chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
kylemittskus wrote:As opposed to the LEFT? Then sure.

I do not think the religious crazies are on the RIGHT as opposed to WRONG side at all. The gun weirdos are just delusional. Well, the religious crazies are delusional too, so... ah, whatever.



Haha yeah you're right, there are nuts on both sides of the gun control debate. I was thinking of the ones on the left. I think the gun paranoia on the right is pretty silly, but at least they're not trying to limit my rights. Some of them make me a little nervous on a personal level, but not on a political one.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
chemvictim wrote:Haha yeah you're right, there are nuts on both sides of the gun control debate. I was thinking of the ones on the left. I think the gun paranoia on the right is pretty silly, but at least they're not trying to limit my rights. Some of them make me a little nervous on a personal level, but not on a political one.



Gotcha. Yeah, I hate the "let's get rid of assault rifles and high five each other for fixing the problem" people. Really, only because they're fixing (by the most favorable estimates) only 6% of an issue and pretending they solved it in its entirety.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD

When will they learn that the middle of the road approach will get more votes

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

I'm posting this because it's on-topic and I thought it was interesting, NOT because I support or oppose the type of legislation described within. Apologies if this has been linked here before. Food for thought/discussion:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:Gotcha. Yeah, I hate the "let's get rid of assault rifles and high five each other for fixing the problem" people.



Another reason to hate them is that assault rifles were banned in 1986.
And yes your confusion is ENTIRELY THE INTENT of the people controlling the crazies on he left.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
moondigger wrote:I'm posting this because it's on-topic and I thought it was interesting, NOT because I support or oppose the type of legislation described within. Apologies if this has been linked here before. Food for thought/discussion:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3



Seriously? That is an entertainment program, they don't even claim to be trying to be honest. It makes fun television and overall helps brainwash the underclockedic college age kids who watch it- but it's not news.

The gun grab in Australia lead to a statistically significant increase (10s of percent, number depends on what you include and which years you pick, can be as high as 60%) in violent crime in Australia, and the US matched the decrease in the murder rate over the same period.

Any honest measurement of the Australian gun ban proves that they don't work if the goal is to reduce violence / increase safety.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

Just one source, Google will help you find much much more.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
mother wrote:Seriously? That is an entertainment program, they don't even claim to be trying to be honest. It makes fun television and overall helps brainwash the underclockedic college age kids who watch it- but it's not news.


I didn't say it was news. But it is a good starting point for discussion.

The gun grab in Australia lead to a statistically significant increase (10s of percent, number depends on what you include and which years you pick, can be as high as 60%) in violent crime in Australia,


A.) Citation needed. From what I have read, the statistics you cite were put forth by one group and one group only: the NRA. Australian government officials accused the NRA of falsifying statistics to reach the conclusions you cite and requested the NRA remove those citations from its website.
B.) This isn't specifically about "violent crime" anyway, except tangentially. The Daily Show piece was done in the wake of the Newtown massacre and focuses primarily on the decrease in mass shootings in Australia subsequent to the Australian legislation. If you can cite something that refutes the claim that mass shooting events in Australia dropped to zero subsequent to the legislation, post it here.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:Another reason to hate them is that assault rifles were banned in 1986.
And yes your confusion is ENTIRELY THE INTENT of the people controlling the crazies on he left.



"Assault rifle" is merely a signifier for something. Call it whatever you or they want. I don't know what the current legal limits on bullets in guns are, but as we talked about a while ago. If I can only shoot 10 bullets at a time, I can simply reload. Ya know, that's kind of like being able to drink 16 oz of soda at a time...

Stupid legislation -- not legislation that anyone disagrees with, but legislation that is literally stupid -- should be banned and the supporters shunned.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
moondigger wrote:A.) Citation needed.


I gave you one, and there are multiple studies, and I don't think ANY are from the NRA.

So, umm, I think we're done talking about this.

kylemittskus wrote:"Assault rifle" is merely a signifier for something.


Yeah, it's a signifier for magazine fed weapons that shoot a rifle cartridge and have select-fire capability.

Kind of like "Champagne" is a signifier of sparkling white wine produced in the Champagne region via the methode champenoise. And the only reason people call cheap force carbonated crap "Champagne" is because people with vested interests fought to be able to mislabel it.

