• Obama praises Australia's, UK's gun laws following mass shooting
    400 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Streecer;48810568]Here is a [URL="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188"]study[/URL]. And [URL="http://econweb.tamu.edu/mhoekstra/castle_doctrine.pdf"]another [/URL] which shows that stand your ground laws (i.e. firearms) led to a rise in homicides. And how are we meant to tell the difference? The argument isn't that every gun owner is a ticking time bomb, but that some of them are. Ultimately it is impossible to tell on the surface of an individuals intentions when in possession of a weapon.[/QUOTE] Your first srudy says nothing of the sort, in fact it says that defending yourself in any way leads to less property loss than not, and that it leads to you being less likely to be injured, and your second study admidts that there is a possibility that some of the data they used could have included justifiable homicides due to how poorly they are reported.
[QUOTE=Streecer;48810220]Furthermore, if guns are so good at protecting people from these shooters, how come none of these attacks have been ended by them? Almost every time the police shoot them/arrest them, or the shooter kills themselves.[/QUOTE] Around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, a would-be mass shooter in an Oregon mall was stopped by a CCer who drew on the shooter. Earlier this year, an Uber driver shot a mass-shooter in Chicago. [url=http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88]Here's a (not exhaustive) list[/url] of mass shootings stopped by armed citizens. These things happen, you just don't hear about them because a CCer drawing down on a lunatic with a gun doesn't get any farther than local news. You hear about the attempts that succeed because there was nobody there to stop them, and they get plastered across the national news.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48810761]Around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, a would-be mass shooter in an Oregon mall was stopped by a CCer who drew on the shooter. Earlier this year, an Uber driver shot a mass-shooter in Chicago. [url=http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88]Here's a (not exhaustive) list[/url] of mass shootings stopped by armed citizens. These things happen, you just don't hear about them because a CCer drawing down on a lunatic with a gun doesn't get any farther than local news. You hear about the attempts that succeed because there was nobody there to stop them, and they get plastered across the national news.[/QUOTE] :godzing: When things go right, it isn't reported. When it's horribly wrong it goes national. Like PETA or that Paris based Animal Rights group who stole from a homeless guy, decent animal shelters and community driven welfare groups go unnoticed.
[QUOTE=catbarf;48810761]Around the time of the Sandy Hook shooting, a would-be mass shooter in an Oregon mall was stopped by a CCer who drew on the shooter. Earlier this year, an Uber driver shot a mass-shooter in Chicago. [url=http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88]Here's a (not exhaustive) list[/url] of mass shootings stopped by armed citizens. These things happen, you just don't hear about them because a CCer drawing down on a lunatic with a gun doesn't get any farther than local news. You hear about the attempts that succeed because there was nobody there to stop them, and they get plastered across the national news.[/QUOTE] This, basically news will report what will get ratings and get viewers. They want stuff that is national news. There is even lots of videos on youtubes of CCers stopping people. So people rarely hear about the times that are successfully stopped.
People that are against ownership of guns aren't necessarily anti-gun. They believe that the goverment should be the only one that should be trust. Its kind of laughable that people trust our own government to such an extent that they want to bypass the second amendment. Yeah, sound like a plan!
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;48810930]People that are against ownership of guns aren't necessarily anti-gun. They believe that the goverment should be the only one that should be trust. Its kind of laughable that people trust our own government to such an extent that they want to bypass the second amendment. Yeah, sound like a plan![/QUOTE] Government trust has been decaying steadily over the past decade or two, although it's to a far greater extent than is healthy - to the point that the actions of anybody in power are constantly suspected and it makes it difficult to actually introduce workable policies. When the response of half the internet to a school shooting is to assume that it was a false-flag you know there's a problem.
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;48810930]People that are against ownership of guns aren't necessarily anti-gun. They believe that the goverment should be the only one that should be trust. Its kind of laughable that people trust our own government to such an extent that they want to bypass the second amendment. Yeah, sound like a plan![/QUOTE] I don't see why that second amendment is so important. It just hinders progress. But of course you've been taught in school to follow it religiously, so w/e.
