Another school shooting.

[akashra]

Q: How many NRA members does it take to change a light bulb?
A: More guns!

 

[Spike-X]

Yep, I have no issue with people being against murder. I have an issue with the press leading the charge on morality, considering there have been studies that show their coverage actually increases the chance of these type of things occurring in the first instance and also the occurrence of copycats. They are hypocrites.

Fair point.

 

[vtwiz]

Yep, I have no issue with people being against murder. I have an issue with the press leading the charge on morality, considering there have been studies that show their coverage actually increases the chance of these type of things occurring in the first instance and also the occurrence of copycats. They are hypocrites.

Yep, blame the media......seriously?

Maybe, if guns were not freely available in the US, there would be less mass shootings and in turn less for the media to report?

 

[Spike-X]

Yep, blame the media......seriously?

Maybe, if guns were not freely available in the US, there would be less mass shootings and in turn less for the media to report?

The media do play a part in the never-ending cycle. But yeah, mostly the guns.

 

[Registered Nutcase]

Yep, blame the media......seriously?

Maybe, if guns were not freely available in the US, there would be less mass shootings and in turn less for the media to report?

That is the reason suicides are not reported in Australian media.

 

[J@se]

I don't solely blame the Media, but they certainly have a very significant part to play and should shoulder their fair share of blame.



[video=youtube;PezlFNTGWv4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4[/video]


It's not just guns. http://www.claytoncramer.com/scholarly/JMME2.htm

Most people I talk to are quite surprised to find out that there are mass murderers who kill with weapons other than guns. They are even more surprised when they find out that arson mass murder victims in the last few years have outnumbered gun mass murders. Why is this a surprise? The reason is that press coverage of non-firearms mass murders is almost non-existent. As Table 1 shows, arson mass murderers and knife mass murderers receive relatively little attention from Time and Newsweek. As should be obvious, there is a very large discrepancy between the amount of coverage given to arson mass murders, and mass murderers involving guns exclusively. [4] Almost nine times as much coverage were given to exclusive firearms mass murderers, as to arson mass murderers.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14495&page=1

Research in the USA showed that the mainstream news media provide training manuals for copycats, with their inset boxes listing weapons in 'arsenals'; they refer to the killers' 'meticulous planning' while laying out easy bullet-point lists of actions leading up to the crimes. The killers he researched kept articles from Time and Newsweek, and obsessively watched news and current affairs reports on how they could easily get guns to commit massacres. Now they turn to NBC, CNN and ABC and the online media. The news shows, not computer games or violent movies, are the most effective teachers of mass killing.

 

[Arete]

It's not incorrect at all, it is the law. You want to debate trivialities, there you go.

Err. No. "trivially proven" is a term indicating that providing proof against a claim is trivial (i.e. easily).

A couple of polls that skirt around asking whether the 2nd Amendment should be scrapped does not mean that the majority of Americans agree with that question and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Again, No. The second amendment does not need to be scrapped at all. The castle doctrine and stand your ground precedents which legitimize the use of firearms as a proactive means of defense are set by supreme court common law precedents. Common law precedents can be overturned. I provided a comprehensive list of examples including the 1986 supreme court precedent of Hardwick vs Georgia upholding sodomy laws, which was overturned by the contrary decision in the supreme court case of Lawrence v. Texas. If Zimmerman vs Florida ends up in the supreme court, there's a very real chance that the stand your ground precedent will be overturned, having a major impact on concealed carry laws.

Published in a "News outlet"/Tabloid showing the pic below...

No media bias there at all, LOL.

Sure but it's also based on a logical fallacy that because you've proven one poll to be biased, all polls are similarly biased. I can provide further evidence for a majority support for gun control laws: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/recent-shootings-gun-control-support-fading.aspx http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/...ws-just-one-third-favor-ban-sale-all-handguns

Can you prove that the actual poll by the pew research center I cited was biased? If not, then it holds as much weight as an argument that because some guns are used to kill people, all of them are.

BTW, I edited my post, for you to bring it up shows you're more emotional about the issue than I am mate,

No, the reason I brought it up was because, rather than refute the actual science I presented, you generated a caricaturised strawman of my position, then dismissed that logically fallacious presentation of what I actually argued, demonstrating a good example of the lack of logical basis behind a large proportion of the "guns for safety" argument. Note how I've not called you a "gun nut" etc. and used that as a basis to dismiss you opinions.

Enjoy your neighbourhood.:tongue1:

There's actually a lot of things I really like about living here. Being 2 hrs from Plattekill being one of them. Shitty winter weather and gun violence aren't among them.

 

[Silly Goose]

Gun law in america is a strange topic, some people take it very personally.
My logic tells me that the accurate range of a gun rifle in most peoples hands is 50-75 meters because of adrenaline, fear and excitement ect.
With a knife you have to be within 1 meter and even then its harder to kill stab people.
So if you take the guns out of the equation you realise its much harder to kill 28 people with a knife tan an assault grade weapon.

 

[Bermshot]

@ jhonny

Around pg 25 you offended me and most likely many others wheather they are aware of it? but which I doubt. Tis democracy of which you spoke and I call you false. Not your perfected use of linguistics but the way you use it. Your rhetoric is grand and I have applauded such in the past. The problem here is? You know as well as I do that what you speak is to sway opinion even if just a little.

So I ask respectfully that you desist in promulgating a agenda that most are not fully aware of before they aware of it.

 

[kgunzer]

I thought I told you to cease and desist from this thread?

Does any law exist that stops, prevents or even raise an alarm a psychopath gains access to anything that can harm or kill?

Let Darwin's theory of evolution weed out the weak minded. :rant:

Freedom to do what is right is absolute. To say otherwise is a grand lie.

Now concentrate on the hybrid you're building. I wan't to feel the ride as well.

 

[Bermshot]

Let Darwin's theory of evolution weed out the weak minded. :rant:

Freedom to do what is right is absolute. To say otherwise is a grand lie.

Now concentrate on the hybrid you're building. I wan't to feel the ride as well.

Destroy the source of human regicide.

 

[J@se]

No, the reason I brought it up was because, rather than refute the actual science I presented, you generated a caricaturised strawman of my position, then dismissed that logically fallacious presentation of what I actually argued, demonstrating a good example of the lack of logical basis behind a large proportion of the "guns for safety" argument. Note how I've not called you a "gun nut" etc. and used that as a basis to dismiss you opinions.

The "Actual" science you presented? Really? Do you even know what comprises the stats you "presented"? I wasn't going to worry about this shit any further, but honestly, you're wrong.

Here's some numbers for you, they are taken from a Harvard review into Firearm Bans and the cooked books that go into statistical evidence supporting such bans. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative. It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United States compared with other modern developed nations, which is why, (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate. Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so.

It goes on to say that in Russia where all handguns are banned and long rifles are restricted to use in hunting only they have a homicide rate far higher than that of any other nation in the developed world! The Russian murder rate sits at approximately 3 times that of the USA.

Evidence suggests that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.

While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France, Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries, however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002.

Further to that, the nations of Europe have historically low levels of murder, however this was the case before gun controls were put in place. In England there were no substantive gun control in the early 20th century. Anyone could buy a firearm with no checks, though at the same time...

During this period gun control prevailed far less in England or Europe than in certain American states which nevertheless had—and continue to have—murder rates that were and are comparatively very high. In this connection, two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released its evaluation from a review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some original empirical research. It failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents.The same conclusion was reached in 2003 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then extant studies.

What does it say about modern England?

In the late 1990s, England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban of all handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands of guns were confiscated from those owners law‐abiding enough to turn them in to authorities. Without suggesting this caused violence, the ban’s ineffectiveness was such that by the year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States.

How are the authorities handling crime in this Gunless Utopia?

To conserve the resources of the inundated criminal justice system, English police no longer investigate burglary and “minor assaults.” As of 2006, if the police catch a mugger, robber,
or burglar, or other “minor” criminal in the act, the policy is to release them with a warning rather than to arrest and prosecute them. It used to be that English police vehemently opposed
the idea of armed policing. Today, ever more police are being armed. Justifying the assignment of armed squads to block roads and carry out random car searches, a police commander
asserts: “It is a massive deterrent to gunmen if they think that there are going to be armed police.” How far is that from the rationale on which 40 American states have enacted laws giving
qualified, trained citizens the right to carry concealed guns? Indeed, news media editorials have appeared in England arguing that civilians should be allowed guns for defense. There is
currently a vigorous controversy over proposals (which the Blair government first endorsed but now opposes) to amend the law of self‐defense to protect victims from prosecution for
using deadly force against burglars.

Post 1 of many.

 

[Bermshot]

Anyway, there are so many discrepencies through the "main" story that to still haggle about guns is soft mindedness.

 

[J@se]

Let's look back at the USA.

