here are the videos, and here is what wikipedia says about the effects of the 1996 legislation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYbY45rHj8w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

In 1997, the prime minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The AIC have published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[30][31]

Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[32] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[33] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[34]

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[35] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[36] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[37]

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[38]

Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[39] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[40]

A study co-authored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[41]

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[42]

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:

The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[43]

A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[44]

A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%.The study,[45] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.

In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia’s gun laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive interventions".[46]

Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found that there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[47]

A recent report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 per cent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.[48]

the take home message from the empirical literature as summarized by wikipedia here seems to me that the actual effects of this legislation have been fairly negligible/highly equivocal - hardly the smashing success that is being presented on this piece of american t.v, though the videos are funny.

We are being fed bullshit by our left leaning media aye? No suprise there. Cain and Able had no guns yet even then we had a muderer.

We need to seriously address mental issues in this country instead of letting these loons gestate and get out of control.

Keep the guns in the hands of the law abiding people and take them from the criminals would be a plus but clearly that can't be done. If they could remove the guns from the gangs, criminals, etc then why ain't they? All they can come up with is to make it so the law abiding can't have a gun..pffff Left leaning logic for ya.

JC Denton wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

the take home message from the empirical literature as summarized by wikipedia here seems to me that the actual effects of this legislation have been fairly negligible/highly equivocal - hardly the smashing success that is being presented on this piece of american t.v, though the videos are funny.

There were a string of mass shootings in the decade or so before the gun laws were brought in - and since then there has been precisely zero. So thats one area you can definitely tick off as being a smashing success.

With regards to more regular gun crime and violence, I think the problem is that the gun laws didn't extend to handguns - and the spike in gun crime in the last decade or so has been in handguns. Its very difficult to separate the banned-gun crime data from the non-banned-gun crime data.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:

JC Denton wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 2:41pm: the take home message from the empirical literature as summarized by wikipedia here seems to me that the actual effects of this legislation have been fairly negligible/highly equivocal - hardly the smashing success that is being presented on this piece of american t.v, though the videos are funny. There were a string of mass shootings in the decade or so before the gun laws were brought in - and since then there has been precisely zero. So thats one area you can definitely tick off as being a smashing success. With regards to more regular gun crime and violence, I think the problem is that the gun laws didn't extend to handguns - and the spike in gun crime in the last decade or so has been in handguns. Its very difficult to separate the banned-gun crime data from the non-banned-gun crime data.

Yes, they shoulda banned all handguns too.

Coz, all of those illegal Glocks [in Western Sydney] would have been handed in, if they had been.

Duh.





You gotta be joking gandalf.

I know that i was.

Yadda wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:35pm:

Yes, they shoulda banned all handguns too. Coz, all of those illegal Glocks [in Western Sydney] would have been handed in, if they had been.

Where do you think illegally acquired handguns come from Yadda? Mostly stolen off people who had acquired them legally. Its something I call the 'saturation effect' - the more guns floating about within society (legally owned), the more that will find their way into the hands of criminals - simply through osmosis.

Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:53pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 11:35pm: Yes, they shoulda banned all handguns too. Coz, all of those illegal Glocks [in Western Sydney] would have been handed in, if they had been. Where do you think illegally acquired handguns come from Yadda? Mostly stolen off people who had acquired them legally. Its something I call the 'saturation effect' - the more guns floating about within society (legally owned), the more that will find their way into the hands of criminals - simply through osmosis. Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal.

Yeah, that has worked in places like Jamaica.

NOT!!!!


The propensity to criminal behaviour among a population, is the problem, not the presence [or absence] of firearms.


Dictionary;
propensity = = an inclination or tendency.







Give persons who have not had a criminal conviction in say, the last 20 years, access to firearms for the purpose of personal protection, and the crime rate will decrease.


ALTERNATIVELY;
Outlaw firearms, and only outlaws [and 'agents' of the government ] will have firearms.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:

JC Denton wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 2:41pm: the take home message from the empirical literature as summarized by wikipedia here seems to me that the actual effects of this legislation have been fairly negligible/highly equivocal - hardly the smashing success that is being presented on this piece of american t.v, though the videos are funny. There were a string of mass shootings in the decade or so before the gun laws were brought in - and since then there has been precisely zero. So thats one area you can definitely tick off as being a smashing success.

in \the summary of the data i posted, this was addressed:


Quote:

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[42]

it sounds to me that the effects of this legislation were fairly nebulous. i would not doubt it has had some effect but it appears difficult to measure given the available research. certainly, to pretend that there is no discussion or debate to be had here like in these daily show videos would be highly mendacious at best.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:53pm:

Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal.

You have evidence to support this absurd claim?

Well the yanks have an agenda there. They want to do the same thing so of course they will portray it in a good light. Other TV stations will be saying the opposite though unlike aussie TV where its all the same story the same way or slightly different but same message.

SOB

Chard wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 2:13am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 11:53pm: Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal. You have evidence to support this absurd claim?

Yes.

Chard wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 2:13am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 11:53pm: Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal. You have evidence to support this absurd claim?

Gandalf is like every other anti-gun hysterical genius, and believes that disarming the law abiding population will stem gun crime.


Couldn't comprehend the fact the crims will import weapons along with every other thing they bring in (illegal drugs) through the back door.


Just to let everyone know australia has had mass murders since 96, just weren't gun based murders; so it is best we ignore them and treat them as acceptable.

A certain amount of gun crime is good for society - since the victims are mainly other gangsters, drug dealers and other assorted scum, it's helpful for keeping their numbers in check. 

Chard wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 2:13am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 11:53pm: Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal. You have evidence to support this absurd claim?

It's not an "absurd claim": It's simple mathematics.

JC Denton wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 12:29am:

That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand.

That is about the least convincing piece of evidence I have seen questioning Australian laws. Besides, all that really needs to be said regarding Australia's situation is that Martin Bryant acquired his firearm legally and without any sort of scrutiny.

Also, regarding NZ, the article you quote is a little dishonest - since NZ has had rather tight controls on semi-automatic "rambo style" weapons since 1992:


Quote:

After the Aramoana massacre in November 1990, John Banks, the Minister for Police, announced that the government would ban what he and others described as "Rambo-style" weapons and substantially tighten gun laws generally. The law was eventually passed in 1992 and required written permits to order guns or ammunition mail-order, restricted ammunition sales to firearms licence holders, added photographs to firearms licences, required licence holders to have secure storage for firearms at their homes (which would be inspected before a licence was issued), and controversially required all licence holders to be re-vetted for new licences which would be valid for only 10 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand#Aramoana_and_the_1992_Amendments

Thus, what your article doesn't mention is that by 1996, NZ had far tighter controls on the type of weapon Bryant used, than Australia had. Thus its not really surprising that after Australia got on board with gun control, both countries saw a rapid decline in shootings using those weapons.


Chard wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 2:13am:

You have evidence to support this absurd claim?

The evidence of virtually every nation that has strict gun controls - UK, Japan, Australia etc

Gun advocates always cite the example of Switzerland, but that is clearly an atypical case.

I will also add that comparing different states in the US is somewhat flawed - since criminals in one state that has strict controls can simply acquire their guns from a neighbouring state that doesn't. Having said that, a recent study suggests that gun laws do in fact work - though the limitations of the study are acknowledged.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:21pm:

There were a string of mass shootings in the decade or so before the gun laws were brought in - and since then there has been precisely zero.

Quote:

Four men, aged between 20 and 25, were sprayed with bullets outside a western Sydney property just after 8pm (AEST) on Friday. About 15 bullet holes were found in a garage door at the Smithfield crime scene.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/latest/16905133/one-of-nsws-worst-crime-weeks-10-shot/

Wouldn't this be called a "mass shooting"? 

... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 11:21pm: There were a string of mass shootings in the decade or so before the gun laws were brought in - and since then there has been precisely zero. Quote: Four men, aged between 20 and 25, were sprayed with bullets outside a western Sydney property just after 8pm (AEST) on Friday. About 15 bullet holes were found in a garage door at the Smithfield crime scene. http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/latest/16905133/one-of-nsws-worst-crime-weeks-10-shot/ Wouldn't this be called a "mass shooting"?

And that was only this week.


This lie that that scumbag howard made Australia safer just does not wash when you do a quick check of the reality of living in Australia.

... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Wouldn't this be called a "mass shooting"?

No. Not the same as Port Arthur or Strathfield or Sandy Hook etc - which are completely random.

This shooting is obviously gang related and anything but random.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

... wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 11:23am: Wouldn't this be called a "mass shooting"? No. Not the same as Port Arthur or Strathfield or Sandy Hook etc - which are completely random. This shooting is obviously gang related and anything but random.

So?  It's still a mass shooting.  If it's random attacks you're worried about, they happen fairly often in China, only they're armed with knives.


Quote:

A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. As most cases had no known motive, analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1] Such attacks are extremely rare in the United States such as the 2013 stabbing at the Lone Star College in Texas in 2013, and other nations have had unexplained serial killings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%9312%29

mental health problems caused by rapid social change eh?  Looks like we're in for more of this...

... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

So?  It's still a mass shooting.

Its very simple. There were a string of 'lone wolf' random shootings in Australia before the gun laws - and zero after. The only point to be made about all other gun related crime is that it has gone down overall after the gun laws. Where there is still problems - ie handgun related gang violence - the problem clearly is not enough gun controls, since the laws on handguns are still relatively lax.

Either way, our gun laws undeniably work.


... wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

If it's random attacks you're worried about, they happen fairly often in China, only they're armed with knives.

err.. ok. Good thing we're not China then.  :P

Consider also how many more people would be dead as a result of those attacks - if the perpetrators were armed with guns instead of knives.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 9:17am:

Chard wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 2:13am: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 11:53pm: Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal. You have evidence to support this absurd claim? It's not an "absurd claim": It's simple mathematics.

Ok, greg, I know you're not that bright, but what Gandalf is suggesting is a direct causitive link between firearms ownshipn theft of legally owned fitearms, and a rise or fall in firearms crimes. So lets see some evidence for this claim.

If it's simple math then cite government statistics and show your maths. Otherwise your just regurgitating the same poo Gandalf said and has yet to prove.

Chard wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 1:46am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 9:17am: Chard wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 2:13am: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 11:53pm: Tighten laws on handguns = less guns floating around society = less guns available for criminals to steal. You have evidence to support this absurd claim? It's not an "absurd claim": It's simple mathematics. Ok, greg, I know you're not that bright, but what Gandalf is suggesting is a direct causitive link between firearms ownshipn theft of legally owned fitearms, and a rise or fall in firearms crimes. So lets see some evidence for this claim. If it's simple math then cite government statistics and show your maths. Otherwise your just regurgitating the same poo Gandalf said and has yet to prove.

You ever been outside the states chard? Fact is most if not all your major cities have no go areas where gun battles on the street are common. Fact is a foreigner with no contacts can score a gun free of trace within 24 hours of crossing the border. Guns are absolutely a problem in your society.

There's nothing like that problem in Australia, Germany, Britain, France, or any other country where there are reasonable gun control laws. Think of the children man.

Grey wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 2:20am:

You ever been outside the states chard?

Many times and I noticed that people still get shot in countries with heavy firearms restrictions.



Quote:

Fact is most if not all your major cities have no go areas where gun battles on the street are common.

Show evidence for these "common" gun battles. Last one I can think of that qualified as a "battle" was the Hollywood bank robbery shooting back in the 1990s.



Quote:

Fact is a foreigner with no contacts can score a gun free of trace within 24 hours of crossing the border.

Oh, a fact is it? Then you won't mind showing evidence of this claim.



Quote:

Guns are absolutely a problem in your society.

No, our problems go a lot deeper than gun laws and only an idiot would attempt to claim otherwise. We've tried restricting entire classes of firearms before and we've found that such bans simply do nothing at all. Assault Rifle ban didn't have any effect on firearms crimes or deaths. The Brady Bill and sevenday waiting periods, negligable effect at the cost of aj average of $300mil a year to ovetsee the program and registry database.

What does work is educating people about firearms, gun safety and the like. Expanding law enforcement into areas of high crime, that actually does  something. Locking your firearms and ammunition in an actual secure storage deterrs theft.

But waving your arms about making wildass claims with valid basis in reality doesn't do anything more than make yourself feel good.



Quote:

There's nothing like that problem in Australia, Germany, Britain, France, or any other country where there are reasonable gun control laws. Think of the children man.

Did you even read the smacking thread? Your supposedly reasonable gun laws in Australia haven't accomplished anything other than deprive law abiding citizens.

the criminals are still killing each other off with the guns that werent handed back. Normal ppl dont come into contact with them so much anymore though. the culture of australia was never like america anyway.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 5:18am:

the criminals are still killing each other off with the guns that werent handed back. Normal ppl dont come into contact with them so much anymore though. the culture of australia was never like america anyway. SOB

Wrong Miss Borg. The criminals are killing each other with illegally imported and stolen guns.


I guess that means you are constantly in contact with illegal guns Miss Borg. Lets face it you aren't.................

KJT1981 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 6:52am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:18am: the criminals are still killing each other off with the guns that werent handed back. Normal ppl dont come into contact with them so much anymore though. the culture of australia was never like america anyway. SOB Wrong Miss Borg. The criminals are killing each other with illegally imported and stolen guns. I guess that means you are constantly in contact with illegal guns Miss Borg. Lets face it you aren't.................

WTF? Why would you say that?

And it has been said over and over in parliament that its guns that werent given back in the buyback. Not imported.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 6:59am:

KJT1981 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 6:52am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 5:18am: the criminals are still killing each other off with the guns that werent handed back. Normal ppl dont come into contact with them so much anymore though. the culture of australia was never like america anyway. SOB Wrong Miss Borg. The criminals are killing each other with illegally imported and stolen guns. I guess that means you are constantly in contact with illegal guns Miss Borg. Lets face it you aren't................. WTF? Why would you say that? And it has been said over and over in parliament that its guns that werent given back in the buyback. Not imported. SOB

Of course Miss Borg. How silly of me.

Miss Borg knows all.

Chard wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 2:58am:

and I noticed that people still get shot in countries with heavy firearms restrictions.

third world countries yes - but which first world countries? They are the only countries you can compare with the US.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 8:01am:

Chard wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 2:58am: and I noticed that people still get shot in countries with heavy firearms restrictions. third world countries yes - but which first world countries? They are the only countries you can compare with the US.

Are you trying to say that the only first world country to have  firearms homicides is the US?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

That is about the least convincing piece of evidence I have seen questioning Australian laws. Besides, all that really needs to be said regarding Australia's situation is that Martin Bryant acquired his firearm legally and without any sort of scrutiny.

It is illegal to issue a weapons licence to a retard, always has been; it was the scumbag copper who did that carries most of the blame here. At what point did that d1ckhead think issuing a weapons licence to a person with a mid 60's IQ was a legal and proper act. Prick should be in gaol with bryant.  >:(

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

Grey wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 10:56am:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

Interesting info from wiki

Germany and switzerland have the right to bear arms and the usual weapons laws for europe and while they do have a slightly higher homicide rate at 0.19 0.77 to our 0.12 their overall homicide rate is a lot lower at 0.84 and 1.07 to our 1.2.

Kinda blows any bullsh1t by the gun hysterics out of the water.


It seems to be less safe in Australia than in germany and switzerland which have much more liberal gun laws than we do; go figure.

