No firearms in Australia

[Ravi]

Australia has a far lower homicide rate than the U.S.

But they allow no firearms to most of their population, so how did this KNOWN criminal get one?

Because legal gun owners are often sloppy with their guns.

"Often?"
You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.

Where are the criminals getting their guns?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Australia has a far lower homicide rate than the U.S.

But they allow no firearms to most of their population, so how did this KNOWN criminal get one?

Because legal gun owners are often sloppy with their guns.

"Often?"
You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.

Where are the criminals getting their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, that's generally not right.
I don't ever see anyone argue that criminals will never get guns. Perhaps you can link someone who does.
The argument is that restricting access guns will limit the availability of deadly weapons and fewer people in total will die.

Hmm. Lets see...

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All transfers undergo a 10-day waiting period (ruled unconstitutional 8/2014)
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate-– a permit.that requires training and a test
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
-Ban on NFA machineguns

% of murders in US committed with a firearm: 69.36 (8855/12765)
% of murders in CA committed with a firearm: 69.39 (1304/1879)

% US population in CA: 12.12%
% US murders in CA: 14.71
% US murders with a gun in CA 14.72

Links:
The benefit of reasonable gun control..... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How does this support your premise?

I don't know if it would support my premise between cities or states.

In fact, doesn't this example work strongly against your premise?
If strong gun control will reduce gun-related deaths, as you state,,why does the state with the strongest gun control have a significantly higher proportion of gun-related deahts than the country as a whole?

 

[namvet]

time to stop immigration and start the roundups

 

[Ravi]

Australia has a far lower homicide rate than the U.S.

But they allow no firearms to most of their population, so how did this KNOWN criminal get one?

Because legal gun owners are often sloppy with their guns.

"Often?"
You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.

Where are the criminals getting their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

Where do criminals get their guns?

 

[Ravi]

No, that's generally not right.
I don't ever see anyone argue that criminals will never get guns. Perhaps you can link someone who does.
The argument is that restricting access guns will limit the availability of deadly weapons and fewer people in total will die.

Hmm. Lets see...

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All transfers undergo a 10-day waiting period (ruled unconstitutional 8/2014)
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate-– a permit.that requires training and a test
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
-Ban on NFA machineguns

% of murders in US committed with a firearm: 69.36 (8855/12765)
% of murders in CA committed with a firearm: 69.39 (1304/1879)

% US population in CA: 12.12%
% US murders in CA: 14.71
% US murders with a gun in CA 14.72

Links:
The benefit of reasonable gun control..... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How does this support your premise?

I don't know if it would support my premise between cities or states.

In fact, doesn't this example work strongly against your premise?
If strong gun control will reduce gun-related deaths, as you state,,why does the state with the strongest gun control have a significantly higher proportion of gun-related deahts than the country as a whole?

duh....because they buy them in a different state. OR legal gun owners are sloppy with their guns. Probably both.

 

[M14 Shooter]

duh....because they buy them in a different state.

This violates the law.
So much for the law leading to fewer deaths, as claimed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But they allow no firearms to most of their population, so how did this KNOWN criminal get one?

Because legal gun owners are often sloppy with their guns.

"Often?"
You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.

Where are the criminals getting their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

Where do criminals get their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

 

[namvet]

just a question of time before ISIS starts wackin' off American heads.

 

[Ravi]

duh....because they buy them in a different state.

This violates the law.
So much for the law leading to fewer deaths, as claimed.

Yep, it's against the law but not for the seller. For gun laws to be effective they need to be uniform.

 

[Ravi]

Because legal gun owners are often sloppy with their guns.

"Often?"
You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.

Where are the criminals getting their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

Where do criminals get their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

I thought I'd give you one more chance to answer the question and I see you couldn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Often?"
You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.

Where are the criminals getting their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

Where do criminals get their guns?

Like I said: You and I both know you have no way to substantively support your claim.
Thank you for admitting it.

I thought I'd give you one more chance to answer the question and I see you couldn't.

You question only serves to prove you know you cannot substantively support your position
Thus, no answer is required.
Thank you for your admission.

 

[Toro]

No, that's generally not right.
I don't ever see anyone argue that criminals will never get guns. Perhaps you can link someone who does.
The argument is that restricting access guns will limit the availability of deadly weapons and fewer people in total will die.

Hmm. Lets see...

