OzJacko wrote:
The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
I may grow old but I'll never grow up.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
OzJacko wrote:
The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
OzJacko wrote:
Not able to post link as I am not that good with the phone but search I just did on Wikipedia showed homicide rates per 100,000 as being 0.86 for Australia and 8.64 for USA.
And that doesn't count the other 20,000+ gun related deaths you have.
The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be working for you.
From what I saw the only comparable countries are mostly war zones.
PERPETRATOR GOVERNMENT | DATE | TARGET | # MURDERED (ESTIMATED) | DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW | SOURCE DOCUMENT |
Ottoman Turkey | 1915-1917 | Armenians | 1-1.5 million | 1886-1911 | Art. 166, Penal Code Art. 166 Penal Code |
Soviet Union* | 1929-1953 | Anti-Communists / Anti-Stalinists | 20 million | 1929 | Art. 182 Penal Code |
Nazi Germany** & Occupied Europe | 1933-1945 | Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis | 13 million | 1928-1938 | Law on Firearms & Ammunition, April 12 Weapons Law, March 18 |
China* | 1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976 | Anti- Communists Rural Populations Pro-Reform Grou | 20 million | 1935-1957 | Arts. 186-7, Penal Code Art. 9, Security Law, Oct. 22 |
Guatemala | 1960-1981 | Maya Indians | 100,000 | 1871-1964 | Decree 36, Nov 25 Decree 283, Oct 27 |
Uganda | 1971-1979 | Christians Political Rivals | 300,000 | 1955-1970 | Firearms Ordinance Firearms Act |
Cambodia | 1975-1979 | Educated Persons | 1 million | 1956 | Arts. 322-8, Penal Code |
OzJacko wrote:
Not able to post link as I am not that good with the phone but search I just did on Wikipedia showed homicide rates per 100,000 as being 0.86 for Australia and 8.64 for USA.
And that doesn't count the other 20,000+ gun related deaths you have.
The 2nd amendment doesn't seem to be working for you.
From what I saw the only comparable countries are mostly war zones.
hikerboy wrote:
violence begets violence. Americans own more guns than we have people. Even more guns certainly isn't the answer.
Drybones wrote:
I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?OzJacko wrote:
The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
g00gle wrote:
Because they don't make an AK-48.OzJacko wrote:
but why an ak47
SarcasmTheElf wrote:
One thing we can all agree on is that none of us are going to change our minds on the subject.
rafe wrote:
Hey, we're also #1 in incarceration rates... and we have privatized jails. Is this a great country or what?
hikerboy wrote:
violence begets violence. Americans own more guns than we have people. Even more guns certainly isn't the answer.
hikerboy wrote:
actually violent crime dropped significantly as more crackheads died off, saw a huge spike in the 80s and has tailed off since thenSarcasmTheElf wrote:
One thing we can all agree on is that none of us are going to change our minds on the subject.
I think its important to save as many lives as possible, and don't think any level is "acceptable".
OzJacko wrote:
You also have a death penalty in many of your states.How's that one working out?rafe wrote:
Hey, we're also #1 in incarceration rates... and we have privatized jails. Is this a great country or what?
SarcasmTheElf wrote:
I'm aware, you did catch that I said post hoc ergo propter hoc, correct?hikerboy wrote:
actually violent crime dropped significantly as more crackheads died off, saw a huge spike in the 80s and has tailed off since thenSarcasmTheElf wrote:
One thing we can all agree on is that none of us are going to change our minds on the subject.
I think its important to save as many lives as possible, and don't think any level is "acceptable".
OzJacko wrote:
We don't have accents.You have accents. New England accents, mid west accents, Louisiana accents, Texan accents etc etc.TrafficJam wrote:
and their accents <sigh>.socks wrote:
I like Aussies cause they gave us, Vegemite, the boomerang, they babysit many of the planets nastiest snakes, and they gave us "Mick Dundee...from Australia" Olivia too. And cause they like to drink, fight and cuss.
We all talk the same. No accent.
CoachLou wrote:
really now, Jacko sounds like no Aussie I've ever seen on TV!OzJacko wrote:
We don't have accents.You have accents. New England accents, mid west accents, Louisiana accents, Texan accents etc etc.We all talk the same. No accent.TrafficJam wrote:
and their accents <sigh>.socks wrote:
I like Aussies cause they gave us, Vegemite, the boomerang, they babysit many of the planets nastiest snakes, and they gave us "Mick Dundee...from Australia" Olivia too. And cause they like to drink, fight and cuss.
socks wrote:
So often over looked is the fact that most gun owners are not criminals and therefore not the problem. Civilians are the last line of defense against intruders foreign and domestic, geez, am I the only one that saw "Red Dawn" (not the new one, the original one with swayze).
hikerboy wrote:
the 2nd amendment had little to do with national security and all to do in ensuring our government wasnt the only party who bore arms.socks wrote:
So often over looked is the fact that most gun owners are not criminals and therefore not the problem. Civilians are the last line of defense against intruders foreign and domestic, geez, am I the only one that saw "Red Dawn" (not the new one, the original one with swayze).
SarcasmTheElf wrote:
One thing we can all agree on is that none of us are going to change our minds on the subject.
OzJacko wrote:
Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.Drybones wrote:
I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?OzJacko wrote:
The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?
Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
Drybones wrote:
Was Germany part of Europe in 1940? They killed 13 million Jews....never mind, they used gas. How much do you think the heart of man has changed in those few years.OzJacko wrote:
Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?Drybones wrote:
I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?OzJacko wrote:
The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
rafe wrote:
So you're invoking the Holocaust in defense of the NRA goal of universal gun ownership? That's chutzpah.Drybones wrote:
Was Germany part of Europe in 1940? They killed 13 million Jews....never mind, they used gas. How much do you think the heart of man has changed in those few years.OzJacko wrote:
Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.Drybones wrote:
I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?OzJacko wrote:
The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
Drybones wrote:
Was Germany part of Europe in 1940? They killed 13 million Jews....never mind, they used gas. How much do you think the heart of man has changed in those few years.OzJacko wrote:
Only a third were homicides so less than that number.The rest were mostly suicides and accidents so presumably having the gun was actually the issue.Re your other stats are you saying that without your privately owned guns your government may engage in mass killings of a segment of your population?Drybones wrote:
I wonder how many of those 30,000 would still be alive if they would have had a gun?OzJacko wrote:
The families of over 30,000 of your citizens each year may disagree.
Ourselves and Western Europe, being the countries most similar in demographics and political systems don't have that problem.
JimBlue wrote:
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with gun violence.
It was put in place to make sure the right of citizens to defend themselves. The police are not required to defend us.
Also its there due to them living in Europe and England, where private individuals couldn't defend themselves. They weren't allowed to keep arms.
I've never owned a gun. I've never shot anyone at anytime.
Australia: 28 million people
United States: 324 million
Also understand that many gangs shoot at each other over drug sales turf. And some people count up to age 25 as kids. Why ? I don't know. Well, I do know, they are anti-guns.
hikerboy wrote:
you know its funny no where in this thread has anyone suggested taking peoples guns away from them what is being suggested is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country which is totally unacceptable
JimBlue wrote:
I have no problem with weapons of all types, not just guns, beng kept out of the hands of crazies.hikerboy wrote:
you know its funny no where in this thread has anyone suggested taking peoples guns away from them what is being suggested is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country which is totally unacceptable
Funding for keeping people who are dangerous to themselves and others was cut years ago.
And the stupid claim that if one person in a family needs mental health help, then the entire family should be kept from the rest of humanity. Such claims make no sense, but it is how some fools, and some news houds, act and think.
The problem with new gun laws is they keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can get guns because they ignore the laws.
hikerboy wrote:
again, except for instant background checks and reversing the gun show exemption, no new laws are necessary. just better enforcement of the existing laws.its not law abiding citizens that are at issue here, its how to keep guns away from the non-law abiding citizens,as well as the mentally unstable.JimBlue wrote:
I have no problem with weapons of all types, not just guns, beng kept out of the hands of crazies.hikerboy wrote:
you know its funny no where in this thread has anyone suggested taking peoples guns away from them what is being suggested is trying to find ways to reduce the amount of gun violence in this country which is totally unacceptable
Funding for keeping people who are dangerous to themselves and others was cut years ago.
And the stupid claim that if one person in a family needs mental health help, then the entire family should be kept from the rest of humanity. Such claims make no sense, but it is how some fools, and some news houds, act and think.
The problem with new gun laws is they keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals can get guns because they ignore the laws.
OzJacko wrote:
Australia 28 million
USA 324 million
What difference does that make?
I quoted per 100,000 stats.
The bulk of our gun related deaths are suicides. A disproportionate amount amongst our farmers who are most likely to own a gun.
Where you need to try and curb guns is the amount of handguns and heavy weaponry.
Hunting guns you need to educate people better in safety to cut down on accidents.
Perhaps put a 1000% tax on ammo to encourage more prudent trigger pulls and better aim (refer to earlier posts about being conservative with ammo).