Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
Can America be fixed?
- Thread starter Dozer
- Start date
Zaf, I agree that there haven't been overly compelling arguments about gun control but I think you're as biased as you accuse others to be. Some of the evidence that you put out has huge holes in it (like the above when listing El Salvador's few years of restrictions as a failure) and you tend to dodge discussing difficult things when they don't suit you, jast as many of those you argue with.
I don't think either side of this discussion sits on solid ground and I don't think the discussions here address the complexity of violence in society as it's difficult to see many people herre that haven't come to the argument without pre-conceived positions and are just arguing for them, me included.
I don't think either side of this discussion sits on solid ground and I don't think the discussions here address the complexity of violence in society as it's difficult to see many people herre that haven't come to the argument without pre-conceived positions and are just arguing for them, me included.
flamin'trek
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Been drinking the NRA cool aid still? Your 'facts' are just as sketchy as anyone else in this thread. Guns are not effective at killing? It is exactly what they are designed to do. That they don't kill more people is probably because they are somewhat controlled.
The whole thing is not a simple argument which is why this thread, and the whole US situation, is dragging on.
You are pro-gun. I am not. I will never agree with you. I'm glad I live in a country where guns are not 'normal'.
Ultra Lord
Hurts. Requires Money. And is nerdy.
I’m gonna disagree with this, we don’t live in a country without guns. Hell, theres a 22 range in suburban engadine that has a fair few members that are active. Plenty of people I know own guns actively hunt/target shoot. There not as uncommon as you might think, people just don’t go shouting about it like the americans do. But what we do have is reponsible owners going about things the right way, which I am grateful for.
On the whole I think we got the gun laws right in australia. Restricted access to what type of firearm (nobody wants people shooting things to shit with semi-auto noob cannons. Hunting should be a respectful pastime, not a over the top bloodbath.) background checks and waiting periods as everything needs to be processed. Most people can’t be arsed so most people don’t have them. Me included, too much hassle for the odd weekend away with the old man taking a couple of rabbits for the pot, rather take the bikes to canberra and hit up the ducks nuts for a schnitty.
Haven’t had a coffee yet so that probably reads like shit.
Edit: @moorey: grammery cheque plz
flamin'trek
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Agree. by 'normal' I meant that they aren't seen everyday, it's not common to have one in your house, unless you are into hunting. Gunshots are uncommon. Gun 'events' are newsworthy etc.
flamin'trek
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Zaf is coming from a hyper-rational position where dispassionate statistics frame everything. Disagreeing with the interpretation of those stats doesn't make a position irrational.
Obviously we can learn a lot from the numbers, however the statistics themselves don't produce the solution. It's up to us to interpret the statistics, and create policy and regulation using the numbers as just one facet in discussion.
For me, the fact that the "lone-shooter with no priors snapping and going postal" is a near immeasurably small percentage of homicide stats doesn't mean that it's therefore barely worth addressing. The fact is, a teenager in the USA can still amass an arsenal of combat-style weapons with little oversight and go on another rampage tomorrow. In Australia, the same kid cannot do this.
I don't think that "it's all too hard, there are too many guns already, he coulda made a bomb or stabbed people with a sword" is a justification for determining that the gun is irrelevant to the incident. In the school shooting scenario, the gun is very specifically at the centre of it.
For school-shooter types, I think there's a 'romance' (for want of a better word) about the military-style gun and the way they engage with their targets. I seriously doubt they would go in with any means possible - they want to do what their school shooter predecessors did. Starting to limit their access to this type of weapon may not immediately have an effect, but with attrition over the years it may do.
Just because some stats say that gun control have not been effective in the past, does not unequivocally determine that those solutions are no longer worth considering. Just because cancer hasn't be cured yet despite many failed attempts, doesn't mean that medical science is not ultimately going to be the solution.
Kids are still being shot up in schools, and statistically insignificant or not, it just not good enough to throw our hands up and say "too hard, why bother".
Obviously we can learn a lot from the numbers, however the statistics themselves don't produce the solution. It's up to us to interpret the statistics, and create policy and regulation using the numbers as just one facet in discussion.
For me, the fact that the "lone-shooter with no priors snapping and going postal" is a near immeasurably small percentage of homicide stats doesn't mean that it's therefore barely worth addressing. The fact is, a teenager in the USA can still amass an arsenal of combat-style weapons with little oversight and go on another rampage tomorrow. In Australia, the same kid cannot do this.
I don't think that "it's all too hard, there are too many guns already, he coulda made a bomb or stabbed people with a sword" is a justification for determining that the gun is irrelevant to the incident. In the school shooting scenario, the gun is very specifically at the centre of it.
For school-shooter types, I think there's a 'romance' (for want of a better word) about the military-style gun and the way they engage with their targets. I seriously doubt they would go in with any means possible - they want to do what their school shooter predecessors did. Starting to limit their access to this type of weapon may not immediately have an effect, but with attrition over the years it may do.
Just because some stats say that gun control have not been effective in the past, does not unequivocally determine that those solutions are no longer worth considering. Just because cancer hasn't be cured yet despite many failed attempts, doesn't mean that medical science is not ultimately going to be the solution.
Kids are still being shot up in schools, and statistically insignificant or not, it just not good enough to throw our hands up and say "too hard, why bother".
Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
pink poodle
ここには見るべきものは何もありません
The blame clearly lies with first person shooter video games. These kids want to live out the violent adventures of their games and don't truely comprehend the impact of their actions because they have been desensitised. Also ban rap music.
Of note...if a person runs into a school/mall/bus/church/library with a knife, axe, or sword their kill rate would likely be reduced. The likelihood of them being over powered and disarmed is increased, the options for neutralising them broaden, their range of attack is significantly reduced, and so on.
Of note...if a person runs into a school/mall/bus/church/library with a knife, axe, or sword their kill rate would likely be reduced. The likelihood of them being over powered and disarmed is increased, the options for neutralising them broaden, their range of attack is significantly reduced, and so on.
Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
You're now wilfully misrepresenting what those of us who disagree with you have said.
It has been mentioned repeatedly that limiting access is just one aspect that is worth looking at, and that mental health and vetting are part of the solution.
Literally nobody on here has said or even insinuated that all you need to do is ban guns and problem solved.
Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
pink poodle
ここには見るべきものは何もありません
Actually I did forget to mention the bomb making...in case you hadn't noticed our secret police (I'm not a fan of them) seem to keep a close eye on people learning how to and buying resources to construct. It isn't a particularly easy path to tread and eliminates the spur of the moment aspect as most people can't just duck home whip the bomb out of the bomb locker and engage. Not to say that it doesn't happen and certainly in less controlled location it is too regular and has devastating impacts. Post Oklahoma, how often has this happened in America?
As for the more recent non-firearm kill sprees here, that all become theoretical. Would they have used a gun if they could've gotten one? Would that have caused more death and injury? Would they have used a brick if they couldn't get a knife? In NSW you can't buy plastic picnic knives if you are under 16 (or maybe it is 18?) because knives are considered dangerous. Guns are more effective mass murder weapon than close quarters weapons. They can engage more targets faster across a bigger range.