MutantScalper
Dogmeat
What names did Crni_Vuk call anyone for that matter? And where?
Gun Control
- Thread starter Throatpunch
- Start date
What names did Crni_Vuk call anyone for that matter? And where?
Folks, please stop going on all about insults and ad hominems again. The discussion was almost working well for a while there!
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
The airforce 'forgot' to flag this guy. I wonder how well do US government computer systems and overall criminal system work? Are they tested? Have they ever been tested? They should get some Germanic engineer-type on the case with some Euro-level skills.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41895695
Not long ago the Guardian newspaper found out that in US they don't even count the folks who are shot by the police. Guardian started counting them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings
Comey thought it was ridiculous. But he's gone now. Sad. Baby.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...gton-post-better-information-police-shootings
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41895695
Not long ago the Guardian newspaper found out that in US they don't even count the folks who are shot by the police. Guardian started counting them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/series/counted-us-police-killings
Comey thought it was ridiculous. But he's gone now. Sad. Baby.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...gton-post-better-information-police-shootings
I heard the US military still uses 8" (!) floppy disc computers for nuclear coordination.
But justice departments everywhere are often hilariously outdated. Sometimes things fall through the net, it comes with the size of it all. If you now decided to modernize everything at once it'd all be outdated again once you're done, really. It's incredibly hard to keep it all up to date, and law enforcement everywhere is notoriously underfunded. It's really not an american problem at all. Bureaucracy usually doesn't employ the most competent folks.
Case in point: You really don't want german engineering there. The german police force is incredibly outdated and a technological fail-fest. Can't even get encrypted digital radio to work on the patrol cars.
But justice departments everywhere are often hilariously outdated. Sometimes things fall through the net, it comes with the size of it all. If you now decided to modernize everything at once it'd all be outdated again once you're done, really. It's incredibly hard to keep it all up to date, and law enforcement everywhere is notoriously underfunded. It's really not an american problem at all. Bureaucracy usually doesn't employ the most competent folks.
Case in point: You really don't want german engineering there. The german police force is incredibly outdated and a technological fail-fest. Can't even get encrypted digital radio to work on the patrol cars.
Well, let's look at an example. Until recently, gun dealers were not allowed to keep sales records on computers so they only existed on paper. The ATF scans those papers but is literally forbidden to have searchable records of gun sales. They have a database but it is not searchable by keywords and not sortable by date or any other key field. The records have to be gone through manually every time a gun needs to be traced.
So there's an agency that is required by law to trace guns but in the most inefficient way possible. The ATF gets nearly 400,000 trace request a year and they say it takes four to seven days to do one trace. Which is insane. It could be as easy as typing in a serial number and get a result in two seconds but the gun lobby has made that utterly impossible.
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
inb4 "See? And this is why Gun Control doesn't work!"
MutantScalper
Dogmeat
Yes. There can be an outdated system and there can also be a system hindered by outside lobbying (for example by the NRA). I think in USA it's a question of both. From what I keep hearing about all kinds of systems there, for example they still use check books and pay with checks over there etc. But the gun-situation is especially bad.
Also, how are significant crimes committed in the armed forced NOT entered into the national crime system. The military over there has it's own courts and judgement systems? And the sentences ought to go into the national system?
Just a weird kind of old-timey & corrupt system.