But I suppose you could argue that being killed by other means is safer that being killed by a gun as some of the hysterics try to do.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

Also, regarding NZ, the article you quote is a little dishonest - since NZ has had rather tight controls on semi-automatic "rambo style" weapons since 1992: Quote: After the Aramoana massacre in November 1990, John Banks, the Minister for Police, announced that the government would ban what he and others described as "Rambo-style" weapons and substantially tighten gun laws generally. The law was eventually passed in 1992 and required written permits to order guns or ammunition mail-order, restricted ammunition sales to firearms licence holders, added photographs to firearms licences, required licence holders to have secure storage for firearms at their homes (which would be inspected before a licence was issued), and controversially required all licence holders to be re-vetted for new licences which would be valid for only 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand#Aramoana_and_the_1992_Amendments Thus, what your article doesn't mention is that by 1996, NZ had far tighter controls on the type of weapon Bryant used, than Australia had. Thus its not really surprising that after Australia got on board with gun control, both countries saw a rapid decline in shootings using those weapons.

I wasn't aware crimes involving "Rambo-style" weapons (what the f*ck does thst even mean), were such an epidemic that you could actually make that claim. If something happens so rarely that it's an anomaly making a rule against it and saying "see? Working as intended" is pretty goddamn dishonest.


Quote:

Chard wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 2:13am: You have evidence to support this absurd claim? The evidence of virtually every nation that has strict gun controls - UK, Japan, Australia etc

Ok, I asked for you to cite evidence to support your claim that restricting firearms access to law abiding citizens is justified because criminals cannot steal firearms. The only way that justification can work is if a high enough percentage of guns used in the commission of a crime were obtained by stealing them from law abiding gun owners. So lets see the criminal statistics that back your claim, not bullshit handwaving and anecdote.

interactive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

Chard wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

I wasn't aware crimes involving "Rambo-style" weapons (what the f*ck does thst even mean), were such an epidemic that you could actually make that claim. If something happens so rarely that it's an anomaly making a rule against it and saying "see? Working as intended" is pretty goddamn dishonest.

Last time I saw that movie it was a belt fed fully automatic M60 GPMG.   ;D


You can see why the strict gun laws were important.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:27am:

Chard wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 11:11am: I wasn't aware crimes involving "Rambo-style" weapons (what the f*ck does thst even mean), were such an epidemic that you could actually make that claim. If something happens so rarely that it's an anomaly making a rule against it and saying "see? Working as intended" is pretty goddamn dishonest. Last time I saw that movie it was a belt fed fully automatic M60 GPMG.   ;D You can see why the strict gun laws were important.

yes gun laws for the rest of us but its ok for you to have a weapon like that, because you served in the defence forces, No its not. Thats the USA mentality.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 11:27am: Chard wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 11:11am: I wasn't aware crimes involving "Rambo-style" weapons (what the f*ck does thst even mean), were such an epidemic that you could actually make that claim. If something happens so rarely that it's an anomaly making a rule against it and saying "see? Working as intended" is pretty goddamn dishonest. Last time I saw that movie it was a belt fed fully automatic M60 GPMG.   ;D You can see why the strict gun laws were important. yes gun laws for the rest of us but its ok for you to have a weapon like that, because you served in the defence forces, No it not.

Never said anything of the sort ya fvcken loon. FFS at least learn to read english even if writing it is a major challenge.


Now bugger off to the retards table were you may feel more at home.

And this is a Man that served our country in its defence force.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 11:27am: Chard wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 11:11am: I wasn't aware crimes involving "Rambo-style" weapons (what the f*ck does thst even mean), were such an epidemic that you could actually make that claim. If something happens so rarely that it's an anomaly making a rule against it and saying "see? Working as intended" is pretty goddamn dishonest. Last time I saw that movie it was a belt fed fully automatic M60 GPMG.   ;D You can see why the strict gun laws were important. yes gun laws for the rest of us but its ok for you to have a weapon like that, because you served in the defence forces, No it not.

Do you really think those in the defence forces get to bring the machinery they use home? That while the rest of us are driving around in Commodores they have Abrams parked in their back yards?

Actually, you probably do don't you?

no not the abrams (a us tank) , but you do get it, more easy to apply for a gun permit than the rest of us, I suppose that is experience. A average Australian up against a retired defence service veteran of Afghanistan.

One rule for some the so called retards, and another for others.

I would think that automatic weapons would the thing that you all wouldn't want to have, but for some reason you do.

Give them a double tap.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

And this is a Man that served our country in its defence force.

And what the bugger does that have to do with anything?

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

no not the abrams (a us tank) , but you do get it, more easy to apply for a gun permit than the rest of us, I suppose that is experience. A average Australian up against a retired defence service veteran of Afghanistan. One rule for some the so called retards, and another for others. I would think that automatic weapons would the thing that you all wouldn't want to have, but for some reason you do. Give them a double tap.

Go home, you're drunk.

Name, and rank soldier.

tell you real story of you service.

you too Quantum

And thats the reason why you have the oppions on gun control that you have.

I can have it but you can't retard
One rule for some and another for others.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 12:29pm:

Name, and rank soldier. tell you real story of you service. you too Quantum And thats the reason why you have the oppions on gun control that you have. I can have it but you can't retard One rule for some and another for others.

I'll say it again. I have never served in the military (and unlike your loony BF "Boag", I have never pretended to either.)

Quantum wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 12:29pm: Name, and rank soldier. tell you real story of you service. you too Quantum And thats the reason why you have the opions on gun control that you have. I can have it but you can't retard One rule for some and another for others. I'll say it again. I have never served in the military (and unlike your loony BF "Boag", I have never pretended to either.)

Whats BOAG got to do with it I just made a statement.

Any one there that has hash veiws on gun control , has yoused them in anger in their defence position for this country.

They don't have any right to refer to other Australians a retards that should not have access to the gun licence.

Martin Bryant was't a retard , he got the gun licence legally. like as anyone else out there would have. particully Afghanistan veterens.

Chard wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 10:03am: Also, regarding NZ, the article you quote is a little dishonest - since NZ has had rather tight controls on semi-automatic "rambo style" weapons since 1992: Quote: After the Aramoana massacre in November 1990, John Banks, the Minister for Police, announced that the government would ban what he and others described as "Rambo-style" weapons and substantially tighten gun laws generally. The law was eventually passed in 1992 and required written permits to order guns or ammunition mail-order, restricted ammunition sales to firearms licence holders, added photographs to firearms licences, required licence holders to have secure storage for firearms at their homes (which would be inspected before a licence was issued), and controversially required all licence holders to be re-vetted for new licences which would be valid for only 10 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_New_Zealand#Aramoana_and_the_1992_Amendments Thus, what your article doesn't mention is that by 1996, NZ had far tighter controls on the type of weapon Bryant used, than Australia had. Thus its not really surprising that after Australia got on board with gun control, both countries saw a rapid decline in shootings using those weapons. I wasn't aware crimes involving "Rambo-style" weapons (what the f*ck does thst even mean), were such an epidemic that you could actually make that claim. If something happens so rarely that it's an anomaly making a rule against it and saying "see? Working as intended" is pretty goddamn dishonest. [Quote] Chard wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 2:13am: You have evidence to support this absurd claim? The evidence of virtually every nation that has strict gun controls - UK, Japan, Australia etc

Ok, I asked for you to cite evidence to support your claim that restricting firearms access to law abiding citizens is justified because criminals cannot steal firearms. The only way that justification can work is if a high enough percentage of guns used in the commission of a crime were obtained by stealing them from law abiding gun owners. So lets see the criminal statistics that back your claim, not bullshit handwaving and anecdote.

[/quote]

I've got to say that the facts don't support the view that lax firearms control in the US are the cause of its high homicide rate. That's a big change in perception for me. It appears very much more complicated than that. The biggest factors concerning homicide death is without doubt desperation and poverty.

A comparison of the stats for Germany and France show little difference although Germany has 'the right to bear arms' and France doesn't.

