Venture Surplus ad

What’s Missing from the Parkland Shooting & Gun Control Debate?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • GeorgeandSugar

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 30, 2017
    270
    46
    Como
    Gun control discussions are not serious debate, because as others have said, punishing law-abiding gun owners does nothing to solve this problem. A determined shooter intent on killing will find other means of tools to accomplish their evil intentions and their intentions are indeed evil.

    Instead of focusing on the gun, focus on these kids and get them help. Stop with these stupid PROMISE-like programs. Kids need direction, boundaries and consequences. Stop with these phony social justice pseudo-social science crap. Boys are boys and girls are girls. Their different. Stop confusing them with this crap and start teaching basic values: boundaries, responsibility, accountability, consequences, standards, hard work, perseverance, manners, respect for rules, authority, success in life is an attitude, life at times can be unfair and actions speak louder than words.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Lynx Defense
     

    TheMailMan

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Dec 3, 2015
    3,428
    96
    North of Kaufman
    Will more stringent background checks really really lower your chances to defend yourself? Would requiring some professional training before you are sold a firearm really impinge on your safety? It would certainly make my visits to the public range less dicey. People complain about the cost of training, but I suspect most gun owners have hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in their firearms, optics, ammo and accessories. I acknowledge this is government intervention in our lives, but it doesn’t seem onerous to me.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Whom do you want to set the standard for the training? This is more than a slippery slope, it's the freefall into the abyss. All they have to do is make the training so expensive and inconvenient that most people can't afford it.

    I can see it now, the training costs $10,000, takes three weeks, is located in American Samoa, and there's 10 slots open per month.

    Also, what kind of stringent background check are we talking about? Something like a Top Secret access? There's another $10-15k out of your pocket and another two years waiting.

    If you're so scared of going to the public range then I'd suggest a private range.
     

    popper

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 23, 2013
    2,999
    96
    What is missing is the FACT that school admin and politicians are idiots. Should be very intellegent but that is what is missing. Hire mall cops to patrol the schols? Easy but bad choice. Gun free zones? We see how well that works. The real solution is to get gun shot detectors added to surveillance cameras and some sort of active security monitor system/alarm system. Biggest problem is INFORMATION. Where is a shooter in the building? Else the LEO just sit outside and wait? For 100 yrs we've had fire alarm systems but the occurrence of fires in schools is extremely small. As I've stated, Admin is lazy and stupid. They would rather point the finger than really attempt to solve the problem. Spend all kinds of money for infrastructure, IT & give all the kids computers but NOTHING really for security. Face the facts - a shooter in schools will always result in casualties. Solution is to reduce them - arming teachers will help.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    My problem with people saying that a teacher needs more training to be able to carry in a school, can also end up translating into those that carry in public need more training. I'm certainly not against training, but who decides what is enough training? If I meet all the criteria to carry in public, a school is just another place where the possibility of having to use a handgun is low, it isn't a battlefield so the criteria shouldn't change.
     

    343Gatter

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2015
    36
    11
    But in Australia and U.K. violent crime remained high. They just used bombs, knives, guns, and blunt objects. After the 1996 ban, battery, assault, and sexual assault rose.

    I think you will see there is a flaw in those statistics, which is generally that people don't take in to account population growth. Firstly Australia never banned guns in '96, rather it was a crack down on unregistered firearms and the introduction of categorisation on the already implemented licencing system. There was 700,000 unregistered firearms handed in on the buyback scheme. About 200,000 of them re-entered civilian circulation as registered firearms the same year.

    In 1995 there was estimated 3 million civilian firearms, the year after the buy back there was estimated 2.5 million civilian firearms.

    So lets do some math:
    1995- Population- 18 million ~
    Firearms- 3 million
    = 16% of civilians own firearms

    1997- Population- 18 million ~
    Firearms- 2.5 million
    = 13% of civilians own firearms

    2018- Population- 24 million ~
    Firearms- 4 million
    = 16.6% of civilians own firearms

    *note I am only using stats based on legal registered civilian firearms not illegal unregistered firearms.

    So the argument that the '96 buyback had any effect on Australias crime rate, regardless whether the argument is that it lowered or raised crime is negligible. The only difference the reform created was adding the red tape deterrent to the licencing system.

