Isn't More Gun Control The Obvious Solution? Yes, Yes It Is.

[Winchester]

i think its next ot proveable cause stats show those with guns get more violence from those guns. if they didnt have guns... many wouldnt cause violence, or at least death.

 

and at the end of the day.... why not go with this?

""if there's any queston, why not err on teh side of

caution and have checks? it could only help. checks would at worst be a

mere incovenience."

 

Stats prove that 100% of me 100% of the time doesn't commit murder.
 

[dairygirl4u2c]

you are you. there are other people who do commit murder. as there are even with free speech and other rights.... there are common sense limited exceptions etc.

 

evn without stats, one can argue what seems to be the case. is anyone willing to say..... 'it seems to me that 100% of people who are denied a gun because of a check, will simply go get another one? that borders on absurd to me, even without stats. is anyone wiilling to say the checks we do have should be repealed? or that missle launchers machine guns taks etc should be legalized? it's basically just a gradient what should and shouldnt be legal. 

a person could be arguing everything u guys are, against that stuff. are you saying the USA has it a magic spot? if you  think stats show that nothing changes with any control i any country... does that mean you must favor machine guns missle launchers tanks etc legalized? given stats apparently dont show anychange, at all..... (this all should be self evidently ridiculous

then.. like 90% of people support checks. i am probably yalking to a tiny fraction of people here.

and likely that tiny fraction who refuses to see what's going on no matter what. (as there are gradients of belief im sure a lot of its genuine too)

Edited February 19, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

What about educating about guns in general and keep repeating the same thing over and over again. It does not have to be all about gun control. Yes, there should be more restrictions. However, we can't just restrict to the point of insanity. And no I am not promoting killing.

 

eduction can only help too.
unfortunately folks here seem to think there should be no control or at least no new control.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Gun
control "is not a conservative-liberal issues or a left-right issue,"
former Australian Prime Minister John Howard tells GPS. "We’ve always
seen it as being a question of public safety. And, on this issue, our
experience was that we did have gains in public safety. We did have
great gains in reduction of mass murder through the ban that we
produced...There was a lot of resistance inside sections of my own
political base. But with the experience of 17 years, even the most
cynical skeptical person would acknowledge that we have made a big
difference with that prohibition."

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/howard-gun-control-not-a-left-right-issue/

Well, if we look at the 18 years leading up to 1996, there were 13
gun massacres in Australia. Since the law has been passed, there has
not been a single one. Gun homicide, as we say, is down somewhere
between 59 and 80 percent. Did it change something about the politics?
Did you find that the people who were on the other side have come
around?

I think probably some of them have.  But there will always be a group
of people who, and quite understandably, argue, look, I enjoy
shooting. I enjoy hunting. I'm very careful. I'm very scrupulous about
keeping my weapons away from other people. I didn’t break the law. I
didn’t murder anybody. And, therefore, why should you interfere with my
freedom to be a happy hunter or a shooter? Now, I understand and respect
that point of view. But the sad fact is that it’s the ready
availability of guns that results in mass murder.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you are curious about what changed in 1996 in australia...

 

The Port Arthur massacre
in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty five
people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent
and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood^[14] opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles.

The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.^[15]

Prime Minister John Howard,
then newly elected, immediately took the gun law proposals developed
from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence^[16]
and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms
Agreement. The proposals
included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and
pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and
ownership controls.

Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property
without just compensation the federal government introduced the Medicare
Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million
through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.^[23]
The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly
semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action
shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.

 

 

it took me two seconds to find this, once i tried. proof that the idea that no controls have been shown never to work at all in any country... is absurd

Edited February 19, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[stevil]

guns, knives, clubs, shark with frikkin laser beams.....no diff.   before there were guns people still managed to find ways to inflict death unto each other.  they will do so after we have moved on to other weaponry.

December 14th 2012, two deadly attacks at two different schools.
One guy had a knife the other a gun.
At one school 26 people were killed at the other school 23 people were wounded.
Take a guess which school had the knife attack and which had the gun attack?

[Winchester]

you are you. there are other people who do commit murder. as there are even with free speech and other rights.... there are common sense limited exceptions etc.

 

evn without stats, one can argue what seems to be the case. is anyone willing to say..... 'it seems to me that 100% of people who are denied a gun because of a check, will simply go get another one? that borders on absurd to me, even without stats. is anyone wiilling to say the checks we do have should be repealed? or that missle launchers machine guns taks etc should be legalized? it's basically just a gradient what should and shouldnt be legal. 

a person could be arguing everything u guys are, against that stuff. are you saying the USA has it a magic spot? if you  think stats show that nothing changes with any control i any country... does that mean you must favor machine guns missle launchers tanks etc legalized? given stats apparently dont show anychange, at all..... (this all should be self evidently ridiculous

then.. like 90% of people support checks. i am probably yalking to a tiny fraction of people here.

and likely that tiny fraction who refuses to see what's going on no matter what. (as there are gradients of belief im sure a lot of its genuine too)

 

Might makes right argument. I know, I know. You're making an argument for aggression because you're upset by...aggression.

 

You seem blind to the millions murdered by governments using those weapons you're worried about mere humans obtaining.
 

[God the Father]

most criminals arent these black hoodies wholl stop at nothing to get
a gun and do teir crime. most or a significant portion are just regular
ppl who happened to have a gun at a time when theyd do crime. if they
didnt gave a gun, they wouldnt do a crime.

 

I've asked you to substantiate this claim multiple times in this thread, and you've failed to produce any evidence. I think you'll have trouble, because it's not true.

 

The following ostensibly left-leaning website features an article (linked) that claims that more than half of all violent felons are repeat offenders. In other words, "most" criminals ARE "black hoodies." Being a violent criminal is a predisposition, often but not always exploited by "necessity." It is not the result of having a gun lying around.

 

http://geekpolitics.com/one-reason-so-many-felons-are-repeat-offenders-and-how-to-fix-it/

Edited February 19, 2013 by God the Father

[dairygirl4u2c]

also if you arent a murderer or imbalanced it doesnt really even affect you.
no one is really even rying to propose that you not have a gun. at worst youd be inconvnienced by checks. all im minimally trying to establish is we have checks, or that some control works or would work.

 

if that's all im establishing i dont know what government having guns has to do with anything.... you can have guns too. it's not like we live in a time or country where we fear an immient reprisal from the gov etc. i addiressed most of these gov arguments earlier.
example, why should our fear of a possible remote gov attack (a far fetched hitler situation) prevent us from the current reality of gun abuse and concretely addressing our current problems and issues? and it's not even like anyone is trying to take everyones guns so its not like u r without recourse anyway

[dairygirl4u2c]

I've asked you to substantiate this claim multiple times in this thread, and you've failed to produce any evidence. I think you'll have trouble, because it's not true.

 

The following ostensibly left-leaning website features an article (linked) that claims that more than half of all violent felons are repeat offenders. In other words, "most" criminals ARE "black hoodies." Being a violent criminal is a predisposition, often but not always exploited by "necessity." It is not the result of having a gun lying around.

 

http://geekpolitics.com/one-reason-so-many-felons-are-repeat-offenders-and-how-to-fix-it/

 

i just showed how controls were wroking in australia. i will look into that common  knowledge stat of having a gun.

if only half of guns are from repeat criminal types.... that means the other half are likely yo include just people who happened to have guns who shouldnt, Joe has a history of violece and if we kept him from havng a gun.... he wouldnt have one when he got violent, likely.

and if it's true that half are repeat offenders etc... qhy qouldnt we want to extend checks to private sales etc? right now only 40% of sales involve checks.
are you prepared to say that 100% of those denied a gun would go ut to the black market to illegally ge one?
 

are you wiilling to say the checks we do have should be repealed?
or that missle launchers machine guns taks etc should be legalized? it's
basically just a gradient what should and shouldnt be legal. 
a person could be arguing everything u guys are, against that stuff.
are you saying the USA has hit a sweet magic spot? if you  think stats show
that nothing changes with any control in any country... does that mean
you must favor machine guns missle launchers tanks etc legalized or current checks repealed?

Edited February 19, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's one of the easiest google searches ive done (search words = having gun home more likely) but here is some info....

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine
whether having a firearm in the home increases the
risk of a violent death in the home and whether
risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the
home.
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater
risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in
the
home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence
interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a
firearm
homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the
person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying
from
a suicide in the home was greater for males in
homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds
ratio
= 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from
suicide
committed with a firearm than from one committed by
using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence
interval:
19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of
storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having
a gun
in the home was associated with an increased risk
of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

 

http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.

And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

If
you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your
non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related
accident, suicide or homicide.

Furthermore, there is no credible
evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a
victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a
home break-in.

The health risks of owning a gun are so established and scientifically non-controvertible that the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2000 recommending that pediatricians urge parents to remove all guns from their homes.

Study after study has been conducted on the health risks associated with guns in the home. One of the latest was a meta-review published in 2011 by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He examined all the scientific literature to date on the health risks and benefits of gun ownership.

What he found was sobering, to say the least.

read more on findings there great article

and more here
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lots-of-risk-ambiguity/

i could go on and on
 

 

[Winchester]

also if you arent a murderer or imbalanced it doesnt really even affect you.
no one is really even rying to propose that you not have a gun. at worst youd be inconvnienced by checks. all im minimally trying to establish is we have checks, or that some control works or would work.

 

if that's all im establishing i dont know what government having guns has to do with anything.... you can have guns too. it's not like we live in a time or country where we fear an immient reprisal from the gov etc. i addiressed most of these gov arguments earlier.
example, why should our fear of a possible remote gov attack (a far fetched hitler situation) prevent us from the current reality of gun abuse and concretely addressing our current problems and issues? and it's not even like anyone is trying to take everyones guns so its not like u r without recourse anyway

After you're done reading the proposed legislation, you can get back to me. It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Jesus_lol]

December 14th 2012, two deadly attacks at two different schools.
One guy had a knife the other a gun.
At one school 26 people were killed at the other school 23 people were wounded.
Take a guess which school had the knife attack and which had the gun attack?

 

 

OOOOH OOOH, lets play the cherry picking game.

 

In China a teenager with a knife goes crazy and starts stabbing a whole load of people in a residential area.

 

in the USA a 22 year old steals an AR15, and shoots off several loaded magazines at a crowded mall in Oregon.

 

One killed 9 and wounded 4, and the other killed 2 and wounded 1.

 

guess which one did which?

 

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/241709/chinese-teen-kills-9-in-knife-attack-reports

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

 

Plenty of stabbings have killed fairly large numbers of people. Plenty of shootings have killed nobody, or very few. But sure, lets just pick two convenient ones and pretend it always works out like that. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

we're not talking about any particular legislation. just the wisdom of gun controls generally etc.

even if we were talking about legislation... the most ive ever heard obama etc wants, is more checks, perhaps licences etc, and semi automatic bans. etc

(im sure you havent read the bill either per that point.... just a red herring on your part

 

i cite scientific studies and facts. you spew next to conspiracy theories about far fetched government intrusions, like so many delusional gun fanatics (reminds me of that guy who recently held the boy hostage, or the unibomber, just vague abstract grievances about the government, to give substance to your positions). and im the one who doesnt know what im talking about?

[dairygirl4u2c]

if the mom of the sandy hook shooter didnt have a gun, theres no reason to beleive shed have been a black hoodie and went and got one. then hed have not had a gun at a time hed have done a crime. are we to think hed necessarily have went to get one illegally, and that 100% of people in these cases would?

if all a person has is a knife, it's common sense they couldnt do as much damage.

if Joe was denied a gun and didnt go out to get one.... when he decides to get violent and all he has is a knife, he wont do nearly as much damage.

 

also ive cited plenty of studies and arguments that remain to be addressed.

Edited February 19, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c