Join TexasGunTalk

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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by GeorgeandSugar, Mar 2, 2018.

  1. 343Gatter

    343Gatter New Member

    36
    11
    8
    Jan 29, 2015
    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: Mar 18, 2018
  2. Wildcat Diva

    Wildcat Diva Well-Known

    1,593
    788
    113
    Aug 26, 2016
    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.
     
  3. easy rider

    easy rider Allotropic Transformer TGT Supporter

    13,313
    4,349
    113
    Jun 10, 2015
    Odessa, Tx
    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.
     
  4. Wildcat Diva

    Wildcat Diva Well-Known

    1,593
    788
    113
    Aug 26, 2016
    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).
     
  5. JeepFiend

    JeepFiend Member

    90
    43
    18
    Jan 15, 2017
    Bryan, TX
    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.
     
  6. toddnjoyce

    toddnjoyce Active Member

    831
    719
    93
    Sep 27, 2017
    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.
     
  7. TheMailMan

    TheMailMan Active Member

    997
    662
    93
    Dec 3, 2015
    North of Kaufman
    My belief in the Second Amendment is not emotion based.
     
  8. jrbfishn

    jrbfishn TGT Addict

    18,796
    849
    113
    Aug 9, 2013
    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
     
  9. easy rider

    easy rider Allotropic Transformer TGT Supporter

    13,313
    4,349
    113
    Jun 10, 2015
    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.
     
  10. toddnjoyce

    toddnjoyce Active Member

    831
    719
    93
    Sep 27, 2017
    Boerne
    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.
     


Share This Page