Xoutpost.com - Any Weapon Box for E53?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcredliner

Andrewyinn

It is absolutely imperative that we dissect those claims and statistics on our own.

Which is why I searched for as unbiased as possible data such as Australia's own crime Bureau. I was not cherry picking.

In this last response you have brought back all of your original false information to try to support your views and even brought in some new information and political figures. Without checking a couple of your numbers the rest is clearly false, outdated, biased, misleading, etc.

sure would like to see a single example of false information. You are completely wrong to assume I had a preconceived outcome when searching for raw data. I simply did searches, ignored any that were from a clearly biased source like gun lovers of America or the New York times, though when a pro gun leaning result came from an anti news liberal megaphone like CNN, I would consider that fair game (example being $8B sales from a liberal news source I consider that pre-vetted)

I've already admitted that in previous attempts I did not find a statistically sound proof of a correlation between CCW and crime rates but that in a couple hours of searching I found a couple that still need some cross checking (TX and FL) but the same study found no change in mi.

I wasn't the one to inject political figures but as it was brought up I did a couple searches to find some news articles that corroborated the antidotes that I've heard. Had I found the opposite (example: gun sales dropped in Jan 2009 I would be the first to admit it. ) Facts are facts.

People will say Sandy Hook was "the cause" which is disingenuous at best that is why I included that gun sales dropped off once the next Pres was elected.

Regardless of the views of single political figure of a level of influence it takes the folks we elected to make the laws. Besides that is purely diversion, off topic, the issue is whether or not we need more or less gun control.

yes which I also mentioned but they all lie left and right equally guilty so we the people are completely ignorant of Truth. I think the biggest problem is the terminology: stop using the radioactive term "gun control" and the progressive side will win more hearts and minds.

I have no problem with improving the laws to make sense but it seems every time the left tries to help they make it worse and I'm saying stop picking the wrong battles (CCW, registration, supressors) that will never make a dent in the overall situation of gun safety and pick some winable battles like adding certain chemicals to a list of crime multipliers so that a crime involving a gun has a stronger penalty when certain Rx or ethanol was involved. The average gun owner will be more responsible when there are stronger penalties. These type of solutions do not infringe on the 2nd

The legislation you are concerned about gives gun owners more latitude, it is the opposite of stricter gun control. You really believe gun owners need silencers for their hearing when all they have to do is put in ear plugs?

Having been one station over from somebody sighting in an M1, yes I'm very ok with making supressors reasonably available. I had both ear plugs and ear muffs on, I was sighting in rifles pre season all day long when suddenly I thought my hearing protection failed but it was just an insanely loud gun.

I don't see supressors as a risk at all. I would argue it's an opportunity for Democrats to take up a cause, use the supressors bill and modify it to get something they would be agreeable to such as an automatic year in jail for any crime carried out with suppression. Treat it like poaching law where law can confiscate your car if used in concert.

And, that it is a good idea that CCW permits are legal in any state? The bill didn't require a standardized national requirement to get a CCW that you mentioned should be the case.

I specifically said that the reciprocity bill only makes sense if some minimums are required. If about 35 states already have a reasonable reciprocity I don't see any reason for not working out nation wide reciprocity.

I'm unaware of any gun crime carried out by a permitted carrier, I would not be surprised to see one but it's clearly not a big problem or it would be on continuous scroll on the bottom of CNN.

Going with the odds is assuming what is most likely to happen will happen. That's a calculated guess and has no place in making life and death decisions. Your solutions to gun violence is to do anything other than tighten gun control laws and to extend more right to CCW holders because they are the ones that will never be a problem.

adding law to restrict items that are not causing significant problems is pointless. It's not the fastest or the strongest that will win but that is the way to bet.

Is it smarter to put effort on a cause that is not likely to save more than 100 lives in a decade that will be nearly impossible to get any where or is it smarter to get behind a cause that could save 10,000 lives a year that right and left can get behind?

The 56 million killed by governments---my guess is that is another non applicable and another bogus number as a reason you need guns.

I actually immediately followed that fact with that I specifically do not imply that removing guns from first world countries will end up with the citizens being rounded up and executed but history loves to repeat itself so the historical facts should be displayed so both sides see them. Facts are just facts, no extrapolation was drawn. Yes other pro gun folk will do that extrapolation.

You expect me to believe the representatives we elect to govern our democracy will be able to pass a law to take away our guns and in order to kill us. And, that if we have guns we can defeat them. And, that is going to happen even though you say we will always be able to own guns?

Absolutely not that's why I specifically said the opposite. That being said I think that it is awesome that Australia was able to give up their guns without all hell breaking loose. A few extra million robberies happened while the new steady state was achieved but really no significant bump in murder which I think is just amazing.

More amazing is the stunning low murder rate, go Kiwis, but the murder rate and the armed murder rate since the ban and the gun use in violent crimes is basically unchanged. The main goal of reducing the active shooter situation was achieved, credit where due.

Australia is not America, that system doesn't scale. The entire of Australia has hundreds of murders per year, they could almost literally use a buddy system to prevent crime. We have an exponential bigger problem to solve in the USA, not likely a single effort that works there would work here we must do something else

I do think you have modified your views. Unfortunately, I think you more adamantly believe you have the facts and are convinced you learned more that endorses your position which you believe is totally rational.

The facts are just facts. If I found something that was inaccurate, show me. I did my best to find raw unbiased data from sources such as Australia's crime bureau or who or CDC or FBI. I avoided left or right biased sources (other than when the the result was the opposite of the expected bias). I specially used bad examples from the right that were "four Pinocchio" grade bullshit like sex crimes exploding in Australia after the ban. Turns out that didn't happen because it didn't have to. It was terrible before the ban and was terrible for at least 12 years after the ban.

About 8-10 years post ban, crime is basically across the board improved and over the past five years on average tending down which is great.

Of interest: weapon assault is basically the same in Australia Post ban but it's less gun and more knife lending credence to the argument that a killer will find another way, that said, murder count and murder rate both lower eventually so the logical conclusion is that the second choice weapon for a killer is not as effective at killing, or: force a criminal to use a knife and less people will die.

Basically it takes Australia off the table as a comparison pro or con for gun law debate in the USA which I think is a very good thing. Because it will force is to use our own data to figure out how to help us

Answers inline. Summary: I am all ears on suggestions for gun laws that are smart and logical, have any chance of passing and will start with causes that will make an actual difference. I am not jumping on "that bandwagon" that says registration will eventually lead to the USA rounding up and killing their population. We have the "leading indicator" of UK and Australia to see how that goes but I agree with the concept that Au lucked out to be able to have nipped that in the bud to not copy cat the USA and that in our case the genie is out of the bottle and is not going back in.

With "the left" openly admitting they want to copy Au, and confiscate our guns hypocritically using armed body guards, you can see why "the right" is deservedly entirely skeptical of their motives that force the opposite and equally nut bar opposition.

I believe middle ground can be had. I think there is a golden opportunity for Democrats to make a very bold move as described earlier. If a pair of Democrats introduced a CCW reciprocity law that could pass that would be sweet Justice on the impotent GOP Senate that can't tie their own shoes. That would give them some major credibility that could help them win back a majority. Instead they keep picking the opposite of what we the people want and keep wondering why they keep losing seats