It is just a derogatory term, if you believe its a fact, well good on you, keep mocking your own intelligence. It is your opinion. It is actually two opinions, the second one is heavily contetious and heavily debated, hence your posts and all the other posts on this bored. On the other side of the coin, me writing, nuclear weapons, guns and tanks are not good for society is my opinion, I may believe it to be a fact but that in itself does not make it so. I might even make reference to reams of data, but then without going into more detail that doesnt achieve much. There are way more threads on this forum started by Gun supporters, some of them the same gun supporters. Obviously gun supporters are more interested in guns. If I am considered a progressive in your mind, let me reassure you, that I do not obsess over gun laws. In fact, I think you would have an easier time arguing the NRA or a generalisation of a gun rights group obsess over gun laws. as that is the nature of the thing. I do not know much about guns, but in my society, whether you are considered "conservative" or "progressive" or where I like to be, which is impartial and dependent upon the issue, really has no effect on your knowledge about guns. I reckon you would find many progressive voters in the USA in areas with high concentrations of guns, who use those guns a fair bit and know a bit about them. This is just a prejudicial statement against those of a certain heritage. Certainly not a fact nor is it a particular kind thing to say. Keep in mind if you try to claim that a certain group has an ideaological "low ground" be careful that you are not putting yourself into a similar group with similar "low ground", which is what I think you did with this post.
Anytime, I am always happy to share it. I also come with the added advantage of being able to recognise it as such and do not need to throw around the word fact
Actually, it not my opinion, or even opinion at all. It is fact that most of the gun control ideas pushed by the "progressives" will not improve public safety. The data proves it, and as I wrote even obama's post Sandy Hook study (done by the CDC) determined the various gun control measures are pointless (and that's why the CDC study was never publicized, in fact for the first year you had to buy the study even though it was conducted by the govt with tax dollars). And to bring up nuclear weapons is the typical absurd leap gun banners often resort to. Nobody is claiming a person should be able to go to WalMart and buy a nuclear bomb, or bio weapons. And that adds more proof the leftists don't know the subject. They don't know clips from magazines, and cannot distinguish between a nuclear bomb and a rifle.
A few things, I do not consider myself a leftist, please do not infer that term upon me. If you wish to use a term to capture all the people who argue for gun regulations you can use gun control , even gun banners is more accurate then all your progressive / leftist crap. For the same reason I dont write you are leftist / rightist or are progressive / conservative. It is an irrelevant crap shoot when discussing gun regulation. You keep repeating your position is not your opinion it is in fact, fact. Keep repeating it, if you repeat it enough you might make it true . As for the point you continue to argue on, there is actually two points with varying responses which is mostly an opinion based answer depending on the individuals circumstance. - gun control is worthless to control crime. - gun control is worthless to reduce gun accidents. However to you, any answer that says a position you agree with, is automatically fact, anything you disagree with is opinion. Whilst fine at a pub, is in fact intellectually challenged.
In the USA almost every gun banner is a leftist. every major intrusion on our rights as gun owners has been perpetrated by the left wing side of the political aisle. I think there are two reasons for this. Gun control is a surrogate war against white conservative middle class Christian Males. every group that sees these men as their political enemies tend to support gun control. The second is gun control fits in with other leftwing schemes. Its based on the belief that average citizens cannot be trusted with either the responsibility and the power of owning guns. such power should be monopolized by the government.
Thank you for sharing your view on the political sphere of the USA. I am sure you are more informed and educated on this sphere then myself. However, on the internet and on these forums, lots of people both pro and anti guns are not from the USA and do not come from a society where the same sweeping generalisations made are anywhere near accurate. For example, gun regulation in australia was most heavily pursued by john howard a PM whom was considered "conservative" from the party that between the two majors is considered the more "conservative". That paradigm whilst it might be true in the USA has no place in the world as a whole and on this medium the internet, to keep throwing out those terms and drawing those ad hoc lines, just makes you look bad.
Just think, if those millions of people decided Look up "taking the pi$$" - It will explain everything.