    On to the crime itself:
    1995- Population- 18 million ~
    Homicide/Attempted Homicide- 622
    = 0.0034% people murdered/attempted
    Sexual Crimes- 12,809
    = 0.071% people raped/sexually assaulted
    Assault- 101,149
    = 0.56% people assaulted
    Burglaries- 384,897
    = 2% peoples houses broken into
    Armed Robberies- 6,631
    = 0.036% people robbed w/weapon

    2016- Population- 24 million~
    Homicide/Attempted Homicide- 452
    = 0.0018% people murdered/attempted
    Sexual Crimes- 23,052
    = 0.091% people raped/sexually assaulted
    Assault- 109,993
    = 0.45% people assaulted
    Burglaries - 188,756
    = 0.78% peoples houses broken into
    Armed Robberies = 4,985
    = 0.020% people robbed w/weapon

    *note the figures are national annual figures, and all figures can be found on the Australian Bureau of Statistics website. 2016 was used because it is the latest year with all data complete.

    So what you can see here is, in 21 years, violent crimes have decreased since before the '96 firearms buyback even with the 6 million increase in population.

    With the exception of sexual crimes which has shown a marginal increase, now this increase is largely put down to reporting and also things that are considered sexual crimes has also changed in 20 years. In 1995, victims of sexual crime were far less likely to report it than today, especially the younger ones. So the real numbers for that particular subject are neither here nor there for any timeframe.

    Now my overall point here is you are comparing apples and oranges. Australia still has as many civilian firearms in circulation as it did in 1995 before the '96 buyback, and violent crime has decreased as a whole over the period (of course there is some annual variances). So any argument for or against firearm legislation reform based on the principles of crime statistics is entirely negligible. Less firearms didn't mean more/less crime and more firearms didn't mean more/less crime.

    And that ties into what I have said before on other threads, Australia is an island the size of the mainland US with no international land borders which makes it easier to prevent illegal immigration and smuggling, the US on the other hand has land borders latin America, restricting firearms north of the border would only generate a black market south of the border. AUS/US are incomparable in that regard.
     
    Last edited:

    TheMailMan

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Dec 3, 2015
    3,428
    96
    North of Kaufman
    1. They can't "buy back" what they never owned in the first place.

    2. Your numbers assume one firearm per person. I'd hazard a guess that percentage of ownership is less than half your numbers.
     

    343Gatter

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2015
    36
    11
    1. They can't "buy back" what they never owned in the first place.

    2. Your numbers assume one firearm per person. I'd hazard a guess that percentage of ownership is less than half your numbers.

    1. You don't have to call it the buyback if you don't want but "allocated time period for you to bring in your unregistered firearm for registration or if you don't want it and or have no appropriate licence to hand it in and we will pay you money for it and not ask any questions" was a mouthful and Aussies are generally relaxed in their speech pattern.

    2. That's right the owner percentage would be less, however we are working on averages here. The point is the volumes and effect.
     

    343Gatter

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 29, 2015
    36
    11
    How about, "turn your firearms in, receive a miniscule sum in return and live as slaves".

    You can read my original post on the thread if you want. It quite clearly iterates that the same number of firearms are in civilian hands per capita today since before the buyback.

    To the American, rights to firearms are the same as the rights to vote due to the significance firearms have in US national identity and sovereignty, to an Aussie firearms don't mean the same thing, even when you could buy firearms in Aus from the corner store without a licence or registration only a small percentage of the population owned them because a firearm and ammunition was no different to a hammer and nails, if they weren't planning on doing any hammering they didn't buy one as there was no other reason to have a firearm.

    They just never had the same meaning as independence was won through votes not firearms. So it doesn't have the same definition in so your concept of slavery resounds very true in your own nation because to lose a right that defines your identity and sovereignty, is a step closer to slavery. It isn't same in other nations, which is my whole point, people need to stop comparing Aus and US.

    Also some other statistics:
    The Govt paid $500 million for 700 thousand firearms handed in. (Biggest waste of money in history).

    That puts the average AUD figure per firearm at $714.
    Considering the vast majority firearms handed were semi-auto rimfire rifles (.22lr, .22ht, .22mag), which at that time could be bought from as low as $50. I am guessing most people got more back than they paid for their firearm.
     
    Last edited:

    Wildcat Diva

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 26, 2016
    3,040
    96
    My problem with people saying that a teacher needs more training to be able to carry in a school, can also end up translating into those that carry in public need more training. I'm certainly not against training, but who decides what is enough training? If I meet all the criteria to carry in public, a school is just another place where the possibility of having to use a handgun is low, it isn't a battlefield so the criteria shouldn't change.
    I work in a place (private company, but a not for profit) that now can’t legally restrict LTC with signage for customers because they are government funded in part. It’s not a school, but we serve kids. They changed their weapons policy BUT said that only LTC employees who applied with the company with a form would have to be approved to carry as an employee and THEN only after that form go through a “training” provided by the company. Last I hear after I applied, that they didn’t know what to do with the “training” part or who should lead the “training.” Couple of years ago, now. Sigh.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    I work in a place (private company, but a not for profit) that now can’t legally restrict LTC with signage for customers because they are government funded in part. It’s not a school, but we serve kids. They changed their weapons policy BUT said that only LTC employees who applied with the company with a form would have to be approved to carry as an employee and THEN only after that form go through a “training” provided by the company. Last I hear after I applied, that they didn’t know what to do with the “training” part or who should lead the “training.” Couple of years ago, now. Sigh.
    That's the thing, most whom make policy are uninformed and have little clue on what training would be needed. The state has found that it's adequate to have a class and tests to obtain a license to be able to carry among citizens for protection, yet a company or school officials think added training is needed, so what has changed?
    I don't get it. I can be around the same people or children away from said site, yet put me in the business or school and now I can't be trusted? As I said, I'm not against training, I just don't feel that requirements should change because of locality.
     

