Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[idb]

It's already been posted in the thread. Do I really need to post it a second time?

Jeebus...

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002.

One incident, in the 15 years since the new regulations, in which two people were killed, proves that he regulations don't work to you...is that your contention?
I'll give you one of these back -

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Can strict gun controls work?

I have friends in the NSW police departments who would say that is total BS. But they're on the ground and the MSM isn't. Who to believe?

Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research says this....

•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Additionally "hot" burglaries (where intruders enter a house KNOWING someone is inside thus making the chance of a violent encounter greater) is 85% whereas in the US it is 15%.


NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research - Bureau of Crime Stats & Research : Lawlink NSW

Are you saying that's because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands?

No, it's probably because the population had a mass movement to be trained in hand to hand self defense. Are you really this fuckin' slow, fella?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's already been posted in the thread. Do I really need to post it a second time?

Jeebus...

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002.

One incident, in the 15 years since the new regulations, in which two people were killed, proves that he regulations don't work to you...is that your contention?
I'll give you one of these back -

You said that mass shooting stopped. Seven people were shot that day. Are you now saying that a mass shooting has to have a threshold of casualties to be considered noteworthy?

You and the OP claimed mass SHOOTINGS STOPPED. That is, a lie. As usual from slow LOLberals.

 

[BreezeWood]

taking away our rights is funny?

**** you people

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In THAT order.

Why should your right to liberty (owning military weapons) trump my right to life?

If tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers can be kept out of the hands of civilians, so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.

B/c they are not supposed to be.

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

If I'm attacked by a much bigger person or better fighter. What give you the right to say I get to be beaten to death b/c I can't carry an arm with me?

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Those who would give up liberty to secure a perceived safety deserve neither. And will get neither.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Can strict gun controls work?

An end to mass "shootings".

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002.

Nothing else happened either except an increase in rape, home invasions and assaults.

Bolded is a lie

 

[KevinWestern]

Someone's liable to get shot!

I’m all for some sensible legislation that blocks criminals from obtaining weapons and helps officers trace back murder weapons, ect. But let me share the “other” point of view.

I think a lot of folks felt like President Obama’s approach to gun control was somewhat disingenuous, blanketed in political showmanship, and stuffed full of catchy “buzz words”. This turns people off.

Why not just call an AR-15 a “rifle” (what it is)? Americans aren’t dumb, and realize that the term “assault weapon” is specifically designed to make people who don’t know about guns think that an AR-15 is something that it is not. I don’t know about you, but stretching/bending the truth on a serious issue is not a good way for a politician to earn my respect and trust.

Secondly, if you’re looking to end gun violence (*all of a sudden), why focus on guns like AR-15’s when usually less than 20-30 people (out of a population of 315,000,000) die from guns like these annually (I believe the entire rifle category is responsible for about 350 deaths). Given their extremely limited time and resources, and all of the gigantic problems and issues on their hands, wouldn’t it make sense to maybe go after legislation around handguns – for instance? I need to check up on my stats, but I believe there are well over 6k+ homicides every year committed with handguns, yet our media, our President, ect seemed to shy away from talking about this.

All in all, I think it was in part the Democrat’s poor approach that killed this recent round of gun legislation.

Just my opinion.





*I say "all of a sudden" because minorities have been dying in DROVES from handguns in the inner cities for years with virtually no large movement or outcry to end gun violence by our politicians. However, the second wealthy/upper/middle class people begin dying the issue is all over the news...

.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's already been posted in the thread. Do I really need to post it a second time?

Jeebus...

One incident, in the 15 years since the new regulations, in which two people were killed, proves that he regulations don't work to you...is that your contention?
I'll give you one of these back -

You said that mass shooting stopped. Seven people were shot that day. Are you now saying that a mass shooting has to have a threshold of casualties to be considered noteworthy?

You and the OP claimed mass SHOOTINGS STOPPED. That is, a lie. As usual from slow LOLberals.

When all else fails, play semantics games! Weeeeee! Just give up.

 

[RDD_1210]

Those who would give up liberty to secure a perceived safety deserve neither. And will get neither.

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

 

[PratchettFan]

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In THAT order.

Why should your right to liberty (owning military weapons) trump my right to life?

