"Howard deserved to be shot" says LDP leader

[Long Live HFC]

Right so gun laws have no effect on gun ownership?

who knows, maybe you can provide some data on that yourself. the laws are irrelevant to what the graphs are showing, which is rates of ownership versus deaths. it's not rocket science.

"Go find the sources yourself". Ie you don't know where you lefty blog site got the stats from.

of course i do. one of the graphs even has the source written on it, lol. i just don't see the point in explaining the obvious to dishonest, intellectually-bankrupt fools.

What you think is bleeding obvious is actually not. You will struggle to show correlation let alone causation.

uh huh. the correlation between guns in a society and their misuse are very well established. i don't care to have this argument again with another pro gun nutter.

 

[medusala]

of course i do. one of the graphs even has the source written on it, lol..

Mother Jones. Yep. Great source. Yet no source for underlying data, hence strong suspicion of nonsense.

..

the correlation between guns in a society and their misuse are very well established. i don't care to have this argument again with another pro gun nutter..

Except that it isn't. See UK gun crime going up after stiffened laws and less people being able to own them. See WAPO article re non-existent correlation in the US.

"Everybody knows". Yes, a compelling argument you have. I'll stick with the statistical evidence thanks.

 

[medusala]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...en-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

A Harvard Study titled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?" looks at figures for "intentional deaths" throughout continental Europe and juxtaposes them with the U.S. to show that more gun control does not necessarily lead to lower death rates or violent crime.
Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that "the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths" is wrong.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Mother Jones. Yep. Great source. Yet no source for underlying data, hence strong suspicion of nonsense.

if you knew anything about this topic you should already be across the multiple institutions that have provided the data and analysis, lol.

popular science

http://www.popsci.com.au/science/sc...s-are-associated-with-fewer-gun-deaths,379172

american journal of medicine:

Their findings, published Wednesday in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine, debunk the historic belief among many people in the United States that guns make a country safer, they say. On the contrary, the US, with the most guns per head in the world, has the highest rate of deaths from firearms, while Japan, which has the lowest rate of gun ownership, has the least.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study

just simple wiki stats anyone can do:

http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html

"Everybody knows". Yes, a compelling argument you have. I'll stick with the statistical evidence thanks.

nope. you'll grasp at any straw that you feel supports your ridiculous notions (your posts in the conspiratard forum are especially hilarious). people like you are immune to reality.

and i actually LOVE guns too. wouldn't take the ridiculous opinion though that more guns /= more gun violence. that kind of stance is for idiots and ideologues.

 

[clogged]

We intentionally ingrain children with hoplophobia in this country.

Just read the comments in this thread to see that for yourself.

If you locked the average Australian 'adult' aged 18-30 in a room with a loaded gun, they would be short odds to curl up on the floor in the corner with their eyes closed, praying for somebody to 'save' them.

Even if there was nobody else in the room.

Have you ever handled a gun?

 

[Ripper]

uh huh. the correlation between guns in a society and their misuse are very well established. i don't care to have this argument again with another pro gun nutter.

I don't Know about you , but if someone was misusing a gun and invaded my home , I would rather have one of my own to even things up a bit.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/detroit-mom-fires-intruders-video-article-1.1619522

If that happened in Australia , the woman and her children would be probably dead and the police would be looking for clues.

 

[Long Live HFC]

yeah. the answer to gun violence is even more guns.

 

[Ripper]

yeah. the answer to gun violence is even more guns.

It is when you are looking down the barrel.

 

[medusala]

nope. you'll grasp at any straw that you feel supports your ridiculous notions (your posts in the conspiratard forum are especially hilarious). people like you are immune to reality.

Journal of medicine. Yep. Authoritative one country study (and doctors naturally want to ban everything). As opposed to Harvard research of domestic and international evidence.

Plus Wiki.

Even your own source doesn't attempt to claim causation. You might want to step away from this thread.

A study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more firearm laws are in fact associated with fewer firearm deaths, although that may not actually tell us whether one leads to the other

 

[medusala]

chap makes an interesting point. More crime = more people buying guns for safety, hardly a case of more legal guns = more crime. Quite the reverse


http://mic.com/articles/40325/gun-control-2013-guns-and-crime-is-a-false-correlation

Much to the dismay of the gun-grabbers, the spurious and inconsequential effects of gun control policies are widely documented amongst a number of reputable academic journals. The most (in)famous of these works is that of John Lott Jr., whose bestselling book More Guns, Less Crime actually makes the counterargument obvious in its title. Lott's work was published by the University of Chicago Press, peer reviewed by over 12 concurrent studies in The Journal of Law and Economics, and continues to this day to be a source rich with seemingly irrefutable data that areas that having more guns in the hands of private citizens actually have lower rates of violent crime.

It was assumed that most if not all of the guns reported in the survey were legally owned. We can furthermore deduce that most people aren't dropping their normal lives to take up arms and begin lives of crime. Thus, the amount of firearms in the hands of law-abiding civilians could, if anything, only reduce crime. Adding guns to a population does not turn the population into criminals, just as adding cars to a city does not turn the city into the Indy 500.
I would suspect that a major reason that legal gun ownership rates have no strong, consistent positive correlation with violent crime is recidivism: over 70% of violent criminals are arrested again within three years of their release. As felons are already not legally allowed to own firearms, they are the exception to the rule and not the rule. We also know that 80% of incarcerated felons acquired their firearms through illegal transfers (40%) or illegal trafficking (40%).

 

[pokerspiv]

uh huh. the correlation between guns in a society and their misuse are very well established. i don't care to have this argument again with another pro gun nutter.

His point is that gun ownership is dependent on culture and not only laws. Your graph of the US states is a very good illustration of that. The states all have similar laws, but wildly different rates of ownership. Why? Culture.

Changing the laws in Australia would not result in a significant change in gun ownership. Australians don't really like guns that much, at least in the city. And most people in rural areas have guns already.

 

[Long Live HFC]

His point is that gun ownership is dependent on culture and not only laws. Your graph of the US states is a very good illustration of that. The states all have similar laws, but wildly different rates of ownership. Why? Culture.

No, his (irrelevant) point was that gun control legislation does not prevent people using guns to kill other people. Which is true, given that guns know no boundaries in the US, especially when you’re talking loopholes like gun shows.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Journal of medicine. Yep. Authoritative one country study (and doctors naturally want to ban everything). As opposed to Harvard research of domestic and international evidence.

Plus Wiki.

Even your own source doesn't attempt to claim causation. You might want to step away from this thread.

A study published today in JAMA Internal Medicine found that more firearm laws are in fact associated with fewer firearm deaths, although that may not actually tell us whether one leads to the other

Like I said, people like you are immune to reality.

 

[RUNVS]

His point is that gun ownership is dependent on culture and not only laws. Your graph of the US states is a very good illustration of that. The states all have similar laws, but wildly different rates of ownership. Why? Culture.

Changing the laws in Australia would not result in a significant change in gun ownership. Australians don't really like guns that much, at least in the city. And most people in rural areas have guns already.

Except changing the gun laws DID have a significant affect

87-96 - 9 gun massacres

then Port Arthur happened and the laws were changed and then

96-14 - 0 gun massacres

Same country, same culture but with new laws completely different results.

 

[DrKrieger]

From an experiment in the us a few years back



I'd say in most cases, unless your intruder is clumsy as balls and either unarmed or unprepared to use their firearm, they have the advantage while robbing you while you're in bed, the whole "if they have one I need one" argument doesn't really mesh for me.

There are reasons to own and use firearms, but I can't think of one reason anyone outside the military or police needs anything semi or fully automatic. As for "I'm not allowed to own the one I want so I'll buy it illegally," that's just daft. Move somewhere you're allowed to own it if it's that important to you to have it, it's not like you're banned from owning any gun ever here.

Current regs aren't perfect but the overall intent and idea behind gun control is sound.

 

[medusala]

Except changing the gun laws DID have a significant affect
.

