Personally, I think the mental health care system is in need of a severe overhaul, if it exists at all. The brain is an organ that can suffer from disease, why is treating it such a pain to even get started?Indy shooter "wanted cops to kill him", had his shotgun taken via red flag law, then still went out and "legally" bought more guns.
It's almost like we should start enforcing the laws we have and adding a "history of violence + mental illness" qualifier to background checks.
But no.... "ghost guns" were used in one crime last year* so let's clutch our pearls because it's easier than admitting crazy people with guns is the problem.
*made up but likely fairly accurate statistic
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mass Shootings Thread (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
- Status
sho nuff
Footballguy
I dont think reducing penalties is all that inconsistent of a position though as some were pretty strict.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Wanting somebody to spend less time in jail for possessing a firearm illegally is the exact same thing as not wanting to enforce what we have in place.
This quote was the genesis of this conversation.
Allowing somebody to plea down to a 7 day misdemeanor (which time served counts toward and means immediate release) from something that could be 10 years is exactly the same thing as saying "Don't enforce what we have"
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
[icon]
Insoxicated
If you're wanting to get tougher on gun crime, I would think reducing sentences for gun-related crime would be pretty inconsistent with that goal.
Out of curiosity, what type of sentences (years) would you like to see for the following crimes:
- Illegal possession of an otherwise legal firearm (felon, underage, etc):
- Possession of a firearm with serial number removed (no crime committed w/ firearm):
- Possession of a home-made suppressor/silencer (no crime committed w/ firearm):
- Possession of a firearm modified to fire fully automatic (no crime committed w/ firearm):
- Rape:
- Rape with use of firearm:
- 1st Degree Murder with use of firearm:
- Accidental shooting death using firearm (negligent discharge, etc):
- In the event of Pistol Brace ban : Possession of braced firearm:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The bold is obviously the most serious of all these crimes. Can we get an extra penalty if the company that made the brace wasnt paying their fair share in taxes and didn't pay a living wage?
Can we also add: Engaged in micro-aggression while in possession of an otherwise legally owned firearm?
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Accepting something less than the maximum sentence for a crime involving a gun is often appropriate is not asking for laws not to be enforced. Wanting those that exit from prisons to not be burdened by debt that will be next to impossible for them to clear legally is not hypocritical to hoping that it is also hard for them to find a gun.
Now if you want to say that there really is no point to extended background checks because we at best go through the motions now and hardly refuse anyone or even enforce that refusal then you may have a point. But I'm guessing the half
approach of today is not because of anti gun advocates being unwilling to carry out the existing checks, but the pro gun advocates making sure they cannot.Maybe the hope of those that propose gun control are just foolish. That in some cases what they can proposed is too little to do much of anything. And in other cases it is too late. That even if we added no more guns to our society that there are already more than enough to keep anything from ever changing. The world we have built is the world that will exist. No changing that. And hope to the contrary is just nonsense, or maybe even "hope is a dangerous thing".
I'm not sure that I don't disagree with guns, but at least dash these dangerous hopes with an argument where the conclusion follows the premise. Demanding existing laws to be followed might require demanding minimum sentences be enforced, but it does not require demand maximum sentences.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
The minimum sentence was 3 years. He got way less.Accepting something less than the maximum sentence for a crime involving a gun is often appropriate is not asking for laws not to be enforced. Wanting those that exit from prisons to not be burdened by debt that will be next to impossible for them to clear legally is not hypocritical to hoping that it is also hard for them to find a gun.
Now if you want to say that there really is no point to extended background checks because we at best go through the motions now and hardly refuse anyone or even enforce that refusal then you may have a point. But I'm guessing the half
Maybe the hope of those that propose gun control are just foolish. That in some cases what they can proposed is too little to do much of anything. And in other cases it is too late. That even if we added no more guns to our society that there are already more than enough to keep anything from ever changing. The world we have built is the world that will exist. No changing that. And hope to the contrary is just nonsense, or maybe even "hope is a dangerous thing".
I'm not sure that I don't disagree with guns, but at least dash these dangerous hopes with an argument where the conclusion follows the premise. Demanding existing laws to be followed might require demanding minimum sentences be enforced, but it does not require demand maximum sentences.
This happens all over the country.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I'm talking in general, not some specific example that may or may not be representative of anything. And, like most things the value of "add on" sentences for gun possession while committing crimes is debatable. We could both find links pretty easily to support which ever side a coin flip has us arguing.
But these "add on" sentences are usually just poor compromises when real gun control proposals go up in smoke. So I don't think there is likely going to be much reason to expect gun control advocates to be all that enamored with these laws. "Locking people up and throwing away the key" isn't the same as keeping guns off the streets. And it certainly isn't going to act as a disincentive for those committing mass shootings with the intent of being killed one way of the other most of the time as in mass shootings (or at least the subset of mass shootings discussed a month or so ago.)
I think I've heard that somewhere before. Most of these guys are looney tunes and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a gun.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Im talking pretty generally here as in exploring sentences and guidelines. Not plea deals. For you and @parasaurolophus
Just as I feel yes its possible to be tougher on drugs but look at sentencing guidelines and make sure things are making sense.
I haven’t looked into specifics on which sentences and all. Just as a general point.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
You zoomed in on "maximum sentence" which i believe i first brought up as a question and then used 10 years, which was the maximum for this specific crime.
I'm talking in general, not some specific example that may or may not be representative of anything. And, like most things the value of "add on" sentences for gun possession while committing crimes is debatable. We could both find links pretty easily to support which ever side a coin flip has us arguing.
But these "add on" sentences are usually just poor compromises when real gun control proposals go up in smoke. So I don't think there is likely going to be much reason to expect gun control advocates to be all that enamored with these laws. "Locking people up and throwing away the key" isn't the same as keeping guns off the streets. And it certainly isn't going to act as a disincentive for those committing mass shootings with the intent of being killed one way of the other most of the time as in mass shootings (or at least the subset of mass shootings discussed a month or so ago.)
And it is representative of what happens all the time.
Even daunte wright was roaming free after missing a hearing for a gun crime all the while he is awaiting trial for a different gun crime.
How about Vernon Menifee. Guy convicted of 6 felonies between 2013 and 2018, 3 of them gun charges. In 2020 he is arrested for murder(gun). Gets bail. Then gets arrested for armed robbery(gun) gets bail again. Only 50k after all that.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I think that sentencing convicted criminals is much more involved to possibly argue that advocating for anything other than the maximum sentence is advocating for not enforcing the laws. I think that convicted criminals being sentenced to less than the minimum may open up the debate some, but it is still an over simplification.
I also think that bail for "innocent until proven guilty" is also a non sequitur. But all of this "tough on crime" talk as an alternative to gun control is what we have been doing forever. If it really worked to any real degree I'd doubt that we were still talking about gun control proposals. I don't know that any of the gun control policy ideas will do anything so I'm not disagreeing because I demand something else, but because the "tough on crime" arguments are highly debatable on their own. Meaning an informed person can simultaneously reject longer sentences and/or higher bail and want more gun laws. Or the opposite. Or any mix of positions in between.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
In chicago a massive % of gun crime convictions don't even get incarcerated at all. That is something we have been doing forever.
And Bail for somebody that was given a lighter sentence multiple times and then violates the conditions of their bail is a completely different discussion than innocent until proven guilty. They were already guilty 6 times and didnt have to serve even close to the minimum sentence. This crap happens every day. Just promise us you you will be nice mr. gun criminal.
Nevermind... Not even worth continuing this discussion. Only a matter of time before you bring it around to UBI like you always do anyway.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
5 people shot in Shreveport using two bump stocks and a shoulder stabilizer.
Well that last stuff isn't true.
Well that last stuff isn't true.
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
This is an excellent question. Even with money and insurance, it is nearly impossible to get appropriate treatment.
That’s just on the treatment side. There is a large stigma about the concept of being mentally ill, those who were deemed such were often put into facilities that basically imprisoned and experimented on them, the very name of “asylum” carries a massive negative connotation. I think a good place to start is to de-stigmatize mental illness. Show just how common it often is, ways to treat/ work around it, just try to not make sufferers feel like they’re wrong for having an illness.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
A UBI would help a tiny bit with the Chicago and other shootings that are related selling drugs being the most rational option to make some money but these drug related crimes aren't what usually get called mass shootings. And a UBI will never match the income potential of those willing to do the work to sell illegal drugs. More relevant to this particular thread I don't think that a UBI would help much at all for these as I don't think poverty plays much into the motives. I'm sure there is an exception or a dozen somewhere, but generally speaking a UBI would just as likely trigger more mass shooting in a short term as opposed to prevent them. But yes bringing up UBI would be a non sequitur. Similarly for the war on drugs.
