webdiplomacy.net

You are thirty times more likely to die driving to the store for groceries by a drunk driver than being hit by a bullet for any reason.

I'm not pro 2a, but gun control probably isn't behind these massacres. In the 80's there was less gun control and worse mental healthcare, but the massacres weren't happening.

What's changed is the media. We deify these people. They're all motivated to beat the high score.

For those who would suggest that sensible gun control laws do not work.. We've proved that they do work in Australia..over the last 25 years. How difficult can sensible gun law reform be to implement ? Can't be that hard if us Skippys can get it done.

Condescension wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:12 am

I'm not pro 2a, but gun control probably isn't behind these massacres. In the 80's there was less gun control and worse mental healthcare, but the massacres weren't happening.

What's changed is the media. We deify these people. They're all motivated to beat the high score.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:53 am

For those who would suggest that sensible gun control laws do not work.. We've proved that they do work in Australia..over the last 25 years. How difficult can sensible gun law reform be to implement ? Can't be that hard if us Skippys can get it done.

Have you proved that, Major? The US population is around 12x the size of Australia, so naturally you have to scale the figures appropriately. In recent years guns have been less popular as a means of mass slaughter than they were, certainly, but I recall last year there was that car that ploughed through quite a few people, the gunman in that siege in Sydney, that chap who decided to shoot himself and his wife and kids, and a couple of really nasty arson attacks since 2010.

The dead are very much dead regardless of the method used to take them there. Australian gun controls may well have improved things, but let's not pretend they were a silver bullet that fixed everything.

It seems to be way too easy for an angry 19 year old kid to legally get hold of a leathal weapon.

In my enlightened country, we have a long procedure before you get a legal weapon..
1. You need a reason to own one like hunting. You must attend a hunting course and pass a theory exam and practical gun handling exam. (This alone took me 12 theory study evenings and maybe 10 days out practising)
2. You must buy a steady weapon safe where you store it, approved for that purpose by our government.
3. After selecting the gun at the weapon dealer, you must apply for a licence for this particular gun at the police office. If you have no police record you will get the licence in a couple of weeks.
4. With the licence in your hand you go back to the dealer and get your weapon.

And of course only hunting rifles are available to buy then. Nothing that loads more than 5 bullets at the time.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:10 am

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:53 am

For those who would suggest that sensible gun control laws do not work.. We've proved that they do work in Australia..over the last 25 years. How difficult can sensible gun law reform be to implement ? Can't be that hard if us Skippys can get it done.

Have you proved that, Major? The US population is around 12x the size of Australia, so naturally you have to scale the figures appropriately. In recent years guns have been less popular as a means of mass slaughter than they were, certainly, but I recall last year there was that car that ploughed through quite a few people, the gunman in that siege in Sydney, that chap who decided to shoot himself and his wife and kids, and a couple of really nasty arson attacks since 2010.

The dead are very much dead regardless of the method used to take them there. Australian gun controls may well have improved things, but let's not pretend they were a silver bullet that fixed everything.

Never mind that the policies in question also refer to confiscating guns on an island with an area two million square kilometers smaller than the US, instead of having to cover that much larger area and worry about not one but two land borders for smugglers of illegal arms.
Or refer to a country with a different culture regarding gun ownership which greatly affects the capacity of the government to enforce gun confiscation policies.

Baffling that people actually consider "It worked for X country, why not the US?" a reasonable argument without even evaluating any possible differences between the countries which might account for why not.

Isle, the term 'well-regulated' had a very different meaning when that was wrote than it does now

I think, if i recall the term 'well-regulated_ appears in the Constitution 37 times, and 36 of those times has nothing to do with the 2nd.

I forgethow they uses that term, but has nothing to do with 'laws' I.e His bowel movements were 'well-regulated' Dont think that implies a need for laws to govern that

President Eden wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:23 am

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:10 am

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:53 am

For those who would suggest that sensible gun control laws do not work.. We've proved that they do work in Australia..over the last 25 years. How difficult can sensible gun law reform be to implement ? Can't be that hard if us Skippys can get it done.

Have you proved that, Major? The US population is around 12x the size of Australia, so naturally you have to scale the figures appropriately. In recent years guns have been less popular as a means of mass slaughter than they were, certainly, but I recall last year there was that car that ploughed through quite a few people, the gunman in that siege in Sydney, that chap who decided to shoot himself and his wife and kids, and a couple of really nasty arson attacks since 2010.

The dead are very much dead regardless of the method used to take them there. Australian gun controls may well have improved things, but let's not pretend they were a silver bullet that fixed everything.

Never mind that the policies in question also refer to confiscating guns on an island with an area two million square kilometers smaller than the US, instead of having to cover that much larger area and worry about not one but two land borders for smugglers of illegal arms.
Or refer to a country with a different culture regarding gun ownership which greatly affects the capacity of the government to enforce gun confiscation policies.

Baffling that people actually consider "It worked for X country, why not the US?" a reasonable argument without even evaluating any possible differences between the countries which might account for why not.

So, since there are differences, let's do nothing. As if gun traffic via the border is the largest source of guns in the US. How do you propose to lessen this evil? Could limiting access to guns not even help a little?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:10 am

MajorMitchell wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:53 am

For those who would suggest that sensible gun control laws do not work.. We've proved that they do work in Australia..over the last 25 years. How difficult can sensible gun law reform be to implement ? Can't be that hard if us Skippys can get it done.

Have you proved that, Major? The US population is around 12x the size of Australia, so naturally you have to scale the figures appropriately. In recent years guns have been less popular as a means of mass slaughter than they were, certainly, but I recall last year there was that car that ploughed through quite a few people, the gunman in that siege in Sydney, that chap who decided to shoot himself and his wife and kids, and a couple of really nasty arson attacks since 2010.

The dead are very much dead regardless of the method used to take them there. Australian gun controls may well have improved things, but let's not pretend they were a silver bullet that fixed everything.

There is no silver bullet. But gun controls help.

CAPT Brad wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:05 am

You are thirty times more likely to die driving to the store for groceries by a drunk driver than being hit by a bullet for any reason.

But you need groceries. Hardly anyone needs a gun when driving through the city.

Hazel-Rah wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 2:52 am

I like how the "needless" in the title implies that some mass shootings might be necessary or justified, like the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of schoolchildren and concertgoers.

Lol, no. It implies that all of these shootings are needless. That is, they don't need to happen. America could stop them. It chooses not to.

ksako8 wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:52 am

There is no silver bullet. But gun controls help.

They have an impact, certainly, although the scale of the impact will vary considerably depending on what the controls are. There's evidence to suggest that the majority of Americans want some kind of change, but I've not seen much consensus on what the changes should be. It's important to keep in mind that there are negative consequences as well, reducing the quality of life of responsible gun owners, whether that's taking away an enjoyable hobby or making their lives more fearful.

We should also be aware that even very strict restrictions will not stop mass shootings, nor will it stop murderous scum using other methods to murder people. We are talking reducing risk rather than finding a cure.

Dear Octavious, I haven't "proved" that the gun law reforms of the Howard ( Conservative ) Federal government in the mid 1990's have worked. Expert researchers have been able to do lots of analysis & the twenty plus years that have elapsed since the changes gives those boffins interested in statistical analysis on per capita basis etc etc of things like gun related crimes, injuries & deaths the time frames needed for that sort of research. I'm reasonably confident that if you looked for published quality, peer reviewed research papers on the "Australian gun law reform experience" they can be found.
It's also a bit niave to think that Australia didn't have it's own "gun culture", for example the movies "Smiley" & "Smiley gets a Gun" reflect Australia of the 1950's & there's a satire of drunken kangaroo shooters in the film Crocodile Dundee.
But in Australia in this brave new 21st century one real benefit of having gone through that political debate and significantly reforming gun control laws and making other reforms, eg national firearms database​ that various law enforcement agencies can use etc etc back in the mid 1990's is that the whole "Gun law reform" issue isn't​ a divisive canker politically or socially any more.. the overwhelming majority view could be summarised as.. we did it, it works, we're moving forward on to other things.. so politically, something like repealing the gun control laws, or making them much tougher ( apart from a few extremists at opposite ends ) ...it's a non priority issue for most Australians.

President Eden wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:44 am

how can you be more likely to be murdered by someone than need a gun for non-recreational use? literally any circumstance in which you would be murdered is definitionally a circumstance in which you would need a gun for non-recreational use.

Because if someone premeditates that they're going to kill you they probably won't wait for you to get your gun. If someone doesn't premeditate but kills "in the moment," they're not going to wait for you to get your gun either. If you had a conceal and carry, you probably wouldn't have the wherewithal to draw on them before it's too late anyways.

I don't mean to say there shouldn't be conceal and carry, I'm just saying that most murderers, including mass shooters, kill before anyone is able to take them down.

Besides all of that, you are more likely to draw your gun on someone who did not intend to kill. Which makes it odd that the NRA has heavily opposed the ban of fake guns in schools. Police have shot kids because they thought a fake gun was real. And gun accidents happen a lot more frequently than shootings, you just don't hear about it in the news.

What’s changed is easy access to AR-15 style weapons.

Jeff Kuta wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 3:33 pm

What’s changed is easy access to AR-15 style weapons.

Source?

What, precisely, is an "AR-15 style weapon"? Because if you mean semi-automatic rifles in general, I don't believe that's correct.

If the Columbine bombs had gone off and killed more than they killed with their guns, school bombings would be popular and not shootings.

School shootings are a fad. The reason tide podding became popular is the same reason school shootings got popular. I've been in the states for the last few weeks and the way your cable news covers anything - especially these school shootings - is fucking *perverse* compared to elsewhere.

It has been *proven* that extensive extreme, fearmongering, deifying coverage of suicides or serial killers increase the rates of suicide or serial killing. I don't see why school massacres would be different.

But you need groceries. Hardly anyone needs a gun when driving through the city.
[/quote]


Depends on the city. In chicago, you need an armored vehicle.

CAPT Brad wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 17, 2018 4:20 pm

But you need groceries. Hardly anyone needs a gun when driving through the city.

Depends on the city. In chicago, you need an armored vehicle.
[/quote]


And why has your society, and your government, allowed Chicago to get so fucked up?