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


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 

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



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

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




You are maintaining your average of 100% wrong. 


I have neither a gun licence or own any weapons.


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

[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.

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


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.

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


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

Quote:


Also, from your own source:

Quote:


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

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

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


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:


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:


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:


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:


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.