CA gun laws require that:
-All transfers must be through a dealer, thus...
-All transfers undergo a background check
-All transfers undergo a 10-day waiting period (ruled unconstitutional 8/2014)
-All firearms must be registered
-Handgun purchases require a handgun safety certificate-– a permit.that requires training and a test
-Ban on ‘assault weapons’, effective 1 JUN 1989
-Ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds
-Ban on NFA machineguns

% of murders in US committed with a firearm: 69.36 (8855/12765)
% of murders in CA committed with a firearm: 69.39 (1304/1879)

% US population in CA: 12.12%
% US murders in CA: 14.71
% US murders with a gun in CA 14.72

Links:
The benefit of reasonable gun control..... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

How does this support your premise?

I don't know if it would support my premise between cities or states.

In fact, doesn't this example work strongly against your premise?
If strong gun control will reduce gun-related deaths, as you state,,why does the state with the strongest gun control have a significantly higher proportion of gun-related deahts than the country as a whole?

No it does not necessarily.

The control group isn't state to state or city to city because it is very easy for guns to move across state or municipal borders. If someone can easily buy guns in AZ and sell them illegally in CA, gun control won't work well because the total pool of guns in the entire country is deep.

Compare that to, say, a country where it is much more difficult to move guns across national borders. If the supply of guns is much less, there is less chance of guns being stolen by criminal gangs or used in crimes of passion or heated arguments.

This explains, in part, why the murder rate is much lower in Canada, a much more urban country, even compared to the white population of the US.

 

[M14 Shooter]

duh....because they buy them in a different state.

This violates the law.
So much for the law leading to fewer deaths, as claimed.

Yep, it's against the law but not for the seller. For gun laws to be effective they need to be uniform.

You don't understand.
Its against CA law to buy gun outside CA and not transfer it thru a FFL holder in CA.
And so, your example only proves the inefficacy of the tough CA gun laws in leading to fewer deaths, as claimed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The control group isn't state to state or city to city because it is very easy for guns to move across state or municipal borders. If someone can easily buy guns in AZ and sell them illegally in CA, gun control won't work well because the total pool of guns in the entire country is deep.

You see the part where you said "sell them illegally in CA", right?
To buy a gun outside CA and then not transfer it to the owner in CA thru a FFL holder violates CA law.
And so, there's no strength to the 'buy guns outside CA" argument as doing so violates the tough CA gun laws.
These laws are supposed to reduce gun-related deaths -- and yet gun related deaths are higher than the rest of the country.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Australia has a far lower homicide rate than the U.S.

That's because they don't have a subsidized fatherless underclass rooted in blackness.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But they allow no firearms to most of their population, so how did this KNOWN criminal get one?

Probably through a long, dangerous process of procuring one in the black market.

BUT BUT, according to Noomi and the rest of you bed wetters if laws are so strict that law abiding citizens can not get firearms the same will be true of criminals right?

Yes. That is why they have such a lower homicide rate.

There also over 90% white, amazing what a difference that makes to the homicide rate.

Before gun control their homicide rate was very close to the U.S.

Wrong. The rate in Australia dropped from negligible to less than negligible. They don't have Jesse's Kids there to wreak havoc.

 

[Harry Dresden]

on a pbs radio show out here they had a bunch of people who are in law enforcement on....they said if you take gang violence out of the equation here in Ca,the numbers would then say that Ca is one of the safest States.....and they quoted numbers backing that up.....so they then reasoned that if you did the same across the Country....the US would be one of the safest Countries on the planet....

So how would that stack up if one doesn't include gang activity in all countries?

The murder rate amongst whites is still higher than every other rich country - all races included - on earth.

we are supposed to have more people in gangs than anywhere else.....BUT if the other Countries got rid of their gangs.....what a peaceful world this MAY be....

 

[Ravi]

on a pbs radio show out here they had a bunch of people who are in law enforcement on....they said if you take gang violence out of the equation here in Ca,the numbers would then say that Ca is one of the safest States.....and they quoted numbers backing that up.....so they then reasoned that if you did the same across the Country....the US would be one of the safest Countries on the planet....

So how would that stack up if one doesn't include gang activity in all countries?

The murder rate amongst whites is still higher than every other rich country - all races included - on earth.

we are supposed to have more people in gangs than anywhere else.....BUT if the other Countries got rid of their gangs.....what a peaceful world this MAY be....

How do we do that?

 

[Toro]

duh....because they buy them in a different state.

This violates the law.
So much for the law leading to fewer deaths, as claimed.

Yep, it's against the law but not for the seller. For gun laws to be effective they need to be uniform.

You don't understand.
Its against CA law to buy gun outside CA and not transfer it thru a FFL holder in CA.
And so, your example only proves the inefficacy of the tough CA gun laws in leading to fewer deaths, as claimed.

That's why I said I don't know.

I don't know if gun control would work unless it was at the national level or if the total volume of guns in the country were reduced.