If tanks, bazookas and grenade launchers can be kept out of the hands of civilians, so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines.

B/c they are not supposed to be.

It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


Your right to life doesn't trump mine.

If I'm attacked by a much bigger person or better fighter. What give you the right to say I get to be beaten to death b/c I can't carry an arm with me?

so can assault style rifles with high capacity magazines ... It's unconstitutional to keep such arm from us.


It is not unconstitutional to define "Arms" - All public Firearms to be lever or bolt action per round with non detachable magazines.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. - public firearms, a compromise for a safe and secure society.

I wish people would stop with the Life, Liberty, etc... That is not in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the issue.

I doubt your suggestion would stand up constitutionally. If any public entity passed such a law it would be interesting how it would be received.

 

[PratchettFan]

Those who would give up liberty to secure a perceived safety deserve neither. And will get neither.

Ya gotta love Ben Franklin.

 

[westwall]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Can strict gun controls work?

I have friends in the NSW police departments who would say that is total BS. But they're on the ground and the MSM isn't. Who to believe?

Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research says this....

•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Additionally "hot" burglaries (where intruders enter a house KNOWING someone is inside thus making the chance of a violent encounter greater) is 85% whereas in the US it is 15%.


NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research - Bureau of Crime Stats & Research : Lawlink NSW

Are you saying that's because there are less semi-automatic weapons in private hands?

There are less weapons period in private hands. The criminals apparently have no problem getting guns though. In fact the turf war being fought between the HA and Commancheros is about drug and weapons trafficking.

 

[PratchettFan]

Those who would give up liberty to secure a perceived safety deserve neither. And will get neither.

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

 

[westwall]

The Aussies have passed reasonable gun control and nothing happened except a reduction in violence and an END to mass shootings.

Can strict gun controls work?

An end to mass "shootings".

The Monash University shooting refers to a shooting in which a student shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five. It took place at Monash University in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia on 21 October 2002.

Nothing else happened either except an increase in rape, home invasions and assaults.

Bolded is a lie

You are incorrect. Hot burglaries make up 85% of the burglaries in Australia, 15% here in the States, prior to the gun ban the rates were the same between the two countries....that IS home invasion mate....

 

[RDD_1210]

Those who would give up liberty to secure a perceived safety deserve neither. And will get neither.

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

 

[westwall]

Those who would give up liberty to secure a perceived safety deserve neither. And will get neither.

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

I agree, Thousands Standing Around does very little to ensure personal safety and denying people the ownership of weapons makes their victimisation more likely. Thanks for making that clear. Chicago is just one example of how effective gun bans are

 

[RDD_1210]

An end to mass "shootings".



Nothing else happened either except an increase in rape, home invasions and assaults.

Bolded is a lie

You are incorrect. Hot burglaries make up 85% of the burglaries in Australia, 15% here in the States, prior to the gun ban the rates were the same between the two countries....that IS home invasion mate....

It must be fun to just invent stats and not have to share the source. What an amazing thing.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

nope hes not in the right country.

90% want more gun laws and the scotus says they are perfectly legal.

once the money people are beaten back into submission by the people then we will get the new gun laws

lie!

 

[RDD_1210]

Those who would give up liberty to secure a perceived safety deserve neither. And will get neither.

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

I agree, Thousands Standing Around does very little to ensure personal safety and denying people the ownership of weapons makes their victimisation more likely. Thanks for making that clear. Chicago is just one example of how effective gun bans are

America is an example of how more guns does not equal safer citizens.

 

[westwall]

But in this case, it's not "perceived" despite what your told to think.

TSA = perceived safety

Gun Control = Very real safety issue

Perceived is precisely what it is. Now, if you started removing stop signs you would see what a "very real safety issue" actually is. Your chance of being killed by a firearm assault is about 1 in 25,000. Your chance of being killed in a car accident is 1 in 67.

I'm willing to take my chances.

Whats the chances of being killed by a firearm in this country compared to being killed by a firearm in Australia? Canada? UK? Germany? Japan? Etc.....

And the population of the US is 350 million as opposed to Australia's 22 million. You're comparing apples to battleships. We also have a much higher percentage of other races, here in my area 90% of the violent crime is committed by hispanics. Most of whom are illegal and in gangs and they prey on their own people...because they are easy to victimise.