America - Gun Control

[earl]

Munk - how about we try some simple concepts. Do you think that hitting people with women's shoes could hurt people more or less compared to shooting them with automatic rifles.

Just try this one out to see if you can actually discuss this point logically. I have my doubts but see how you go.

Sure.
Just because you have a gun does not mean you will use it to shoot a human being. Simple as that.

You got one. Well done. So now try and think on this. If you have access to automatic weapons and at some point you go crazy you are going to do a lot more damage than if you have access to women's shoes.

Just sit on that concept for a while. Let it sink in.

Depends…maybe someone notices you have gone crazy and have murdeous intent and they grab their gun and blow your head off before your rampage starts. Under your scenario and under your prefered gun ban, this cant happen, therefore many lives could be lost.
Id say let that sink in but youll need a hammer drill first. Need to borrow one?

This shows how you are struggling to deal with the reality of the situation. Here is the reality and we've just seen it. The idea that you can outshoot the crazy person isn't realistic.

So back to the reality of the situation. What happens is the crazy person with access to guns can kill a lot of people as we've just seen. If you get rid of the guns the damage goes down considerably.

Sit on that for a while. Just let it sink in.

 

[Munk]

If said crazy person can not legally obtain the firearms, he goes down to an adjacent street corner or back alley and obtains them illegally. The other option is that he already has them.
Either way, your ban achieves nothing.

 

[earl]

If said crazy person can not legally obtain the firearms, he goes down to an adjacent street corner or back alley and obtains them illegally. The other option is that he already has them.
Either way, your ban achieves nothing.

This is another factually incorrect statement. If there were no guns allowed he couldn't get them. You have extreme gun ownership in America with an associated massive homicide rate compared to a polar opposite approach in Japan.

The facts don't correspond to your opinion. That is just reality.

 

[Munk]

What facts?
Present them please.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

Munk - how about we try some simple concepts. Do you think that hitting people with women's shoes could hurt people more or less compared to shooting them with automatic rifles.

Just try this one out to see if you can actually discuss this point logically. I have my doubts but see how you go.

Sure.
Just because you have a gun does not mean you will use it to shoot a human being. Simple as that.

You got one. Well done. So now try and think on this. If you have access to automatic weapons and at some point you go crazy you are going to do a lot more damage than if you have access to women's shoes.

Just sit on that concept for a while. Let it sink in.

Depends…maybe someone notices you have gone crazy and have murdeous intent and they grab their gun and blow your head off before your rampage starts. Under your scenario and under your prefered gun ban, this cant happen, therefore many lives could be lost.
Id say let that sink in but youll need a hammer drill first. Need to borrow one?

There have many notorious cases of innocent people being shot on suspicion - usually a white guy on a black guy and the white guy gets off and then there is a riot. Then the opposite of what Russel claims occurs - black sportsmen don't want to proudly stand up for their national flag but raise the Black Power fist instead!

 

[earl]

What facts?
Present them please.

Go and read the thread slowly and look at the facts. There was a factual comment that I posted just earlier that somehow you conveniently missed.

Playing stupid rather than facing that facts might be easier for you to handle from an emotional perspective but it's hard to discuss something logically with someone who does that.

 

[voice_of_reason]

I took a week away from this thread and I can see nothing more sensible than when I left. As I said in an earlier remark, you can't talk reason to fanatics. I think I'll come back when the footy season starts.

 

[TCL]

Read an article yesterday about a man who was stabbed to death in Sydney, he was stabbed while waiting for a bus. The perpetrator of the crime is a mentally ill man, the attack was random, the weapon was a knife. He spotted the victim from his window.

Bystanders disarmed the attacker with a kick and he was arrested. Sad that an innocent man lost his life.

How many may have died if the killer had easy access to semi automatic weapons?

How many bystanders would have rushed to help?

I struggle to understand why any person would want to arm them selves so heavily and why any person would argue that arming yourself so heavily is necessary.

We will never know. Just as we will never know what would have happened if one of the bystanders were themselves armed. Maybe no-one would have died. Who can say.

Was the "mentally ill man" in a mental hospital? Was he living freely in our society even though he was mentally ill?

Who said he was mentally ill? How do they know?

Speculation, speculation. It never ends.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

We will never know, you are quite right.

It the same report it stated his illness and the authorities know.

 

[Munk]

What facts?
Present them please.

