Once a dozen people have been shot, have more shooting. Gee, if only there was some other solution, perhaps one which other first world nations had tried out.
Once a dozen people have been shot, have more shooting. Gee, if only there was some other solution, perhaps one which other first world nations had tried out.
Because criminals and crazies never shoot people in those first-world countries, right?
Because criminals and crazies never shoot people in those first-world countries, right?
Not really, not like in the US with its constant school/uni campus/cinema/sniper massacre problems. America has the 5th highest rate of murders involving guns in the world, and has a several-times higher murder rate than the rest of the first world.
See how the rest of the first world is green? See how Canada, landlocked and literally right next door, doesn't have the same problem?
all this talk about gun crime stats peaked my interest.. so i did a quick search and found this intresting article from the guardian..
However, the figures themselves are astounding for Brits used to around 600 murders per year. In 2010 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,996 murders in the US. Of those, 8,775 were caused by firearms
note this article is focused on the US, doesn't compare countries
i should also note, i don't support gun control, i believe if someone wants to kill someone a knife, car, punch, fire, etc.. are just as deadly.
Because drug related crime will happen regardless of the guns. Drug related crime is violent and property related.
Drug crime may happen with or without guns (whether it should even be considered a crime is a current point of debate), but I'm concerned about the murders made a thousand times easier by guns.
These freakout Anders Brevik style shootings that happen once every 5 years are anomalies.
Not to mention this one. and there's many more too, including all the school shootings. They're largely on university campuses, in schools, in theatres, in shopping centres, etc. Nothing to do with drugs, not a single one is ok. I don't even know what your argument is supposed to be, aside from "there could be more." The Anders Brevik massacre used guns too.
75% of US murders must be gun related i.e. the first 1% non then 1-4% must be guns right? otherwise you are talking through your ass as per usual.last edited by infi at 21:57:50 20/Jul/12
Got a good mate living in Denver. He works for Newmont Gold Mining Company and head office is Denver. Just SMS'ed him to see if he is okay, no response yet but it's early in the morning. Waiting to hear.
i believe if someone wants to kill someone a knife, car, punch, fire, etc.. are just as deadly.
You can't kill 20 people with a knife in 60 seconds. It's not just the availability of guns in America that is a problem, but how powerful they can be too.
i don't support gun control, i believe if someone wants to kill someone a knife, car, punch, fire, etc.. are just as deadly.last edited by TufNuT at 22:17:49 20/Jul/12
Think of it in terms of the unique capabilities of guns, like not supporting nuclear weapon control on the rational that if people wanted to wipe out a city and make the land an uninhabitable wasteland, they'd find a way. Guns have a unique function and enable far easier killing, and especially snap-decisions (successful suicides are way way higher amongst gun owners, despite all "trying to find a way").
You can't kill 20 people with a knife in 60 seconds. It's not just the availability of guns in America that is a problem, but how powerful they can be too.
no but you can with a fire.. i wonder how many would have walked out of that he someone set fire to the cinema or used a molotov cocktail, or gun powder (fireworks) + pipe.. point is, there are many ways to do that kind of damage if someone really wanted to..
successful suicides are way way higher amongst gun owners
guess jumping of a bridge/high place is really hard.. or cutting ones wrists, or rope + chair..
guess jumping of a bridge/hugh place is really hard.. or cutting ones wrists, or rope + chair.. last edited by TufNuT at 22:28:52 20/Jul/12
It is compared to a gun. There's plenty of time to think your way out of it, you have to set things up, and may not die instantly and call for help. A gun at home just enables "having a major depressive moment? Well, no time for it to pass as it normally would, pick up a gun while you're down and end it."
A lot of people with depression report that they could never have a gun in their own home for this reason. Let alone having to be in a costly arms race with with criminals on the off chance that you can fire back before they hit you while spraying a room.
As discussed in that thread, the kids weren't even armed. It would have been a shame if they died for a minor robbery. And if they did have a gun, that was the source of the initial problem isn't it? It's like people pointing to minority christians advocating against homosexual discrimination laws, and saying "see, because of christianity they might get rights" - when it's only fucking because of the mainstream christians that they don't have them in the first place. /rage /ok taking a break
Once a dozen people have been shot, have more shooting. Gee, if only there was some other solution, perhaps one which other first world nations had tried out.
You mean like we have? Ban guns? Oh yeah coz that worked. Hey criminals, how about handing over your guns? No? Ok. So now we sit defenceless in our homes while armed people come shoot us for 10bux. Not to mention if someone breaks into our homes and cuts themselves on the broken glass they broke while entering they can sue us. Oh yeah, sure use our fucking idiotic country as an example, go ahead.
You mean like we have? Ban guns? Oh yeah coz that worked. Hey criminals, how about handing over your guns? No? Ok. So now we sit defenceless in our homes while armed people come shoot us for 10bux. Not to mention if someone breaks into our homes and cuts themselves on the broken glass they broke while entering they can sue us. Oh yeah, sure use our fucking idiotic country as an example, go ahead.
Yeah our "idiotic" country where your hypothetical situation doesn't happen, while their real situations involving innocent people being killed does keep happening. An imaginary Australia is cited before reality now? Have a look at this chart, before saying that most guns used in crime come from a back market.
I wonder who said that......
I did. I don't blame him for reacting like that in the heat of the moment when he thought that they had a gun, I just think that neither should have been armed in the first place.
but they did have a gun. it just didn't work he the old codger wouldn't have known. he saw a gun and just acted.
Yeah that's why I can't blame him for reacting the way that he did, but in the end it would have been unfortunate if he succeeded, because they didn't have a real gun and were only using intimidation, they weren't really going to kill anybody. He would have been justified in shooting them given what he knew, but it's lucky that it didn't turn out that way, because robbery doesn't deserve execution.
You mean like we have? Ban guns? Oh yeah coz that worked. Hey criminals, how about handing over your guns? No? Ok. So now we sit defenceless in our homes while armed people come shoot us for 10bux. Not to mention if someone breaks into our homes and cuts themselves on the broken glass they broke while entering they can sue us. Oh yeah, sure use our fucking idiotic country as an example, go ahead.
Ahaha WHAT?! This screams of sensationalist rhetoric that has no source but heaps of wild claims.
Not sure if troll or not. Is there any source that if a criminal hurts themselves they can sue? Because I'm pretty sure it's one of those old wives tales.
The fact of the matter is that better regulation and stricter gun control laws work. I don't see how anyone can debate otherwise. If there are less guns in peoples hands/houses/purses/whatever, logic would suggest that gun crimes would be reduced.
The law doesn't distinguish between a fake fire arm used to 'intimidate' or a real firearm.
So why the should anybody else?
Here's how it goes son.
If someone points a gun at you, you're going to shit a brick like its real whether its real or an unmarked replica. The intent is there to make it seem real, the threat is real the emotions evoked are real and the damage done is all very real bar the physical.
Hindsight is always 20/20 and saying actions should have been different on knowledge gained AFTER an event is a fools argument unless that reflection can be used in future circumstances (in this case it cannot as one could never be sure whether the gun functions or not).
So saying it would be a shame if they died because of the guns status is actually quite naive and not thinking the situation through as it occured at that time.
That isn't to say I agree either the old guy or the kids should have had anything resembling a gun. Just stating your angle of argument is really silly.
I don't think that you understand my meaning. I'm not saying that the guy was in the wrong.
Take an example that you see somebody loudly crashing around in your home, you shoot them (arguably fair enough, can't take chances). Turns out it was a guy who used to live there who is drunk and just stumbled into the wrong place. Your response wasn't unjustified, but it's still unfortunate that it happened. Do you understand? You can do what's right at the time, and it can still be an unfortunate outcome, not a "you did wrong" outcome. (Although it seems that we're better off without guns as they seem to fuck up more than they help).
Pulling arguments other people have attempted from previous debates that don't fit the scenario is just silly.
The drunk guy didn't have a handgun in his hand waving it in my face in a perfectly lit room and demanding my property did he?
You are describing escalation of violence (your scenario) vs. equal force (this scenario)
Stick to the subject matter at hand please.
A man carrying gun and threatening people with it whether its real or not carries the same penalty by the law and carries the same intent to the person being assailed by it.
Anything that comes their way is deserving because people reacting to that scenario are doing so with equal force to what is being displayed. Thus it is not unfortunate at all.
More to the point that I DO agree with you is that guns should only be by laws such as how we have it here in Au. Multiple Licences for differing weapons and a bolt action rifle or breakable action shotgun all kept separately etc.
Impulsive assaults or suicides with a firearm are lessened by fewer in circulation and also if they are being stored appropriately it takes some time to get a rifle out, restore its action and load it etc.
Interesting in AU you don't need a licence for a bow though.
You just aren't understanding what I was saying and responding to something way off base. I haven't disagreed once that the guy was completely justified in what he did.
???But they were threatening murder/execution themselves by means of handgun, this was how they were enforcing compliance of their demands to perform the robbery.
Nerfy since you posted the stats relating to fire arm murders per 100,000 people for those countries would you mind digging up the rate of firearm ownership in ... oh i dont know Canada New Zealand and Australia? Throw in the US just for good measure as a comparison.
While your at it would mind listing the firearm restrictions in place in Canada Australia and NZ? I picked those three countries out because they are all fairly similar culturally and their fire arm murder rates are pretty close to each other.
My bet is going to be that rate of ownership and level of restrictions has fuck all bearing on the rate of murders involving fire arms. Of course a community with zero fire arms is not likely to have any murders involving them but that community isnt likely to exist anywhere on the planet ever. My view is that fire arm related murders are more tied to cultural issues than anything else and that blaming gun ownership and access to guns is a cheap way to simplistic out in response to a very complexed problem.
Btw this post is in no way a crack at you or anything you posted, i just think those stats need some context.
Nerfy since you posted the stats relating to fire arm murders per 100,000 people for those countries would you mind digging up the rate of firearm ownership in ... oh i dont know Canada New Zealand and Australia? Throw in the US just for good measure as a comparison.
While your at it would mind listing the firearm restrictions in place in Canada Australia and NZ? I picked those three countries out because they are all fairly similar culturally and their fire arm murder rates are pretty close to each other.
You need licenses and background checks, unlike much of the US. (e.g. in the state which this shooting took place in, you don't need a license or registration, shops must simply keep a record of who they sold guns to).
My bet is going to be that rate of ownership and level of restrictions has fuck all bearing on the rate of murders involving fire arms.
In retrospect you probably should have done a minimal amount of investigation before making that bet. :P
My view is that fire arm related murders are more tied to cultural issues than anything else and that blaming gun ownership
Firearm deaths are 100% tied to the presence of firearms though. Whether or not people use them is another question, but society must be ready for guns first before considering them, rather than having them before considering whether society is ready.
The USA has a fire arm related murder rate of 4.55 with a gun ownership rate of 88 guns per 100 people or 88,000 guns per 100,000 people. Correct me if I am wrong but that means for every 19,340 guns there is a murder?
Now Australia with all of its much tighter restrictions has a gun ownership rate of 15 per 100 people or 15,000 guns per 100,000 people and a murder rate of 1.57. Which in turn should mean we have 1 murder for every 9,554 guns in the community.
That can't be right surely? Tighter restrictions on ownership and type of fire arm that can be legally held should surely mean a lower murder rate attributed to guns right? Man perhaps my maths is way off here since generally it usually suck plus its 4 in the morning and I just woke up.
But if my maths is right it seems guns cause more shit here than they do in the US since it takes less than 10,000 of the to result in a human death here while taking more than 19,000 of them to do the same in the US. Yep guns are pretty clearly the bad guy here right?
Just for futher interest working out things in the same way for Canada and New Zealand they come out with this result.
Canada has 1 murder with a firearm for every 19,493.
New Zealand has 1 murder with a firearm for every 19,316
So to sum this up.
Australia 1 murder per 9,554 guns
NZ 1 murder per 19,316 guns
USA 1 murder per 19,340 guns
Canada 1 murder per 19,493 guns
Someone check that for me plz. For restrictions and denial of access being the obvious way to reduce firearm related deaths I must of fucked my maths to come out with such a huge discrepancy.
People tend to own multiple guns in the US from what I've seen, whereas I doubt that is quite as prevalent in places like Australia. You guys seem way too keen to deny the blindly obvious fact that killing weapons kill, and that loose control around killing weapons is a very stupid thing.
You know what youre saying might hold up a little better if it wasnt for the fact that the bulk of shootings in this country are commited by criminals doing criminal shit. The fact remains that given the numbers i just put up restricting the general public to the point australia has doesnt do shit to curb the problem because stupid fucks that shouldnt have them still get them.
Even if we had zero legal ownership in australia we would still have dickheads shooting each other.
Even if we had zero legal ownership in australia we would still have dickheads shooting each other.
Less death is better, and as posted earlier regarding the chart for US convicted criminals, most of them did not use blackmarket weapons. A lot of them used other people's harmless legally acquired guns though.
Find a chart saying the same thing for Australia. Even recently after the spate of shootings in Sydney the cops pointed out that only a small portion of guns used to commit crimes were legally owned and of those the bulk of them were stolen. Which clearly points to the fact that criminals will get guns reguardless of the law even on a remote island like the one we live on.
We have tough restrictions yet we still have more murders per firearm than the US there is no getting around that. Its not the legal owners that are the problem, they never really have been.
Frak me, only a gun fetishist could take "less murders by gun per capita" and twist it around to say that guns are reflected better in the place with far more gun murders per capita.
Its not the legal owners that are the problem, they never really have been.
Ok. So you deny the statistics provided and assert a fantasy? Great. The chart clearly showed that more guns used in crime came from legal ownership than the black market. Only something like 9% were from the black market.
Even if it were true, illegal weapons are - surprise surprise - primarily stolen from those who legally own them.
Theft is cited as an important source of illegal firearms in countries such as the United States (Kleck & Wang 2009; Pierce et al. 2004; Wright & Rossi 1994) and inferred in other jurisdictions such as England and Wales (Hales, Lewis & Silverstone 2006) and within the European Union (Spapens 2007).
Around three-quarters of thefts were from private residential premises, comprised the majority of firearms stolen in this period, most likely a reflection of the prevalence of these firearms among the Australian firearm-owning community rather than a necessary preference for such models. Firearms from just 12–14 percent of reported theft incidents between 2004–05 and 2008–09 were recovered by police in the 12 months following the report of the theft (Borzycki & Mouzos 2007; Bricknell 2011, 2009, 2008a; Bricknell & Mouzos 2007), indicating a sizeable, annual contribution of stolen firearms to the illicit market.
Similarly dated assessments of firearm trafficking (Alpers & Twyford 2003; Mouzos 1999) supported the opinion that the illicit market was not organised and supply was predominantly from ‘domestic leakage’ of legal firearms, rather than wholesale illegal importation.
TL;DR - Those illegal guns who you put all the blame on, separate from "legal" guns, were just legal guns which were stolen. And that's despite the fact that most crime isn't even performed using a black market gun in the US.
taipan, it just mean our guns are more better at shooting
nerfy, less does not always mean better, education, and identifying people with issues are going to do in the long run
there are many thoughts on gun crime, but at the end of the day if people know how to use them as the tool they are (lets not get into the whole weapon tool thing again i was right last time, that doesn't change) then they will not be used as the weapon they can be (as a side, an uncle out west who has two guns, a 303 for game shooting, and a shotgun for snake has the problem of a cat plague, and doesn't want to shoot them with the 303, or the shot gun, as it is too messy and violent, but can't have a smaller rifle because it is too much paperwork, and he doesn't have a valid reason outside of this rare event)
also, nerfy look at the sort of people that have used guns on people (outside of a war) it is always someone who has issues, be that the thought of everyone out to get them, they had been bullied and they see it as a way to get back, or they have some misguided ideal, which more often than not there had been signs that there were issues but not body wanted to help
also, the removal of guns on mass just moves the method of violence, once people used to hold up post office with any manner of guns, people rarely got shot or killed, now it is more likely to be a knife, syringe filled with blood, both of which require the robber to be closer for the threat to be effected, and increasing the chance of injury (if some told me to stay put in the corner while they had a gun, I would, they can shoot from a distance, and both parties know this, which a knife they have to keep you closer, and that can lead to confusion with requests and stabbings, likewise with the syringe)
we are at risk of swinging the rule so far one way that it is going to create more of a problem, hell the reactions from people at some stuff causes more issues, 30 years ago (before my time tho) it was common for cadets to jump of the train, with their rifle out in the open, while people smoke. try carrying a rifle bag (no rifle) on the train, and see the panic, and terror that it causes (and no doubt someone would be injured) all over the thought of a gun (pretty sure it is only the last few years that QR changed it from not been able to carry ammo with the gun to outright banning all guns) now light a smoke nerfy?, which one has been blamed on more deaths? (passive and otherwise)
Nerfy while your in your banning the issue not the cause mood, I think we should ban all nut growing plants, because they could kill someone, or at least limited it alot, and cows, we should ban cow ownership, I mean beef, butter, milk, all killers when miss managed, best not educate people, just ban them, there is after all no reason to eat beef, or drink milk, or have butter, oh, and cane sugar
also, nerfy look at the sort of people that have used guns on people (outside of a war) it is always someone who has issues, be that the thought of everyone out to get them, they had been bullied and they see it as a way to get back, or they have some misguided ideal, which more often than not there had been signs that there were issues but not body wanted to help
... So? Did unstable people suddenly disappear and we no longer need to worry about the danger which unstable people become once combined with guns?
all over the thought of a gun
A reaction which has been earned by what guns have done.
now light a smoke nerfy?, which one has been blamed on more deaths? (passive and otherwise)
Both of these should be dealt with, you can't say "look, an unrelated problem!" and be saying anything meaningful. Besides, smoking is something that one does to themselves, not others.
