ridiculous stuff based off asinine firearm "categories," of which, none are quite more lethal than the other.[/QUOTE]
Ok, and what makes you assume that if people were "educated" they would automatically press for pro-gun legislation when clearly its not a big political issue as it is in say the USA?
How are they uneducated over disinterested? Post Port-Arthur massacre 85% of the public agreed with legislation which banned semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 used by Martin Bryant because they saw the potential of those weapons as unnecessary to the accepted uses of firearms in Australia.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;38862068]I take it you're in your late teens, early twenties. How do you feel, as a safe and law abiding driver, about being punished with ridiculous restrictions (as are in many states, no passengers after some hours of the night, restricted vehicles, etc) because some knob goes and speeds, then crashes into a tree?[/QUOTE]
They create a safer environment for an at-risk age group as the expense of some convenience, I have been annoyed with them in the past but I'd rather have less people die than be able to drive a turbocharged car or carry a bunch of friends after 11pm
[QUOTE=download;38862068]I take it you're in your late teens, early twenties. How do you feel, as a safe and law abiding driver, about being punished with ridiculous restrictions (as are in many states, no passengers after some hours of the night, restricted vehicles, etc) because some knob goes and speeds, then crashes into a tree?[/QUOTE]
This is a fallacious argument trying to compare gun ownership with cars.
Gods sake, they are two completely different things.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38861987]And there's nothing wrong with a gun-disinterested public wanting to restrict firearms. The problem is that the public in Australia, like many countries, are gun-[I]uneducated[/I], not disinterested, and there's nothing more frustrating than having someone who has no idea what they're talking about say it's bad.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty massive judgement on the people of Australia. Maybe they decided that the benefits of having stricter gun control outweighed the negatives. In terms of gun death and homicides they are certainly farther ahead than the United States, with almost a quarter of either statistic, per capita. Obviously there are societal differences as well (Australia in general has less crime and more social welfare) but to call them uneducated seems a bit presumptuous.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38862111]Ok, and what makes you assume that if people were "educated" they would automatically press for pro-gun legislation when clearly its not a big political issue as it is in say the USA?[/QUOTE]
I never said that people who are gun-educated would suddenly pry for pro-gun legislation.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38862140]That's a pretty massive judgement on the people of Australia. Maybe they decided that the benefits of having stricter gun control outweighed the negatives. In terms of gun death and homicides they are certainly farther ahead than the United States, with almost a quarter of either statistic, per capita. Obviously there are societal differences as well (Australia in general has less crime and more social welfare) but to call them uneducated seems a bit presumptuous.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's a stretch to say the majority of people in Australia just don't know a damn thing about guns. It's the same way in the US.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38862158]I never said that people who are gun-educated would suddenly pry for pro-gun legislation.
I don't think it's a stretch to say the majority of people in Australia just don't know a damn thing about guns. It's the same way in the US.[/QUOTE]
they know enough about guns to know they kill people.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;38862180]they know enough about guns to know they kill people.[/QUOTE]
I think you got your Sensationalist Headlines mixed up in my Mass Debate, because good lord, this is stupid.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38862158]I never said that people who are gun-educated would suddenly pry for pro-gun legislation.[/QUOTE]
Or seemingly press for legislation you want.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38862158]I don't think it's a stretch to say the majority of people in Australia just don't know a damn thing about guns. It's the same way in the US.[/QUOTE]
Erm this is kind of insulting to the majority of people in Australia and the USA.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38862136]This is a fallacious argument trying to compare gun ownership with cars.
Gods sake, they are two completely different things.[/QUOTE]
I don't see the difference. Both have very legitimate uses, and both kill people. Care to point out what fallacy this is breaking?
[QUOTE=download;38862197]I don't see the difference. Both have very legitimate uses, and both kill people. Care to point out what fallacy this is breaking?[/QUOTE]
Because a car isn't a firearm, they are used for 2 different purposes.
Anyways as far as I am aware, gun laws are not lenient in Australia, and the people seem educated enough to know what they want.
If it's at the cost of a few people who like to shoot for a hobby, ehh it's not a big deal.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38862186]I think you got your Sensationalist Headlines mixed up in my Mass Debate, because good lord, this is stupid.[/QUOTE]
He is kind of right though. You can call them dumb and uneducated if you can't come to terms with the reality that their stricter policies create a safer society, but it doesn't really help your argument.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38862191]Or seemingly press for legislation you want.[/QUOTE]
I never even so much as [I]implied[/I] this. It's probably worth restating what I've said, since you've missed it:
If a society decides that they want strict gun legislation, that's fine. But they can't make these decisions based on gut reactions to massacres. It's foolish. When it comes to legislation, [B]every single decision[/b] should be made with careful consideration and research on the subject at hand. The type of legislation we see in California and Australia and not carefully considered nor backed by people who know a thing about guns. This is obvious to pretty much everyone who has done their homework.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38862191]Erm this is kind of insulting to the majority of people in Australia and the USA.[/QUOTE]
Well, when you have no shortage of people who think barrel shrouds are dangerous because the government tells them so, there's at least an overwhelming amount of people who are uneducated when it comes to guns. As to whether it's insulting or not, I couldn't care less. What people want to hear is not always the truth.
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38862214]He is kind of right though. You can call them dumb and uneducated if you can't come to terms with the reality that their stricter policies create a safer society, but it doesn't really help your argument.[/QUOTE]
Except I'm not calling anyone dumb or uneducated. I'm saying that they don't know anything about guns. Reading comprehension, dude.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38862209]Because a car isn't a firearm, they are used for 2 different purposes.
Anyways as far as I am aware, gun laws are not lenient in Australia, and the people seem educated enough to know what they want.
