The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Disarming the good guys will not prevent massacres > Comments

Disarming the good guys will not prevent massacres : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 18/12/2012

Gun control laws could not have prevented the latest massacre in America. The problem is disarming the good guys.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
So the answer to the problem with guns is...MORE GUNS.

This "solution" owes more to the celluloid antics of John Wayne than it does to any kind of rational policy response. The author obviously lives his life in a fantasy world where good and evil meet on the streets of Dodge City and good always triumphs cause it is faster on the draw.
If this weren't so serious one would laugh at such a ludicrous suggestion.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 9:01:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to agree with the first comment. The author is delusional. He must be American!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 9:06:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the speech by Obama should have read: "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. From now on we will be allowing any citizen over the age of ten to carry firearms. Concealed weapons will be allowed in all former Gun Free Zones, in our shopping malls and in our schools."

Yeah, I think you're pulling your own trigger on this one David, and your stats aren't really worth a damn, because they are selective and don't take into account any other social influences, such as the increase in the use particular drugs and the rise of organised crime during the 'war on drugs' and drug prohibitions. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

What will happen when you think you're in the middle of what might turn out to be a terror attack or massacre, and a complete stranger pulls out a concealed weapon and starts firing it? Do you fore at them? When everyone has a gun, how do you tell the 'good guys' from the 'bad guys'? For that matter, how do you tell them apart at any time?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 9:50:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He is even quote mining like a creationist.

sad realy
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:05:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am finally coming to accept that when people present a cogent argument against a knee-jerk reaction or policy, replete with firm and peer reviewed objective research to back it up, rather than offering an equally considered argument to the contrary, irresponsible people believe it is sufficient to emote a demand and ridicule and insult the contributor as though this constitutes an eloquent rebuttal. Worse, perhaps, is the overt bigotry. Oh yes, bigotry, because bigotry it is under the definition of the word. To assert that Americans who own guns are by definition cowboys keen to shoot it out on the streets of Dodge City, or that being ‘delusional’ must mean a person is American, is no less bigoted a stereotype than to suggest that all Arabs are keen to blow things up, or that if a person is drunk s/her must be aboriginal. You must be so proud. Or perhaps not…after all, such people do tend to post anonymously. It is more evident with each passing day, that ant-firearms lobbyists and extreme Greens will plumb the darkest deaths of insult and ridicule in order to sway popular support in favour of their agenda of intolerance towards people who fail to accept and mantra their world view.

Garry Mallard
Posted by Hunter, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:09:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course the "NO U" argument works quite well also don't it Gary?
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:14:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is really quite simple - any civilized society or culture worthy of the name civilized that requires everyone to be armed to "keep the peace" is already well advanced in the process of going down the tubes.

Perhaps the gun free zones such as churches, schools and university campuses are the only havens of relative sanity that are left in the USA.

America's most powerful religious ICON is now the gun. Its motivating "moral" ethos is In Guns We Trust. Its temple is the Pentagon military-industrial-complex, the shadow of which darkens the entire world, and outer space too (increasingly more so). Just as Sauron's MORDOR cast its dark shadow across the entire world of Middle Earth in The Lord of the Rings.

Which aint surprising because its entire "culture" is saturated with violence and the ever lurking threat/possibility of violence. Behind such a now all powerful religious Icon is a dreadfully dark vengefull god which demands continuous human sacrifices both at home and abroad.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:34:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your argument is confusing. It seems that you are calling for more guns to be in public areas such as schools and shopping centres. I don't understand how you believe this can prevent more people being killed.

From what I understand many school shootings in the USA have been committed by children or young adults using their parents' legally owned guns. If those guns were no longer available for use by these disturbed people then surely that would reduce the potential for such mass shootings. That seems rather self evident to me.

What I find truly disturbing about the idea of increasing the number of legally permitted weapons being carried in a concealed manner is the potential for so many more casualties and deaths. Instead of one person shooting in one direction at a time (or even sweeping gunfire) you would have two or more with the resultant gunfire coming from as many directions as there are shooters. The average person on the street is hardly going to be a trained sniper so there would be bullets flying in all directions. How could this not lead to even more deaths. And what of the vigilantism this would encourage? People shooting other people for simply carrying a gun, or what they think was a gun? It has happened before
Posted by Carz, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:57:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three quarters of the American people are good guys. They don't need disarming as they are already unarmed. The mongrel who shot the latest batch of victims of the US Second Amendment was a bad guy. So was his mother - a gun freak.

