Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 27 Jun '16 14:31
    http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/figures-show-no-mass-shootings-australia-since-gun-control-laws-introduced-20-years-ago/

    "In the 18 years leading up to 1996, the country experienced 13 mass shootings – defined as an incident in which a minimum of five victims are killed by a shooter – culminating in a horrific massacre that saw a man take the lives of 35 people with a semiautomatic rifle in Tasmania"

    Twenty years on, and the results of this experiment are in: through government statistics on firearm deaths between 1979 and 2013, as well as media reports describing gun violence, researchers can confirm that the mean rate of firearm deaths in the period 1979-1996 was 3.6 per 100,000 people, but just 1.2 per 100,000 people between 1997 and 2013.

    Furthermore, while gun-related deaths had been decreasing at a rate of 3 percent a year from 1979 to 1996, this decline accelerated to 5 percent a year over the latter period of the study.

    Taking a closer look at the data, the team discovered that not only had firearm homicides and suicides decreased in the years since gun control legislation was introduced, but so too did non-firearm homicides and suicides. In response to this discovery, co-researcher Philip Alpers asserted that “opponents of public health measures to reduce the availability of firearms often claim that 'killers just find another way.' Our findings show the opposite: there is no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and the same is true of suicide.”

    Such data clearly puts a new spin on the controversial pro-gun argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
  2. 27 Jun '16 15:16
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/figures-show-no-mass-shootings-australia-since-gun-control-laws-introduced-20-years-ago/

    "In the 18 years leading up to 1996, the country experienced 13 mass shootings – defined as an incident in which a minimum of five victims are killed by a shooter – culminating in a horrific massacre that saw a man take the live ...[text shortened]... ew spin on the controversial pro-gun argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
    While, I'm for gun control and I believe that American society is far worse off by the easy access to weapon, I imagine there are an infinite other variables in place and thus it is disingenuous to attribute the result to one law.
  3. 28 Jun '16 10:04
    Originally posted by quackquack
    While, I'm for gun control and I believe that American society is far worse off by the easy access to weapon, I imagine there are an infinite other variables in place and thus it is disingenuous to attribute the result to one law.
    you can make 10 separate little laws to ban assault weapons if it's quantity you are after.


    less access to guns (no access to some guns), less murders, suicides, no mass shootings.

    coincidence?
  4. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    28 Jun '16 10:28
    Originally posted by quackquack
    While, I'm for gun control and I believe that American society is far worse off by the easy access to weapon, I imagine there are an infinite other variables in place and thus it is disingenuous to attribute the result to one law.
    Well yeah! On the subject of guns, Australians have grown up and can talk about it like mature adults, whereas Americans hang on to their point of view like teenagers with severe personality disorders/sufferers of drug induced psychosis experiencing paranoid delusions.......
  5. 28 Jun '16 10:43
    Originally posted by quackquack
    While, I'm for gun control and I believe that American society is far worse off by the easy access to weapon, I imagine there are an infinite other variables in place and thus it is disingenuous to attribute the result to one law.
    While not everything in the statistics can be directly attributed to gun control measures, it is disingenuous to suggest that the law (even if it was only one law) did not have a significant effect - which at least in part is reflected in the statistics.
    I will go further and say that it is just plain stupid to claim that there is no relation between how easy it is to get a gun and how much gun violence occurs in a society.
  6. 28 Jun '16 10:46
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/figures-show-no-mass-shootings-australia-since-gun-control-laws-introduced-20-years-ago/

    "In the 18 years leading up to 1996, the country experienced 13 mass shootings – defined as an incident in which a minimum of five victims are killed by a shooter – culminating in a horrific massacre that saw a man take the live ...[text shortened]... ew spin on the controversial pro-gun argument that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
    The difference in the numbers could be that the false flag mass shootings to get their gun laws passed are finished so obviously the numbers will improve.
  7. 28 Jun '16 12:30
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    The difference in the numbers could be that the false flag mass shootings to get their gun laws passed are finished so obviously the numbers will improve.
    it doesn't make sense. do you get that? this word soup you call a post doesn't communicate anything coherent.

    what exactly are you trying to say? that australia lies about it's numbers? do you think you can cover up something like this? can you cover up a mass shooting in an age where everyone has a smartphone in their pocket?
  8. 28 Jun '16 13:36
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    it doesn't make sense. do you get that? this word soup you call a post doesn't communicate anything coherent.

    what exactly are you trying to say? that australia lies about it's numbers? do you think you can cover up something like this? can you cover up a mass shooting in an age where everyone has a smartphone in their pocket?
    You would save more people by speaking out against school sports, psyochtopic drugs, or unnecessary driving. People killing other people is here to stay guns or no guns. Guns only in the hands of the government would eventually cause more death. What is the leading cause of death? You got it, government. Guns are a natural check on governmental power in the case of corruption and tyranny. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, they all knew this. No I am not saying Australia lies about numbers. How would I know that? I do believe they would create false flag events to promote gun laws as most governments would do. My appologies for not being clear on the last post. I should have spelled it out better but I assumed you knew what a false flag event is. Speaking of soup, why in the heck fire doesn't McDonnalds offer cream of Broccoli soup anymore? That was the best thing they ever had period!!!!
  9. Standard member vivify
    rain
    28 Jun '16 14:19
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    You would save more people by speaking out against school sports, psyochtopic drugs, or unnecessary driving. People killing other people is here to stay guns or no guns. Guns only in the hands of the government would eventually cause more death. What is the leading cause of death? You got it, government. Guns are a natural check on governmental power in t ...[text shortened]... Donnalds offer cream of Broccoli soup anymore? That was the best thing they ever had period!!!!
    Australia had 13 mass shootings in 18 years. Are you saying those were "false flag" incidents?
  10. 28 Jun '16 14:32
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    You would save more people by speaking out against school sports, psyochtopic drugs, or unnecessary driving. People killing other people is here to stay guns or no guns. Guns only in the hands of the government would eventually cause more death. What is the leading cause of death? You got it, government. Guns are a natural check on governmental power in t ...[text shortened]... Donnalds offer cream of Broccoli soup anymore? That was the best thing they ever had period!!!!
    "You would save more people by speaking out against school sports, psyochtopic drugs, or unnecessary driving"
    heart disease, cancer, wars, famine. there are many other issues that kill more people that the lack of gun control. each has other ways to solve (or can't be solved).

    in this instance we are talking about a particular issue that was at greatly improved by a particular course of action.
  11. 28 Jun '16 14:53
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "You would save more people by speaking out against school sports, psyochtopic drugs, or unnecessary driving"
    heart disease, cancer, wars, famine. there are many other issues that kill more people that the lack of gun control. each has other ways to solve (or can't be solved).

    in this instance we are talking about a particular issue that was at greatly improved by a particular course of action.
    I would agree with you except for one thing, the always present danger of a corrupt government. That is why we have the second amendment. Even the boys that wrote the constitution would disagree with you. They were men who risked everything they had to make a better country for us and all you want to do is get some goof ball example of foreigners and say see looky here they are doing things better and undermining one of the things that sets this nation apart and is a protection. I spose you could move over there ifn the percent and a half difference means that much to ya.
  12. 28 Jun '16 15:10
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    I would agree with you except for one thing, the always present danger of a corrupt government. That is why we have the second amendment. Even the boys that wrote the constitution would disagree with you. and all you want to do is get some goof ball example of foreigners and say see looky here they are doing things better and undermining one of the thing ...[text shortened]... . I spose you could move over there ifn the percent and a half difference means that much to ya.
    "the always present danger of a corrupt government"
    you are really trying to check everything off the "dumb arguments for guns" list. if you think that in the case the government tries to take over the country, you can stop army tanks and assault helicopters with your pea shooters, you are retarded.

    "That is why we have the second amendment"
    the only reason you have the second amendment is that the founding fathers were scared the british will try to retake the country. when you had a decent standing army, you needed the second amendment to defend yourself against the native americans you stole land from.

    from the second you stole all the land from the natives and finished genociding them, the second amendment became useless. The US no longer needs "a well regulated militia".

    "They were men who risked everything they had to make a better country for us"
    pfff, they risked a little to get rid of minor regulations the british empire imposed so they can make even more money. a better country for all would not have had slaves.


    " I spose you could move over there"
    if this conversation carries on much longer i am bound to get "dumb gun arguments" bingo.
  13. 28 Jun '16 15:38
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "the always present danger of a corrupt government"
    you are really trying to check everything off the "dumb arguments for guns" list. if you think that in the case the government tries to take over the country, you can stop army tanks and assault helicopters with your pea shooters, you are retarded.

    "That is why we have the second amendment"
    the only ...[text shortened]... here"
    if this conversation carries on much longer i am bound to get "dumb gun arguments" bingo.
    You are terribly erroneous about why there is a second amendment. Also keep in mind that no matter how powerful the airforce and navy is of a nation, it comes down to foot soldiers in the end. That being said, I would not ever wish to fight any government much less ours. But if it came to it, there are wild cards that can come to play with assistance of foreign powers. Also the military itself may decide to defend the constitution and side with the people. You can't possibly know what would happen when anything could happen. Perhaps you prefer to side with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler on the issue, but I am in good company with the founding fathers of this nation. I bet them Australians would give you a job chopping guns up if you move over there. Just an idea.
  14. 29 Jun '16 14:59
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    You are terribly erroneous about why there is a second amendment. Also keep in mind that no matter how powerful the airforce and navy is of a nation, it comes down to foot soldiers in the end. That being said, I would not ever wish to fight any government much less ours. But if it came to it, there are wild cards that can come to play with assistance of ...[text shortened]... bet them Australians would give you a job chopping guns up if you move over there. Just an idea.
    "Also keep in mind that no matter how powerful the airforce and navy is of a nation, it comes down to foot soldiers in the end."
    yes, after you are bombed by the drones and jets of your hypothetical tyrannical government, the trained soldiers will come stamp your head, supported by artillery and tanks. or they could just siege your freedom militia until you starve because they previously bombed your farms. while you wait in the dark because they cut your power. while you die from diseases because rednecks don't know how to make medicine and you don't have materials anyway.

    "Also the military itself may decide to defend the constitution and side with the people"
    which renders your militia inconsequential

    "You can't possibly know what would happen when anything could happen. "
    if the army doesn't side with you, i know exactly what is going to happen. your militia will get stomped

    "Perhaps you prefer to side with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler on the issue"
    they had the army on their side.

    "but I am in good company with the founding fathers of this nation"
    ah, yes, the slavers and the smugglers.

    "I bet them Australians would give you a job chopping guns up if you move over there."
    useless statement. equally useless as your militia would be in the case your government decides to become tyrannical (as if that would ever happen)
  15. 29 Jun '16 15:01
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    "Also keep in mind that no matter how powerful the airforce and navy is of a nation, it comes down to foot soldiers in the end."
    yes, after you are bombed by the drones and jets of your hypothetical tyrannical government, the trained soldiers will come stamp your head, supported by artillery and tanks. or they could just siege your freedom militia until yo ...[text shortened]... would be in the case your government decides to become tyrannical (as if that would ever happen)
    Shlongski you have put your ignorance on display once again.