Australia's Gun Ban Backfiring?

[TSA]

fGaDAThOHhA

What say you Fuzzy? How's it working out for the Aussie's? Wonder if aussifankurt has any personal experiences.

[ElNono]

Didn't watch the video, but how many mass shootings in Australia before and after the ban?

[TSA]

2 after if I remember correct. And how many before? Now ask the Australian people if they take a mass shooting, which extremely rare, over the sudden rise in crime.

[ElNono]

2 after if I remember correct. And how many before? Now ask the Australian people if they take a mass shooting, which extremely rare, over the sudden rise in crime.

IIRC, the ban in Australia came after various episodes of mass killings since the 80's, culminating with the Port Arthur massacre. In a way, the ban was somewhat the same kind of knee-jerk reaction you see here.

Now Australia never had the same kind of gun culture America does.

I actually don't really see Australians worked up about the ban (despite the dozen or so in that youtube). I actually see more American gun enthusiast speak about the Australian ban than Australians.

Then again, Australia doesn't have anything like our 2nd amendment either.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, the devil is in the details. The video claims that gun homicides are up 19% since the gun ban. The most recent stat I can find for gun homicides in Australia is 30. At that point, we're talking about maybe 5 more people being shot in a year to make that kind of percentage change.

And anecdotes can be emotional and moving, but to concentrate on the possibility strangers invading homes and murdering folk could be completely missing the point. Over 80% of the homicides in Australia were committed by someone who knew the victim, over 50% were domestic cases.

Australia's overall homicide rate in 2010 was just under half of what it was in 1990, up a bit from its all-time low in 2004. I'll see what I can find for the other crimes.

[TSA]

Let me know what you find as I'm at work and can't really do any research. I'm more interested in the jump in overall crime, not the murder rates.

[ChumpDumper]

Looking at four categories of violent crime rates, compared to 1996:

- Assault is higher, currently declining after peaking in 08

- Robberies are lower after rising to a peak in 01

- Sexual assault and kidnappings are pretty much flat.

Property crimes in dwellings, on transport and on streets or paths is has declined since 2005. Property crimes in retail is also lower in that time but less significantly.

Now there are plenty of studies saying the ban did or didn't have an effect on these crime rates. So who knows?

[ChumpDumper]

I got the figures mainly from reports at http://www.aic.gov.au

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have to say the same thing the last time you posted this youtube. You really should get some new material rather than an Australian Shooters Association propaganda reel.

I have extensively gone over the figures from a decade before the ban all the way to recently. You once again bring up anecdotes and cherry picked stats in place of comprehensive analysis. It's tired bullshit.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

I will AGAIN post a study that was done by two Australian universities and is once AGAIN a comprehensive analysis as opposed to your tripe. Do you have any idea where the stats they came up with or are you satisfied with random youtube from an unknown source that found a retire police officer and about 10 "concerned citizens?"


In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of
firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households).
Using differences across states, we test whether the reduction in firearms
availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a
drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on nonfirearm
death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is
less precise. The results are robust to a variety of specification checks and to instrumenting
the state-level buyback rate.


In the decade following the NFA, there has been a substantial drop in
firearm deaths in Australia (Figures 1a and 1b). Firearm suicides have
dropped from 2.2 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.8 per 100,000 in
2006. Firearm homicides have dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in
1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006. These are drops of 65% and
59%, respectively, and among a population of 20 million individuals,
represent a decline in the number of deaths by firearm suicide of about
300 and in the number of deaths by firearm homicide of about 40 per
year. At the same time, the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen by 27%
and the non-firearm homicide rate by 59%.7
It is also clear from Figure 1 that firearm deaths have been falling on a
consistent basis in recent decades, while a similar trend is not as clear in the
case of non-firearm deaths.8 Firearm deaths—both homicide and suicide—
are currently at exceptionally low levels by historical standards. The
previous low in the rate of firearm suicide was in 1944, at 1.63 per
100,000. The firearm suicide rate has been below that level since 1998.
The firearm homicide rate is considerably more volatile, but for the years
2004 to 2007 it has been recorded as at or below 0.15 per 100,000 people. It
has dipped below 0.2 per 100,000 on only one other occasion, in 1950.

