News & Events Gun Control is NOT WORKING

[stralia]

As they should be. Unless about 10 people home invade you at once, you don't need an assault rifle for protection.

Home defence isn't a Hollywood shootout. Even with an AR 15 there is no guarantee you'd be able to take on 10 assailants or 3. It gives you a better chance though.

You do realise that not all gun homicides are committed by hardened criminals, right? Gun control might not stop bikies and gangsters from getting guns, but it will stop mentally ill pissed off teenagers.

Anyone can get a gun of the deep web. Being a hardened criminal is not a prerequisite.

Yes, because we live in a society and some weapons are simply too dangerous to have within the community. Like nuclear missiles or gatling guns, for example.

lol at likening a semi auto glock to a nuclear missile... Better make sure only the experts can have em then!

Legislation can make people more free, this is actually what democracy is based on. Being free from random thrill killers or maniacs going postal is a great freedom that we have in Australia, and its due to legislation.

lol

Do you realise how expensive an illegal handgun in this country is? Sure, a career criminal can get one if he has the coin - but the average bloke can't afford it, nor does he know where to get it. The legislation was designed entirely around massacres and impulse killing. It has done its job very well. Once you legalise these kinds of weapons (and remember we have no history of any of this libertarian bullshit in this country, we are an actual community in Australia) you create divisiveness and fear among the community, leading to more people having them. With that prevalence of weaponry it truly DOES make it easier for some nutcase to grab a gun and go on a rampage, or a bullied kid to do the same to his tormentors.

Try and buy an AR15 for me. Or even just tell me where to get one. And get me an RPG7 while you're at it.

We've been over the murder thing already. Try killing people with a bolt action rifle. You might get a few, but you're not going to get Port Arthur levels of carnage with a hunting rifle. Its the sheer damage that these weapons can cause (and were designed to cause, they have no other use) that resulted in them being banned.

Derrick Bird did in the country with the worlds strictest gun laws and got a high score or 12 killed with 11 injured.

You are arguing a very, very stupid point of view. One of a social outcast. Actually wait, now I know why you want guns. You're up to something aren't you? Look mate we can talk about it, we can get you some help - violence isn't the answer.

toppest lol mate... your trolling is bretty gud .

 

[Hot Pocket]

1. More people have died from firearms than nukes, so why shouldn't nukes be included in your ridiculous philosophy?

2. We had 13 massacres in 18 years leading up to the gun legislation - zero since. Australians are now free of having to worry about frequent gun massacres, thanks to legislation and political leadership based on real democratic principles.

3. Legislation has routinely given people more rights. Look at the actual history of human rights to see how hard the people of Europe had to fight, and for how long, just to get basic human rights recognised in legislation to stop the wealthy from exploiting them (the same wealthy class who push the libertarian codswollop seen itt)

4. Getting a gun off the deep web? Are you serious? In Australia? Go on then, teach me how to buy an AR15 off the deep web, get it into Australia and collect it. And then show me how a crazed or depresed outcast can do all those things in a fit of rage.

 

[stralia]

1. More people have died from firearms than nukes, so why shouldn't nukes be included in your ridiculous philosophy?

2. We had 13 massacres in 18 years leading up to the gun legislation - zero since. Australians are now free of having to worry about frequent gun massacres, thanks to legislation and political leadership based on real democratic principles.

3. Legislation has routinely given people more rights. Look at the actual history of human rights to see how hard the people of Europe had to fight, and for how long, just to get basic human rights recognised in legislation to stop the wealthy from exploiting them (the same wealthy class who push the libertarian codswollop seen itt)

4. Getting a gun off the deep web? Are you serious? In Australia? Go on then, teach me how to buy an AR15 off the deep web, get it into Australia and collect it. And then show me how a crazed or depresed outcast can do all those things in a fit of rage.

1. And more people have died from edged weapons than nukes. Why not ban all knives?
2. Depends on how you define massacre. I guess the Monash shooting doesn't make the cut. And multiple victim murder suicides in this country seem to be steady, averaging around 5 per year.
3. The 'wealthy class' you describe have pushed for everything from fascism to communism to eugenics. What's your point? You're making no distinction on legislation's intent.
4. Dude, there are literally Aussie specific firearm trading sites on the deep web.

 

[Hot Pocket]

1. And more people have died from edged weapons than nukes. Why not ban all knives?
2. Depends on how you define massacre. I guess the Monash shooting doesn't make the cut. And multiple victim murder suicides in this country seem to be steady, averaging around 5 per year.
3. The 'wealthy class' you describe have pushed for everything from fascism to communism to eugenics. What's your point? You're making no distinction on legislation's intent.
4. Dude, there are literally Aussie specific firearm trading sites on the deep web.

1. Knives are banned as weapons. And rightly so. Misleading comparison too, because knives have uses other than killing. A gun or a nuke doesn't.
2. 4 or more people shot is considered a massacre.
3. The wealthy have never pushed for democratic socialism. Australian unions took it from them.
4. Again, we agree that some people (not just anyone) who want a gun can source one if they're prepared to pay top dollar for it and acquire it illegally and with all the risk that entails. What you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that making guns far less prevalent in society has effectively removed the rage killings and massacres that those gun laws were brought in to remove.

 

[MrCharisma]

1. And more people have died from edged weapons than nukes. Why not ban all knives?

Lots of knives are banned; flick knives, butterfly knives, sheath knives etc - the ones that don't have a useful purpose, apart from using on other people.

 

[stralia]

1. Knives are banned as weapons. And rightly so. Misleading comparison too, because knives have uses other than killing. A gun or a nuke doesn't.
2. 4 or more people shot is considered a massacre.
3. The wealthy have never pushed for democratic socialism. Australian unions took it from them.
4. Again, we agree that some people (not just anyone) who want a gun can source one if they're prepared to pay top dollar for it and acquire it illegally and with all the risk that entails. What you refuse to acknowledge is the fact that making guns far less prevalent in society has effectively removed the rage killings and massacres that those gun laws were brought in to remove.

1. And that's going well.

2. So Monash was a massacre then?
3. What is the Fabian Society.
4. Except in countries where it hasn't. See Germany, UK... And a country like New Zealand hasn't had a multiple victim public shooting since 1990 without bringing in draconian gun laws or forcing buy backs.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Facts get in the way of libertard selfishness.

 

[Hot Pocket]

1. And that's going well.

2. So Monash was a massacre then?
3. What is the Fabian Society.
4. Except in countries where it hasn't. See Germany, UK... And a country like New Zealand hasn't had a multiple victim public shooting since 1990 without bringing in draconian gun laws or forcing buy backs.

1. Knives have been banned for a long time as weapons. I remember carrying a butterfly knife in high school in the 90's knowing it was illegal even then. The graph doesn't really demonstrate much variation over that time period, and without knowing when knife laws were implemented its hard to see any relevance? You haven't even listed what the axis refers to, is it incidents per capita? You'll have to demonstrate more than that, for me to be able to give you the relevant context.
2. Two died in the Monash shooting, not four. So no, no it doesn't.
3. Wha?
4. Australia is a violent nation - we proved that in the 18 years leading up to Port Arthur, where we had 13 massacres. Facts don't lie mate.

 

[stralia]

1. Knives have been banned for a long time as weapons. I remember carrying a butterfly knife in high school in the 90's knowing it was illegal even then. The graph doesn't really demonstrate much variation over that time period, and without knowing when knife laws were implemented its hard to see any relevance? You haven't even listed what the axis refers to, is it incidents per capita? You'll have to demonstrate more than that, for me to be able to give you the relevant context.
2. Two died in the Monash shooting, not four. So no, no it doesn't.
3. Wha?
4. Australia is a violent nation - we proved that in the 18 years leading up to Port Arthur, where we had 13 massacres. Facts don't lie mate.

1.The graph was linked in an earlier post. Most states instituted weapons prohibition acts from around 96 - 00
2. He shot 7. 2 died.
3. You should probably read up on them.
4. So why hasn't gun control stopped massacres in other countries (of which I've given multiple examples)? And most of those massacres we multiple victim murder suicides which have continued except the method of murder has changed.

 

[vealesy]

Exactly, and that was the entire point of gun control in this country. To stop nutcases and outcasts from having high powered semi automatic weapons. Why anyone would argue against this in the name of "freedom" (the freedom to give high powered weaponry to the mentally ill!) is beyond me.

Here.
"Stopping outcasts from obtaining guns is the whole point of gun control. "

You are assuming outcasts of society are somehow unable to handle weapons and are the main reason for gun control.

I find that ridiculous.

"You can only have a gun if you have 1000 facebook friends!"

 

[Hot Pocket]

1.The graph was linked in an earlier post. Most states instituted weapons prohibition acts from around 96 - 00
2. He shot 7. 2 died.
3. You should probably read up on them.
4. So why hasn't gun control stopped massacres in other countries (of which I've given multiple examples)? And most of those massacres we multiple victim murder suicides which have continued except the method of murder has changed.

1. That's fine but what do the numbers on that axis actually mean? I can't respond if you don't give context. It's like saying "Gun control doesn't work because 74". Its on you to explain it to me if you want to be taken seriously. Which I'm not sure you do.
2. Yes, so it doesn't fit the definition of massacre under the criteria - but it did lead to stricter controls on pistols as there was poor regulation (fairly self evident when a foreign student with mental problems can get 7 handguns after being in the country for two months, including a .357 magnum). Luckily these have been erased.
3. Maybe I will, thanks for the info.
4. Depends on the gun controls implemented. Australians were largely very compliant with the new laws and actually handed back their weapons. I would need you to show me the relevant information to critique it.

 

[Hot Pocket]

Here.
"Stopping outcasts from obtaining guns is the whole point of gun control. "

You are assuming outcasts of society are somehow unable to handle weapons and are the main reason for gun control.

I find that ridiculous.

"You can only have a gun if you have 1000 facebook friends!"

The primary reason for gun control was to stop massacres. Find it ridiculous if you like, but it worked.

 

[vealesy]

The primary reason for gun control was to stop massacres. Find it ridiculous if you like, but it worked.

Was that the reason or was that the convenient scapegoat?

 

[Hot Pocket]

Was that the reason or was that the convenient scapegoat?

It was the reason.

 

[stralia]

1. That's fine but what do the numbers on that axis actually mean? I can't respond if you don't give context. It's like saying "Gun control doesn't work because 74". Its on you to explain it to me if you want to be taken seriously. Which I'm not sure you do.
2. Yes, so it doesn't fit the definition of massacre under the criteria - but it did lead to stricter controls on pistols as there was poor regulation (fairly self evident when a foreign student with mental problems can get 7 handguns after being in the country for two months, including a .357 magnum). Luckily these have been erased.
3. Maybe I will, thanks for the info.
4. Depends on the gun controls implemented. Australians were largely very compliant with the new laws and actually handed back their weapons. I would need you to show me the relevant information to critique it.

1. It's the percentage of all homicides.
2. Well you said shooting.
3. No prob.
4. The UK has a long history of having the strictest gun laws in the world and Germany has had the strictest in central Europe since the 70's.

 

[Hot Pocket]

1. It's the percentage of all homicides.
2. Well you said shooting.
3. No prob.
4. The UK has a long history of having the strictest gun laws in the world and Germany has had the strictest in central Europe since the 70's.

1. How many of those murders were random "mass stabbing" murders?
2. Then I didn't articulate it well enough - apologies for the confusion.
3. Pleasure as always
4. I just fail to see any coherent argument that Australia's gun control laws were a bad thing.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Notice how America is the only one brought up as an example.

Despite having 320 million people, and having diversities in society that our country may never comprehend, let alone endure.

What about Switzerland? How come no one ever says Switzerland? Or Finland?

Because it doesn't pander to the scare mentality - the same mentality everyone's brainwashed by despite contradictions on the news.

Switzerland, Finland and Canada all have gun homicide rates 2-3 times higher than Australia.

Murders per 100,000 people

-Switzerland: 0.52
-Canada: 0.50
-Finland: 0.26
-Australia: 0.13


Australa is the 14th best country in the world based on gun murder rate.

 

[stralia]

1. How many of those murders were random "mass stabbing" murders?
2. Then I didn't articulate it well enough - apologies for the confusion.
3. Pleasure as always
4. I just fail to see any coherent argument that Australia's gun control laws were a bad thing.

You're not suggesting that mass murder is the only thing that matters? We removed a million guns from our streets and the homicide rate stayed steady and even increased for a time. And now those million guns have been replaced, homicide is at an near all time low. Now I'm not going to suggest that those guns on the street are the reason for the low homicide rate as correlation ≠ causation. But equating the gun control laws as the reason we haven't had and more mass shootings is also specious reasoning. As can be shown in the examples of nations without strict gun laws also not having massacres in the same time period and nations with as strict or stricter gun laws having massacres.

I see the laws as a bad thing in regard to self defence. I'd like my mother to be able to have the right to arm herself in her home with something a little more effective than a single shot shotgun or a small caliber revolver, and not have to faff about with safes and having ammo kept in some separate location. Especially as she is past 70 these days... If I ever have a daughter I'd like for her to have the same rights when she is of age... I don't see these ideas as extremist or unreasonable.

 

[Hoops]

.

The firearm rate is falling faster than the knife/sharp Instrument rate is climbing.
The tighter gun controls seem to be working well after there appears to be a climb in firearm deaths leading up to '96

 

[stralia]

The firearm rate is falling faster than the knife/sharp Instrument rate is climbing.
The tighter gun controls seem to be working well after there appears to be a climb in firearm deaths leading up to '96

The gun homicide rate has been in a steep downward trend in relation to other methods of homicide since a decade before the start of gun control.

Lisa, I want to buy your rock.

 

[MrCharisma]

I'd like my mother to be able to have the right to arm herself in her home with something a little more effective than a single shot shotgun or a small caliber revolver...especially as she is past 70 these days

LOL

 

[Hot Pocket]

You're not suggesting that mass murder is the only thing that matters? We removed a million guns from our streets and the homicide rate stayed steady and even increased for a time. And now those million guns have been replaced, homicide is at an near all time low. Now I'm not going to suggest that those guns on the street are the reason for the low homicide rate as correlation ≠ causation. But equating the gun control laws as the reason we haven't had and more mass shootings is also specious reasoning. As can be shown in the examples of nations without strict gun laws also not having massacres in the same time period and nations with as strict or stricter gun laws having massacres.

I see the laws as a bad thing in regard to self defence. I'd like my mother to be able to have the right to arm herself in her home with something a little more effective than a single shot shotgun or a small caliber revolver, and not have to faff about with safes and having ammo kept in some separate location. Especially as she is past 70 these days... If I ever have a daughter I'd like for her to have the same rights when she is of age... I don't see these ideas as extremist or unreasonable.

Mass murders were the primary focus of gun control. What evidence do you have that all those million odd guns have been replaced with illegal firearms?

Australians have no right to use deadly force in self defence anyway, and home invasions are incredibly rare. Let alone the type of home invasion that a small calibre handgun couldn't deter ( you would lose your licesne and probably face jail time were you to use a gun in self defence anyway ).

Those are extreme and unreasonable views, when you consider they go hand in hand with gun massacres.

 

[Taylor]

I can remember hearing a stat that our violent home invasion rate is higher than in the US.

 

[MrCharisma]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS:
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/

1. Across states, more guns = more unintentional firearm deaths

We analyzed data for 50 states over 19 years to investigate the relationship between gun prevalence and accidental gun deaths across different age groups. For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns.

2. Across states, unsafe gun storage = more unintentional firearm deaths

We analyzed data from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System that asked questions about guns and gun storage in the home, combined with information on deaths from the National Center for Health Statistics. Across states, both firearm prevalence AND questionable storage practices (i.e. storing firearms loaded and unlocked) were associated with higher rates of unintentional firearm deaths.

 

[stralia]

Mass murders were the primary focus of gun control. What evidence do you have that all those million odd guns have been replaced with illegal firearms?

Never said illegal firearms.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150

Australians have no right to use deadly force in self defence anyway, and home invasions are incredibly rare. Let alone the type of home invasion that a small calibre handgun couldn't deter ( you would lose your licesne and probably face jail time were you to use a gun in self defence anyway ).

In most states you can use whatever force you deem necessary to protect your self, your family and your property.

Home invasions are a lot more common then you would imagine even though the police don't even keep statistics on it due to being unwilling to define what a home invasion is.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/home-invasions-the-new-fad/story-fn6b3v4f-1226311651859

Small calibre handguns are not effective for self defence. Unless you hit someone in the vital spot something like a .22 is just going to piss people off.

Those are extreme and unreasonable views, when you consider they go hand in hand with gun massacres.

I'm sick of these 70 year old women massacring everyone! It's like a freakin' 70 year old massacre jamboree 'round here!

I can remember hearing a stat that our violent home invasion rate is higher than in the US.

Not only that, we have a slightly higher assault rate and over double the burglary and robbery victim rate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur-crime-burglaries
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass-crime-assaults
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rob_vic-crime-robbery-victims

LOL

I hope no one you love has to go through something like this: