This is no debate as the OP says he's looking for. His sarcasm and egging in his first post is obvious. This is a "let's see who I can stir up" post. I guarantee you if the gunman had walked into the restaurant where my wife and friends were last night, he would be dead... and hopefully before he shot someone's innocent daughter, or niece or grandmother. Take away guns from citizens and you declare open season on all citizens. When you come up with a way to take guns away from all the bad guys then I'll talk. You can't get rid of guns, they are here to stay. The ONLY thing gun laws are good for is to prevent innocent people from protecting themselves. {sarcasm} The anti-gun nuts should wear a green hat or something so that us carriers would know who NOT to protect if we ever see a criminal about to attack them. Perhaps a green flag flying outside the home of every anti-gun family. That would be a swell way to let the community know you care. {/sarcasm}
After a 39-percent decrease over 13 years, the FBI says violent crime is rising in the United States, and they attribute that in part to Meth use. Preliminary crime numbers for 2006 show violent crime is on the rise for a second straight year. The number has been pushed up by a 6 percent increase in robberies, and federal officials said they believe a nationwide spike in Meth use is fueling that increase. http://www.mappsd.org/Meth and Crime Rate.htm Reply anytime or not. No big deal to me.
Amazing how hindsight is always 20/20, eh? Straw man fallacy, friend. The OP didn't advocate "Tak[ing] away guns from citizens". You're using a cheap trick of arguing against the extremes. Proof? It appears you have spent too much time thumbing NRA publications to see the big picture. There's more to this than slogans and narrow-minded observations, friend. Blathering silliness.
Great post. The reason I am so 'anti gun control' is not that I am so 'anti gun control'. That is gun control could mean being against a member of the general population being able to go to their local wall mart and buy a 20mm cannon with a thousand DU rounds sans an ID to the other end of the scale, i.e. making anything other than a single shot air gun legal. So I am not against all gun control, even though I detest any attempt to diminish our rights and freedom. I am anti 'over the top' whining Brady bunch 'DRACONIAN gun control for all' gun control. Translation; I do not trust the motives of most anti gun pundits nor organizations. I believe the true motives of most anti gun, pro gun control advocates are to eliminate ALL individual gun ownership by citizens. Why do I feel gun control advocates are deviant and dishonest of their true intentions? I can give you all' a local example. Reiver and Danct. Primarily Reiver. I have attempted for a year to get Reiver to state an example of what he considered optimum gun control would be. He responds with gobbly gook. Never does he say something like this; 'My idea of optimal gun control is that citizens should own only long guns'. No instead he has said that he can not define it or that he has already stated it or that I should be able to draw what I feel he feels is optimum gun control by his prior posts. In other words he responds with gobbly gook. Rev A
Threats? LOL What do you know, I'm still unscathed. Are there any American ex-military nut jobs out there that can do better?
It's difficult unless one is embedded in the culture ie lives there to make an assessment of the 'pulse of the nation'. I make broad sweeping statements that include Australia with England that are not 100% true, not in an malicious manner rather I make those from anger, the same as many of us do in argument. How many times I have said things in anger that I wish I could retract! I should delineate the exact nation and its policies that I am making reference to. My apologies to any of my Aussie or English OR other UK friends that I have ostracized due to my inaccurate statements. The truth is that I find firearm seizure an attack on freedom as seen through the eyes of a 'constitutional originalist' USA citizen. If the Reiver types could understand that they are doing the same thing as I, but seeing the world through UK one world government ie my UK way or the hi way, then debate would be much more productive. Thanks for your reply Ian. Rev A
If you would substitute the words 'common sense' (eliminating 'Unfounded speculation') I would agree that you were both correct and that you have uber common sense. Rev A~
Not threats, promises of verbal retribution. However by your own inept suicidal hand (meaning 'verbally suicidal') you have eliminated the need for my corrections, as no one takes your prattle seriously. Rev A
http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/393 It is quite true. It was found that experienced killers were highly likely to just use something else to kill. The trend is even more pronounced for suicide. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...14+Jan+from+10-12+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance In your country people have moved to using rope and bridges to kill themselves. While in Japan they use habatchi grills and tall buildings. I await your response. You can continue to believe what you want, it is your right to be wrong.
The issue is that when guns are used in suicide attempts then the success and mortality rate is much higher than if other means were used. Multiple fatalities, i.e. murder suicide are much more successful when firearms are used. You have no where to go on the suicide issue, it is quite clear that firearms lead to a higher mortality rate.
Personally I dont argue that Americans have or dont have the right to own firearms, I have always said that is an issue for the American people only. I do however take objection to and argue with false premises presented by the pro gun movement in the US in an attempt to support their cause. So often they present the alleged case that Australians have somehow had their right to own guns taken away which is a complete misrepresentation of what has occurred in Australia. Culturally we do not have a a history of urban gun ownership so comparisons in this method will always be invalid. The gun buy back scheme took a large amount of unlicensed and unwanted firearms out of the community and the enhanced laws prevented types of automatic weapons being sold. We never quite acheived the uniform gun laws which the people overwhelmingly supported which is a pity. But I think some of the pro gun people should note that the people overwhelmingly by a vast majority supported stricter gun laws which is the important point. The new laws were not pushed onto the people but were demanded by the people. From a personal point of view I can tell you that law enforcement officers support increased restriction of private gun ownership probably by a majority of 99.9 percent.
I am pretty sure jumping off a multi story building is a pretty high mortality rate. I am also pretty sure gun control does not cure suicidal depression for single suicide and murder suicide.
And since the lovely citizen-supported gun program down under, crime has risen. Homicide - up 3.2% Assault - up 8.6% Armed robbery - up 45% Homicide in some areas up as much as 300% Yep, I would say that was a good move.
Not the point, guns make it easier to commit suicide and also to murder others at the same time. Limiting the availibility of firearms does reduce suicide and murder/suicide rates. Just because it does not fit into yoru idealogy doesnt mean it isnt true.
Total fabrication. However since more people have guns since the altered legislation then if these statistics were accurate then this would show more guns equals more crime. Not thinking too hard today are ya?
The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit." Under the new law: Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4] The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5] The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5] The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5] Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6] From Wikipedia.
That is false. The Australian research says if you don't have gun, you end up jumping off buildings or using rope. Not having a gun is not a deterrent to someone who wants to die. Why? Gun control does not cure suicidal depression. The thesis page was clear. As the availability of firearms went down so did the suicide rate for guns, but the suicide rate by other means went up at EXACTLY the same time. "When the firearm suicide rate for Australian males declined the hanging rate increased simultaneously"