I guess that some of the mass shooters at some level are set off by the fact that we aren't harsh enough in their minds towards criminals, but beyond that those "tough on crime" measures to the degree they are effective seem more related to crimes other than mass shootings. And probably statistically more related to crimes other than any "crime of passion".
Stealthycat
Footballguy
BIDEN last night
what Joe isn't saying is those being shot are often in places with the strictest gun control - in other words, gun control had failed, law abiding are unarmed and criminals do what they want to anyway but hey, lets add more laws, right ?
oh and he lied - "hold hundreds of rounds and fired off in seconds" .... that's a lie. Sounds scary, looks like a movie, not real
Joe couldn't define "assault" weapons - and nobody here can either - fact
high cap magazines will not make a difference in bad people getting guns and killing others. Not one bit.
that's a lie, it sounds scary, but its a lie and not real, so why would you say it ?
he is right - hunters and gun owners don't want criminals/felons to buy guns - and we have laws that says they can't
hey Joe - enforce those laws, start by prosecuting every failed background check instead of literally only pursuing 10-12 a year
when this country was founded, the military and civilians had access to the SAME weapons - civilians wanted that, they didn't want a Govt more powerful than the common man
100% of gun control is Democrat initiated
We have reasonable, common sense gun laws, right now. Stop the people from owning "those" weapons ... and leave law abiding citizens alone please. we don't need you Joe
Guns are incapable of violence - they're inanimate.
shot - that's illegal Joe. We have laws to stop that from happening.
what Joe isn't saying is those being shot are often in places with the strictest gun control - in other words, gun control had failed, law abiding are unarmed and criminals do what they want to anyway but hey, lets add more laws, right ?
oh and he lied - "hold hundreds of rounds and fired off in seconds" .... that's a lie. Sounds scary, looks like a movie, not real
nobody uses these really - its going to make zero difference
gun show loophole is a lie - it doesn't exist really
Joe couldn't define "assault" weapons - and nobody here can either - fact
high cap magazines will not make a difference in bad people getting guns and killing others. Not one bit.
well Joe ... considering hunting regulations often restrict capacity from 3 to 6 or 7 etc .... hunters have NEVER had hundreds of rounds in a weapon
that's a lie, it sounds scary, but its a lie and not real, so why would you say it ?
he is right - hunters and gun owners don't want criminals/felons to buy guns - and we have laws that says they can't
hey Joe - enforce those laws, start by prosecuting every failed background check instead of literally only pursuing 10-12 a year
we have given to common sense gun laws, we're not giving anymore Joe and, another lie from Joe
when this country was founded, the military and civilians had access to the SAME weapons - civilians wanted that, they didn't want a Govt more powerful than the common man
another lie
100% of gun control is Democrat initiated
We have reasonable, common sense gun laws, right now. Stop the people from owning "those" weapons ... and leave law abiding citizens alone please. we don't need you Joe
-fish-
Footballguy
The Big Donkey
Footballguy
man, i get uneasy when I see this thread bumped.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
show me one thing I lied about or again, I ask that you apologize for accusations and name calling
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
growlers
Footballguy
from the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, thought this was interesting.
Perspective
Australian Firearm Regulation at 25 — Successes, Ongoing Challenges, and Lessons for the World
List of authors.
Joel Negin, Ph.D., Philip Alpers, Natasha Nassar, Ph.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D.
Twenty-five years ago, on Sunday, April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man used a Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to kill 35 people in the quiet tourist town of Port Arthur, tucked away in the southeast corner of Tasmania, a small island off mainland Australia. The events of that day launched one of the world’s most powerful natural experiments in firearm-injury prevention.
Victoria (Australia’s second-most populous state) had previously tightened its firearm law after mass shootings in the region. But in most of the country, firearm policies had been changed very little in the decades before 1996. Within 2 weeks after the Port Arthur shooting, however, state and territory governments and the federal government had all agreed to a new firearm-regulation standard that involved implementing or strengthening gun-owner licensing, firearm registration, safe-storage policies, and suicide-prevention programs.
As part of the policy changes, the government also announced a mandatory buyback program for newly prohibited firearms. Over the next 18 months, 659,940 semiautomatic rifles and shotguns were purchased from residents and destroyed. The total cost of the program — AU$500 million (U.S.$361 million at the 1997 exchange rate)1 — was paid for by a one-time levy that cost taxpayers an average of $15 each. Tens of thousands of gun owners also voluntarily turned in nonprohibited firearms with no compensation.
Rate of Gun Deaths in Australia, 1993 to 2019.
These policy changes have had a substantial and positive effect on gun violence in Australia. In the 20 years leading up to and including the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings (defined as shootings in which five or more people, not including the perpetrator, were killed) in the country. In the 22 years that followed, there were no such incidents. Between 1979 and 1996, average annual firearm-related mortality was 3.6 per 100,000 people; after the policy intervention, it dropped to 1.2 per 100,000 people between 1997 and 2013 (see graph).1Firearm-related mortality had already been falling in Australia, but changes in the rate of firearm-related death accelerated from an average decrease of 3% per year before gun laws were upgraded to an average decrease of 4.9% per year afterward. There were sizable reductions in firearm-related suicides and homicides. The most noticeable drop was for firearm-related suicides (which account for about 70% of gun deaths), with no evidence of substitution in methods of suicide.2 Globally, Australia was reported to have one of the largest annual rates of change in the number of firearm-related deaths between 1990 and 2016.3
Given potential confounding, it’s difficult to establish a direct link between the 1996 legislation and changes in firearm-related mortality. The number of nonfirearm suicides and homicides has also fallen during the past quarter-century in Australia. Reductions in gun deaths, however, have been much more substantial: between 1997 and 2013, there was a 55% reduction in the firearm-related suicide rate, as compared with a 16% reduction in the nonfirearm suicide rate, and a 62% reduction in the firearm-related homicide rate, as compared with a 44% reduction in the nonfirearm homicide rate. Moreover, the drop in firearm-related deaths was largest in states where the most guns were surrendered and smaller than average in Victoria, which had already restricted access to semiautomatic long guns. A rare-events model provided strong evidence that the absence of mass shootings in Australia between 1997 and 2017 wasn’t merely a continuation of a preexisting pattern.4No other policy has been suggested to explain the large reduction in firearm-related mortality after the national revision of gun legislation.
As compared with the United States, Australia has fewer guns per capita, stronger gun regulations, and far lower firearm-related mortality. Studies have found that a country’s estimated rate of firearm ownership is associated with its rates of firearm-related suicide and homicide.3 The effect of gun availability on violent death is substantial. For example, an international meta-analysis of intimate partner violence perpetrated by men found that having access to a gun was linked to an increase by more than a factor of 10 in the likelihood of killing a partner (as opposed to committing nonfatal violence).5
Although the scale of the challenge is clearly different in the United States than in Australia, the Australian experience provides important lessons for the United States and other jurisdictions with high rates of gun violence. This example demonstrates that taking a public health approach to firearm-injury prevention by reducing access, strengthening regulation, and engaging the community can reduce gun deaths. It also shows that after mass-shooting incidents, countries have an opportunity to improve policies. Australia’s policy change used a substantial amount of the relatively new — and right-leaning — Prime Minister John Howard’s political capital. The support of many conservatives was crucial and was secured by opinion polls showing overwhelming support for firearm regulation and by media pressure. Gun-policy reforms were supported by all major political parties, whereas conservative parties in many other countries staunchly oppose such reforms. The success of firearm regulation became a source of pride for many Australians.
Mass shootings account for a small proportion of firearm-related deaths, but they tend to receive a substantial amount of media coverage and can focus the attention of the public and politicians on gun violence more broadly. The legislation’s primary goal was to reduce access to the semiautomatic firearms that were responsible for the majority of mass killings, but it also introduced and tightened public-safety policies, licensing requirements, and other regulations aimed at preventing more common forms of firearm-related injury and death.
