News & Events Gun Control is NOT WORKING

[Hot Pocket]

So that's a no then? You don't want to put your stance into words?

 

[stralia]

There are limits to freedom when it isn't in the public good.

Giving assault weapons to people has a very negative impact on society and indeed, the world.

Freedom is great, but other things like safety, health and education are even better.

I'd like to hear your political ideology, if you can summarise it briefly. Do you really believe freedom trumps all other aspects of humanity? I'd say working together and caring about eachother, even if it means taking some responsibilities we don't particularly like (like paying taxes) is far more important than being free to wallow in our own insanity.

Trading personal freedom for safety is about the most foolish proposition I can imagine.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Trading personal freedom for safety is about the most foolish proposition I can imagine.

As long as there are strong checks and balances, it isn't a huge issue. If you were talking about the freedom to own something that wasn't designed to murder a whole a bunch of people - like say some weed - then sure. Freedom should trump in that situation every time.

Should private citizens be able to own nuclear weapons?

Also, great avatar. Such good looking.

 

[vealesy]

Trading personal freedom for safety is about the most foolish proposition I can imagine.

Nuff said really.

 

[Hot Pocket]

I'd say explaining why would be a good start actually. Still not game to put your thoughts on the line vealesy?

 

[stralia]

As long as there are strong checks and balances, it isn't a huge issue. If you were talking about the freedom to own something that wasn't designed to murder a whole a bunch of people - like say some weed - then sure. Freedom should trump in that situation every time.

Should private citizens be able to own nuclear weapons?

Also, great avatar. Such good looking.

Abortions are designed to kill. Would you be for taking away the right of women to have them to protect the safety of the unborn?

 

[The Passenger]

If someone wants to get their hands on a gun then it can be done.

That there are things in place which makes it a little more tricky to be done, particularly for people who may only have fleeting urges they want to take advantage of, is not a particularly bad thing for mine.

There are very few things on this planet that concern me, but guns and weapons are one.

In saying that neither are near as big an issue as they are made out to be in Australia, and most weapon related problems are kept to people within "gangs" (once again, the gang issues is another blown out of proportion by our media).

Interestingly in Ireland, a country where the police (garda) don't have guns, the gun homicide rate is 0.61 per 100k population in 2006. Ours was 1.3 in 2006/07.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

 

[Hot Pocket]

I don't see a zygote as a child. But after about 20 weeks I'm against them unless the life of the woman is threatened. I base that on what medical professionals suggest is the real 'beginning' of life, rather than political absolutism.

I guess I just believe that there are people smart enough to work through these issues and review them over time as necessary. I believe their reasoning should be publicly available for due dilligence as well as having multiple checks and balances and consultation with the wider community.

To summarise, I believe in science and morality.

 

[stralia]

I don't see a zygote as a child. But after about 20 weeks I'm against them unless the life of the woman is threatened. I base that on what medical professionals suggest is the real 'beginning' of life, rather than political absolutism.

I guess I just believe that there are people smart enough to work through these issues and review them over time as necessary. I believe their reasoning should be publicly available for due dilligence as well as having multiple checks and balances and consultation with the wider community.

To summarise, I believe in science and morality.

So you don't mind something designed to kill, as long as it has been given the nod by experts?

 

[Hot Pocket]

So you don't mind something designed to kill, as long as it has been given the nod by experts?

I don't see legalised abortion as being designed to kill. It was designed to save.

Abortions still happened before they were legislated, and it was horrific.

You libertards are great at asking dumb questions and trying to oversimplify things into "I can do what I wanna" but you lack chutzpah.

 

[Taylor]

Where do you draw the line when it comes to reasonably minded adults having their choices railroaded by rules designed to make the public feel safe?

 

[checkraiseulite]

 

[Hot Pocket]

Where do you draw the line when it comes to reasonably minded adults having their choices railroaded by rules designed to make the public feel safe?

If it impacts, or has a severe potential to impact, on other people either in frequency or result.

Seems fairly reasonable I would think.

 

[stralia]

I don't see legalised abortion as being designed to kill. It was designed to save.

Abortions still happened before they were legislated, and it was horrific.

You libertards are great at asking dumb questions and trying to oversimplify things into "I can do what I wanna" but you lack chutzpah.

lol okay mate.

If it impacts, or has a severe potential to impact, on other people either in frequency or result.

Seems fairly reasonable I would think.

Better start banning cars, pools, smoking, working in the construction industry or drinking alcohol.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Okay mate is the best you can offer?

Not making a strong case for your ideology of outcasts and neckbeards.

 

[FreoGirl]

Laws in Canada are closer to the U.S than Australia.

You don't sound like someone who actually lives in Canada, you sound like an uninformed person with an agenda.

But we cannot reference Canada! They don't have 320 million people, they have a population like ours! Level of diversity like ours! And they're doing so well!

Only say America! Pander to the narrow minded scare mentality!

I think someone living in Canada would have a much better idea than a keyboard warrior using google..

 

[stralia]

Okay mate is the best you can offer?

Not making a strong case for your ideology of outcasts and neckbeards.

haha, trying to get me to defend an ideology I've already stated I don't subscribe to... You're good for a giggle though mate.

 

[bresker]

I was in Centrelink the other day and idly imagined a world in which all the punters waiting to be seen had free access to high-powered weaponry.