So as last time: comprehensive study or random youtube? Controlled statisitics from defined sources or random youtube stats from who knows where?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Studies have tracked a reduction in gun deaths in Australia since the 1996 reforms, particularly in suicides. The journal Injury Prevention reported in 2006 that the risk of dying by gunshot had halved in Australia in a decade.

In 2010 in Australia, there were 0.1 gun murders per 100,000 people, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, less than half the rate of a decade earlier. In the United States the murder rate was more than 30 times higher, at 3.2 per 100,000.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/around_world_massacres_have_spurred_gun_control/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

This from the New England Journal of Medicine. Notice how they talk about controlling variables and not EZ-Bake Over stats analysis?

Note the bolded portion only says homicides.

[clambake]

they don't need them. one round would virtually blow the shrimp away.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia chimes in:


Main outcome measures: Changes in trends of total firearm death rates, mass fatal shooting incidents, rates of firearm homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm deaths, and of total homicides and suicides per 100 000 population.

Results: In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Conclusions: Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short

[TSA]

Fuzzy, these all have to do with gun crimes, I'm more interested in the rise or fall of all other crimes.

[clambake]

like shoplifting?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, these all have to do with gun crimes, I'm more interested in the rise or fall of all other crimes.

I really don't give a shit what you want. They also quantified both in many cases. L2Read. I'll bold the parts to help.

[boutons_deux]

Fuzzy, these all have to do with gun crimes, I'm more interested in the rise or fall of all other crimes.

why?

[AussieFanKurt]

Nono is right, don't really know anyone who cares about the gun ban, don't really know anyone who's pro and against guns, most people don't seem to care. No mass shootings since Port Arthur as far as I know but that was a fucked one. Our gun culture (if there even is one) is probably like Canada, most guns used are for hunting - so many wide expansive properties in the countryside, the farmers need guns. I've only come across one person that I can remember who lives inner city and owns a gun

[TSA]

Looking at four categories of violent crime rates, compared to 1996:

- Assault is higher, currently declining after peaking in 08

- Robberies are lower after rising to a peak in 01

- Sexual assault and kidnappings are pretty much flat.

Property crimes in dwellings, on transport and on streets or paths is has declined since 2005. Property crimes in retail is also lower in that time but less significantly.

Now there are plenty of studies saying the ban did or didn't have an effect on these crime rates. So who knows?

Thanks Chump for actually answering my question, unlike Fuzzy who's running around like a chicken with his head cut off giving me homicide stats I never asked for. And he tells me to learn to read :lol

I find it strange I can find just as much saying the ban works as I can saying the ban doesn't work.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is what I mean when I talk about your megalomania. The gun control debate is not dictated by you. I have shown you multiple sources from both sides of the issue that get to what they have found to have a causal relationship. Every time you just ignore then and only accept information and discussion in the form that you deem appropriate and it's always simpleminded bullshit. When it comes down to it though I know that you have zero experience in statistics and to the best of my knowledge you have zero experience in public safety or criminology.

It's pretty obvious that you are just doing this special pleading so you ignore everything and then fall back to "more guns" derp derp "less crime" derpa derp. Now you want people to look the shit up for you. Is it so difficult to look up Australian crime stats? or are you too stupid to figure it out?

[TSA]

This is what I mean when I talk about your megalomania. The gun control debate is not dictated by you. I have shown you multiple sources from both sides of the issue that get to what they have found to have a causal relationship. Every time you just ignore then and only accept information and discussion in the form that you deem appropriate and it's always simpleminded bullshit. When it comes down to it though I know that you have zero experience in statistics and to the best of my knowledge you have zero experience in public safety or criminology.

It's pretty obvious that you are just doing this special pleading so you ignore everything and then fall back to "more guns" derp derp "less crime" derpa derp. Now you want people to look the shit up for you. Is it so difficult to look up Australian crime stats? or are you too stupid to figure it out?

Fuzzy, let me break it down for you. I started this thread and wanted opinions about the crime that was said to be on the rise, as mentioned in the video. If you want to discuss the homicide stats start your own thread. Having said that I do appreciate you being my research bitch, even after you've repeatedly said you won't. If you want to continue being my research bitch, please stay on the topic at hand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry I posted something about the effectiveness of the Australian weapons ban but I will cry like a bitch if you talk about the ban in a different way than I want. :cry This is my thread!

[TSA]

:lmao

How is wanting to talk about something other than homicides crying? You're testing my patience research bitch, stay on topic or I may have to do some research of my own.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

More youtube videos then? And for me to be your research bitch you would actually have to read what I posted and be able to understand it. We both know the answer to that is you won't and you can't.

[TSA]

More youtube videos then? And for me to be your research bitch you would actually have to read what I posted and be able to understand it. We both know the answer to that is you won't and you can't.when your research deals with the topic at hand I'd be more than willing to discuss it with you. You are making this more difficult than it should be. Notice how chumpdumper kept it on topic in this thread, you should try to as well.

[mingus]

As long as I can carry my concealed snub nose .357, I am fine with people having their machine guns or rocket launchers or whatever taken from them. I don't think the founding fathers intended for people to have the right to carry a weapon that if in the wrong hands (and with so many widely and easily available they inevitably end up there), can as we've seen take out a room of people in seconds. I think that that is taking the constitution to a logical end that wasn't intended. I am alright with those being banned. But I and many other people swear by being able to concealed carry. The fact that you can't in Australia is bullshit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What say you Fuzzy? How's it working out for the Aussie's? Wonder if aussifankurt has any personal experiences.


when your research deals with the topic at hand I'd be more than willing to discuss it with you. You are making this more difficult than it should be. Notice how chumpdumper kept it on topic in this thread, you should try to as well.

Do you need me to help you read the OP?

[TSA]

Where does your research speak about armed robberies, assaults with guns, and home invasions?

You own a gun correct? If you are so desperate to follow Australia's lead why haven't you given your gun up? I'm guessing you keep it for protection no? Do you think it's fair the Australian's had to give up their firearms used for protection? Do you think the criminals gave up their guns? Do you think it is now easier for criminals to commit crimes being that they are the only ones with guns now and have nothing to fear but a baseball bat and a knife?

[CosmicCowboy]

I have to say the same thing the last time you posted this youtube. You really should get some new material rather than an Australian Shooters Association propaganda reel.

I have extensively gone over the figures from a decade before the ban all the way to recently. You once again bring up anecdotes and cherry picked stats in place of comprehensive analysis. It's tired bullshit.

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

I will AGAIN post a study that was done by two Australian universities and is once AGAIN a comprehensive analysis as opposed to your tripe. Do you have any idea where the stats they came up with or are you satisfied with random youtube from an unknown source that found a retire police officer and about 10 "concerned citizens?"





So as last time: comprehensive study or random youtube? Controlled statisitics from defined sources or random youtube stats from who knows where?

:lmao

so taking firearms away made it harder for people that wanted to kill themselves because they hated their lives is your argument? :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

When I am ready to check out I will be fucking pissed if government coddle legislation has made it impossible for me to do it.

[TDMVPDPOY]

the only morons shootin up each other down here are either bikies or crime familys....

other then that u dont hear much about the common man, hunters shooting anyone...

[TSA]

"more guns" derp derp "less crime" derpa derp.
Thanks for reminding me to once again ask you to prove this wrong, which you have consistently failed to do, because if guns were so evil, and there are so many millions more owned now, it should be no problem showing that they are the problem for the rising crime rate. If only the crime rate was rising huh?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao

so taking firearms away made it harder for people that wanted to kill themselves because they hated their lives is your argument? :lmao

You don't think that it more difficult to kill yourself with a gun that it is otherwise.

Hanging yourself, slitting your wrists, jumping off a bridge etc are easier to intervene for and scarier to do then putting a bullet in your brain. So yes I think that without a gun where someone that is in a brief suicidal mode is much more dangerous than the threat of someone using more difficult means.

