Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 DemetriDominov wrote:
US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.

Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....

How many guns were there per capita in Australia prior to the ban? How much of a dedicated organized crime culture does Australia have, then and now? Gun crime victims in the US are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black. That speaks to disadvantaged youth who get mixed up in the drug trade and its related felonies, while the easy access to guns thanks to us having more guns than cars - and nearly as many guns as people - means all-out prohibition would have little effect.

 Valion wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.

Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....

How many guns were there per capita in Australia prior to the ban? How much of a dedicated organized crime culture does Australia have, then and now? Gun crime victims in the US are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black. That speaks to disadvantaged youth who get mixed up in the drug trade and its related felonies, while the easy access to guns thanks to us having more guns than cars - and nearly as many guns as people - means all-out prohibition would have little effect.

The "mass shootings" that he's referring to are not committed by criminals, by and large. Most are committed by individuals with either no criminal record or a record of nonviolence/minor altercations.

There's no real set pattern to the profile of the individuals committing mass shootings; except that they have committed a mass shooting and allegedly have some form of "mental illness".

The criminal culture plays no real mentionable part in the execution of mass shootings; except that the NRA and pro-gun individuals like to talk about the criminal culture as being a reason to not restrict gun ownership.

Statistically it's not like there's much to do about mass shootings besides increase mental health awareness and availability, de-stigmatizing seeking said care would also be a big step. As the Tsarnev brothers and the Aurora shooter were kind enough to remind us, explosives with the potential to wound hundreds can be made from things acquirable at your local hardware store. Psychos will do as psychos do with whatever means they can acquire if they're not found and treated first.

 Valion wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:
US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.

Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....

How many guns were there per capita in Australia prior to the ban? How much of a dedicated organized crime culture does Australia have, then and now? Gun crime victims in the US are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black. That speaks to disadvantaged youth who get mixed up in the drug trade and its related felonies, while the easy access to guns thanks to us having more guns than cars - and nearly as many guns as people - means all-out prohibition would have little effect.

South Australia, were i live, has heaps of gang activity. Generally they are bikey gangs. It was far worse before gun laws were brought in.

Speaking as a longtime gun owner and generally pro-gun individual, the majority of you 2nd amendment guys are fething off your rockers.

Having background checks that are actually effective is not tyranny, for feth's sake. It's reasonable regulation. As is most of the gun-control legislation that's been recently proposed.

Also, all the hot air about the right to bear arms being the bedrock of our democracy and freedom as Americans is utterly preposterous. It's not the goddamned 1700's anymore. The idea that Americans need to have unfettered access to weapons without regulation in case the tie-rannycal gubmint needs a good overthrowin' is ludicrous. The idea that all the liquored up rednecks in the US could overthrow the strongest and most advanced military power in the world with their gun-show AR-15s is fething laughable. So, if your reasoning for opposing sensible gun-control measures such as background checks is that we need to be able to overthrow the government if necessary, you are deluded.

It just makes me angry that, because you nutjobs can scream the loudest, everyone else thinks the rest of us pro-gun types are just as loony as you.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Speaking as a longtime gun owner and generally pro-gun individual, the majority of you 2nd amendment guys are fething off your rockers.

Having background checks that are actually effective is not tyranny, for feth's sake. It's reasonable regulation. As is most of the gun-control legislation that's been recently proposed.

Also, all the hot air about the right to bear arms being the bedrock of our democracy and freedom as Americans is utterly preposterous. It's not the goddamned 1700's anymore. The idea that Americans need to have unfettered access to weapons without regulation in case the tie-rannycal gubmint needs a good overthrowin' is ludicrous. The idea that all the liquored up rednecks in the US could overthrow the strongest and most advanced military power in the world with their gun-show AR-15s is fething laughable. So, if your reasoning for opposing sensible gun-control measures such as background checks is that we need to be able to overthrow the government if necessary, you are deluded.

It just makes me angry that, because you nutjobs can scream the loudest, everyone else thinks the rest of us pro-gun types are just as loony as you.

You are making the mistake of thinking all the 2nd Amendment "we need to be able to overthrow the government" types are loony rednecks. You are flat wrong.

And the government could definitely be overthrown by the citizens. It wouldn't necessarily be them storming the capital putting the tyrant's head on a spike type thing. But it would be they would cause so much destabilization that it would force the government to flee, allowing the citizens to hold an election to put a new government in office.