In fact on reflection, given the well known inaccuracy of hand guns over any kind of distance, I'd question whether hand guns are anymore of a threat than a nail gun. If somebody pointed a nail gun at me I'd feel quite threatened  ;D

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 11:27am: Chard wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 11:11am: I wasn't aware crimes involving "Rambo-style" weapons (what the f*ck does thst even mean), were such an epidemic that you could actually make that claim. If something happens so rarely that it's an anomaly making a rule against it and saying "see? Working as intended" is pretty goddamn dishonest. Last time I saw that movie it was a belt fed fully automatic M60 GPMG.   ;D You can see why the strict gun laws were important. yes gun laws for the rest of us but its ok for you to have a weapon like that, because you served in the defence forces, No its not. Thats the USA mentality.

No, our mentality is that qssault weapons ae expensive to acquire and actually require a good bit of training to operate and maintain properly, so crimes involving them happen so infrequently that we simply do not see a reason to ban them. Keep in mind we actually tried banning assault weapons before and found out that the ban was completely ineffective at deterring gun crime. If a ban does absolutely nothing then there is no point to having that ban. All you're doing is restricting individual freedoms in exchange for the appearance of doing something.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Martin Bryant was't a retard , he got the gun licence legally. like as anyone else out there would have. particully Afghanistan veterens.

Yeah he was and like all retards he should never hasd access to any weapons under any circumstances. The cop should have been arrested for issuing him a licence.


You are nearly always wrong in your facts, best you find an 'easier' subject.




Descriptions of Bryant's behaviour as an adolescent show that he continued to be disturbed and outline the possibility of mental retardation. He was revealed to have extremely low intelligence, with an I.Q. of 66,[6] equivalent to an 11-year-old and in the bottom 1.17 percent of the Australian population, and was possibly autistic.[5] Bryant's mother, Carleen Bryant, said her son had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.[7]
Further testing following his arrest indicated a verbal I.Q. of 64 and non-verbal reasoning and cognitive functioning of 68, giving a full scale I.Q. of 66, an age equivalent of 11 years in the 10th percentile (90% of 11 year olds would score higher). On leaving school he was assessed for a disability pension by a psychiatrist who wrote: "Cannot read or write. Does a bit of gardening and watches TV ... Only his parents' efforts prevent further deterioration. Could be schizophrenic and parents face a bleak future with him." Bryant received a disability pension, though he also worked as a handyman and gardener.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant


Mass murderer Martin Bryant was born on May 17, 1967, in Tasmania, Australia. Bryant killed 35 people and injured 19 others in Tasmania in 1996 in what has since been called "The Port Arthur Massacre." Even as a child, he seemed odd, often detached from the people around him. While in school, Bryant was discovered to have a substantially below average I.Q. So low in fact that he qualified for a disability pension after completing school.

http://www.biography.com/people/martin-bryant-235987

And yet you Big Ass as a former Military person, get to have your gun license and the guns.

One rule for some and another for Big ASS.

Its not the cop fault here its people like you, big ass.

dingo2 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

And yet you Big Ass as a former Military person, get to have your gun license and the guns. One rule for some and another for Big ASS.

You are maintaining your average of 100% wrong.  ;D


I have neither a gun licence or own any weapons.


Like I said find an easier subject, one you can understand at least.

Grey wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

I've got to say that the facts don't support the view that lax firearms control in the US are the cause of its high homicide rate.

Ok, now we're conversating. The reason people hpld that view is they either do not understand what they mean by "gun control" and/or don't understand that the US already has quite a lot of firearms regulations. The fun part is hearing people outside the US talk about it as if they know more about the subject than the registered gun owning American with first hand experience does.



Quote:

It appears very much more complicated than that. The biggest factors concerning homicide death is without doubt desperation and poverty.

Which are major causes of crime everywhere. The difference is the US doesn't have anywhere near the social welfare programs to cushion the impact of poveryy that other first world nations have. Turns out people are less likely to commit crimes if they're not quite as desperate because their government makes an effort to hold up its end of the social contract.


Quote:

In fact on reflection, given the well known inaccuracy of hand guns over any kind of distance, I'd question whether hand guns are anymore of a threat than a nail gun. If somebody pointed a nail gun at me I'd feel quite threatened  ;D

Turns out there's a bit more to marksmanship than point and click. Who knew? Oh, right, I did.

[quote
ALTERNATIVELY;
Outlaw firearms, and only outlaws [and 'agents' of the government ] will have firearms.

And how is this supposed to be a good situation.

There will always be the arshole that thinks there better than everyone else. There NOT. Including agents of the government.

We have tight gun control here in Australia not to stop murders, or gun viloence. but so a bunch of ignorants that think there better than anyone else, can say we were right.

I put a post up earlier today that was removed by some admin.

About gun coontrol in the usa, where a aussie reporter went over their to Redneck GUNville town.

The reporter says to them, these weapons are illegal in Australia, to which the American replys you poor thing, while he cock the weapon and clicks the trigger.

Some one put one of those interveiws up on this forum board topic.

Quote:

The fun part is hearing people outside the US talk about it as if they know more about the subject than the registered gun owning American with first hand experience does

I'd suggest that there's as much ignorance on the matter within the US as without. And it's easy to fall into error on the matter given the basic facts. I mean you've got around 88 guns per 100 people, and we're fed a steady diet of death by gun both in the news and fiction. Even anecdotal evidence. I have a friend in the US I talk to regularly. For almost a year she lived in Oakland SF, quite frequently you could hear the sound of gunfire outside.

I have to say that she, as an IWW agitator and sometime prominent Left Winger wanted the right to bear arms kept as do other left wingers in the states, as protection from the state.

But for a 'Londoner of origin' like me to go against gun control requires a totally counter-intuitive leap.  ;D
I suppose you could say that I'm still of the opinion that less guns wouldn't do any harm.

Chard wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Quote: It appears very much more complicated than that. The biggest factors concerning homicide death is without doubt desperation and poverty. Which are major causes of crime everywhere. The difference is the US doesn't have anywhere near the social welfare programs to cushion the impact of poveryy that other first world nations have. Turns out people are less likely to commit crimes if they're not quite as desperate because their government makes an effort to hold up its end of the social contract.

People are far too eager to dismiss valid arguments on the basis that "oh its far more complicated than that". Well I say thats a copout. No one is saying there isn't more deeper, complex issues at play than mere access to guns, but my argument would be, if you are not willing to tackle these deeper socio-economic issues (which the US demonstably isn't), then you have to look at the things you can tackle. No doubt you are right - that if the issues of poverty, unemployment, inadequate welfare etc were improved, then the gun crime rate would drop without having to implement gun laws. But that is not happening is it? So we have a situation where there's this massive underclass of impoverished who resort to gun-related crime. Given that the root causes are not going to be addressed, the next best thing is to restrict access to guns.

The same arguments were made here in regards to youth suicide. Opponents of gun control said the root causes of depression and suicide won't be resolved by taking guns away from these vulnerable kids - therefore its useless. But of course its not useless. When suicidal kids don't have ready access to guns, they have to develop more elaborate methods of killing themselves. This increases the possibility that they won't go through with the act, increases the possibility that they will seek help. And lo and behold, suicides have dropped since the gun laws - gun suicides dramatically so.

Also Chard, if you are looking for evidence, I suggest you start with the US study I linked to earlier. Again, its limitations have been acknowledged. With regard to evidence for my "saturation effect", really, the comparison between the US and virtually all other comparable (ie 'first world', western) is compelling enough. I would also add the phenomenom we are seeing in Australia today, where although overall gun crime has decreased, the one area where it is spiking, is in hand-gun violence - and this is the one type of gun that has the least restrictions.

