From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago - Page 90 - Politics and Economics

I'm a little confused by this. Everything I find about the aussie gun ban is on way pro-gun websites that seem like they're twisting facts/statistics to fit the narrative they want to promote. As such, i've avoided posting any of it because I feel like it's gotta be questionable and I can never find a link to their sources of info.

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Tsao

not going to read the whole thing, cite the part where it says semi automatic weapons are banned?

at the very start, it says:

Quote:

Background: After a 1996 firearm massacre in Tasmania in which 35 people died, Australian governments
united to remove semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, as a key
component of gun law reforms

also:

Quote:

Possession of firearms for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to ownhandguns. Australia’s state governments, police forces and
police unions all supported the tightened gun laws. In 2002–
3, Australia’s rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per
100 000 population was one fifteenth that of the US.
1

Last edited by Low Key; 12-15-2012 at 03:35 PM.

12-15-2012 , 03:30 PM

#2227

waterwolves

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 11,557

Quote:

Originally Posted by champstark

This is the worst argument ever. If the whole purpose is to protect your family, obviously a shotgun is better.

wat

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Tsao

if she had a gun 20 children would have been saved.

That seems like a really bad idea.

12-15-2012 , 03:31 PM

#2228

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Rata

Maybe that's your problem, the unwillingness to take a minute and read up about things before you spew bull****.

wow if reading that would take you a minute, great for you.

so since you read it, go ahead and quote the part that says semi automatic weapons are banned.

12-15-2012 , 03:31 PM

#2229

Mondogarage

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 4,801

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cotton Hill

These shootings seem way more common now over the last 25 years than say in the 60's, 70's, and 80's

I know gun technology has changed but it can't have changed that much. Why weren't people shooting up schools on a regular basis then? I know it happened one notable time with the Texas bell tower guy, but really until the 90's that was about it. Seems like after Columbine this sort of thing happens every couple of years where it certainly didn't happen that frequently beforehand.

It has somewhat less to do with actual gun technology, and more to do with how much more plentiful and readily available the guns of current technology are to get your hands on.

In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, there weren't more guns on the streets of American than there were Americans on the streets of America. Also, the gun culture and realistic immersion video game culture hadn't reached the critical mass that it had by the last 15 years, nor the 24 hour feed the beast media cycle which gives wall to wall coverage of everything sensational.

12-15-2012 , 03:31 PM

#2230

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by champstark

There has to be some way for us to have our guns safely!

I hate to break it to you, but guns are inherently not safe and there is no way you can definitively rid them of their dangerous instrumentality.

So you think the government should also not have any firearms, right?

12-15-2012 , 03:31 PM

#2231

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by waterwolves

wat

That seems like a really bad idea.

k but if she had a gun 20 children would have been saved.

12-15-2012 , 03:32 PM

#2232

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Tsao

trolly,

1 - every teacher in every class room doesn't need to be packing, and probably very few. OR A BILLION, A BILLION ****ING KIDS ZOMGG

2 - it's obviously not through government. talk to smith & wesson, talk to glock, talk to ruger, i'm sure they'd LOVE the press that would come with them donating to a cause to prevent future mass murders. talk to magpul and i bet you'd find them more than happy to receive the same press to donate training sessions. talk to coca cola, the NRA, pornhub, etc, and see if they'd be willing to sponsor.

1. Come on, is it really that hard to give an honest answer to that question?

2. Seriously? You're not considering the amount of dollars it would take to pay for this crazy scheme. This does not take into account the fact the NO ONE WANTS THIS POLICY. Teachers don't want to bring guns, parents don't want teachers with guns, students don't want teachers with guns...the only people who want people to have more guns are gun nuts.

12-15-2012 , 03:33 PM

#2233

MissileDog

a good little dog

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 5,581

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Tsao

MD not going to read your whole post - in this case the shooter forced his way into the building. the principal and another adult "rushed" him (instead of drawing a weapon and taking him out, saving 26 lives). if they had time to run at him and get shot, they also had time to take cover and draw a weapon.

Let's try not to concentrate only on the details of yesterday's tragedy, although I'm sure you enjoy imagining your're John McClain or DblBarrelJ. Let's try to think through this is general, as is appropriate for recommended policy changes like your "pass out pistols on the playground" proposal.

Do you believe that people, in any general situation, will always have enough time to either take cover, or draw a weapon, when crazies come-a-bargin'... or do you feel sometimes they will have that time, and sometimes they won't?