Go and read the thread slowly and look at the facts. There was a factual comment that I posted just earlier that somehow you conveniently missed.

Playing stupid rather than facing that facts might be easier for you to handle from an emotional perspective but it's hard to discuss something logically with someone who does that.

Look in the mirror pal, you have presented nothing bar ill informed, bordering upon ignorant, opinion.
To claim it is factual that a gun ban means no access to guns is quite frankly, dumb. Even here in Australia, there are guns everywhere.

 

[Munk]

Sure.
Just because you have a gun does not mean you will use it to shoot a human being. Simple as that.

You got one. Well done. So now try and think on this. If you have access to automatic weapons and at some point you go crazy you are going to do a lot more damage than if you have access to women's shoes.

Just sit on that concept for a while. Let it sink in.

Depends…maybe someone notices you have gone crazy and have murdeous intent and they grab their gun and blow your head off before your rampage starts. Under your scenario and under your prefered gun ban, this cant happen, therefore many lives could be lost.
Id say let that sink in but youll need a hammer drill first. Need to borrow one?

There have many notorious cases of innocent people being shot on suspicion - usually a white guy on a black guy and the white guy gets off and then there is a riot. Then the opposite of what Russel claims occurs - black sportsmen don't want to proudly stand up for their national flag but raise the Black Power fist instead!

The police are a different issue.

 

[earl]

What facts?
Present them please.

Go and read the thread slowly and look at the facts. There was a factual comment that I posted just earlier that somehow you conveniently missed.

Playing stupid rather than facing that facts might be easier for you to handle from an emotional perspective but it's hard to discuss something logically with someone who does that.

Look in the mirror pal, you have presented nothing bar ill informed, bordering upon ignorant, opinion.
To claim it is factual that a gun ban means no access to guns is quite frankly, dumb. Even here in Australia, there are guns everywhere.

Awesome stuff. Let's try to break it down again real slowly.

1\. Logically it appears if crazy people get access to guns and go crazy they cause more damage than if they don't have access to guns.
2\. This logical statement is backed up by the facts in relation to the number of mass shooting and gun deaths that occur in America which has a gun culture compared to Japan which doesn't. To try and make this as simple as possible for you to understand the data matches up to the logical statement and therefore we have a winner.

You have to get this easy to understand for most people fact correct before you discuss the logistics of trying to improve the situation in for example America. The easy to understand fact though isn't something that should or needs to be argued however unfortunately people like yourself seem to struggle with simple factual statements when it comes to guns.

When you are ready to accept the reality of the situation we can then probably move on to further points.

 

[Nelson]

Read an article yesterday about a man who was stabbed to death in Sydney, he was stabbed while waiting for a bus. The perpetrator of the crime is a mentally ill man, the attack was random, the weapon was a knife. He spotted the victim from his window.

Bystanders disarmed the attacker with a kick and he was arrested. Sad that an innocent man lost his life.

How many may have died if the killer had easy access to semi automatic weapons?

How many bystanders would have rushed to help?

I struggle to understand why any person would want to arm them selves so heavily and why any person would argue that arming yourself so heavily is necessary.

We will never know. Just as we will never know what would have happened if one of the bystanders were themselves armed. Maybe no-one would have died. Who can say.

Was the "mentally ill man" in a mental hospital? Was he living freely in our society even though he was mentally ill?

Who said he was mentally ill? How do they know?

Speculation, speculation. It never ends.

:deadhorse: :deadhorse:

The psyhciatrists who diagnosed him with chronic, treatment resistant schizophrenia presumably know he was and is mentally ill based on his continuing to display florid symptoms of mental illness despite a regime of strong anti-psychotic medication.

As to why he was free that is a very interesting question…

 

[GNR4LIFE]

If said crazy person can not legally obtain the firearms, he goes down to an adjacent street corner or back alley and obtains them illegally. The other option is that he already has them.
Either way, your ban achieves nothing.

Seemed to achieve a lot in our country. No mass murders since our Government introduced gun control after Port Arthur. Not even murderous rampages with arms purchased illegally. Must be a coincidence.

 

[Munk]

Earl,
1\. You have managed to say fact 4 times without providing any.
2\. If a crazy person goes crazy, do they then become sane?
3\. Comparing the cultures of Japan and America on this issue is foolish.
4\. What data matches up to your "logical" statement?
5\. "You have to get this easy to understand for most people fact correct before you discuss the logistics of trying to improve the situation in for example America" Your mastery of language is astonishing lol.