Look how much trouble we have fighting insurgents elsewhere. Imagine that here, but 10,000 times worse.

 rubiksnoob wrote:
Having background checks that are actually effective is not tyranny, for feth's sake. It's reasonable regulation.

What, in the most recent round of proposed legislation, would have made background checks more effective? I don't recall any changes to NICS being introduced.

So, if your reasoning for opposing sensible gun-control measures such as background checks is that we need to be able to overthrow the government if necessary, you are deluded.

What if it's that we already have background checks?

I'm not going to argue with y'all, because frankly, it's like talking to a brick wall. I've just been following the thread and got so fed up I had to toss in my own two cents. Take that as you will, I'm going to sleep.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are making the mistake of thinking all the 2nd Amendment "we need to be able to overthrow the government" types are loony rednecks. You are flat wrong.

They might as well be for all the stupid that goes on within them.

Your opinion is noted.

And overstated as always!

 DemetriDominov wrote:

US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.

Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....

Are the words, world news and objective known by US news agencies?

and yes i do watch american news, mostly PBS however, it actually has content rather than headlines.

Bullockist wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:

US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.

Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....

Are the words, world news and objective known by US news agencies?

and yes i do watch american news, mostly PBS however, it actually has content rather than headlines.

To be honest, most of the Australian news networks (at least in Brisbane) are utter trash. Channels 7, 9 and 10 have news shows which are basically an extra session of their dodgy 'current affair' shows, with just a wee bit less reporters chasing after people and getting yelled at. ABC I haven't watched much of, really SBS is the only one I watch on any sort of regular basis. The rest...just utter jokes.

 Valion wrote:

 Norn King wrote:
Pro-gun reaction when anti-gun legislation doesn't pass(as seen by Australians): yehaw! ratatatatata!

Oddly enough, I suspect that scorn works both ways.

We really are the prettiest girl at the ball, though, if domestic policy disputes are making headlines in Australia.

We don't have enough murders, mass shootings or bombings happening over here to fill up a news hour, so we spend a lot of our time laughing at the USA.

 motyak wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:

US policy has a habit of saturating the media of other countries. It would be a mistake to believe however that they care about it.

Australia on the other hand, had its guns banned, by its own conservative party and has yet to suffer another mass shooting. An interesting fact that most American's would be better off knowing if our own media covered world news more objectively....

Are the words, world news and objective known by US news agencies?

and yes i do watch american news, mostly PBS however, it actually has content rather than headlines.

To be honest, most of the Australian news networks (at least in Brisbane) are utter trash. Channels 7, 9 and 10 have news shows which are basically an extra session of their dodgy 'current affair' shows, with just a wee bit less reporters chasing after people and getting yelled at. ABC I haven't watched much of, really SBS is the only one I watch on any sort of regular basis. The rest...just utter jokes.

Yeah, totally agree. If you want reliable news, i suggest ABC's 24 hour news channel, 24.

In other news, there was yet another shooting, this time in New Orleans. To the best of my knowledge there are 19 wounded.



When will you guys get the message?

 Norn King wrote:
In other news, there was yet another shooting, this time in New Orleans. To the best of my knowledge there are 19 wounded.

When will you guys get the message?

I have a feeling the media's going to sweep that one under the rug and not go into hysterics very, very quickly. Just remember I made that prediction after we learn more about the perpetrators.

 Valion wrote:

 Norn King wrote:
In other news, there was yet another shooting, this time in New Orleans. To the best of my knowledge there are 19 wounded.

When will you guys get the message?

I have a feeling the media's going to sweep that one under the rug and not go into hysterics very, very quickly. Just remember I made that prediction after we learn more about the perpetrators.

How is that in any way the point? The fact is, 19 people got shot, whether the media covers it or not.

 Norn King wrote:
How is that in any way the point? The fact is, 19 people got shot, whether the media covers it or not.

Nobody gets hysterical if the media doesn't cover it. It's why, as I've pointed out several times in this thread now, gun violence in the US has plummeted even while many people believe that it has gone up.

New Orleans police were also quite quick to call it "street violence," which, like it or not, suggests a gang relation, which in turn means the probability that these guns were legally sourced is near zero. So all the squawking in the world about background checks and registration and classes and the like wouldn't have made a bit of difference, as is the case with most shootings.

 Valion wrote:

 Norn King wrote:
How is that in any way the point? The fact is, 19 people got shot, whether the media covers it or not.

Nobody gets hysterical if the media doesn't cover it. It's why, as I've pointed out several times in this thread now, gun violence in the US has plummeted even while many people believe that it has gone up.

New Orleans police were also quite quick to call it "street violence," which, like it or not, suggests a gang relation, which in turn means the probability that these guns were legally sourced is near zero. So all the squawking in the world about background checks and registration and classes and the like wouldn't have made a bit of difference, as is the case with most shootings.

The motive for the shooting is unclear. If we are going to speculate, it may well be just another nutjob, who perhaps may have been stopped if there were stricter laws.

Does anyone know what kind of gun he used?

 Norn King wrote:
Does anyone know what kind of gun he used?

It wasn't one guy. It was three. The FBI has also said it was strictly a flare-up of street violence. And, this tidbit from an article on it..

Shootings at parades and neighborhood celebrations have become more common in recent years as the city has struggled with street crime. Earlier this year, four people were shot following an argument in the French Quarter during the last weekend of partying before Mardi Gras. The victims survived, and several suspects were eventually arrested.

Nobody really likes to say, "This is just gang violence," but that's precisely what it is.

 Valion wrote:

 Norn King wrote:
Does anyone know what kind of gun he used?

It wasn't one guy. It was three. The FBI has also said it was strictly a flare-up of street violence. And, this tidbit from an article on it..

Shootings at parades and neighborhood celebrations have become more common in recent years as the city has struggled with street crime. Earlier this year, four people were shot following an argument in the French Quarter during the last weekend of partying before Mardi Gras. The victims survived, and several suspects were eventually arrested.

Nobody really likes to say, "This is just gang violence," but that's precisely what it is.

That was exactly my first thought with this.

New Orleans is a cess pit.

Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.

If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?

 Norn King wrote:
Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.

If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?

So... you advocate banning guns to create a stronger police state.

Make more things illegal, so they have more things to arrest me for if they can't find the evidence they wanted in the first place?

That is just a simply scary line of thinking.

Well, thats how it is here in OZ.

 Norn King wrote:
Well, thats how it is here in OZ.

And I pray that's never how it is here.

Are the cops in the US that corrupt that you have to worry about that sort of thing?

 Norn King wrote:
Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.

If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?

It would send a great deal of non-violent offenders to jail. Ban guns, and a large population of otherwise law-abiding citizens will suddenly become criminals, because there are a great many who certainly would not turn theirs in.

Making comparisons with Australia or any other state is pretty fruitless. There's nobody in the world who has anywhere near our amount of firearms per capita. We have more guns than cars in this country, and we have an awful lot of cars. And that's just the ones we're pretty sure we know about. Given that it's hard to estimate the amount of illegally-acquired firearms in the US, we could very well have more than one gun per person. That's over 300,000,000 firearms. You think a ban just gets rid of them?

 Valion wrote:

 Norn King wrote:
Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.

If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?

It would send a great deal of non-violent offenders to jail. Ban guns, and a large population of otherwise law-abiding citizens will suddenly become criminals, because there are a great many who certainly would not turn theirs in.

Making comparisons with Australia or any other state is pretty fruitless. There's nobody in the world who has anywhere near our amount of firearms per capita. We have more guns than cars in this country, and we have an awful lot of cars. And that's just the ones we're pretty sure we know about. Given that it's hard to estimate the amount of illegally-acquired firearms in the US, we could very well have more than one gun per person. That's over 300,000,000 firearms. You think a ban just gets rid of them?

With the surge of purchases over the last year, I'm pretty sure that there are more legally privately owned guns in this country then their are people now.

I was reaching

 Norn King wrote:
Slightly off on a tangent here, but banning guns (like in OZ), gives the police another reason to arrest someone. For example, the police search a place and find guns. Unless they have special circumstances, im pretty sure its a fairly serious offence.

If banning guns does nothing except this, surely its a good result?

Not the right tangent to go with against the yanks Their police force is that corrupt that it would be an issue.
If you're going to 'ban' guns outright, there also needs to be a buy-back program. No-one is endorsing suddenly making 75% of the population in violation of the law.
I don't understand why there is such terrible knowledge of gun ownership in the US. Shouldn't every single gun be registered to a single person, in the same way that a car is? It isn't that big a hassle to get the little bit of transfer-of-ownership done, and it doesn't prevent private sales.

I'm in favour of gun control to get guns out of the access of petty criminals. Organised crime will find a way to access guns, this can't really be prevented. But there should be a way to get guns away from muggers, shoplifters and street thugs; I believe ready availability of guns increases the relative power of these types of offenders. It also (hopefully) removes guns from spree killers and the like.