    Wildcat Diva

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 26, 2016
    3,040
    96
    I think administration wants big rules about what I can and can’t do as their employee that’s using my LTC at work. But they don’t know what those rules are exactly. They damn sure don’t want anyone to open carry, although that’s legal.

    They did specify that they didn’t want LTC in company cars and on home visits, so, offsite of the building. They were not happy about losing their gunbuster sign because they are government funded lol. They had their lawyers look at what they could still control, I’m sure. And really they still choke us because they have not followed through with actual training, their policy just says on the books that that is the protocol (they don’t give a time limit of when they have to provide said training and give approval to actual allow carry by employees).
     

    JeepFiend

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 15, 2017
    290
    46
    Bryan, TX
    I think you will see there is a flaw in those statistics, which is generally that people don't take in to account population growth. Firstly Australia never banned guns in '96, rather it was a crack down on unregistered firearms and the introduction of categorisation on the already implemented licencing system. There was 700,000 unregistered firearms handed in on the buyback scheme. About 200,000 of them re-entered civilian circulation as registered firearms the same year.

    And there is the trouble with quoting statistics. You can pick a single year that represents a different viewpoint from that you're arguing against.

    https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi359

    Australian government sites also suggest that the trends have continued to increase through 2006 with many spiking in the late 90's after the buy back.

    According to the Australian Institute of Criminology:

    Murder rates did decline on a fairly steady rate that had already been declining before the ban.

    Assault rates continued to increase with a surge from the 1998-2003.

    Sexual assault overall has remained fairly steady, but there was a sharp surge in sexual assault of females from 1999-2006.

    Robbery had an increase that began in 95 and continued through 2001.

    When civilians were asked if they felt like crime had increased, the majority agreed that it had.

    So I don't believe my comments were incorrect at all. The violent crime rate was fairly unaffected, and the only effect that can be shown is that violent crime increased after the ban.

    As for comparing apples and oranges, yes I would agree trying to compare the Australians with the U.S. is a moot point, which was my initial argument. First, statistics don't suggest that the gun ban worked. Over the next few decades, violent crime may have decreased in Australia, but by and large, violent crime was already decreasing in Australia before the ban. Secondly, culture in Australia and the U.S. is drastically different, as it is in Japan as well.

    Also, when you're forced to give over your guns, it is a ban. There are a lot of weapons that you used to be able to buy in Australia that are specifically banned from the ordinary citizen now.

    From the oh so trustworty Wikipedia:

    Firearms categories[edit]
    The National Firearm Agreement defines categories of firearms, with different levels of control for each, as follows:.

    Category A
    Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles including semi-automatic, and paintball guns.
    Category B
    Centrefire rifles including bolt action, pump action and lever action (not semi-automatic) and muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901.
    Category C
    Pump-action or self-loading shotguns having a magazine capacity of 5 or fewer rounds and semi-automatic rimfire rifles up to 10 rounds. Primary producers, farm workers, firearm dealers, firearm safety officers, collectors and clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
    Category D
    All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    So, what’s missing in the gun debate is a realization by both sides that the other position is emotion-based, therefore facts and figures are irrelevant.
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    The argument for taking guns is emotionally based.
    The argument for keeping them is not.
    They are for enjoyment and better protection of my family and home.
    The only non-emotional argument for taking them is to lower the risk of harm to people that would do harm to others.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    There isn't a lower risk. A person intent on killing will find a way no matter the implement. The only thing it would lower, if by magic wand guns didn't exist, is being killed by a gun. In the largest mass killing in recent American history, there were no guns involved.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    My belief in the Second Amendment is not emotion based.

    The argument for taking guns is emotionally based.
    The argument for keeping them is not.
    They are for enjoyment and better protection of my family and home.
    The only non-emotional argument for taking them is to lower the risk of harm to people that would do harm to others.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

    So long as you accept that methods exist in Article V of Constitution for an amendment similar to the 21st Amendment be added, repealing the 2nd Amendment in whole, and that if done so and legally in force, you would comply.
     
    Top Bottom