There is a difference between making a thought out, deliberate decision and someone in a fit of rage or other similar emotionally disturbed state putting a bullet in their brain.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

DERP I dont know how to do statistical analysis DERPA DERP DERP I'm not going to read studies that might prove me wrong DERPA DERP!

[TSA]

Where does your research speak about armed robberies, assaults with guns, and home invasions?

You own a gun correct? If you are so desperate to follow Australia's lead why haven't you given your gun up? I'm guessing you keep it for protection no? Do you think it's fair the Australian's had to give up their firearms used for protection? Do you think the criminals gave up their guns? Do you think it is now easier for criminals to commit crimes being that they are the only ones with guns now and have nothing to fear but a baseball bat and a knife?
This is the same shit you pulled when asked to prove that more guns=more crime, you skirt the issue. Again, answer the questions you dodging piece of shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is the same shit you pulled when asked to prove that more guns=more crime, you skirt the issue. Again, answer the questions you dodging piece of shit.

I never claimed that although the articles that I posted did just now and the other 50 times you asked me. I even bolded them for you too. Your whining derail has deflected attention from the academic studies though. Good job.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And before you claim you want it to be all crimes, I will again repeat myself by saying the reason why the studies do not include all crimes like say DUI is because they control for variables. If you were to read the papers they explain what they are doing-- like again I have told you. You apparently do not understand it and tbh I am not going to waste my time trying to teach you.

http://qssi.psu.edu/files/Achen_GarbageCan.pdf

That is a paper from Penn State that goes into the process of why and how you control variables if you are actually interested in learning, but we both know you have no desire to actually learn something.

[CosmicCowboy]

You don't think that it more difficult to kill yourself with a gun that it is otherwise.

Hanging yourself, slitting your wrists, jumping off a bridge etc are easier to intervene for and scarier to do then putting a bullet in your brain. So yes I think that without a gun where someone that is in a brief suicidal mode is much more dangerous than the threat of someone using more difficult means.

There is a difference between making a thought out, deliberate decision and someone in a fit of rage or other similar emotionally disturbed state putting a bullet in their brain.

It was their choice. If they are that disturbed better they put a bullet into their own brain than 20 school kids.

[ElNono]

It was their choice. If they are that disturbed better they put a bullet into their own brain than 20 school kids.

Or they could put a bullet on 20 schools kids AND then their own brain. I rather they hang, tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It was their choice. If they are that disturbed better they put a bullet into their own brain than 20 school kids.

Okey dokey.

[TDMVPDPOY]

they had long swords buy back down here also...lol the idiots with home made blades cashin in...

[ElNono]

they had long swords buy back down here also...lol the idiots with home made blades cashin in...

So how worked up are the Aussies about the ban 17 years later? Any talk of revolution?

[CosmicCowboy]

As I have said before the best way to stop mass shootings is to make it illegal to mention their name or post a photo of them

The media has to choose from a select list of names they can use starting with "dumbass""loser" "freakazoid" "idiot" etc.

Going down in a blaze of "glory" knowing their name, picture, and life story will be on every newspaper and TV show in the country will be a lot less attractive to these fucking nutcases.


"in the latest news another fucking idiot decided to kill some innocent bystanders before killing himself Can't believe these dumbasses think we will give a shit about them. I'm glad he is dead."

Not exactly a motivational speech for a nutcase.

[TSA]

Where does your research speak about armed robberies, assaults with guns, and home invasions? When did I ask about DUI's and what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

[TSA]

So how worked up are the Aussies about the ban 17 years later? Any talk of revolution?
How engrained are guns to the Aussie's culture?

[ElNono]

As I have said before the best way to stop mass shootings is to make it illegal to mention their name or post a photo of them

The media has to chooses from a select list of names they can use starting with "dumbass""loser" "freakazoid" "idiot" etc.

Going down in a blaze of "glory" will be a lot less attractive to these fucking nutcases.

Debatable. They're obviously mentally damaged. It's like boutons... I doubt he would stop with the tourette if he couldn't post here. It's much deeper than that.