[QUOTE=paul simon;48811118]I don't see why that second amendment is so important. It just hinders progress. But of course you've been taught in school to follow it religiously, so w/e.[/QUOTE] What "progress" is being hindered by it? Last I checked America was at the scientific forefront of the world.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48811054]Government trust has been decaying steadily over the past decade or two, although it's to a far greater extent than is healthy - to the point that the actions of anybody in power are constantly suspected and it makes it difficult to actually introduce workable policies. When the response of half the internet to a school shooting is to assume that it was a false-flag you know there's a problem.[/QUOTE] I'd say that the trust is at an all time low with TPP and Patriot Act 2.0. [QUOTE=paul simon;48811118]I don't see why that second amendment is so important. It just hinders progress. But of course you've been taught in school to follow it religiously, so w/e.[/QUOTE] Err what "progress" has been affected by the Second Amendment existing? Its important because it atleast keeps the goverment in check somewhat, that's what the US's founding fathers stated. "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." -George Washington "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." -Thomas Jefferson Also for the record, our schools absolutely are against gun ownership. [sp]I got called into office once for merely drawing a gun from a video game.[/sp]
[QUOTE=paul simon;48811118]I don't see why that second amendment is so important. It just hinders progress. But of course you've been taught in school to follow it religiously, so w/e.[/QUOTE] you think public schools are on the side of gun ownership? where... where did you get that idea?
Just because it works in the UK and Australia doesn't mean it'll work in the US, which has far more of a gun culture than either of the first two combined. It wouldn't work.
[QUOTE=paul simon;48807957]"Less people dying to gun violence" isn't a stupid agenda :v:[/QUOTE] Top 10 leading causes of death The top 10 leading causes of death in the US are below together with the most recent statistics and facts, together they accounted for 73.6% of deaths in 2013 Annually there are around 2,596,993 deaths registered in the US with the leading top 10 causes accounting for nearly 75% of all deaths. Heart disease Cancer (malignant neoplasms) Chronic lower respiratory disease Accidents (unintentional injuries) Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases) Alzheimer's disease Diabetes (diabetes mellitus) Influenza and pneumonia Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis) Suicide (intentional self-harm).
[QUOTE=Ridge;48811473]Top 10 leading causes of death The top 10 leading causes of death in the US are below together with the most recent statistics and facts, together they accounted for 73.6% of deaths in 2013 Annually there are around 2,596,993 deaths registered in the US with the leading top 10 causes accounting for nearly 75% of all deaths. Heart disease Cancer (malignant neoplasms) Chronic lower respiratory disease Accidents (unintentional injuries) Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases) Alzheimer's disease Diabetes (diabetes mellitus) Influenza and pneumonia Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis) Suicide (intentional self-harm).[/QUOTE] So your argument is "who cares, more people die in other ways"? Nice.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48807483]Dingdingdingding! We're getting close to something here that most people can't or won't differentiate between the two of: Regulation vs Restriction. Anyone can drive a jetski vs a normal boat, but you gotta pass some extra and borderline arbitrary tests. Driving is a privilege, not a right, though. Gun ownership is. but abusing the 2nd amendment to own a gun when a person is clearly insane or otherwise is abhorrent. There will never be a catch all, but there can be a "catch the obvious and infuriatingly stupid wackos with a history of malicious tendencies", and that is something that is lacking. We actually have the groundwork to do it. Policies do exist to catch this, but it isn't enforced correctly and boils down to what I know quite thoroughly: USDA and FDA practices. Not to entirely derail this, but a comparison can be made. Foster Farms chicken was poisoning millions with blatantly infected chicken. The outbreak of salmonella poisoning went on for years until a de-clawed USDA finally pushed for the right to close down factories for the salmonella. This is where I feel a lot of the issue resides: A dysfunctional screening program and may even zero in on the wrong people. If screening is improved on all fronts and probably even a registry initiated then things will become less heated in these debates because it will be under the [I]pretense that something is being done and some of the issues are being listened to by the people[/I]. It would make a world of difference, but a lot of this is my own opinion, too, so I might even be wrong on some things myself, but by all means something is better than sitting on laurels and preaching to choirs.[/QUOTE] I feel you're on the right track but a registry is a bad idea. Unless you're talking about a registry of gun owners and not the guns themselves. A gun registry is something easily abused and it's best if we don't have one. [editline]2nd October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;48811532]So your argument is "who cares, more people die in other ways"? Nice.[/QUOTE] And your argument is "Hey look here's a cause of death that is distantly associated with a lifestyle that isn't inherently the cause of death but I just don't like it, let's go after it!"
