(10-20-2015, 11:41 AM)F.U. Wrote: HotD, one thing my friends in Law enforcement and those that I know that are on the wrong side of the law, have taught me is that locks only keep the honest man out. While it will help to lock up guns when it comes to toddlers and such. It is not a golden bullet. Those set on doing these mass shootings WILL gain access to the firearms, locked up or not and do the deed.
As far as a trigger lock goes. They are just about useless. If a person wants to fire the gun they simply cut the trigger guard and the lock falls off, giving them access to the still functioning trigger.
Like I said, this problem will need to be approached from all sides if we want to solve it.

I understand, F.U. But, we were discussing gun locks and safes in the context of child protection specifically.

If the worst parents in the world always locked up their loaded guns around children, there would certainly be fewer shootings by small children of bad parents. If the best parents in the world always locked up their load guns around children, there would certainly be fewer shootings by small children of good parents. If all parents always locked up their loaded guns around children, there would certainly be fewer shootings by small children, period. It's really not subjective or debatable. That's the point that I and (I believe) others were making.

I'd like to see child gun safety legislation passed on a national level, regardless of the fact that some "good" parents falsely believe that their parenting will prevent a child shooting tragedy.

If it takes gun lock giveaways, some safe/vault subsidies, etc...to enact such a national child gun protection law, I think that's reasonable and a good investment.

(10-20-2015, 12:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(10-20-2015, 11:41 AM)F.U. Wrote: HotD, one thing my friends in Law enforcement and those that I know that are on the wrong side of the law, have taught me is that locks only keep the honest man out. While it will help to lock up guns when it comes to toddlers and such. It is not a golden bullet. Those set on doing these mass shootings WILL gain access to the firearms, locked up or not and do the deed.
As far as a trigger lock goes. They are just about useless. If a person wants to fire the gun they simply cut the trigger guard and the lock falls off, giving them access to the still functioning trigger.
Like I said, this problem will need to be approached from all sides if we want to solve it.

I understand, F.U. But, we were discussing gun locks and safes in the context of child protection specifically.

If the worst parents in the world always locked up their loaded guns around children, there would certainly be fewer shootings by small children of bad parents. If the best parents in the world always locked up their load guns around children, there would certainly be fewer shootings by small children of good parents. If all parents always locked up their loaded guns around children, there would certainly be fewer shootings by small children, period. It's really not subjective or debatable. That's the point that I and (I believe) others were making.

I'd like to see child gun safety legislation passed on a national level, regardless of the fact that some "good" parents falsely believe that their parenting will prevent a child shooting tragedy.

If it takes gun lock giveaways, some safe/vault subsidies, etc...to enact such a national child gun protection law, I think that's reasonable and a good investment.

Now we are getting somewhere. Now we both agree those measures will HELP, but are not a magic bullet.
Now we both agree that storage/safe subsidies will be a good investment.
I don't think we have agreed this much in a long time. Hahahahahaha

You're cracking me up, F.U.

I don't know why reaching agreement is so important to you in the context of an internet forum, but you had some agreement from the get-go yesterday and you seem to have missed it.

Nobody ever said that safes/locks were magic bullets for solving gun violence in America. I have no idea where you're getting that from; that sentiment was not expressed by anyone in this thread. I SAID that gun locks/safes are pretty much magic bullets for preventing shootings by children if used whenever children are present in gun-bearing environments. I still feel the same way; no change in my stance.

Nobody ever said that some storage/safe subsidies wouldn't be a good investment. I agreed with that suggestion during our very first exchange on the topic. I disagreed that storage/safe subsidies should be long-term and open-ended, and I disagreed with your "tax write-off" suggestion. I still feel the same way; no change in my stance.

So, we already agreed on some points and still agree on those same points. But, I enjoy reading yours and everybody's thoughts on those topics.

(10-20-2015, 09:48 AM)Maggot Wrote: I've noticed that over the years guns have been shunned and made taboo with many kids yet teaching the proper safe handling of guns has been taken away by many school systems. I can only suggest that with the drop in educational mandates on guns the rate of killings and crime has risen.

Again what do you mean by teaching proper safe handling of guns in school? Do you mean teaching them to not handle a gun and tell an adult if they find one or do you mean actually teaching them how to hold a gun safely?

You people are confusing. I don't understand where FU got the idea that anyone suggested that gun safes/ locks are magic bullets for solving gun violence either. That doesn't even make sense. That was only pertaining to the problem with children injuring themselves or others with guns.

(10-20-2015, 11:44 AM)F.U. Wrote:

(10-20-2015, 11:29 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(10-20-2015, 11:14 AM)afraidforallofus Wrote: And there's the problem. I wondered how long it would take someone to own up to the fact that the US doesn't WANT to change. The constitution is apparently as revered as the bible (which is both weird and humourous) and inviolate. How can you have stricter controls if the second amendment needs amending, yet no-one wants to amend it?

I say it again, we haven't had a mass shooting in 19 years. I can't be arsed looking up how many the US has had this week

Yet your homicide rates remain the same. You truly have shown the world how it should be done.

There is the push down, pop up , problem at its finest. Push down on the old gun problem and POP, here is the new knife, baseball bat, etc problem .

Yup, but I guess we are just missing the point here FU

You did miss the point. You can't kill masses of people at once with knives and baseball bats, you can only do that with guns. So you can argue that homicide rates remain the same, but you can't argue that they haven't had any mass killings in 19 years unlike us. No one is shooting up schools or movie theaters. And it's probably safe to say that children aren't getting hold of guns on a regular basis either.

(10-20-2015, 02:12 PM)sally Wrote: You did miss the point. You can't kill masses of people at once with knives and baseball bats, you can only do that with guns. So you can argue that homicide rates remain the same, but you can't argue that they haven't had any mass killings in 19 years unlike us. No one is shooting up schools or movie theaters. And it's probably safe to say that children aren't getting hold of guns on a regular basis either.

I'm certain that makes a huge difference to the people who lost loved ones. They probably have support groups where they drink coffee, eat donuts and give thanks that their loved ones weren't murdered in a mass killing but rather a more civilized murder.

Jesus Christ, Gunnar.

Miss the point --> aha! get the point --> deflect the point with nonsense.

Australia still has some multiple victim murders, but less than the U.S. per capita. They define a mass murder as 5 or more victims in a single incident. They have not had a mass murder by shooting in the 19 years since they enacted strict national gun laws (though they'd had several leading up to the Port Arthur massacre which prompted the crack down on gun ownership and severely limited certain gun types). The U.S., meanwhile, has had several hundred such mass shooting victims during the same period. Them's the facts and that was the point.

Australia has not experienced anywhere near an increase in the number of fatalities by knifing massacres and/or baseball bat massacres that they experienced from mass shootings.

And, to the best of my knowledge, Australia has not experienced an increase anywhere near the number of fatalities by mass murderers using arson and/or bombs as they experienced during mass murders by shooting.

So, your bit about victims of mass knifing and baseball bat massacres sitting around in a support group and wishing their loved ones had instead been murdered by the more civilized gun is nonsensical deflective sarcasm (nobody does that better than you though, so credit where due ).

(10-20-2015, 03:04 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Jesus Christ, Gunnar.

Miss the point --> aha! get the point --> deflect the point with nonsense.

Australia still has some multiple victim murders, but less than the U.S. per capita. They define a mass murder as 5 or more victims in a single incident. They have not had a mass murder by shooting in the 19 years since they enacted strict national gun laws (though they'd had several leading up to the Port Arthur massacre which prompted the crack down on gun ownership and severely limited certain gun types). The U.S., meanwhile, has had several hundred such mass shooting murders during the same period. Them's the facts and that was the point.

Australia has not experienced anywhere near the same number of fatalities by knifing massacres and/or baseball bat massacres that they experienced from mass shootings.

And, to the best of my knowledge, Australia has not experienced anywhere near the same number of fatalities by mass murderers using arson and/or bombs as they experienced during mass murders by shooting.

So, your bit about victims of mass knifing and baseball bat massacres sitting around in a support group and wishing their loved ones had instead been murdered by the more civilized gun is nonsensical deflective sarcasm (nobody does that better than you though, so credit where due ).

Ooops I think you messed that up. The gun is NOT more civilized because in Australia you're not allowed to have one and they haven't had a mass killing in 19 YEARS!!! Knives, baseball bats, hammers... Those are more civilized. And Sooo 21^st century. Here's the point. People kill each other. Who cares if it's a gun, a knife a baseball bat or hammer. It's murder and as long as there are people on this earth, they will find a way to kill each other. Statistics prove that.

Unless you're insisting that everyone who would have used a gun to commit mass murder turned to a different type of weapon when they couldn't get a gun (and then used that different type of weapon to kill as many or more people as they could have with a gun), you're still spewing deflective nonsense, Gunnar.

If I missed something and you can show me stats to support your argument, I'll stand corrected.

Could it be possible that the murder rate has remained the same after the guns were removed from the equation because people no longer feared encountering a armed victim when the decided to commit a crime. Ok lets just say I want to rob someone of their purse and know they wont be armed. Then they resist so I beat them to death. Its still a death/murder and it may not have happened if the bad guy thought there was a chance that their victim could have ben armed.
Fuck, I almost confused myself with that question.
Just thinking outloud.