Finally, you mention how these "mass shootings" are so rare, therefore they shouldn't be a factor in considering gun laws. Well it depends what you want to define as "rare". In Australia there were maybe 6 or 7 "lone wolf" type random shootings (off the top of my head). Personally I would consider that 6 or 7 too many - especially if they were entirely preventable. What outraged Australians so much in the wake of Port Arthur was the fact that Martyn Bryant purchased his weapon and ammunition entirely legally. In this case the matter is perfectly simple and clear cut: if the gun laws were in place then, the weapon would not have been purchased, and more than likely the massacre would not have happened.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 1:33pm: Quote: It appears very much more complicated than that. The biggest factors concerning homicide death is without doubt desperation and poverty. Which are major causes of crime everywhere. The difference is the US doesn't have anywhere near the social welfare programs to cushion the impact of poveryy that other first world nations have. Turns out people are less likely to commit crimes if they're not quite as desperate because their government makes an effort to hold up its end of the social contract. People are far too eager to dismiss valid arguments on the basis that "oh its far more complicated than that". Well I say thats a copout. No one is saying there isn't more deeper, complex issues at play than mere access to guns, but my argument would be, if you are not willing to tackle these deeper socio-economic issues (which the US demonstably isn't), then you have to look at the things you can tackle. No doubt you are right - that if the issues of poverty, unemployment, inadequate welfare etc were improved, then the gun crime rate would drop without having to implement gun laws. But that is not happening is it? So we have a situation where there's this massive underclass of impoverished who resort to gun-related crime. Given that the root causes are not going to be addressed, the next best thing is to restrict access to guns. The same arguments were made here in regards to youth suicide. Opponents of gun control said the root causes of depression and suicide won't be resolved by taking guns away from these vulnerable kids - therefore its useless. But of course its not useless. When suicidal kids don't have ready access to guns, they have to develop more elaborate methods of killing themselves. This increases the possibility that they won't go through with the act, increases the possibility that they will seek help. And lo and behold, suicides have dropped since the gun laws - gun suicides dramatically so. Also Chard, if you are looking for evidence, I suggest you start with the US study I linked to earlier. Again, its limitations have been acknowledged. With regard to evidence for my "saturation effect", really, the comparison between the US and virtually all other comparable (ie 'first world', western) is compelling enough. I would also add the phenomenom we are seeing in Australia today, where although overall gun crime has decreased, the one area where it is spiking, is in hand-gun violence - and this is the one type of gun that has the least restrictions. Finally, you mention how these "mass shootings" are so rare, therefore they shouldn't be a factor in considering gun laws. Well it depends what you want to define as "rare". In Australia there were maybe 6 or 7 "lone wolf" type random shootings (off the top of my head). Personally I would consider that 6 or 7 too many - especially if they were entirely preventable. What outraged Australians so much in the wake of Port Arthur was the fact that Martyn Bryant purchased his weapon and ammunition entirely legally. In this case the matter is perfectly simple and clear cut: if the gun laws were in place then, the weapon would not have been purchased, and more than likely the massacre would not have happened.

I see you have heavily referenced the Institute of Makin Sh1t Up


But if you have some evidence for your fairy stories I'd be more than happy to look at them.


Something like this would be good, see how this story proves that your post is total bullsh1t, that's the sort of empirical evidence that I find works well..



During the past decade the suicide rate among young Australians has almost halved.

It is an extraordinary public health achievement, but one which has received little publicity.

Experts say a massive public education campaign and improvement in the treatment of depression are the key reasons for the success.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-06-08/reaching-out-for-help-as-australian-suicides-fall/1708070

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

But if you have some evidence for your fairy stories I'd be more than happy to look at them.

Sure, here you go:
http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf


Quote:

Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availa bility affected firearm homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate.

Also, from your own source:


Quote:

The Howard government's tightening of gun laws after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre also contributed to the decline in suicides, especially among young men. "After the new gun laws were introduced, the rate of gun suicide dropped twice as fast," Sydney University's associate professor Philip Alpers said. "If you reduce the availability of firearms, especially to impulsive young men, then the number of people dying by gunshot reduces."

;D ;D - maybe you should look at what you are actually posting before shooting your mouth off.

Grey wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

Quote: The fun part is hearing people outside the US talk about it as if they know more about the subject than the registered gun owning American with first hand experience does I'd suggest that there's as much ignorance on the matter within the US as without. And it's easy to fall into error on the matter given the basic facts.

The lack of understanding of US gun laws in the US is bad enough Obama's has called on Congress to enact gun legislation that we already had codified into law three times now just since the Sandy Hook shooting. It's bad enough people actually believe that you can supposedly purchase firearms at gunshows without a federal tax transfer being filed.


Quote:

I mean you've got around 88 guns per 100 people, and we're fed a steady diet of death by gun both in the news and fiction.

The numbers are close to reality, but you have to understand that while there might be 88 firearms per hundred Americans, only 30 of those Americans are registered gun owners, each owning 2 or more of those guns. You've got a one-in-three chance that any American yiu meet legally owns firearms, with less than a one-in-twenty chance among the legal gun owners also having a concealed carry permit and carrying a concealed handgun.



Quote:

Even anecdotal evidence. I have a friend in the US I talk to regularly. For almost a year she lived in Oakland SF, quite frequently you could hear the sound of gunfire outside.

Yeah, turns out urban areas tend to have large concentrations of poor people. If sista thinks Oakland is bad tell her to be thankful she didn't grow up in DC.



Quote:

I have to say that she, as an IWW agitator and sometime prominent Left Winger wanted the right to bear arms kept as do other left wingers in the states, as protection from the state.

I tend to shy away from folks like that and not because I'm employed by the government. I feel such sentiment undermines the pro-gun argument by allowing the anti-gun side to point at the small, but vocal, militia/anti-government types marginalizing the various sporting and self-defense applications pf firearms.

That's before getting into personal experiences I've had that make one hell of a correlative link between volume of anti-government rhetoric and unsafe shooting habits. The louder they are the less safe I feel having them armed with in line of sight of me.



Quote:

But for a 'Londoner of origin' like me to go against gun control requires a totally counter-intuitive leap.  ;D I suppose you could say that I'm still of the opinion that less guns wouldn't do any harm.

Guns don't kill people, bro. Physics kills people.

Ok, Gandalf, keep in mind I'm speaking as an American here.


polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 2:42pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 1:33pm: Quote: It appears very much more complicated than that. The biggest factors concerning homicide death is without doubt desperation and poverty. Which are major causes of crime everywhere. The difference is the US doesn't have anywhere near the social welfare programs to cushion the impact of poveryy that other first world nations have. Turns out people are less likely to commit crimes if they're not quite as desperate because their government makes an effort to hold up its end of the social contract. People are far too eager to dismiss valid arguments on the basis that "oh its far more complicated than that". Well I say thats a copout. No one is saying there isn't more deeper, complex issues at play than mere access to guns, but my argument would be, if you are not willing to tackle these deeper socio-economic issues (which the US demonstably isn't), then you have to look at the things you can tackle.

Only you're not solving the problem by doing so and you're doing this at the expense of the rights of law abiding citizens.



Quote:

No doubt you are right - that if the issues of poverty, unemployment, inadequate welfare etc were improved, then the gun crime rate would drop without having to implement gun laws. But that is not happening is it? So we have a situation where there's this massive underclass of impoverished who resort to gun-related crime. Given that the root causes are not going to be addressed, the next best thing is to restrict access to guns.

We already have some fairly comprehensive and restrictive gun laws already. Earlier you brought France and Germany as examples of nations with "good" gun control laws, yet I can think of several examples where the equivelent US law is more restrictive than German or French law, yet we still have multiple times their rates of firearms crime. So if the regulation in there and doesn't solve the problem then maybe it's yime to actually deal with the real causes and stop this placeboesque bullshit?