If it's at the cost of a few people who like to shoot for a hobby, ehh it's not a big deal.[/QUOTE]
Making a comparison between the two isn't a logical fallacy. Until you can point out why my comparison is wrong, it stands
[QUOTE=Protocol7;38862235]
Well, when you have no shortage of people who think barrel shrouds are dangerous because the government tells them so, there's at least an overwhelming amount of people who are uneducated when it comes to guns. As to whether it's insulting or not, I couldn't care less. What people want to hear is not always the truth.[/QUOTE]
I don't even know anyone who talks about barrel shrouds.
[QUOTE] Except I'm not calling anyone dumb or uneducated. I'm saying that they don't know anything about guns. Reading comprehension, dude.[/QUOTE]
Yes, uneducated about guns, gun-uneducated. You use those words. I through in dumb for hyperbole but my point stands.
Yes, I specifically state gun-uneducated. It's not a crime to say that there's a vast quantity of people who don't know anything about guns. Stop trying to make it one.
I'm not making it a crime I'm just saying it seems presumptuous. Do a lot of people in Australia not understand how firearms function or the variety of firearms? Probably. Can't say for sure though. It could just be possible that they as a society understand firearms and find life easier with less of them around. The statistics prove them right, if less gun deaths/crime is the correct conclusion.
But then it goes back to the whole different societies thing. Gun homicide is not because of the existence of guns. It is a culmination of the existence of guns and society itself. Everyone always tries to tackle the former first, and not the latter, and nobody realizes that by trying to improve society as a whole, you reduce *all* crime, not just gun homicide. That's a win-win.
There are still problems with gun laws in the U.S. but the introduction of more gun laws or modification of existing ones isn't the end-all be-all solution for gun homicide.
The argument is rarely "ban guns and leave everything else to rot", but typically to restrict access to guns as part of a multi-tiered plan to help reduce crime. Keep in mind gun control could be as simple as requiring more stringent background checks, licenses for handguns, and closing the private seller loophole, something that most Americans already agree is a problem.
And Australia has successfully done both to varying degrees, improving the life of everyone in the country while homicide rates, including gun crime have steadily and noticeably declined since the 1980s
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;38862387]And Australia has successfully done both to varying degrees, improving the life of everyone in the country while homicide rates, including gun crime have steadily and noticeably declined since the 1980s[/QUOTE]
Gun crime has dropped since the 1980s, yet gun reforms only happened in 96/97 (rifles and shotguns) and 03 (handguns), so really what does that suggest?
In the 80s, most states introduced gun licensing. I think that would play a part (reducing accidental deaths mostly), but not totally
[QUOTE=download;38862429]Gun crime has dropped since the 1980s, yet gun reforms only happened in 96/97 (rifles and shotguns) and 03 (handguns), so really what does that suggest?[/QUOTE]
The decline of firearm-related homicide rates (as well as total firearm deaths) accelerated after those reforms were put in place.
[URL]http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38862716]The decline of firearm-related homicide rates (as well as total firearm deaths) accelerated after those reforms were put in place.
[URL]http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryPrevent.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]
That's funny, because I can find data that says the opposite. I'll be back in a sec
[editline]b[/editline]
Here is data showing it's all over the place:
[url]http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB98.pdf/$file/CJB98.pdf[/url]
Take a look at figure 4
[editline]b[/editline]
Here is one showing it decreasing at a constant rate
[url]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.full[/url]
Polls after a shooting like Port Arthur are unreliable because emotions are running high, and people don't know the facts of the situation. They want to do something that will have an immediate effect and that they think will help, this is why people turn to gun control, it's immediate and gives the illusion of doing something about crime or massacres. Port Arthur, like almost every other shooting, was committed by a mentally ill person, and he illegally acquired the firearms he used in the shooting. Rather than address why he was able to get the guns without a license and trying to provide help to the mentally ill, they enacted incredibly strict gun control, including the banning of guns by action type, even for some reason the immensely popular pump-action shotgun. Like most mass shootings outside of the US, it was a one-off event, and the statistics generally show it hasn't had an effect on crime overall. One cannot deny gun control in Aus is emotionally, rather than factually, based and in response to a single event that was already unlikely to happen again. The problem with emotional laws is they're generally bad laws, because they ignore research and are not thought out.
[QUOTE=download;38862764]That's funny, because I can find data that says the opposite. I'll be back in a sec
[editline]b[/editline]
Here is data showing it's all over the place:
[URL]http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB98.pdf/$file/CJB98.pdf[/URL]
Take a look at figure 4
[editline]b[/editline]
Here is one showing it decreasing at a constant rate
[URL]http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.full[/URL][/QUOTE]
Figure 4 in the first article talks about shooting incidents, not firearm-related deaths. The second actually supports the study I posted.
[quote]Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform.[/quote]
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38862906]Figure 4 in the first article talks about shooting incidents, not firearm-related deaths. The second actually supports the study I posted.[/QUOTE]
Could you point to where it does? Rather than the authors possibly biased opinion, facts don't lie, people do
[QUOTE=download;38862950]Could you point to where it does? Rather than the authors possibly biased opinion, facts don't lie, people do[/QUOTE]
It's right there in the conclusion of the abstract. If you're going to question the validity of the same studies you present, why present them at all?
[QUOTE=tomahawk2;38862970]It's right there in the conclusion of the abstract. If you're going to question the validity of the same studies you present, why present them at all?[/QUOTE]
I'm looking for data, not the authors conclusions. The conclusion does not support the data
[editline]17th December 2012[/editline]
Unfortunately raw data is hard to get
My idea is this: a person wishing to own a gun should take a psychological exam before they can buy their first gun. After that, they now have a certificate or whatever and can buy basically anything they want.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
