UK and Australia have been there and done that

Gun control is not crime control

Gun control is not crime control

Years ago we did not lock our doors on either our houses or cars.

Now we are legally required to lock our cars, car theft is much higher.

On that logic we should go back to leaving cars and houseds unlocked.

Your logic is fallacious.

No one thinks any measure or multiple measures will eliminate all horrors.

Perhaps we can try a trial program in some city where everyone is required to carry a gun at all times.

3am when pubs are closing could be a fun time to observe.

Those Earp bros had it all wrong when they insisted people coming into town had to surrender their weapons.

I mean it gave the "law" a big advantage.

Gun control is not crime control

Years ago we did not lock our doors on either our houses or cars.

Now we are legally required to lock our cars, car theft is much higher.

On that logic we should go back to leaving cars and houseds unlocked.

Your logic is fallacious.

No one thinks any measure or multiple measures will eliminate all horrors.

Perhaps we can try a trial program in some city where everyone is required to carry a gun at all times.

3am when pubs are closing could be a fun time to observe.

Those Earp bros had it all wrong when they insisted people coming into town had to surrender their weapons.

I mean it gave the "law" a big advantage.

After all of the handwaving is over, do you deny the published UK and Australian experience? If you do, what is your justification?

Gun control is not crime control

Years ago we did not lock our doors on either our houses or cars.

Now we are legally required to lock our cars, car theft is much higher.

On that logic we should go back to leaving cars and houseds unlocked.

Your logic is fallacious.

No one thinks any measure or multiple measures will eliminate all horrors.

Perhaps we can try a trial program in some city where everyone is required to carry a gun at all times.

3am when pubs are closing could be a fun time to observe.

Those Earp bros had it all wrong when they insisted people coming into town had to surrender their weapons.

I mean it gave the "law" a big advantage.

After all of the handwaving is over, do you deny the published UK and Australian experience? If you do, what is your justification?

My justification is that there has been no massacres since the gun restrictions in Australia.

Just ban all guns everywhere under threat of 20 years gaol for having one and there will be no massacres.

So simple.

Since the USA has a quarter of all the worlds prisoners, why not make it 50%.

Why not let all the druggies in gaol go and throw in all those found with a gun.

The fact is no one needs a gun if no one else has one.

If you a psychopath and have no feelings for life and like to kill animals then use a spear for the challenge.

Those that like to kill animals and light fires and wet their beds as children are warnings of serial killers.

Any one who wants to kill animals as adults should be banned from owning a weapon.

Nonsense. You obviously cannot deny the published evidence which is spelled out with complete clarity: "What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems."

Edited by colion, 11 February 2013 - 11:36 PM.

Nonsense. You obviously cannot deny the published evidence which is spelled out with complete clarity:

"What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems."

Colion --

After reading the article and then Voltaire's reply -- "YOUR logic is fallacious" -- it told me he did not read the article, just replied to the headline.

Though I have replied to him several times, I have not done so nearly as I would if I took Voltaire seriously. I welcome soundly based debate, but there is little there...there.

Sweden is a country of only 9 million people that has been, until the last 20 years or so, pretty homogenous. There are whole neighborhoods -- like in the City of Malmo, for one -- where is not safe for the Police, Fire, or Ambulances to go -- let alone citizens or visitors. Roving gangs prey on most other parts of the city -- but -- who seldom get caught or prosecuted.

They NOW live with lawless ethnic conclaves with less than 6% of crimes ever solved (country wide) -- plus -- rampant rape and spousal abuse and the third highest incidents of anti-Semitism (country wide) behind only Germany and Austria.

But America is far more "interesting" -- and easy -- when one can sit back separated from -- and ignorant of -- OUR real world conditions problems they never had to confront -- and ignore their own.

Sweden...Paradise indeed -- HA!

Nonsense. You obviously cannot deny the published evidence which is spelled out with complete clarity:

"What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems."

Colion --

After reading the article and then Voltaire's reply -- "YOUR logic is fallacious" -- it told me he did not read the article, just replied to the headline.

Though I have replied to him several times, I have not done so nearly as I would if I took Voltaire seriously. I welcome soundly based debate, but there is little there...there.

Sweden is a country of only 9 million people that has been, until the last 20 years or so, pretty homogenous. There are whole neighborhoods -- like in the City of Malmo, for one -- where is not safe for the Police, Fire, or Ambulances to go -- let alone citizens or visitors. Roving gangs prey on most other parts of the city -- but -- who seldom get caught or prosecuted.

They NOW live with lawless ethnic conclaves with less than 6% of crimes ever solved (country wide) -- plus -- rampant rape and spousal abuse and the third highest incidents of anti-Semitism (country wide) behind only Germany and Austria.

But America is far more "interesting" -- and easy -- when one can sit back separated from -- and ignorant of -- OUR real world conditions problems they never had to confront -- and ignore their own.

Sweden...Paradise indeed -- HA!

JB

YES your arguments are fallacious.

There have been NO I repeat NO massacres since the gun laws.

Do you know what an anxiom is?

If NO ONE has a gun you can NOT kill masses of people as easily.

If EVERYONE has a GUN many will be killed.

Probably several times I might have shot my wife when pissed and angry if I had a gun and maybe vice versa.

How many are like me.

More than you obviously think.

Voltaire, get a life. The article is not incorrect. As noted in the article: ""Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems." Your response is that the "logic is fallacious" which is nonsensical as this is a matter of fact and not logic. You jump up and down and say that the conclusion is wrong because there were no massacres in Australia since stricter gun laws were imposed. First, it does not say that Australia did or did not experience massacres since imposing gun control laws. So, your "fallacious" argument is a red herring. In addition, as far as Australia goes the fact is that since semi-automatics and self loading shotguns were banned after the Port Arthur massacre, hand held firearms have been used for mass killings, including at Monash University. Beyond that, as has been widely reported, after gun control the crime rate in Australia armed robberies and home invasions rose significantly, as did assualts and murders with guns and there are similar statistics for UK and elsewhere. All of which is consistent with the articles conclusions. You appear to be in a "stir the pot" mode as opposed to serious discussion so enjoy your cooking.