[ElNono]

How engrained are guns to the Aussie's culture?

Definitely not like America.

[TSA]

I never claimed that although the articles that I posted did just now and the other 50 times you asked me. I even bolded them for you too. Your whining derail has deflected attention from the academic studies though. Good job.
So you're articles can disprove that gun ownership in the USA has gone up while crime in the USA has gone down? Why haven't you shared any of this with anyone? Why haven't you bolded it for the simpletons?

You fail so fucking hard.

[TSA]

Definitely not like America.
So why would we expect the same reaction?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you're articles can disprove that gun ownership in the USA has gone up while crime in the USA has gone down? Why haven't you shared any of this with anyone? Why haven't you bolded it for the simpletons?

You fail so fucking hard.

smh.

[rascal]

TSA starts a thread and gets roasted.

[ChumpDumper]

As I have said before the best way to stop mass shootings is to make it illegal to mention their name or post a photo of them

The media has to chooses from a select list of names they can use starting with "dumbass""loser" "freakazoid" "idiot" etc.

Going down in a blaze of "glory" will be a lot less attractive to these fucking nutcases.So it's the 1st amendment that isn't that important.

[TDMVPDPOY]

So how worked up are the Aussies about the ban 17 years later? Any talk of revolution?

17yrs ago those guns that were cash in were usually guns own during the federation years,

u dont see ppl handing in glocks/handguns and semis thats is smuggled into the country...

the only ppl now that use/own guns to be menace of society are mainly bikies, crime families and crims...the avg joe that have nothing to do with crime dont own guns...

most of the ppl killed by guns down here are mainly crims shooting each other, u rarely hear collateral innocent by standers gettin killed by guns

down here ppl getting killed in vehicle accidents > killing by guns..

[ElNono]

So why would we expect the same reaction?

If the example doesn't apply, why are threads being started about it?

[TSA]

If the example doesn't apply, why are threads being started about it?
Because the fuzzy lumpkins of the world think Australia=USA, and that we should model our society after them.

[ElNono]

Because the fuzzy lumpkins of the world think Australia=USA, and that we should model our society after them.

How people feel about it shouldn't change crime statistics or certain ban outcomes (and by this I don't mean to validate or otherwise what fuzzy posted, I really haven't kept up).

[boutons_deux]

Let me know what you find as I'm at work and can't really do any research. I'm more interested in the jump in overall crime, not the murder rates.

more guns = more gun crime, more gun deaths. non-gun crime and non-gun deaths are of no interest.

[AussieFanKurt]

heard my first gunshots on the street yesterday - it was in a shit house place and late at night. 20 years before I heard shots on the street

[mavs>spurs]

As I have said before the best way to stop mass shootings is to make it illegal to mention their name or post a photo of them

The media has to choose from a select list of names they can use starting with "dumbass""loser" "freakazoid" "idiot" etc.

Going down in a blaze of "glory" knowing their name, picture, and life story will be on every newspaper and TV show in the country will be a lot less attractive to these fucking nutcases.


"in the latest news another fucking idiot decided to kill some innocent bystanders before killing himself Can't believe these dumbasses think we will give a shit about them. I'm glad he is dead."

Not exactly a motivational speech for a nutcase.

i actually agree with this to be honest, and there should be a rule that they can only talk about it for one day so that everybody can get the memo and move on.

[mavs>spurs]

non-gun crime and non-gun deaths are of no interest.

no, they're very much of interest you stupid shithead. go get beat with a metal bat and raped faggot.

[Agloco]

no, they're very much of interest you stupid shithead. go get beat with a metal bat and raped faggot.

Seems like you need to hit the gun range and let off some steam brah.

[boutons_deux]

no, they're very much of interest you stupid shithead. go get beat with a metal bat and raped faggot.

Which NRA talking point are you parroting? Take away gun death, injuries, and gun crime, and America becomes almost as civilized as ADULT advanced countries for non-gun death, injuries, crime.

[CosmicCowboy]

So it's the 1st amendment that isn't that important.

They are all important Chump. My point is that their free speech is not being impinged because "reporting" is not individual speech and that reporting can be limited and controlled.

You apparently had no problem with "Seal Team Six" (a generic term) killing OBL without demanding the name of the individual Seal responsible for double tapping OBL.

[boutons_deux]

The First Amendment only applies to the govt preventing freedom of speech and assembly.

Everybody non-govt can block free speech and assembly, and do all the time.

[ChumpDumper]

They are all important Chump. My point is that their free speech is not being impinged because "reporting" is not individual speech and that reporting can be limited and controlled.Really? Where's the court ruling that says that?


You apparently had no problem with "Seal Team Six" (a generic term) killing OBL without demanding the name of the individual Seal responsible for double tapping OBL.Which news outlet had that information? There is a difference between the federal government's classifying its own information and censoring every person in the United States, which is what would have to happen for your little scheme to be effective.

[DMC]

Reporting isn't individual speech, but it falls under freedom of the press.

[CosmicCowboy]

Really? Where's the court ruling that says that?

Which news outlet had that information? There is a difference between the federal government's classifying its own information and censoring every person in the United States, which is what would have to happen for your little scheme to be effective.

"my little scheme"

GFY

It would work better than banning assault rifles. Possession of an assault rifle in Connecticut was already a felony.

[ChumpDumper]

"my little scheme"

GFY

It would work better than banning assault rifles. Possession of an assault rifle in Connecticut was already a felony.It wouldn't work at all, given this little thing called "the internet."

Perhaps you have heard of it.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL @ Chump thinking he is the final word on what will and won't work.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL @ Chump thinking he is the final word on what will and won't work.I don't think mine is the final word any more than yours.

I certainly see flaws in your scheme, practical as well as constitutional, that would likely consign it to failure. I imagine you've struck upon those by yourself, so trying to change the subject to me again is a logical tactic.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think mine is the final word any more than yours.

I certainly see flaws in your scheme, practical as well as constitutional, that would likely consign it to failure. I imagine you've struck upon those by yourself, so trying to change the subject to me again is a logical tactic.

Since you are automatically conditioned to nit pick and argue with anything I propose you wouldn't be able to see that it would have a better chance of being effective than trying to ban guns.

[ChumpDumper]

Since you are automatically conditioned to nit pick and argue with anything I propose you wouldn't be able to see that it would have a better chance of being effective than trying to ban guns.Is your word now the final word? :lol

I think the difference in degree of failure between each scheme is negligible.

Just my opinion. You haven't really posted anything to persuade me to think differently.

[CosmicCowboy]

So Chump...why do you think these losers do the mass shootings? What does Chump think they are trying to gain?

[ChumpDumper]

So Chump...why do you think these losers do the mass shootings? What does Chump think they are trying to gain?Why are we setting up a straw argument here?

We're talking about implementation.

[CosmicCowboy]

Why are we setting up a straw argument here?

We're talking about implementation.

Why are you running from a direct question like a little bitch?

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you running from a direct question like a little bitch?It's funny because the only reason you are asking the question is because you are running away from the implementation issue like a little bitch.

I stipulate that many mass killers do it for notoriety. We can also stipulate that many mass killer use guns.

My direct question to you is how do you think your little scheme will work?

[CosmicCowboy]

It is a fact that the freedom of the press is not unlimited.


Yes, at times we do limit First Amendment freedoms. While the text of the First Amendment references that “Congress shall make no law,” there are some limited types of speech that do not receive free-speech protection. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously expressed this point when he wrote that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Holmes’s famous phrase means that not all forms of speech are protected. For example, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, child pornography, true threats, fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, criminal solicitation or defamation.

I think there is a case to be made that glorifying the shooters by putting their names and pictures on the front page of every paper and magazine is an incitement for other low self esteem whackos that want to go out in a blaze of glory.

[ChumpDumper]

It is a fact that the freedom of the press is not unlimited.



I think there is a case to be made that glorifying the shooters by putting their names and pictures on the front page of every paper and magazine is an incitement for other low self esteem whackos that want to go out in a blaze of glory.In my opinion, it's an impressively weak case considering one of the words you bolded and underlined is imminent.