12-15-2012 , 03:34 PM

#2234

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

1. Come on, is it really that hard to give an honest answer to that question?

not sure if srs - it is literally impossible to give an accurate answer to that question. cannot be done ever will never ever be done please don't tell me you think someone can answer that question? you probably think the government can answer it, it is omniscient after all right.

Quote:

2. Seriously? You're not considering the amount of dollars it would take to pay for this crazy scheme. This does not take into account the fact the NO ONE WANTS THIS POLICY. Teachers don't want to bring guns, parents don't want teachers with guns, students don't want teachers with guns...the only people who want people to have more guns are gun nuts.

well, enjoy children dying then.

12-15-2012 , 03:35 PM

#2235

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissileDog

read up to here and didn't see anything worth responding to?

rephrase the post to not be stupid if you want me to read any further.

good luck.

12-15-2012 , 03:36 PM

#2236

waterwolves

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 11,557

Every teacher having a gun is just asking for trouble. Good chance we lose more kids that way.

Anyway we could close the campuses and have armed guards? I would be willing to pay higher taxes for that.

12-15-2012 , 03:37 PM

#2237

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

I mean this is basically how the Republican Party operates about everything, but the gun nut/Republican/NRA position on the proliferation of mass shootings is essentially to do nothing.

JFC dude, you just proposed a bunch of rules that would do absolutely nothing to stop this particular type of incident. You might as well have just shot a bunch of chickens out of a cannon. WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING MAN WHERE'S YOUR HEART I'M JUST THINKING OF THE KIDS.

12-15-2012 , 03:38 PM

#2238

surftheiop

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 5,162

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

My head is about to explode from the cognitive dissonance of hearing a bunch of republicans/libertarians saying that the thing we need is to arm the government employees charged with "indoctrinating children with socialism" (or whatever their favorite go to phrase is related to teachers).

Any thoughts from the arm the teachers crowd?

12-15-2012 , 03:38 PM

#2239

zikzak

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22,199

If we're going to have more gun restrictions, can we start with banning ownership by anybody who thinks having armed civilians in an elementary school is a good idea?

12-15-2012 , 03:40 PM

#2240

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Which has nothing to do with whether or not they are good policy and/or have a chance of being enacted, which was obviously the point of the post.

Holy **** dude. When you get all mad that group X wants to do nothing after this type of event you're pretty clearly relying on the implication that what you're proposing WOULD do something to stop this type of event to bolster your argument.

12-15-2012 , 03:40 PM

#2241

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

OK. If the violent crime rate remains the same without guns it is still a massive win because guns kill people much more often than knives or fists.

OK, let's allow this for the sake of argument.

Now, what if it goes up?

12-15-2012 , 03:41 PM

#2242

waterwolves

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 11,557

Quote:

Originally Posted by pvn

lol omg

12-15-2012 , 03:41 PM

#2243

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinopoker

Well yes, actually. In fact, if banning guns or high-cap magazines had resulted in this guy killing only 17 children instead of 18 I would personally call that a raving success and absolutely worth crushing the lolrights of gun owners. Sorry to break it to you, but that single kid is worth more than all of you put together.

yeah if that were the only effect. but it's not.

12-15-2012 , 03:42 PM

#2244

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

Quote:

Originally Posted by surftheiop

Any thoughts from the arm the teachers crowd?

are you calling tsao fat? cuz otherwise one person is not a crowd

12-15-2012 , 03:43 PM

#2245

pvn

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverman

Gun nuts,

Why do you want to own, for example, an AK-47. Serious question, I have zero understanding of the psychology that goes into wanting to own something like that. Does it make you feel like more of a man? Do you fantasize about blowing an intruder away with 50 bullets instead of 3 or 4? Why?

I don't own one, nor do I want to.

Does that mean I'm not a gun nut?

I do like, however, that when your ridiculous arguments start falling apart you jump over to the "lol you must have a little bitty wee-wee" argument.

12-15-2012 , 03:44 PM

#2246

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,772

Quote:

Originally Posted by renodoc

Take the law enforcement people who are trolling the drug war and put some of them in schools instead?

12-15-2012 , 03:45 PM

#2247

Low Key

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 33,327

do we have confirmed reports of the size of the shooter's penis? (I know initial reports were anywhere from 2 inches to 3 1/2 feet)

can we ban people from having small penises perhaps? Or just small penised people from owning guns?

12-15-2012 , 03:46 PM

#2248

goofball

Beat Nate Silver

Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 20,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

it seems like your desire to focus solely on gun violence statistics instead of all violent crime is akin to looking only for data that supports what you already believe or what you want to believe is true

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

This is the third time I have posted this link ITT. Third time it will be ignored by the gun-folk?