Although preventing gun deaths is essential, focusing on deaths obscures another tragic reality of firearm violence. In addition to the people killed by firearms, a larger number are injured and have life-changing pain, disability, and psychological distress resulting from the use of firearms, which leads to substantial expenses related to medical care, mental health care, and rehabilitation.5Australian firearm policy now focuses, more than it did in the mid-1990s, on domestic and family violence, which often involves additional victims besides intimate partners, including children. The Australian experience shows that efforts to reduce gun violence benefit from the use of multipronged interventions, including gun registration, gun-owner licensing, safe-storage policies, and suicide-prevention programs.
Despite Australia’s success, its gun laws are vulnerable to pressure. Although the government destroyed a substantial proportion of privately owned firearms after the implementation of updated gun legislation, many single-shot rifles and shotguns have been imported to replace banned semiautomatic weapons. There are now more than 3 million registered firearms — a figure that is increasing — in a country of 25 million people. The rate of gun ownership is lower than it was in 1996, but Australia’s sport-shooting community remains vibrant, and certain groups such as farmers use firearms in much the same way as they did before the new laws were enacted. A wealthy lobbying group with a national membership of 200,000 gun owners, which has grown over the past two decades, funds politicians who promise to chip away at firearm regulation. Such ongoing challenges serve as a reminder of the fragility of Australia’s achievements and the need to avoid policy complacency, not just in Australia but around the world. On the 25th anniversary of the Port Arthur mass shooting, we believe that Australian policymakers should recommit to maintaining and strengthening firearm regulation in recognition of the horror of that day and of the bold strides taken by legislators in the weeks and months that followed.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at NEJM.org.
This article was published on April 24, 2021, at NEJM.org.
Perspective
Australian Firearm Regulation at 25 — Successes, Ongoing Challenges, and Lessons for the World
List of authors.
Joel Negin, Ph.D., Philip Alpers, Natasha Nassar, Ph.D., and David Hemenway, Ph.D.
Twenty-five years ago, on Sunday, April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old man used a Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to kill 35 people in the quiet tourist town of Port Arthur, tucked away in the southeast corner of Tasmania, a small island off mainland Australia. The events of that day launched one of the world’s most powerful natural experiments in firearm-injury prevention.
Victoria (Australia’s second-most populous state) had previously tightened its firearm law after mass shootings in the region. But in most of the country, firearm policies had been changed very little in the decades before 1996. Within 2 weeks after the Port Arthur shooting, however, state and territory governments and the federal government had all agreed to a new firearm-regulation standard that involved implementing or strengthening gun-owner licensing, firearm registration, safe-storage policies, and suicide-prevention programs.
As part of the policy changes, the government also announced a mandatory buyback program for newly prohibited firearms. Over the next 18 months, 659,940 semiautomatic rifles and shotguns were purchased from residents and destroyed. The total cost of the program — AU$500 million (U.S.$361 million at the 1997 exchange rate)1 — was paid for by a one-time levy that cost taxpayers an average of $15 each. Tens of thousands of gun owners also voluntarily turned in nonprohibited firearms with no compensation.
Rate of Gun Deaths in Australia, 1993 to 2019.
These policy changes have had a substantial and positive effect on gun violence in Australia. In the 20 years leading up to and including the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, there were 11 mass shootings (defined as shootings in which five or more people, not including the perpetrator, were killed) in the country. In the 22 years that followed, there were no such incidents. Between 1979 and 1996, average annual firearm-related mortality was 3.6 per 100,000 people; after the policy intervention, it dropped to 1.2 per 100,000 people between 1997 and 2013 (see graph).1Firearm-related mortality had already been falling in Australia, but changes in the rate of firearm-related death accelerated from an average decrease of 3% per year before gun laws were upgraded to an average decrease of 4.9% per year afterward. There were sizable reductions in firearm-related suicides and homicides. The most noticeable drop was for firearm-related suicides (which account for about 70% of gun deaths), with no evidence of substitution in methods of suicide.2 Globally, Australia was reported to have one of the largest annual rates of change in the number of firearm-related deaths between 1990 and 2016.3
Given potential confounding, it’s difficult to establish a direct link between the 1996 legislation and changes in firearm-related mortality. The number of nonfirearm suicides and homicides has also fallen during the past quarter-century in Australia. Reductions in gun deaths, however, have been much more substantial: between 1997 and 2013, there was a 55% reduction in the firearm-related suicide rate, as compared with a 16% reduction in the nonfirearm suicide rate, and a 62% reduction in the firearm-related homicide rate, as compared with a 44% reduction in the nonfirearm homicide rate. Moreover, the drop in firearm-related deaths was largest in states where the most guns were surrendered and smaller than average in Victoria, which had already restricted access to semiautomatic long guns. A rare-events model provided strong evidence that the absence of mass shootings in Australia between 1997 and 2017 wasn’t merely a continuation of a preexisting pattern.4No other policy has been suggested to explain the large reduction in firearm-related mortality after the national revision of gun legislation.