Nerfy while your in your banning the issue not the cause mood
While you are in a strawmanning mood you may as well say that I suggested gassing jews too.
we should ban cow ownership, I mean beef, butter, milk, all killers when miss managed, best not educate people, just ban them, there is after all no reason to eat beef, or drink milk, or have butter, oh, and cane sugar
This is the worst argument in the history of any argument ever used anywhere about anything. If you can't see the difference between doing something to yourself, and easily enabling becoming a lethal danger to others, then I hope that you don't have access to guns.
also, nerfy stop using US shit to push fact in AU,
there are alot of black market guns in this country that A) were stolen over 10 years ago (before the clamping down of where you can secure your weapon) the US doesn't (to my knowledge) have the same level of restrictions B) are illegal and have never been legally own by someone in this country C) are made from parts that have been imported, or stolen (eg, if someone stole my rifle, but not the bolt, or ammo, they dont have a working gun, but all crime are tracked back to that weapon, so using those figures might give someone the impression that the gun gets stolen, then used, when in fact there are a few more steps to get the gun working again (which would involve more theft or illegal importation of gun parts) D) if the case is C more than likely that if the rifle is stolen from one place, and the bolt another, they would be recorded as two gun thefts, while only one gun is the net result (or more likely a few gun thefts for parts to result in a fewer number of working guns)
also, nerfy stop using US shit to push fact in AU,
We're talking about a US massacre and why their system isn't wanted here, despite a few vocally crying for it. It was others who kept bringing up Australia, saying that we were idiotic for having gun laws.
there are alot of black market guns in this country that
You're just pulling all of this out of your ass, I provided several studies. Bah humbug at you "reality is whatever I speculatively want it to be" people.
nerfy, unstable people are getting less and less help, because our social make up has changed,
also, in the last few decades there has been a change in how some people react, 80 years ago, if something bad happened someone might be more likely to take their own life. now it seems that because we are all empowered that someone needs to be blamed, (and thus punished) so a violent reaction is more likely
banning guns and reacting to them as you do it not healthy. (it isn't an attack on you, but really it isn't healthy) they are a tool and they have their place, it is (shooting) also a viable sport and skill,
do they have a place in the city. No, i'm not a fucking moron I went to school with hunter, and picked on him (to the point that I am a little ashamed, however some of his action did bring about my actions) however i'm sure if he had access to a weapon (other than rocks) that allowed distance I would have been on the receiving end
I still feel that education about guns, and some limited training in handling (thus giving an understanding) and safety would go along way to calming people down (the reactions of fear cause a heightened reaction in the gunman, and can be the trigger for the shooting to start, where if people were calm, then not only would the shooting be less effective, if at all, there is also more of a chance that the person maybe consoled and calmed downed)
the old saying, guns dont kill people, people kill people,
nerfy the facts are guns have a place, gun owners need rights, and they are a useful part of this country, we have alot of feral animals that need to be control, and they do more damage to this land than years of farming would
but as it is only an ABC news piece i'm sure you'll find only the things you support to be true, and ignore the other facts
also, when they throw figures like X amount of guns stolen, those guns are not always stolen because they are going to be used in crime (other than theft of the gun) or sold on the black market
any gun (working or not, including older collector items) stolen will be recorded as a stolen gun, it only paint part of the picture
it is like speeding, if you crash your car doing 50 in a 70 zone the cause can be speed, (thus inflating the crashes caused by speeding figures) the reason being that if your car as legal, but balding tyres, and it is pissing down rain, and your not drunk, it comes down to the fact that you were going fast than it was safe, therefore speeding,
if a gun is stolen, (regardless of it's state or even if it is whole) it is recorded as a gun theft nothing more,
nerfy, unstable people are getting less and less help, because our social make up has changed,
also, in the last few decades there has been a change in how some people react, 80 years ago, if something bad happened someone might be more likely to take their own life. now it seems that because we are all empowered that someone needs to be blamed, (and thus punished) so a violent reaction is more likely
Le sigh, gun people. You really don't understand the "don't pull uncited speculative shit out of your ass as facts" thing don't you?
banning guns and reacting to them as you do it not healthy.
You repetitively saying that I said anything about banning guns when I keep explaining that I haven't, is less healthy for me.
I'm sorry that I have a reaction to your fetishized killing machines which matches the reality of what they do in the real world. Next we can talk about the merits of each having personal nuclear silos and say "We'll work on society after, we're just losing liberty while we can't have nuclear silos now."
Wat? That says exactly what I was saying, that historically most guns used in crime have come into circulation from legal ownership first. The police quote only said that importation is maybe now starting to also become an issue.
it isn't as clear cut came from a legal owner, therefore all guns are bad stance, most of those guns came from owners doing the right thing, getting the gun deactivated, then the gun was stolen, and reactivated. yet you blame the owners somehow
also, they are not fetishized killing machines, yes I have a gun, on the wall, and I have it because it was my grandfathers at Tobruk, i also come from a military family and that gun means alot, (it alot has slag down the barrel and the bolt is welded shut)
my weapon on choice is sword, (I have lots of those, and would be happy to show you) being that i was a re-enactor, and the only gun I myself have owned (and and was usable) was a brown bess,
quick nerfy, cars kill people too, they also may or maynot cause climate warming/change, oh whats that, do be silly, cars are useful? and they have a place.....well so do guns, just because you fail to understand their uses (yes killing is the use, but what they are used to kill is what makes them useful) we should ban them all
one question, if there were no guns (outside of the ADF) what will it be like, police wouldn't have a need to carry them, or vets, or farmers,
so, if a horse becomes lame, we should beat it to death? a zoo animal escapes, and tears thru streets, again, maybe try and run it over, injury it and trap it somehow, then lethal injection? wild pigs are best controlled with?, a dog finding it, then it is a battle of the fittest, I know we will bred bigger meaner dogs to tackle that problem (after all dogs never killed anyone)
what you fail to see it that i'm saying lets not ban guns, lets work on society, and fixing the issue that cause such events, while you spout broad figures that don't show the true facts (because truth is they can only guess) and say ban the tool used in the result
then claim that "gun people" are all defending fetishized killing machines, and if we do it my way, we will all have personal nuclear silos, get real nerfy, that is a little rich, and really shows you fail to read and get the point (which i know can be hard with my grammar skills) but to ague that i'm a nut because I think education and training is more harmful than banning is laughable
(narrow view thinking that they are only used for hunting, which is a mistake many people seem to be making)
or they are collectible, there are alot of very pretty guns out there, (most older than 150years) where they do border on artwork,
or they have historical value, like a sten gun, not pretty, no real use outside of the army, but a valuable bit of our history, (however under tight control and usage orders)
they are apart of our world, and a part of our history, to not understand that, we that would be sad,
AU gun laws are perfectly fine. Seriously it takes months and months (and months!) to acquire your first rifle. That's after safety courses are mandatory to even apply.
You can't even go for a handgun within the first 12 months after that and then there is the courses and process again.
Plus then you have to belong to a club or a valid reason (proof of cattle farmer for example).
Someone going through all that is more likely a law abiding citizen they're more likely to comply with storage laws which renders the firearm more useless than a household brick as a weapon until you reassemble the action which everything should be stored separately in a safe bolted to the foundations of a permanent structure.
Impulsivity or theft? If someone can steal it and then crack open the safe they almost deserve the thing! (not literally) but my point is opportunistic theft of a firearm being stored appropriately would be impossible. And if they are organised enough to steal either the safe or break into it then shit there was probably easier ways to obtain a gun anyway.
USA gun laws are terrible, accessibility is too easy.
but my point is opportunistic theft of a firearm being stored appropriately would be impossible. And if they are organised enough to steal either the safe or break into it then shit there was probably easier ways to obtain a gun anyway.
Did you read the earlier links? Hundreds are stolen annually, very few are recovered.
USA gun laws are terrible, accessibility is too easy.
Yeah this is the only point that I really cared about, as people (like faceman and others) get all uppity about Australia not being like the superior USA in our gun freedoms giving us freedom such as the freedom of those who received freedom in this event and the many there like it.
US gun laws are based on "if the government stops doing what it's supposed to, we should be allowed to either fill the gap or overthrow them".
They weren't ever intended to allow you to protect yourself if you're getting robbed or held up, they were intended for of a foreign army invaded (eg, the British), the people could form an army and repel them.
Instead, people have allowed themselves to become what they have today.
Meanwhile, the US has the highest funded military in the world.
Sigh. You font walk
In to a packed venue, do this, and expect not to be caught. When was the last time a mass shooting resulted in no arrests or the shooter dead?
Did you read the earlier links? Hundreds are stolen annually, very few are recovered.
WTF son.
The data from your own chart is from the United States.
Australia and United States law for storage I imagine is vastly different.
I commented that Australian laws and Australian storage laws are entirely appropriate and acceptable if abided by (and I had prior pointed out the difficulty of obtaining legally).
Why you would comment then that most are stolen and quote an American data compiled chart is beyond me.
You have some irrational fear of firearms it seems to me. Unless you've had one pointed at you or someone you know shot, then whilst you live here in Australia I'm not sure I get it your fear.
Our gun laws and storage laws are great. (except I can't have a .50 but that's another issue)
A safe that is dynabolted to solid concrete foundations is going nowhere. It would take you ages and a lot of noise even with the appropriate gear to get that sucker out of it. Cutting into the safe isn't going to happen either anytime soon with the appropriate gear. (see where this is going regarding theft being near impossible or probably just easier to obtain a gun elsewhere).
The guns bolt must be removed and/or action broken.
US gun laws are based on "if the government stops doing what it's supposed to, we should be allowed to either fill the gap or overthrow them".
As I understand it there's some debate over whether the 2nd Amendment meant citizens to be able to own weapons, or citizens that are part of a militia.
As I understand it the courts have so far decided its the former, which I think is unfortunate for all, and they could certainly still get the spirit of the 2nd Amendment by enforcing the militia requirement.
Anyway, this is yet another tragedy in a country that has a long love affair with the right of its citizens to own weapons, even at the cost of the occasional terrible event like this.
From newsdotcomdotau:
Don't worry guys, the cinema has found a way to prevent future shootings!last edited by parabol at 09:44:07 21/Jul/12
yeh pretty laughable, especially because CNN are reporting that he walked into the cinema, left by a rear door, which he propped open, and then returned that way.
The almost truly terrifying thing is that he was, allegedly, dressed like the Joker. Better than a character in Call of Duty, but not a hell of a lot better.
We have tough restrictions yet we still have more murders per firearm than the US there is no getting around that. Its not the legal owners that are the problem, they never really have been.
Taipan, if gun ownership in Australia was 1 in 100k you would still end up with the same problem. What you have proven though is Australians are better marksmen. Or if guns are used in a murder, Australians are more successful than Americans. I think we can agree that guns are well designed for the purpose of killing.
The real question is whether tight gun control removes the chances of unbalanced people from perpetrating multiple murders with guns. Since gun control started here how many Hoddle St, Kogarah or Port Arthur style multiple murders have occurred in Australia? Since the same date how many have occurred in the USA? I think it is quite easy to prove that gun control does prevent the nut jobs from going on a spree.
It could also be said that since we've closed down the funny farms multiple murders had increased until the advent of tight gun controls. So really the problem lies with the psychos and not the guns nor normal people. We've taken the institutions away which actually protected us from multiple murders. Is there a case for Institutions or improved psychological care? I believe there is.
The easy solution is gun control and we are quite apt at doing the easy thing. It won't solve gun murders but it does stop mass murders by psycho nut jobs with guns.
As I understand it there's some debate over whether the 2nd Amendment meant citizens to be able to own weapons, or citizens that are part of a militia.
Absolutely, and now people can't even agree on what was intended by what was written hundreds of years ago. My understanding it was so that they can form an organised militia... but not be vigilantes etc.
yeh I love facemans usual imaginary scenario where everything is crystal clear and calm at the location, allowing everyone else there to quickly identify and shoot the criminal before anyone innocent is killed
back to reality... can you imagine the carnage if everyone there had weapons - it'd be 10 times worse with guns going off left right and centre, no-one knowing who is an aggressor and who isn't, and people just shooting like shit everywhere hoping they don't die
There's a press conference on ABC 24 live at the moment. The Governor just gave a bit of a boring and fumbling speech (probably because he's been awake for longer than 24 hours), but the police chief is doing an amazing job to outline what they know and is now answering questions.
If the Jews had more guns, they would have sent Hitler packing.
I'd watch that movie, if only for the scene where Anne Frank leaps out from the attic and screams "You wanna play rough? OK. Say hello to my little friend!"
Dark Knight Rises director Christopher Nolan has lamented the "senseless tragedy" of the massacre at a Colorado movie theatre showing his latest Batman film, calling it "unbearably savage".
The data from your own chart is from the United States.
Australia and United States law for storage I imagine is vastly different.
I commented that Australian laws and Australian storage laws are entirely appropriate and acceptable if abided by (and I had prior pointed out the difficulty of obtaining legally). Why you would comment then that most are stolen and quote an American data compiled chart is beyond me.