(10-20-2015, 03:28 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Unless you're insisting that everyone who would have used a gun to commit mass murder turned to a different type of weapon when they couldn't get a gun (and then used that different type of weapon to kill as many or more people as they could have with a gun), you're still spewing deflective nonsense, Gunnar.

If I missed something and you can show me stats to support your argument, I'll stand corrected.

mass murder by definition is a multitude of people being killed right? So if your number of murders is the same and multiple people are not being killed at once it stands to reason that the number of murderers has risen has it not? So by eliminating guns, what did you actually accomplish? Is that deflective nonsense or is it a fact you choose not to acknowledge?

Guns weren't eliminated, just restricted to certain types and harder to obtain. So I imagine the homicide rate is still largely due to guns and not a rise in hammer and baseball bats deaths just because a restriction was put on them. What it did seem to do, however, is stop mass shootings and that was the point you missed. God.

Sally they are so restricted that they are almost eliminated. When you have to show a good reason to own a firearm they are essentially gone.

(10-20-2015, 03:43 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: mass murder by definition is a multitude of people being killed right? So if your number of murders is the same and multiple people are not being killed at once it stands to reason that the number of murderers has risen has it not? So by eliminating guns, what did you actually accomplish? Is that deflective nonsense or is it a fact you choose not to acknowledge?

It's still deflective nonsense when we're talking about mass murders, and that's what we were talking about. What was accomplished was an elimination of classified "mass shooting murders" in Australia for almost 20 years.

However, I agree with you that people who are intent on killing others over money, jealousy, personal animosity... often use knives, their hands, poison or something of that sort to accomplish the goal. Some of them would likely have used a gun instead, had it been available. No argument there.

But, when we're talking about mass murders in public places where a different type of killer's goal is typically to take out as many people as possible, keeping guns from the would-be killers means they won't attempt to carry out their fantasies in many cases (don't have the fortitude for stabbing or batting, nor the knowledge for bombs or effective arson). I think this has been proven true in Australia.

For those would-be mass murderers who do have the fortitude to attempt to carry out their fantasies without guns, they will not be able to kill as many people as quickly with knives and bats as they could with guns, based on the additional effort and time required to stab and bludgeon people to death (vs. shooting them to death).

The same deterrents do not work equally effectively for all types of criminals and killers.

On a separate but related note, while homicide and attempted homicide rates (not specific to mass murders) have in fact declined in Australia over the past few years, the fact that they had remained steady for several years after the national gun laws were invoked does not render the elimination of mass shooting murders meaningless, to me. Preventing the mass killings of non-criminal victims is a worthwhile goal and achievement, even if it didn't have an immediate significant impact on general violent crime statistics. And, in my opinion, the homicide rates may well have increased over previous years if the mass shooting murders had not been stymied. I don't think it's logical to suggest that all would-be public mass murdering shooters in Australia went out and killed fewer people at a time in several incidents using other weapons instead (and there's no evidence to suggest that occurred).

(10-20-2015, 11:36 AM)afraidforallofus Wrote: Miss the point much?

Just ignore him, he's been slapped around by the tard brush.

The thing is with that mass shooting you refer to, in that case the person WAS actually mentally ill too. So if that person had been medicated or properly supervised in the community, this may have prevented that tragedy you refer to. Now he is locked up for life and many lives ruined including his own.

Can you imagine Australia if we did have the 'right to bear arms'? I mean, going out on a Friday night would be impossible, or even shopping centres. What about car parking/road rage? Especially at Christmas time. It is crazy here, if you put arms into the equation, it would be chaotic.

(10-20-2015, 11:29 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(10-20-2015, 11:14 AM)afraidforallofus Wrote: And there's the problem. I wondered how long it would take someone to own up to the fact that the US doesn't WANT to change. The constitution is apparently as revered as the bible (which is both weird and humourous) and inviolate. How can you have stricter controls if the second amendment needs amending, yet no-one wants to amend it?

I say it again, we haven't had a mass shooting in 19 years. I can't be arsed looking up how many the US has had this week

Yet your homicide rates remain the same. You truly have shown the world how it should be done.

Where the hell do you get your data?


GNI/ Homicide rate per 100,000

United States $53,570/ 4.6

Australia $65,400/ 1.1

Link (I got to this table via a Politico article):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...edit#gid=0

Meanwhile, in Texas..........

http://www.theage.com.au/world/cocks-not...k6j8w.html

Thanks , I needed the laugh!