Edit: FWIW Kyle, the thing that made you "wrong" isn't the number of bullets (cartridges?) it can hold(not shoot). It's how many in shoots at once. Things that shoot one bullet at a time are different then ones that can be set to shoot 1/sometimes a burst/allofthem [which is an "Assault Rifle" (defined above) or a "Machine Gun"(shoots big ammo, weighs a ton, usually belt fed) or a "Sub-Machine Gun" (shoots pistol type ammo)]

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
mother wrote:I gave you one, and there are multiple studies, and I don't think ANY are from the NRA.

So, umm, I think we're done talking about this.


You are free to stop talking about this whenever you wish, of course, but don't fool yourself into thinking you refuted the chief claim made in the Daily Show piece.

Hand-waving and vague references to "multiple studies" might fly in some circles, but I'm not a storm trooper and I know what droids I'm looking for.

Note that I am still making no claims as to the efficacy of Australia's gun control legislation. I posted a link to a video as a point of discussion. In that video, a claim was made: that there have been no gun massacres in Australia since they put their strict gun control laws into effect. (This was in contrast to the multiple gun massacres which happened prior.)

You, on the other hand, made a somewhat extraordinary claim. Not that the gun control laws in Australia were merely ineffective (which I would not be surprised about if it could be conclusively determined). No, you claimed that said laws somehow made violent crime worse than it had been prior.

Never mind that, though... given the difficulty the researchers looking into this have even agreeing on the definition of "violent crime" and the messiness of both data collection and the subjective interpretations of such, I don't expect anybody to be able to settle that question here.

But that wasn't my request. No, my request was much easier. I trust if there was a shooting massacre in Australia subsequent to the implementation of those gun reforms, it was well-covered in the news media and would be easy to cite here. Please provide a citation. The WSJ article you linked does not.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

So any gun that can shoot more than a bullet per trigger pull is already illegal. Now, they're making magazines larger than X illegal. I'm not pro-guns; I'm just against legislation that doesn't fix anything.

Moondigger: Sparky published some studies a few pages ago about an increase in fun violence post-gun reform, IIRC. It was the same post that he left with if that makes it easier to find.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger

Kyle - contrary to what one might think based on my last couple posts here, I'm not in favor of strict gun control. I thought the linked Daily Show piece was entertaining, and I find the claim they make about mass shootings in Australia interesting. It's quite possible that a hundred years from now it will be nothing more than a 15 or 20 year statistical blip in the historical record of Australian gun massacres. But that can't be said right now.

I did go digging for the references you say Sparky made, and I think I found the right post. Unless I missed something, the links he provided didn't say anything about the reforms in Australia.

And again, I don't think the interesting question is the one that can't really be answered due to the messiness of the data and statistical interpretations. The interesting question is this: Is it really true that there haven't been any gun massacres in Australia in the ~15 years since their gun reforms were implemented?

If the answer is, 'No, seven people were killed and five injured in Adelaide in May 2003 when a gunman opened fire at a Men At Work reunion concert,' then that's fine. It wouldn't be the first time a television piece was wrong about something. Just provide a source.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

So now that you've totally and obviously lost the arguement about gun control working you're trying to reframe the arguement to be specificalyl and simply limited to "gun control in Australia reduced massacres with guns".

Go buy another 75+ orders and then come back when you're as good as us ;)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:So any gun that can shoot more than a bullet per trigger pull is already illegal. Now, they're making magazines larger than X illegal. I'm not pro-guns; I'm just against legislation that doesn't fix anything.



That is one of the two major problems with ALL gun control legislation in the US.

The other being that pesky "Constitution" thing. ;)

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Gun laws in Australia might or might not have resulted in no more mass shootings. To me, that's not relevant. I've heard people say that if it would save just one more life, they'd happily give up all gun rights. I feel that I have to apologize in advance for saying so, but I would not. And I don't even own a gun. I just hate the idea of outlawing a thing just because some people might abuse that thing.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
mother wrote:So now that you've totally and obviously lost the arguement about gun control working you're trying to reframe the arguement to be specificalyl and simply limited to "gun control in Australia reduced massacres with guns"


I think you're having trouble with reading comprehension. Seriously. I never once made any argument about "gun control working," whatever it is you think that means.

And I'm not reframing anything. I asked a specific question at the very end of my first response to you. You responded to arguments I never made. I attempted to address your comments and clarify my question in my next response. You still don't follow.

You can either read what I write, consider its meaning, and respond to what I actually said, or you can continue to argue one side of an imaginary debate you're having with Michael Bloomberg or Ted Kennedy. It's up to you.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother

Bye.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
moondigger wrote:Kyle - contrary to what one might think based on my last couple posts here, I'm not in favor of strict gun control. I thought the linked Daily Show piece was entertaining, and I find the claim they make about mass shootings in Australia interesting. It's quite possible that a hundred years from now it will be nothing more than a 15 or 20 year statistical blip in the historical record of Australian gun massacres. But that can't be said right now.

I did go digging for the references you say Sparky made, and I think I found the right post. Unless I missed something, the links he provided didn't say anything about the reforms in Australia.

And again, I don't think the interesting question is the one that can't really be answered due to the messiness of the data and statistical interpretations. The interesting question is this: Is it really true that there haven't been any gun massacres in Australia in the ~15 years since their gun reforms were implemented?

If the answer is, 'No, seven people were killed and five injured in Adelaide in May 2003 when a gunman opened fire at a Men At Work reunion concert,' then that's fine. It wouldn't be the first time a television piece was wrong about something. Just provide a source.



Monash University shooting in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002.

The Daily Show isn't entertainment, it's propaganda.


Also, what the gun control nuts don't mention, is that both the UK & Australians are "subjects" and not "citizens".


Back to lurking.



Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

ERMD


quality posts: 1 Private Messages ERMD
MarkDaSpark wrote:Monash University shooting in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002.

The Daily Show isn't entertainment, it's propaganda.


Also, what the gun control nuts don't mention, is that both the UK & Australians are "subjects" and not "citizens".


Back to lurking.


QFT

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
MarkDaSpark wrote:Monash University shooting in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002.


The commonly understood definition of "massacre" (and the dictionary definition, FWIW) is that it's the killing of a "large number of people." Both the researchers examining the impact of the Australian laws and the politicians in the linked videos define it similarly. Two people killed is not a "massacre."

The Australians implemented those laws in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre -- 35 dead, 23 injured, by a single shooter with an AR-15 and an L1A1.

They aren't saying that bans on so-called assault weapons will prevent deranged shooting attacks. Rather, the idea is that a deranged shooter can do a lot more damage in a short time with an AR-15 (Port Arthur) than with a revolver (Monash University). If you don't think that's true, then you're denying the very idea that one firearm can be better suited for one kind of use than another kind of use.

Their claim stands: There haven't been any gun massacres so far in Australia subsequent to the implementation of their reforms in the late 1990s.

As previously mentioned, that may turn out to be just a statistical anomaly. But it does nobody any good to pretend that the number and severity of such incidents hasn't dropped considerably in the past 15 years there.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

Now we're just playing semantic games.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:Now we're just playing semantic games.



well, at least they aren't anti-semantic games.

Also, I love how we've tackled about every subject in here from Abortion to Civil rights, to religion and came away with insightful debate. Guns however elicit, YOU'RE A computeING 386 AND YOU DON'T KNOW core dump ABOUT ANYTHING AND ON TOP OF THAT YOU'RE A GOAT FELATER THAT LIKES TO STRAP JELLYFISH ON YOUR NARDS, basically I disagree with not only you, but your existence.

That makes me smile for some reason.

Edit: for the record, I'm not calling Kyle those names. What he does with Jellyfish is between him and the jellyfish and likely consensual, and if it isn't, all he need do is join the military, then it will be regardless.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kylemittskus wrote:Now we're just playing semantic games.


These discussions are usually all about semantics. What's an "assault rifle?" How are you defining "violent crime?" How can you say "X" when you really mean "Y?" That's part of the reason I don't think the messier/subtler questions can be settled to anybody's satisfaction.

I do think it's possible to understand what a massacre is without resorting to semantics. It's not a matter of semantics in the video. They were quite clear to define their terms -- "mass shootings" = "more than four deaths."

Note that the gun lobbyist in the video would have preferred the definition of "mass shootings" to involve a larger number of deaths, not smaller. This is because they were talking about how many mass shootings occurred in Australia prior to the reforms. (i.e., It's not a mass shooting if 'only' four or five deaths occurred. That way the number of mass shootings that happened when the laws were more lax is minimized.)

Here the argument is being put forward that something should be considered a mass shooting or massacre if only two people died, as in the Monash University case. The term has to have a definition that applies whether we're talking about pre-1997 or post-1997, or the discussion makes no sense.

So if "mass shooting" or "massacre" means more than four deaths, Australia had 13 such mass shootings between 1978 and 1996. In the years between 1997 and now, they've had none.

Whether you consider the Monash University shooting a massacre or not, it's still a lot different than Port Arthur. Or Aurora, or Newtown, or Virginia Tech. I trust you understand the difference.

The AR-15 was designed to be a more effective weapon for certain uses than a revolver. Those differences apply whether the shooter is a responsible hobbyist, a guerrilla fighter, or a deranged crackpot shooting up a mall.

I accept (and support, whether you believe it or not) the argument that limitations on gun ownership should be considered carefully against the second amendment.

In the same way that limitations on free speech should be weighed carefully against the first amendment.

But I'm not going to pretend that the facts are not facts. If we are going to say that the right to own an AR-15 (or any similar style weapon) won't be abridged, then we should accept that such weapons can and do fall into the hands of deranged individuals. And that the loss of life will be greater than if those individuals had less effective weapons.

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman

^^^ Good point bowtie. I don't understand why this topic elicits such a vehement response that seems immune to logic (on all sides) in comparison to others, e.g. abortion, gay marriage, and even health care reform.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
mother wrote:Bye.



Now now...we can play nice, can't we?

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
klezman wrote:^^^ Good point bowtie. I don't understand why this topic elicits such a vehement response that seems immune to logic (on all sides) in comparison to others, e.g. abortion, gay marriage, and even health care reform.



Nor do I, but in the immortal words of Ron Burgundy:

Ron Burgundy: Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast!

Champ Kind: It jumped up a notch.

Ron Burgundy: It did, didn’t it?

Brick Tamland: Yeah, I stabbed a man in the heart.

Ron Burgundy: I saw that! Brick killed a guy! Did you throw a trident?

Brick Tamland: Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.

Ron Burgundy: Brick, I’ve been meaning to talk to you about that. You should probably find yourself a safe house or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you’re probably wanted for murder.

Meaning of course, we should ban tridents

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
klezman wrote:Now now...we can play nice, can't we?



Not interested in troll feeding, sorry

klezman


quality posts: 119 Private Messages klezman
mother wrote:Not interested in troll feeding, sorry



Agreed troll feeding is not desired. IMO, that is not the case this time - to me this was simply talking past each other.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
klezman wrote:Agreed troll feeding is not desired. IMO, that is not the case this time - to me this was simply talking past each other.



Then by all means you keep talking to them. I'm done

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus

I'm not sure I remember what the original argument was or why I joined in at all. Here's where I think we are:

Australia banned something and since then, it was claimed that no shooting massacres had occurred. The video defined massacre a certain way to potentially (although maybe unintentionally) exclude a shooting that Sparky cited. My point, and I think mother's point, was that banning something doesn't prevent it from being used (uh... drugs?).

My very salient (obviously) point was that even if the kind of guns that are used in killings with death tolls +4, that's only 6% of less of the "gun violence" problem. And it's stupid to high five each other as if the problem has been fixed.

Somehow, this all got derailed and now we're talking about nothing.

I think it's very hard to disagree with the following statement:

Prohibition doesn't solve anything and indeed, may make the prohibited item or action even less controllable.

Also, can people stop ****ing leaving?!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:I'm not sure I remember what the original argument was or why I joined in at all.



The videos mocked those who said gun control doesn't work because it 'did in Australia' and went on to mockingly ask the former PM how he had failed, etc.

The truth is that it was not only ineffective in Oz but arguably an ABJECT FAILURE by almost any measurement.

And I wasn't leaving, I was saying that to one particular person as I was no longer willing to engage them in discussion.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
moondigger wrote:But I'm not going to pretend that the facts are not facts. If we are going to say that the right to own an AR-15 (or any similar style weapon) won't be abridged, then we should accept that such weapons can and do fall into the hands of deranged individuals. And that the loss of life will be greater than if those individuals had less effective weapons.



Well, yeah. That's pretty obvious. I'd guess that you could create multiple levels of deadliness, and I think we've already drawn at least one line in the sand. Automatic weapons are illegal or at least very difficult to obtain, correct? Gun owners are pretty clearly unwilling to move the line, possibly because they don't see an end to it.

I can imagine that, if you want a weapon for protection, you'd prefer not to be limited to one which is less effective than what the criminals use. I'm not a gun person so I'm just guessing here.

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kylemittskus wrote:Here's where I think we are:

Australia banned something and since then, it was claimed that no shooting massacres had occurred.


Yes.

The video defined massacre a certain way to potentially (although maybe unintentionally) exclude a shooting that Sparky cited.


Sort of. They were trying to make comparisons between the incidence of massacres during the 18 years prior to 1997 (lax gun laws) and the post-1997 years (strict gun laws, after a buyback of all so-called assault-style weapons).

You can't make a comparison unless you're talking about the same metric during both periods. It wasn't the video producers that defined "mass shooting." The 'more than four deaths' metric was used in Australia already.

My point, and I think mother's point, was that banning something doesn't prevent it from being used (uh... drugs?).


Apologies for pointing this out, but that's bumper-sticker politics, not considered discussion. To pick one (convenient) example, use of the AR-15 in gun attacks in Australia has dropped rather significantly since 1997. It would be foolish to assume they're all gone, but most of them are, and the Monash University shooter used a bunch of handguns.

My very salient (obviously) point was that even if the kind of guns that are used in killings with death tolls +4, that's only 6% of less of the "gun violence" problem.


I'm not arguing that point, and unless I missed something, I can't figure out why anybody thinks I did.

Also, can people stop ****ing leaving?!


Who left? If mother doesn't want to participate in the gun discussion, that's fine. It doesn't appear to be a permanent departure from all discussions.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
moondigger wrote:But I'm not going to pretend that the facts are not facts. If we are going to say that the right to own an AR-15 (or any similar style weapon) won't be abridged, then we should accept that such weapons can and do fall into the hands of deranged individuals. And that the loss of life will be greater than if those individuals had less effective weapons.



You're assuming that if the weapons are made illegal, whatever weapon that may be, then they aren't accessible by people whom we don't want to have them. I'll repeat part of my previous post that is more true than most people, policy makers especially, seem to ignore:

Prohibition doesn't work. In many cases, it takes away the authorities' control over the item or action. We can currently, legally control alcohol. Is it a fool-proof system? Of course not. But the control imposed over alcohol is about a million times better than it was during prohibition.*

*Not to say there aren't problems with the control itself as our friends in NJ, VA, et. al. can attest to.

Edit: just saw the reply. Bumper sticker politics? It's been shown over and over again with numerous examples. I used drugs as a single example. I can list MANY more.

I would say using Australia, a non-military, small island with a comparatively few number of people that are quite homogeneous in race and culture, secluded from pathways for illegal contraband, especially compared to the US (Mexico!) as the paragon of gun control's success is a pretty weak argument. I'm only half-joking here -- where would they get more guns once they got rid of the ones they had? And why?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:Well, yeah. That's pretty obvious. I'd guess that you could create multiple levels of deadliness, and I think we've already drawn at least one line in the sand. Automatic weapons are illegal or at least very difficult to obtain, correct? Gun owners are pretty clearly unwilling to move the line, possibly because they don't see an end to it.

I can imagine that, if you want a weapon for protection, you'd prefer not to be limited to one which is less effective than what the criminals use. I'm not a gun person so I'm just guessing here.



Pretty hard to get more effective for home protection than a shotgun. You don't even really need to aim the damn thing unless you're using a deer slug, in which case, if you hit them, they're done.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
kylemittskus wrote:You're assuming that if the weapons are made illegal, whatever weapon that may be, then they aren't accessible by people whom we don't want to have them. I'll repeat part of my previous post that is more true than most people, policy makers especially, seem to ignore:

Prohibition doesn't work. In many cases, it takes away the authorities' control over the item or action. We can currently, legally control alcohol. Is it a fool-proof system? Of course not. But the control imposed over alcohol is about a million times better than it was during prohibition.*

Not to say there aren't problems with the control itself as our friends in NJ, VA, et. al. can attest to.



In the context of mass shootings (random targeting in a public location in this iteration) not many criminals (in the sense we think of gun toting lawbreakers [gang members]), actively target these areas. So while they may have them, the random lunatic who DOES target these types of crowded areas may have considerable difficulty getting their hands on one because A) they can't just buy them from the store B) the means to purchase one from the black market may be 1.) unknown to them 2.) prohibitively expensive 3.)unavailable, because as a gang member, I'm unlikely to sell my personal weapon.

So in the context of "mass shootings" possibly it would be an effective means to blunt this style of violence. Maybe not, I don't care either way honestly. I'm not buying a gun, I'm not shooting people, and I'm not for gun control. I'm willing to listen to reasonable arguments however.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

moondigger


quality posts: 11 Private Messages moondigger
kylemittskus wrote:You're assuming that if the weapons are made illegal, whatever weapon that may be, then they aren't accessible by people whom we don't want to have them.


