Jump to content
beginnergirl

USA shootings and gun laws

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, rory-dognz said:

If he is correct and existing laws; if enforced, further restricted firearms, and some new/adjustments to laws (safe storage to stop the kid shooting his sister, possibly longer stand down from purchase to receiving) may make the place safer for people.

I believe 27 states have requirements to keep guns secure.  This is an obvious example of a law which should apply across the union

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

That's a particularly offensive accusation Pete

What makes you think that I want to see kids killed?  And how do you think accusing me of that helps whatever point you're trying to make?

You are anti doing anything and make excuses like the NRA. 

Therefore by default are happy to see people killed including kids. 

What that says about me is I don't want to see people killed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I believe 27 states have requirements to keep guns secure.  This is an obvious example of a law which should apply across the union

I agree with you here. 

Are you coming around to our side now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Peter said:

You are anti doing anything and make excuses like the NRA. 

Therefore by default are happy to see people killed including kids. 

What that says about me is I don't want to see people killed

 

Not true

I am anti-virtue signalling and pro-effectiveness.  Which is probably why we disagree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't be pro effectiveness by doing nothing at all. 

They have to try something because what they are doing currently isn't working. 

Its the old story. Don't go to your boss with a problem. Go with a solution. 

But you won't even put up a solution. 

Anyway ive had enough of you and your sick theories allowing innocent kids and people getting killed. 

Putting you on block. So no need to respond. I won't see it. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

Both the Texas and Florida shooters were known to the authorities and should have had their weapons taken away

Under what legislation could this have taken place?  And if the government has the right to remove guns from folk without judicial process then is the second amendment a farce?  And if the weapons didn't require registering then how are authorities to even know that there is a weapon to remove?

Quote

Paddock's objective was to kill a large number of people.  If he didn't have guns he probably would have just hired a truck to do the job.  Are we going to ban trucks too?

Really?  You're resorting to a logical fallacy as pathetic as that?  In any event, to date the largest killing by such method is 13 so the other 45 lives saved not to mention the countless uninjured would probably welcome this outcome to the alternative.  Any of the laws that would stop him from buying assault weapons in large quantities without gaining attention might have helped, no?

Quote

As you say there are regulations already on the books, but they need to be adopted by all states and enforced

So you are pro enforcement of the most restrictive gun laws currently available across all states?  Excellent idea, when do they start?

Quote

Perhaps.  But it gets back to the original question I've been asking all along - show me a law or laws which is at least possible to implement and would be effective

Our ban and buyback scheme was quickly and easily implemented and demonstrably effective.  Did it remove 100% of the weapons it sought to?  Of course not but did that prevent it from having a profound affect on the safety of modern Australian society?  If you wish to suggest that it couldn't possibly work in the US then the burden of proof is yours.

A ban on the sale of new weapons would at very least prevent escalation of the current situation.  It has already worked with assault weapons in the States when they had a ten year ban so there's one that's both easy to implement and effective over.  A definitional change change for what constitutes a machine gun in the Firearm Owners Protection Act would also be easily implemented and enforced.  So there's three of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering though, is if (an impossible if) what I believe should happen was in fact possible, would iJ support that?

You see, I know my solution is an impossibility over there, I'm not stupid.  But I feel stupid if I accept any less.

IJ's idea of a solution may not seem like any solution to many of us, but the fact is that only the most meagre of changes will happen, if at all.  So his idea of a solution (say just actually enforcing the pathetic level of current law regarding guns, and say forcing proper hinge gun security (safes etc)) may not seem like any solution to us, but it may be the most realistic eventually.  And so sitting anything is better than nothing, even if anything is just to actually make the current ones work.  He may live in a world of reality, but I prefer my fantasy land.

With regards to me admitting I had nothing, I think I would have implied that neither of us did ;).  Cept I have a fantastic solution, that will just never happen.... remember, fantasy land.

Now to go watch a movie about spies and probably lotsa guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter said:

 

Putting you on block. So no need to respond. I won't see it. 

no, don't do that. we all have different opinions at times, but we are all friends aren't we?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Stikman said:

Under what legislation could this have taken place?  And if the government has the right to remove guns from folk without judicial process then is the second amendment a farce?  And if the weapons didn't require registering then how are authorities to even know that there is a weapon to remove?

My mistake.  There are currently five states which permit the confiscation of weapons from the mentally ill, but Florida is not one of them.  This should also be expanded if the various constitutional issues can be sorted out

In any case though, there was plenty of data on him which should have led to him failing the mandated backgound checks when he bought his guns.  And there is also plenty of evidence to suggest that he should have been involuntarily institutionalised, which is another process which doesn't seem to happen often enough

Really?  You're resorting to a logical fallacy as pathetic as that?  In any event, to date the largest killing by such method is 13 so the other 45 lives saved not to mention the countless uninjured would probably welcome this outcome to the alternative.  Any of the laws that would stop him from buying assault weapons in large quantities without gaining attention might have helped, no?