Quote:

Also Chard, if you are looking for evidence, I suggest you start with the US study I linked to earlier. Again, its limitations have been acknowledged. With regard to evidence for my "saturation effect", really, the comparison between the US and virtually all other comparable (ie 'first world', western) is compelling enough. I would also add the phenomenom we are seeing in Australia today, where although overall gun crime has decreased, the one area where it is spiking, is in hand-gun violence - and this is the one type of gun that has the least restrictions.

The study you linked to doesn't have anything to do with what I asked for, which was evidence that the number of firearms stolen from law abiding gun ownets is a high enough percentage of firearmes used in the commission of a crime to justify a ban.

Also, handguns here are the third most heavily regulated class of firearm after weapons with a fully automatic fire capability and weapons covered by the "other destructive device" clause of the National Firearms Act. You guys are doing it seriously wrong if the most concealable and portable class of firearm is the least restricted.



Quote:

Finally, you mention how these "mass shootings" are so rare, therefore they shouldn't be a factor in considering gun laws. Well it depends what you want to define as "rare". In Australia there were maybe 6 or 7 "lone wolf" type random shootings (off the top of my head). Personally I would consider that 6 or 7 too many - especially if they were entirely preventable.

I could make the same argument calling for banning all vehicles that run on gasoline because of the remote possibility the car could explode. Banning something that happens so infrequently as to be considered abnormal isn't a solution, it's just more jerking of the knee.



Quote:

What outraged Australians so much in the wake of Port Arthur was the fact that Martyn Bryant purchased his weapon and ammunition entirely legally. In this case the matter is perfectly simple and clear cut: if the gun laws were in place then, the weapon would not have been purchased, and more than likely the massacre would not have happened.

Yes, a clinically retarded man with psychiatric issues should never have been allowed to purchase firearms. That's the fault of whoever issued the permits, not the fault of firearms. Thanks to an irrational, emotionally based response law abiding Australians get punished instead of doing the rational thing and fixing the system to prevent the same thing from happening.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 3:51pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 3:38pm: But if you have some evidence for your fairy stories I'd be more than happy to look at them. Sure, here you go: http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf Quote: Using differences across states in the number of firearms withdrawn, we test whether the reduction in firearms availa bility affected firearm homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80 per cent, with no statistically significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The estimated effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude, but is less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks, and to instrumenting the state-level buyback rate. Also, from your own source: [quote]The Howard government's tightening of gun laws after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre also contributed to the decline in suicides, especially among young men. "After the new gun laws were introduced, the rate of gun suicide dropped twice as fast," Sydney University's associate professor Philip Alpers said. "If you reduce the availability of firearms, especially to impulsive young men, then the number of people dying by gunshot reduces."

;D ;D - maybe you should look at what you are actually posting before shooting your mouth off.[/quote]



Same story one sentence said improvments in mental heath prevent suicides and the other dentence says it was gun control. I will agree with gun control lowering gun suicides but it will have bugger all to do with overall suicides.


As far as reading the whole paper before crapping on too much the same could be said of you  ;D





The relationship between firearms ownership rates and violent death rates is one of the most
hotly-contested issues in the economics of crime. From a theoretical standpoint, gun control could
either increase or reduce violence, depending on the particular circumstances (Marceau 1998). One
set of hypotheses suggests that the relationship should be positive: more guns in the hands of
criminals increases the probability that an assault will end in death, while the presence of guns in a
home raises the chance that a suicide attempt will be successful. But another set of hypotheses
suggests a negative relationship: more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens may have a
deterrent effect, which might in turn reduce the overall incidence of violence.4


http://ftp.iza.org/dp4995.pdf



But you seem to need the absolute one sided view of a gun hysteric, pity you won't get it in the real world, hey

Quote:

Chard - I tend to shy away from folks like that and not because I'm employed by the government. I feel such sentiment undermines the pro-gun argument by allowing the anti-gun side to point at the small, but vocal, militia/anti-government types marginalizing the various sporting and self-defense applications pf firearms. That's before getting into personal experiences I've had that make one hell of a correlative link between volume of anti-government rhetoric and unsafe shooting habits. The louder they are the less safe I feel having them armed with in line of sight of me.

I'm not talking about militia types. I'm taking about labour organisers and academics learning first hand just how far government instruments will go to suppress the left. The murder of mexican undocumented in LA and a girl of 19 who spent a scary night on the porch cradling a gun with her Daddy sheltering two black families who were neighbours while the KKK were on the rampage in their texan town. The KKK and the local police were not two entirely seperate animals.

Grey wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

Quote: Chard - I tend to shy away from folks like that and not because I'm employed by the government. I feel such sentiment undermines the pro-gun argument by allowing the anti-gun side to point at the small, but vocal, militia/anti-government types marginalizing the various sporting and self-defense applications pf firearms. That's before getting into personal experiences I've had that make one hell of a correlative link between volume of anti-government rhetoric and unsafe shooting habits. The louder they are the less safe I feel having them armed with in line of sight of me. I'm not talking about militia types. I'm taking about labour organisers and academics learning first hand just how far government instruments will go to suppress the left. The murder of mexican undocumented in LA and a girl of 19 who spent a scary night on the porch cradling a gun with her Daddy sheltering two black families who were neighbours while the KKK were on the rampage in their texan town. The KKK and the local police were not two entirely seperate animals.

Yeah, you just described precisely who I'm talking about, those that actually believe it's their duty as citizens to remain under arms to prevent tyranny. Just because the guy holding the gun has left-leaning political views doesn't make them any less silly than right-wing militia wannabes, they're still under the delusion that being armed when dealing with authority figures does something beside escalate an encounter with law enforcement into a potential use of deadly force incident.

Best way of dealing with government officials is not to carry a gun and act like a belligerent. The best way is be polite, be respectful, comply with resonable requests, and retain the services of a decent lawyer.

The question that keeps coming back to me is
Why does anyone non miltary need anything more than a single shot weapon?

Self defense?
If your concerned with that you'd think you'd learn to shoot that weapon, it only takes 1 bullet

Hunting?
Again 1 well placed shot will drop any animal, it might run but not for more than 100/200 meters. If your out there spraying and praying for thrill kills,serious hunters should be the most vocal in your removal.

From my own experience which I willing admit is VERY limited.
My wife's father has guns and hunts, I've shot a 22 and a 303, and I cant be sure that's the correct names, it comes down to power.
I admit it was a rush to have in my hands something that could snuff out life in seconds(God complex?)
I shot a duck, then I cooked it and ate it.
Went to bed and all I heard all night was another duck calling, felt like sh!t, projecting human emotions onto that lonely call.
Am I a wuss, maybe but guns suck, they exist for only 1 purpose the rest is just bullshit.

Gun control works if only in stopping rash kills.
A shot takes milliseconds, stabbing/beating, even running someone down in your car all have lead time that may cause the more balanced to reconsider or stop after a point(in the case of beating) that allows survival.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

The question that keeps coming back to me is Why does anyone non miltary need anything more than a single shot weapon?

To put more than 1 hole in something quickly. 

Glad I could help.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

The question that keeps coming back to me is Why does any bbits or squirrels. Quote: Self defense? If your concerned with that you'd think you'd learn to shoot that weapon, it only takes 1 bullet Different situations call for different weapons and tactics. For example, a shot gun is great for home defense with the right shells because there's a low probability the shot will fully penitrate the walls in your home if you miss, but they're fairly useless at longer ranges and are difficult to conceal for CCW use. This is before we get into issues like marksmanship, tactics, and the effects of "pucker factor" on your shooting. [Quote] Hunting? Again 1 well placed shot will drop any animal, it might run but not for more than 100/200 meters. If your out there spraying and praying for thrill kills,serious hunters should be the most vocal in your removal.

Ah, so you're the smacking idiot hunting rabits with a deer rifle.



Quote:

From my own experience which I willing admit is VERY limited.

