The Hypocrisy of Gun Control Advocates

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Also look at Russia with strict gun laws:10

Speaking as a person who was born there: "Russia" and "law" do not belong in the same sentence. Seriously, this is moot.

Actually, it makes the point even greater, that bad people do what they do in spite of the laws and that a pile of laws that restrict the honest person does not make one safer.

The point is, correlation does not equal causation, and the world wide stats do not even support correlation to stricter gun laws equalling less murder rates. Thus, logically, there must be other factors (most likely multiple factors) at play.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Also look at Russia with strict gun laws:10

Speaking as a person who was born there: "Russia" and "law" do not belong in the same sentence. Seriously, this is moot.

Actually, it makes the point even greater, that bad people do what they do in spite of the laws and that a pile of laws that restrict the honest person does not make one safer.

No, quite the opposite.
If there is law that regulates XYZ, and it's not enforced, it basically does not exist.

And I have to say, with all shortcomings of the US legal system, it's still a pretty functional beast.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Only using your own logic.

No, you are not using any logic at all. Citing the landmass as a factor is a pretty retarded argument.

Disturbed man horrific massacre on children = OMG something must change! Lets discuss Gun laws!

US Government kills 170+ children with drone strikes = Zero outrage! Lets Discuss Nothing!

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Long Lance

 

Would you try and argue it hasn't curbed shootings?

Australia didn't have than many shooting sprees to begin with and the Port Arthur Massacre is highly suspect as outlined in the threads i just linked and by posters in this thread (just return to the last page). Even if you assumed that the long term trend fell, with such a small number you'll be very hard pressed to conclude anything reliably, the same is probably true for the US, btw, because shootings are not that common, yet, two within months is worrying, though.

But, does it really matter if you get shot or killed some other way? maybe the victims would be different, although the only recent incident where the type of weapons probably made a big difference was Utoya, Norway, which has all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, including extensive planning, political ambition and the willingness and skill to build an already very illegal bomb..


================================================================================

Originally posted by SweetChild

I have no problem penalizing millions of people it it will keep me safe. It's is being increasingly clear that there is NO such thing as a responsible gun owner.

except the millions who didn't shoot anyone today, right? btw, are you aware that he used his mother's weapons, so it's technically her fault for allowing him to get them?

Originally posted by FuturePeace
Disturbed man horrific massacre on children = OMG something must change! Lets discuss Gun laws!

Right on! I support the motion.

US Government kills 170+ children with drone strikes = Zero outrage! Lets Discuss Nothing!

Totally wrong. There is quite a lot of discussion regarding the drone strikes, in case you haven't been reading much lately.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Also look at Russia with strict gun laws:10

Speaking as a person who was born there: "Russia" and "law" do not belong in the same sentence. Seriously, this is moot.

Actually, it makes the point even greater, that bad people do what they do in spite of the laws and that a pile of laws that restrict the honest person does not make one safer.

No, quite the opposite.
If there is law that regulates XYZ, and it's not enforced, it basically does not exist.

And I have to say, with all shortcomings of the US legal system, it's still a pretty functional beast.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? What do you think is a bigger problem in the US? Law abiding people owning firearms or a revolving door justice system that puts violent criminals back on the street over and over again. Notice the Czech Republic. They have free access to semi-automatic "assault weapons" and concealed carry permits and a murder rate almost identical to the UK. If lack of gun control made places safer, then the Czechs should have a murder rate much, much higher, no? But they don't. Therefore, there must be another causative factor at work.

Originally posted by AussieDingus

I'm glad you put "just my thoughts" at the end, because thats all they are !

There is a vast array of information available on the Port Arthur shootings for those that choose to take the time and look into it with an open mind. But here's just a few points that you may, or may not of heard of.......

1. Several eye-witnesses who were proven to be at Port Arthur the day of the shootings reported that TWO gunmen were used, so why did this never make the official report that you swear by so blindly ?

2. One of the guns allegedly used by Martin Bryant was listed at being handed in at an ealrier gun buy back scheme in Victoria, which is then also listed as being scrapped by Simms metals with all relative paper work confirming this. There is no mention of if, or how Martin Bryant came across that gun which was then used in the shootings. If the gun buy back schemes are the answer, then WHY was a listed scrapped gun then unscrapped and found its way into the hands of a guy with in the bottom end of Tasmania in a sleepy tourist town ?

