patrick.net

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.