As compared with the United States, Australia has fewer guns per capita, stronger gun regulations, and far lower firearm-related mortality. Studies have found that a country’s estimated rate of firearm ownership is associated with its rates of firearm-related suicide and homicide.3 The effect of gun availability on violent death is substantial. For example, an international meta-analysis of intimate partner violence perpetrated by men found that having access to a gun was linked to an increase by more than a factor of 10 in the likelihood of killing a partner (as opposed to committing nonfatal violence).5
Although the scale of the challenge is clearly different in the United States than in Australia, the Australian experience provides important lessons for the United States and other jurisdictions with high rates of gun violence. This example demonstrates that taking a public health approach to firearm-injury prevention by reducing access, strengthening regulation, and engaging the community can reduce gun deaths. It also shows that after mass-shooting incidents, countries have an opportunity to improve policies. Australia’s policy change used a substantial amount of the relatively new — and right-leaning — Prime Minister John Howard’s political capital. The support of many conservatives was crucial and was secured by opinion polls showing overwhelming support for firearm regulation and by media pressure. Gun-policy reforms were supported by all major political parties, whereas conservative parties in many other countries staunchly oppose such reforms. The success of firearm regulation became a source of pride for many Australians.
Mass shootings account for a small proportion of firearm-related deaths, but they tend to receive a substantial amount of media coverage and can focus the attention of the public and politicians on gun violence more broadly. The legislation’s primary goal was to reduce access to the semiautomatic firearms that were responsible for the majority of mass killings, but it also introduced and tightened public-safety policies, licensing requirements, and other regulations aimed at preventing more common forms of firearm-related injury and death.
Although preventing gun deaths is essential, focusing on deaths obscures another tragic reality of firearm violence. In addition to the people killed by firearms, a larger number are injured and have life-changing pain, disability, and psychological distress resulting from the use of firearms, which leads to substantial expenses related to medical care, mental health care, and rehabilitation.5Australian firearm policy now focuses, more than it did in the mid-1990s, on domestic and family violence, which often involves additional victims besides intimate partners, including children. The Australian experience shows that efforts to reduce gun violence benefit from the use of multipronged interventions, including gun registration, gun-owner licensing, safe-storage policies, and suicide-prevention programs.
Despite Australia’s success, its gun laws are vulnerable to pressure. Although the government destroyed a substantial proportion of privately owned firearms after the implementation of updated gun legislation, many single-shot rifles and shotguns have been imported to replace banned semiautomatic weapons. There are now more than 3 million registered firearms — a figure that is increasing — in a country of 25 million people. The rate of gun ownership is lower than it was in 1996, but Australia’s sport-shooting community remains vibrant, and certain groups such as farmers use firearms in much the same way as they did before the new laws were enacted. A wealthy lobbying group with a national membership of 200,000 gun owners, which has grown over the past two decades, funds politicians who promise to chip away at firearm regulation. Such ongoing challenges serve as a reminder of the fragility of Australia’s achievements and the need to avoid policy complacency, not just in Australia but around the world. On the 25th anniversary of the Port Arthur mass shooting, we believe that Australian policymakers should recommit to maintaining and strengthening firearm regulation in recognition of the horror of that day and of the bold strides taken by legislators in the weeks and months that followed.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at NEJM.org.
This article was published on April 24, 2021, at NEJM.org.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I am sure the website that's main focus is to "debunk common myths about gun control" is giving it to us straight about the topic.
love the Banner on the right I got to join the NRA and "fight back against anti-gun politicians" with a pic of Biden/Harris too.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
well its very hard to find a neutral site on guns - people are anti- or pro- and that's kinda the dividerKarmaPolice said:I am sure the website that's main focus is to "debunk common myths about gun control" is giving it to us straight about the topic.
none the less, the facts remain
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Odd that you realize the blatant bias, but stick to the claim that "the facts remain".