The US Second Amendment was adopted under pressure from the southern planters to be able to quell slave revolts. They could have split the Union unless appeased. Appeased, they eventually did split the Union which inadvisedly fought a devastating war to keep the losers in, then appeased them again, to the enduring detriment of the nation.

In Singapore possession of any sort of firearm means imprisonment and caning. The state means business. Result: gun death rate is 0.02 gun homicides per 100,000 population. In America the figure is 150 times that.

Singaporeans want their five year old children to stay alive all day every day. 25% of Americans don't - not if it means infringing their power to waste others en masse the moment the whim takes them. They make a million weasel excuses like the ones in this article and they are backed by the massive bribe power of the gun manufacturers. The answer to them is not to waste arguments on the 25% but to build up a head of steam among the decent 75% to ensure that being soft on the gunnies is electoral poison.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:15:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garry Mallard,

First time i've heard of an argument that makes a victim out of a person with a gun.
Your definition of "cogent" is far removed from mine.
And of course linked to the Dodge City cowboys is the green conspiracy to take guns away from these big brave men who will somehow be impotent if they can't have their phallic firearm in their hand to ward of those who would "change our way of life" and "threaten our personal liberties".
This is little boy comic book stuff that demonstrates the idiocy of some in our community.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:21:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Around 8-9 Americans under 19 die from firearms "every day" in the US...that's around 3,000 of the 31, 000 who die every year from wounds inflicted by firearms in the US.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:30:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On 14 December, in central China, a man entered a primary school and started attacking children.

He had a knife. 20 children were injured, some badly. None died.

On the same day, in the US, a man entered an elementary school and started attacking children.

He had a gun. 20 children and 7 adults died.
Posted by Rhys Probert, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 11:33:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David -- how dare you use facts and logic to make a rational case for evidence-based policy!? That is just mean.

These other poor slobs desperately want to hold on to their anti-gun bigotry and their failed policies... and if you keep showing them that they're mind-numbingly ignorant, then they might have to think for five seconds. And that's going to hurt.

Please... let's all agree to put the facts and logic away and stick to our preconceived anti-gun biases.
Posted by John Humphreys, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 12:05:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Giving so many people the ability to buy miltary weapons like the US M16 with big magazines to wipe out whole classroom of kids or a similar number of pedestrians on main street is sheer lunacy , and the author should be put behind bars under Australias new anti terrorists laws. The incitement to mass murder is what this writer is about
Posted by PEST, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 12:25:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to world statistics, America sits 12th on the list of gun related deaths, with 9.20 per 100 000 of population, with the countries above being reasonably well known for lawlessness (El Salvador and Colombia anyone?) Australia sits 50th, with 1.05 per 100 000.

To be 9x worse than Australia, something must be wrong. If it's not guns, then what is it?

In my opinion, arming everyone so that they can shoot back if something happens, is not the answer. As outlined by others here, people would be firing all over the place and confusion would reign. Also, the scope for improper gun use would increase.

Citing Israel as an example is not relevant - it's like comparing chalk and cheese. The USA is not constantly under threat by terrorists.

