Senseless Gun Deaths thread.

[Koharu]

Please don't follow Fuzzy into his distraction-intended whataboutism. He doesn't argue in good faith and assumes he knows more about other people's minds than they do themselves. This thread isn't about abortion.

[T'Chenka]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

Americans can own anti-aircraft guns

Just the bullet kind though, or can they own the missile launcher ones?

[Koharu]

Man kills girlfriend, shoots 11-month-old son, before turning gun on himself

She'Kierrah Adams, 18, is dead and her 11-month-old son is recovering from gunshot wounds.

Police say the person who pulled the trigger was 23-year-old Raquill Holland, who then fatally shot himself. The couple was found dead in their apartment by a family member who came to check on them. Their son, Raquill Jr., survived two gunshot wounds to the torso and leg.

...

Police were called to the house once before on the 100 block of Laurel Road in Sharon Hill, back in October 2018, for a domestic dispute. After the fatal shooting, investigators discovered deep-rooted issues.

Again, restrictions in regards to domestic disputes are so necessary. Man shot his child and its mother, realized what he had done and immediately regretted it, so he takes his own life, too. So very tragic.

[fhtagn]

Lefties too often spew the "sensible gun control" talking points, but there is nothing sensible about forcibly taking away someone's property, plain and simple. People are not going to give up their guns, even if you ban them. This shouldn't be so hard for some to understand and accept, but apparently it is.

[dead0man]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

Americans can own anti-aircraft guns

Just the bullet kind though, or can they own the missile launcher ones?

if you got the coin and fill out the right paper work (and aren't a shady piece of sh**t), you can own pretty much whatever you want.  As it should be.  The only exceptions I can think of are in the NBC weapons family (nuclear, biological, chemical), but there exceptions to those exceptions.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's my right to keep and bear arms.  It's not your right, or anyone else's right to kill unborn children.  That's my view of the world.  If you don't like it, too bad.

Law enforcement doesn't care what your view of the world is though. They will NOT prevent a woman from getting a first trimester abortion, but they WILL prevent you from owning an anti-air missle turret. If you follow your worldview far enough Fuzzy, you will be seeing your view of the world from behind bars, whilst women getting abortions will see no legal penalties. That's the reality of America. If you don't like it, too bad.

I follow my worldview as far as the law will permit me, and I advocate for the change in laws I don't agree with.  I own one handgun, and that's the only one I use, or wish to use.  I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I obey laws I disagree with.  So your snide implications about me are something I would expect from a leftist Marxist, which you present yourself as.  (The red avatar for being a Democrat is a ruse on your part; your signature speaks louder than your avatar.)

That something is legal doesn't mean it's morally right.  Abortion is not only a moral atrocity, it is an act that deprives other human beings of life.  God, Himself, has said not to return evil for evil, so the bombers of abortion clinics are woefully deceived as to what God is about.  That God would forbid man that sort of vengeance, and that the laws of man protect the abortion industry, does not mean that abortion is morally right.  It is murder, and God is aware.

[Inmate Trump]

You can’t be a sensible person and not realize that something needs to be done.  There’s a very clear problem and a clear solution is needed.

That doesn’t have to be outlawing all guns; I don’t think many people want that, despite right wingers screaming about how we want to take their gunz.

Turning a blind eye and/or solely offering thoughts and prayers (while the latter two are certainly nice, and I believe prayer is effective—but people have to be accountable too—I’m a Christian who prays, but we still have an abundance of rules to protect ourselves and others that don’t rely on prayer alone; you have to wear a seatbelt for example...God answer’s prayers, but people also have to act), lawmakers have an obligation to act and citizens need to get the heads out of the sand.

[Joe Republic]

(especially gasbags like Joe Republic that speak of how uninformed I am)

The lack of self-awareness when you type things like this is truly something to behold.

And I said you are misinformed, not uninformed.  There's a key difference.

Please don't follow Fuzzy into his distraction-intended whataboutism. He doesn't argue in good faith and assumes he knows more about other people's minds than they do themselves. This thread isn't about abortion.

Indeed, when I posted that response to Fuzzy Bear last night pointing out that his (and others', e.g. dead0man's) view on gun ownership is very firmly not the one based on constitutional originalism, but in fact revisionist judicial activism based on a shifting interpretation of the 2A that emerged in the 1960s-70s, I didn't truly expect to wake up to an actual response.  That's often the case when Fuzzy Bear realizes he's wrong.

The far likelier reaction was to instead derail the thread into one of his three pet issues; abortion, immigration, and shilling for Donald Trump.  Who knows, perhaps once he realizes that nobody is following his derailment into abortion, he might try one or both of the other two?

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Tell me how stricter gun laws will stopped "gun violence". They won't.

Republicans always talk about this philisophically and hypothetically, which is very unnecessary when there is MOUNTAINS of data and evidence from Canada Australia Europe et cetera ad infinitum to show what works and what doesn't.

After the 1996 buyback (The hilarious program where taxes were increased to finance the government forcefully exchanging firearms for cash) our homicide rate didn't decrease until the mid 2000s, and our gun laws didn't prevent 15 year old acquiring a handgun and shooting up a police station killing a police officer and a man from holding a cafe hostage with a shotgun and killing two people within a years distance of each other in metropolitan Sydney, to name two recent cases.

Also, whenever you, another private citizen or any US politician use the "muh Australia" talking point you're essentially revealing the end goal of gun control which isn't simply mild reforms like "background checks" or "ending the gun show loophole" but to make firearms almost impossible for regular citizens to own. In other words, to effectively cripple the 2nd amendment.

[T'Chenka]

Tell me how stricter gun laws will stopped "gun violence". They won't.

Republicans always talk about this philisophically and hypothetically, which is very unnecessary when there is MOUNTAINS of data and evidence from Canada Australia Europe et cetera ad infinitum to show what works and what doesn't.

After the 1996 buyback (The hilarious program where taxes were increased to finance the government forcefully exchanging firearms for cash) our homicide rate didn't decrease until the mid 2000s, and our gun laws didn't prevent 15 year old acquiring a handgun and shooting up a police station killing a police officer and a man from holding a cafe hostage with a shotgun and killing two people within a years distance of each other in metropolitan Sydney, to name two recent cases.

Homicide rates is a seperate issue in many but not all contexts. You DO know of those 2 incidents, but you DON'T necessarily know how many incidents that could have taken place but never did because of the law. You're basically saying "2 within a year is a big number!" but without proper context. The actual context, which we could never have real numbers for, is more like "2 within a year is a (big average small?) number compared to __ a year".

Also, whenever you, another private citizen or any US politician use the "muh Australia" talking point you're essentially revealing the end goal of gun control which isn't simply mild reforms like "background checks" or "ending the gun show loophole" but to make firearms almost impossible for regular citizens to own. In other words, to effectively cripple the 2nd amendment.

Firearms SHOULD be somewhat difficult to obtain and keep, just like a driver's license. Here in Canada, a driver's license process is this - at 16, you can pass the written exam to get a learner's permit, which has strict regulations. 12 months later, you can get your "G2" license, which is a license requiring a fully licensed companion to.ride with you, during the day, off the highways. 12 months after that, you may apply for your full "G" license. For the rest of your life, you just fill out paperwork every few years and refrain from a large amount of accidents and tickets. After retirement age, you must do a driving test every 2 years to prove you are still capable.

The second amendment is not absolute on everybody getting guns no matter what, or else prisoners IN PRISON would have them. There is obviously a line in the sand where you say "sorry, the second amendment doesn't apply to your current situation". You wanna argue about where the line is? Okay sure. You wanna be like Fuzzy Bear and tell me any line is unconstitutional? I'll laugh in your face.

[fhtagn]

Tell me how stricter gun laws will stopped "gun violence". They won't.

Republicans always talk about this philisophically and hypothetically, which is very unnecessary when there is MOUNTAINS of data and evidence from Canada Australia Europe et cetera ad infinitum to show what works and what doesn't.

After the 1996 buyback (The hilarious program where taxes were increased to finance the government forcefully exchanging firearms for cash) our homicide rate didn't decrease until the mid 2000s, and our gun laws didn't prevent 15 year old acquiring a handgun and shooting up a police station killing a police officer and a man from holding a cafe hostage with a shotgun and killing two people within a years distance of each other in metropolitan Sydney, to name two recent cases.

Homicide rates is a seperate issue in many but not all contexts. You DO know of those 2 incidents, but you DON'T necessarily know how many incidents that could have taken place but never did because of the law. You're basically saying "2 within a year is a big number!" but without proper context. The actual context, which we could never have real numbers for, is more like "2 within a year is a (big average small?) number compared to __ a year".

Also, whenever you, another private citizen or any US politician use the "muh Australia" talking point you're essentially revealing the end goal of gun control which isn't simply mild reforms like "background checks" or "ending the gun show loophole" but to make firearms almost impossible for regular citizens to own. In other words, to effectively cripple the 2nd amendment.

Firearms SHOULD be somewhat difficult to obtain and keep, just like a driver's license. Here in Canada, a driver's license process is this - at 16, you can pass the written exam to get a learner's permit, which has strict regulations. 12 months later, you can get your "G2" license, which is a license requiring a fully licensed companion to.ride with you, during the day, off the highways. 12 months after that, you may apply for your full "G" license. For the rest of your life, you just fill out paperwork every few years and refrain from a large amount of accidents and tickets. After retirement age, you must do a driving test every 2 years to prove you are still capable.

The second amendment is not absolute on everybody getting guns no matter what, or else prisoners IN PRISON would have them. There is obviously a line in the sand where you say "sorry, the second amendment doesn't apply to your current situation". You wanna argue about where the line is? Okay sure. You wanna be like Fuzzy Bear and tell me any line is unconstitutional? I'll laugh in your face.

Prisoners in prison lose that right by breaking laws in our country. It isn't limited to their 2nd amendment rights, either.

Making it difficult for your average, law abiding, harmless citizen to obtain a firearm absolutely infringes on their 2nd amendment rights. It also can't be compared to being able to drive, because being able to drive/obtaining a driver's license is not a constitutional right. Comparing the two really just shows how little you understand this topic.

How you do anything in Canada is irrelevant. We are not Canada (which is a very good thing).

[Joe Republic]

After the 1996 buyback (The hilarious program where taxes were increased to finance the government forcefully exchanging firearms for cash) our homicide rate didn't decrease until the mid 2000s

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

and our gun laws didn't prevent 15 year old acquiring a handgun and shooting up a police station killing a police officer and a man from holding a cafe hostage with a shotgun and killing two people within a years distance of each other in metropolitan Sydney, to name two recent cases.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

[T'Chenka]

How you do anything in Canada is irrelevant. We are not Canada (which is a very good thing).

This is not necessarily true AT ALL. Canada is arguably the most comparable country on Earth to the United States, culturally. When looking at how proposed laws will affect society and culture, examining how things worked out in Canada whre the law was already passed is a prudent choice.

[dead0man]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

and this was while homicide rates were trending down everywhere else

[7,052,770]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

and this was while homicide rates were trending down everywhere else

At the very least, this is evidence against the common Republican/Libertarian/Trumpist dogma that gun control increases crime, no?

Are you going to deny that the lack of availability of guns (not just a "durr durr we declare they're illegal now" like your side strawmans my side of advocating, but an actual removal of them from society) is a significant factor here?

[Slander and/or Libel]

The stats this hack is selling are not true:

http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/1_trends/

[Fuzzy Bear]

Please don't follow Fuzzy into his distraction-intended whataboutism. He doesn't argue in good faith and assumes he knows more about other people's minds than they do themselves. This thread isn't about abortion.

It's about life and death.  Abortion is about life and death as well.

I don't think much of people who weep for "victims of gun violence" but are OK with a newborn that survived an abortion being butchered.  I don't think much of people who weep for the pain of the survivors of gun violence, but who are blind to the pain an unborn child feels during an abortion. 

That's life and death.  That's quality of life.  HUMAN life.

Personally, I don't think this issue is about "life" for most here.  It's about "guns".  My gun.  The guns of law-abiding citizens.  In the name of "life" they wish to take it, but what they really want is the guns of law-abiding citizens.  The "why" behind this is a good question, but it's not because of an inner reverence for human life; that's just a cheap talking point for a lot of folks here.

And you posted this because I hit a nerve.  At a minimum, I guessed right as to what you're thinking.  You know the inner contradiction you carry around; being ever so concerned about gun violence victims, but being OK with killing the unborn for convenience, and if you're seriously conflicted about that, it's a sign of actual decency.  That's something to celebrate.  But if I'm wrong (and it won't be the first time if I am), then you're just another Echo Chamber Narrative Manipulator coaching people to not go there, and to not think about their contradictions, lest the agenda be derailed.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Please nobody respond to Fuzzy. The fact that he’s claiming gun control advocates don’t care about life is more than enough to disqualify him from any benefit of the doubt you might be inclined to offer.

[dead0man]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

and this was while homicide rates were trending down everywhere else

At the very least, this is evidence against the common Republican/Libertarian/Trumpist dogma that gun control increases crime, no?

I think it's a tertiary reason at best, behind culture and poverty

Are you going to deny that the lack of availability of guns (not just a "durr durr we declare they're illegal now" like your side strawmans my side of advocating, but an actual removal of them from society) is a significant factor here?

there are more legal guns in Australia now than there was when Port Author happened.  Admittedly they are in fewer hands and they tend to be shot guns (used for murder more often than all semi-autos rifles (AR15s, AK47s, any other combination of two letters and two numbers you might be afraid of) combined, but still not very much) and bolt action rifles (almost never used for murder).  As one would expect, there are a lot more illegal guns than before as well.

But since Australia doesn't have a culture of violence (how can you when everything in nature is trying to murder you) and they don't have a large population of permanently poor, it's not a very good test case.


There is one though, it's the US.  There are more people carrying more guns here than ever before, is our gun homicide rate the highest it's ever been?  No?  Weird right?  You'd think, if guns were the cause of gun violence, you'd assume more of them being carried around in the wild would lead to more gun crime yet there are many tens of thousands of Americans walking around right now with a gun in their pocket, not hurting anybody.  Just like yesterday and just like tomorrow.  And these people were not doing this two decades ago.  Now, if you want to say they're mostly paranoid, I'd 100% agree with you, because the odds of a normal person getting shot in the US are astronomically low, just like every other place in the modern west.  If you don't have crazy ex spouses, if you don't visit drug dealers, if you don't spend a lot of time in high crime areas and you happen to die, it is almost certainly not from a bullet.  Those things are very very easy to avoid for what, 95% of Americans?

[Joe Republic]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

So in conclusion, your country’s gun control measures were overall successful; but certainly not overnight*.  (*Nobody would ever expect it to be, anyway.)  There is no pervasive gun culture to speak of.  As a consequence of both, your rates of gun violence are admirably minuscule.

The US has so much to learn from Australia!

[fhtagn]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

So in conclusion, your country’s gun control measures were overall successful; but certainly not overnight*.  (*Nobody would ever expect it to be, anyway.)  There is no pervasive gun culture to speak of.  As a consequence of both, your rates of gun violence are admirably minuscule.

The US has so much to learn from Australia!

I see you're ignoring very obvious differences that makes Australia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot, and will never work here.

[T'Chenka]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

So in conclusion, your country’s gun control measures were overall successful; but certainly not overnight*.  (*Nobody would ever expect it to be, anyway.)  There is no pervasive gun culture to speak of.  As a consequence of both, your rates of gun violence are admirably minuscule.

The US has so much to learn from Australia!

I see you're ignoring very obvious differences that makes Australia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot, and will never work here.

I see you're making mountains out of mole hills / very minor differences that make Austtalia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot be so drastically different from America that none of the same policies would have comparable outcomes.

[fhtagn]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

So in conclusion, your country’s gun control measures were overall successful; but certainly not overnight*.  (*Nobody would ever expect it to be, anyway.)  There is no pervasive gun culture to speak of.  As a consequence of both, your rates of gun violence are admirably minuscule.

The US has so much to learn from Australia!

I see you're ignoring very obvious differences that makes Australia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot, and will never work here.

I see you're making mountains out of mole hills / very minor differences that make Austtalia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot be so drastically different from America that none of the same policies would have comparable outcomes.

One major difference: we have land borders that make it easier for smuggling weapons. Australia does not. I take it you didn't do so well in classes that teach geography? Because that's not even remotely a minor difference.

It can be argued that a fair compromise would involve massively increasing border security and more restrictions on who enters our country, but you folks seem to think that's unreasonable.

[T'Chenka]

... But it did decrease, yes?  I'd call that a success.

Not until almost a decade after the buyback, from 1996 to the mid 2000s the homicide rate was either stagnant or even increased. That isn't indicative of the buyback lowering homicide rates.

Two shootings killing three people... in a year??!  What we Americans wouldn't give for stats like those!!  You guys are living the dream down there.

Our crime rates across the board (firearm related and non-firearm related) were and are significantly lower compared to the US. Shootings weren't common here prior to 1996 either, Port Arthur was just an anomalously successful one and the Howard government capitalised on the outrage to further usher in a nanny state.

So in conclusion, your country’s gun control measures were overall successful; but certainly not overnight*.  (*Nobody would ever expect it to be, anyway.)  There is no pervasive gun culture to speak of.  As a consequence of both, your rates of gun violence are admirably minuscule.

The US has so much to learn from Australia!

I see you're ignoring very obvious differences that makes Australia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot, and will never work here.

I see you're making mountains out of mole hills / very minor differences that make Austtalia's system work in ways that absolutely cannot be so drastically different from America that none of the same policies would have comparable outcomes.

One major difference: we have land borders that make it easier for smuggling weapons. Australia does not. I take it you didn't do so well in classes that teach geography? Because that's not even remotely a minor difference.

It can be argued that a fair compromise would involve massively increasing border security and more restrictions on who enters our country, but you folks seem to think that's unreasonable.

Gun laws regulate legal registered weapons and (some) criminals won't care what the law is.

Border smuggling of contraband - drugs or guns - is mostly a seperate issue.

You could have amazing and effective gun laws more or less eliminating gun deaths via "regular" guns but see a major problem with deaths by contraband guns. There is some legislative aspect to it, but it's obviously part of a bigger security issue.

Until I see non-Atlas Australians saying that contraband guns are causing deaths and it's a real issue, I don't think I'll allow you to steer me towards border security conversation in this thread.