‘It’s just horrifying’: Seven killed in Australia’s deadliest mass shooting in 22 years

Come on, that's the reality of the situation; you expect a 90 year old woman to be able to handle a gun properly? Be real man at that age most senior citizens can barely make their own toast in the morning let alone fire a gun and hit the target.

 

Absolutely. Or judo or other martial arts.

 

They are not designed to kill, that's why. Guns are.

 

Are you claiming that all senior citizens are physically and mentally competent enough to act responsibly with guns?

 

And if they were successful in disarming 300 million people what will that accomplish? If all 300 million refuse to cooperate, what will they do?? Kill all 300 million of them? Be real.

 

Or a Trump!

 

Trump has killed fewer people than the Kennedy's. How do you figure?

 

I'd hope people would resist with arms any attempt to ban or confiscate their legally owned guns.

 

One death is as bad as ten thousand deaths.

 

What would that accomplish other then keeping the undertakers flooded with dead bodies??? Except for the mentally unstable who insist on keeping their guns and resorting to violence (and they would lose) most rational American's would comply and business would go along as usual for them.

 

Really? Look at the compliance rate in places like California, New York and Maryland. There was only a small % of people who complied with the law. History is not on your side and it's not even close.

 

a government that would seek to confiscate legally purchased and used guns is no longer legitimate. If this breakdown were to occur, I would hope the resistance would target those who constantly pushed the government to engage in such unconstitutional and treasonous activities first, rather than police charged with carrying out such unconstitutional activity

 

Most governments without a 2nd amendment, or constitutional form of government, want to ban guns to rule with absolute authority. Not because they are dangerous. If they banned guns because they are dangerous then why is it that countries that have banned guns before kept their government well stocked with firearms? If they were dangerous why was the government allowed to keep them?



I posted this in another thread but it applies here as well...

We've tried banning alcohol before and all we got was a lot more gang violence and a prosperous black market for booze. We ended up repealing that. We've tried banning drugs of all sorts and imposing stricter and stricter regulations on legal ones (anyone tried buying stuff like Sudafed lately? How about the clampdown on things like Oxycotin and so on?), how's that working out for the rate of people who don't give a flying flip and still do drugs? How's that working out for the millions of people in prison because of drugs? How's that working out for the tens if not hundreds of thousands of people killed every year because of drugs?

And you know what all of these things have in common with the current whining about gun control? They are based on the presumption that the solution is regulating the *thing* and demonizing the *thing*, for the "public good". The same mantra used every time to sell it to the American people. You know why all these things fail miserably to work? Because the American People don't give a rip about the "morality" of the people chanting the mantra. They want what they want. The responsible people don't cause problems (and are the vast majority of the people in every case), while a few people abuse them.

The only way you make a dent in any of this, as people have been saying in each and every campaign for prohibition, is to treat the *behaviors* and address the social conditions that create the demand.

Criminalizing people, threatening people, going after them with heavy-handed tactics and smug moral superiority won't go anywhere.

And no, before you say it, this is not a false or faulty comparison. The point at issue here is a discussion of how people respond to prohibitions of any sort, regardless of what the object was "designed to do". The behavior and outcomes are always the same, and just arguing that "but a gun is only designed for one thing!" doesn't change the history-proven, often-repeated outcome of imposing prohibitions.

 

I'm talking about the government confiscating weapons if the 2nd amendment were repealed. Furthermore, any resistance would be dealt with harshly by the government if an armed resistance were to be formed and remember, the government would target those in the resistance and simply eliminate them.

 

Your post is inaccurate and as such you also need to post links to where you got your information from.

 

Please site the inaccuracies. Did you even read it or are you just being flippant?

 

your post is inaccurate and as such you also need to post links to where you got your information from.

See how dumb that sounds?

 

your post is inaccurate and as such you also need to post links to where you got your information from.

See how dumb that sounds?

 

Frank, I mis-read your posting and confused it with something else I was doing. You make a valid point; I was wrong and you were right on this.

 

Actually you did, even if you didn't realise. Given the data is available to everyone, you need a conspiracy to account for why no one has found out this evidence to be false and why no one has published a counter paper.

Your 'evidence is fake cos I don't like it' approach is as reasoned as the Flat Earthers arguing that Australia doesn't actually exist.

 

You think 'most senior citizens can barely make their own toast in the morning', yet can whip someone by using judo or martial arts?

 

Gamewell does not realize that the "soft" target in a civil war is more likely to be Gamewell.

 

Except the repeal of the 2nd amendment is not going to happen. I don't see three-quarters of the states voting to ratifying it.

 

So, you must like Trump.

 

There you go again - fudging the date.
But you didn't have to conspire with anyone - you did it all by yourself!

I double dog dare you to paste up a quote from my posts alleging a "conspiracy".

"If the replication crisis is a sign that science isn’t broken, then what does “broken” even mean?
In the stem-cell case, self-correcting science did appear to work as advertised: Problems in the paper were discovered by attentive colleagues shortly after it appeared in print. But the recent history of science fraud suggests that many more examples come to light not quickly and not via any standard self-corrective mechanism—e.g., peer review or unsuccessful replications—but rather at a long delay and through the more conventional means of whistleblowing. That’s how Diedrik Stapel, a notorious fabulist with 58 retracted papers in social psychology, was discovered in 2011. The fact that Stapel’s brazen fraud had not been caught (or self-corrected) earlier made his case a seminal event in the current replication crisis. Why had no one noticed, in strictly scientific terms, all the false effects that he’d slipped into the literature?"
SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html

Note that Stapel did not have to "conspire" with anyone.
You should find better sources and think more carefully about this serious problem.