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48811548]Unless you're talking about a registry of gun owners and not the guns themselves. A gun registry is something easily abused and it's best if we don't have one.[/QUOTE] What should we introduce so we can collect accurate information on gun ownership?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48811599]What should we introduce so we can collect accurate information on gun ownership?[/QUOTE] What nature of information are you talking about? Can this not be gathered through anonymous surveys, or just registering the gun owner themself without the specific guns they have? All I know is that letting the government know the exact amount and make of guns you have is a good way of getting them confiscated if the wrong guy comes in power.
[QUOTE=paul simon;48811532]So your argument is "who cares, more people die in other ways"? Nice.[/QUOTE] My point is that it's not even the top killer of people. It's not even in the top 10. It wouldn't make a WatchMojo countdown for causes of death. 2.6 million people die every year. Almost 1% of our population. And guns kill 30,000 of them, a little over 1% of that almost 1% annual mortality rate.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48811614]What nature of information are you talking about? Can this not be gathered through anonymous surveys, or just registering the gun owner themself without the specific guns they have? All I know is that letting the government know the exact amount and make of guns you have is a good way of getting them confiscated if the wrong guy comes in power.[/QUOTE] Considering the government already knows where you live, what your job is, how much money you make, the cars you own and drive, amongst numerous other things, I doubt that being unable to work out who owns what kinds of guns would deter them from doing bad things. Oh yeah, you also need a permit to leave the country.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;48811614]What nature of information are you talking about? Can this not be gathered through anonymous surveys, or just registering the gun owner themself without the specific guns they have? All I know is that letting the government know the exact amount and make of guns you have is a good way of getting them confiscated if the wrong guy comes in power.[/QUOTE] Enforcement becomes an issue. How many U.S. soldiers would turn the gun on their neighbors should the 2nd amendment be broken?
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48813583]Enforcement becomes an issue. How many U.S. soldiers would turn the gun on their neighbors should the 2nd amendment be broken?[/QUOTE] If a soldier is going to begin shooting civilians over a rule that was written by dead people over two-hundred years ago, then the only thing that proves is that more restrictions over firearms are necessary.
[QUOTE=Maegord;48813982]If a soldier is going to begin shooting civilians over a rule that was written by dead people over two-hundred years ago, then the only thing that proves is that more restrictions over firearms are necessary.[/QUOTE] ...what? How did you misread the post that badly? If there was a small towns worth of people not following disarmament, and threatened retaliation, what would people do in the army? Shoot their own neighbors for something they may not actually believe in?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48810551]After the Charlie Hebdo shootings, some American pro-gun advocates decided to recreate the office shooting while giving each journalist a gun. The reenacted event still ended with every single journalist getting shot lethally by the terrorists - and there were far more journalists than terrorists. If you have the element of surprise, and your weapon is a series of projectiles sent at supersonic speed at the pull of a trigger, you're always going to win a gunfight.[/QUOTE] Yes and as was gone over in that thread when it was posted here, its rather dubious to use this as an example as what will happen every time, since the re-enactors were former professional soldiers (who train people in tactics and weapon handling....), and the journalists had no experience or training at all. Not to mention it was also a scenario where they had no time to react, in a space of about 5 feet. Using that as an example is like using a boxer completely outclassing someone who has never thrown a punch in their life. Of course that was going to be the outcome. There are thousands of successful CCW self defense cases in the US every year. Do you remember Jeanne Assam? [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/[/url] She stopped a man who was armed with an AR15 with her pistol. If she hadn't had been there, how many more people would have died?