86 people were killed in Nice and a further 458 were injured.  And given the victims were spread out far more than they would have been at the concert in Vegas, it's not hard to imagine a significantly higher number of casualties there

So you are pro enforcement of the most restrictive gun laws currently available across all states?  Excellent idea, when do they start?

ASAP, obviously...

Our ban and buyback scheme was quickly and easily implemented and demonstrably effective.  Did it remove 100% of the weapons it sought to?  Of course not but did that prevent it from having a profound affect on the safety of modern Australian society?  If you wish to suggest that it couldn't possibly work in the US then the burden of proof is yours.

Well, no.  The burden of proof is yours because it is your claim

I would also question your claim that it has been 'profoundly effective' given that mass shootings were hardly happening every other week prior to the buyback

Correlation does not equal causation.  And if you were to suggest to a statistician that a reduction of once every five years to zero is significant enough to suggest causation they will probably laugh at you

A ban on the sale of new weapons would at very least prevent escalation of the current situation.  It has already worked with assault weapons in the States when they had a ten year ban so there's one that's both easy to implement and effective over.  A definitional change change for what constitutes a machine gun in the Firearm Owners Protection Act would also be easily implemented and enforced.  So there's three of them.

As I've mentioned before, the sale of machine guns was banned in 1986, essentially covering all weapons which can fire multiple times from one trigger press (so burst or automatic)

An AR15 is not an 'assault weapon,' so you will need to be more specific about what you want to ban and how you intend to go about it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main difference lies in our (Aus v's US) idea of safety and freedom. 

I think we are safe here due to the lack of guns, in the US they feel safer with everyone having a gun.

I like the freedom of being able to leave my house NEVER IN MY LIFE having feared gun violence, whereas the US think freedom is the ability to own as many guns as you like.

I prefer our safety and freedom. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Correlation does not equal causation.  And if you were to suggest to a statistician that a reduction of once every five years to zero is significant enough to suggest causation they will probably laugh at you

I've kept out of this till now, as you've been presenting a reasonable debate, but this point is a criminal use of statistics. What period of time did you pull the "once every five years" from? Maybe if it was extrapolated over 100 years, but over the previous 20 years they had been increasing in frequency to have seen 2 in 96, 93, 92, 91, 90, 88, 4 in 87, 2 in 84. Seems like it was a problem getting worse over time, which suddenly stopped when the gun numbers were reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

As I've mentioned before, the sale of machine guns was banned in 1986, essentially covering all weapons which can fire multiple times from one trigger press (so burst or automatic)

An AR15 is not an 'assault weapon,' so you will need to be more specific about what you want to ban and how you intend to go about it

 

Quote

Gun owners in Nevada don't need a permit to buy or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun, according to the National Rifle Association. They can carry a firearm openly in public. Nevadans can even purchase machine guns or silencers, banned in other states, as long as they're legally registered and within federal compliance. The state does not prohibit possession of assault weapons, 50-caliber rifles or large-capacity ammunition magazines, according to the NRA

 

Edited by Kim jong-un

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I've kept out of this till now, as you've been presenting a reasonable debate, but this point is a criminal use of statistics. What period of time did you pull the "once every five years" from? Maybe if it was extrapolated over 100 years, but over the previous 20 years they had been increasing in frequency to have seen 2 in 96, 93, 92, 91, 90, 88, 4 in 87, 2 in 84. Seems like it was a problem getting worse over time, which suddenly stopped when the gun numbers were reduced.

It sounds like you're using the 'two or more people equals a mass shooting' method preferred by the American left to make the problem seem way worse than it actually is. 

Mother Jones (hardly a bastion of conservative thought) defines a mass shooting using FBI guidelines of four or more people killed in the same public place, and where a crime such as armed robbery and gang or domestic violence. 

Loosely using the same criteria, in the twenty years prior to 1996 I would count Hoddle Street, Milperra, Strathfield and Port Arthur.  So one in five

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kim jong-un said:

Gun owners in Nevada don't need a permit to buy or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun, according to the National Rifle Association. They can carry a firearm openly in public. Nevadans can even purchase machine guns or silencers, banned in other states, as long as they're legally registered and within federal compliance. The state does not prohibit possession of assault weapons, 50-caliber rifles or large-capacity ammunition magazines, according to the NRA

Hi Little Rocket Man

You are correct that anyone can purchase a second hand machine gun, but it is illegal for firearm dealers to sell new ones.  They are required to pass stringent background checks, the gun has to be registered with local authorities and the cost themselves is prohibitively expensive (commonly six figures plus).  Hardly the sort of rigmarole a potential mass shooter is likely to have the means nor patience to bother with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, roxii said:

I think the main difference lies in our (Aus v's US) idea of safety and freedom. 

