JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[AirStrike]

Nah, more guns is not the solution to gun related crime.

Think of it this way, all those people on the roads, the ones who can't merge, can't maintain speed, maintain their name, can't indicate, are perplexed by round abouts, crash into each other, mistake the accelerator for the break, etc.

How would you feel about all of them having guns?

While one of incidents like school shootings could potentially be avoided, imagine how many people would shoot themselves or others through sheer stupidity.

Jest have you looked into how hard it is to obtain a category H (handgun) license in Australia?
This isn't the US, they're not going to be handed out at Woolworths or Coles.

 

[Reaper]

That's a good thing, according to Mr Leyonhjelm. He says it's an "objective fact" that last year's Sandy Hook school massacre, in which 20 American children were shot dead, could have been avoided if the teachers at the primary school had been armed.


Read more: Pro-gun Liberal Democrat Senator-elect David Leyonhjelm says US gun crime is a 'black on black' problem | News.com.au

Maybe it's just me, but I agree with some of what he says.
You can't argue that a large percentage of US gun crime is drug/gang related.
As for if teachers we're armed, well we'll never know with that one.

Well yes, if the teachers were armed there is a chance the shooter may have been shot. There is also a chance that kids (presumably not so many granted) would also have been killed when the teacher missed a couple of times. On the other hand, if firearms were not in the community I'd argue that the chances of such a thing happening would be far far lower than a "positive" outcome by arming everybody.

I don't think it's pure coincidence that mass shootings in Australia is virtually unheard of. Per head of population, I'm sure we have just as many nutters as USA. Hell we even vote them into Parliament. I do think the relative scarcity of firearms in the community does help.

 

[AirStrike]

Well yes, if the teachers were armed there is a chance the shooter may have been shot. There is also a chance that kids (presumably not so many granted) would also have been killed when the teacher missed a couple of times. On the other hand, if firearms were not in the community I'd argue that the chances of such a thing happening would be far far lower than a "positive" outcome by arming everybody.

I don't think it's pure coincidence that mass shootings in Australia is virtually unheard of. Per head of population, I'm sure we have just as many nutters as USA. Hell we even vote them into Parliament. I do think the relative scarcity of firearms in the community does help.

As I said, we'll never really know.
Maybe no mass shootings, still mass murders (Childers for example). So the criminals have changed weapons, have we accomplished anything?
There are more registered firearms now then before John Howard's steal back.
Maybe the money would be better spent elsewhere like a secure firearms register, more secure transfer of government owned firearms and a crackdown on border protection to stop the illegal importation of firearms.

 

[Reaper]

As I said, we'll never really know.
Maybe no mass shootings, still mass murders (Childers for example). So the criminals have changed weapons, have we accomplished anything?

I don't know the one you are talking about however comparatively speaking they are very few and far between in Australia compared to USA.

There are more registered firearms now then before John Howard's steal back.

I don't think that is a good thing either. The lower the number of firearms in the community, the lower the opportunity for theft by those who will use them for criminal activities. It does drive up the inherrent value of those guns in circulation however every time the Police seize firearms from criminals (bikies seem to be a big target at the moment) the fewwer there wiill be. I presume that semi auto and fully automatic weapons are still very small in quantity?

Maybe the money would be better spent elsewhere like a secure firearms register, more secure transfer of government owned firearms and a crackdown on border protection to stop the illegal importation of firearms.

All of those things may help as well.

 

[AirStrike]

I don't know the one you are talking about however comparatively speaking they are very few and far between in Australia compared to USA.

What's the difference represented as a percentage of overall population?

I don't think that is a good thing either. The lower the number of firearms in the community, the lower the opportunity for theft by those who will use them for criminal activities. It does drive up the inherrent value of those guns in circulation however every time the Police seize firearms from criminals (bikies seem to be a big target at the moment) the fewwer there wiill be. I presume that semi auto and fully automatic weapons are still very small in quantity?

Why should law abiding citizens have to miss out because a small minority cannot follow the law? Fully automatic weapons do not exist in the public, with semi-automatics being extremely hard to be licensed for requiring a genuine reason.

All of those things may help as well.

I think they would accomplish more then taking away others rights.

 

[c2105026]

What's the difference represented as a percentage of overall population?

Why should law abiding citizens have to miss out because a small minority cannot follow the law? Fully automatic weapons do not exist in the public, with semi-automatics being extremely hard to be licensed for requiring a genuine reason.

I think they would accomplish more then taking away others rights.

If you go back to to the 60s/70s/80s/90s every few years we'd have a mass shooting. Since revised gun laws.....hardly anything.
Most laws we have are in place because a small minority of people/entities/businesses acted dangerously or unethically. Its the cost of living in a society with imperfect people.
If you go about arming everyone you wind up with an arms-race situation. It could get out of hand very quickly.
There is a very stark correlation between the amount of guns in a community, and gun-related crime/deaths; and a weaker correlation for violent crime in general.

Not to worry - even if the LDP guy wanted to bring back gun proliferation by introducing a bill, it wouldn't pass the lower house or the upper house.

 

[Reaper]

What's the difference represented as a percentage of overall population?

According to Wiki (cbf'ed looking any harder) there were 10.3 deaths per 100,000 people in USA (2011). In Australia it was 1.06 (2010 data). Near enough to 10:1 more.

Why should law abiding citizens have to miss out because a small minority cannot follow the law? Fully automatic weapons do not exist in the public, with semi-automatics being extremely hard to be licensed for requiring a genuine reason.

I think the above stat speaks for itself on that one.

I think they would accomplish more then taking away others rights.

I'd be happy with both.

 

[AirStrike]

If you go back to to the 60s/70s/80s/90s every few years we'd have a mass shooting. Since revised gun laws.....hardly anything.

Still had mass murders, just not shootings, so what did it accomplish? It's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Most laws we have are in place because a small minority of people/entities/businesses acted dangerously or unethically. Its the cost of living in a society with imperfect people.

True, I just get sick of LAFO's getting the raw end of the stick all the time. I see stabbings on the news all the time, why don't we ban all knives except for authorised government contractors who cut all our food up?

If you go about arming everyone you wind up with an arms-race situation. It could get out of hand very quickly.
There is a very stark correlation between the amount of guns in a community, and gun-related crime/deaths; and a weaker correlation for violent crime in general.

Who said anything about arming everyone?

Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period,[110][111] meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 0.01% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits. VPC also includes in its numbers several homicides using only long guns and several instances of accidental discharge.

Seems like all the legally owned guns in the community don't account for much of the murder rate. How many murders did they stop by taking action?

 

[AirStrike]

I'd be happy with both.

How many deaths are cause by cars? Maybe we should ban those as well.

 

[Rufus®]

How many deaths are cause by cars? Maybe we should ban those as well.

Maybe you should ask "how many people are murdered by cars?' Guns are designed to kill, cars are not.. Pretty sure we've had this whole argument many times before.