Aussie has the answer for US gun control

I can give you an answer, but it may sound racist.

U.S. gun homicide rates actually aren't that high, relatively speaking, if you consider the U.S. a combination of a First World country combined together with a Third World country. The same thing goes for health outcomes, educational test scores, and many other things.

 

Ah, let's see, you said knife crime did not increase, even if I showed you a one year increase it would still prove your post wrong, as usual. The whole point is Lefties like to point out gun crime rates going down after some gun ban or extreme gun control yet they ignore the total crime rate. If criminals simply switch to other tools, then the ban is useless. In the case Down Under, the homicide rate has been in a steady decline and the rate of decline did not change after the ban.

 

LOL You're changing the goal posts after you provided the link to prove your assertions wrong.

 

You obviously have no clue what moving the goal posts means.

 

More LOL. This thread is about guns and you've moved the goal posts to total crime rate and without anything to back up your claims and you provided a link that has no reference to total crime rate ! Your link provided a great own goal, well done

 

Gun fanatics

Gun fanatics have their views, gun control dreamers have theirs.
As I've previously stated, one day in generations to come the lunacy of ownership of some weapons by some people will hit home.
Such a movement by teenagers has begun, tired of their fellow friends with their organs and brains splattering classroom walls.
It has yet to sink in to the fanatics. But those kids are the next voting generation. If they dont make change then the following one might...well after the fanatics have passed on and/or are out numbered by common sense.

 

The true fanatics are the ones who believe they are suited for demanding complex societal changes, when they cannot even find various countries on a map, or tie their own shoelaces without first looking up a how-to video on their smartphone.

 

I agree things are likely to change with the next voting generation. I just don't believe it's the right thing.

We are all devastated when school or mass shootings occur. We all want to prevent it. So that is common ground. Do you believe that?
I understand you want to solve the problem with getting rid of guns.
Do you understand guns also saves lives and prevent serious bodily injury?

People that commit these atrocities have mental issues, we should start there.

Guess what? I care about you and understand your anger.

Definition of fanatic: a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
So I guess there are gun fanatics and gun control fanatics.

I just did a quick search about mass school shootings and did not find very many for K-12. I do agree even 1 is too many. But I think we then have to apply that to everything else, drug death, auto accident, death from playing school sports, etc.... I know it's not really the same thing, shootings are an act of violence.

 

Your inability to explain why mass shootings don't happen on Oz, even though the people there have legal access to firearms useful for such a thing?
You're right -- this hasn't changed.

 

That's a nice appeal to emotion fallacy you have there.
Fact is, mass shootings are extraordinarily and exceptionally rare; mass shootings with 'assault weapons' even more so.
Thus, 'mass shootings' do not support a rational, reasoned argument for the further restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Yep - there's the post hoc fallacy.
Just as I expected.
Well done.

 

Great- a sensible fair and reasonable poster. I'll stick with you now. Tired of the other ones.

"We are all devastated when school or mass shootings occur. We all want to prevent it. So that is common ground. Do you believe that?" I haven't seen anyone here (pro guns) advocate remorse/terror/surprise or concern over mass shootings. Their arguments revolve around justifying their statistics. In fact one admitted that there is an acceptable level of killings/injured which seems he is immuned of feelings. That might not be, but overall no one but you has declared such "devastation". Now any pro gun person on this thread mentioned ideas to fix the problem except more and bigger guns. In fact Jim Jefferies video might seem harsh but it hits the mark in that regard.
"I understand you want to solve the problem with getting rid of guns." Not at all. I'll quote myself - "As I've previously stated, one day in generations to come the lunacy of ownership of some weapons by some people will hit home" Martin Bryant of Hobart Tasmania who slaughtered 35 innocent men women and children (even toddlers were hunted like rabbits) had a mental illness. His fascination with guns well known in the area. From the day the gun bans came in here people with similar medical issues had no chance of owning such weapons and extremely hard for them to get access to same.
"Do you understand guns also saves lives and prevent serious bodily injury?" Likely, in a land where so many guns are owned. That's why this gun ownership issue is (and will be for a long time to come) a work in progress to reduce them by taking some types of firearms out of some hands that are not fit to have them.
"Guess what? I care about you and understand your anger." The first caring sentence from a pro gun owner I've read on this site. That is comforting and a symbol of what is possible and expected. I'm not that angry. I don't live there. I'm empathetic towards the slain and their families. I've worked in Air Force, jails, investigations and now in mental health advising, suicide prevention. I've seen all sides of violence. I'm grateful I live in Oz where we don't even think about gun violence (although it does exist in minor amounts comparatively)
" I do agree even 1 is too many." Again, the first to acknowledge the value of one human being. Some are clinging to "That's a nice appeal to emotion fallacy you have there" (TOG 6), however it could seem I am adding emotion for the sake of supporting my stance- not so. emotion in place of anger. Gun deaths particularly mass shootings of school kids if not emotional then the problem is far worse than I thought. I hesitate to guess but it seems a level of self insulation is involved like "it wont happen to me" mentality. Maybe an erosion of the value of a life? The arguments about knives and guns doesn't fit with me. Mass shootings in 2018 in USA in schools amounted to 113 kids injured or killed. If access to those guns were harder to get (and perhaps the guns were not semi/auto fire types) I believe at least one kid would have been saved. That's validates my stance alone. I got that stat from google. I just tried to google "school shootings Australia 2018" and it didn't come up.

So lets look at comments in an article about gun deaths and this article started out about the Margaret River Western Australia mass shooting, the worst since 1996 Bryant event. This happened May 2018 when an elderly male killed 4 children, 2 adults and himself. I ask you and others to read it. An argument on this thread has been given that suicide deaths by gun in Oz had been dropping before the 1996 gun ban but the drop after that ban accelerated down- obvious those laws saved at least one life.
. The article gives evidence by Harvard experts.
Now that's a suicide graph and such acts don't need a semi/auto rifle to carry out. It is mere symbolic, in this example,that access restrictions has effect.

"But I think we then have to apply that to everything else, drug death, auto accident, death from playing school sports, etc...." of course, they are all relevant and serious issues. But it isn't the subject matter here so it hasn't been on my radar. Auto accidents- since the 1960's auto safety has been an ongoing work in progress. Drug deaths is as big an issue here as in your neck of the woods.

If such attitudes were altered (not removed) by (some) pro gun owners to include change and such change was to result in some firearm bans and some unfit people access to them then anti gun supporters have something to work with.

Thankyou for this discussion

 

Actual evidence presented that showed the gun ban resulted in lower murders by firearm....

 

The "other ones"... that ask questions you cannot answer and present criticism to your positions that you cannot counter?
No surprise you'd rather deal with someone else.

Still waiting for you to explain why mass shootings don't happen on Oz, even though the people there have legal access to firearms useful for such a thing.

Why would a pro-gun person express remorse over something he had nothing to do with?
Why would he express surprise when, as you would put it, mass shootings happen all the time?
How can he not have concern when he always has a suggestion for an effective remedy, as you note?

Still waiting for you to explain why mass shootings don't happen on Oz, even though the people there have legal access to firearms useful for such a thing.

This is either a lie, or you haven't been paying attenetion.

Rational, reasoned people are not swayed by logical fallacies -- why are you?
Fact is, the anti-gun side knows it cannot push its agenda without standing ion the bodies and bathing in the blood of the innocent.
This includes you.

This is a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.

If faculty/administration/staff had the capacity to shoot back, I believe at least one kid would have been saved.
That, alone, validates -my- stance.

Still waiting for you to explain why mass shootings don't happen on Oz, even though the people there have legal access to firearms useful for such a thing.

 

You cannot show this to be true.

 

Then all that needs to be done on the part of yourself to actually prove such, is demonstrate precisely how it was solely firearm-related restrictions, and absolutely no other factor that was occurring at the time, that resulted in the noted outcomes.

 

http://crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/#causeDeath

gun ban in 1996. around 80/year before the ban to around 35/year after the ban.
That link was provided by a pro-gunner. You argue with his graphs

 

Thank you for your post hoc fallacy.
Care to try again?

 

None of which proves that it was firearm-related restrictions, and only firearm-related restrictions exclusively, that led to the results. It is nothing more than the causation/correlation substitution fallacy, presented by those in a deliberate effort to try and mislead the ignorant public.

Try again. Demonstrate that it was the firearm-related restrictions that were implemented which led to the results, and absolutely no other factor that was in play at the time.

 

archie was correct... if everyone was armed there wouldn't have been any hyjackings...

all citizens should be required to carry at all times...

 

LOL why should I. You prove me wrong

 

No.
Onus is on you to prove your claim true.
All you have so far is a correlation proves causation fallacy,
Thus: Try again.

 

He's a comedian. He said he doesn't expect to be taken seriously.

Do you take him seriously?

 

Bullets are easy enough to make.