Anybody that believes gun control works is either ignorant of the facts or is a gun banner zealot. As has been presented many times in the forum gun discussions: The FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the CDC injury/death database show that 1 - rifles are a trivial factor in violent crime, more people are killed by "hands & feet" then by all rifles (FBI UCR Table 20). 2 - violent crime is very highly correlated to city size, not to city and state levels of gun control. 3 - violent crime is highly concentrated in the major cities, actually in specific parts of the major cities. 4 - you are as safe or safer in most of the USA than in Australia or the UK. USA national crime statistics are driven by those major cities. Those are facts, not opinion. Spend some time on the FBI UCR web site and learn for yourself. As for the obama CDC gun study, a summary is here http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/ and the actual study is here https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 Read them and get up to speed on the failure of gun control. You can also read another obama directed NIJ (DOJ) study which does not support gun control https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/PDF-News/nij-gun-policy-memo.pdf And then there is Australia, which implemented its severe gun control/ban in 1995 and then suffered a huge crime wave which started in 1996, peaked in 2001/2002, and slowly declined but several crime rates are still above the pre-ban rate. Even the murder rate increased 16% by 2001. Below compares USA violent crime rate (FBI UCR) with AUS violent crime rate (AUS Bureau of Statistics Crime Reports). Note the surge in violet crime in AUS
Your inability to comprehend how some sort of gun regulation, just like vehicle regulation may be beneficial in certain societies, goes to your comprehension and your hardline approach. It may not work in your society, the status quo or less gun regulation may be beneficial in your society, but this hardline approach, mixed in with commentary about how everyone else is a "zealot", "progressive" or "leftie" is some of the most hypocritical stuff I have read. As for the crime rate increase in Australia, one your study starts in 95/96 so it would be interesting to see if there was an upward trend prior to that point in time, which would just go to the reporting of crime as opposed to more actual crime being committed. Similar to the US, was it on a downward trend prior, could it be less people are reporting crime then previously, or in general crime is going down regardless of guns / no guns.
Pray tell what sort of firearm-related restrictions have done anything that amounts to being beneficial, and in which societies this has been the case. Demonstrate how decreased in firearm-related crimes did not coincide with simultaneous increases in other categories of crime. A decrease in annual murders is hardly worthwhile if the trade off is more sexual assaults and other felony-level violent activities.
Here in the U.S. the downward trend in Crime is due to three factors, longer Prison sentances to some Crimes, three strikes etc..... Armed Citizens resisting Criminals, Proactive Policing Policies, Anti Gang initiatives, Stop & Frisk, Profiling of Criminal Offenders. More Guns in the hands of Law Abiding Citizens = Less Crime.
Actually the plot starts with 1993. AUS (just like all western industrialized nations at the time) crime rates were on a downward trend until 1996. In fact, if you draw a line on the pre-1996 homicide rate and continue it through 2015, you will find that from about 2008 onwards the homicide rate generally follows the line - indicating that if AUS had not implemented its 1995 gun ban, its homicide rate would be what is has been post-2008, just without the crime bubble from 1996-2008. Gun banners always bring up the idea that AUS crime reporting changed in 1996 and that accounts for the increase. Changes are documented in the AUS annual crime reports. There was no significant change, and the AUS crime reports adjust previous data for the minor changes that were made over the years. Significant changes in reporting show up as a sudden step (increase or decrease) in the crime rates, not as the fairly smooth multi-year trend shown in the AUS data. <> Comparing gun regulation with vehicle regulation is incorrect. In the USA, cars are far, far more destructive than firearms. Transportation accidents kill more, injure more, disable more, and cause far more property damage, than criminal use of firearms. In insurance, there are 3 major issues in determining your life expectancy and your probability of requiring significant medical care - whether you smoke, whether you abuse drugs (including alcohol), and how many miles you drive a year. Whether you own a firearm is not of interest to insurance companies. Look at vehicle regulation. There is no political lobby pushing to confiscate all the vehicles. It is assumed the driver/car owner has every intention of driving safely, he is assumed innocent until he is proven to have abused his driving privilege. There are no "storage rules" for his car or his keys, he is not required to get exorbitant insurance, he does not have to undergo a background check every time he buys a car or buys fuel, he does not have to go to a government approved business to have the car transported or modified. In fact, vehicle registration is more about government revenue than public safety. And vehicle regulations are more about MPG than public safety.
The graph you linked starts in 1995, with 1995 - 1996 showing australia with an upward trend already. There are political lobbies attached to cars / fuel, there political lobbies attached to everything where a dollar can be made.
In australia, the gun buy back, increased regulation and national attention on the issue led to a change in culture and public opinion towards guns. The increased safety, public wellbeing from knowing you not in general at threat by a gun, imo makes it well worth it. This probably wouldn't work in your country, but to suggest gun regulation can not work, is an absolute that just makes a very very poor argument. Alternatively, I understand in America, it is illegal for felons to obtain guns, which I imagine has increased the amount of criminals in jail (not on the street) who were caught walking around with guns. This is a form of gun regulation, that whether or not I agree with it) some of the pro gun people actually like and wish to retain.
This matter in and of itself is in dispute to this very day. Depending on what sources are referred to, overall crime trends were already decreasing before the prohibition, or there was an increase in violence crime that occurred afterward, or there has bee no notable change in overall levels of violence in general. As it is the border guards in the nation of Australia are reporting the interception of firearms through the mail on an almost daily basis. One cannot help but question how many they are failing to intercept due to sheer numbers. First and foremost, no claim of residency to any particular country has been made on the part of myself. Second, it can be demonstrated through numerous citations of news from the united states, that the various thousands of regulations currently in place are doing nothing whatsoever. This is quite false. In the united states, firearm-related offenses are rarely ever prosecuted. In cook county in the state of Illinois alone, home to the city of Chicago, thousands of felon in possession charges have been dropped by prosecutors before the cases ever went to court. Some claim it is due to insufficient funding to prosecute the individuals, others due to prison overcrowding, while others claim it is due to the offenders overwhelming being black and the city not wishing to appear racist. The problem lays with said restrictions not being enforced. If firearm-related charges are never pursued, what is the purpose of having the restrictions in place to begin with?
Please provide a cite for the claim of major change. It's my understanding that there was no gun culture or change of public opinion. Interesting claim, given that 30% of the proscribed guns were not turned in, retained presumably by criminals most likely to use them, and that Australia has had at least two major amnesty efforts in order to try to get more turned in. If the buy back worked, there shouldn't be a need for amnesty efforts. Australia also suffered through a period of increased violent crime post gun ban. http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html Ausalso has more guns now than they did prior to the buy back, and as Cumbria showed us, it doesn't take high tech guns to have a massacre. No, the Australian method wouldn't work in the US, because, as John Howard pointed out, we have a Bill of Rights and Australia does not. As to whether gun regulation can work, one needs to look at the specific regulations proposed and their actual results in other places. Australia gets credited with much more success than has been actually recorded. Except that these felons don't get prosecuted for their gun crimes. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/ Google "Brady Act Enforcement 2010" for the pdf report showing 13 out of over 34 thousand felons convicted for a gun related felony where the government had their name, address and phone number along with a signed legal document. They are also the least likely to respond to a gun buy back and cannot actually be prosecuted for failing to register a gun.
the us CONSTITUTION has a process for a change it is explaned in ARTICLE 5 of that august document ,the anti gunners want to circumvent our constitution when it comes to gun ownership,yet they will stand on the CONSTITUTION if it works for them . http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/25/the-australia-gun-control-fallacy/
If true, it is beyond sad that an entire society was so strongly swayed by fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and dishonesty. What happened to you people? Just like here - and yet, we do not have your inane, draconian gun laws.
no you do not have our constitutional right to bear arms,are you saying our constitution is insane and draconian .
I couldn't agree more. Anything or anyone who stands in the way of one americans right to shoot another American is a danger to the whole country. Every country on earth has their own unique way of "thinning the herd" and guns are Americans chosen method. Shoot first, ask questions later.....seems logical enough to me.
The gun bans and controls made Australians feel safer, but the reality and the data shows they were not made safer. Violent crime increased dramatically. Some gun laws (regulations) do work, and there are some that gun owners would support. But that's not the problem, the problem is the gun control community wants a total ban on firearms and no gun regulations less than a total ban will appease them. There is no compromise possible with them. In the past, what gun control has been enacted out of a spirit of compromise from the gun community has been abused, the "common sense" gun safety measures were twisted into near gun bans. That's why the gun community has no interest in enacting any type of gun regulations - the gun banners cannot ever be trusted.