Your statistical efforts are nonsense. You have cherry picked a few years. Where were all the massacres pre 87?

Not only that but you have engaged in the typical stats dodge of extrapolating the immediate past in to the future.

 

[pokerspiv]

Except changing the gun laws DID have a significant affect

87-96 - 9 gun massacres

then Port Arthur happened and the laws were changed and then

96-14 - 0 gun massacres

Same country, same culture but with new laws completely different results.

It did not have a significant effect on gun ownership though. The the lack of massacres is the result of something else.

 

[pokerspiv]

There are reasons to own and use firearms, but I can't think of one reason anyone outside the military or police needs anything semi or fully automatic.

Well for one reason, they don't really make any other kind of guns nowadays. The same reason it's difficult to buy a car without syncromeshed gearboxes or airbags nowadays. Bolt actions are now restricted to very high powered hunting rifles. Most guns are semi-automatic. And btw, semi-automatic guns are still not banned in Australia, the Howard laws only changed the number of rounds you can hold in a magazine.

Can you really not see how a semi-automatic rifle might be more useful for hunting rabbits or foxes than a bolt-action?

 

[DrKrieger]

Well for one reason, they don't really make any other kind of guns nowadays. The same reason it's difficult to buy a car without syncromeshed gearboxes or airbags nowadays. Bolt actions are now restricted to very high powered hunting rifles. Most guns are semi-automatic. And btw, semi-automatic guns are still not banned in Australia, the Howard laws only changed the number of rounds you can hold in a magazine.

Can you really not see how a semi-automatic rifle might be more useful for hunting rabbits or foxes than a bolt-action?

Yeah, but then an M249 would be even more useful. In saying that, good point, so if I rephrase, why would one need an AR15 with 30 rounds in it to hunt a rabbit?

 

[Long Live HFC]

It did not have a significant effect on gun ownership though.

surely you accept that it had an impact on the types of guns owned though?

 

[pokerspiv]

Yeah, but then an M249 would be even more useful. In saying that, good point, so if I rephrase, why would one need an AR15 with 30 rounds in it to hunt a rabbit?

You wouldn't need one for rabbits obviously, but it's still legal for professional cullers in Australia to own AR-15s for bigger game (e.g. kangaroos and pigs).

An M249 or any weapon on automatic fire would be terrible for hunting. Too expensive and too much recoil. Automatic weapons aren't even that useful for mass shootings. Even military only use their weapons on automatic mode when trying to lay down suppressing fire. Semi-automatic is much more effective at actually shooting people.

 

[pokerspiv]

surely you accept that it had an impact on the types of guns owned though?

Possibly, but the types of guns are pretty irrelevant when it comes to mass shootings. The only difference between an assault rifle and a regular hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks cooler. That's why it's easy to laugh at people who get all wound up about "assault rifles".

 

[Long Live HFC]

Possibly, but the types of guns are pretty irrelevant when it comes to mass shootings.

really? you think someone could easily carry out a mass casualty shooting with a bolt-action 22? surely the semi auto action is an advantage in such situations, as is the easily-concealed nature of a pistol? or the the rapid-fire of a fully automatic rifle?

The only difference between an assault rifle and a regular hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks cooler. That's why it's easy to laugh at people who get all wound up about "assault rifles".

i agree the language can get a bit silly at times.

 

[pokerspiv]

really? you think someone could easily carry out a mass casualty shooting with a bolt-action 22? surely the semi auto action is an advantage in such situations, as is the easily-concealed nature of a pistol? or the the rapid-fire of a fully automatic rifle?

If you are the only person in the area with a gun you could kill a bunch of people with a bolt action rifle without too much difficulty. ANZACs used bolt-action Lee-Enfield .303s to kill a whole lot of people in both WWI and WWII.

It only takes a second or two to reload a bolt-action rifle. Given how scared most Australians are of guns, I doubt you'd get tackled in that time.

 

[Long Live HFC]

i reckon that would depend entirely on "the area". the broad arrow cafe? i doubt it.