Topic: Gun laws: Faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings
Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: ­I'm proud of you for admitting your stance has no logical basis.

­I can only refer you to my previous comment.

When we wake up tomorrow, we'll still have the same right to keep and bear arms.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: Import about 5 million nogs, then get back to us.


This.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said: ­I'm proud of you for admitting your stance has no logical basis.

­I can only refer you to my previous comment.

When we wake up tomorrow, we'll still have the same right to keep and bear arms.

­
Unless its reinterpreted by a small group of politically motivated judges like it has been in the past.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
­

This is just one study out of many.  

Others have shown that the gun ban had essentially no effect on the murder rates or suicides where hanging became the preferred option after guns became unavailable.   

There have been no mass shootings since '96, indeed. But in the nearby New Zealand where various guns have always been available and no ban was implemented, there has also been no mass shootings since the last one sometime in the 90s.  

Wiki has an extensive article on gun politics in Australia and a good summary of the research on the effect of gun laws.  It's worth a read.


Its a 10 year study of real world data. Its statistics gold. Studies don't get much better.

New Zealand has firearm restrictions and licensing requirements.
­
You don't happen to have a link to those other studies you claim exist do you?

­
The point is that New Zealand never banned semi-auto guns and they are available to the general population, unlike in Australia after '96.  Both populations are very similar and easily yield themselves to valid comparisons. 

As I stated above, the links to the research papers that you so seek with an open mind are in the Wiki article on 'gun politics in Australia' in the chapter on effects of the laws.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­

This is just one study out of many.  

Others have shown that the gun ban had essentially no effect on the murder rates or suicides where hanging became the preferred option after guns became unavailable.   

There have been no mass shootings since '96, indeed. But in the nearby New Zealand where various guns have always been available and no ban was implemented, there has also been no mass shootings since the last one sometime in the 90s.  

Wiki has an extensive article on gun politics in Australia and a good summary of the research on the effect of gun laws.  It's worth a read.


Its a 10 year study of real world data. Its statistics gold. Studies don't get much better.

New Zealand has firearm restrictions and licensing requirements.
­
You don't happen to have a link to those other studies you claim exist do you?

­
The point is that New Zealand never banned semi-auto guns and they are available to the general population, unlike in Australia after '96.  Both populations are very similar and easily yield themselves to valid comparisons. 

As I stated above, the links to the research papers that you so seek with an open mind are in the Wiki article on 'gun politics in Australia' in the chapter on effects of the laws.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws

­
Semi-autos are regulated in New Zealand.

Care to post links to the specific phantom studies you're referring to?


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
 . said:

Its a 10 year study of real world data. Its statistics gold. Studies don't get much better.

New Zealand has firearm restrictions and licensing requirements.
­
You don't happen to have a link to those other studies you claim exist do you?

­

New Zealand has 4.5 million residents:lol:

­
They also have firearm restrictions and licensing requirements.

I see you're having trouble coming up with links to your supposed studies.

­
I'm the guy who referred to the wiki article and studies.  Didn't write the above.   The fact that NZ has a smaller population than Australia is irrelevant to the study of the *rates* of gun crime, ie number of deaths/shootings/etc per, say, 100,000 population or % values.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­

New Zealand has 4.5 million residents:lol:

­
They also have firearm restrictions and licensing requirements.

I see you're having trouble coming up with links to your supposed studies.

­
I'm the guy who referred to the wiki article and studies.  Didn't write the above.   The fact that NZ has a smaller population than Australia is irrelevant to the study of the *rates* of gun crime, ie number of deaths/shootings/etc per, say, 100,000 population or % values.

­

Why don't you losers face the facts and realize that the problem in America is africans and Mexicans.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
­
Semi-autos are regulated in New Zealand.

Care to post links to the specific phantom studies you're referring to?

­
Have you read the chapter on gun law effects that I referred to?   What do you think?  I'm assuming I'm talking to a rational person willing to read opposing views, not a fanatic.  

Links to original papers abound in there, perhaps show that you are capable of reading a few lines of text before engaging in unwarranted criticism.


Posted by .
Unregistered


Damn  you freedom!!!!!!  You're a scary thing to pant shitters and other assorted nanny staters.  I don't particularly like people in the first place so thinning the herd is a desirable thing. Those who refuse to arm and protect themselves can all be killed as far as I'm concerned and the quicker, the better. We need to get back to a nation of liberty loving individualists such as gun owners who take care of their own problems.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
­
Semi-autos are regulated in New Zealand.

Care to post links to the specific phantom studies you're referring to?

­
Have you read the chapter on gun law effects that I referred to?   What do you think?  I'm assuming I'm talking to a rational person willing to read opposing views, not a fanatic.  

Links to original papers abound in there, perhaps show that you are capable of reading a few lines of text before engaging in unwarranted criticism.

I'm happy to read any relevant study you post a direct link to. So far, you're up to zero links to relevant studies.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
. said:
­
They also have firearm restrictions and licensing requirements.

I see you're having trouble coming up with links to your supposed studies.

­
I'm the guy who referred to the wiki article and studies.  Didn't write the above.   The fact that NZ has a smaller population than Australia is irrelevant to the study of the *rates* of gun crime, ie number of deaths/shootings/etc per, say, 100,000 population or % values.

­

Why don't you losers face the facts and realize that the problem in America is africans and Mexicans.

­
How about if you make an effort to use your brain for a while instead of going full auto on nogs and Mexicans?  They may or not be the main problem, but I'm talking about smart people in Australia who have looked at gun violence data and surprisingly came to a variety of very different conclusions.  The Australian study is the subject of this thread.  

Focus, Moe.  Focus!


