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

a reply to: vonclod

Where did I say weapons don't get in?

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
Screw that.

You are kidding right?

So, if we banned homosexuals, would there have been any victims in the recent gay bar massacre?

Possibly the most moronic argument I've ever read on this forum.

originally posted by: Verse
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

Thank you for that link. I'd never heard of this way before, so I'm learning now

But still...what I want to know is...do they go this way to purchase the weaponry for the mass murders? Has that been proofen?
Anyway, interesting link and this is why I come to ATS. To deny ignorance.

That I haven't looked into but it is a possibility and not an unlikely one. Loopholes and corrupt individuals find a way of intermingling

originally posted by: sepium
a reply to: Hazardous1408

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.

But the gun banning in Aus didn't do anything. Violent crime is still one of the highest for an industrialized country. Murders dropped off after the bans on guns, but almost immediately went right back to pre-ban levels. People were still murdering, just with different tools.

You don't lower the chances. Studies have shown this. You only change the method of violence.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

My take on what said was if gun control was enacted, guns would pour in via your borders north and south..ie Canada and Mexico. If I misread/interpeted my apologies
I'm just questioning that because there aren't enough guns here to begin with..fairly strong gun ownership but the #s just aren't there. The vast majority are imported from the states, legaly or otherwise. Mexico maybe..I wonder how many arm's manufactures in Mexico?
Peace

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

My take on what said was if gun control was enacted, guns would pour in via your borders north and south..ie Canada and Mexico. If I misread/interpeted my apologies
I'm just questioning that because there aren't enough guns here to begin with..fairly strong gun ownership but the #s just aren't there. The vast majority are imported from the states, legaly or otherwise. Mexico maybe..I wonder how many arm's manufactures in Mexico?
Peace

Oh no I was simply saying that guns are already being transported illegally into the US through the boarders, mainly mexico.

a reply to: Snarl

Selfish much?

a reply to: Jaellma

Well, let us know when the United States becomes an island in the middle of the ocean, and not sharing a border with a lawless nation. But lets' suppose you get your way. Zap! All semi-automatic weapons are banned. Are you still supposing there will be no mass shootings? How about in the event of something much more probable, where rioting occurs. How would you defend yourself? Wait for police?

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Snarl
Selfish much?

Oh no. Not at all. Everyone has exactly the same rights I do. Why would I willingly give up mine for someone else's benefit?

Do you think I should have less?

Go live there. Leave us and our guns alone. K thanks.

I'm sorry but the 50-60 million gun owners in this country aren't going to have their guns taken from them without residence get used to it.

Yeah...right. Who do you blame when a drunk driver kills someone...the driver or the car? When you make eggs in the morning and they are dry...is it the spatula's fault? All of these arguments are stupid. We have a right to arm ourselves against danger (including our government) and that isn't going away with out a war. The left will continue to be dirty rats and try to get a "suspected terrorists can't have guns" law and will turn around and call anyone right-leaning a "suspected terrorist".

We aren't idiots. We've seen the tactics...and we don't blame a tool for the actions of a criminal. We blame the criminal and solve the problem, not the symptom.

Automatic guns should be shipped only to law enforcement and the military. Over time, mass murders and drive-by shootings will decline. You have to start somewhere!

Automatic guns should be shipped only to law enforcement and the military. Over time, mass murders and drive-by shootings will decline. You have to start somewhere!

There has not been a major mass shooting in Texas after the put in new Texas Concealed carry laws.

After the U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords shooting the state of Arizona made it easy to get a Concealed carry permit and then permit free Concealed carry and there has not been a mass shooting in Arizona since.

Gun bans might work but so do the right gun laws.

One thing i do know is Gun free zones do not work and only make them the prime targets of mass shooters.
the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones.
orlando-politics.com...

a reply to: veracity

I don't think so, considering more people die riding their bicycles (not motorcycles) every year than are victimized in a mass shooting. With those odds, yes I agree with Snarl.

I find it crazy that so many Americans lack basic fire arm knowledge and they refuse to do even 5 mins of research. I mean it's scary that people who are pushing for more gun control still believe semi-automatic rifles can fire 700 rounds and believe an AR-15 is fully automatic. The scary thing is that when many get called out for pushing false info they get upset and refuse to even acknowledge their mistake. It's sad that only certain sites seem to call out these people and try to correct misinformation.


Look above we have someone who wants to ban automatic weapons without even realizing the people killed by them is so small they don't even keep the stat. I'm not saying people need to be experts but it would be nice if people had a very basic knowledge of firearms like myself.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
There was a mass shooting in Aus at the end of 2014.

It was all over the news for a week. What on earth are you talking about?

Mass shooting? The Hostage Taker shot one guy then got shot himself...So 1 Victim, 1 shooter..

Strange definition of Mass Shooting.

so if you enemy gets a weapon, and uses it to kill your people, the responce is "well the people do not deserve guns" I'm sorry, but if terror attacks are going to be something we deal with, I want a gun. Australia's mass shooting, and sandy hook were different than this. A group with an agenda coming to kill Americans shouldn't be meet with a demand to remove guns. Americans may one day need their guns against that group. Terrorist ideologies don't give a damn about our gun laws.

Is it true this terrorist didn't use an AR-15 and actually used a Sig Sauer MCX carbine? Why was the AR-15 narrative reported as fact by so many (heck I even though it was a fact he used an AR-15)?

link