It was a chilling glimpse into a dystopian nightmare, and I got down on my knees and wept salty tears of joy that I didn't live in America.

God bless Australia!

 

[Hot Pocket]

haha, trying to get me to defend an ideology I've already stated I don't subscribe to... You're good for a giggle though mate.

Nobody is buying it. Can't argue so pretend to be above it? Junior shit

 

[Taylor]

If it impacts, or has a severe potential to impact, on other people either in frequency or result.

Seems fairly reasonable I would think.

It's really just the potential to impact on someone that's the key issue here isn't it. A reasonable person can own, operate and store any firearm on the planet without need or fear for others safety. It's those tiny percentage of mentally unstable for which everyone is playing along with safety rules meanwhile the real cause of these mass shootings is left on the table, left undiscussed so we can say how the gun, although allowing to facilitate more carnage, was not walking in by itself.

I think the perfect solution allows those reasonable adults who wish to own and operate firearms to do so while the people who feel uncomfortable with their lives, angry at their situation without that mental block to bring them back to reality and the generally mentally unstable are supported with better care.

I look at it like 40km zones around schools. Everyone reasonable was already slowing down, the same dangerous drivers around schools are still driving dangerously around schools only now the parents feel as though the situation is safer. They would probably pay an extra "child safety tax" every year because it might help.

 

[Hot Pocket]

It's really just the potential to impact on someone that's the key issue here isn't it. A reasonable person can own, operate and store any firearm on the planet without need or fear for others safety. It's those tiny percentage of mentally unstable for which everyone is playing along with safety rules meanwhile the real cause of these mass shootings is left on the table, left undiscussed so we can say how the gun, although allowing to facilitate more carnage, was not walking in by itself.

I think the perfect solution allows those reasonable adults who wish to own and operate firearms to do so while the people who feel uncomfortable with their lives, angry at their situation without that mental block to bring them back to reality and the generally mentally unstable are supported with better care.

I look at it like 40km zones around schools. Everyone reasonable was already slowing down, the same dangerous drivers around schools are still driving dangerously around schools only now the parents feel as though the situation is safer. They would probably pay an extra "child safety tax" every year because it might help.

I think the difference is, even though cars are more frequently going to be involved in other people getting injured than firearms - there are two other factors at play.

A car is designed for other purposes, injury or death resulting from car accidents is usually unintentional.

More importantly, even though its only a small percentage of nuts/libertarians/right wingers that tend to 'go postal' the sheer amount of damage one guy can cause with those weapons is staggering. Imagine a couple of nutcases in a packed MCG armed with AR15's? Between a couple of guys who can shoot, you could easily meet or double the entire yearly rodd toll in a single incident.

I can't see any problem with having semi-auto's available at firing ranges, if people absolutely must shoot them. And likewise, its fair enough for shooters to have a rifle (strictly regulated) at home. There's simply no need to have absolutist approaches to most issues (nuclear weapons is one, obviously)

 

[stralia]

The problem with gun control is that it only takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It's like lowering the speed limit of a road from 60 to 50 because hoons have been repeatedly clocked doing 160+. Someone willing to go 100 km/h over the limit isn't really going to care that they're now going 110 km/h over the limit.

Like with gun control, someone willing to murder or assault or rob, isn't going to stop because guns are banned. They'll either get a gun on the thriving black market or use another weapon, like knives...

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html


...B-but banning guns means less people are murdered!!!


Well, that isn't actually the case.

"The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence." - Samara McPhedran, University of Sydney

Here after the 1996 forced buy back removed a million guns from the people, homicides stayed rather steady (after an initial uptick), only to decrease years later.

It's interesting to note that the amount of guns now in this country at least equal pre buy back levels (not including guns smuggled in) and the homicide rate, after peaking in 1999, has kept declining. Also homicide in relation to other violent crime has been following a downward trend since the 70's.

And death by firearm (including suicide) had been steadily declining since a decade before the buy back.

Also, since the 96' buy back, assault has grown at 5% a year- four times the annual growth of the population in the same time.

And 96' seems to roughly mark a base level of armed and unarmed robbery.

...B-but, the mass shootings have stopped!!!


Yeah, they have... Well, if you don't consider what happened at Monash Uni a mass shooting.

But mass shootings have also stopped in New Zealand, where they have 1.1 million registered firearms in a population of 4.4 million compared to our 2.7 million registered firearms in a population of 23.3 million, and who have much less restrictive gun laws than our own...

And in countries with very strict gun laws, mass shootings have continued:

2010 in the UK, Derrick Bird killed 12 people and injured 11 before killing himself in
Cumbria.

2009, in Germany, 17 year old Tim Kretschmer went on a shooting spree that claimed the lives of 15 people.

2002 also in Germany, 19 year old Robert Steinhäuser shot and killed 16 people before taking his own life.


Any relationship between gun control creating an increase in public safety is flimsy at best (and in a lot of cases the correlation is reversed... see DC, Chicago, Jamaica).

So keeping in mind the recent spate of violent home invasions, if you really think gun control will make you safer, I invite you to put a 'gun-free zone' sign up out the front of your house and see how well you sleep.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Very coherent post with evidence to back it up. Well done stralia.

 

[bresker]

1.) Go to google news
2.) Enter "gas station murder" (without the "" )
3.) Give thanks that you aren't a gas station attendant in America

 

[bresker]

Oh, "convenience store murder" works well too