If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On April 23 2013 20:24 kmillz wrote:


Ok so you have no proof that taking away guns will reduce violent crimes, so why do you think taking away guns will reduce violent crimes?

On April 23 2013 20:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
You're missing my point, or just insisting that you are correct and deliberately ignoring my point.

Where did those statistics come from?. How can you prove that they take into account all the necessary numbers and were not released while trying to prove a particular point?
How can you tell that individual police departments aren't basing their entire policing strategy towards achieving certain statistics?

On April 23 2013 20:58 Wombat_NI wrote:

I DON'T THINK THAT. God.

On April 23 2013 20:59 kmillz wrote:


Your point is just "statistics don't mean shit unless you can back them up".

The Australian Bureau of Criminology. I can't prove that they took into account all necessary numbers. I don't know whether or not they have an agenda, but I have no reason to believe the Australian Bureau would be trying to push a pro-gun agenda. Why would Australian police departments be basing their policing strategy towards achieving these statistics??

On April 23 2013 21:03 Jockmcplop wrote:


So the statistics you are using are based on assumptions. You assume that there is no agenda behind them. The agenda doesn't have to be pro gun in order to make the statistics unreliable and unusable, it could be ANY agenda, which make the statistics skewed and unfair.
This is the point i was trying to prove in the first place. This is much more complex than 5+5.

On April 23 2013 21:07 kmillz wrote:


Well I guess all statistics are worthless because anyone could have an agenda.

/sarcasm

If you won't accept my argument that taking away guns does not reduce crimes, you can at least take away from it that Australia still has a LOT of violent crime, despite their gun laws.

On April 23 2013 21:15 Jockmcplop wrote:


Your sarcasm is misplaced, because that is exactly my point.

Just look at the Reinhart thing. People assumed for years that that paper was correct. It turns out the numbers were wrong.
If fewer people had assumed it was right, there would have been no problem.

Can i ask where the Australian Bureau of Criminology gets its funding?

Sure this might all seem a bit tinfoil hat-esque, but its really not a stretch if you think about it.



I'm not even arguing about gun crime. I have very little opinion on the matter, as all i know about it is what i have learned from this thread.
I would just argue that blindly accepting statistics without questioning their origin is a bad way to conduct a debate. It has bitten many a politician in the ass before, and i dare say it will again.

On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
To marigold and magpie.

If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.

You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.

I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it.

On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars.

Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars.

On April 23 2013 23:37 Millitron wrote:

Carrying does already require licensing, which has different requirements in each state. Carrying long-guns is a little less restricted than carrying handguns, but both still usually require licenses, tests, and sometimes repeated background checks.

On April 24 2013 00:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Are you required to register both with the DMV and with an insurance agency as well as be given random checks by patrolling officers.

On April 23 2013 22:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Um... You currently can do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property. Heck, the reason to go to a shooting range is to be able to shoot guns in private property with or without a license. You can already treat guns like your buddies treat cars.

Bring those cars/guns in a public setting and you need the paperwork and regular checkups as well as be willing to be harassed by the police about it. It's part of having a car and should be part of having a gun assuming we treat guns with the same respect we treat cars.

On April 24 2013 02:48 Zealotdriver wrote:

False. Firearm discharge is prohibited in nearly all towns and cities. Firing a gun on private property in a city or town will result in a ticket or criminal charge depending on the circumstances.

On April 24 2013 02:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Actually no--people shoot guns in their own property all the time. The charge is of endangering and disturbing the peace.

If you shoot a gun in suburbia that echoes throughout the land no one can tell if its a murder, a break in, assault, etc... cops also gets brought in if you simply have a loud enough explosion or a ruckus enough party.

Shoot a mountain lion in your property and the cops will be very very lenient. Don't have a good reason why you're being possibly dangerous to your neighbors and suddenly its a different story.

On April 24 2013 03:55 Zealotdriver wrote:

You're wrong again. It almost always a weapons violation to discharge a firearm in cities and towns. It is usually a felony of some degree. Rural areas outside city limits are completely different and generally have no restrictions or very limited restrictions. See my previous posts in this thread for a description of how guns are used in rural areas.

On April 24 2013 04:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

Only 8 of the 50 states have explicit laws regulating the act of firearm discharge. Most other times the law that's broken is not firearm discharge but endangerment, reckless behavior, etc...

On April 24 2013 04:27 Jormundr wrote:

Those are statewide restrictions. City-specific restrictions are often stricter.

On April 23 2013 16:46 kmillz wrote:


Make a silly implication, get a silly response. Just because his civilians do not own guns does not mean they are not protected by them.

On April 24 2013 04:41 Jormundr wrote:

Incorrect. Guns don't protect people, people protect people.