Gun Control: Shiny Toy Guns

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I thought you wanted gun control measures to save lives?

Also, apparently you seem to think you know me. I will repeat: focusing on the gun is pointless. You're not going to stop people killing people by banning the guns, or making restrictions that apply to the guns.

So what do you focus on? What's your step by step plan to reduce spree shootings in the US or are you just satisfied with it being an intrinsic part of American culture? What have you looked into about restrictions on guns that makes you think with such conviction that it just won't work?

I focus on gun safety and training, as well as behavioral problems in regard of gun owners.

Reducing spree shootings would be reduced if we had people get a year of service in the US reserves or another military branch that disciplines people in the use of a gun, among other things taught in the military. Also, psychological help for the people who suffer from mental issues. And help the ghettos get better and prevent drug abuse through campaigns that don't necessarily antagonize drug users but rather help their communities as a whole to recover.

But of course you won't do that, because you just admitted you don't care as long as it's not your cozy school being targeted, so I don't even know why I bothered in putting forth a serious reply.

[Thermodolia]

Michigan gun laws are strict, but they don't have a total ban. Try again, kiddo.

MD is strict and guess what we have not had any massive shootings (more then like 4 or 5 killed/wounded) since we banned Assault weapons in 2013. The SCOTUS knows its working so they have refused to over turn it.

For the last time that’s not what they did. They declined to hear the case at that moment. They didn’t refuse to hear it and they left it open to hear the case again at a later date.

Also you are fudging the numbers to make yourself look good. The FBI states that a mass shooting is 3 victims. Therefore there has been several mass shootings in Maryland since 2013

[NewLiberalParty]

People need to relies that we are only at year 10 of guns being recognized as an individual right federally. The 08 decision by the SCOTUS was the 1st time that they required states to grant gun rights to its citizens.

So im sure it will not even last 25 years before its over turned and guns go back to being up to the states.

[Kernen]

MD is strict and guess what we have not had any massive shootings (more then like 4 or 5 killed/wounded) since we banned Assault weapons in 2013. The SCOTUS knows its working so they have refused to over turn it.

For the last time that’s not what they did. They declined to hear the case at that moment. They didn’t refuse to hear it and they left it open to hear the case again at a later date.

Also you are fudging the numbers to make yourself look good. The FBI states that a mass shooting is 3 victims. Therefore there has been several mass shootings in Maryland since 2013

Standard Keshiland move: The truth isn't important when he gets what he wants.

[I didnt vote for Trump]

So what do you focus on? What's your step by step plan to reduce spree shootings in the US or are you just satisfied with it being an intrinsic part of American culture? What have you looked into about restrictions on guns that makes you think with such conviction that it just won't work?

‘A step by step plan’ lol

Nobody truly has a step by step plan for this shit. And gun restriction, especially on things like features and types, are going to do jack shit because the cats out of the bag, so to speak. Since 1898, the cut off point for ‘firearms’ in the US, over threee hundred million guns have been sold into civilian hands. Gun control isn’t going to make those go away.

That's the problem brother, nobody truly has a step by step plan for this shit. Christ knows why you're so content to do nothing about it either.

And the best part: You claim to care about firearm homicide, scoff at the mention of a plan to tackle said firearm homicide and then double down and call me the hypocrite. That's gold man, you're good.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Would you like to note that some are in California and Michigan, where the Gun Control laws are some of the most strict?

Michigan is not strict. I have to hear are stupid neighbours shooting deer and rabbits all the damn time.

The horror. Everyone, we must ban guns because of the deer and rabbit. Won't somebody think of the deers and rabbits?!

[Kernen]

People need to relies that we are only at year 10 of guns being recognized as an individual right federally. The 08 decision by the SCOTUS was the 1st time that they required states to grant gun rights to its citizens.

So im sure it will not even last 25 years before its over turned and guns go back to being up to the states.

Most states gave people that right on their own. We're at year 200-something of that. Swing and a miss, kiddo. You really gotta think about what you're saying before you say it, because you're missing the obvious rejoinders.

[Thermodolia]

People need to relies that we are only at year 10 of guns being recognized as an individual right federally. The 08 decision by the SCOTUS was the 1st time that they required states to grant gun rights to its citizens.

So im sure it will not even last 25 years before its over turned and guns go back to being up to the states.

No we aren’t. Please stop with the bullshit

[NewLiberalParty]

Michigan is not strict. I have to hear are stupid neighbours shooting deer and rabbits all the damn time.