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said: ­Unless its reinterpreted by a small group of politically motivated judges like it has been in the past.

­The SCOTUS avoided dealing with SA issues by intention, for well over a century. When they felt forced to do it, in 2008 with DC v Heller and in 2010 with McDonald v Chicago, they firmly established that the SA grants the right to keep and bear arms. It's now SETTLED LAW. If there's a SCOTUS that intends to revisit the issue, it will take at least 2 generations, or about 50 years.

The SCOTUS doesn't just cross the decisions of previous SCOTUSes just to score political points. Once ruled at that level, it becomes SETTLED LAW for a long, long time. In some cases, the law becomes settled for centuries.

But you can spend the rest of your life believing that the SA will suddenly be declared invalid by the land's highest court, if that's what it takes to help you get to sleep at night. Myself, I sleep soundly with my guns, and that will always be the case since in 2 generations I'll probably be dead.

:wave:


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said: ­Unless its reinterpreted by a small group of politically motivated judges like it has been in the past.

­The SCOTUS avoided dealing with SA issues by intention, for well over a century. When they felt forced to do it, in 2008 with DC v Heller and in 2010 with McDonald v Chicago, they firmly established that the SA grants the right to keep and bear arms. It's now SETTLED LAW. If there's a SCOTUS that intends to revisit the issue, it will take at least 2 generations, or about 50 years.

The SCOTUS doesn't just cross the decisions of previous SCOTUSes just to score political points. Once ruled at that level, it becomes SETTLED LAW for a long, long time. In some cases, the law becomes settled for centuries.

But you can spend the rest of your life believing that the SA will suddenly be declared invalid by the land's highest court, if that's what it takes to help you get to sleep at night. Myself, I sleep soundly with my guns, and that will always be the case since in 2 generations I'll probably be dead.

:wave:

­
You cannot deny the fact that the possibility exists for a small group of politically motivated judges to once again change the meaning of the second amendment.


Posted by .
Unregistered


 . said:
I'm happy to read any relevant study you post a direct link to. So far, you're up to zero links to relevant studies.

­
So you have not even bothered to click on the link to get access to the primary papers?   Why is that?  

If you can't read a few paragraphs of summaries, should I assume that you can read primary papers heavy on data and statistical analysis?  

I think the paper by Weatherbaum is quite revealing and broader in scope than the study quoted here.  Also the one by McPhedran and Baker.  The two also did the study on NZ vs. Australia.  I think it's quite good.  Do you disagree? 

Here it is again, a summary of the papers with links to the original documents, go at it and tell me what you think.  https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
 . said:
I'm happy to read any relevant study you post a direct link to. So far, you're up to zero links to relevant studies.

­
So you have not even bothered to click on the link to get access to the primary papers?   Why is that?  

If you can't read a few paragraphs of summaries, should I assume that you can read primary papers heavy on data and statistical analysis?  

I think the paper by Weatherbaum is quite revealing and broader in scope than the study quoted here.  Also the one by McPhedran and Baker.  The two also did the study on NZ vs. Australia.  I think it's quite good.  Do you disagree? 

Here it is again, a summary of the papers with links to the original documents, go at it and tell me what you think.  https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws

­Just post a direct link to any relevant study you want me to read.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
­Just post a direct link to any relevant study you want me to read.

­
I don't have a horse in this race and don't care what you read or not, or whether you read anything for that matter.  What I've stated above is more than enough for you to find a number of other studies, incidentally some of them in line with the original post, others arriving at completely different conclusions.  On principle, I won't be a servant to a prancing queen demanding that I deliver everything already pre-digested and on the platter, as it usually indicates a closed mind not worth the effort in the first place.

Read them or not, it makes no difference to me personally or in the big scheme of things.  But I found them quite revealing, so if you're curious enough and seek more than the orthodox, oversimplified view that guns=violence/ no-guns=no-violence, eventually you'll find a way to read the few paragraphs in the wiki chapter, and then click the relevant links to the primary lit.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
. said:
­Just post a direct link to any relevant study you want me to read.

­
I don't have a horse in this race and don't care what you read or not, or whether you read anything for that matter.  What I've stated above is more than enough for you to find a number of other studies, incidentally some of them in line with the original post, others arriving at completely different conclusions.  On principle, I won't be a servant to a prancing queen demanding that I deliver everything already pre-digested and on the platter, as it usually indicates a closed mind not worth the effort in the first place.

Read them or not, it makes no difference to me personally or in the big scheme of things.  But I found them quite revealing, so if you're curious enough and seek more than the orthodox, oversimplified view that guns=violence/ no-guns=no-violence, eventually you'll find a way to read the few paragraphs in the wiki chapter, and then click the relevant links to the primary lit.

­
I'm forced to assume the supposed "many studies" that disagree with the conclusion of the OP simply don't exist. Feel free to post a direct link to a relevant study whenever you're ready to have a conversation.


Posted by .
Unregistered


. said:
­
The constitution is not a basis for logic. It is a legal document.

The second amendment in its current state is the result of the opinion, which completely ignores half of the original text, is based on the opinion of 5 conservative judges. These 5 judges were led by a very controversial politically motivated conservative judge. 4 other judges disagreed with the decision made by this controversial bunch. None of these judges were voted into office by the public, but rather appointed by power grabbing politicians. None of these judges are accountable to a constituency for their decisions. The current state of US gun law is the result of surprisingly little logic.

­

Its not just the constitution, people have an inherent right to defend themselves just like they have an inherent right to freedom in general even though it'd be safer to lock everybody up in a padded cell.



Quick Reply
Moniker:
 

Registration Required

Thank you for your vote!

But in order to make it count, you must be a registered user.

Log In | Register | Close