Australian Shooter's Thread

Name Australia is in the thread title

- - - Updated - - -

Apropos of nothing

 

(((((((Sigh))))))))

So much misinformation and logical fallacy so little factual logical reasoning

Please check up on Switzerland it is not as "free" as you seem to think

 

What is the misinformation on my part? Also, clear up what you mean by logical fallacy along with logical reasoning?

How does that relate to my commentary about the Swiss?

To help remind you, this was all I said about the Swiss ......

 

Well you started your post with a straw man continued with misinformation and did not reference claims

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland

So although it is more liberal than the rest of Europe it is in no way free as America in relation to firearms regulation

 

I see, you don't wish to explain then.

 

Give me bloody chance

I did not finish my post as I had hit the post button accidentally

As for gunshot and lightning strikes so you really have more than 60,000 people struck by lightening every year?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26116133

 

Well no, I accept the correction.

I was wrong.

However most gun deaths in the USA are self inflicted. What system would you use to stop suicide?

Last, will you give me the etymology of bloody?

i have yet to discover the reason why in exasperation one uses that word.

 

Rubbish again! The gun laws had no effect on morbidity and mortality. We have ALWAYS had laws about the securement of firearms.

 

Wrong on both counts

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short

I will only post one paper since even it will be ignored

As to always having laws about securement. I lived through the nineties and my family always had guns. I remember the rush to buy gun safes because before then they were not required by law

 

You are right. We owned guns and stored them on top of the cupboard for years: 30/30's, 303's and .22's. This was in QLD of course. My family owned a few cattle and used guns more for sport in between doing a little bit of fencing on the farm, mustering, branding and castrating. 1998 I moved to NSW and found myself having to apply for a license and ensure gun was stored in a secured locker or cabinet. There was a couple of years prior to this that I sold my guns, which was prior to the new gun laws.

 

Senator David Lljeyonholm has inspired are the crack pot shooters out of the wood work.

The same senator who thinks taxes should be removed/reduced on tobacco. Who co-incidentally is the only self promoted senator who takes cash from tobacco companies.

Crawl back into your cave or move to the US.

 

You did miss one category, a large one too, gun collectors. I was, but a cousin is a gunsmith and has a collection and as they are the same family he now has custody of one of Lithgow's first .303's and our great grandfather's shotgun.

Having guns for the sake of having guns is stupid, letting others know you have guns is even stupider.

Reference

Reference

Reference

Reference

I am sure they all ended up in the hands of responsible gun owners.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/114331/hunter-home-to-70000-firearms/

 

The only difference was previously the law was proscriptive now it is descriptive.
These are the real figures.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

You will note the lines in these graphs, especially the trends, which you love so much, have been falling since well before the gun laws. In fact homicides have been falling since 1969. The gun laws show no affect on these graphs.

 

So tell us mate, how many murders and mass shootings have occurred in Hunter and especially, Nabiac?

 

Oh Nooooooos!! You is rong!! It is an article of faith with the 'merican gun nuts that guns PREVENT crime

 

When quoting academic references it is best to try for the LATEST

2007 - been eight more years of stats since then (we cannot count this last year) Plus that is raw data that does not include shifting demographics

But even with those caveats there is a clear downward trend post 1996

 

I am not quoting academic references, I am quoting the facts.

2007 - been eight more years of stats since then (we cannot count this last year) Plus that is raw data that does not include shifting demographics
But even with those caveats there is a clear downward trend post 1996[/QUOTE]

Raw stats don't change over time, what happened or didn't happen in the past does not change. Yes there is a clear downward trend post 1996 but saying that is just purely deceitful because the downward trend started in 1969!!!

<Mod Edit> there is a clear downward trend since 1969. We are not interested in firearm deaths, it is deaths that matter, regardless of cause and the gun laws have had no effect.

 

Raw stats don't change over time, what happened or didn't happen in the past does not change. Yes there is a clear downward trend post 1996 but saying that is just purely deceitful because the downward trend started in 1969!!!




<Mod Edit> there is a clear downward trend since 1969. We are not interested in firearm deaths, it is deaths that matter, regardless of cause and the gun laws have had no effect.[/QUOTE]

But your own quoted stats prove the opposite. It shows there was a significant increase in the drop of gun related deaths. It shows that in the 18 years prior to the gun laws we had on average, a mass shooting (more then 5 victims) every 1.5 years. That's 65 or more human lives that are possibly alive today. Of course this could be higher or lower but before the gun laws we had a mass shooting on average every 1.4 years, since the gun laws we have averaged a mass shooting zero times. Figure it out yourself. Gun laws don't just regulate gun ownership, they enforce safety and security, and they change our national mindset as a whole.

In the USA with their "gun culture" mentality, a child is more likely to die from an accidental gun shot, then to die from "any accidental injury" in any other western country. In the USA people keep guns for THEIR perceived safety and security, not the safety and security of OTHERS.

 

But your own quoted stats prove the opposite. It shows there was a significant increase in the drop of gun related deaths. It shows that in the 18 years prior to the gun laws we had on average, a mass shooting (more then 5 victims) every 1.5 years. That's 65 or more human lives that are possibly alive today. Of course this could be higher or lower but before the gun laws we had a mass shooting on average every 1.4 years, since the gun laws we have averaged a mass shooting zero times. Figure it out yourself. Gun laws don't just regulate gun ownership, they enforce safety and security, and they change our national mindset as a whole.

In the USA with their "gun culture" mentality, a child is more likely to die from an accidental gun shot, then to die from "any accidental injury" in any other western country. In the USA people keep guns for THEIR perceived safety and security, not the safety and security of OTHERS.[/QUOTE]


Reply to adultmale


Mine tink it 'mazing that people think I, or anyone would be swayed by blatant cherry picking of data as well as dismissal of impacting variables that are required to ensure accuracy of results Raw data is just that and is the underpinning reason for the well known saying "correlation does not necessarily equal causation"
I would also be delighted to point out the unsubstantiated claims in AM's above

 

Still waiting for your reply LRL.

"So tell us mate, how many murders and mass shootings have occurred in Hunter and especially, Nabiac?"

 

But your own quoted stats prove the opposite. It shows there was a significant increase in the drop of gun related deaths. It shows that in the 18 years prior to the gun laws we had on average, a mass shooting (more then 5 victims) every 1.5 years. That's 65 or more human lives that are possibly alive today. Of course this could be higher or lower but before the gun laws we had a mass shooting on average every 1.4 years, since the gun laws we have averaged a mass shooting zero times. Figure it out yourself. Gun laws don't just regulate gun ownership, they enforce safety and security, and they change our national mindset as a whole.
In the USA with their "gun culture" mentality, a child is more likely to die from an accidental gun shot, then to die from "any accidental injury" in any other western country. In the USA people keep guns for THEIR perceived safety and security, not the safety and security of OTHERS.[/QUOTE]

Yes, a lovely example of the way the irrational anti gun lobby cherry pick stats. They ignore total deaths and cherry pick 'gun deaths'. Then they start banging on about the USA which has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia. The fact is, and it is supported by the ABS graphs, homicides have been falling since 1969 and the gun laws did not cause so much as a blip in the line or the trend. Interesting also that gun accidents have not changed either.
LRL will not reply to my question about Hunter and Nabiac because he will have to concede that there is no correlation between the level of gun ownership and homicides, suicides, violent crime or even gun accidents.

 

Yes, a lovely example of the way the irrational anti gun lobby cherry pick stats. They ignore total deaths and cherry pick 'gun deaths'. Then they start banging on about the USA which has nothing whatsoever to do with Australia. The fact is, and it is supported by the ABS graphs, homicides have been falling since 1969 and the gun laws did not cause so much as a blip in the line or the trend. Interesting also that gun accidents have not changed either.
LRL will not reply to my question about Hunter and Nabiac because he will have to concede that there is no correlation between the level of gun ownership and homicides, suicides, violent crime or even gun accidents.[/QUOTE]

Given gun deaths make up such a small percentage of deaths/homicides in Australia any movement either which way would be very hard to extrapolate anything within a decent margin for error.

When gun related deaths are clearly decreasing as a result of the laws well you are grabbing at straws trying to win an impossible argument. But by all means carry on, but I doubt your convincing anyone except the hardcore gun owner.

With respect as well, it is the pro gun crowd that go towards statistics because logic dictates less guns = less gun related deaths.

Thus, like anyone trying to mount an argument against logic your only hope is to cherry pick statistics to make your point and hope for an anomaly or that you don't get called on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Yep, such a small percentage. It has never been a big problem. But the fact which you keep dancing around is that the gun laws did not change the already falling rate of homicides.

How many times do I have to say this, 'gun deaths' are irrelevant, it is 'deaths' that count and they have not changed.

Logic? Whose logic? yours? if less guns = less gun related deaths then more guns = more gun related deaths. Sorry, your argument and your logic just got shredded - see my message above about Hunter and Nabiac.

Har har har! your logic is false and as I have pointed out, it is the anti-gun lobby that cherry picks statistics.

 

Ya just need to look around to see that more guns in society is a bad idea. Not in the least that it makes the Police have to act much more aggressively to proactively secure any involvement with citizens. They allow rapid escalation of violence beyond anything else, because they are designed to kill and do so quickly.

So despite making fearful people feel less fearful, the main claim is that if everyone has one then the crim will not bother. Well that idea of mutual protection is irrelevant to drugged up loonies who are irrational, and ignores that the crim will always get the drop because they decide the when of when it goes down, and that it can be committed from a moving vehicle which mitigates any mutual defence capability, or it can be ranged fires which again reduces the capacity of mutual defence. The biggest problem of mutual defence is that it empowers citizens with the belief they have the training to react properly in those circumstances. The last thing Police want when there is a gun toting criminal is another 5 people shooting at who they think is the criminal, plus of course that it gives a criminal access to more firearms if everyone has one. Its why Police have so many accidental shootings in the US, because they are always running into idiots with guns everyday. Sure there are circumstances where mutual defence works, but given all the other downsides I don't think its worth it by a huge loooong shot.

I think suicides would also go up, perhaps not the number of attempts but the number of successful attempts. In the 20th century I get it, but these days we have better locks, better alarms, stronger doors, social media and more effective Police reaction. There is no doubt it would change the shape of gun crime, but I think we'd see more deaths. Not to mention organized crime would have to increase their level of weapons to keep an advantage over their victims. It's just the ingredients for an arms race, which is why assault rifles are everywhere now in the US and the US Police have to act like a paramilitary force. It is though funny when on one hand some US folk complain about the militarization of the Police and then in the same breath demand they can have assault rifles in their homes. Even the argument about protecting the right to defend themselves is silly... perhaps 100 years ago yea, but these days any military force is not going to be bothered by small militias with assault rifles. Those things are really only personal defence weapons in guerrilla warfare, and not the actual capabilities fielded with any effect. I think they get a distorted view of just how capable a modern military force is by assuming the type of ground operations done overseas in the last 15 years is representative of it - its not, they were war-like Police operations then war operations.

 

Was it safer back in the wild west, in in Ned Kelly's days, just about everyone had a gun of some sorts back then. I agree totally, look at some of the mass shootings. Like the cinema one, imagine if a few of the other theatre goers had guns and started shooting, soon no one would know who was the shooter and who was defending. We would end up with one standing when the smoke cleared, just hope it wouldn't be the shooter eh?