Christ, you really can't read. The links I provided (several of them) were from Australian police and publications, which put the guns stolen per year in Australia in the hundreds or thousands, which something like ~15% of are recovered.
Really sad that this happens; just such a senseless waste of life and so incredibly selfish on the part of the shooter to randomly decide a bunch of people he has never met or presumably has any beef with should be murdered or have their lives and the lives of their families changed forever.
I can only imagine the friends and families of those shot and killed must be feeling pretty intense emotional turmoil right now; rage, guilt (e.g. why did I let my son/daugter go to the late movie etc, all sorts of "what ifs and if onlys"), sorrow, heartbreak, numbness. It's a terrible thing to lose someone close, but to have to deal with it as a result of some guy's inability to function in the world must be so beyond understanding it's not even funny.
I think the advocates of guns and an armed society are idiots to be brutally honest. Guns are tools that make it quick and easy to kill. Less guns. It's just really pretty simple. Pro-gun is just such a cop out. It's not a solution, it's de-evolution. We should be working towards peace, not war. How's America's "arm everyone" policy working out? Not very well. The easy option is just to arm everyone. The more difficult, costly and ultimately better solution is to implement real change.
I guess on a bigger scale pro gun people are in favour of every country having nuclear weapons, cos you know, then we can fight back right? Idiots.
Christ, you really can't read. The links I provided (several of them) were from Australian police and publications, which put the guns stolen per year in Australia in the hundreds or thousands, which something like ~15% of are recovered.
From your own source. Thefts AFTER gun control dropped significantly (well and truly over half).
However, it did appear that some individual incidents had resulted in
larger numbers of firearms being stolen in a single incident. It may be
that criminals are targeting collections as a more profitable source of
supply of illegal arms. Notwithstanding this observation, it appears that
since 1997 the level of firearm theft has been lowered significantly.
So, your own source basically suggests that anomalies of large collections may potentially be responsible for some of this data. This could also refer to places such as ranges which are permitted to store large number of weapons within vaults.
That's starting to sound like organised and planned crime to me.
Absolutely no opportunistic thief could ever steal a properly stored firearm, absolutely no way (ok unless you keep the key floating around and they find it of course but I would say unlikely). If they're organised or just simply equipped enough to rip out a damn safe from a house or break into one I guarantee you they'd be resourceful enough to source a firearm even if there was a total ban on firearms and nobody was allowed to own.
What's wrong with owning a rifle anyway? $30 for an entire beast that can be worth $2000+ of meat if you were to buy it from the market. That amount of meat can feed you and friends for nearly a years worth of meat plus reduces pests for property owners who allow hunting at certain times.
If you have eaten home shot, skinned and prepared meat you would know it absolutely shits on anything you could possibly buy. It is like the Lamborghini of meat while supermarket meat is akin to the beat up rusted out corolla and tavern/restaurant meat is maybe a commodore at best, there is no comparison. Albeit it comes with risk eating home shot (even oh so tasty and healthy venison), its unlikely.
Inhumane angle? Well woolies meat doesn't just appears on the shelf from the magical meat fairy out the back. Those animals are kept in poor conditions and then slaughtered compared to a beast that has been roaming and living happy then with a good shot will just curl up and peacefully die (due to shock).
That is what guns are good for, your irrational fear that all guns are just death weapons against other humans and anyone who has one must be a homicidal maniac is borderline insane.
Australia has that and it works quite fine. Is it perfect? No, it probably is not but nor would be a total ban as criminals are always going to find a way and there are some who aren't going to store their weapon properly and it may get stolen (I would think this is a minority).
AU does not have the same type of weapons as America is rolling in. Handguns are fewer in AU as well (as evidenced by your own sources).
I suggest you go out there and go to a range. Go actually see what these weapons are capable of. Then go try to freely stand, shoot and hit something at 20-25m out with one. You won't have an easy time even whilst calm.
Australia's legal weapons are unwieldy, slow firing, long reloads and unless its shotgun+pellets unlikely you'll hit anything unless its point blank or you are set up and calm.
A composite bow is legal in QLD, no licence required and as far as I'm aware there is no storage laws (a crossbow is different and requires licence I believe). Those things can fire arrows off at what, 800+ feet per second. They have sights for ease and you could fire off deadly arrows just as quickly as a rifle with just as much accuracy. They have virtually no place for hunting in Australia because its less humane and most places won't allow it. But yet, I don't see you up in arms over bows?
I cbf reading all that, you've gone from claiming there there is no gun theft in australia, to there being less than there used to be.
Again, I haven't complained about Australias gun laws, I was pointing out how stupid the US style of thought is, when several people here praise it (and called us 'stupid' for having such laws).
I cbf reading all that, you've gone from claiming there there is no gun theft in australia, to there being less than there used to be.
No, I've never claimed there was absolutely no theft. I said Australia's laws are perfectly acceptable if they are abided by and that nobody is going to be stealing a properly stored firearm. When I sent nobody I meant no opportunistic thief who happens to break into a home with a [properly] stored firearm and as a sign of the difficulty. It would take equipment and organisation to remove or break into a safe.
We're talking you probably need at a minimum a hammerdrill and a few hours worth of drilling around the crete or drilling out the bolts. Then the thing still weighs more than one man could possibly carry.
Breaking into it you'd probably need a plasma torch or else copious amounts of cutting blades or drilling bits and probably a few of the tools themselves because they'll probably burnout trying to chew through I'm going to guess it'd probably take a few hours or days to get into.
I don't see you lobbying to have all cars speed limited with severe penalties if over ridden or whatever. And yet you're more likely to get killed due to a car than a firearm here in Australia. They have just as much potential to cause just much damage just as quickly as any legally available weapon in Australia.
Here in Australia any nutjob could just go flying down queen st. mall or plow a vehicle into another heading the other way just as easily (if not more easily) as any nutjob could grab/steal/acquire a rifle and kill a few people.
Again, I haven't complained about Australias gun laws
You were complaining about guns in general and that nobody should have one.
I say otherwise and believe in Au we have it right or at least close to it. It may not be perfect but it never will be for anything that can be used to kill.
Impulsivity or theft? If someone can steal it and then crack open the safe they almost deserve the thing! (not literally) but my point is opportunistic theft of a firearm being stored appropriately would be impossible.
