Printable View
Just because a law won't stop all crime doesn't mean it shouldn't be introduced.
The background checks they were pushing for in USA was a perfect example, they wanted to make it harder for criminals to get firearms without effecting the law abiders, sure it wouldn't stop all but it may stop some but still people fought it, crazy.
America is paying for its lax gun laws and culture.
Yup, it would take a monumental shift in American culture to move away from the answer of violence. Personally I don't think they ever can, it's too deep in their psyche. Their obsession with the word 'freedom' borders on the insane :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
What we have here in NZ isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.
The law got shot down because they tried to tack the assault weapons ban and a magazine ban onto it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter
Also the background check system in the states is fucked and easily circumvented = achieve fuck all.
The statistics come from a study done by the Department of Justice (in charge of the FBI)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter
Let me paraphrase that for you....just because a law doesn't do what it is supposed to, doesn't mean we shouldn't make it anyway....:yaeh am not durnk:Quote:
Originally Posted by Savage1
Where is the evidence that these sort of laws stop any crime? Everybody talks hypothetically about this issue. It sounds like a great idea to make it harder to get firearms - perfectly logical....but not backed up by data when it happens... have a look at the UK or Australia... the statistics not the continuation of the mob opinion..
Lol sounds like BidenQuote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bavarian_Hunter
JUST ONE LIFE
Ban swimming pools, they kill way more people than guns. It's worth it if it saves JUST ONE LIFE
There are background checks already for all transfers through FFLs, making them mandatory for private transfers
-is unenforceable
-allows FFLs to price-rape the only people who would bother complying, lawful gun owners
Murders in the US are at something like 1/2 the rate of the 1990s and not that much higher than NZ, largely the difference is violence between gangs, mass shootings are statistically insignificant
USA has 5x the murder rate per capita of NZ and 18x the firearms homicide rate per capita over NZ. Source, Wikipedia.
USA is hardly an example to follow.
True. I mis-remembered the rates.
Agree that we don't need the inequality, poverty, corruption, religious fundamentalism, etc, of the US ;)
Definitely don't need their foreign policy
The irony of that is that I got a distinction in the statistics and mathematical probability topic I did at uni. I never said the report was wrong, I simply stated that I am hesitant in believing statistics that are thrown at me because I have seen how they can be easily manipulated. I also don't recall saying that gun ownership or the increase of it will necessarily increase gun crime - that would be a bold statement. When you don't put basic control measures of who can own a semi automatic military weapon though I do believe you are playing with fire. The issue with gun crime is that a higher proportion of people involved in gun crime are fatally wounded in comparison to other weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
And yes gun crime may have decreased over the past few years but so has every other type of violent crime leading to murder. It just means that you have less of a chance to die in general; you still have a proportionately similar chance to die from a gun now than you did in 1993.
There are a lot of questions you can ask about statistics and for me the most blatant one is why did they choose 1993 as the benchmark to compare today’s violence?
I haven't looked it up but I'd be fairly confident you will find that it was the highest peak in US gun crime and anything deviating down from that will give you a much higher perceived percentage drop. It does look impressive I agree, I myself have seen it first hand at uni when we were "fortunate enough" to have a lecture from one of Australia's top "Climate Change Experts". He showed us this damning graph with a huge percentage decrease in rainfall for Australia from 1970 to 2011 which conclusively proved the effects were so disastrous already that more money had to be invested into climate change research and this and that. He then went on quoting that high percentage increase to talk about global warming over the past 100 years. Why 1970s? And why to 2011 when talking about a century of change, why not start your graph from a century ago?
1970s in Australia is the wettest recorded decade over the past 110 years included in his argument. He then linked this to the most recent decade which was the driest, thus giving a exasperated percentage which in no way represented the real difference over the past century – which was around a quarter of the percentage he gave. It may pay to note that I believe in global warming and advocate strongly that we address it, just with genuine fact not twisted stats.
My point is that despite the fact that you believe I am a follower of mainstream media (which I take offense to), I, apparently unlike yourself do not readily accept things that are put in front of me just because they suit my ideals. I also feel compelled to question why because through my naivety of the past have learnt it is dangerous not to do so. It may surprise some that people from politicians to climate change experts and even the humble FBI have their own agendas and will make sure that their best interests are kept in check.
Personally if I were Robert Mueller I too would feel compelled to show a report or some statistics to justify my $8.1 billion annual budget (from 2012).
Lastly for you to attempt to correct my informal syntax on a forum like this is a clear indication that you are trying very hard to assert your intellectual dominance over me; I won’t fight you for it, I just wanted to give my opinion.
Cheers,
BH
Touche' Gimp, I've used that line before (although my weapon was bunk beds not swimming pools haha), very well playedQuote:
Originally Posted by gimp
The facts of the matter are that unless we can stop the criminally minded from wanting to harm and kill and also stop those with serious mental disorders from wanting to be like action movie villians we are still going to see gun deaths, knife deaths, cooking pot deaths etc etc.
Adding new laws to the equation will not stop the killings. Its easy to find a clean buyer!
I am dismayed at the democrats for pushing the semi auto ban and magazine ban in with the background check bill as on its own it may have been passed by the senate. The powers at be knew that the AWB and Mag ban bill would be lost but they pushed the background check bill thru with it anyway. It was just bollocks politics so a president could get up on stage and frown alot!
Tackle the crime and the mental health issue and we are on the right path to safer communities. So many of the shooters involved in mass shootings in the US are on psychiatric medicines and a disproportional number of gun murders are from gang and criminal groups.
The gang members currently pay clean associates to purchase for them. Introduce new laws and they will still continue to do the same.
Cheers.
BH... congratulations on your distinction on the statistics topic you studied... I completely understand why you would want to discount facts if they don't suit your opinions.
Yes we all know about statistics, but I have a question... would you consider opinion without fact more or less dangerous?
Perhaps you could explain to me also how Mr Mueller would substantially improve his budget with such a downturn in requirement. Are you into conspiracy theories as well.. They are great places for opinion in the absence of facts. Heck that is what the whole anti gun debate is based on.
No offense to anyone but this shit comes up every 5 minutes from where ever in the world it happens- not here.
Population plays a big place percentage wise but is this topic something we need to draw attention to NZ wise given this forums search engine 'appeal' ?
We rank VERY highly- the anti vote prob isn't the look we're wanting and the position of those making their point chooses what we portray as a whole.
It's not a vote, but surly this shit isn't in our favor as gun owners as a whole ?
If you want to give those who want to moan about how NZ is just like LAs gang banger suburbs more ammo then by all means go ahead, but end if the day the more attention drawn to this minority US rubbish that's being given in the media etc the worse OUR chances are of a normal firearms existence.