Let's go with a real world example: How would your scheme be practically implemented in the case of Jared Loughner?

[boutons_deux]

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

[CosmicCowboy]

In my opinion, it's an impressively weak case considering one of the words you bolded and underlined is imminent.

Let's go with a real world example: How would your scheme be practically implemented in the case of Jared Loughner?

Might be. Stranger things have happened in the supreme court.

What is your argument that it is important to publish the shooters names and pictures? What good does it serve the public?

[CosmicCowboy]

In my opinion, it's an impressively weak case considering one of the words you bolded and underlined is imminent.

Let's go with a real world example: How would your scheme be practically implemented in the case of Jared Loughner?

Did you forget the original position you were arguing against?


As I have said before the best way to stop mass shootings is to make it illegal to mention their name or post a photo of them

The media has to choose from a select list of names they can use starting with "dumbass""loser" "freakazoid" "idiot" etc.

Going down in a blaze of "glory" knowing their name, picture, and life story will be on every newspaper and TV show in the country will be a lot less attractive to these fucking nutcases.


"in the latest news another fucking idiot decided to kill some innocent bystanders before killing himself Can't believe these dumbasses think we will give a shit about them. I'm glad he is dead."

Not exactly a motivational speech for a nutcase.

[ChumpDumper]

Might be. Stranger things have happened in the supreme court.

What is your argument that it is important to publish the shooters names and pictures? What good does it serve the public?Constitutionally, neither importance nor public good are needed to justify freedom of speech or the press. The burden is on you to prove why those rights must be abrogated.

Enough straw. How would your scheme work with Jared Loughner?

[CosmicCowboy]

Constitutionally, neither importance nor public good are needed to justify freedom of speech or the press. The burden is on you to prove why those rights must be abrogated.

Enough straw. How would your scheme work with Jared Loughner?

You aren't that stupid. If we didn't glorify shooters maybe that sick little fuck would have just offed himself instead of killing those kids. Obviously banning assault weapons didn't stop him.

[ChumpDumper]

Did you forget the original position you were arguing against?Are you pretending this isn't the opposite of the freedom of press?


I'm sorry, I forgot this wasn't serious at all.

Carry on.

[ChumpDumper]

You aren't that stupid. If we didn't glorify shooters maybe that sick little fuck would have just offed himself instead of killing those kids. Obviously banning assault weapons didn't stop him.Show me a news account that glorified any mass killer.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nevermind the complete lack of anything resembling motive but is there really an argument that Lanza did this for glory? He went to a school that he went to as a child. He also supposedly had aspergers which limits empathy in others. It's possible that he was incapable of understanding 'glory.' Everyone has a theory and anything is possible I guess but the glory motive is far down my list of possibilities..

[CosmicCowboy]

I confess that as an extremely rational person I have a problem understanding the twisted minds of shooters like Loughner. They obviously go into it expecting to die, since they kill themselves when they get cornered. The desire to go out in a "blaze of glory" certainly presents itself as a rational explanation but I'm not sure an irrational mind sees it the same way.

Anyone else want to offer an explanation of why they do it?

[ChumpDumper]

I confess that as an extremely rational person I have a problem understanding the twisted minds of shooters like Loughner. They obviously go into it expecting to die, since they kill themselves when they get cornered. The desire to go out in a "blaze of glory" certainly presents itself as a rational explanation but I'm not sure an irrational mind sees it the same way.

Anyone else want to offer an explanation of why they do it?Mebbe they just want to kill a bunch of people. There are certainly mass killers who at least had an escape plan.

[CosmicCowboy]

Mebbe they just want to kill a bunch of people. There are certainly mass killers who at least had an escape plan.

Seriously not arguing but those were usually political (at least in the mind of the killer) (Oklahoma City)

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously not arguing but those were usually political (at least in the mind of the killer) (Oklahoma City)Jonesboro and Seal Beach come to mind off the top of my head. I'm sure there are enough examples of both that generalizations can't be made one way or another.

