Gun Control Poll

[psyche101]

http://m.smh.com.au/...0730-2qxev.html

Gun violence down in Detroit people armed.

Gun violence up in Sydney people in armed..

Seriously, you should speak to Diechecker before you quote statistics, you're doing it wrong. Anyone can make a statistic say whatever they want, 77% of all people know that.

Gun Violence is not up in Sydney, and people are not arming themselves, that article specifically refers to the Biker/Police war that is still ensuing.

Did you read this part?

A volatile mix of bikie gangs, drugs, ethnic rivalries and a 265 per cent rise in the number of handgun thefts threatens to turn Sydney into the East LA on the western side of the Pacific.

Obviously not. We never turned into the Pacific LA as the alarmist reporter's hyperbole claimed. The Police have now disbanded most Patch Biker gangs and have confiscated truckloads of weapons and drugs that have been destroyed. These weapons were not used in home invasions either, they were rival Biker Gangs against Rival Biker gangs and drug dealers. I take it you realise that story is a year old now? "The Year Of Violence" quoted in the headline has now passed. You also seemed to have missed this part as well,

Late on Monday when many people were watching Please Marry My Boy, Bassil Hijazi, 18, was executed in a public car park in Bexley. Two weeks before, he had been shot in the neck when assailants had rained bullets on his car. He had links with the Comanchero bikie gang.

Meanwhile, minutes before on Monday night, Vasko Boskovski, 35, was shot to death in nearby Earlwood. The businessman was also known to police.

http://m.townhall.co...banned-n1464528

And since you insisted gun violence is up in england too.

You just have no idea what you are doing do you.

LINK to statistics from this decade

I take it you missed these comments from your link as well??

let me correct my earlier comment to match your correction. i used the UK's population instead of england and wales only, so it should be 56,000,000. gun crime didn't rise consistently over the decade. it was slightly higher in 2002 than in 2009. the correct rate for the most recent year is 17.6 per 100,000 people, which is still considerably less than the US rate of 32.

it's good somebody crossed out 'new', since the UK data is about 10 years old, but we can still make some comparisons. your data says firearms were used in almost 10,000 crimes during the 12 months ending april 2002. the UK had about 60,000,000 people then, so the rate is around 17 per 100,000. the US rate at the time (from FBI statistics) was almost 40 per 100,000 and declined to about 32 in 2010, so it's still almost double what it was in the UK a decade ago.

So why does the article leave out the fact that worldwide the US comes in at 10th deadliest in concerns to firearms and the UK is way down in the 60's? And who banned weapons?

Now here is a fact for you to deal with, Australia's last public Gun Massacre was in 1996. Australia put a ban on guns in 1996. Australia has not had a single public shooting since 1996.

[danielost]

It doesn't matter why the violence is up just that it is. That isn't link I saw under gun violence in australia Just tphe one I linked to same with england.

But, I fully expected you to come up with some reason to not agree with that story.

Edited July 18, 2014 by danielost

[psyche101]

It doesn't matter why the violence is up just that it is. That isn't link I saw under gun violence in australia Just tphe one I linked to same with england.

Is that leet? Can you please translate?

But, I fully expected you to come up with some reason to not agree with that story.

You mean like the statistics in the comment section that shows the story is a load of Horse Hockey, and the link I provided to the current study?

Edited July 18, 2014 by psyche101

[danielost]

The Sydney sentence was supposed to read unarmed people. My tablet changes words when ever it wants to when I am typing.

[Yamato]

[danielost]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/21/Aussie-Politician-Complains-About-U-S-Gun-Laws-But-Gun-Crime-In-Sydney-Is-Out-Of-Control

[aztek]

another gun control idiocy. and of course from democraps, who else.

Gun Control: Dem Bill Would Outlaw Firearm Brands On Kid’s Clothing And Colorful Guns.

Freshman Democrat Robin Kelly, of Illinois, argues in the Children’s Firearm Marketing Safety Act that marketing guns to children is “contributing to the shooting deaths of children across the country.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1357391/gun-control-dem-bill-would-outlaw-firearm-brands-on-kids-clothing-and-colorful-guns/#z21bAtdcTRlvAS5o.99

may be it is movies, video games, and rap video that contribute

Edited July 18, 2014 by aztek

[danielost]

Ji think we have it back wards. We have been trying to limit or do away with games that have toy guns involved. Their sending kids home for pointing and saying bang. When I was a kid we played cowbows and Indians or cops and robbers or army games. These games are discouraged or out flawed at school or in a park. Boys cannot be boys they must try to be the same as girls. There is no outlet for presser.

[Maureen_jacobs]

Hmmmmmm.... What do you think?

[acidhead]

Shot a round of shells from an AR-15 today.... not my gun.... its a friends gun. And yes... i live in Canada. It was awesome. Great weapon. Just might purchase one for myself.

[+DieChecker]

http://www.breitbart...-Out-Of-Control

The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will.

[Michelle]

Shot a round of shells from an AR-15 today.... not my gun.... its a friends gun. And yes... i live in Canada. It was awesome. Great weapon. Just might purchase one for myself.

They are fun to shoot. I've never had a desire for one, but to each his own.

I guess nobody told you, or your friend, people don't have guns in Canada.

[Michelle]

http://www.breitbart...-Out-Of-Control

It can't be!!!

[Uncle Sam]

It can't be!!!

Wow... who didn't see this coming!? I been constantly stating this is what happens when you disarm the citizens; leads to more crimes, more murders, and more mass shootings. How could they be so wrong? Like the article says, "Criminals don't pay attention to gun bans. They never have and never will!"

Looks like some media is finally getting the point I been trying to state throughout all these years.

[Yamato]

It's refreshing to know from our British and Australian critics that our gun-free zones make mass shootings and public massacres impossible.

[+DieChecker]

http://www.breitbart...-Out-Of-Control

In the past 12 months, more than 9000 guns have been taken off NSW streets and 3352 people have been charged as part of ongoing investigations by Strike Force Raptor and Operations Apollo and Spartan.

http://www.ballinaadvocate.com.au/news/new-plan-unveil-tackle-out-of-control-gun-violence/1992835/

I wonder how they are finding these guns. That is like 30 guns a day. Are they doing random street search of people, or something? Checking only "suspicious" characters? Has there been any murders?

[+DieChecker]

There has been a really good turn out on this poll. Thanks to all how have voted.

We currently have 2 votes to Ban all guns.

- 11 for an Australia like system.

- 7 for Stronger regulations.

- 17 for keep things the same.

And....

- 28 for Removing some existing laws.

I find the last one to be Amazing.

[Yamato]

They are fun to shoot. I've never had a desire for one, but to each his own.

I guess nobody told you, or your friend, people don't have guns in Canada.

I think that's why you want an AR because they're so fun to shoot! As soon as I held one for the first time it just feels right. It was love at first touch for me and I see acidhead had a similar experience. It's a gun that puts up solid numbers in every category I could want. Like you acidhead, I don't own one either but it would be a far superior weapon for me to have for home defense than my shotgun.

[questionmark]

I think that's why you want an AR because they're so fun to shoot! As soon as I held one for the first time it just feels right. It was love at first touch for me and I see acidhead had a similar experience. It's a gun that puts up solid numbers in every category I could want. Like you acidhead, I don't own one either but it would be a far superior weapon for me to have for home defense than my shotgun.

I tend to doubt that.

[dr no]

It's refreshing to know from our British and Australian critics that our gun-free zones make mass shootings and public massacres impossible.

We've had 3 in the last 100 years,would you care to mention how many the USA have had in the last 5 years?

[F3SS]

But I cannot understand "The Government", I can understand Home Invasion, but feel there is more argument against than there is for. What I would like to dig up is how many home invasions happen with weapons that result in use of weapons against accidental gun deaths and public shootings and see if the fear is justified. I honestly doubt that it is.

Estimates are in the area of 2 million times a year that guns are used in thwarting or ending a home invasion.

One million shotguns won't be any deterrent against one Nuke. The year is 2014. Not 1800.