3. Why was a morgue truck purchased just weeks before the shooting, which was then used to store many of the bodies for later testing, but then the morgue truck disappears without trace to this day ?

4. Why was TWO voices heard on the phone call made from the Seascape guesthouse when it was according to the official story only Martin Bryant in the house at the time ? This phone call is on record and can be found if you want to look for it.

5. NSW Premier Barry Unsworths comments.

6. Australian media caught, and admitting to doctoring the official photo of Brynat to "make him look MORE evil". Why would you have to make someone look more evil if they just committed the most evil act in Australia's history ? Unless of course there was an pre-planned agenda, which would be the only logical explanation to why they would do it.

These are just a few quick questions, there are MANY more, that should have any intelligent person asking questions. And unless you can provide a clear cut answer to these questions that confirm the official story, then who are you to make claims of 'crying wolf'. If i'm crying wolf, then you're blinded by the official story thats shoved down our throats. And those that don't at least question the official story will be the first ones taken when the big bad wolf comes !

In truth, thanks for the info about Martin Bryant. But still, even including a "conspiracy", it doesn't take away from the fact that we HAVE NOT had any more mass shootings. The removal of auto and semi auto weapons seems to have done the trick. Maybe it's a case of those in charge actually doing something good for the community by banning the heavy weapons.

And anything you have mentioned about Bryant still doesn't take away the fact that if people want to have a gun, then all they need do is join a gun club, live on a farm etc. Your post to which I originally replied painted Australia as a place where nobody could get a fire arm. This imo was very misleading. .

so, seeing we can still own firearms (except the obvious bans) what rights have we lost?

At first I was also complaining about the toughening of gun laws. But in hind sight, I am pleased that the mass murder weapons have been removed. (Just in passing, I live on a property, and even though I am entitled to get a rifle, I don't see any need at the moment. I have methods to control feral animals (without even baiting) and if any of us get bitten by a king brown or taipan, then we're so far away from any help, we would probably not make it to town. I really can't see the need for any auto or semi auto weapon in the hands of any average jow blow, so will you at least concede that here in Australia, we CAN join pistol or rifle clubs and own firearms? That was and still is the crux of my original reply to you.

reply to post by pantodragon


What is pathetic is that there are people out there, who are so lonely, who have no self value whatsoever, who have no lives, and as a result, have nothing better to do then sign up for sites and troll people who are grieving over a very disturbing incident.

It sounds like it is your mother who failed.

See a shrink, and take a xanax please.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by pantodragon

 

What is pathetic is that there are people out there, who are so lonely, who have no self value whatsoever, who have no lives, and as a result, have nothing better to do then sign up for sites and troll people who are grieving over a very disturbing incident.

It sounds like it is your mother who failed.

See a shrink, and take a xanax please.

I'm sure you misspelled it, you meant "cyanide".

reply to post by buddhasystem


*laughs* you are absolutely right.

you can't put the tooth paste back in the tube. 270million guns in the USA they have no choice but to keep themselves armed to protect against each other.

but the USA has completely failed to stop mass shootings. 5 this year since June.

its a deeper societal problem they need to deal with.

I was just watching this video again. I figured I would post it here for those who haven't seen it or for those who might want to watch it a second time.

It covers a lot of the same points we've all discussed in this thread and takes a look at some of the deeper issues of the gun debate.

Bowling for Colombine

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by MagicWand67
reply to post by Undeadlady

 

what other use do you need your gun for? Exept for killing that is. Please enlighten me.

There are 15 Olympic events that involve shooting guns.

People use guns to hunt and provide food for their families.

A gun can be used as a deterrent to stop a crime without being fired.

Guns are used for target shooting. Fun and recreation.

Protection for people and livestock from wild animals.

And you need an automatic weapon capable of murdering a hundred people a minute for those things? No, thought not.

I really don't see how you get using automatic weapons for hunting. I really don't. How about this, why do lamborghini's exist, ferrari's, Buggahti's? What need does a man for 500-600 hp v10 and v2 engines capable of reaching 0-60 mph within 2 seconds and past 200 mph at max speed when the max speed limit in most countries is 70 mph? 80 mph? Why do you need to reach 0-60 in 2 seconds when 80% of the time your in stop light traffic?

Why do individuals find the DIRE need to purchase a $1.2 million dollar home with 13 bathrooms 20 bedrooms, 2 kitchens, 5 lofts, a golf course in the backyard, an indoor pool, an outdoor pool, an indoor cinema, a butler, a maid, a chauffeur, a patio, a beach front view, and a genuine Star Wars Chewybacca mask used as part of the original costume that's worth over a million dollars?

Why?

Oh yeah, by the way, what's this?

www.atf.gov...

Oh look:

Q: The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples?
Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:

Machine guns;
The frames or receivers of machine guns;
Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns;
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun;
Any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer;
Short-barreled rifles;
Short-barreled shotguns;
Destructive devices; and,
“Any other weapon.”

Oh yah, and not to mention the $200 tax, and a susceptible check-up by an ATF representative at any given time should they choose to do so. That in any case any registered when isn't is as it's supposed to be or doesn't exist (Sons of Guns incident), then problems immediately pursue.

Also, it is very expensive to buy and automatic weapon, a simple m-16 or m-4 would cost the average citizen around $6000 at the very least, and that's probably pre-ban which is before 1990's or 80's. It is also very expensive to fire that much ammunition, so to do so would be impractical.

And why would we want to hunt with an automatic rifle when the whole point of hunting is mostly to get produce or garnish a trophy. Such a silly assumption and accusation.

Simply put, an automatic rifle is nothing more than a freedom. Albeit one that very few take part. It is no different then spending hundreds on fireworks on new years eve only to see it explode into colorful sparks and noises seconds later.

reply to post by Transcendent


I'm pretty sure its not your point, but your post re Ferraris etc reads like being able to shoot people with assault rifles, automatics etc is a thrill?

That's not what your saying, right? Because Ferraris and the other things are designed yo give you pleasure or a thrill. Getting this feeling from a large powerful gun seems a bit weird, especially if that ownership is being justified in terms of defence or liberty, or is maybe a penis extension for some inadequate types perhaps?

In the hands of a killer it doesn't matter if the weapon is a semi-auto or not.

According to the official story, in the case of the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald used a single loading bolt action rifle and was able to fire all 3 shots in under 10 seconds. Hitting his target with deadly accuracy.

reply to post by waynos


Many people who collect guns are preppers.

In the event of a SHTF scenario powerful weapons will be a necessity for survival and protection.

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Transcendent

 

I'm pretty sure its not your point, but your post re Ferraris etc reads like being able to shoot people with assault rifles, automatics etc is a thrill?

That's not what your saying, right? Because Ferraris and the other things are designed yo give you pleasure or a thrill. Getting this feeling from a large powerful gun seems a bit weird, especially if that ownership is being justified in terms of defence or liberty, or is maybe a penis extension for some inadequate types perhaps?

edit on 19-12-2012 by waynos because: (no reason given)

Freud would disagree with you.

HIs point is, that people with mechanical minds appreciate things that maximize performance. Like a car guy appreciates a high performance car or an airplane enthusiast appreciates a jet engine, a gun guy can appreciate the physics that goes into a quality, high performance, firearm.

It may be odd because you do not understand it, but it is not nefarious at all.

Originally posted by MagicWand67
In the hands of a killer it doesn't matter if the weapon is a semi-auto or not.

According to the official story, in the case of the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald used a single loading bolt action rifle and was able to fire all 3 shots in under 10 seconds. Hitting his target with deadly accuracy.

Considering that the SandyHook killer was alone with defenseless kids for 20+ minutes, semi-auto, bolt, trap, single shot, lever action--would not have made a difference at all. When people are spread out helpless before a killer, 20 deaths could very well mean 20 shots.

I for the life of me could never understand why those people think that totally abolishing personal ownership of a gun(s) would solve THAT problem or there related. For years we have had a "War on Drugs". .......FOR YEARS!! Have drugs disappeared???? Nope! Taking away that right...our constitutional right would only curb things like that from happening only a fraction of a percent imho. People will always get their hand on a weapon if they want to. NO MATTER WHAT! Im sure you've heard this before but i will say it again, "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". It is the person pulling the trigger. That person makes that descision....not the gun! some may not agree and thats ok. We all have our opinions as do i. But its time for these people and most of america to stop thinking with our heads up our asses!