Well you live in that fantasy world where all legally acquired guns are stored safely, I'll stay concerned about even legally owned guns while hundreds or thousands of them are being lost into the black market yearly and have historically been the primary source. But again, it was mostly the horrendous US situation with these massacres and murder rate several times that of other first world nations which I was concerned about, when a few are so vocal about it being such a great thing.
As for your example, ultimately, as people have said a thousand times, a car has a different primary use, a gun's first purpose is to kill things with ease, and can be carried around for just that and used in snap decisions of violence.
Well you live in that fantasy world where all legally acquired guns are stored safely, I'll stay concerned about even legally owned guns while hundreds or thousands of them are being lost into the black market yearly and have historically been the primary source.
This is just completely irrational. How many guns have you fired or even seen in your life? Now how many guns have seen outside of a range or on a hunt being used or carried illegally in your lifetime?
How many cars are misused more frequently (speeding/dangerous driving as examples) than guns being stored inappropriately and then being stolen on total random chance.
I'll tell you I have never personally seen a gun being brandished illegally but I've been around them many times. I've also NEVER been broken into. so the statistical chances seem pretty unlikely and even then given that I've been around guns more than you (I would say) makes my risk of being shot even by total accident completely more likely.
The very vast majority of people are very sensible around firearms. Single Rounds loaded, actions broken at all times unless going to shoot; weapon being unloaded, never point even remotely in a persons direction; never shoot up a hill (artillary projection you are responsible for that round etc.), people split on hunts and you have to stay where you are going to go to avoid crossfire and so on. It's very involved its not just 'get on a truck and go shoot'.
As for your example, ultimately, as people have said a thousand times, a car has a different primary use, a gun's first purpose is to kill things with ease, and can be carried around for just that and used in snap decisions of violence.
Insert any other object that can be used in a snap decision that is dangerous and fatal and used frequently: a car.
A gun's purpose may be to kill things but that doesn't mean its purpose has to be killing HUMANS. I don't even believe in harming or killing animals for the sake of it. But I have no issue killing an animal you are going to eat and consume. Because I eat meat and I am not that deluded into how supermarkets get theirs.
You're irrational, I urge you to go fire a few guns and you will realise that those available in Australia are pretty fucking shit for wanting to go homicidal with. Your fear comes from lack of knowledge and experience, I don't mean that to be offensive but it is quite clearly the case, hence I urge you to go get some experience with one even if it's just at a range.
Can you stop with the "look! another unrelated problem!" as if that makes this problem ok.
I'll tell you I have never personally seen a gun being brandished illegally
I have! It was on a farm I half grew up on, several rifles hanging in the living room around kids lawl.
I'll tell you I have never personally seen a gun being brandished illegally but I've been around them many times. I've also NEVER been broken into. so the statistical chances seem pretty unlikely
I don't give a shit about your anecdotal theories of gun theft, I care about the police claiming that huge quantities are stolen each year, and that this is the primary source of illegal guns in Australia, therefore legal guns are what enable the criminal element who you say don't use legal guns. I haven't suggested tighter gun laws in Australia, I was just pointing out how stupid it is to pretend that legal guns aren't the source for illegal guns.
Your fear comes from lack of knowledge and experience,
Your inability to stop making up positions which I apparently hold to attack is much worse, and actually real.
Unless you were born around 1997 then that has no relevance to today.
You're apparently more irrational than I thought. Just continue on with your fears of being shot walking down the street by stolen guns that everyone in Australia is apparently carrying.
etc etc. the list of very bad guns you can own goes on.
THIS is why America and guns are bad, these guns... are bad.. These are the guns that are useful and devastating for homicide.
The guns available in Australia.. I urge you to go to the range and fire a few .308 rounds or something and find out just how unwieldy and slow they are compared to these sorts of weapons.
You could probably kill just as many people and injure just as many chasing after them in the mall with a samurai sword as a Rifle that's legal here.
Man has been hunting animals since the dawn of time, guns are quite useful for this purpose. And if you read what I said earlier the supermarket argument is already moot. The theft thing is moot and invalidated by your own source.
I'm against any of those sort of guns listed above being legal (doesn't mean I don't think some of them are cool from a pure engineering and physics capability) , so you can throw your 'gun people' immaturity out the window.
ot and killed must be feeling pretty intense emotional turmoil right now; rage, guilt (e.g. why did I let my son/daugter go to the late movie etc,
i feel bad for the kids that died, seen a 6yr old on the news... but i mean wtf is someone under 10... letalone under 15 up at midnight seeing a batman movie :/
A pistol for home/work protection is fair enough but what perplexes me is that military grade rifles and ammo aren't. Unless you are a hardcore gun nut (in which case you shouldn't be allowed access to guns anyway) there is no way you can logically argue that a Barretta M82A1 should be legal to buy. The fuck is that country thinking? Just saying "it's our right" isn't good enough and is the last stand of someone who doesn't know themselves.
We watched that michael moore doco 'bowling for columbine' in school where he showed a bank giving a free rifle IIRC if you opened an account with them. Pretty sure they dont just hand over the weapon - you need to pass a security check and all that shit first.
no way you can logically argue that a Barretta M82A1 should be legal to buy.
Zombie Apocalypse preparation? That thread a while back with pick your weapon+sidearm+vehicle+partner etc a whole pile of you though you'd be pro with the Barretta.
I can't tell if the comments on that video are some sort of poe's law case..
God bless Mark Muller! If I were in the market for a new truck, I'd definitely buy from him, AK-47 promo or not, just for having learned his stance in this "interview". For those who, like the "bubble-headed bleached-blonde", question the juxtaposition of God and guns, here's a direct quote from his own son: “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36) Heck yeah Jesus would own a gun! This world is DANGEROUS
Since gun control started here how many Hoddle St, Kogarah or Port Arthur style multiple murders have occurred in Australia?
Based on what I've seen of Australian gun controls and what little I know of statistics, you've gone way out on a limb to say there's any causal link there.
If you sleep sounder at night thinking Australia can't suffer mass killings because of our gun controls, I'm fine with that. No one should have to live in fear and even in the US your chance of being killed in a mass killing can't be very high compared to other things.
The mass killing of humans by other humans without general social acceptance has been going on for a very, very, very, long time (as opposed to those killings that happen with our acceptance, which have also been going on for an equal time).
These particular kinds of attacks seem to be instigated by people who, for whatever reason, fail to end up part of the general social fabric to which we all belong. To my mind, we are creating more and more people like this all the time.
Note that I am in favour of gun controls, as I am in favour of guns. There are many valid reasons to have a gun, the ability to fling a projectile at a target at speed to damage it has been part of human culture for some time for good reason. There are also many good reasons that devices that do this shouldn't be unrestricted thanks particularly to the massive technological advances we've made along that path.
However, when something like this happens (one person decides to kill many random strangers), I believe that based on all the ways it can happen the question shouldn't be "How?"
no way you can logically argue that a Barretta M82A1 should be legal to buy.
Zombie Apocalypse preparation? That thread a while back with pick your weapon+sidearm+vehicle+partner etc a whole pile of you though you'd be pro with the Barretta
Beretta = handguns
Barrett = .50 cal sniper rifles
And this from another even more retarded "article" by this mental giant:
I think I speak for a great many concealed carry permit holders when I say that if I had been in that theater, I would have been emptying magazines in the direction of the threat (i.e. putting sights on target and repeatedly pulling the trigger). Like many concealed carry weapon holders, I would have turned that scene into what we sometimes jokingly call a "two-way range." Like all other concealed carry holders, I am reluctant to ever draw a weapon on anyone, but I'm absolutely willing to do so in order to try to stop a massacre from taking place. What I can't understand is how apparently NOBODY in the entire theater had the training or the presence of mind to fight back. This is truly astonishing at every level. In America today, do people just lay down to die when there's a gunman in the room? I'm not asking this to be insulting in any way, I'm simply bewildered by the lack of action. This is an honest question: WHY did no one act? Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036537_James_Holmes_Batman_shooting.html#ixzz21RRrOAX6
Besides the fact that it's incredibly insensitive to friends and family (even though he repeats that it isn't...well it is, you're basically saying your opinion is that all those people died because they were cowards), it is a thinly disguised attempt to promote his own badassery.
Just a colossal dickwad.
Mephz i suggest you do a little reading about bows mate. The fastest compound bows in the world hardly break 300 feet per second and there is really only talk of crossbows capable of getting 400 fps in theory. Find me someone capable of drawing a bow that could get 800 fps and well called the casting agent for the next incredible hulk movie.
That being said my mid range bow at 65lbs draw weight tops out at about 250 ish fps. It doesnt sound like much but in accurate firing its devistating to the target particularly with the mechanical broadheads i use. I can easily hit a deer size target (human sized) at 50 yards in the lungs/heart area, which btw is the correct place to aim as it will garentee a quick kill.
As for the laws surrounding crowsbows they are to me somewhat retarded since i can easily get more.shots off witu my compound bow than i ever could with a crossbow. The only reason crossbows are considered different is because you can get around all day long with it.loaded and ready to fire.
Looks like someone has started the ball rolling with a lawsuit against the cinema, Warner Bros and the killers doctors.
Torrence Brown, Jr. was in Century 16 Theater when Holmes let loose. One of Brown's best friends, A.J. Boik, was shot in the chest and died. Brown, who was not physically injured, claims to now suffer from extreme trauma. Brown has hired attorney Donald Karpel to rep him. Karpel tells TMZ ... he is targeting 3 defendants.
1. The theater. Karpel claims it was negligent for the theater to have an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. It's widely believed Holmes entered the theater with a ticket, propped the emergency door open from inside, went to his car and returned with guns.
2. Holmes' doctors. Karpel says it appears Holmes was on several medications -- prescribed by one or more doctors -- at the time of the shooting and he believes the docs did not properly monitor Holmes.
3. Warner Bros. Karpel says "Dark Knight Rises" was particularly violent and Holmes mimicked some of the action. The attorney says theater goers were helpless because they thought the shooter was part of the movie. Karpel tells TMZ, "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."
I actually thought it went out of its way to not be violent, like the camera didn't really show people being killed most of the time, and it wasn't graphic at all, no blood or anything. I think it was even rated PG.
What a fuckhead, for starters the film was showing it's PREMIERE MIDNIGHT SCREENING at the time, meaning holmes would not have actually seen the film to be able to mimic any sort of violence in the film, of which there was fuckall.
I can understand suing the theatre when an emergency door should of started blaring an alarm, but suing Warner Bros. for the movie you went to see? Really? Doesn't that just sound immature and grasping at straws.
According to IMDB, "Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some sensuality and language" by the MPAA. M in Australia but PG in the US and a bunch of other places
US movies really really try to get that PG rating if they can because it makes a big difference at the box office
Makes sense. I always assumed that when a movie was MA it would miss out on a large number of potentials viewers who would have seen it if it was M, and the same deal for R.
Yep, further on trog's point: Some movies have no chance of PG-13 but commercial flicks will still attempt to fit into the R rating and steer sharply away from a NC-17 rating as the latter is often described as a box-office death sentence.
Snippets of the calls include:
• "Hundreds of people just running around"
• "Somebody's spraying gas in there too"
• "We've got rifles, gas masks and... an open door near the rear of the theater."
• "Behind the theater... a suspect in a gas mask"
earlier, rev posted that one of the people present at the scene has hired a lawyer who is suing warner, among other targets. I googled 'donald karpel warner bros' for more info
later, you post about warner, dissing them for stating that bale wasn't representing them when he visited the victims
I'm not sure there is anything to get. Why are you bringing up a story about something else? The guy suing isn't even in hospital. That was from another conversation at another time.
Bale has a short temper, that's what I was referring to...
You better quickly cover this up by hurling more random abuse I think.
yeh cos saying "you're not the sharpest tool in the shed sometimes" constitutes hurling abuse
it doesn't matter who's in hospital and who isn't, or what aspect of bale's temperament you may have been referring to. the fact is, it's understandable that they might not want anything negative happening which could be construed as being their responsibility at the moment - so calling them a 'fucking chicken shit company' at this stage of events is... so MoneySupermarket of you
Another guy causes a stir in America by "dressing like the Joker" and going to a movie theatre. He was unaware of this, apparently, which is fair considering he looks nothing like the damn Joker.
WWW
