• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An honest question for information...

jet57 said:
We're talking about Australia, not New Zealand: that's moving the goal post.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org
Click to expand...

Australia's homicide rate has been on the decline well before 1996.

GUNS-IN-OTHER-COUNTRIES-Australia-Homicides-before-and-after-gun-ban-with-trend-lines.png


In fact, they had two major spikes of homicides while the US has been on a steady decline.

australia-united-states-homicide-rates-before-after-gun-ban.jpg


So I ask again, what evidence do you have that Australia's gun control had a direct cause and effect?
 
TurtleDude said:
founded on the idea that people who disobey laws against murder will obey gun restrictions and that those who traffic narcotics will be unable to traffic firearms

and it also assumes that people who don't cause crime with guns need their rights further restricted so they won't, in the future, commit crimes they have never done in the past
Click to expand...

Gun control for me is consistently hitting the bullseye.

Goals may vary for others:

20160107_target.webp
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
If you believe that the number is only a small portion and so does the left, then why does the left go after legal gun owners and generally ignore those illegally possessing guns. If street guns are the problem, then go after street guns. Case in point. McCauliffe, Va current governor, is a Clinton friend, anti gun, loony leftist. One of his first acts was to rescind all but one reciprocal agreements. Meaning I can no longer leave the state with a gun in the car. Really? Reciprocal agreements affect only legal gun owners. That one got beaten back. Fortunately.

I don't think legal gun owners believe they have a right to kill. Far from it. Carriers generally carry to prevent killing of honest citizens. Similarly, I recognize in most lethal shoots the shooter has a few seconds at best to make a decision, often, or a bunch of decisions, often in the dead of night, then a panel of 6 takes weeks of viewing mountains of evidence to determine if he decision was correct.
Click to expand...

Criminality, despite the proguns opinion tha it is a gun problem is not a gun problem. Crime is a completely different issue that needs to be dealt with in a different way. But because a gun may be involved or pro gun owners choose guns as a defense against crime, then guns become the issue when discussing crime. Which is nothing more than a distraction when dealing with crime.

It is a matter of culture and america has a right to kill culture when it comes to guns. As you point out that does not mean in most cases that a person looks to kill but as your example states they think in terms of killing. You say,
Carriers generally carry to prevent killing of honest citizens.
Click to expand...
Are you honestly telling me you cannot see that you are giving away the very point i am making with that statement?

Although i would argue it a waste of time to introduce ideas like banning guns or even registering guns or owners the concentration of effort to reduce dieing from a gun in america is by targeting the many legal owners. The arguement put out by the progun group that a gun is needed to fight crime is nothing more than fear mongering and makes it impossible to have a safe gun culture. How can you reconcile the fear of a having your house broken into and needing a loaded gun in handy reach with the safety protocol of always having n unloaded gun in a locked cabinet with ammo stored in a seperate locked cabinet.

An example of how the pro gun fear mongering causes death.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/
A woman with all the safety gear of a special gun carry purse leaves it accessable to a child because she has been taught that she cannot even walk through a mall in america without being prepard to kill an attacker.. The pro gun propaganda of always fear criminals will kill you, killed her .
 
Maccabee said:
As I said, it was on the decline since before 1996, there is no dramatic drop. The decline is at the same rate as before.
Click to expand...

the problem is-gun banners really are not motivated by a desire to decrease crime so these valid arguments don't matter to them
 
Maccabee said:
As I said, it was on the decline since before 1996, there is no dramatic drop. The decline is at the same rate as before.
Click to expand...

My proofs show otherwise and we're talking about gun deaths anyway, not being hit over the head with a baseball bat.
 
BretJ said:
He gave you numbers which show that it made no difference as the numbers were dropping at the same rate prior to their gun program as after.
Click to expand...

I gave him numbers that reflect the subject: guns.
 
jet57 said:
My proofs show otherwise and we're talking about gun deaths anyway, not being hit over the head with a baseball bat.
Click to expand...

You have to look as the total homicide rate, as baseball or cricket bats are a viable, legal substitute for guns in homicides. If the gun numbers go down but the other methods' numbers go up, society may not actually be any safer.
 
jet57 said:
My proofs show otherwise and we're talking about gun deaths anyway, not being hit over the head with a baseball bat.
Click to expand...

Your stats don't show the before rate first of all and secondly the gun death rate remained at a steady decline even before gun control.

australia-gun-deaths-bi.png
 
Rucker61 said:
You have to look as the total homicide rate, as baseball or cricket bats are a viable, legal substitute for guns in homicides. If the gun numbers go down but the other methods' numbers go up, society may not actually be any safer.
Click to expand...

Sorry dude; we're talking about guns.
 
Maccabee said:
Your stats don't show the before rate first of all and secondly the gun death rate remained at a steady decline even before gun control.

australia-gun-deaths-bi.png
Click to expand...

The graphic says you're wrong. Look at it again.
 
jet57 said:
The graphic says you're wrong. Look at it again.
Click to expand...

The graph shows a downward decline before the collective bed wetting took place
 
soylentgreen said:
An example of how the pro gun fear mongering causes death.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/30/woman-shot-with-own-gun/21062089/
A woman with all the safety gear of a special gun carry purse leaves it accessable to a child because she has been taught that she cannot even walk through a mall in america without being prepard to kill an attacker.. The pro gun propaganda of always fear criminals will kill you, killed her .
Click to expand...

The example you cite is an example of a person doing everything wrong and yet you claim that the gun killed her due to her fear.

I've never heard of a special gun purse with safety features, nor does a quick Google turn up any such thing. Their are purses designed for carry, but the focus seems to be a separate holster type compartment and easy access. I have seen nothing in this 3 year old story that she was carrying a weapons designed purse.

Rule 1 of gun safety. You never, ever, under any circumstances, leave a weapon unattended within reach of a child.

Rule 2. No toddler can rack he slide, chamber a round, **** the pistol, release the safety, and fire the weapon. They don't have the strength or the attention span. This weapon had to have been carried loaded, unlocked, and safety off. That would go double in a purse. More likely the gun was left unattended and unsecured within reach of the child.

This woman died of her own stupidity. Unfortunate, but that's the fact.
 
Maccabee said:
What is there to look at?
Click to expand...

After the ban the downward trend is significant. Before the ban the trend is 5 to over 600.

Once again: the graph and article shows that you are wrong.
 
jet57 said:
After the ban the downward trend is significant. Before the ban the trend is 5 to over 600.

Once again: the graph and article shows that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

you're not being honest. there already was a downward trend
 
jet57 said:
After the ban the downward trend is significant. Before the ban the trend is 5 to over 600.

Once again: the graph and article shows that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

It isn't significant. the after stats dropped by 100 immediately after 1996 while the same thing happened immediately after 1988. When you draw a line through the bars up to nine years after 1996 (because the graph only goes nine years before 1996) it's pretty straight. A significant change would be a sharp or noticeable hockey stick downward.
 
Maccabee said:
It isn't significant. the after stats dropped by 100 immediately after 1996 while the same thing happened immediately after 1988. When you draw a line through the bars up to nine years after 1996 (because the graph only goes nine years before 1996) it's pretty straight. A significant change would be a sharp or noticeable hockey stick downward.
Click to expand...

Going from well over 600 down to 248 is not significant...

whatever you say
 
Maccabee said:
It isn't when the graph shows that it would've ended up that way regardless.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, my sources prove it and I'm not going to nit-pick it anymore.
 
jet57 said:
You're wrong, my sources prove it and I'm not going to nit-pick it anymore.
Click to expand...

Your sources prove nothing other than the homicide rate was already on the decline and remain the same rate.
 
Maccabee said:
Your sources prove nothing other than the homicide rate was already on the decline and remain the same rate.
Click to expand...

and homicide rates have nothing to do with Jet's real arguments against us being able to own stuff Like AR 15s. HE cannot own them in the Peoples' Paradise of Feinsteinastan and he doesn't want you to be able to own them either
 
jet57 said:
My proofs show otherwise and we're talking about gun deaths anyway, not being hit over the head with a baseball bat.
Click to expand...
So then what you are saying is that the death doesn't matter in as much as the way of it. And I didn't read your link showing your "proof" since I'm not gonna re-figure my computer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom