mass shootings probably stopped because of gun control in australia

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 99
#31
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
"guns increase risk of death"

And putting a pool in your backyard greatly increases your chance of drowning. Damn pools, ban em now. 

"Australia and US Burglary rates a comparable"

Really? Page 2 of this crime stat compilation is showing, just in burglaries, a rate that is double that of the US. Might want to explain how double = comparable again. 🤔

"You're suggesting that the number of guns in the USA would mean nobody wants to risk a burglary."

No, that less people do. Ok, for a personal example, about a year ago i woke up to someone fucking with my kitchen window. I grab my double barrel and go near the window and cock it. I hear "oh fucl" get yelled out and person run, then about 15 seconds later a car door slams out of sight and peels off. 

Called the cops, they came, got the info. Put it down as trespassing and not attempted burglary. Second time it happened recently, i didnt even bother considering they weren't gonna treat it as a burglary attempt. 

Alot of defensive gun uses go unreported because often, a serious crime hasnt yet been committee, the introduction of a gun causes running away, often. Even say in a mass shooting, such as Sutherland Springs, a shooting in Texas quite a bit more deadly than Parkland. Guess who stopped that? 

None other than one of those evil NRA members you hear so much about. But good guys with guns dont help its said. Despite simultaneously stil wanting cops, i.e. "good guys" with guns 😂

#32
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Outplayz
FBI gun violence report published June 2015 showed that, excluding suicides, 68% of ALL gun-related crimes where carried out by black males between the ages of 14 and 26. If you want to make the biggest impact to overall gun crime, deport those men

Gun Crime is usually a poverty issue, not a Race one. 

But perhaps the Elder White Males who profit in the NRA and ship these guns into inner city neighborhoods  should be deported (If I were to follow your logic)



#33
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@ravensjt
How do you know they are all elder white males?  


#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,901
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ravensjt
No you would save a few lives, but guns have a beneficial purpose to society outside of the discussion. Same with cars.
#35
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
But perhaps the Elder White Males who profit in the NRA and ship these guns into inner city neighborhoods  should be deported

You mean the ones that are stolen? You do understand a vast majority of violent crime involving guns is from weapons illegally possessed, usually stolen? Fail to see how a 2A rights advocacy group that pushes responsible and safe ownership is at fault for the illegal actions of others. 

You also do realize, you are pissed at the wrong agency. If you want the gun manufacturers and sellers, their lobbying group is the NSSF 🤔

The NRA and NRA-ILA are associated with the NSNf only insomuch that purchase forms for guns at FFL's have check boxes for donating to the NRA and/or the NSSF. 

Also, you say its more about poverty, but immediately interject race in a substantial manner, implying that the NRA is shipping guns to inner cities with the explicit purpose of giving them to criminals. Wholly absurd proposition as that is, the NRA has always wanted to see law abiding minorities arm themselves. The NRA itself was created in part as a response to the Jim Crow South and the KKK, and the direct effort of dixiecrats to stripping blacks of their 2a rights.

Cause, if you want to politically suppress a demographic group through domestic terrorism, you wanna take their means of defense away 🤔. Like, you blaming guns and the NRA in this, while also saying its mostly poverty, is frankly strange. Do guns cause poverty? Sure would like to see that causally substantiated empirically. 

If you want to find people to blame for the poverty that causes crime, you might want to look at the people shilling abortions in those communities and ripping apart the typical family unit that was intact as late as the 50's, creating a vastly dependent economic group on welfare(which is damaging to a persons self-worth no matter how you slice it), and capping(that's right as in limiting) the market cost of discrimination with min wage laws. 🤔

#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,901
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ravensjt
and cmon, you're not going to pull the "black skin race person has no agency when the white devil gives him bad stuff" card are you?
#37
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
One of the two in your pfp was a huge proponent of gun ownership and the second amendment btw🤔. Guess who supported his view as well as supported groups like the Black Panthers right to bear arms? You better believe the NRA did, and still would. 

Like i said, its rather interesting that you would state something is more of a non racial issue, but yet still primarily view the situation through the lens of race. I can perhaps understand why you would, rather its that you acknowledge that's the improper lens, but continue to use said lens near exclusively 🤔. 


#38
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
you're not going to pull the "black skin race person has no agency when the white devil gives him bad stuff" card are you?

I doubt it, that would just necessitate the conclusion that no person has agency and thus no person is at fault for their actions. It would be self defeating to what seems to be his opinion that somebody is to blame. Cant blame someone who lacks agency after all 🤔


Topic's author
#39
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts

there has been a recent mass shooting but for over twenty years there were none. that is defining a mass shooting as more than four people not including the gun man. if you still think you've debunked NBC news that i posted, then by all means write a counter article and claim your prize. 
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,901
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@linate
there has been a recent mass shooting but for over twenty years there were none. that is defining a mass shooting as more than four people not including the gun man. if you still think you've debunked NBC news that i posted, then by all means write a counter article and claim your prize.
Linate, the whole "if we could save just one life" argument is a really dumb argument. You could use this exact logic for eugenics, state funded cryofreezing, and luddite policies, all of which would dramatically lower the quality of life at the expense of quantity (not to mention personal liberties)

You're going to have to do better than the "save one life" take.
#41
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Buddamoose
and that would be a minimum number as many are probably never reported, hard to report a crime that never happened.
#42
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@linate
since you can't or won't read the link
9 September 2014    5 killed

so 1996 + 20 = 2016

doh!

what's interesting is since 2000 there have been 3 arson mass murders and one regular one.
but if you look at the other all stats the trend is Australians don't generally like to kill strangers, just their families.
Topic's author
#43
linate
linate's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 222
0
1
1
linate's avatar
linate
0
1
1
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
since you can't or won't read what i wrote or your own link, i will say it again. the definition of a mass shooting is over four people killed, not including the gunman. the example you gave shows a man killing his wife and three kids, and then himself. 
#44
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Wow, i never provided link for first post😂


Like, i can understand wanting to save lives, but if we are going to view things primarily through the lens of utility and harm reduction therein, then lives lost is only one part of that even still. Deterrance plays a role, and that deterrance can amount to only a non serious crime being committed, or no crime at all. 

Ex: Person X walking down street at night, person Y starts running up from behind. Person X pulls out gun and turns and aims. Person Y sees gun, and bolts away. No crime has been committed, police are liable to tell you to come back when a crime has actually been committed if you want to file a complaint 🤔

Its wholly possible in such scenarios no crime would have been committed, but its also wholly possible a crime would have been. So though its true that person Y with no gun would likely = no loss of life, it wouldn't deter the potentiality of crime. Gun in situation though likely = no loss of life, and likely = deterrance of crime in general. All in a scenario you would not find out about unless you surveyed, because criminal complaints otherwise might not even be accepted.  


#45
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@linate
the definition of a mass shooting is over four people killed, not including the gunman. the example you gave shows a man killing his wife and three kids, and then himself. 
Now, I may not be a rocket scientist, but last I checked 1+3 = 4 not including the man 🤔

#46
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
And I'll point out, its 4 or more, not more than 4. and thats derived from the FBI not classifying 3 or less  killed as a mass shooting, though there is no actual legal definition. Whatever definitions or metrics used to differentiate, also tends to vary based on outlet and agenda 🤔
#47
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@linate
it's not over 4 it's 4 or more be consistent with your stats, while there is no official number that is what the news consistently says is the number
#48
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ravensjt
I was trying to make a point. I'm not actually that racist. The point is we would probably do a lot better if we looked and cured the symptoms... not focus so darn much on the tool. One symptom is that we don't enforce our current laws. What is one more law to the thousands of gun laws we already have? How will it make a difference? There is zero proposed gun laws that would have stopped any of these shootings. Sure, i'll concede they can help... but no were near the help focusing on the actual problems will do. Everything that will have the most profound effect on gun violence is non-gun control laws. 

So yes... maybe if we focused on the poverty in urban cities... that would be more productive than banning a non-existent "assault rifle" ... Gun control is mainly for political votes and is just as useless as deporting millions of black Americans to fix a problem. That is what gun control sounds like to me. Just as dumb as my comment.  But my comment will at least bring down gun violence by 70% lol. 

#49
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@linate

since you can't or won't read what i wrote or your own link, i will say it again. the definition of a mass shooting is over four people killed, not including the gunman. the example you gave shows a man killing his wife and three kids, and then himself. 
Lol it's 4 "or more" but the hilarious thing is now you care what the definition is... when the news says we have a mass shooting every day and you use that as an argument... ohhh my, then you don't care about the definition do you. The news is calling the video game incident a mass shooting... so what is it? Technically... if that is the news' definition of mass shooting... they are majorly lying about Australia since there was more than 1 by "their" definition. But, even by FBI standards Australia had a mass shooting. You are just letting the MSM brainwash you, sad.
#50
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
1
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
1
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Now you want to stop people owning matches? WOW.
#51
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@vagabond
lol but if it can save just one life........how fickle a society when we focus on the what instead of the why
#52
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Outplayz
So yes... maybe if we focused on the poverty in urban cities... that would be more productive than banning a non-existent "assault rifle" ... Gun control is mainly for political votes and is just as useless as deporting millions of black Americans to fix a problem. That is what gun control sounds like to me. Just as dumb as my comment.  But my comment will at least bring down gun violence by 70% lol. 
Dang Bro, you had me until your last sentence! (lol)

I just wonder for those who say the problem isnt assault rifles, why they are so against banning them.

Gun Control in conjunction with fighting poverty, education, banning assault weapons etc..... seems to be a much more logical solution


#53
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
and cmon, you're not going to pull the "black skin race person has no agency when the white devil gives him bad stuff" card are you?
Surprise Surprise another Fallacy


#54
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
No you would save a few lives, but guns have a beneficial purpose to society outside of the discussion. Same with cars.
Your argument doesn't get stronger when you mention the obvious with the debateable  Thats why most of your arguments are fallacious 


I assume that when you refer to the benefits of guns your talking about self defense. So I challenge you to show me a statistic from the FBI that shows that defense gun statistics out number gun crimes.

Anything counter to that would debunk your myth Bro


#55
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@DBlaze
How do you know they are all elder white males?  
NRA Board Members are 83% men and the board members themselves are 90% White 




#56
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@ravensjt
Gun Control in conjunction with fighting poverty, education, banning assault weapons etc..... seems to be a much more logical solution

it would be logical perhaps if the focus and urgency was placed on fighting poverty and education rather than gun control and assault weapons.  You know Clinton's assault ban was studied and determined it made no statistical difference yet so many still want to focus on it, which obviously takes away focus on things that can actually be of benefit.  How long has the more gun control argument been going on?  This has been taking center stage for a very long time far above and beyond any talk of fighting poverty and improving education.  Yet you still want to travel down that road?  That doesn't seem logical.
#57
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts

it would be logical perhaps if the focus and urgency was placed on fighting poverty and education rather than gun control and assault weapons.  You know Clinton's assault ban was studied and determined it made no statistical difference yet so many still want to focus on it, which obviously takes away focus on things that can actually be of benefit.  How long has the more gun control argument been going on?  This has been taking center stage for a very long time far above and beyond any talk of fighting poverty and improving education.  Yet you still want to travel down that road?  That doesn't seem logical.


Bro, There is a huge different between debating a topic and implementing one.
 
Gun Control argument has been going on forever because it's talked about then forgotten until the next mass shooting

Also, Clintons Assault Weapon ban results were mixed:


#58
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
Gun Control argument has been going on forever because it's talked about then forgotten until the next mass shooting
exactly, so why not refocus on what I mentioned that have never been as big a priority?  It seems it's pretty much an exercise in futility yet we still want to bag our heads against the wall, seems illogical.

check the studies done
virtually all researchers had concluded that it was impossible to discern what, if any, positive effect the ban's prohibition of rifles with "military-style features" had on crime or mass shooting incidents.

but again I would point out how much time and attention we use to discuss guns vs poverty and education that you mentioned.

even vox admits murders are going down

Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

the evidence shows murders and crime have been trending down without any new gun laws, is that true for poverty and better education?

#59
DBlaze
DBlaze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 318
1
1
2
DBlaze's avatar
DBlaze
1
1
2
-->
@ravensjt
How do you know they are all elder white males?  
NRA Board Members are 83% men and the board members themselves are 90% White 




Maybe it is Karl Malone shipping to the inner cities for profit, like he doesn't have enough money as it is.  Or maybe they have nothing to do with it, which I would think is the case.  Maybe more people of color need to apply, or do you think they discriminate?  I highly doubt it.  

Remember, a lot of hunters and people that do this kind of thing for sport are white, so it makes sense.

#60
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@ravensjt
I could ask you the same thing... why are you so hell bent on banning assault rifles that only account for 2% of gun deaths? It makes no sense. Not only is it one of my favorite guns, it is also my preferred choice of weapon to protect myself with. In heated moments, my aim won't suffer and i don't have to worry about missing like i do with a handgun. It is my weapon of choice. You want to take that away from me and others that feel the same. Plus, all in all, it isn't logical at all since there is no such thing as "assault rifles" which means you won't be banning anything. It will not help, it will not make a difference banning "A-Rifles." It's a feel good law for the left and to get votes... it is pure ignorance of weapons that keeps your side blind to any lie you hear to get you to vote left.