Let me stop you right here, guy. As it turns out I have about three decades worth of shooting experience. I've hunted most small, medium and large game animals native to North America. I've spent several years in the US Army, all of it in or around the infantry. I've been a member of IPSC and IDPA for over a decade, and I've been a lifetime NRA member since before I hit puberty. In short, when it comes to shooting I know my sh*t.

So far everything you've said has been wrong. Ponder that for a moment before you write your next post and take time to think up questions if you have them. I'm always happy to teach people about the wonderous joys of owning, maintaining, and utilizing the Almighty BOOMstick.

My wife's father has guns and hunts, I've shot a 22 and a 303, and I cant be sure that's the correct names, it comes

... wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 10:24pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:24pm: The question that keeps coming back to me is Why does anyone non miltary need anything more than a single shot weapon? To put more than 1 hole in something quickly.  Glad I could help.

Pretty much true for shooting at people. Murphy's Thirty-sixth Law of Combat states that anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice.

Joking aside, most militaru and law enforcement training teaches you to aim center of mass as fire controlled pairs of shots into whoever you'vre trying to kill in order to increase the probability that you hit something vital amd quickly dispatch the threat. Most western military and armed law enforcement agents also train constantly totry and make sure that when you do shoot the stress of the situation doesn't deteriorate your skills to badly (pucker factor). So imagine how hard I giggled at Smith's "one shot, one kill" nonsense.

Chard wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 10:45pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29th, 2013 at 8:24pm: The question that keeps coming back to me is Why does any bbits or squirrels. Quote: Self defense? If your concerned with that you'd think you'd learn to shoot that weapon, it only takes 1 bullet Different situations call for different weapons and tactics. For example, a shot gun is great for home defense with the right shells because there's a low probability the shot will fully penitrate the walls in your home if you miss, but they're fairly useless at longer ranges and are difficult to conceal for CCW use. This is before we get into issues like marksmanship, tactics, and the effects of "pucker factor" on your shooting. [Quote] Hunting? Again 1 well placed shot will drop any animal, it might run but not for more than 100/200 meters. If your out there spraying and praying for thrill kills,serious hunters should be the most vocal in your removal. Ah, so you're the smacking idiot hunting rabits with a deer rifle. [QUOTE]From my own experience which I willing admit is VERY limited.

Let me stop you right here, guy. As it turns out I have about three decades worth of shooting experience. I've hunted most small, medium and large game animals native to North America. I've spent several years in the US Army, all of it in or around the infantry. I've been a member of IPSC and IDPA for over a decade, and I've been a lifetime NRA member since before I hit puberty. In short, when it comes to shooting I know my sh*t.

So far everything you've said has been wrong. Ponder that for a moment before you write your next post and take time to think up questions if you have them. I'm always happy to teach people about the wonderous joys of owning, maintaining, and utilizing the Almighty BOOMstick.

My wife's father has guns and hunts, I've shot a 22 and a 303, and I cant be sure that's the correct names, it comes
[/quote]

Well thanks
The actual 1st small parargraph of my post is my question.
I freely admit to a total lack of knowledge of guns and the urge to go and kill something for fun.
Im not some hippy vegan and killing for food is a totally different matter, if your going to kill something at least have a practicle reason.


You on the other hand seem to have a vast knowledge of both and I would be happy to hear your side without the Yankee redneck bravado.
I understand it is a deeply personal and patriotic subject for Americans, and that's fine its part of your psych.

Although after everything else you didn't seem to address the ease, swiftness and range of killing via this type of weapon.
With a knife your up close you must mean it, with a gun you can be 30 meters away and the thing down range is a target not someone struggling in your grasp.

Chard wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

So imagine how hard I giggled at Smith's "one shot, one kill" nonsense. Posted by: Chard  Mark & Quote

I never said 1 shot 1 kill, I said a single shot weapon, a bolt action rifle can have a magazine of bullets, you just need to pull the bolt back and re chamber a round.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 29^th, 2013 at 11:13pm:

Well thanks The actual 1st small parargraph of my post is my question.

Well, question answered. Different firearms have different uses, hence why one might need more that one firearm. As to why you might need more that a single shot, lots of reasons, most of them involving the first shot either missing or not cleanly killing.


Quote:

I freely admit to a total lack of knowledge of guns and the urge to go and kill something for fun. Im not some hippy vegan and killing for food is a totally different matter, if your going to kill something at least have a practicle reason.

I hunt mostly because I enjoy the meat and my local butcher doesn't keep stuff like deer or elk in stock usually. The vegans will tell you meat is murder... sweet, delicious murder.



Quote:

Although after everything else you didn't seem to address the ease, swiftness and range of killing via this type of weapon.

That would be pointing out the obvious. Though I would caution against the "ease" part simply because it takes a goodbit of training along with constant and consistant practile to be a good marksman. Time for a range anecdote...

One time I was taking a friend of mine to the range for the first time. Closest this dude's been to a gun before was playing Call of Duty. After giving him the Gun Safety Lecture I set hip up at the 5m line with a pistol, an old Baretta 92F in 9x19mm. I tell him to line up the front sight post on the target and sqeeze the trigger, gentle pressure, don't jerk it. BANG! Missed. I tell him to try again, bang miss. Bang miss, bang miss, goes on like that ror eight rounds.

He gets frustrated, after all he just missed eight for eight at 5m. That's when I noticed the group of divits in the groung half a meter in front of the target. What was happening was buddy was anticipating the recoil and pulling the barrel rownwards right before the trigger would break, sending $4 worth of 9mm into the dirt. I showed hom what he was doing wrong and sure enough rounds nine through fourteen hit the target, and from there it was training him around issues like eye dominance vs handedness, trigger technique, and such.

After that initial problem he learmed quick and had a lot of fun until I made him clean the weapons he shot when wr got back to my house. Anways, point is there's a lot more to shooting than point and click.



Quote:

With a knife your up close you must mean it, with a gun you can be 30 meters away and the thing down range is a target not someone struggling in your grasp.

See the above story. I've seen guys with as much or more experience as me miss completely at well under 30m under stressful firing conditions. A gun is just a tool and like all tools they're only as effective as the person using it.

This is why the  citizens of America are reluctant to give up their guns, and rightly so.....they have a good reason to fear their government. They've woken up since 9/11 and they are only now starting to realise who the real enemy might be.




Americans troubled more by governmental abuse than terrorism

New polling numbers suggest that United States citizens are on average more afraid of their own government then the threat of another terrorist attack.

Even after a pair of bombings in Boston two weeks ago injured hundreds, more Americans say they are unwilling to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security than those who are.

A handful of polls conducted in the days after the Boston Marathon bombings show that US citizens are responding much differently than in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 people. Not only are Americans more opposed now to giving up personal freedoms for the sake of security than they were after 9/11, but other statistics show that distrust against the federal government continues to climb.

Just one day after the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, pollsters with Fox News asked a sample of Americans, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” Forty-three percent of the respondents said they would, while 45 percent said no. Comparatively, 71 percent of Americans asked a similar question in October 2001 said they’d be willing to give up personal freedoms, while only 20 percent opposed at the time.

In the dozen years since 9/11, frequent polling conducted by Fox has suggests that the majority of Americans have all the while said they’d give up their freedoms for the sake of security. Only with the latest inquiry though are those answers reversed: the last time a majority of Americans opposed giving up privacy for security was May 2001.

http://rt.com/usa/boston-terrorism-government-america-573/

Quote:

Best way of dealing with government officials is not to carry a gun and act like a belligerent. The best way is be polite, be respectful, comply with resonable requests, and retain the services of a decent lawyer.

That's just naivety talking.

Grey wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Quote: Best way of dealing with government officials is not to carry a gun and act like a belligerent. The best way is be polite, be respectful, comply with resonable requests, and retain the services of a decent lawyer. That's just naivety talking.

