No, Australia's gun ban didn't reduce violent crime

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck


But mass shootings aren't the only factor. Firearms exist to protect the owner against *all* forms of violent crime. Therefore it is violent crime that needs to be examined to get a relevant factor. Not propaganda/dishonest tactics like only look at deaths from shootings.

It is helpful to note, Johnny, that Australia still lists firearms as the tool used in around 20% of their annual murders. Hmm...

Not to mention the fact that violent crime has gone up/not fallen. Doesn't look good, that is for sure.

What we need is more guns.

Because gun crime still exists. We need more guns to protect us from all these guns.

Nah we should move on up to hand grenades, maybe claymores at the front door at night, what could possibly go wrong......

a reply to: Edumakated


No child or adult should ever be struck by lightning! It kills at least 63 and injures 100's per year. Ban all people going outside while you're at it

a reply to: Artlogic

unimaginative

go fooking NUCLEAR

everyone should have a hydrogen bomb

and wire the trigger [ via wifi sender ] to the last magazine you has - so when you is over run by " the horde " and down to your last round of ammunition - CLICK - the innitiator in your magazine detonates the H-BOMB in the cellar

BOOM - you take them ALL with you

the right to bare arms shall not be infringed

a reply to: JBurns

G'day Mate, yeah, I get it.....you're really trying your best to convince me. But your facts don't add up. Plus, you're making yourself look silly.

The facts are, we don't own guns. There are no mass shootings.....guess why, I'll give you a clue. Yeah that's right, because we don't own guns.

Also, for the record, no school shootings either....yeah, you've guessed it, because we don't have guns.

So as an Australian, watching American shootings on an almost monthly scale, what's your counter argument?

Yup.....I'm in.

We in NZ banned semi autos a few years back now,after the aramoana shootings,and havnt had a mass shooting since.
Yes people kill people,and the sick ones will always find a way to do it,but maybe banning sick people from owning semi's won't work as well as banning the guns them selves. I don't oppose semi ownership,but something has to be done in some way guys.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
But mass shootings aren't the only factor. Firearms exist to protect the owner against *all* forms of violent crime. Therefore it is violent crime that needs to be examined to get a relevant factor. Not propaganda/dishonest tactics like only look at deaths from shootings.
It is helpful to note, Johnny, that Australia still lists firearms as the cause for around 20% of their annual murders. Hmm...Not to mention the fact that violent crime has gone up/not fallen. Doesn't look good, that is for sure.

The mass shootings of schoolchildren are the context for these current discussions. Please stop diluting and deflecting. It makes you look like a #ing monster.

Hmm, this is new. Profanity restrictions lifted suddenly? Eh, I suppose its all to emphasize how terrible it is to make valid arguments against a gun ban.

Youre right though. If these kids had been burned or blown up or stabbed, nobody would care and we could talk about UFOs all day here.

The truth is: guns must only be in the hands of the government so that the populace may be oppressed and culled more easily.

These events are a critical part of the program.

I am pretty sure that we have some Aussie ATSers on here.I would like to hear their points of view on this as well.

a reply to: buckwhizzle

You have.

a reply to: Edumakated

We’re actually in the process of making cars even safer (self driving). We’ve also passed many measures and regulations (seatbelts, car seats, strict DWI laws), to make cars safer.

So since you brought up cars, should we go the same way with guns? Passing regulations and safety measures to make guns (or ownership) “safer”.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I believe they claim zero new school shootings not reduced violent crime.

Have a nice night.

Should ban cars to prevents 30,000 deaths a year? I mean, we can make that zero too.

No child should have to drown... let's ban swimming pools while we are at it.

I wonder how silly feels about abortion too.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Why are you so concerned with US news? Is Straya that boring?

a reply to: rollanotherone

Nice mate,

The world is watching y'all, not just Australia.

Your looking silly.

a reply to: JBurns

From what I have read it seems the illegal gun trade has near on restored the number of guns to the pre 1996 numbers anyway.

Amazing what a false flag can accomplish

1. Consider the source. The Federalist (as per the OP) is on the "keep the guns" side of the argument.
2. Consider the quote "lies, damned lies, and statistics". In the gun debate quoting statistics is one way to prove a false argument.
3. Then consider this. Since the 1996 Port Arthur mass murder, where 35 people were killed in Australia, and the subsequent ban on certain types of gun, there have been no mass murders in Australia.
4. And that since 1996 the homicide rate by guns has reduced from 0.54 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014.
5. In the US mass murders continue at at alarming rate, but clearly not alarming enough for anyone to give a toss.

originally posted by: Artlogic

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck


But mass shootings aren't the only factor. Firearms exist to protect the owner against *all* forms of violent crime. Therefore it is violent crime that needs to be examined to get a relevant factor. Not propaganda/dishonest tactics like only look at deaths from shootings.

It is helpful to note, Johnny, that Australia still lists firearms as the tool used in around 20% of their annual murders. Hmm...

Not to mention the fact that violent crime has gone up/not fallen. Doesn't look good, that is for sure.

What we need is more guns.

Because gun crime still exists. We need more guns to protect us from all these guns.

Nah we should move on up to hand grenades, maybe claymores at the front door at night, what could possibly go wrong......

C4 man, I demand the right to throw C4 at my enemies. They're the red team, I think. Or the blue, depends on if I get reassigned to even teams...

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Edumakated


No child or adult should ever be struck by lightning! It kills at least 63 and injures 100's per year. Ban all people going outside while you're at it

OR... tell people when there is a thunder storm with the likelihood of lightening, and watch them clamour for their rights to stand under a tree and hold metal poles.

But never mind that, more people die watching tornadoes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Source to qualify this statement please.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Artlogic

unimaginative

go fooking NUCLEAR

everyone should have a hydrogen bomb

and wire the trigger [ via wifi sender ] to the last magazine you has - so when you is over run by " the horde " and down to your last round of ammunition - CLICK - the innitiator in your magazine detonates the H-BOMB in the cellar

BOOM - you take them ALL with you

the right to bare arms shall not be infringed

I think in that scenario, they will certainly be fringed... if not incinerated..

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
a reply to: Edumakated

We’re actually in the process of making cars even safer (self driving). We’ve also passed many measures and regulations (seatbelts, car seats, strict DWI laws), to make cars safer.

So since you brought up cars, should we go the same way with guns? Passing regulations and safety measures to make guns (or ownership) “safer”.

You might this very odd to you but the pwowers that be in the US are very keen to get dirverless cars on the road so one has to ask why.

Might the answer be to have more deaths on the road than they have now?

Might it be that they want more revenue from speeding and other road traffic

Might it be so they can use cars as a depopulation tool. Remember the journalist in the US whose merc ramed into a tree about 200 MPH at 02:00 in the morning? Was his car taken over remotely and driven into the tree at high speed to kill him.

Then there was one of the suvivers of the Las vegas shootings who car crashed into a gate about 200 mph late at night. The daughter was woken up by the explosion 500 metres away.

I once watched a video by a lady who was the head on DARPA in the US and talked about how they have the technology to size a car by remote control and how easy it is to do it.

This is not what I had in mind but it will do:

Link