Shooting with multiple casualties in Vegas at Aldeen's concert

We also need to be sure to protect guys from untrue charges of abuse. Anything that strips them of their gun rights without testing the charges against them and giving them a chance to mount a defense is likely to be unconstitutional.

There was nothing in his post about impotence, or about an attempt to rationalize impotence.

The fact that someone doesn't go off trying to violate people's rights for no reason does not mean they lack empathy.

I doubt you can point to any facts that he had wrong. His post showed that he has a very sound grasp of the facts.

Can you rebut any of his points? I doubt that any of his points can be rebutted, because all of his points are factually correct.

Some people have a skill at making long and thoughtful posts. Others have a skill at making short laconic posts.

If you want a short laconic version, here:

Your proposal will not do anything to save any lives whatsoever. It will however cause considerable harm and loss of freedom. Therefore we will never do any such thing in America.

Three short sentences shouldn't take up too much time.



There was no rationalization of fears. What he did was explain why your proposal would do no good, why your proposal would inflict considerable harm, and why we will never adopt such a policy in America.



Of course we could. We could do all sorts of dumb things. We could drop nuclear bombs on our own cities.

But why would we want to inflict harm on ourselves? And worse, inflict harm on ourselves for no good reason?

Are the murder victims in Australia and the UK somehow better off because they were killed with knives instead of guns?

As I recall, the only real effect of Australia's gun ban besides the catastrophic loss of freedom was a massive five year long crime spree where robbery rates doubled, both armed and unarmed robbery.

Of course, being robbed over and over again is not so significant compared to the loss of one's freedom.

You recall fake news, contracted already years ago by the the statistical data.

Australia faked their official crime statistics to make it appear their gun ban caused a huge crime spree?

Why would they do that?

Who proved that the official Australian statistics were wrong?

I have an even shorter laconic version of Finn's post: blah blah blah. The guy makes both the questions and the answers. "You might answer this, to which I would retort that..." etc. He doesn't really need me -- he already "knows" everything I will say and he already found it false before I say it.

I tried to engage Finn seriously once or twice, e.g. on climate change. He ran away as soon as I started ripping through his long, misinformed diatribes. He's planning on doing exactly the same thing here: pretend to be interested in a conversation, and then run away from it as soon as I chip in.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

As Walt explained, there was a period when roberies were on the rise after Aussies' gun regulations of 1996 but that was only a period. All crime rates are now markedly below what they were pre-regulation.

If you don't have the time or desire to read my posts then, by all means, don't. I certainly understand and I promise that I won't be offended.

However, if you're not going to bother to read them, then please don't bother to comment on them either. I really don't need you to point out their length as my vision is just fine, and while I can't say I am a fan of snide insults, I'm happy to respond to them if they are connected to what I've written rather than belabored old assumptions.

As for what else you've written, while the Australian gun death rates have, overall, declined since the ban when into effect, that rate had been declining for a decade or more before that and so no one (with sense) is comfortable crediting the ban with the decline. There are information and disinformation circulating around social media about the number of gun deaths, the rates of violent crimes, gun ownership levels and the ease with which guns can be obtained in cities like Melbourne, but none of it provides reasonable proof of the success or failure of the law. Despite the claim by President Obama that there have been no "mass shootings" in Oz since the law went into effect, there have actually been at least two during that period. Would there have been more without the law? No one can say either way with any authority. People will look at the statistics over the period between 1996 and today and isolate those that they believe supports their position on gun control.

In addition, Australia was dealing with a situation where the number of guns in private hands was roughly 10% of the number here in the US. That in America, the number is over 300 million, certainly would be an influencing factor in terms of whether or not a confiscation program similar to the one in Australia would be practical and effective.

In any case, my argument has not been that such a plan would be impossible to implement in the US (although I suspect it would prove to essentially be so. Would Law Enforcement be capable of tracking down and confiscating hundreds of millions of firearms? I doubt it)

My main point of contention concerns whether or not such a broad and radical effort would be effective at all; if it was, would the measure of its success justify the cost, and would it be more effective than narrower efforts that focus on human factors rather than simply the existence of guns.

Finally, this discussion could be considered moot since gun control advocates in the US, in the main, are not seeking to take millions of guns out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens. Well, at least that's what they keep assuring us.

Rather than spending your precious time castigating 2nd Amendment supporters for their lack of empathy, their ignorance, their impotence, and the length of their comments, perhaps you should devote it to urging American gun control advocates to go for the full monty: a repeal or rewrite of the 2nd Amendment or at least the confiscation of some, 100 million privately owned guns (the roughly proportionate equivalent of the number the Aussie government "bought back.") You would certainly have a better chance of influencing them than you do us, but then that wouldn't be as much fun for you, would it?

If you take my advice and shift your focus to a goal with a greater possibility of attainment, you might want to curb your reflexive reliance on argumentum ad hominem and calling for the massacre of a large number of people so as to pave the way for the acceptance of gun control measures with real teeth (Maybe just return to your passionate Climate Change position and simply call for the imprisonment of those who don't agree with your stance.) Just a suggestion, but no doubt you haven't had the time to read through this overlong post, and so won't be able to take advantage of it.

Certainly Finny employs a lot of time and space to repeat his ideological polemic, and not to actually contribute verifiable accounts of the events upon which he bloviates.

Last I checked, murder was against the law and had severe penalties. Yet, somehow, murder happens around the globe. Even in Europe! Mass murder is also against the law. Attempting to murder is against the law. Shooting people in general is against the law. Using a gun during any crime is illegal. We have extensive gun laws and penalties already set up, adding new ones will not stop crazy, evel people from performing crazy, evil acts.

Using outliers to set policy is no way to run a country folks. Restricting the rights of the innocent will never stop crime, it will only create more criminals.

True and it is along these lines that the NRA has resisted legislature that it would otherwise support. The acceptable language would involve withholding prohibition until such time as the accused is afforded due process. A judge granting a restraining order or a jury rendering a guilty verdict on criminal charges after evidence is duly presented would satisfy me and, I believe, the NRA.

Of course, gun control advocates will argue that the prohibition should be triggered by a complaint being filed and claim that to do otherwise increases the risk to the potential victims. This probably is true although to what extent it might be is uncertain. Since potential murders are not limited to using guns, a more secure way to safeguard the wife or girlfriend and any children who might be involved would be to withhold bail from the man against whom charges have been filed and an indictment secured. It is fairly easy to secure an indictment and so the potential victims would not be in increased peril while the wheels of justice slowly turned. Judges would have to be convinced the accused presented a sufficient threat to warrant the loss of his freedom until, at the earliest, the charges are dismissed or the end of his trial but denying bail for someone charged with a violent crime and who presents the risk of committing additional crimes has passed Constitutional muster for a great many years.

Providing that the accused has been afforded the opportunity to contest the imposition of a restraining order, I'm OK allowing the same judge to determine if the person is also enough of a risk to restrict his access to guns. In general, judges are inclined towards imposing restraining orders even if the evidence isn't rock solid, particularly if there are no children whom the accused would have a legitimate personal interest in being able to see - e.g. fatherhood. Keeping someone from coming within 500 yards of someone else is a restraint of individual freedom, but there is hardly a long-term, serious debate going on in this country about a person's right to come within 500 yards of their former wife or Katy Perry. The right to own a gun (as well as the right to be with one's children) is something seriously different than the right to be in relatively close proximity to a pop-singer and I would expect a judge considering restricting it in connection with a restraining order to have less of a "how can it really hurt?" attitude about it than he or she might otherwise have. Of course, a great many gun control advocates don't have the same level of regard for the 2nd Amendment then you or I might have and that's fine as long as their lack of esteem for the right of citizens to bear arms is not treated legally as anything more than another opinion.

In any case, restricting the rights of someone actual evidence shows is a real threat is already a component of our legal system and far more likely to reduce the number of malicious gun deaths than across the board restrictions that only play on the edges of what is currently in place. Moreover, returning to the point made in the comment of mine that you chose to quote, there is much more than can and should be done about protecting women and children from domestic violence than simply limiting access to guns.

Snopes lies to try to justify violations of the Second Amendment. If they say something about guns, that should be taken as probably meaning that the opposite is true.



That was me who explained. Australia's massive crime spree lasted for five years.

Walt merely suggested that Australia's crime statistics were fake.

Remember to differentiate "gun-related homicide rates" versus "overall homicide rates".

Overall homicide rates is a useful thing to focus on if the goal is saving lives.

Gun-related homicide rates are significant only if it is a major improvement for people to be murdered with knives instead of with guns.

Well since his ideological polemics are factual and in favor of American freedom, good for him!

You are welcome (as far as I'm concerned at least) to provide verifiable accounts of events if you feel that the thread could use more of those sorts of posts.

I agree.

Why do you even care to have laws against murder, if laws are inefficient, ie if they won't stop crazy people doing crazy things? :-)

Nope, Snopes don't lie, and you can get the exact same information from dozens of other sites.

The important point is that the Australian gun laws did result in reduced crimes. It worked.

That's a deal, until you learn conciseness.

Wrong. Snopes does lie to justify violations of the Second Amendment.



Sites more reputable than Snopes I hope.



Finn already pointed out that you don't really even have correlation. Crime rates were declining before the ban, and the ban did not seem to hasten the decline. You're a long way from demonstrating causation.