You've been using drones and now nukes as your debate killing point. Ours is a volunteer military made up of the country's brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, cousins, children and friends. These WMDs are controlled by them. You say that even if we can hold a ground fight, as if our military would engage a ground war against its brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, cousins, children and friends, a drone or a nuke will end the fight. Well, who that is trained in the operation and execution of these weapons is going to fire upon its brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, cousins, children and friends? It's not like the evil politicians who want the fight know how use them.

Then you have to ask to what advantage does droning towns and nuking cities of millions bring? This hypothetical fight is supposed to be about suppression and power. All droning and nuking is going to do is cause massive uncontrollable civil disruption and rebellion first of all. Second, it's not going to win any favors on the world stage because it's for one genocidal and atrocious and for two a nuclear wasteland would now be producing nothing to share or trade. There's no advantage to it for those who seek power which is what this scenario is all about.

[Stellar]

You've been using drones and now nukes as your debate killing point. Ours is a volunteer military made up of the country's brothers, fathers, sisters, mothers, cousins, children and friends. These WMDs are controlled by them.

So are guns, though... So if you argue that the military won't turn against the people, how can you argue that you need guns to protect you from a tyrannical government?

[Thorvir]

I've been gone for a few days, sorry I'm late to this, but the first thing I noticed was that psyche took a great big dump on in this thread:

I wont argue that, everyone has an opinion but I still feel sorry for you if you think that is macho.

You're confused again, and grasping at straws.

You calling me tough when saying one who does not have a gun is defenseless.

Yes, they are defenseless, when an armed intruder enters the home.

No, you did not say I was weak, Aztek did, and look at the responses - you're 12, your angry - how about just answering the damn question? I am not 12, I am not angry I am a grumpy old man, deal with it. What have I made up on the spot?

All of your posts supporting your anti-gun position. You have nothing to back up your claims. Thus, you make up insults and random claims on the spot.

How is it so hard to comprehend that making guns hard to get makes them expensive as well, so these people won't have them.

Macho codswallop = Pacifist nonsense.

Don't be stupid, criminals will still get them. All you propose doing is disarming the law-abiding citizens.

Macho codswallop = Pacifist nonsense. Again, you are confused. Easily, it seems. Maybe you don't know what "pacifist" actually means?

I do not see it as about being about defence - the government, I mean really, that is the biggest load of crap and home invasion is NOT an excuse, what other reasons do you have for owning a gun?

Reasons for me owning a gun:

1) Self Defense, and the defense of my loved ones

2) Defense of my rights as a citizen.

3) Defense of my rights as a human being

4) As a hobby, for targeting shooting and instructional purposes

5) I am a collector

6) Because, thankfully, it is allowed in the more civilized parts of the word, and I enjoy partaking in it.

What's your excuses for you not owning a gun? What's your excuses that I shouldn't own a gun?

[Who said nobody in the US has guns? I did not say nobody in Australia has guns...

,

Yes you did, I clearly quoted where you made the claim. Don't lie, please.

I said we have banned guns. Farmers may still own them, as may police and military, and illegal guns are not used in home invasions, they are used by high level criminals against each other for the largest part.

Probably should not have claimed that no Australians own guns, then try to backtrack. Makes you look very foolish.

There will always be some troglodyte hiding a gun under his bed thinking he is getting away with something as well. But my kids have never seen an actual gun.

Why is that person a troglodyte?

1) How many people die from accidental gun deaths every year? 2) How many public shootings have claimed how many lives? 3) Have you ever used a gun against a home intruder yourself? 4)How many people actually do?

Sigh.

1) Not many, but any number is too much. That's why one has to intelligently practice gun safety. 2) Not many, but any amount is too many. 3) Thankfully, not yet. But I am prepared in case it happens. Nothing wrong with that. Unless you do think that it's wrong to defend myself if an intruder comes. 4) Many.

Yes, killing by any standard should be considered as such. Gun culture is archaic and barbaric, deal with it.

Actually, you're the one having the problem dealing with it. A civilized society is one that, among other things, cares enough about it's citizens that they are allowed to defend themselves by any means necessary. I honestly think you have no idea what the words "archaic" and "barbaric" actually mean now that you've erroneously posted that little idiotic statement twice (at least) now.

