So, after mass shooting, Australia "banned" guns 20 years ago = ZERO mass killings since

a reply to: namelesss

Reason and logic.

In the the US the average number of gun homicides is declining almost yearly for decades according to FBI stats. I fact it decline almost in half since the 90s.

In the US about 11000 people are murdered by guns each year compared to 250000 who are killed by doctors' carelessness.

In the US guns are use successfully for self defense at least 200000 times a year according to a conservative estimate by the National Crime and Victimization Survey.

Here in the US, We have the right to own firearms for protection from criminals and governments if need be. I see the benefits outweigh the negatives. But as always a free society will have it dangers and I accept that.

a reply to: Kester

A total of about 260,000 weapons? They where never ARMED to begin with. I bet Chicago has more then that.

a reply to: Nyiah

Does it really make a difference whice one? The names are interchangeable for the most part, unless one or the other is paying you or trying to kill you.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad



I agree with you. For the purpose of this discussion they are interchangeable. In FACT for most discussions these gangs are interchangeable, unless you want to talk about a specific action.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Call a spade a spade: A mass hostage situation by a deranged man isn't the same as a mass shooting... and if it somehow is classed as a mass shooting, please explain why. I watched the entire thing live from my office building near Martin Place because they locked us down, and absolutely no media coverage in Aus seemed to label it a mass shooting. The entire duration of the crisis it was called a terror attack as opposed to a mass shooting.

Two people died in the Sydney Siege, three if you include the gunman.
So it was a far call from a mass shooting.

But hey, if warping events to suit your agenda helps you justify your ignorance then so be it.

The real issue is that human beings are awful and filled with vitriolic hatred. Guns just aid horror, as do knives, tasers, spoons - anything really. You could commit mass murder with any number of items, the aim of controlling laws is to restrict access and lower the chances.

In the US it doesn't matter, you've angered enough people at this stage that you'll unfortunately be a target no matter what laws are implemented

originally posted by: dismanrc
a reply to: Kester

A total of about 260,000 weapons? They where never ARMED to begin with. I bet Chicago has more then that.

Chicago actually does have stricter gun laws and has offered gun buy back programs. It has not helped with their gun violence. Matter of fact, the violence has worsened! At this point, this does not seem to be an effective solution to the violence. Guns are not the cause, just the tools that are used. The focus needs to be put on resolving the social and economic issues. Unhappy individuals tend to take their frustrations out on others.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

Looks like you have talked yourself into an endless loop.

All because somebody mentioned Australian borders aren't like the U.S. borders.

I don't understand what you mean.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: reldra

Looks like you have talked yourself into an endless loop.

All because somebody mentioned Australian borders aren't like the U.S. borders.

Oops

Did you trip or something?

a reply to: CynConcepts

I wasn't talking about the LEGAL gun there.

Australia has 23 million people while America has 319 million.

That makes a difference in enforcing any law.

People talk of the logistics to deport 25 million people...they say it can't happen, to many people. Now 7 out of 10 Americans own more than one firearm, there's over 330 million Americans...that's a helluva lot of firearms. Who or what agency is gonna be tasked with going out and rounding up all them bad ole guns. ATF perhaps? ATF shouldn't be AN AGENCY it should be a damn store. American gun owner here. And I just could care damn less what one thinks of that . Especially the folks outside the USA. But you all go ahead and chime in on how pissed off you all are about something that happened in another country, and how it affects you .How does my right to purchase & possess a firearm here in America affect you all in other countries? IMHO...it invokes a tad bit of jealousy. I at last count own well over 600 firearms..........Collector/Dealer ex]Text

a reply to: Jaellma
Go on ahead. Move somewhere where guns are banned. Not here my friend. First of all the killer was on the FBI watch list. So the very government agency that was to protect you FAILED. Second the very political correctness we are held to creates problems. If I were the gun shop owner I would refuse to sell to this individual. Sorry your middle eastern but history tells me this could be a bad sell.
The lack of common sense and the constant barrage of Bernaysian social propaganda on the internet has turned Americans into slobbering give me more BS news idiots. Actually so many red flags were missed this whole thing smells of a false flag operation. Time will tell.

Might be because all the major shootings are contrived... Government gets what they want - no more need for false flag psyops. Our SAS had their bloody hands all over Port Arthur, everyone hands their guns in, no need for further ff's. If they do continue then it just flies in the face of the guns = mass shootings.

a reply to: Jaellma

calling Australia a nation “like ours.”

We are not a republic, we are a Constitutional Monarchy, the Queen can sack our Government. We don't have the second Amendment or a Bill of rights.

originally posted by: Verse
Can you not agree though that if finding assault rifles was harder then maybe, just maybe..at least one of those type of shootings wouldn't happen? I do realize these guns are already for sale in the black market but not everybody is fit for that...it could probably save someone. Besides, when you think of RIGHTS...owning an assault rifle isn't really high on the list. I just don't see it, I'm sorry. Obviously there is no way of eliminating guns BUT! if in the future access to them would be made harder and there'd be less assault rifles in the market..the next joe blow couldn't easily get one. We've seen awfully lotta cases recently where americans bought rambo-like weaponry legally when they had no reason to..(mental problems etc.) It's this whole system that's gone bonkers..we can't eliminate this problem but I do believe there is a way to decrease it.

There are already so many so-called 'assault rifles' and semi-automatic handguns in circulation that I don't think it will make a nickel's worth of difference, to be quite honest. Just about everyone that ever thought they might want one has at least one at this point, and if they don't have one, they can get one. Confiscation would be all but impossible, both legally and practically. So that standing base of 20 million or so 'assault rifles', another 50 million or more semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns, plus yet another 100 million or more semi-auto handguns aren't going anywhere. And then there's the even more ridiculous number of 'high capacity' magazines already floating around out there.

Aside from that, though, you're going to run into another major problem. The market and the industry will adapt existing designs and create new ones to get around it. We've seen the industry play around with those over the last few years, with pump action versions of AR-15s, 'tactical' lever action rifles, bolt actions that take AR-style mags, etc. Some of them work better than others, but the industry would get it sorted quickly enough. Now, someone is going to say that we could restrict or ban any of these, too, but then, that's basically the gun owners' point. They don't believe for a nanosecond that you're going to stop with semi-auto 'assault rifles' and that's why there's so much backlash against gun control.

Regardless, I think that what you gain from banning 'assault rifles' would be surprisingly little, that these incidents would still happen, and that all you're really going to accomplish would be to take away the rights of tens of millions of people that aren't doing anything wrong.

a reply to: onequestion

How do you expect the government to collect over 300 million guns?

Get them stoned enough they would.

It's a brave new world huxley and soma is only a puff away.

I find it odd people concentrate on the AR-15. There are numous semi-auto riffles that were never banned in the last assault weapons ban.
I also find it odd the same people that say we can't profile people about terrorism are the same one's saying we have to profile people more in-depth in order to buy a gun.
Furthermore I also find it odd that trying to make it harder for the good guys to have guns is in someway going to change the bad guys mind about killing people and not just postponing it at best.
The USA didn't get to be the world's economic powerhouse and world police by adopting EU and Austrailian laws, even though the current admin/dem party seems to want to take us there.

Americans are given the right to bear arms so we can fight back our government if they become tyranical, period, end of story. Moving on.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Weapon's dont get in??..from Canada?, your weapons pollute us and Mexico not the other way around..just sayin. I'm not thinking gun control will work anyway..America subjectively has way too many guns in circulation already and probably impossible to round them all up and obviously many will not give them up.

a reply to: Jaellma

Maybe if we ban planes, we wont ever have a 9-11 again. Perhaps save 3000 lives? Logic much? Learn history or you're doomed to repeat it. History is more than 20 years...