Australia whats up with this?

I don't look at individual points in isolation - thats the entire point of almost every post I have written.

Now I know you don't read.

 

It is no different because the intention to cause destruction and death is the same. The only difference is the item used (e.g. gasoline/fire vs. a gun). The murdered victims of an arsonist's fire are no less murdered or dead than the murdered victims of a gunman's mass shooting.

 

This argument (weak as it is) might make sense if you were claiming that fire replaced guns as the weapon for mass murder - otherwise it is like trying to claim that regulations for air bags in cars will reduce motor bike accidents

 

Meanwhile back on topic.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

Of course there is no correlation. DOH!

So I ask...What's up with that Australia?

 

My argument was in response to the argument that Australia's Draconian gun control laws in 1996 eliminated mass killings. I proved your contention to be false by giving multiple examples of mass killings that occurred after 1996 that involved arson. Homicide is homicide. Fire, knives, guns, baseball bats, etc are merely tools used by those people committing acts of homicide. My argument is not that arson-related-murder has replaced firearm-related-murder. My argument is it doesn't matter: Murderers are still committing murder at the same rates as they were before 1996. Murderers do not fixate on the tool used to commit murder. Rather, they only care about committing their crime by any means necessary. Thus, I could care less about the tool that is used to commit murder: I care about actually successfully lowering OVERALL homicide rates.

Face it: You have no argument left. Unless you somehow believe that those murdered by an arsonist are less dead than those murdered by a gunman, you should appropriately acknowledge that you are wrong.

No. You are comparing apples and oranges. A better analogy is trying to claim that banning hard liquor (while not banning beer or wine) will result in less drunk related accidents. Logically, since alcoholics could still easily get their hands on wine and beer, the amount of drunk-related accidents likely would not change after a hard-liquor ban. This parallels Australia's lack of change in homicide rates after the Draconian gun control laws. Logically, since those who wish to commit homicide can still get their hands on other tools to commit homicide (and especially since those people still have the mindset to commit homicide), the rates will not decrease.

 

Sorry but you have proven nothing except that there are no straw men too large to display

The gun ban appears to have impacted mass shootings but nothing short of wiping out humanity will stop mass killings as such

Did liberal gun laws lead to the Jonestown massacre? Of course not

 

What strawman am I attacking? You stated that Australia's gun control laws were effective. I proved that they weren't effective by stating the fact that there has been no statistically significant decrease in homicides since the laws were implemented and by stating the fact that Australia has faced multiple mass killings since 1996.

Why are you so myopic that you only look for "shootings" while ignoring mass killings in its entirety? The act of shooting is only a means to commit mass murder. The fact remains that killers intent on causing mass murder are still committing mass murder by other means. Why is it that you anti-gun folk are the ones who are obsessed with guns to the point where you cannot even see logic anymore?

Additionally, New Zealand has not had any "mass shootings" after 1996 and, unlike Australia, they did not enacted a similar gun control act in 1996. Try using you specious reasoning to explain that.

You are going off the deep end here. Let me break it down for you in simple terms. For Australia's 1996 gun control law to have been successful, we would have seen a statistically significant decrease in the number of homicides. After over a decade of collecting stats, this has not been the case. Hence, the law is ineffective.

Why in the world are you bringing up the Jonestown massacre? It has nothing to do with this discussion in the slightest.

LOL! It's hilarious that you don't see the obvious irony here that YOU are the one who is make an argument against science (and you are doing a marvelous job at failing)

 

If we're discussing killing/murder no problem, but the discussion seems to be about crime, crime rates and firearms ownership.

 

That's because the legislation regarding firearms control and the legislation dealing more broadly with criminal matters have different objectives. I've been arguing that in these forums for some time but seems to have been ignored.

Firearms control laws are about minimising harm from the use of lawfully-owned firearms.
Criminal law is about deterring crime of all types.
Not hard to work out.

 

The discussion that I was initially involved in was about the efficacy of the Australia's 1996 gun control law. Since there has been no statistically significant change in Australia's homicide rates AND since mass murders are still occurring, the only logical conclusion that can possibly be made is that the 1996 gun control law was ineffective.

Not really, but if you want to talk about firearms ownership then how do you reconcile the fact that Australia's homicide rate is unchanged after a gun confiscation that, by definition, lowered the availability of firearms?

 

Neither type of law effectively stops any criminal with a bad intention from accomplishing their goal so the no correlation statement is still accurate

 

I'm not necessarily arguing with you that gun control = less gun deaths, that's the scientific question.

I'm arguing that minimizing deaths shouldn't be our end. If we do take that as our end, then yeah, you're probably right. Just as the bloodshed following a burning of a Qur'an is irrelevant because there's nothing wrong in burning a Qur'an, even if it does lead to death, there's nothing wrong in peacefully owning firearms for any non-coercive use.

If you have evidence that I have, or that I intend to harm others, then by all means take my guns and throw me in prison. Until that point you're just punishing me collectively for the transgressions of others.

[hr][/hr]

So your picture is not applicable to me.

 

Well some can actually drink while driving and not have an accident, some can text while driving and not have an accident - some people can even drink text and drive at the same time and not have an accident. Should we rescind all laws relating to this because of that?

 

Such matters should be left up to the owners of roads. Unfortunately, the state steals my property to fund roads. I think RBTs should not exist (certainly not without cause), and drink driving laws should be made as lenient as possible, until we can transition to a private system. Same with concealed carry in public. It's absolutely inexcusable that law-abiding people cannot go through a a half-yearly police check, a half-yearly self defense and firearms course, be licensed, and carry concealed a concealed handgun.

Worse than that, I cannot even carry on my own property. I am required to keep my firearm in a separate 300lb safe from the ammunition all all times, making self defense entirely impractical. In the event that it's not impractical, you're almost guaranteed to see a manslaughter charge.

[hr][/hr]

I am far, far more concerned about the government taking away my liberties than criminals. I can defend myself adequately from criminals, I can do no such thing with governments.

If I could eliminate one threat entirely from my life; government or crime, I'd pick government in a heartbeat. Accordingly, I'm training as best I can with a handgun in shooting ranges while I'm here, then moving overseas to someplace less abhorrent to personal freedom and self defense, for various reasons, of which this is one. I have no illusions, I know that neither the coalition nor labor will ever make firearm legislation less totalitarian.

[hr][/hr]

I'm a fairly radical lad, but gun freedom doesn't have to be. There are reasonable ways of allowing self defense.

First of all, allow women to carry pepper spray to defend against rape. We have among the highest rates of rape in the Western world. Only Sweden and the United Kingdom beat us. Not allowing women a simple, obviously defensive non-lethal weapon is absolutely inexcusable.

Secondly, allow self defense with firearms on properties, stored in a locked safe with both a biometric and keycode entry. That reasonably eliminates any possibility of children obtaining the weapons, but allows for self defense.

Thirdly, allow concealed carry permits along very strictly defined terms. Ensure that no CCW holders have a felony criminal history, require half yearly background checks, mental health examinations, self defense/safety courses, and that they shoot at a firing range a minimum of twice a month. Such conditions would make them significantly safer operators of firearms than the vast majority of police. Only an infinitesimal amount of US CCW holders experience anything go wrong (theft, suicide, use in crime, etc) - these terms would eliminate practically all of the remainder.

 

You have never worked in an ICU have you??

 

[video=youtube;Qh2sWSVRrmo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo[/video]

 

Have you ever served your country in combat? if NOT, you only have part of the story. In this country, you fight to protect your Rights, not surrender them to some ICU nurse who has decided that we don't need our Rights, because she doesn't need them as a third party interloper.
You have constantly poo-pooed away our Rights by decrying them as uneccessary. The first Right you would have us surrender is the 2nd A, followed by the 4th A and 5th A. That ain't gonna happen in your lifetime, Miss ICU nurse. Got anymore converts?

 

If you are really compairing legal gun ownership to driving drunk or driving while texting, then you are making a nonsensical analogy. The act of driving drunk and/or texting while driving is inherently reckless and has absolutely no benefit. The act of legal gun ownership is not reckless at all and has plenty of benefit.

 

there are some members here that would destroy our BoR just to make themselves feel giddy, if they could. But since they cannot, they attack their favorite parts, destroying America in part and parcel. They lie and steal the truth, they misrepresent their statistics to convince us law abiding people that we are in fact criminals as compared to their weak-assed society. They prefer to be led around by the nose and demand the rest of the world also be led around by the nose, decrying, "Tis better to be a slave to government than to be independent and self-sufficient"
They are easy to spot since they've never had Rights to begin with, they try to sell us their bill of goods and them insult us when we don't buy their garbage lies.
They will applaud and jump around when police and military start lining us up and shooting us. They will write songs of joy and redemption for killing so many people that it would make Hitler look good.
They are fascists and pigs.

 

The efficacy of the revised firearms control legislation can be discussed, yes. But to measure it we have to agree on the purpose of the revised legislation. The first raft of legislation, on long weapons, was motivated by the Port Arthur incident. This was where one person was able to murder many people using certain types of firearms which were legally available to him in Tasmania. The legislation was introduced to reduce the number of those firearms (primarily semi-autos) throughout Australia by tightening up firearms control legislation in various states and territories. It was theorised that a semi-auto will enable more people to be killed in a shorter period of time than a manual action firearm with a smaller magazine capacity than was previously allowed. The question is, did the legislation achieve its objective in reducing the likelihood of mass murders with semi-auto firearms? It's not about mass murder per se.

As you would be aware, homicide is effectively achieved by the use of instruments and tactics other than firearms. It would be more useful in this discussion in this thread to keep the focus on homicide by firearm. And I go back to my previous point about the purpose of the legislated changes.

 

Firstly, how do you know that either type of law is ineffective? You're making a bald statement without any evidence to support it.

As for the correlation argument - what is the point of it?

 

How about comparing legal gun ownership with legal motor vehicle ownership. Then how about looking at misuse of both. Do you think that there should be legislation prohibiting the misuse of (a) firearms and (b) motor vehicles?

 

I bet ICU nurses get to see victims of criminal assault as well....so do coroners. Those don't count?

 

No evidence???? Why every law passed today is ineffective at stopping criminal from doing criminal activity. Prisons bulging at the seams are all the evidence needed. Laws primarily are obeyed by citizens who never had evil intentions in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with passing laws that punish criminal activity, I do have issues with laws that restrict my freedoms or rights because some bad guy doesn't give a hoot about the consequences of breaking laws.

That according to Australia's government statistics, there is no correlation to more restrictive gun laws and reductions in crime. Criminals just don't see the point in following them.

 

The government cannot legislate our BoR because they are Individual Rights. You are attempting to install a different kind of government here that would in fact start by destroying our Rights and replacing them with government regulations. That might work real fine where your population is 1/10 of ours. Small countries usually have small privilege and is filled with small minds. Hey, it's not your fault, that is the atmosphere that you were raised in..as in NO RIGHTS. Let's see...you cannot have birthday parties at school because of the spread of germs. REALITY: Kids pass germs back and forth because they are kids. Or are you pushing for legislation that would require that kids wear surgical gloves and masks, too? well, make germs criminals and arrest all of them!

what? Make it illegal to be a criminal? You cannot legislate the nature of Man. Another Lib Lie