• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Gun Control Doesn't Work

Must be why every country has gun control

Except the USA...though to many gun owners, the USA has unacceptably high levels of gun control
But to the ROTW, the USA has no gun control at all

But TurtleDude thinks the "real" reason for gun control, is just to harass "law-abiding" gun owners by threatening their toys
Quite what the purpose of this is, he doesn't explain...especially when he also says that such gun control is a vote loser

Of course, another "real" reason for gun control, is to pave the way for a socialist dictatorship to take over....
 
Except the USA...though to many gun owners, the USA has unacceptably high levels of gun control
But to the ROTW, the USA has no gun control at all

But TurtleDude thinks the "real" reason for gun control, is just to harass "law-abiding" gun owners by threatening their toys
Quite what the purpose of this is, he doesn't explain...especially when he also says that such gun control is a vote loser

Of course, another "real" reason for gun control, is to pave the way for a socialist dictatorship to take over....

The US is a patchwork of laws.

Blanket declarations like yours are usually wrong.
 
Might work. No sense in punishing people who legally possess their guns. Go after the wrongdoers.

I think it would go well with the criminal background checks I propose. Get caught in illegal possession- or even trying to gain illegal possession- of a gun or motor vehicle, and go to prison for a long time.
No


State


will




do




this
 
Perhaps we should implement their 7 year mandatory sentence for illegal possession of a gun, and up to life for actually firing an illegally possessed gun.
Japans gun laws did not initially have the intended impact until they 1-imposed extreme penalties for their illegal possession and use and 2-Used a version of RICO to attack gangs...to the point where a gun used in a gang related act would resulting both the user and the gang leaders facing those same sentencing laws.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws would have a massive direct impact on gun use in violent crimes. But then, you would have to build more prisons and stop making excuses for the violent criminals.
 
Because shitheads on the left would shriek that it was racist.
So the left controls alabama, mississippi and louisana for starters?



Hahahahahahahahaha




Thats a good one
 
Japans gun laws did not initially have the intended impact until they 1-imposed extreme penalties for their illegal possession and use and 2-Used a version of RICO to attack gangs...to the point where a gun used in a gang related act would resulting both the user and the gang leaders facing those same sentencing laws.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws would have a massive direct impact on gun use in violent crimes. But then, you would have to build more prisons and stop making excuses for the violent criminals.
And triple your taxes
 
Japans gun laws did not initially have the intended impact until they 1-imposed extreme penalties for their illegal possession and use and 2-Used a version of RICO to attack gangs...to the point where a gun used in a gang related act would resulting both the user and the gang leaders facing those same sentencing laws.

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws would have a massive direct impact on gun use in violent crimes. But then, you would have to build more prisons and stop making excuses for the violent criminals.

So ban guns and impose Japanese style penalties for possession of an illegal firearm ?
 
So ban guns and impose Japanese style penalties for possession of an illegal firearm ?

The relevant gun ban is already in place. Criminals are prohibited.
 
I don't agree with you. I think the vast majority of people who want more gun control want it because they think it will reduce crime.
I would say you're probably right, and that's because the vast majority of people who want gun control are being fooled by nut jobs such as Michael Bloomberg and Kamala Harris into thinking that more gun control will reduce crime.
 
I would say you're probably right, and that's because the vast majority of people who want gun control are being fooled by nut jobs such as Michael Bloomberg and Kamala Harris into thinking that more gun control will reduce crime.
It does reduce crime
 
It reduces the number of children dying by the gun too!

 
It reduces the number of children dying by the gun too!



Something is always going to be "#1".

All those decades autos were #1, where were the calls to ban them...or at least severely limit how accessible they are to children?

Oh wait...I forgot how damn convenient it is to have little Johnny take the death machine and drive his sister to track practice once he turns 16.
 
Something is always going to be "#1".

All those decades autos were #1, where were the calls to ban them...or at least severely limit how accessible they are to children?

Oh wait...I forgot how damn convenient it is to have little Johnny take the death machine and drive his sister to track practice once he turns 16.
I suppose we're supposed to ban whatever's #1 and go down the list until there's nothing left to ban; might as well place everyone under perpetual house arrest. :rolleyes:
 
I suppose we're supposed to ban whatever's #1 and go down the list until there's nothing left to ban; might as well place everyone under perpetual house arrest. :rolleyes:
That is alarmist rhetoric, that seeks to catatrophize the issue at hand.