I think we are safe here due to the lack of guns, in the US they feel safer with everyone having a gun.

I like the freedom of being able to leave my house NEVER IN MY LIFE having feared gun violence, whereas the US think freedom is the ability to own as many guns as you like.

I prefer our safety and freedom. 

 

Good point.  The yanks take freedom very, very seriously, so when it appears that people are trying to take those freedoms away they don't tend to like it

I did have an ironic chuckle a few years back when the Greens proposed that we should have our own bill of rights.  Presumably their version would not have a second amendment.  Or a first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

17 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

It sounds like you're using the 'two or more people equals a mass shooting' method preferred by the American left to make the problem seem way worse than it actually is. 

Port Arthur 

Hillcrest - 6 deaths

Cangai Siege - 5 deaths (over 3 days)

Terrigal - 6 deaths

Strathfield - 7 deaths

Surry Hills - 5 deaths

Oenpelli - 6 deaths

Queen St Melbourne - 8 deaths

Canleyvale - 5 deaths

Hoddle St - 7 deaths

Kimberleys - 5 deaths

Milperra - 7 deaths

Wahroonga - 5 deaths

 

So no, I used 5 deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

Port Arthur 

Hillcrest - 6 deaths

Cangai Siege - 5 deaths (over 3 days)

Terrigal - 6 deaths

Strathfield - 7 deaths

Surry Hills - 5 deaths

Oenpelli - 6 deaths

Queen St Melbourne - 8 deaths

Canleyvale - 5 deaths

Hoddle St - 7 deaths

Kimberleys - 5 deaths

Milperra - 7 deaths

Wahroonga - 5 deaths

 

So no, I used 5 deaths.

Now apply the rest of the criteria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Now apply the rest of the criteria

As in gun used & people dead? What "Criteria" make it a mass shooting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or if you prefer, can you explain how the Wright St bikie murders (1999), Monash University shooting (2002), Hectorville siege (2011) or the Lindt café siege (2014) could have occurred since the buyback ended mass shootings in Australia?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Or if you prefer, can you explain how the Wright St bikie murders (1999), Monash University shooting (2002), Hectorville siege (2011) or the Lindt café siege (2014) could have occurred since the buyback ended mass shootings in Australia?

 

I've already said I'm looking at 5 or more deaths. So that's 4 smaller ones since 97. How many before? Dozens?

 

And I don't know about the other shootings, but the gun used for the Lindt Siege was a legal shotgun, just sawn-off. Could be why he only shot 1 person.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Milperra - 7 deaths

While Milperra may qualify by number of victims it was very different scenario, with multiple armed people basically turning up for a gunfight, not a lone gunman. 

I can nearly see the Viking (Now "The Mill") from my office.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adelaide local radio had Andrew Polac on this morning (father of one of the Florida 17). He’s a licensed concealed carrier and says he takes his weapon with him everywhere. His suggested solution for stopping school shootings is to apply the same restrictions that currently exist for federal buildings, courtrooms, aeroplanes etc. In essence, have security points for entry into every school in America. He said he doesn’t want to enter into the gun debate now, that may be for another time, but he wants to stop school shootings now. 

Maybe that’s a solution for now until further measures can take place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, downesy68 said:

 He said he doesn’t want to enter into the gun debate now, that may be for another time, but he wants to stop school shootings now.

So a guy who lost his child to these gun laws doesnt want to let go of his gun, or debate the laws at the moment. 

If that is true then they really are beyond hope. 

I think the only logical step from here is to force everyone to carry a gun to deter possible criminal acts. You know it makes sense!! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, downesy68 said:

Adelaide local radio had Andrew Polac on this morning (father of one of the Florida 17). He’s a licensed concealed carrier and says he takes his weapon with him everywhere. His suggested solution for stopping school shootings is to apply the same restrictions that currently exist for federal buildings, courtrooms, aeroplanes etc. In essence, have security points for entry into every school in America. He said he doesn’t want to enter into the gun debate now, that may be for another time, but he wants to stop school shootings now. 

Maybe that’s a solution for now until further measures can take place?

Metal detectors etc in schools are an obvious mitigant.  As Roxii noted before it's a shame that it's needed to protect kids, but that's the way it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, roxii said:

So a guy who lost his child to these gun laws doesnt want to let go of his gun, or debate the laws at the moment. 

If that is true then they really are beyond hope. 

I think the only logical step from here is to force everyone to carry a gun to deter possible criminal acts. You know it makes sense!! 

I would have thought suggesting improvements to school security is a form of debating the topic, but anyway...

One of the main resons people over there own guns is security.  And regular failures by the authorities are not helping the 'nobody really needs a gun' case

Picture it - a cop knocks on your door and says 'yeah, we know the FBI missed over thirty red flags in Florida, and the local cops did nothing, and we know criminals aren't going to give up their guns, but you need to give up yours.  It's okay - we'll protect you'

Good luck with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

Picture it - a cop knocks on your door and says 'yeah, we know the FBI missed over thirty red flags in Florida, and the local cops did nothing, and we know criminals aren't going to give up their guns, but you need to give up yours.  It's okay - we'll protect you'

 

Why not, its essentially the same as here. 

The gun lobby in Aus slogan was "When guns are criminalised, only criminals will have guns" or similar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, roxii said:

Why not, its essentially the same as here. 

The gun lobby in Aus slogan was "When guns are criminalised, only criminals will have guns" or similar. 

It's different here because our starting point was light years away from where theirs is from both a legal and societal point of view

And the actual result here was a slight reduction from 'not much' to 'even less'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IronJimbo said:

It's different here because our starting point was light years away from where theirs is from both a legal and societal point of view

And the actual result here was a slight reduction from 'not much' to 'even less'

The longest journey starts with a single step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, roxii said:

The longest journey starts with a single step.

True

They just need to figure out which direction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty obvious that status quo isnt bringing gun numbers down-down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, roxii said:

The longest journey starts with a single step.

Unless you're doing the Hokey Pokey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, roxii said:

Its pretty obvious that status quo isnt bringing gun numbers down-down. 

Aha, I see what you did there ;)

They can't go on together with suspicious minds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

......but the gun used for the Lindt Siege was a legal shotgun, just sawn-off. Could be why he only shot 1 person.

And that's the crux of it.  I'm not saying "no guns'' for civilians (here or over there), just no military-style guns which can kill 12 people in the blink of an eye.  If the Lindt proved one thing, it's even that our 'police experts' can cause heart-breaking collateral damage with a military-style weapon.  If ever there was a case to get the real military experts in to minimise the risks to innocent civies, that was it!

Edited by ComfortablyNumb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ironnerd said:

I am really glad that I live in a country where the students do not have to be armed with rocks.:huh:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-24/us-students-armed-with-rocks-to-fight-school-shooters/9583134

Lucky it's not a Catholic School, or they'd be short on people to throw the first stone.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎23‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 12:23 PM, ComfortablyNumb said:

And that's the crux of it.  I'm not saying "no guns'' for civilians (here or over there), just no military-style guns which can kill 12 people in the blink of an eye.  If the Lindt proved one thing, it's even that our 'police experts' can cause heart-breaking collateral damage with a military-style weapon.  If ever there was a case to get the real military experts in to minimise the risks to innocent civies, that was it!

So outlaw rifles and allow handguns, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the lot......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

So outlaw rifles and allow handguns, then?

Here's a thought. Outlaw semi-automatic rifles AND handuns.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Here's a thought. Outlaw semi-automatic rifles AND handuns.

Nice thought

Not going to happen

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Nice thought

Not going to happen

Well not with that attitude its not!  :lol: 

Have you not read any inspirational  posters lately?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, roxii said:

Well not with that attitude its not!  :lol: 

Have you not read any inspirational  posters lately?? 

Oh yes, there are still plenty of hashtags ou there

That's how people let me know that they're better than me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Oh yes, there are still plenty of hashtags ou there

That's how people let me know that they're better than me

#nothard

#averagenotawesome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Parkside said:

#nothard

#averagenotawesome

Oh, hello Parky.  I was wondering how long it would take you to jump in and start playing the man in lieu of the ball

Did you actually intend to provide a perfect example of smug slacktivism or did it just turn out that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what I intended. Just thought I'd voice my opinion on you. You're average. With average opinions. Look up smug and there's a picture of your head.

I always used to think it's good to read things or listen to people who hold diametrically opposing ideals to my own. Then I read your ongoing contributions to this thread. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I don't know what I intended. Just thought I'd voice my opinion on you. You're average. With average opinions. Look up smug and there's a picture of your head.

I always used to think it's good to read things or listen to people who hold diametrically opposing ideals to my own. Then I read your ongoing contributions to this thread. 

Bye then 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I don't know what I intended. Just thought I'd voice my opinion on you. You're average. With average opinions. Look up smug and there's a picture of your head.

I always used to think it's good to read things or listen to people who hold diametrically opposing ideals to my own. Then I read your ongoing contributions to this thread. 

I blocked the tool weeks ago. He is a total tool. I can only imagine the shit he is still taking about. 

My advice. Block him or it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of young people joined the March for our Lives.

For the most part they were advocating for "reasonable" gun controls - no semi automatics, background checks and secure storage.

With the current gun culture in the US I think that it would be impossible for the government to bring in meaningful gun control. I hope that as the younger generation gets old enough to vote that real change will be possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...