No, that's common sense and experience talking. I'm a black male in the deep south, which means I get to ineract with law enforcement a bit more than fair skinned folk like yourself. Worse, I'm a well educated, economicall enfranchised black male living in the south, which means when I get pulled over for Driving While Black, I'm dressed nicer and drive a much better car than the cop has, which usually puts them on the defensive before they even walk up to my window. Even worse, I've got a concealed carry permit, so I'm a well educated, upper-middle class, ARMED black man.

So to throw the cop off his game, as soon as he says "afternoon, sir, do you know why I pulled you over", instead of saying "because your a racist asshole with a small dick and a badge" I say the following...

Sir, it is my duty to inform you that I have a valid concealed carry permit and I am currently armed. Would you like me to surrender my firearm to you for the durration of the stop?

That takes the wind out of their sails. Tuey expect me to throw an attitude, not to be polite and respectful. They expect me to be armed, but not legally. After that they get curious and talk with me, which usually ends not with a ticket, but with them maybe warning me against whatever traffic offense they puloed me over for and wishing me a nice day.

See, don't need guns to protect me from goverment because I am smarter than they are. I know how they think which makes them predictable and easy to manipulate.

Chard wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 4:06am:

Grey wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:09pm: Quote: Best way of dealing with government officials is not to carry a gun and act like a belligerent. The best way is be polite, be respectful, comply with resonable requests, and retain the services of a decent lawyer. That's just naivety talking. No, that's common sense and experience talking. I'm a black male in the deep south, which means I get to ineract with law enforcement a bit more than fair skinned folk like yourself. Worse, I'm a well educated, economicall enfranchised black male living in the south, which means when I get pulled over for Driving While Black, I'm dressed nicer and drive a much better car than the cop has, which usually puts them on the defensive before they even walk up to my window. Even worse, I've got a concealed carry permit, so I'm a well educated, upper-middle class, ARMED black man. So to throw the cop off his game, as soon as he says "afternoon, sir, do you know why I pulled you over", instead of saying "because your a racist asshole with a small dick and a badge" I say the following... Sir, it is my duty to inform you that I have a valid concealed carry permit and I am currently armed. Would you like me to surrender my firearm to you for the durration of the stop? That takes the wind out of their sails. Tuey expect me to throw an attitude, not to be polite and respectful. They expect me to be armed, but not legally. After that they get curious and talk with me, which usually ends not with a ticket, but with them maybe warning me against whatever traffic offense they puloed me over for and wishing me a nice day. See, don't need guns to protect me from goverment because I am smarter than they are. I know how they think which makes them predictable and easy to manipulate.

I like your style Chard, but you don't make a point by writing your own scenario. I can sweet talk the officious with the best of us, but I could also write scenarios where the Mexican illegal/union organiser has no choice but shooting first.  I'm not going to bother because I can see you're an intelligent imaginative guy too  :)

Grey wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 7:40pm:

Chard wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:06am: Grey wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 12:09pm: Quote: Best way of dealing with government officials is not to carry a gun and act like a belligerent. The best way is be polite, be respectful, comply with resonable requests, and retain the services of a decent lawyer. That's just naivety talking. No, that's common sense and experience talking. I'm a black male in the deep south, which means I get to ineract with law enforcement a bit more than fair skinned folk like yourself. Worse, I'm a well educated, economicall enfranchised black male living in the south, which means when I get pulled over for Driving While Black, I'm dressed nicer and drive a much better car than the cop has, which usually puts them on the defensive before they even walk up to my window. Even worse, I've got a concealed carry permit, so I'm a well educated, upper-middle class, ARMED black man. So to throw the cop off his game, as soon as he says "afternoon, sir, do you know why I pulled you over", instead of saying "because your a racist asshole with a small dick and a badge" I say the following... Sir, it is my duty to inform you that I have a valid concealed carry permit and I am currently armed. Would you like me to surrender my firearm to you for the durration of the stop? That takes the wind out of their sails. Tuey expect me to throw an attitude, not to be polite and respectful. They expect me to be armed, but not legally. After that they get curious and talk with me, which usually ends not with a ticket, but with them maybe warning me against whatever traffic offense they puloed me over for and wishing me a nice day. See, don't need guns to protect me from goverment because I am smarter than they are. I know how they think which makes them predictable and easy to manipulate. I like your style Chard, but you don't make a point by writing your own scenario. I can sweet talk the officious with the best of us, but I could also write scenarios where the Mexican illegal/union organiser has no choice but shooting first.  I'm not going to bother because I can see you're an intelligent imaginative guy too  :)

I run scenarios through my head and past some like-minded frinds. Nothing wrong with it, in fact I think doing so falls under the "Good Idea" side of the box. I've even gamed out the idea of being in situations where I would forced to fire on a law enforcement officer going so far as getting a few cops and a criminal defense autourny to try and figure out if there are legally justifiable circumstances for shooting a cop. Best we could figure is after tge shoot you absolutely have got to surrender, preferably with your lawyer presen and a few tv news crews present, and do it immediately in order to 1. Get your side of the story in BEFORE an investigation can get underway, 2. Have your lawyer on hand for interviews and to bear witness to any improper behavior by the investigating officer, and 3. Get the media their document the event and bring attention to it in order to further keep the cops on the level.

Even then it's still very iffy even if you shoot under clear cut self-defense. Best bet is to study your state and local use of force laws and try to aviod situations where you might end up in an aggressive encounter with law enforcement.

Quote:

I run scenarios through my head and past some like-minded frinds. Nothing wrong with it,

No there's nothing wrong with it, I regard a good hypothetical to be as instructive as a reality.

See the people I know on the left who want guns, don't necessarily want to shoot policemen or anybody else. Guns are threateners and they are a big  and very distinctive noise. Being able to buy time and attention is often enough. Like when a vigilante gang, who don't like the advice you've been giving to a community of 'wetbacks' who're working for peanuts and living in chickencoops, come round to intimidate by rape.

Chard wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 1:32am:

See the above story. I've seen guys with as much or more experience as me miss completely at well under 30m under stressful firing conditions. A gun is just a tool and like all tools they're only as effective as the person using it.

Not many trained knife fighters around either so your point is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or blunt object. You have a much higher chance of survival if attacked with a knife. It is also possible to train with empty hand defense against knife attack to increase survival odds, the only way you are going to even things up if someone has a gun is to be armed yourself. Its why the US has it so wrong, escalation will never solve violence issues. The problem is, firearm ownership in the US has been so cleverly manipulated by interest groups and corporations over the years that is is irrevocably tied to masculinity issues in your society. Most of the time the first response I get from Amercians when I state my anti gun position is a comment on my nmanhood.

ian wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Chard wrote on Apr 30th, 2013 at 1:32am: See the above story. I've seen guys with as much or more experience as me miss completely at well under 30m under stressful firing conditions. A gun is just a tool and like all tools they're only as effective as the person using it. Not many trained knife fighters around either so your point is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife or blunt object. You have a much higher chance of survival if attacked with a knife. It is also possible to train with empty hand defense against knife attack to increase survival odds, the only way you are going to even things up if someone has a gun is to be armed yourself.

Way to miss the smacking point, guy. I was talking about accuracy, and it really does take training and consistant practice to be able to hit anything with a gun. I guess you were to busy building you idiotic kife strawman to notice what was actually being dicussed.


Quote:

Its why the US has it so wrong, escalation will never solve violence issues. The problem is, firearm ownership in the US has been so cleverly manipulated by interest groups and corporations over the years that is is irrevocably tied to masculinity issues in your society. Most of the time the first response I get from Amercians when I state my anti gun position is a comment on my nmanhood.

So what you're trying to say is you come off as an idiot, prople call you names, and instead of trying to not be an idiot you instead choose to reinforce your idiothood by interrupting ongoibg discussions with strawmanding dipshittery and whining about the size of your manhood. Gotcha, now kindly disappear up your own ass so the rest of us can go back to discussing the topic.