Sorry mate but your replies are at the level of an eleven year old at best. I feel like i am bullying you if i continue. Agree to disagree.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

You got one. Well done. So now try and think on this. If you have access to automatic weapons and at some point you go crazy you are going to do a lot more damage than if you have access to women's shoes.

Just sit on that concept for a while. Let it sink in.

Depends…maybe someone notices you have gone crazy and have murdeous intent and they grab their gun and blow your head off before your rampage starts. Under your scenario and under your prefered gun ban, this cant happen, therefore many lives could be lost.
Id say let that sink in but youll need a hammer drill first. Need to borrow one?

There have many notorious cases of innocent people being shot on suspicion - usually a white guy on a black guy and the white guy gets off and then there is a riot. Then the opposite of what Russel claims occurs - black sportsmen don't want to proudly stand up for their national flag but raise the Black Power fist instead!

The police are a different issue.

NO they are not - they are just as guilty as ordinary folk - shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[Munk]

If said crazy person can not legally obtain the firearms, he goes down to an adjacent street corner or back alley and obtains them illegally. The other option is that he already has them.
Either way, your ban achieves nothing.

Seemed to achieve a lot in our country. No mass murders since our Government introduced gun control after Port Arthur. Not even murderous rampages with arms purchased illegally. Must be a coincidence.

Yes and no.
It is true that no mass shootings have happened since which is great, however there have been studies stating that the declining rate of gun related homicides post the ban matches the rate before it. The no mass shootings is great, as is the severe decline in gun related suicides but we are such a different culture to America, its hard to confidently predict the same outcomes succesfully.

 

[Munk]

Depends…maybe someone notices you have gone crazy and have murdeous intent and they grab their gun and blow your head off before your rampage starts. Under your scenario and under your prefered gun ban, this cant happen, therefore many lives could be lost.
Id say let that sink in but youll need a hammer drill first. Need to borrow one?

There have many notorious cases of innocent people being shot on suspicion - usually a white guy on a black guy and the white guy gets off and then there is a riot. Then the opposite of what Russel claims occurs - black sportsmen don't want to proudly stand up for their national flag but raise the Black Power fist instead!

The police are a different issue.

NO they are not - they are just as guilty as ordinary folk - shoot first and ask questions later.

Id be cautious too if my job was to police communities who harbour serial killers and those who will murder others for wearing the wrong colour clothing.

 

[Tim Sheens]

There have many notorious cases of innocent people being shot on suspicion - usually a white guy on a black guy and the white guy gets off and then there is a riot. Then the opposite of what Russel claims occurs - black sportsmen don't want to proudly stand up for their national flag but raise the Black Power fist instead!

The police are a different issue.

NO they are not - they are just as guilty as ordinary folk - shoot first and ask questions later.

Id be cautious too if my job was to police communities who harbour serial killers and those who will murder others for wearing the wrong colour clothing.

That would be part of that wonderful country your gun toting southern mates formed.

 

[Munk]

The police are a different issue.

NO they are not - they are just as guilty as ordinary folk - shoot first and ask questions later.

Id be cautious too if my job was to police communities who harbour serial killers and those who will murder others for wearing the wrong colour clothing.

That would be part of that wonderful country your gun toting southern mates formed.

Why are you blaming the people from the south specifically? Love those stereotypes yeah, or maybe your whole knowledge of the country comes from Hollywood?

 

[earl]

Earl,
1\. You have managed to say fact 4 times without providing any.
2\. If a crazy person goes crazy, do they then become sane?
3\. Comparing the cultures of Japan and America on this issue is foolish.
4\. What data matches up to your "logical" statement?
5\. "You have to get this easy to understand for most people fact correct before you discuss the logistics of trying to improve the situation in for example America" Your mastery of language is astonishing lol.

Sorry mate but your replies are at the level of an eleven year old at best. I feel like i am bullying you if i continue. Agree to disagree.

I showed facts. I compared Japan to the USA. You not liking those facts is completely meaningless.

I take it we are at an impasse in that you cannot acknowledge the simple reality of the situation. I said earlier if you are ready to face the facts then we can discuss the situation in America but the facts in relation to gun ownership making a society less safe are extremely clear cut.