The argument that then only criminals would have guns is also specious, as it is rarely criminals that carry out these massacres.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 12:33:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree with hunter.
After all, Guns by themselves don't kill, the nut with his finger on the trigger does.
Guns are just tools in safe hands, as are nail guns, knives, axes, bows or fish spears.
Even so, the hands that hold all those implements, are also those who can commit atrocities with them.
If we removed all the guns, from civil law abiding society, only criminals, would own guns!
The nut job would resort to explosive indiscriminate bombs, which arguably, are much more lethal, than a single demented nutter, lose with a gun.
My bet is, if we could remove every legally owned weapon, the use of guns would increase, given the criminal element would then operate with impunity; and seems to be able to get whatever they want, even shoulder fired rocket propelled grenades or fully automatic weapons.
Everybody seems to be focused on how many bullets a weapon can spew out every minute.
Even so, one must accurately aim and squeeze the trigger.
And that is still limited by human reaction times; unless we are talking about point-blank range atrocities.
For me, it's fairly simple, none of those kids would have died, if the armed murder, had his lights blown away, even as he entered the building, in complete defiance of a no gun ordnance.
To suggest as some have, that we arm ten year olds, is so over the top, objectionable and extremely ridiculous, as to be completely unbelievable!
Save some supposedly sane people, are voicing their control freak same old same old, or so called objections?
There ought to be a refused persons register, and much smaller magazines, say just five rounds max, for vermin or feral reduction.
Gun dealers ought to be required to fit their premises with space age non invasive lie detection equipment. [Thermal imaging, computer assisted recognition.]
And then ask some loaded questions about the intended use of the products he/she sells, of every customer.
Gun control is not the answer, but keeping them out of the hands of nut jobs and criminals surely is!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 1:09:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Gun control is not the answer, but keeping them out of the hands of nut jobs and criminals surely is!"
Err... keeping them out of the hands of nut jobs and criminals. would another name for that be... GUN CONTROL?
Coherent argument is not a strong suit of the gun lobby and supporters.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 1:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First about Garys comment: Interesting to note that right after he commented about anti-gun people being intolerant of opposing views and resorting to abuse to make their points, people immediately began to do just that, talking about gun owners fear of impotence and accusing them of phallus worship. Reads to me like you proved Garys rule for him.
If guns are banned in the US today, it will take decades to get the bulk of them out of the community. If guns really do pose a threat to child safety wouldn’t it make sense to arm child carers like teachers, at least until the guns are gone? This article does not suggest arming everyone in the classroom as has been suggested in this forum. It doesn’t have to result in mass shootouts either. Most teachers on staff know the other teachers at some level. If only the teacher in each class is armed she or he would soon know if the person coming through the door armed had a good reason for doing so (if there is ever a good reason).
I think that child safety should come first, given that the guns exist in the community and seem destined to be used on school kids. Or maybe all schools should be guarded by armed guards? One things for sure, trying to stop a deranged gunman with idealistic philosophies isn’t going to work.
For the record and before the abuse starts I am not a gun owner and I don't ever intend to be, but who knows.
Posted by Unarmed, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 1:32:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arming teachers is the solution now? Yes I guess arming students was a little OTT.

So what happens when our ten years olds are sitting in class knowing that their teacher is armed? Oh it's just until the guns are gone kids. Until then your teacher is there to protect you from any armed maniacs that might come through the door. I can just imagine the message that sends to kids about the necessity of guns for their personal security. I guess teachers don't have nervous breakdowns either. How many parents would like to have their children taught by teachers that chose to be armed at school?

Then again, they might do their homework more often.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 1:45:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to offer an alternate reason for this latest massacre.

There are numerous examples of people who have gone on a shooting rampage and killed their classmates, co-workers, members of their family and often took their own lives, then it was discovered they were taking antidepressants. It initially appears the person was mentally ill and went on a rage but when these cases have actually been looked at closely they find the person did not have any violent tendencies and in most cases was not even suicidal before they started treatment with their antidepressant medication.

SSRIs, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, are the pharmaceutical company’s latest cash cows. Their use has skyrocketed in the last ten years. Nicknamed “Chemical Babysitters” and designated anti depressants, they are causing dozens of murders, thousands of psychoses and are altering the minds of millions of users. All but a very few of the latest “Mass Murderers” have been on these drugs. Schools encourage parents to put their children on these drugs for the smallest signs of “non conformity”. Schools in the US receive more money for “disabled” students.

SSRIs markedly alter brain chemistry, particularly drugs like Prozac. A few people have tried to warn authorities, but no one is listening. And SSRIs don’t backfire in children only.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors are commonly used to treat depression in children and adolescents. In 2005, the US Centre for Disease Control reported that 118 million prescriptions had been written for anti-depressants, and that the number of people using anti-depressants had “almost tripled between the periods 1988-1994 and 1999-2000”.

As more and more people are given SSRIs to combat depression, mounting evidence suggests that the side effects of SSRIs can lead to violent behavior and suicide. Many of the high fatality school shootings of the past 10 years have involved shooters who had been prescribed SSRIs. An in depth look at school shootings, and the commonly known side effects of SSRIs, reveals these drugs to be a primary factor leading to violence.

