patrick.net

upisdown says

They stole them from people that bought them legally.

Going back far enough all guns were owned legally, perhaps by the manufacturers, at some point.

Peter P says

Going back far enough all guns were owned legally, perhaps by the manufacturers, at some point.

How about people be forced to act responsibly and secure those guns to ensure that they won't get stolen, or have easy access to any off-kilter moron that wants to go out of this world in a blaze of killing innocent people.

You right wingers/gun nuts are always blathering on about personal responsibility, and it's now time that us normal(and responsible) people force you fuckers to take some!!!

Call it Crazy says

Stealing isn't a crime, right.... so it's the fault of the original gun owner for these murders, right....

The key word is A L S O!!!!! As in ALSO held legally responsible for any and all crimes that the gun was involved in. I NEVER once typed any words, or outright or otherwise implied that the person who steals or uses a gun in committing any crime should get let off.
In your warped world, then thefts don't happen at all because it's a crime/illegal. I guess that you use that same thought process in regards to cash, and you leave it in your driveway, instead of your wallet or a bank.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

More guns = more gun deaths.

Less guns = less gun deaths.

FALSE

Go back and do so research when we had the assault weapons ban and see if gun deaths went down.

Then you go ahead and do your own research and prove my premise correct:
Call it Crazy says

Since you're advocating a complete gun ban and feel it will significantly reduce murders and crime, here is the data from another popular country (Australia) that instituted very strict gun laws in response to mass shootings.

Yes, it did reduce homicides, but by only 25%

So less guns = less gun deaths. And btw, 25% is HUGE.

Then somehow you equate less guns with a rise in crime in Australia. Did it ever occur to you that without the gun ban, gun deaths would have also been higher? That because of demographics and other societal factors crime rose during this period? You seem to be implying that criminals raped and assaulted significantly more because of the gun ban. But the infinitesimal psychological effect on criminals confidence that their victims would have a gun does not explain the rise in crime statistics. In the USA we have lots of guns and crime statistics ebb and flow due mostly to demographics (rise in young male populations) and the economy.

So, yes the Australian gun laws reduced gun deaths by 25%. If they hadn't been enacted gun deaths most certainly would have gone up significantly.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

So less guns = less gun deaths. And btw, 25% is HUGE.

Yes, 25% reduction is a good start....but did strict laws and regulations eliminate homicides.... No..

But, I guess a huge jump in assaults, rapes and kidnaps are acceptable to you because less people died.

Huh? So why did gun deaths go down during a period with more young men in the population and the correlating rise in crime? Can't you understand that if not for less guns, gun deaths would have risen also?

You have NO PROOF that the rise in rapes, assaults and kidnapping correlates to the gun law. Please give us your theory on why strict gun laws would see a rise in crime?

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

You have NO PROOF that the rise in rapes, assaults and kidnapping correlates to the gun law.

The chart I posted came directly from Australia with data after their new gun laws took affect.

I won't tell you anything, go to this link and hear it first hand from the people of Australia...

http://patrick.net/?p=1220026

In other words you can't equate the gun law with a rise in other (mostly non-gun) crimes? Crime would have gone up anyway due to the same factors that make crime go up and down in the USA -- mostly demographics.

The gun law in Australia was designed to reduce gun deaths. It worked. Thanks for pointing it out.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

In other words you can't equate the gun law with a rise in other (mostly non-gun) crimes?

Apparently you didn't watch the video and hear it directly from the resident's mouths...

So now your "proof" is a propaganda piece produced by the gun industry?

Seriously, think it through. Rapists are not concerned with the threat that the victim will have a gun. Rapists rarely use guns.

BTW your video claims that gun murders are up 19% since the gun ban while the other document you posted said they were down by 25%. In fact homicide by firearm is down:

Your video is bogus propaganda. You are been played by the gun lobby. You want to think for yourself or just post other peoples bs?

rooemoore says

BTW your video claims that gun murders are up 19% since the gun ban while the other document you posted said they were down by 25%. In fact homicide by firearm is down:

His video, lmfao.

The video he spent 20 seconds googlin on youtube, no way he watched it before posting or even confirming it's validity.

Australia has seen great strides with gun control, typical the right would paint the opposite picture.

Snopes gives the Australia gun laws issues a mixed true and false, if anyone cares.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

I'm so glad Australia is in USA!

Although what Australia is doing is a start, it's not the USA.

If it's a success or failure it is irrelevant to the USA, the people are demanding stricter standards and 71% of gun owners in USA want the same.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

BTW your video claims that gun murders are up 19% since the gun ban while the other document you posted said they were down by 25%. In fact homicide by firearm is down:

Looking at your chart, after a decade of very strict gun laws, Australia was only able to decrease homicides by 72 people and you're hailing that as a success....... while an average of approx. 300 are still being murdered.... scary....

Which country is safer? USA or Australia.

Infact it's irrelevant, two different cultures with different crazy people.

What Australia proves is that change is possible, it maybe slow, but at least they are trying.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

BTW your video claims that gun murders are up 19% since the gun ban while the other document you posted said they were down by 25%. In fact homicide by firearm is down:

Looking at your chart, after a decade of very strict gun laws, Australia was only able to decrease homicides by 72 people and you're hailing that as a success....... while an average of approx. 300 are still being murdered.... scary....