[QUOTE=Ridge;48813545]My point is that it's not even the top killer of people. It's not even in the top 10. It wouldn't make a WatchMojo countdown for causes of death. 2.6 million people die every year. Almost 1% of our population. And guns kill 30,000 of them, a little over 1% of that almost 1% annual mortality rate.[/QUOTE] Should we stop all research into ALS then? Toxoplasmosis? HIV/AIDS? Cystic fibrosis? I mean, those don't really kill that many people, I guess they're not worth bothering with. What an asinine line of logic. [QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;48814273]Yes and as was gone over in that thread when it was posted here, its rather dubious to use this as an example as what will happen every time, since the re-enactors were former professional soldiers (who train people in tactics and weapon handling....), and the journalists had no experience or training at all. Not to mention it was also a scenario where they had no time to react, in a space of about 5 feet. Using that as an example is like using a boxer completely outclassing someone who has never thrown a punch in their life. Of course that was going to be the outcome. There are thousands of successful CCW self defense cases in the US every year. Do you remember Jeanne Assam? [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/colorado.shootings/[/url] She stopped a man who was armed with an AR15 with her pistol. If she hadn't had been there, how many more people would have died?[/QUOTE] If the man wasn't able to procure an AR15 in the first place, no one would have died and the incident wouldn't have occurred at all.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;48814562] If the man wasn't able to procure an AR15 in the first place, no one would have died and the incident wouldn't have occurred at all.[/QUOTE] And if pigs could fly! Do you always deal with fantastical scenarios or do you have something worth saying? And yes, that same amount of people very well could have died with a pump shotgun or even a bolt action rifle, yet that is completely irrelevant. Instituting Australia-esque gun laws isn't going to change shit for America because it is not Australia.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;48815015]There are some things wrong with trying to ban guns in the US. First, it would take massive amounts of legislation, literally a decade of court battles, a majority of militant anti-gun legislators, and cause massive civil unrest. Second, it would take at least 2 generations of the population to pass living under these laws for it to be generally accepted by the populace. Third, it's not going to change very much.[/QUOTE] So basically "its too hard so don't bother trying"
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;48815712]So basically "its too hard so don't bother trying"[/QUOTE] With mentality like that gays would still be lynched and women would be legally inferior. It's funny how stereotype says Americans are lazy and then they do not want to try because it might take more than 5 years to accomplish.
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;48815712]So basically "its too hard so don't bother trying"[/QUOTE] He means that it doesn't solve the issue of why people commit violent crimes in the first place. Guns are a tool. A means to an end. But it is not the cause of crime. The drug war and poverty are the major causes of crime in America. If we fixed those issues our crime rates would drop drastically.
[QUOTE=Kigen;48815845]He means that it doesn't solve the issue of why people commit violent crimes in the first place. Guns are a tool. A means to an end. But it is not the cause of crime. The drug war and poverty are the major causes of crime in America. If we fixed those issues our crime rates would drop drastically.[/QUOTE] But whatever crime that remains could still be committed with a gun, and crimes that involve guns tend to end badly compared to crimes that involve knives, for example. If we can keep guns out of the hands of criminals at the cost of some inconvenience to gun owners, don't you think that is worth it?
I think the reason why he's praising our laws is because of the lack of gun shooting we've had since 1996, However there are still some that terrorist attacks that have happen here recently is a good example as well as what happen at that police station. However you can still get firearms here, its just harder. I'm actually kinda amazed we haven't heard about terrorist in the US with how easy it is to get access to them. But, Hey. We can only hope something like this doesn't happen again.
[QUOTE=Ridge;48811473]Top 10 leading causes of death The top 10 leading causes of death in the US are below together with the most recent statistics and facts, together they accounted for 73.6% of deaths in 2013 Annually there are around 2,596,993 deaths registered in the US with the leading top 10 causes accounting for nearly 75% of all deaths. Heart disease Cancer (malignant neoplasms) Chronic lower respiratory disease Accidents (unintentional injuries) Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases) Alzheimer's disease Diabetes (diabetes mellitus) Influenza and pneumonia Kidney disease (nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis) Suicide (intentional self-harm).[/QUOTE] This is stupid. Terrorism isn't on the list either so lets dismantle all the intelligence services, stand down the army and remove all airport security. Terrorism isn't a leading cause of death so who cares?? Let them bomb things, no one cares if it's not in the top 10. But hey you know what is on that list? Suicide and you know what the most common method of suicide is in the US? [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Methods"]Guns[/URL]. More US citizens are lost to homicides involving a firearm every year than at least the past 15 years of terrorism.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.