You think Australians are considered prey, yet who are the ones losing countrymen to public shootings?

I think anyone that decides not to defend themselves by any means necessary should be considered prey. Just like sheep.

No, I do not feel vigilante Justice is appropriate nor necessary.

Well, thankfully defending myself with deadly force isn't considered vigilante justice at all. Not that I or anyone else sensible about this cares what you feel.

You probably should not have quoted me then.

Can't help, it, your statements here are way too easily countered.

I do not have Internet rage, the forum does,

Yes, you do.

I keep saying that "The Government" is not an excuse to own a gun, and as soon as anyone saw the slightest bit of reasoning that guns might actually be a bad thing I got pounced on how necessary they are, but the excuses just do not wash. 63 million in the UK and 22 and a half million Australians get by just fine without weapons for home invasion, and neither of us has had to worry about the Government bearing down on us. And THAT is what started the heated posting. Daniel told me that he defends the right for others to fight the government "in case they attack" all the meanwhile people are dying from accidents and massacres, all for what - the peace of mind that IF the Government attacks you will be prepared? Come ON. Who in their right mind would swallow that nonsense? Well, that is what I thought anyway, it seems many are keen to swallow that nonsense, and being as illogical, childish and stupid as the reasons to own a gun are, somehow, some people fight for them. If that illogical nonsense isn't tied to a 12 Billion dollar a year industry in some way, I would be rather surprised.

Nobody NEEDS a gun, just be honest, you have a culture in place, you WANT them, and will find any excuse to keep them. Mexico is the perfect excuse because as soon as the guns are gone, they will be replaced - decent logical reasoning - see the difference? I can't argue the Mexican angle because it makes sense, home invasion and "the Government" does not. It strikes me that any gun ban on the states would have to begin outside of the states. There would be a way, but the Gun Manufacturers would make sure it never sees the light of day, and lets face it, with the culture so entrenched in place nobody in the US wants guns gone really do they?

That is fine in your parts of the world. Where you rely completely on the government and law enforcement for your personal protection. Just like sheep enclosed in a fence. Be happy and blissful with that, we do things better here.

I need a gun. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's just your opinion and has nothing to do with reality. I want one because I am allowed to own one. I want one as a hobby. I want one for self-defense. I want one to show the younger people around here gun safety. There's nothing wrong with any of those statements. It's honestly not hard to grasp, unless you intentionally stick your hole in a ground just to avoid the real world.

I'm still wondering how you think "home invasion" and the Government are not good reasons. You'd rather someone not defend their home and lives with deadly force. You'd rather have a government that can, on a whim, decided to impose whatever rules it wants to on it's citizens and those same citizens have no power whatsoever to prevent it.

And you call me barbaric. The irony there is staggering.

I'm not trying to convince you that you need a gun; clearly, you're one person that shouldn't own a gun. And you seem happy about your situation, and happy to let someone else do your defending for you. I'm fine with that. Just don't think your way of live applies to us. It's not any of your concern. You are free to post, but just keep in mind that your opinion is completely unimportant. Mine too, but again, I really do not care what you think.

[Thorvir]

psyche, I'm done with this. Your programmed responses are redundant now. Your claims are tiring. You'll no doubt rush back in and post your same crap again, and I'll most likely respond and put things right again. But, actually, no I won't. Have fun being sheep. But I seriously, HONESTLY, hope you never have to resort to any sort of violence to defend yourself or your loved ones, especially in the disarmed environment you live in. But if you do, I hope that you are successful and you and yours don't suffer for it. I hope I never have to as well, but at least I know that I'm prepared, and in my opinion, well-prepared for it. My friends and loved ones can know that I care about their lives, and are comforted to know that I will be able to protect them.

[F3SS]

So are guns, though... So if you argue that the military won't turn against the people, how can you argue that you need guns to protect you from a tyrannical government?

The very presence of civilian arms is enough to deter and if it isn't then we stand a damn good chance of getting them to see things our way but the idea of a nation nuking it's citizens is asinine.