Why don't you address the claim of gun deaths going up 19% in the video you posted? It is because the video, like your argument, is a lie?

This guy was a lightweight compared to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Who did not even bother to use a gun.

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator first killed his wife, and committed suicide with his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.

Wikipedia page for school related attacks, broken down by school type:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

Why don't you address the claim of gun deaths going up 19% in the video you posted? It is because the video, like your argument, is a lie?

Yea, I went and traveled to Australia and recorded that video myself.

?

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

In other words you can't equate the gun law with a rise in other (mostly non-gun) crimes?

Apparently you didn't watch the video and hear it directly from the resident's mouths...

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

Why don't you address the claim of gun deaths going up 19% in the video you posted? It is because the video, like your argument, is a lie?

Yea, I went and traveled to Australia and recorded that video myself.

So now you disown the propaganda video that you used to make your case.

More guns = more gun violence
Less guns = less gun violence

Want to try to prove that wrong again?

Bap33 says

Peter P says

Bap, we see eye to eye on many issues but I afraid that banning abortion will only increase the number of people growing up as unwanted children. We already have enough criminals and crazies.

just pointing out that their ridiculous stance on "life" is just more bullshit.

Abortions would be reduced if getting one was as hard as getting a weapon and a ccp in California.

I'm leaning towards Bap here. I don't have a good solution for the abortion issue and don't want to criminalize it, but in this case murder is murder IMO. Maybe you can go back as close to conception as possible to not kill a feeling sentient being, but when I see that outcry for gun control I wish they would at least be consistent and have the same passion for protecting unborn babies who haven't even had the chance to live their childhood years.

We need to bring back duels like they had in the 19th century. It can be in the art and wine festival format where all the vendors sell their products. This will stimulate the small business sector, the job creators, god bless their benevolent spirit.

rooemoore says

So now you disown the propaganda video that you used to make your case.

More guns = more gun violence
Less guns = less gun violence

Want to try to prove that wrong again?

More guns = more gun violence
Less guns = less gun violence
Give the less guns number to those that shouldn't be gun owners = even More gun violence than the 'more gun violence' rate

It is true that lowering the number of available firearms will have an impact toward less gun violence (see statistics in USA for examples. States with tougher gun regulations have less gun related violence. It is not the sole contributing factor but is likely one of them.) Less guns isn't the only thing that will ensure more general safety, and is not, forgive me, the magic bullet that solves this problem.

Automobiles didn't become safer because of seat belts alone : speed limits, air bags, alphabet breaks, tough enforcement, licensing, periodic re-testing to prove competent operation, updated laws regarding cell-phone use ... etc. etc.

The US could decide guns are not a worthwhile item for possession and outlaw them. I think we will find America is not moving toward that, but toward stricter regulations. So what are those new regulations going to be?

More bans on rifle types when 75% of the gun violence is done by pistols? Or, are we going to seriously come together and put multiple measures in place that actually make sense, and stand a chance of ending some of the madness?

There is this minority: "More guns for everyone, it is the only way to safety."
There is this minority: "No further gun regulations are needed, it's because of (blame something here)."
There is this minority: no guns for anyone, it is the only way to safety.
There is this majority: tougher regulations for responsible gun ownership, it is the correct way to safety, along with other issues to address like mental health.

Let's focus on that majority.

Rew says

More bans on rifle types when 75% of the gun violence is done by pistols? Or, are we going to seriously come together and put multiple measures in place that actually make sense, and stand a chance of ending some of the madness?

the very first time a weapon takes it upon itself to commit an act of violence, (be it a bat, knife, gun, truck, pillow, chain, rope, bomb, or poison), then I will be the very first one to agree with you. Until that time, a law only effects people that react to law with reason. And with the dope smoking pukes in control of the liberal-left machine, "reason" is not popular, but "ransom" is.

Bap33 says

Rew says

More bans on rifle types when 75% of the gun violence is done by pistols? Or, are we going to seriously come together and put multiple measures in place that actually make sense, and stand a chance of ending some of the madness?

the very first time a weapon takes it upon itself to commit an act of violence, (be it a bat, knife, gun, truck, pillow, chain, rope, bomb, or poison), then I will be the very first one to agree with you. Until that time, a law only effects people that react to law with reason. And with the dope smoking pukes in control of the liberal-left machine, "reason" is not popular, but "ransom" is.

Beyond silly. Weapons are already heavily regulated, and for good reason. You do realize the majority of terrorism in the USA is domestic in origin? You want WMDs in the hands of just anyone? Too extreme an example ... ok what about a 105mm howitzer for me? What about just one 105mm shell? Wait ... Actually, Santa, I want a military humvee with one of those automatic grenade launchers ... for recreational enjoyment.

The point is the weapon being available, and lightly regulated, can be used to great harm. The majority of gun violence occurs by non gun owners ... non gun owners who get access to a firearm from their family or friends. What if their family or friend had something more dangerous than multiple pistols. An RPG? A
Browning 50 cal mounted to a pickup? A mortar?

Extend your logic some. It doesn't play out well. Ask any pro gun law dog for their stance on firearm regulation. They won't be in favor of full autos in people's hands. There are regulations now and for good reason. We need some more ... not less.