Stealthycat
Footballguy
the article growlers posted was biased, left out important information and details too didn't it ?
I read a few days ago that there was like a 138% increase in young people getting covid in a city near me, 100% capacity on hospital ventilators
Wow I thought ... that's a big problem ... until I read deeper and the numbers went from like 6 people to 14 people and there were 2 hospital ventilators
that's how easy things can be manipulated
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
That's still statistically truthful, and probably a big problem for the people needing care and the doctors trying to provide said care.
No, I didn't bother reading Growlers' article. I didn't have the attention span yet.
Still have 0 idea that has to do with the site you posted. What we have been arguing about in multiple threads (the collective "we", not you and I) is there is a big difference with factual reporting + slant vs. complete bias. You just provided a great example for that - linking a site that wears it's goal on it's sleeve, but you basically shrugging it off "it's hard to find a neutral site on guns", and posting that it was still factual. That's a problem, and big disconnect.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
who is reporting accurately and who is skewering the reporting ? its a good question - who fibs more, the people trying to justify the actions taken or the people trying to discredit the actions
I read another article this morning where Biden's administration showed the migrant camps far less crowded. That's a truth. What they didn't add was that they'd moved all the people in there to another building to create the illusion far less people were there. Just as many people were there - they'd just been moved.
That's how lies and reporting go hand in hand.
How this ties to AUS is the common belief by anti-gunners that AUS solved their violent crimes/murders with strict gun bans. Did they REALLY or is it more slight of hand with reporting selected cherry picked information ? because the site I linked while pro-gun also shows facts on why AUS gun ban really didn't have any impact at all in reducing violence/murders right ? not nearly what anti-gunners want to believe anyway
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
well I would argue being up front about being pro-gun and supplying "facts" to that effect I a big problem, but obviously you don't care. that's not how stats, facts, and news should work.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
would you also say facts from anti-gun sites isn't how stats/facts/news works either ?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I would say that a source that promotes themselves as an "anti-gun" site is not a place to look for unbiased, factual source of data for the gun debate.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
but what if it is?
dismissing it with a wave of the hand isn't the solution - its why I click on different news sources everyday. Gathering the information and then deciding what makes sense and what doesn't
I've read enough over the years on AUS gun control "success" though to see its not what anti-gunners say it is, that's for sure
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Yep, you have told us about your "news" sources.
We had this very discussion in the other thread about Australia and what you thought their stats showed. Remember those back and forth about blurring the lines between "mass shootings" and "mass killings". How most of your examples after the bans weren't shootings, etc.. ?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I'm guessing a handgun was used
Because of that, the incident cannot be used as a "ban assault weapons" event and so, it's not politicized and armed by the media for agenda
a look at where the people bought their guns for Colorado "mass" murders and look at the guns used
https://coloradosun.com/2021/04/12/guns-used-in-colorado-mass-shootings/
-fish-
Footballguy
El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs, announced days after that law was enacted that its sheriffs would not enforce the state red flag laws, with the county commissioners passing a resolution opposing the law and declaring the county a "second amendment preservation county." So even if this shooter should have been red-flagged and his guns confiscated, the county refuses to recognize and enforce the law. If it turns out that the shooter should have been red-flagged, the commissioners should be held both civilly and criminally liable.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
We should also hold judges and the AGs responsible for the gun laws they don't enforce and the criminals they release that turn around and commit more crimes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
should all the people who refused to follow ICE and immigration laws ie "sanctuary cities" be held liable for ignoring laws ?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Yenrub - no comment on the facts of the links I posted?
Yenrub
Footballguy
[icon]
Insoxicated
Tennessee now set to join a growing number of 2A sanctuary states, pending sign off by Gov Lee. 
With growing numbers of state and local LEO refusing to play along.... Feds Gonna need to hire a LOT more Alphabet Bois if you want to start enforcing any BS new laws (before they are inevitably struck down by courts)
With growing numbers of state and local LEO refusing to play along.... Feds Gonna need to hire a LOT more Alphabet Bois if you want to start enforcing any BS new laws (before they are inevitably struck down by courts)
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