[TSA]

Nevermind the complete lack of anything resembling motive but is there really an argument that Lanza did this for glory? He went to a school that he went to as a child. He also supposedly had aspergers which limits empathy in others. It's possible that he was incapable of understanding 'glory.' Everyone has a theory and anything is possible I guess but the glory motive is far down my list of possibilities..
Hmmmmm.....your post seemed to be skipped over. Like I said before, give up your own guns before telling others to give up their own. Until then it seems you'll be ignored on these type of topics, hypocrite.

[mouse]

Seems like you need to hit the gun range and let off some steam brah.


This time I must give Agloco major props! :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hmmmmm.....your post seemed to be skipped over. Like I said before, give up your own guns before telling others to give up their own. Until then it seems you'll be ignored on these type of topics, hypocrite.

Look at CC's post immediately follow mine. Think about it and think about some exercises to help improve your reading comprehension. Below is something that might help you. We can work on critical thinking after you master reading.

http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/ms-comprehension.html

Please point to a post of mine where I call for any guns to be confiscated. This will be the last time I respond to this misrepresentation. It's not avoidance. You are just not worth the time.

[TSA]

Look at CC's post immediately follow mine. Think about it and think about some exercises to help improve your reading comprehension. Below is something that might help you. We can work on critical thinking after you master reading.

http://www.superteacherworksheets.com/ms-comprehension.html

Please point to a post of mine where I call for any guns to be confiscated. This will be the last time I respond to this misrepresentation. It's not avoidance. You are just not worth the time.
It appears he was just responding to ChumpDumper and you just chimed in and were skipped over. I guess only CC can clear that up. Was your entire Australia argument not about confiscation aka "gun buy back"?

You say you aren't avoiding......and I say that is absolute bullshit. You say I'm not worth the time, yet you keep coming back. Can you at least tell me why you won't answer the questions I've put out there?



Fuzzy, you own a gun correct? If you are so desperate to follow Australia's lead why haven't you given your gun up? I'm guessing you keep it for protection no? Do you think it's fair the Australian's had to give up their firearms used for protection? Do you think the criminals gave up their guns? Do you think it is now easier for criminals to commit crimes being that they are the only ones with guns now and have nothing to fear but a baseball bat and a knife?

Why do you refuse to answer? You are an anonymous Internet person, a fuzzylumpkin, who gives a shit. I have no problem admitting I'm wrong, especially on a message board where no one knows me personally. Seriously dude, stop being such a little twat. State your opinions on the subject.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You still haven't done the worksheets. Until you demonstrate at least a HS reading level I am only going to give you tutoring advice.

[TSA]

Do you honestly think you are funny?

[TSA]

How did it feel to get your shit pushed in so hard by one you consider to be below your intelligence level?

[TSA]

This will be the last time I respond to this misrepresentation. It's not avoidance. You are just not worth the time.

[Wild Cobra]

I confess that as an extremely rational person I have a problem understanding the twisted minds of shooters like Loughner. They obviously go into it expecting to die, since they kill themselves when they get cornered. The desire to go out in a "blaze of glory" certainly presents itself as a rational explanation but I'm not sure an irrational mind sees it the same way.

Anyone else want to offer an explanation of why they do it?
I wish i could. The purpose eludes me as well.

[Blake]

How did it feel to get your shit pushed in so hard by one you consider to be below your intelligence level?

I'm not sure you have as much shit on the tip of your dick as you think you do

[TSA]

I'm not sure you have as much shit on the tip of your dick as you think you do

Why don't ask your ex?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why don't ask your ex?

How did Blake's boyfriend like being the catcher and not the pitcher?

[Blake]

Why don't ask your ex?

no need to.

but feel free to keep spamming this board with claims of shit on your dick

[Blake]

How did Blake's boyfriend like being the catcher and not the pitcher?

you see what you think is an opportunity to pile on and this is what you bring?

Pick an age group.

[TSA]

no need to.

but feel free to keep spamming this board with claims of shit on your dick
21,956 of nothing and counting.

[Blake]

21,956 of nothing and counting.

since I'm not here for your needs, I won't disagree with your pov.