It will be interesting to see if the latest ‘killer’ was on SSRIs.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 1:45:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhosty,

The only use for guns is to kill and maim...that is their sole purpose.

To create a situation where a society and culture is awash with these tools is madness. The "Guns don't kill people. People kill people" excuse is a cop out.

The fact that these "tools" can kill and maim at a distance and are readily available in the US to any Tom, Dick or Harriet - and which are, all too often, resorted to in the first instance is obviously the prime reason why so many killings, woundings and massacres are reported in that country.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 2:06:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That was very brave David.

Do be careful now, the anti gun lobby will be gunning for you.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 3:03:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I waited with bated breath as I read the article, and almost couldn't believe it when I found what I was expecting: the argument, right there in the penultimate paragraph, that this whole problem could have been averted if a teacher had been able to have a gun at school.

It's possibly true. Of course, that teacher would have to have been in the right place at the right time, had his/her gun on his/her person, had his/her wits about him/her and had an opportunity to shoot the assailant. Is that really a direction we want to take: primary school teachers taking guns to school? Carrying them in a holster while in the classroom?

When that carries through to the secondary level, do we allow students who are of age to carry guns, just in case? After all, it seems unfair that teachers are armed and students are unable to protect themselves against potentially loony teachers. Particularly around reporting time.
Posted by Otokonoko, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 3:09:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Guns control issue revolves around three key points, licensing, uses, and types.

To obtain a license the person should be able to show he is of sound mind, has had appropriate training, and has a legitimate use for the firearm. Guns are meant to be to be dangerous, we don't let people out on the road without a license so we should definitely not allow people to own guns without one. Registration of the individual guns should also be mandatory. In America it appears that in some states you do not require either!

This brings us to the type of firearms which should be available, this is dependant on the use that the firearm is going to be put.
Hunting:-For this purpose a long barrelled weapon with a no more than two shots is all that is needed for example the double barrelled rifle is all that was required to hunt even the largest and most dangerous animals.

Sport:- For example target shooting here it includes the weapons as above and also hand guns. There is nothing to be proved with any gun that has more than 6 shots before a reload. These sort of activates can be very tightly regulated with guns and ammunitions to be securely stored on site.

Farming:- Again I see no need for anything beyond two shots before the gun has to be reloaded by hand. Shot guns and small calibre rifles are all that is likely to be needed.

Policing:- I am not a fan of armed police, but I accept that from time to time it may be necessary. This will typically be a hand gun, plus a few special marksmen with military riffles.

The fewer the number of guns in circulation the more difficult it becomes for criminals and nut cases to get hold of them. The premiss of the article that we arm everybody is a recipe for wholesale slaughter and is totally irresponsible. The idea that there is any legitimate use for military style rifles among the civilian population is crazy.
Posted by warmair, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 3:49:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff of Perth. An interesting viewpoint worthy of much more attention.
Posted by Herbert Stencil, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 3:52:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the general stance on nail guns guys?

Chainsaws?

Archery?

The Swiss all have guns and don't shoot people so much.

Other countries have alcohol and they don't have the problems we seem to have with that!

It's something about being a yank, and I don't think it will change.

Posted by Hunter, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 10:09:11 AM

Guy has a point about the stereotyping. Guilty.

I also think the author has a point. Given the prevailing society, and the horse that has bolted, perhaps it IS unsafe to have a gun free area. In that society.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 4:15:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This issue's a tough one. In my opinion, both camps mount sound arguements apropos guns.

As a retired detective I've personally been involved in many serious matters associated with illegal use of F/A's.

John Howard tried to take a pragmatic approach by significantly strengthening existing laws, by both licensing and availabiliy of certain categories of weapons. And has it worked - officially yes. In reality, no. Initially, it made it much harder for a law-abiding citizen to obtain a licence, and to purchase and use a F/A lawfully.

However, that's just an additional obligation or burden that's been applied to law-abiding persons who wish to pursue their chosen sport of shooting.

On the other hand, tougher F/A laws tend to create a much greater and more lucrative 'Black Market', peddling illicit weapons to the underworld. Criminals, who wish to commit a crime, using a F/A, they'll obtain whatever they want, with or without any legitimate access thereto.

And the arguement, if there were NO F/A's in the community at all, there'd be less crime involving F/A's ? That's not correct from my own policing experience, unfortunately. I wish it was.

And do I possess any 'secret remedy' to these horrific gun crimes ? Sadly no I don't, I wish I did. Any copper who claims to have an answer, well...?

My own PERSONAL views on curbing serious crimes occasioning violence, are three fold...

(i) Allow police to use ALL their existing powers, without A N Y political or administrative interference;

(ii) Ensure the Judiciary (the Courts) hand down meaningful custodial sentences, in all crime concerning violence (particularly occasioned against, the young, the elderly, women, the infirm, law enforcement, and any other (similar) demographic);

and;

(iii) Turn gaol, back into real gaol where the screws run the place, both proactivly and remedially. Rather than the criminal and ethnic gangs, the heavies, and others.

And STOP this continual political interference and intrusion, in Law Enforcement per se ! Politicians are NOT Policemen or Prison Officers. Their role should be only to oversight and audit the administration of both Departments !
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 4:27:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: "The Swiss all have guns and don't shoot people so much."

You mean 'other people'. They seem to like shooting themselves though.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 4:39:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its no surprise to see that the simplistic are so eager to pick up on one aspect of a comment and run with it, accusing and ridiculing as Gary said earlier. I did not say that arming teachers was the solution, as the party concerned well knows. What I suggested was that it may be necessary to take action other than simply ranting about world peace and the threat posed to that philosophy by guns, in the mean time, while people are waiting for the gun problem (perceived or not) to be cleared up. What would you all suggest, politely asking the homicidal maniacs to abide by a massacre amnesty until his guns are discovered by police and confiscated? Do you think they’ll all cut their guns up the moment a strong ant-gun policy is introduced, and put off the massacre they have planned for nest Friday? Do you have cause to know that no more massacres are in the pileline until after you’ve achieved your objectives? All the people here who claim to be so concerned about children and violence have an obligation to thank strategically, for the safety and welfare of others, and not simply indulge their personal desires to grandstand their righteous indignation. So there’s the challenge, if disarming the populous is the answer, and if arming responsible adult protectors in schools is not, how will you assure the safety of all those tots in the US when you’re President?
Posted by Unarmed, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 4:43:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
About 15 or so years ago I was offered an old FAL assault rifle and a.32 pistol by a druggie acquaintance, he showed me the pistol so I've no reason to assume he was lying about the AR, I said no of course. This guy was selling them because he needed money for drugs and I'd bet he'd burgled them, but if some petty street person can get his hands on weapons like that and sell them on then a person with his wits about him is going to be able to get whatever he wants regardless of the laws or the penalties.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 4:52:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article talks about the state of New Hampshire having some of the lowest homicide rates in the USA even though it has some of the most liberal gun laws in the USA. It could have gone on to mention that homicide in New Hampshire is actually 20% lower than in Australia.
Posted by Terje, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 5:18:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Geoff of Perth.

Please read the following

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

This shameful 'big pharma is out to kill us all' conspiracy theory crap, is also doing the rounds over at that logic free zone, the improperly named 'Australian vaccination network'... And needs to be called out for the rubbish that it is.

Regards,

Someone who understands the difference between correlation and causation
Posted by stickman, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 5:58:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do these young men perceive that the answer to their personal problems is to strike back and harm others to make their grand final departure from life?

How did they come to believe that?

What examples and modelling were they presented with? By whom?

Why were there no cries for help prior? Or are the cries of boys and young men disregarded as in "Harden up young'un you are a man"?

Examples of questions that might be posed but never answered. A political knee-jerk response is easier and puts a lid on things better not asked.
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 6:59:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting fact, gun homicides as a percentage of all homicides in the U.S have been been on a downward trend since 1993 while deaths from edged weapons, blunt force and other assaults have remained static over that period.
Assaut weapons account for about 1% of all crimes where a gun is used and they make up about 8% of the 200 million guns in the hands of the American public.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 7:46:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

There should be MORE guns in the USA, not less.