There is no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, resulting in more or less the same amount of death. Elementary as this point is, proponents of the more guns equal more death mantra seem oblivious to it. One study asserts that Americans are more likely to be shot to death than people in the world’s other 35 wealthier nations. While this is literally true, it is irrelevant—except, perhaps to people terrified not of death per se but just death by gunshot. A fact that should be of greater concern—but which the study fails to mention—is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent.

It also says that the determinants of murder and suicide are caused by social, economic and cultural factors. Dare I say it, also access to decent mental health care. It is not caused by the presence of a deadly mechanism to take ones own life, they may be convenient in some way. But given their absence other methods will be substituted.

The explanation of this correlation may be political rather than criminological: jurisdictions afflicted with violent crime tend to severely restrict gun ownership. This, however, does not suppress the crime, for banning guns cannot alleviate the socio‐cultural and economic factors that are the real determinants of violence and crime rates.

On to the misconception that having a firearm actually make life for a law abiding citizen more dangerous.

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly involve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . "The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;” that banning handgun possession only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citizens;” that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;” that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;” that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”

But look at the facts.

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually contradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “criminological axioms.” Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.” Rather, almost all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviours. “The vast majority of persons involved in life threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”

What it goes on to say is that the majority of murderers of stranger or of someone known to them (we'll get to that little nugget later), is part of a pattern of violence. Remember I'm not talking about the recent school shooter with these numbers, but neither are you.

That murderers are not ordinary, law‐abiding responsible adults is further documented in other sources. Psychological studies of juvenile murderers variously find that at least 80%, if not all, are psychotic or have psychotic symptoms. Of Massachusetts domestic murderers in the years 1991–1995, 73.7% had a “prior [adult] criminal history,” 16.5% had an active restraining order registered against them at the time of the homicide, and 46.3% of the violent perpetrators had had a restraining order taken out against them sometime before their crime.

This is something you won't hear from gun control advocates.

This last study is one of many exposing the false argument that a significant number of murders involve ordinary people killing spouses in a moment of rage. Although there are many domestic homicides, such murders do not occur frequently in ordinary families, nor are the murderers ordinary, law‐abiding adults. “The day‐to‐day reality is that most family murders are prefaced by a long history of assaults.

One study reports that in nearly 96% of murders there was a history of domestic violence. Not normal people, or law abiding in any case.

Post 2 of many

 

[pharmaboy]

It goes on to say that in Russia where all handguns are banned and long rifles are restricted to use in hunting only they have a homicide rate far higher than that of any other nation in the developed world! The Russian murder rate sits at approximately 3 times that of the USA.



.

Interestingly one of the authors represents the rifle association in canada. Also interesting is that a paper in 2007 uses data for 2002, which just happens to be the peak of the problems in Russia - a country that also happens to have had a near complete breakdown of law and order with the highest corruption numbers of any "developed" country (quotes, because I personally dont accept Russia as a western nation worthy of comparison for enlightened jurisdictions who have unbiased judicial systems). Russia also had a period where assualt weapons went missing with alarming regularity following failure to pay enlisted men who sold off the arms supplies - the number of assualt weapons in Russia is simply astounding and still the major supplier to rogue states/private armies.

Scientific method always prefers the simplest fit, not the most complicated. The sommersaults required to argue for guns here or the US as if it wouldnt effect death rates requires ignoring the preponderance of data.

That any aussie finds the US model as somehow something to be emulated, troubles me. Frankly, like many readers here, the more I delve into the mindset of some gunowners, the more against any relaxation of current Australian laws I become.

Please note, i have taken solace from the other gun owning contributors who are happy with the status quo, and dont accept the US situation as something acvceptable for a modern democrcay.

 

[J@se]

Interestingly one of the authors represents the rifle association in canada. Also interesting is that a paper in 2007 uses data for 2002, which just happens to be the peak of the problems in Russia - a country that also happens to have had a near complete breakdown of law and order with the highest corruption numbers of any "developed" country (quotes, because I personally dont accept Russia as a western nation worthy of comparison for enlightened jurisdictions who have unbiased judicial systems). Russia also had a period where assualt weapons went missing with alarming regularity following failure to pay enlisted men who sold off the arms supplies - the number of assualt weapons in Russia is simply astounding and still the major supplier to rogue states/private armies.

Scientific method always prefers the simplest fit, not the most complicated. The sommersaults required to argue for guns here or the US as if it wouldnt effect death rates requires ignoring the preponderance of data.

That any aussie finds the US model as somehow something to be emulated, troubles me. Frankly, like many readers here, the more I delve into the mindset of some gunowners, the more against any relaxation of current Australian laws I become.

Please note, i have taken solace from the other gun owning contributors who are happy with the status quo, and dont accept the US situation as something acvceptable for a modern democrcay.

Fair call on the Russia comparison. I considered that when posting but TBH, we're discussing legal firearms. The fact that there are illegal guns in either country is relevant only in the fact that they are used by criminals and not law abiding citizens. We have shootings over here by criminals using stolen or black market guns too.

I am not advocating we emulate the US system at all. Where in any post have I said that? If I have somehow alluded to that then it was entirely unintentional. There are no summersaults required to prove/disprove reductions in legal gun ownership decreasing murder rates, its there in black and white. Simply putting the authors background in question doesn't change the data.

 

[J@se]

Here is the nugget.

The only kind of evidence cited to support the myth that most murderers are ordinary people is that many murders arise from arguments or occur in homes and between acquaintances. These bare facts are only relevant if one assumes that criminals do not have acquaintances or homes or arguments. Of the many studies belying this, the broadest analyzed a year’s national data on gun murders occurring in homes and between acquaintances. It found “the most common victim/offender relationship” was “where both parties . . . knew one another because of prior illegal transactions.”

Thus the term “acquaintance homicide” does not refer solely to murders between ordinary acquaintances. Rather it encompasses, for example: drug dealers killed by competitors or customers, gang members killed by members of the same or rival gangs, and women killed by stalkers or abusers who have brutalized them on earlier occasions, all individuals for whom federal and state laws already prohibit gun possession.

Here is another unintended consequence of the proposed ban. This video was made post Obamas re-election, but prior to the Sandy Hook massacre. There are record gun sales currently occurring in the US, some stores report doing $24 million trade in the last 5 days which for that store is more than their usual yearly trade. People are now unable to buy High-Cap magazines, and bulk ammo is sold out too. There are now large stores with no AR style firearms on the shelves and no re-stock date because supply has been far exceeded by demand. Looking at this fact, do we seriously think a ban will change anything? The US government is talking about beefing up the ATF to cope with enforcement, but so far no $ figure has emerged for the beefing up of mental health services nor is there any plan currently to do so.

If you think these guys attitude to the ban is isolated you are sorely mistaken.

[video=youtube;Y88VNIeNSZo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y88VNIeNSZo[/video]

 

[Bermshot]

breez

I don't think you have to feel guilty in continuous justify. You are a clear thinker and that holds tons of weight

 

[johnny]

@ jhonny

Around pg 25 you offended me and most likely many others wheather they are aware of it? but which I doubt. Tis democracy of which you spoke and I call you false. Not your perfected use of linguistics but the way you use it. Your rhetoric is grand and I have applauded such in the past. The problem here is? You know as well as I do that what you speak is to sway opinion even if just a little.

So I ask respectfully that you desist in promulgating a agenda that most are not fully aware of before they aware of it.

Whilst I wish you were trolling I know that you were not.

Walk towards the light, dude......

 

[johnny]

I am surprised that you say that. I thought that someone with your experiances would be able to see it happening in Australia, all be it in rather different means to what the populus generally thinks when they hear the "erosion of liberty". Things like the constant increase in legislation, harsher penilities, more and hasher powers for the police, curruption of all 3 levels of the government the list goes on. The expasion of Government by its definition is always going to errode our liberties.

Even though we live in a Liberal Democrazy and we vote does not mean we are not voting for a 2 headed snake. While they do have their differences they have been consistantly erroded our freedoms for a long time.

Can you explain what you mean by 'increase in legislation"? Do mean that there are more laws being passed? And if so, you realise that very few laws that get passed have anything to do with regulating activity, right? When you say harsher penalties, can you give me an example? In addition to that, harsher penalties does not equal 'liberties being eroded' it means that the cost of disobeying regulation has a greater cost than it used to - the fact that it already had a cost means that the activity had already been proscribed. Which harsher police powers are you referring to? Corruption is not related to taking away liberties, it's that people are disobeying regulation, which would suggest that the laws to regulate behaviour are not strict or widely enforced. How is 'government expanding'? Secondly, you also have to ask whether life and activity is expanding. New technologies such as the internet, 3D printers - or previously expensive technologies becoming cheap and proliferating through society, such as laser, cameras, satellite imagery, etc. also change human and social behaviour, that usually means that new laws have to be created, such as spam laws and child porn laws for the net, laws against shining lasers at aircraft cockpits and down the track, possibly prohibiting code related to 3D printing have to be created as a reaction to new behaviours/technology. So make sure you relate legislation to life to determine 'increasing powers' against 'reactive powers'.