Panjabster
Registered Member
Ban all guns, they kill people. Even police in England only use sticks, not guns. We are no longer the wild wild west: we now actually cook our food and avoid endogamy.
Gun control - US vs. rest of the world
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
As Dirty Harry said,
There's nothing wrong with shootings. So long as the right people get shot.
Screw the home invader. As far as I'm concerned, if a criminal is shot dead in the process of committing a crime, that's the ideal outcome. Society is saved thousands of dollars in court costs and incarceration costs. And a dangerous criminal is removed from society. It's a win-win.
RAMPANT GUN OWNERSHIP?
Head for the hills!!!!! LOL. So you've addressed that specific issue, but what about all the rest? What about Australia's overall much higher violent crime rate? What about the fact that, in the US, gun ownership is inversely proportional to crime. Those states with the most liberal (there's an ironic word for ya, remember when liberals supported the right to bear arms?) gun laws have the lowest crime rates. Conversely, those with the most stringent gun control have the highest.
James, basically what you're saying is that you favor security over freedom with personal responsibility, correct? ...but what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? You obviously knew wat the results would show. Why the hell would you criticise Americans for how we legislate things which don't affect other coutries anyway? Or is there some kind of danger over on the other side of the world because of gun legislation in America? You expected the exact same results from your poll that it yeilded. Why do you want Americans to reliquish our sentimmentality with our guns? If the American public want to keep their gun legislation as is(whether this is true or not, since you've admitted that you expected the results that you got from your poll, this is obviously what you believe), wouldn't it be oppressive to handle the legislation otherwise. You can't be trying to change anybody's opinion, because you know that that hardly ever happens on an internet forum, and you're obviously not trying to understand the opposing argument, so that means that you must be, as 2inquisitive said, trolling.
Except, of course, this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
Which, for those of you who don't know, featured a mentally disturbed Asian college student shooting up a bunch of his classmates over imagined wrongs. Had he not been tackled when he paused for his first reload, the outcome might well have been as bad or worse than at VT, given that he was comparably well-armed. The only real difference, aside from the lucky outcome, is that the shooter had to go through the formality of joining a shooting club first.
Given that this incident occured in the capitol of the state you live in, and directly resulted in the strengthening of the gun legislation you're so proud of, it's odd that you'd omit it. It begs the question of whether you're dishonest or just ignorant. Unless, of course, you don't consider shooting 7 people to be a "mass spree killing?"
Well, given that Australia has had 1 in the past 11, and that America has 15 times the population, a comparable rate would work out to 13.6 in 10 years. I don't know the exact number, but I'd be surprised if it's drastically larger than that.
The thing about mass shootings is that they're typically committed by mentally disturbed, but otherwise law-abiding, people. The only gun legislation that will prevent them would have to be very intrusive, and you'd also have to make it very difficult to get a gun illegally. Even then, they'd still occur. Any nation of millions is going to produce a few tragic nutcases. However, limiting the damage they can do is not a sufficient guideline for making policy for governing the other 99.9999% of society.
Indeed, there's no reason to stoop to the level of World Nut Daily when a pair of respected Australian researchers have already published a peer-reviewed analysis demonstrating that the 1996 legislation has had no measurable effect on anything except gun suicides:
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1
quadruphonics:
You're essentially correct, although the death toll there was 2 people, so we might argue about whether this amounted to a "mass spree killing". Nevertheless, the offender's aim in that case was certainly to kill many people, and I admit the incident slipped my mind.
But let's take a closer look, shall we?
The offender here was armed with 5 hand guns. Why not a rifle of some kind? Why no automatic or semi-automatic weapon? Answer: he was prevented by law from obtaining one.
We might well wonder what the death toll might have been had this offender had access to an automatic rifle, don't you think? And what are the chances he would have been tackled and taken down so quickly after he started shooting?
I suspect that even his possession and carrying of 5 hand guns was illegal. Compare the Virginia Tech shootings, for example. There, carrying a gun was not illegal, since it is every American's right to do so. You could walk into class with 5 hand guns on open display and nobody would have a right to take them away from you, would they?
You're essentially correct, although the death toll there was 2 people, so we might argue about whether this amounted to a "mass spree killing". Nevertheless, the offender's aim in that case was certainly to kill many people, and I admit the incident slipped my mind.
But let's take a closer look, shall we?
The offender here was armed with 5 hand guns. Why not a rifle of some kind? Why no automatic or semi-automatic weapon? Answer: he was prevented by law from obtaining one.
We might well wonder what the death toll might have been had this offender had access to an automatic rifle, don't you think? And what are the chances he would have been tackled and taken down so quickly after he started shooting?
I suspect that even his possession and carrying of 5 hand guns was illegal. Compare the Virginia Tech shootings, for example. There, carrying a gun was not illegal, since it is every American's right to do so. You could walk into class with 5 hand guns on open display and nobody would have a right to take them away from you, would they?
Wrong again. Virgina Tech was legally a "gun free zone". No one was allowed to carry guns there. Yet the criminal went ahead and used a gun anyway. Who'd have thunk it?
It's private property, James. One is permitted the freedom to say what and who can come into their own, private homes.
Baron Max
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Maybe while we're at it, we could just define "mass spree killing" to apply to only to incidents that occur in the United States.
At least one of the handguns he used was semi-automatic. Or didn't you notice that one of the measures passed in response to the incident was to curb sales of semi-automatic hand guns? Likewise, the VT shooter didn't use any rifles (far too hard to conceal and use in a close-quarters massacre anyway) or automatic weapons (not really any worse than semi-automatics in this context). This guy was *better* armed than the Virginia Tech shooter; the relatively better outcome was a matter of dumb luck, not gun policy.
Probably lower, given that an automatic rifle is very difficult to conceal and burns through its clip almost instantly.
He probably would have been tackled before entering the classroom if he'd walked around with an automatic rifle. Again, the VT shooter used only handguns, and, unfortunately, wasn't tackled. It's ridiculous to suggest that policy dictates the exact outcome in a particular case like this, and dangerous to craft policy on the assumption that it does.
No, you couldn't, and if that statement reflects your understanding of American gun legislation and culture, then you are far too ignorant to have any business criticizing it. Troll.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
You better check your facts, the Police in Britain do carry guns, submachine guns, shotguns, if you watch the nightly new you will see armed police pictured.
In 1982, I was working part time for a Gun Distributor in Texas, and we received a contract through the U.S. Government, from the British Government, for 5,000 handguns for the Police Services, the guns in the contract consisted of the Smith and Wesson Models, 10, 13, 15, and 36, a few years later they bought the Model, 19, and 66, in .357 magnum to keep up with the terrorist, and even later they started buying Semiautomatics.
Did you know in the UK they banned the term "police force" because the term force was too agressive?LOL
Oh look. Another shooting in the US. This time it is 7 dead.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72266
Probably has nothing to do with guns.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72266
Probably has nothing to do with guns.
And in other news: Fatal stabbing in Australia!
Given that the perpetrator was a law enforcement officer, I feel obliged to point out that none of the gun control measures you've proposed would have done anything to prevent this.
Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
What would have changed? as a police office he still would have had access to the firearms that were used to commit the murders, and he still would have had the same jealous rage, and guess what he still would have killed 7 people.
What would have changed?
His gun might not have been his first thought when he got angry. He might not have set out to kill, but only to hurt, or (who knows?) only to verbally argue.
In short, he might well not have killed six people. And, moreover, the police might not have felt compelled to shoot him.
You seem far more obsessed with guns than most Americans I know - to the point you recommend giving the US government quite extraordinary powers simply to reduce by some unspecified amount the mere legal possession of some kinds of them.james said:
In other words, you're wrong in the direct sense. And your mentality is suspect.