Here is a list, I took the effort of compiling it:
- Campsie murders - 1981
- Wahroonga murders - 1984
- Milperra massacre - 1984
- Top End Shootings - 1987
- Hoddle Street massacre - 1987
- Canley Vale Huynh family murders - 1987
- Queen Street massacre - 1987
- Oenpelli shootings - 1988
- Surry Hills shootings - 1990
- Strathfield massacre - 1991
- Central Coast massacre - 1992
- 1993 Cangai siege - 1993
- Hillcrest murders - 1996
- Port Arthur massacre 1996
Last edited:
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
No offense but I like to look into things a little more, and maybe I should have added random mass shootings like Port Arthur
So lets look at these:
-1. Hope Forest Massacre 1971 - A Man shot his family dead
1. Campsie murders - A man shot his family and himself, due to his suicide it adds to 5
2. Wahroonga murders - A man shot himself and his family
3. Milperra massacre - Rivil gang shootings
4. Top End Shootings - Seems serial killer like as 5 dead over 5 days
5. Hoddle Street Massacre - Nothing to say but a mass shooting
6. I'm tired of writing this out by name - mass shooting
7. Mass shooting
8.Man killing his family
9. Mass shooting and I am sure the 12. gauge pump he used is still not banned there
10. shooting spree/suicide - mass shooting
11. mass shooting
12. 9 day siege resulting in 5 dead
13. Man killing his family again
I added one as its the only one before what you have stated in the latter half of the 20th century and there is a lot of indigenous massacres before that so 14. 5 of them are people killing there families and this is still happening after Port Arthur gun control laws although now they are stabbing and beating people to death. I also think it is hard to justify 4 and 12 as these seem to be over many days and not real mass shootings (weird to write that and feels wrong from an ethical standpoint but I am just looking at facts). So half of these are mass shootings, but these mass deaths still happen especially if we look at it as mass homicides. Australia also has 4 mass homicides due to arson in the period after. So ban fire now? Australia is also rather interesting to see how gun control actually affected violent crime rates afterwards:
see graph at: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html
Other information from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
Also for a good read: http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lea...the-answer-then-my-research-told-me-otherwise
How naive...
http://time.com/how-europes-terrorists-get-their-guns/
And those gun laws have been getting stricter & stricter, decade after decade. That was my entire point. It never stops. It's never "enough".
That entirely depends on your definition of "assault rifle"? If you just mean something like an AR15 or AK (as the press usually uses the term), then that's perfectly legal in Germany with a gun permit.
"Assault rifle" is a very vague term and it's quite artificial. There is no clear definition for it, even among gun nuts like myself.
We have been blessed by rather retarded terrorists mostly, but people like Timothy McVeigh or Anders Breivik cannot be called stupid. They might be insane and have a warped view of the world, but they are quite smart.
You can get them in every major european city.
If you lack connections, you're looking at a cost of about 2000 to 2500 euros for an AK. For a pistol between 1000 and 1500 euros. If you have connections, it will be significantly less.
Statistically entirely irrelevant.
As posted in this thread before, the gun violence was already in a significantly downward trend even before the new legislation.
Societal factors trump gun laws...
If that were true, then how come Iceland and France have hugely different gun crime? There's the same amount of guns per capita, so by your logic, there should be the same gun crime, right?
It doesn't work that way. More guns doesn't equal more gun crime. Just as the same number of guns among different nation doesn't mean that the gun crime statistics can just be extrapolated.
That exists because one of the stated motivations of gun ownership in the USA is to be able to fight a tyrannical government. It's going to be hard to do that if the government knows who owns which guns and how many.
The ATF, aside of being inefficient also has been proven to violate data retention laws. And they openly admit they do this. As such, why should american citizens trust the ATF with better systems (enabling them to further violate their constitutional rights)? Why would anyone believe they would do better with more modern systems?
You can fill up a library if you decided to write about all the bullshit the ATF has pulled over the years. From giving firearms to mexican cartels (and failing to track them, although that was the stated intent) to outlawing a shoe lace because it was used in a fully automatic rifle.
When I say assault rifle I am talking about fully automatic weapons, and those are illegal in Germany and that rightfully so. There is no reason for any civilian to own a fully automatic weapon. I have personaly absolutely no problem with AR15s or similar weapon systems.
Second, I never dennied that you could get a fully automatic 'assault' rifle in Germany. You can get almost everything with enough money. THe point is, that strict gun laws though, make it simply more expensive to purchase those, more of a danger and easier for law enforcements to do something, if they spot them. Like if the polices does some random search in a car trunk and you find a couple of AK47s in it, it is a difference if they are illegal or legal to carry around in such an instance. Even terrorists and mass shooters, have to think economically if you want so.
I am sorry that your beloved hobby is seeing stricter and stricter laws - albeit in Germany not THAT much has changed over the last 20 years, but in this case it is really a question of one right (or privilege) against another. Your right to own a weapon vs. my right to remain unharmed by weapons. And if we're looking at the US, their homicide rates including fire arms, and their number of mass shootings draw a very clear picture of the situation. I do not want this ever for Europe. If the Americans feel alright with this kind of culture, so be it, their nation their laws - I am not blaming Americans here, I just think many close their eyes to facts, if someone is honest and says he values his right to own fire arms more than people not getting killed by them, so be it, freedom of speech.
I personaly value lifes simply higher than your right to own weapons, particularly as the danger of ever needing them, is abysmal, at least in Germany or most of the European Union.
Still, what I am arguing about is that a larger number of weapons will most often mean, that a higher number of homicides will involve guns, not that guns inherently lead to more crime as there are examples of nations with a high number of weapons but low gun related crime. But the easier weapons are available, the more criminals will look out for it, the so called arms race - which is also something we can observe in the US, take a look at the North Hollywood shoot out and the changes forced on the police.
Second, I never dennied that you could get a fully automatic 'assault' rifle in Germany. You can get almost everything with enough money. THe point is, that strict gun laws though, make it simply more expensive to purchase those, more of a danger and easier for law enforcements to do something, if they spot them. Like if the polices does some random search in a car trunk and you find a couple of AK47s in it, it is a difference if they are illegal or legal to carry around in such an instance. Even terrorists and mass shooters, have to think economically if you want so.
I am sorry that your beloved hobby is seeing stricter and stricter laws - albeit in Germany not THAT much has changed over the last 20 years, but in this case it is really a question of one right (or privilege) against another. Your right to own a weapon vs. my right to remain unharmed by weapons. And if we're looking at the US, their homicide rates including fire arms, and their number of mass shootings draw a very clear picture of the situation. I do not want this ever for Europe. If the Americans feel alright with this kind of culture, so be it, their nation their laws - I am not blaming Americans here, I just think many close their eyes to facts, if someone is honest and says he values his right to own fire arms more than people not getting killed by them, so be it, freedom of speech.
I personaly value lifes simply higher than your right to own weapons, particularly as the danger of ever needing them, is abysmal, at least in Germany or most of the European Union.
I never denied the complexity of the issue and the fact that social issues might play a much larger role. I already said, if every nation was like Switzerland, it would be an improvement. But the main focus of this topic, are not the social issues but gun related issues. I do not think that anyone here ever said that they are completely seperated. The US in particular will continue to suffer from gun related deaths, and it most likely will increase over the years with the growing inequallity and social unrest in the nation, and if you consider how realtively easy it is to get access to a weapon. But that is a point the US society either will adress or not.
Still, what I am arguing about is that a larger number of weapons will most often mean, that a higher number of homicides will involve guns, not that guns inherently lead to more crime as there are examples of nations with a high number of weapons but low gun related crime. But the easier weapons are available, the more criminals will look out for it, the so called arms race - which is also something we can observe in the US, take a look at the North Hollywood shoot out and the changes forced on the police.
I think if the US ever becomes a tyrannical government this will be the least of their problems. What it does right now, is not only costing lives but also preventing law enforcements of doing their job properly.
They are ineffective because they are MADE to be ineffective by the gun lobby. Besides, that is not an argument in my opinion to leave them as uneffective organisation, the police has issues as well there is no doubt that you have some bad apples there. Does that mean we abolish the police as a whole or try it to make it as uneffective as possible?
Last edited:
Even semi-auto guns with intermediate cartridges will be hard to obtain even though they'd be legal, because you can't use them for hunting most game (caliber too small) and not really the best weapon for sport shooting either. Still possible, but not really worth the hassle for most people I guess.
A mass shooting in Australia is defined by: "One in which ⩾5 firearm‐related homicides are committed by one or two perpetrators in proximate events in a civilian setting, not counting any perpetrators"
All of those shootings in my list are 5 or more dead by the firearms. Just because someone kills 5 or more people from his own family, it doesn't make it less of a mass shooting.
One siege and one act of killing people over a few days using a firearm is borderline but still mass shooting "proximate events in a civilian setting". Proximate can mean in distance or time.
I can't see anything interesting in that graphic because it only shows crime rates after the gun laws have been put into place, it doesn't show any crime stats before that. So it doesn't show anything about how different the violent crime was before and after the law was put into place.
No matter what anyone says, the facts are that before the gun laws were enacted, there was many people being killed by criminals with guns, after the law was put into place there was less people being killed by guns, this is not debatable. Now what is debatable is why did less people die from criminals killing them using guns? Was it the law? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but I bet it at least helped. Before the law there was more than 10 mass shootings in less than 20 years, after the law have been 4 that can be considered shootings using the Australian definition in over 21 years, and this is in an age where Australia is a main target for extremists, with ISIS making several videos rallying extremists to attack Australia for several years now.
Here, I leave a link too:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/
Also this discussion is about guns, not fire. But yes, fire is banned in a way.
Arson is a crime and you can't set things on fire. Also I would like to see how someone just goes into a mall and kills 10 people in the space of 10 minutes by setting a fire. Not to mention that every building have fire safety standards that they must obey by law:
If they are public buildings or businesses that house people (like hotels, boarding houses, etc ) they also have to have:
And even more stuff, in Australia some building materials are forbidden to be used because they are not fire resistant or are a fire hazard, wooden materials and carpets have to be treated to be fire retardant, public buildings have to have water sprinklers, etc.
So yes, fire is also highly regulated and the law takes extensive steps to ensure the safety against fire. So it can (and actually does) do the same to ensure safety against firearms.
Also a note that people who debate these things never seem to mention or notice, people say that if the government regulates firearms harder, it makes it so only criminals get to own the weapons (even though we can see from many countries that highly regulate guns that people can still own them for things like hobbies and hunting), but people seem to forget that even if criminals own them, they have to get them illegally, and if they own weapons illegally and they are criminals, chances are they will sooner or later have trouble with the law and if their house gets raided, or if they get arrested, the police will confiscate all the weapons away from the criminals because they shouldn't have weapons due to the regulations, but if a government doesn't regulate the weapons as much, criminals can easily get weapons legally and those can't be be confiscated by the police unless they are evidence or something, so the criminal can come out from jail and still own and buy more weapons easily...
To be fair though, I think it is very difficult for criminals in the US to own weapons once they have spend a considerable amount of time in jail. The guys responsible for the North Hollywood shootout, have spend 100 days in jail and the weapons the police found in their car was confiscated and they never got them back. However, the weapons for the bank robbery, where they also died, have been bought on a gun show legally and sold illegaly to them - at least as far as the internet tells me.
So yeah, I do agree with you, stricter gun laws also make it more expensive for criminals to get weapons. But I think an equally big problem is the comunication between different organisations and institutions, as far as I remember quite a lot of terrorist attacks could have been prevented in Europe if only the different nations had better ways of sharing information and acting sooner as the surveilance is already pretty huge in many european nations but the interaction between the different institutions seems to be awfull.
So yeah, I do agree with you, stricter gun laws also make it more expensive for criminals to get weapons. But I think an equally big problem is the comunication between different organisations and institutions, as far as I remember quite a lot of terrorist attacks could have been prevented in Europe if only the different nations had better ways of sharing information and acting sooner as the surveilance is already pretty huge in many european nations but the interaction between the different institutions seems to be awfull.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
I am not talking about safety codes with fire (not really the topic), and in my past posts I do agree some form of gun control is needed, what I was trying to point out is even if you remove the guns mass killings happen, the graph I posted shows a rise in violent crime after the gun buy back and there are many more out there that show before and after. I also by pointing out that a lot of those mass killings would have still happened weather there were guns involved or not ie: families. Its very easy to say mass shootings have stopped, but mass killings have not and as most firearm rights advocates like myself point out, if the homicide rates and mass killing rates have not dropped did gun control do anything besides change the means in which these killings are carried out.
SilverStarApple/Epsilon7
Still Mildly Glowing
In that case, it's a shame most "Gun control advocates" keep making inflammatory and tremendously offensive statements like "The NRA profits off the death of innocents" and "There is blood dripping from the Right's hands" when most of the gun-related deaths they point to happen in Liberal states, and are typically Liberals killing other Liberals. It's also a shame they think making it increasingly harder and more of a pain in the ass for honest hardworking citizens to legitimately obtain guns (And hiding an ever-increasing level of gun power behind what are practically paywalls) will reduce the number of illegitimately-obtained illegal firearms in the pockets of liberal criminals in crime-ridden liberal cities. And, of course, it's a shame that they're so propagandized, many of them start attacking evidence and reason and the very act of debating itself when they don't have grounds for their usual tone arguments.
Oh, and it's a shame they think "Good people with guns can stop bad people with guns" is a silly fantasy for silly smelly right-wingers, while also thinking becoming a defenseless unarmed populace dependant on the protection of an all-powerful police state with no accountability and at least two Gestapos... while also hating that government and its country and its cops and its armed forces and everything they do and everything they stand for and fantasizing daily about the president's assassination... is the best way to go.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Its a shame you are mildly offensive in the way you post a message back to people who offend you and will cause this thread to be closed, again. Lets take the high ground as gun rights advocates and not stoop to that level and when we do have facts produce them and not assume that just posting what you think is a fact. Its not a fact without backing to prove it.
I am on your side and your posts just hurt to read.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Do I need to post the Homicide Rates and Gun Homicide Rates again?
Unarmed Populace =/= Police State
There are plenty of otherwise freedom-loving countries that have harsh gun laws.
And none of them are this one, which has access to firearms as a right baked into our supreme legal charter.
Just think of how much more efficient this thread could be if we simply referred back to the arguments and counterarguments we've all made again and again by post number.
But mass killings have been reduced exponentially after the gun laws, because it is harder to kill so many people in a short space of time without the use of guns. It still happens, of course, but for these to happen now the criminal has to act in some more planned way. Like target vulnerable people (children, disabled people, aged people, etc), target people when they can't protect themselves (while asleep), have specific restrictions applied to the targets (having them locked in a room or house), and the criminal also have to spend more time and effort to carry on the killings, it isn't as easy as just enter a room with 4 people and shoot them right away. Also criminals that don't have guns can't barricade themselves and shoot at the police from inside a house (for example). Making them easier to catch.
Also the violent crime rate after the gun law was implemented did decrease, there was a period between 1998 and 2001 where just robbery increased past the value of the past (before gun law) but it decreased past that too.
https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2530362
The homicides and suicides by firearms declined a lot, but the homicides and suicides by other means decreased too. So the law didn't make other type of homicides to happen more (and this is after the population increase from about 18 million to 23 million). And this is why it is hard to see if the law actually was the main cause, because other type of homicides also decreased. But it seems pretty obvious that the law was the main cause, that at least, made the number of homicides by firearm plummet so much (way more than the reduction of any other type of weapon/means used for homicides).
Only after you altered your supreme legal charter to add that bit
. Because it wasn't there originally, and it was added because of the conditions people had to endure in the USA almost 3 centuries ago (it was almost lawless and there was fears of foreign powers to invade the then young USA).A successful society should keep up with the times and not cling to the barbaric ways of the past. I say this in a joking way, I am not trying to insult.
Also to point out:
Also, why don't gun makers make civilian guns, in a way where they can be used for protection, hunting and sport/hobbies but not allow them to be as deadly as they actually are. An example of this made well, is the double barrel shotgun, primarily a hunting shotgun. It only allows two shots in rapid succession, then you have to open it and reload. This is enough for hunting, it only allows two shots to be fired before reloading, it allows a kind of control over how many shots you can do in a short period of time, it minimizes the damage that can be done if the weapon is used to nefarious purposes.
Why don't weapon manufacturers make and sell weapons that can only fire two or three times before reload or that only allow it physically to shoot that many shots? Two or three times is more than enough for protection, one shot warning and one or two to injure/kill the criminal if he didn't back down. Having weapons for civilian use do that, would allow some kind of control if the weapon would be used for criminal intent.
Last edited: