I understand your point about not making it easier, I'm just not convinced that any gun laws would actually take weapons out of potential shooters.

Is the population of Australia 20 millionish? I think that's what I read. Similiar to Canada. Canada hadn't had a killing spree since Mark Lepine in 1989 (that I recall). Then, 17 years later, some guy used 3 legally registered weapons to kill one and wound 19 others. One spree happened prior to the gun law. One happened afterwards. That's not counting the "Little" sprees of only one or two people shot mind you.

The only two factors I see as a contributing factor to the length of time between major shootings in Canada is our population when compared to the US, and our culture. The US population is 10 times what Canada is and what I've read Australia's is. If you don't factor in culture, you have to assume they'd have 10 times the killing sprees we do. When you DO factor in culture, I personally would think they'd have a LOT more than that even. Besides the everyday shooting that we've become accustomed to reading about in the US (that ARE going to happen with gun laws because criminals aren't gonna turn them in), they really don't have 10 times the major killing sprees we do.

So, while I agree making it harder is one thing, I think your population has a great deal to do with the length of time between sprees. Probably moreso than any gun law.

rofl


Yes, quoting someone else's article is proof of intelligence

Do people randomly attack you often? When getting robbed at gunpoint you've got a much better chance at living if you're not pulling out a weapon.

guns and fences make happy neighbors

Whether all this is true or not, the fact that you posted a thread more or less saying people should be able to own guns makes you 5000 times hotter than you already were.

So you're saying that prior to that event, when guns were still legal there was no mass killing. But one event is enough to enact a law?
Even though in a previous post you used the arguement that
So when that statistic fits your side of the argument is suddenly does become worth talking about. :error

Sorry, i still don't support guns. You cant change my mind!

Fact.

United States Gun Control Act of 1968 = carbon copy of Nazi Gun Control Act of 1933

As the saying goes: I'd rather have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it.

They just opened up a VERY nice firing range in my little town. Same guy used to have one at his old location - out in the back of his store where you'd fire into a huge massive pile of Georgia red clay :) Now he charges per hour. Before you'd just go, buy some bullets, put the earcovers on and fire away.

Should a duck or goose fly above you, you were free to shoot that too. THAT'S going to be a tough trick to pull off inside.

Boy that NRA propaganda machine keeps rolling - and the sheep just eat it up!

But lets face it, if you are a gun lover nothing is going to change your mind, if you are pro gun-control, nothing is going to change your mind.

For every pro-gun argument there is a pro-control argument, and vice versa. Personally, I strongly favour gun control as much because I believe the gun lovers have been brainwashed by "studies" like this and a government that is clearly in bed with gun manufacturers, as any facts.

Does anyone *know* what would happen if gun control were imposed in the U.S.? No.
Will it ever happen? No.

End of argument.
:)

Good grief, there IS gun control in the US. I know in GA to buy a gun legally they run a background check. To get a carry permit, they run background checks with 3 different bureaus, fingerprint you and if something happens (like you were in a mental institution), that permit is pulled. In GA if your wife called the police and claimed you hit her and you were arrested on domestic assult charges but haven't gone to court yet, you ain't getting a gun. Many stated require classes before you get a carry permit.

A criminal can buy a gun just like you and I can buy a candy bar. 1000 more laws won't fix that.

I think people should have the right to have guns but the people rising up against the government.That worked when it was muskets against muskets thats not the case anymore. The founding fathers wanted for the citizens to have guns so they could rise up if the government got stupid but government is too big now.

Yep. That ideal was at the heart of the second amendment, and a reason that I feel U.S. citizens should be able to legally carry bazookas around if they want.

Granted, the idea of an RPG in the hands of the average American does kinda scare the bejeezus outta me, but I don't feel that's a worthy reason to limit his or her right to do so.

Once you start limiting those rights, you, by definition, move toward being more of a "Police State"

:2 cents:

Ok.. I did a little digging.. Seems that article/quote what have you was plagarized in the year 2000, so who knows when it was originally written.

rofl, its amazing the limited mental resources some of our posters have.

as was stated earlier, its not the posting of someone else's article thats proof of intelligence but her agreement with it.

just like your post isn't proof of your lack of intelligence, the thought behind the post was.

yeah, thats what they keep feeding the sheep.

"In the 18 years up to and including 1996, the year of the massacre at Port Arthur, Australia experienced 13 mass shootings. In these events alone, 112 people were shot dead and at least another 52 wounded (table 1Go).8 In the 10.5 years since Port Arthur and the revised gun laws, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."

18 mass killings in the 13 years up to and including the Port Arthur massacre. 0 since. Telling statistic.

Read above. There were other spree/mass killings. I wasn't aware of them, to be honest. Certainly none were nearly as large. So my statement was misinformed. But read my response to Eric. The data regarding previous spree killings only supports the gun control arguement even further.

A spree killing is not some minor fluctuation in the homicide rate because it is not a regular homicide. Very few murders happen for no reason. There's usually a motivation. Personal malice. A disagreement. Some sort of conflict. When someone goes out and kills 35 people because he's fucked in the head, that is a whole other ball game.

This is an example of the different mindset of Americans, and the rest of the world. No offense but you don't understand us and never match us.

(feel free to reply with the typical anti US barb)