Make it mandatory for everybody to "bear arms" at all times and let them "thin out their herd" for a while.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 18 December 2012 8:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No surprise that gun homicides in the USA have been trending down, considering that gun ownership has also been trending down - by one-third since the mid-1990s. See
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html.

Australia has never had a gun massacre since Howard stood up to the gun freaks in 1996. America gets them in monotonous succession because nobody has stood up to the gunnies. For a chronology of US massacres see
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map.

Evil individuals have massacred their fellow-Americans because there are guns ready to hand do it with. Elsewhere it takes a bit of effort for scum like the Newtown killer to get hold of a gun that will put a bullet through an engine block 100 times a minute.

For the way gun homicides follow gun ownership between countries see
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list.
Outliers are mainly corrupt countries like Mexico where those who own the guns own the government.

Sure correlation isn't causation, but quacking like a duck, looking like a duck and walking like a duck do correlate strongly with being a duck.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 12:58:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Australia has never had a gun massacre since Howard stood up to the gun freaks in 1996"

Does Huan Yun Xiang, Monash University, 21 October 2002, ring a bell?

But also you are also neglecting multiple murders. Like the OP you seem to have a strange definition where 'mass murder' is somehow different to multiple murder and other means of killing are forgotten.

This why Australia must have an independent national university study on violence. Howard wasted a cool billion$ of taxpayers' money. Despite exhaustive and usually slanted research, often government funded, by gun control activists, there is not one smidgen of evidence that the Howard 'initiatives' achieved anything.

However it did get John Howard re-elected. To date it stands as the greatest single wastage of public money ever for Australia and probably for most democratic countries.

We need independent national university research into violence. Why continue to allow politicians to waste money that isn't theirs on populism and redundant laws on top of existing laws?
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 1:28:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The tool that has facilitated the most massacres throughout history is not the gun, but the boat. Think that's silly? Since the species first learned how to float, it has travelled to other nations with the sole purpose of cutting them down by whatever means – sharpened stick, sword or gun - and loading their stuff onto boats to float it home. There were few, if any shooting massacres in Australia prior to the 1970s, (hence prior to Howard’s legislation, which makes his role in stopping recent tragedies questionable) other than the aforementioned boat related massacres of the 1800 and early 1900s, when the Britts invaded and killed off the indigenous population using all means at their disposal, including pox infected blankets. Prior to the 1970s there were few Australian homes that didn’t boast at least one .22 riffle atop the wardrobe, yet no epidemic of massacres and now Howard legislation. There are a few things that might‘correlate’ with the modern rash of gun massacres, among them the proliferation of violent imagery in media e.g. computer games, movies, the nightly news, and the reporting of massacres in the media which assures the perpetrator his much sought place in history. Since the 1970s we have also seen a breakdown of the sustained traditional family unit , which may contribute. It was responsible dads who taught boys the responsible way to manage firearms, long before Howard’s contribution.
Posted by Unarmed, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 7:25:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Prior to the 1970s there were few Australian homes that didn’t boast at least one .22 riffle atop the wardrobe" What absolute rubbish.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 8:34:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
During the tough economic times of the great depression of the 1930s, the rabbit became a welcome commodity rather than the pest it had been to farmers. The skins could be sold for money and the meat was often the only option available to poor families. Rabbits could be caught fairly readily even in the outskirts of big cities such as Melbourne, in suburbs that are now densely populated and those that didn't own guns, traps or dogs, relied on people who did for marginal meat supplies. This culture of semi-urban subsistence hunting remained into the war years due to rationing and beyond. While some people might not know that dad had a .22 in a cupboard, and while he might not have dragged it out for display, many-many households had them nonetheless. In fact they were motivated to keep it quiet because government began to tighten up on, or restrict their ownership due to coldwar concerns that the reds under the bed might use them against the powers of liberty and freedom. I lived in Sydney and I used to shoot with my dad and uncles in a little farming community known as Camden, where there were no houses to speak of but lots of paddocks and rabbits. Guns were always there as tools, just like spanners or hammers, and the bounty they harvested was shared with the community, like fish were after a summer vacation. All wholesome, practical, community focused stuff in my view.
Posted by Unarmed, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 9:09:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Emperor Julian.. Could not agree with you more. The correlation that doesn't imply causation is the idiotic attempt to link SSRI use to mass shootings as causal. The mere fact that people likely to do this are all likely mentally ill and hence also likely to be on psychotropic meds doesn't seem to enter their thought process...
Posted by stickman, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 9:26:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course disarming the population will not prevent, or even reduce massacres, but it will make us much easier for a future government, or invader, to control.

It also makes us much less capable of forming a credible militia, in time of emergency, similar to the one that saved us on the Kokoda track in WW11.

It also makes us less able to defend ourselves, when the type of violence we are importing with todays so called refugees, by plane or boat, revert to their natural violence.

We see it happening in all areas where largish numbers of these people are settled.

And yes Candide, when I was a boy, a house without at least one gun was unusual, & I lived in large, or small cities, not the bush. I was shooting rabbits for the pot, before I even saw an ice cream, a firework or a clockwork toy.

I was much more impressed with the ice cream & the toy train. Shooting rabbits was something you had to do, ice cream was magic.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:04:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow Hasbeen. Armed citizens fighting bravely against the invading barbarians. Just like in RED DAWN! You've certainly done your research. That movie just dripped with believability didn't it?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087985/
For your information the militia that fought on the Kokoda Track were all conscripted into the army. They didn't operate independently of government. You've been watching too many movies about the American revolution.
This conspiracy theory about the government "taking our guns away" so they can institute a totalitarian regime is just paranoid hysteria.
Go and do some more research. Maybe RAMBO this time.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 10:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the history lesson Shally. Incidentally have you ever read any? It might give you an idea about what governments can do, & have done, all too often. Like our Julia trying to have free speech abolished, to help her hide her past.

The fact about Militia is that they are hastily thrown together, & you really need people who can all ready shoot, & actually hit something, like a barn, from the outside.

My son who is giving initial introductory training to officer cadets tells me that most of these intakes have no idea of how a gun works, & even after a few trips to the range, still jump when the thing goes bang.

I see from your post you're pretty big on movies. I haven't bothered watching one since Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid, so have to base my ideas on fact, not fiction.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 11:28:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear oh dear Hasbeen. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not trying to get ya eh?
Posted by Shalmaneser, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 11:41:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much to my chagrin, I agreed with Howard at the time over gun control, I didn't want other people to have guns, I don't really know why upon reflection. I now regret that agreement and can offer youthful ignorance as my own excuse.

I can only hope America doesn't go down the same path in perusing gun control as the perceived panacea for poor mental health policy and funding.

Low hanging fruit indeed.
Posted by Valley Guy, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 1:19:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brendan O'Niell, a claimed Marxist, has written an interesting critique,
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13179/

Here is a small section,

"No one knows what was going on in the mind of the Connecticut shooter. But what was striking about his shooting spree, like that which occurred in Columbine High School in 1999 or at the West Nickel Mines Amish School in 2006, was the utter lack of restraint, the absence of any moral code saying ‘It is wrong to violate a school’ or simply ‘It is wrong to shoot a six-year-old child in the head’. Such a dearth of restraining morality is something new, springing more from today’s culture of estrangement, and the individual nihilism it can nurture, than from the 200-year-old Second Amendment.

School shootings are better understood, not as the end product of American revolutionaries’ insistence on the populace’s right to bear arms, but as part of today’s trend for highly anti-social, super-individuated acts of nihilistic, narcissistic violence - from so-called ‘Islamist attacks’ carried out by British men on the London Tube to Anders Behring Breivik’s massacre of 77 of his fellow Norwegians last year. What such assaults share in common is a profound sense of cultural disconnection. They are, in many ways, the most extreme expression of the narcissism of our age, in which there is the constant promotion of self-obsession over socialisation, and individual identity over collective citizenship, giving rise to a sometimes volatile atmosphere - through both removing individuals from any sense of a meaningful social fabric and imbuing them with a powerful sense of entitlement, where one’s self-esteem counts for everything, and thus any undermining of it is a slight of the most dire order.