I'm making no such assumptions. I'm pointing at an example which appears to have been at least somewhat effective at preventing the kinds of massacres in which dozens of people are killed, like Port Arthur, VA Tech, etc.

Whether such a thing could or should be tried in the U.S. is a different question.

(BTW, Prohibition is not closely analogous, for various reasons.)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 229 Private Messages kylemittskus
bhodilee wrote:In the context of mass shootings (random targeting in a public location in this iteration) not many criminals (in the sense we think of gun toting lawbreakers [gang members]), actively target these areas. So while they may have them, the random lunatic who DOES target these types of crowded areas may have considerable difficulty getting their hands on one because A) they can't just buy them from the store B) the means to purchase one from the black market may be 1.) unknown to them 2.) prohibitively expensive 3.)unavailable, because as a gang member, I'm unlikely to sell my personal weapon.

So in the context of "mass shootings" possibly it would be an effective means to blunt this style of violence. Maybe not, I don't care either way honestly. I'm not buying a gun, I'm not shooting people, and I'm not for gun control. I'm willing to listen to reasonable arguments however.



Fair. I was speaking to gun control as a whole issue and not to the 6% of the whole issue. I do think that making X gun illegal will keep it out of the hands of the crazy kid whose dad is a underclocked and a) has the gun and b) leaves the safe unlocked if there even is a safe.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 174 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
moondigger wrote:These discussions are usually all about semantics. What's an "assault rifle?" How are you defining "violent crime?" How can you say "X" when you really mean "Y?" That's part of the reason I don't think the messier/subtler questions can be settled to anybody's satisfaction.

I do think it's possible to understand what a massacre is without resorting to semantics. It's not a matter of semantics in the video. They were quite clear to define their terms -- "mass shootings" = "more than four deaths."

Note that the gun lobbyist in the video would have preferred the definition of "mass shootings" to involve a larger number of deaths, not smaller. This is because they were talking about how many mass shootings occurred in Australia prior to the reforms. (i.e., It's not a mass shooting if 'only' four or five deaths occurred. That way the number of mass shootings that happened when the laws were more lax is minimized.)

Here the argument is being put forward that something should be considered a mass shooting or massacre if only two people died, as in the Monash University case. The term has to have a definition that applies whether we're talking about pre-1997 or post-1997, or the discussion makes no sense.

So if "mass shooting" or "massacre" means more than four deaths, Australia had 13 such mass shootings between 1978 and 1996. In the years between 1997 and now, they've had none.

Whether you consider the Monash University shooting a massacre or not, it's still a lot different than Port Arthur. Or Aurora, or Newtown, or Virginia Tech. I trust you understand the difference.

The AR-15 was designed to be a more effective weapon for certain uses than a revolver. Those differences apply whether the shooter is a responsible hobbyist, a guerrilla fighter, or a deranged crackpot shooting up a mall.

I accept (and support, whether you believe it or not) the argument that limitations on gun ownership should be considered carefully against the second amendment.

In the same way that limitations on free speech should be weighed carefully against the first amendment.

But I'm not going to pretend that the facts are not facts. If we are going to say that the right to own an AR-15 (or any similar style weapon) won't be abridged, then we should accept that such weapons can and do fall into the hands of deranged individuals. And that the loss of life will be greater than if those individuals had less effective weapons.



I think the main problem is using "Massacre" and "Mass Shootings" interchangeably.

Yes, while only 2 died, there were 7 people shot in total. So yes, that would be considered a "Mass Shooting", but not a "Massacre".

Unless of course you subscribe to the theorem that 1 death is too many (i.e., ban all guns), in which case then 2 deaths would indeed be a "Massacre".


The problem with using the "Australia banned guns, and there have been no massacres, so America should do the same", is that like all comparisons, there are many reasons factoring in, that also affect such items.

You have only to look at Chicago & D.C. for such other factors. Chicago, which seems to have banned most guns, is still one of the most deadliest cities in the world, whereas D.C., which loosened gun control is safer.



Everyone seems to want to ignore the stats. Deaths by firearms are down, and have been going down for years. It's only in the "Gun Free Zones" where it's going up.


And to correct you, the AR-15 was NOT designed for that purpose. ANY semi-auto rifle can do the same. It's just that the AR-15 looks more dangerous due to all the cosmetic changes. I have to find the graphic that explains this (compares additions to AR-15 to enhancements on a car -- makes them look fast and dangerous, but really doesn't add anything).


Edit: Found it!



Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.