The horror. Everyone, we must ban guns because of the deer and rabbit. Won't somebody think of the deers and rabbits?!

Its not even real hunting they trap them in a fenced area and just kill them. Any real hunter would be disgusted.

[Kernen]

The horror. Everyone, we must ban guns because of the deer and rabbit. Won't somebody think of the deers and rabbits?!

Its not even real hunting they trap them in a fenced area and just kill them. Any real hunter would be disgusted.

Pest control is not treated as sport hunting.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I thought you wanted gun control measures to save lives?

Also, apparently you seem to think you know me. I will repeat: focusing on the gun is pointless. You're not going to stop people killing people by banning the guns, or making restrictions that apply to the guns.

So what do you focus on? What's your step by step plan to reduce spree shootings in the US or are you just satisfied with it being an intrinsic part of American culture? What have you looked into about restrictions on guns that makes you think with such conviction that it just won't work?

Literally all of it. I posted a CDC funded study earlier that found no causal link between restrictions on types of guns or ammo and lowered violence. If you really want me to go all out I'll write a long ass post debunking the Australia myth too.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Michigan is not strict. I have to hear are stupid neighbours shooting deer and rabbits all the damn time.

The horror. Everyone, we must ban guns because of the deer and rabbit. Won't somebody think of the deers and rabbits?!

I think of them every time as I'm eating them.

[Paddy O Fernature]

So what do you focus on? What's your step by step plan to reduce spree shootings in the US or are you just satisfied with it being an intrinsic part of American culture? What have you looked into about restrictions on guns that makes you think with such conviction that it just won't work?

Literally all of it. I posted a CDC funded study earlier that found no causal link between restrictions on types of guns or ammo and lowered violence. If you really want me to go all out I'll write a long ass post debunking the Australia myth too.

Why bother, you know full well it won't get us anywhere as proven in countless threads previously.

[Thermodolia]

People need to relies that we are only at year 10 of guns being recognized as an individual right federally. The 08 decision by the SCOTUS was the 1st time that they required states to grant gun rights to its citizens.

So im sure it will not even last 25 years before its over turned and guns go back to being up to the states.

Most states gave people that right on their own. We're at year 200-something of that. Swing and a miss, kiddo. You really gotta think about what you're saying before you say it, because you're missing the obvious rejoinders.

I’m not even a lawyer or a legal expert by any means yet I know more about this kinda stuff than he does

[I didnt vote for Trump]

So what do you focus on? What's your step by step plan to reduce spree shootings in the US or are you just satisfied with it being an intrinsic part of American culture? What have you looked into about restrictions on guns that makes you think with such conviction that it just won't work?

I focus on gun safety and training, as well as behavioral problems in regard of gun owners.

Reducing spree shootings would be reduced if we had people get a year of service in the US reserves or another military branch that disciplines people in the use of a gun, among other things taught in the military.

This I find interesting, why would being taught discipline in the use of a firearm reduce the likelihood of someone committing a spree shooting? You're not seriously suggesting that spree shootings are because the perpetrator has exceedingly bad trigger discipline are you? Why do you feel that this is necessary to address spree shooting?

Also, psychological help for the people who suffer from mental issues.

What specific aspects of the mental health system are you concerned about? Are you worried that children to develop personality disorders early on are not being identified to mental health services by their parents and teachers? Are you concerned that the mental health system is approaching mental disorders in children in a way that's counter productive to their development and integration into society? Do you feel this is something that could be better addressed with more funding or do you believe that the funding is sufficient and the way the funds are spend is wasteful?

And help the ghettos get better and prevent drug abuse through campaigns that don't necessarily antagonize drug users but rather help their communities as a whole to recover.

Why would helping the ghettos get better reduce spree shooting? Do you feel there's a missed link between poverty and spree shooting despite the majority of spree shooters not being from grossly underprivileged backgrounds, or are you talking about a different kind of homicide altogether?

But of course you won't do that, because you just admitted you don't care as long as it's not your cozy school being targeted, so I don't even know why I bothered in putting forth a serious reply.

You don't really care either, though. You just think saying it over and over again convinces me differently. You're don't get out of your chair for any of the points you mentioned so why bullshit?

[Thermodolia]

The horror. Everyone, we must ban guns because of the deer and rabbit. Won't somebody think of the deers and rabbits?!

Its not even real hunting they trap them in a fenced area and just kill them. Any real hunter would be disgusted.

No I wouldn’t

[I didnt vote for Trump]

So what do you focus on? What's your step by step plan to reduce spree shootings in the US or are you just satisfied with it being an intrinsic part of American culture? What have you looked into about restrictions on guns that makes you think with such conviction that it just won't work?

Literally all of it. I posted a CDC funded study earlier that found no causal link between restrictions on types of guns or ammo and lowered violence. If you really want me to go all out I'll write a long ass post debunking the Australia myth too.

Please debunk the Australia myth

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I focus on gun safety and training, as well as behavioral problems in regard of gun owners.

Reducing spree shootings would be reduced if we had people get a year of service in the US reserves or another military branch that disciplines people in the use of a gun, among other things taught in the military.

This I find interesting, why would being taught discipline in the use of a firearm reduce the likelihood of someone committing a spree shooting? You're not seriously suggesting that spree shootings are because the perpetrator has exceedingly bad trigger discipline are you? Why do you feel that this is necessary to address spree shooting?

Also, psychological help for the people who suffer from mental issues.

What specific aspects of the mental health system are you concerned about? Are you worried that children to develop personality disorders early on are not being identified to mental health services by their parents and teachers? Are you concerned that the mental health system is approaching mental disorders in children in a way that's counter productive to their development and integration into society? Do you feel this is something that could be better addressed with more funding or do you believe that the funding is sufficient and the way the funds are spend is wasteful?

And help the ghettos get better and prevent drug abuse through campaigns that don't necessarily antagonize drug users but rather help their communities as a whole to recover.

Why would helping the ghettos get better reduce spree shooting? Do you feel there's a missed link between poverty and spree shooting despite the majority of spree shooters not being from grossly underprivileged backgrounds, or are you talking about a different kind of homicide altogether?

But of course you won't do that, because you just admitted you don't care as long as it's not your cozy school being targeted, so I don't even know why I bothered in putting forth a serious reply.

You don't really care either, though. You just think saying it over and over again convinces me differently. You're don't get out of your chair for any of the points you mentioned so why bullshit?

You're focusing on spree shootings. I am focusing on shootings overall.

Training and discipline in the use of a firearm teaches you a lot about them tbh. I've grown up around guns all my life, not once have I wanted to go out and shoot somebody just because I felt like it or because I disliked someone or whatever. I know what pointing a gun at a person means. I think providing discipline and training on firearms would help people understand the sort of thing that a gun actually is, instead of having them think of a gun as either this omnipotent device that can kill at its own will and pass legislation around it, or this trivial device they can use to shoot at someone without thinking it can kill people. Most normal people, and gun owners, I'd hope, have learned these things. The people going postal are not the regular, seasoned gun owners in the middle, it's stupid kids in the fringes who probably never had anyone teach them shit about guns in their lives.

I believe that the mental health system could be made more adequate. However, the biggest barrier for mental help is the social stigma that exists around getting mental help. The stigma needs to be lowered or eradicated altogether before we can even begin to focus on the issue of mental healthcare as a society.

And at least I care enough to think about these things and offer a perspective other than "well, I don't care about them ghetto lowlifes, they can kill each other for all I care, in fact, they'd be doing a favor to my cozy neighborhood". Sure, I might not give that much of a shit, but there are degrees, and I think "well, we could try this" is infinitely better than "fuck them, it's only mass shootings I care about, poor people can rot in their hellholes for all I give a shit". Unlike you, my frame of mind is not focused only on preventing something that makes me uncomfortable because it only happens in my neighborhood.

[Aellex]

Assault weapons are not a thing.

Are they not? Because I know we have a classification "fusils d'assaut" in France but maybe it's a country specific thing.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Literally all of it. I posted a CDC funded study earlier that found no causal link between restrictions on types of guns or ammo and lowered violence. If you really want me to go all out I'll write a long ass post debunking the Australia myth too.

Please debunk the Australia myth

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 Australia implemented a very strict set of gun control regulations under the National Firearms Agreement, or NFA.

While this law and the corresponding gun buy back are often attributed to the reduction in homicides seen in Australia, that reduction was actually part of a much larger trend.

“The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968.” (you get an archive link because the main site was changed and broken up into separate links so I'll use an older one where it's all contained on one page)

Even the Melbourne University's report "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths" Found, "Homicide patterns (firearm and nonfirearm) were not influenced by the NFA. They therefore concluded that the gun buy back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia." The paper with a brief overview is here, you can try to find the full thing if you wish.

We also see that immediately after this law went into effect there was an increase in violent crimes.

When we look at America compared to Australia for the same time frames around the passing and implementation of the Australian NFA we see some interesting results. America experienced a greater reduction in the homicide rate paired with a decrease in the violent crime rate. Meanwhile Australia had a lesser reduction in the homicide rate paired with an increase in the violent crime rate.

In 1990 Australia had a murder rate of 1.9 which declined to 1.1 in 2013, a 42.1% reduction.
While America had a 9.4 murder rate in 1990 which has reduced to 4.5 in 2013, a 52.1% reduction.
In 1996 Australia had 145,902 violent crimes and a population of about 18.31 million. That gives us a violent crime rate of 796.8 per 100k.
In 2007 Australia had 215,208 violent crimes with a population of about 20.31 million giving it a crime rate of 1059.61. An increase of 24.7%.
Meanwhile the US violent crime rate in 96 was 636.63 which dropped to 471.8 in 2007. A 25.9% decrease.

Sources: Australian homicides
Australian violent crime statistics
American stats, note that the FBI also counts police and justifiable homicides in their numbers so they're a tad higher than they need to be.

Even looking specifically at the time frame after the infamous ban we see that America still had a greater reduction in the homicide rate as compared to Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics data for 1996 shows a homicide rate of 1.58, per 100k.
Australian Bureau of Statistics data for 2015 shows a homicide rate of 1.0, per 100k, for both 2014 and 2015.
That is a reduction of 36.7%.
The FBI data for 1996 shows a homicide rate of 7.4, per 100k.
The FBI data for 2014 shows a homicide rate of 4.5, per 100k.
That is a reduction of 39.1%.

Mass murder also still occurs in Australia.

Currently the American and Australian suicide rates are almost identical as well, at 13 and 12.6 per 100K respectively.

Two decades after the NFA and mandatory gun buy back Australia still is experiencing problems with gun violence. In fact gun crime is on the rise in Australia.

I feel pretty damn comfortable saying the Australian National Firearms Agreements impact was negligible at best.

Apple pie

[Paddy O Fernature]

Assault weapons are not a thing.

Are they not? Because I know we have a classification "fusils d'assaut" in France but maybe it's a country specific thing.

I'd agree, as in the case in America, it's literally a buzzword term made up to further confuse people. Sadly it's worked, based upon the sheer number of people even here in this thread who think AR's are fully automatic military grade assault rifles and other such bullshit.

[Manokan Republic]

Even though more people die from regular murders, mass murders take precedence because it scares you more? Because you're rich and certain you'll never be targeted, so mass murders scare you more and need to be stopped? This isn't actually about saving lives but just your own life and eliminating your own fears?

At least you are honest.

Only about 1% of the counties/cities in the US deal with "regular" murders the rest of the country only really has death through mass murder. Thus those who made the choice to live in the 99% safe areas deserve to be prioritized over those who made the choice to live in the 1% murder ridden parts of the USA.

Its about saving those who made the choice to live in a safe place and protect them selves.

People don't choose to be poor and live in bad cities. >.>

They're born there, most of the time and can't get out, or refuse to leave their families behind if they can. You don't choose to be a victim. This is liberal elitism at it's worst.


Also while you are right in that these few cities have most of the crime, it's more like 10% of the cities have 40% of the violent crimes, rather than 99%. As well it's an irrational fear to be afraid of mass shootings over normal murders, as even in these "safe cities" mass shootings are so statistically rare you are definitely more likely to be killed in a normal murder. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightning, as in according to the most extreme estimates, there are about 300 mass shootings a year that kill about 1.6 and injure 5 people, and 500 lightning strikes. Only about 78 mass shootings between 1983 and 2012 killed over 4 people (Page 2), so less than 1% are the mass shooting that kill lots of people. By this figure of mass shooting, that is kill 4 or more people, the figure is that about 2.5 a year occur, so the chances of a true mass murder killing you is even less.

Then we have to talk about cigarettes, which killed 500,000 people a year, and alcohol which causes drunk driving accidents which kills thousands of people, far more people than guns, let alone mass murders, and other drugs and whatnot. Why the focus on one extremely unlikely cause of death when the money could be better spent on other things, even regular murders?

[NewLiberalParty]

Only about 1% of the counties/cities in the US deal with "regular" murders the rest of the country only really has death through mass murder. Thus those who made the choice to live in the 99% safe areas deserve to be prioritized over those who made the choice to live in the 1% murder ridden parts of the USA.

Its about saving those who made the choice to live in a safe place and protect them selves.

People don't choose to be poor and live in bad cities. >.>

They're born there, most of the time and can't get out, or refuse to leave their families behind if they can. You don't choose to be a victim. This is liberal elitism at it's worst.


Also while you are right in that these few cities have most of the crime, it's more like 10% of the cities have 40% of the violent crimes, rather than 99%. As well it's an irrational fear to be afraid of mass shootings over normal murders, as even in these "safe cities" mass shootings are so statistically rare you are definitely more likely to be killed in a normal murder. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightning, as in according to the most extreme estimates, there are about 300 mass shootings a year that kill about 1.6 and injure 5 people, and 500 lightning strikes. Only about 78 mass shootings between 1983 and 2012 killed over 4 people (Page 2), so less than 1% are the mass shooting that kill lots of people. By this figure of mass shooting, that is kill 4 or more people, the figure is that about 2.5 a year occur, so the chances of a true mass murder killing you is even less.

Then we have to talk about cigarettes, which killed 500,000 people a year, and alcohol which causes drunk driving accidents which kills thousands of people, far more people than guns, let alone mass murders, and other drugs and whatnot. Why the focus on one extremely unlikely cause of death when the money could be better spent on other things, even regular murders?

I have litterally wanted alcohol and cigs banned for the longest time. You know there is a think called moving the whole family out of bad areas. I have moved over 6 times and we are not that rich so its doable. Note I have never been in a bad area but I know that if the place I lived because infested with violence and I had a family I would move out ASAP

[Wysten]

People don't choose to be poor and live in bad cities. >.>

They're born there, most of the time and can't get out, or refuse to leave their families behind if they can. You don't choose to be a victim. This is liberal elitism at it's worst.


Also while you are right in that these few cities have most of the crime, it's more like 10% of the cities have 40% of the violent crimes, rather than 99%. As well it's an irrational fear to be afraid of mass shootings over normal murders, as even in these "safe cities" mass shootings are so statistically rare you are definitely more likely to be killed in a normal murder. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightning, as in according to the most extreme estimates, there are about 300 mass shootings a year that kill about 1.6 and injure 5 people, and 500 lightning strikes. Only about 78 mass shootings between 1983 and 2012 killed over 4 people (Page 2), so less than 1% are the mass shooting that kill lots of people. By this figure of mass shooting, that is kill 4 or more people, the figure is that about 2.5 a year occur, so the chances of a true mass murder killing you is even less.

Then we have to talk about cigarettes, which killed 500,000 people a year, and alcohol which causes drunk driving accidents which kills thousands of people, far more people than guns, let alone mass murders, and other drugs and whatnot. Why the focus on one extremely unlikely cause of death when the money could be better spent on other things, even regular murders?

I have litterally wanted alcohol and cigs banned for the longest time. You know there is a think called moving the whole family out of bad areas. I have moved over 6 times and we are not that rich so its doable. Note I have never been in a bad area but I know that if the place I lived because infested with violence and I had a family I would move out ASAP

The mean streets of Gotland County Virginia.

[Ors Might]

People don't choose to be poor and live in bad cities. >.>

They're born there, most of the time and can't get out, or refuse to leave their families behind if they can. You don't choose to be a victim. This is liberal elitism at it's worst.


Also while you are right in that these few cities have most of the crime, it's more like 10% of the cities have 40% of the violent crimes, rather than 99%. As well it's an irrational fear to be afraid of mass shootings over normal murders, as even in these "safe cities" mass shootings are so statistically rare you are definitely more likely to be killed in a normal murder. You are literally more likely to be struck by lightning, as in according to the most extreme estimates, there are about 300 mass shootings a year that kill about 1.6 and injure 5 people, and 500 lightning strikes. Only about 78 mass shootings between 1983 and 2012 killed over 4 people (Page 2), so less than 1% are the mass shooting that kill lots of people. By this figure of mass shooting, that is kill 4 or more people, the figure is that about 2.5 a year occur, so the chances of a true mass murder killing you is even less.

Then we have to talk about cigarettes, which killed 500,000 people a year, and alcohol which causes drunk driving accidents which kills thousands of people, far more people than guns, let alone mass murders, and other drugs and whatnot. Why the focus on one extremely unlikely cause of death when the money could be better spent on other things, even regular murders?

I have litterally wanted alcohol and cigs banned for the longest time. You know there is a think called moving the whole family out of bad areas. I have moved over 6 times and we are not that rich so its doable. Note I have never been in a bad area but I know that if the place I lived because infested with violence and I had a family I would move out ASAP

Never lived in bad areas but still perfectly willing to make judgements on those areas and the people who live in them.