To try to explain mass school shootings through the fact that guns exist is like trying to explain the al-Qaeda phenomenon through the fact that aeroplanes exist: it fetishises the technical means as a way of avoiding grappling with cultural factors."
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 19 December 2012 7:03:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very cogent, "onthebeach". I fear many of the ills pervading our society, and the global society at large, stem from a breakdown or 'mutation' of genuine morality, with an attendant estrangement of the individual from any abiding sense of responsibility to 'community', or to the good of the 'whole'. From various roots there is a rising narcissistic overemphasis on the rights of the individual - often at the expense of victims of abuse, exploitation or debasement (mental or physical). The focus of moral responsibility is 'skewed'. (Viz US debate on a DNA registry. Whose risk is paramount? Victim or potential perpetrator?)

On the world scale it is understandable that a great deal of confusion should exist as to where individual responsibility and commitment should lie - given the wide range of disparate (and often incompatible) cultural, belief and superstition (or mythology) systems prevailing. (Viz the murder of aid workers dispensing polio vaccine - by vested-interest fundamentalist groups purveying misinformation as to the 'real' purpose of the vaccination program - as supposedly to sap manhood or female fertility, or similar tripe.) There is no doubt however that in our own backyard we can and should do better, and the example pushed in our TV programs, movies, computer games and internet accessed material is relevant to the conduct and attitudes we would prefer to see exhibited by our populace.

As for guns: Some have no place in the hands of the general public, and, as with the right to drive a motor vehicle, licensing must be mandatory, and mental fitness, as well as civil record, should require close scrutiny as a major determinant for approval. Also, a high level of security of arms in private ownership must be mandatory - as it is in Oz - to minimise potential for unauthorised access. (Failure in the latter regard must be considered contributory in the latest US disaster.)
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 20 December 2012 3:38:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, you lack credibility. "It also makes us much less capable of forming a credible militia, in time of emergency, similar to the one that saved us on the Kokoda track in WW11." Wrong on both counts - not a militia, and didn't 'save us' as the Japanese weren't, at that point. planning to invade Australia. Which is not to belittle in any way the valour and sacrifice of those involved.
Posted by Candide, Monday, 24 December 2012 7:32:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide,
Perhaps the Australian War Memorial can settle it without further bloodshed.

http://www.kokodatreks.com/history/newguineaforces/australianmilitia.cfm

Regarding the argument that Japan didn't plan 'at that stage' to invade Australia, that was because Japan believed that Australia would immediately capitulate to Japanese rule if the shipping link with the US was broken.

As well, Australians were very fortunate that Japan's generals believed Australia had a substantial trained professional force in reserve. Who would ever believe that our feckless government didn't? Our governments of either persuasion still over-commit out forces overseas, showing a cavalier regard for home defence.

But even in spite of that the generals were firmly convinced that Australians were weak willed and had no 'bottle' for the casualties of invasion, so a later invasion was on the cards. The Midway mistake if not made, could have spelled a quick occupation. The Battle of the Coral Sea - thanks to those young Americans who never returned home and many more who would never be the same again - stopped Japan's hopes.

That is why countries like Switzerland maintain a trained civilian military force. It is quite a deterrent that a large, committed force that is trained and ready within hours. But the 'committed' civilian population means a lot too, to a potential invader.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:06:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On The Beach,

The militia was part of the army. They did not exist as an independent spontaneous uprising of citizens. They were trained (very badly) and equipped by the govt as part of the military forces of Australia. This was part of a deliberate policy of having a "two tier army" made up of AIF and militia.
As to Japanese intent, that is irrelevant because those fighting on the Kokoda Track were not to know that the Japanese did not intend to invade. The efforts of the 39th Battalion on the track demonstrated that with leadership and training militia units could perform as well as the AIF.
" the 'committed' civilian population". By this i assume you mean industrial quantities of Rambos. This argument is perpetrated as part of a fantasy land populated by paranoid "heroes" who will rise up to overthrow the tyrant world government-inspired Washington/Canberra bureaucrats out to take our liberties from us.
It is laughable. Unfortunately the deaths caused as a result of this kind of puerile fixation are not.
Posted by Shalmaneser, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:49:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shalmaneser, "By this i assume you mean industrial quantities of Rambos"

No, I don't mean that at all. It is your imagination. I will not bother with the rest as I have already posted the information from the Australian War Memorial. Anyone interested can do more research from that reliable source.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 24 December 2012 9:11:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy