That More Gun Control Would Reduce Gun Violence, Is Common Sense

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's so much without question true what im sayin that i wanted to debate it again with all the main points said up front. it's really incontrovertible, what i'm arguing....

 

they did massive control in australia in 1996. since then they have had no mass shootings, whereas before they had almost one per year. homicides are down like fifty percent. etc etc.

studies without question prove that if you have a gun in your home, you and others are more likely to be hurt because of it. it's so incontrovertible that offiials always recommend getting rid of your gun if you want to be safer. if this is true, it makes sense that limiting who has a gun, or the easiness of getting a gun, will reduce violence and mishaps.

japan has massive controls and relatively has almost no gun murders, very small.

40% of sales do not have background checks. if we can have mere checks, lives will be saved. it's common sense that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if they dont have a gun when theyd do their crime, a crime will be prevented.

if there's any question that some control will result in some lives saved why not err on the side of caution?

there's no question control would be helpful, and at the very least give more control a shot

 

[CrossCuT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

 

[Chestertonian]

Australia's gun control: Success or failure?

January 18, 2013|Steve Chapman

 

 

After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia enacted a sweeping package of gun restrictions far more ambitious than anything plausible here -- including a total ban on semiautomatic weapons, a mandatory gun buyback, and strict limits on who could own a firearm. John Howard, who was prime minister at the time, wrote the other day that his country "is safer today as a consequence of gun control."

 

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote. 

Howard says the country has had no mass shootings since 1996. But mass shootings are such a tiny share of all homicides that any connection may be purely a matter of chance.

We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don't work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn't work either.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/news/chi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

 

 

Edited May 5, 2013 by Chestertonian

[havok579257]

Australia's gun control: Success or failure?

January 18, 2013|Steve Chapman

 

 

After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia enacted a sweeping package of gun restrictions far more ambitious than anything plausible here -- including a total ban on semiautomatic weapons, a mandatory gun buyback, and strict limits on who could own a firearm. John Howard, who was prime minister at the time, wrote the other day that his country "is safer today as a consequence of gun control."

 

You would think such dramatic new restrictions were bound to help. But the striking thing is how little effect they had on gun deaths.

It's true the homicide rate fell after the law took effect -- but it had also been falling long before that. A study published by the liberal Brookings Institution noted that the decline didn't accelerate after 1996. Same for lethal accidents. Suicide didn't budge. At most, they conclude "there may" -- may -- "have been a modest effect on homicide rates."

Researchers at the University of Melbourne, however, found no such improvement as a result of the new system. "There is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides or suicides," they wrote. 

Howard says the country has had no mass shootings since 1996. But mass shootings are such a tiny share of all homicides that any connection may be purely a matter of chance.

We learned from the 1994 assault weapons ban that modest gun control measures don't work. What Australia suggests is that even if radical ones could be passed, they wouldn't work either.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-18/news/chi-the-failure-of-gun-control-in-australia-20130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

 

 

what i don't like about either side of the debate is that they skew things or try to disregard things that goes against their points.  It says mass shootings have gone down but then the author tries to make an excuse why it went down such as that it may be purely a matter of chance.  They also try to negate a decrease in homocide rates as being a small decrease that doesn't even make a difference.

 

Both sides on the gun control debate do this crap all the time.  Instead of agnologing(sp?) there are positives to both sides of the arguement they try to disregard everything on the other side as freak accident and that only their side is 100% correct and nothing, nothing the other side could do could be positive at all or have a positive outcome at all. 

[Jesus_lol]

They also try to negate a decrease in homocide rates as being a small decrease that doesn't even make a difference.

 

 

 

more like, when people say "well crime dropped X amount after this law was put in", they rarely mention that crime/violence had often already been dropping for years prior to the legislation, and the legislation made no appreciable difference in the continuing decline or rate of violence.

 

Its kind of like saying that some new pill you took helped you lose weight! "I dropped 5 pounds since i started taking these!!!"

 

of course, you were steadily losing weight for months already because you stopped drinking so much pepsi and were working out a bit, but sure, the pills you got from the internet are what really did the trick.

[Socrates]

Great Britain's murder rate rose after strict gun control laws were passed.

 

 

That one should not keep repeatedly post threads making the same claims that have already been thoroughly, um, shot down, in about 20 previous threads, is common sense.