Countries likes Australia prove gun control works. America proves time and time again this obsessive attachment to a gun for this unjustified and perceived protection is doing far more harm than good.
 
I would say you're probably right, and that's because the vast majority of people who want gun control are being fooled by nut jobs such as Michael Bloomberg and Kamala Harris into thinking that more gun control will reduce crime.
I would say more gun control, or at least more impactful and direct policy and legislative objectives, does decrease gun crime. Australia is a proven success in this area.
 
That is alarmist rhetoric, that seeks to catatrophize the issue at hand.

Countries likes Australia prove gun control works. America proves time and time again this obsessive attachment to a gun for this unjustified and perceived protection is doing far more harm than good.
In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The institute has published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime.[41noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former coconvenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[50] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[51]
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[52]
Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[53] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[54]
A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[55]
 
That is alarmist rhetoric, that seeks to catatrophize the issue at hand.

Countries likes Australia prove gun control works. America proves time and time again this obsessive attachment to a gun for this unjustified and perceived protection is doing far more harm than good.
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[56]
In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:
The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[57]
A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[58]
A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%. The study,[59] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[60]
A 2013 report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 per cent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.[61] A 2014 report stated that approximately "260,000 guns are on the Australian 'grey' or black markets", and discussed the potential problem of people using 3D printers to create guns. NSW and Victorian police obtained plans to create 3D printed guns and tested to see if they could fire, but the guns exploded during testing.[62]
 
I would say more gun control, or at least more impactful and direct policy and legislative objectives, does decrease gun crime. Australia is a proven success in this area.
Why do you think that what happened in Australia would be mirrored in the US? Do the two countries have the same starting point?
 
I suppose we're supposed to ban whatever's #1 and go down the list until there's nothing left to ban; might as well place everyone under perpetual house arrest. :rolleyes:
They did ban guns, though, correct?
 
[41noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years

There are valid concerns around this and there is an ongoing debate in Australia around what action, if any, should be taken.

There is limited research in this field and why gun ownership is increasing, however, some evidence suggest the following could be contributing:
1. A increased number of people are purchasing rural properties and thus engaging in hunting
2. There is a pent up demand for the management and control of pests in rural areas
1996 legislation had little to no effect on violence.
That is not what the evidence suggests whatsoever.


Professor Simon Chapman, former coconvenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[50] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[51]
Copying and pasting the comments of one person in 2005 is hardly enough to support this sweeping claim that the gun control measures were largely ineffective. The more recent studies and evidence suggests otherwise.

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[52]
The study found no impact on HOMICIDES not GUN HOMICIDES. Interesting how you think gun control is supposed to stop all crime. No, it is supposed to stop/limit gun crime.
A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[55]
And this just proves my point further.
 
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[56]
That is an awfully simplistic and two dimensional way of looking at gun control and its effectiveness.

This paper was not peer reviewed, so you can hardly claim it's a reputable and viable source of information. Also, the hypothesis was focused solely on mass shootings and gun types and has loosely compared the two countries using rather flimsy and assumptive research methods.

In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:
The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[57]
What implemented restrictions are you referring to? This is very vague.

Griffith University are a reputable and credible source of information and I do agree cultural and social attitudes have helped reduce suicide deaths in Australia but this does not provide enough information to accurately reflect the entire picture.
A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[58]
Once again this studies scope is huge. I am talking about the impact on gun related homicide and suicide rates not all homicide and suicide rates.
I have said it over and over again....I think it is unwise to think gun control stops all forms of violence. No, gun control limits gun violence.
A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%. The study,[59] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.
This is actually disproving your point. This clearly states, that the gun buy back scheme reduced gun suicides and there was no evidence of substitution methods.

Nothing you are providing here is creating any substantial evidence to back your point. You are positing studies which disprove your point, studies which are not peer-reviewed and random studies that make very vague and flimsy claims about the effects of gun control.
 
Why do you think that what happened in Australia would be mirrored in the US?
I didn't say this, your comments are simply untrue about my viewpoints.

What I am saying, and many Americans like to deny this, is gun control does work. The US can take lessons from different parts of Australia's legislative and policy framework for guns.
A good start is looking at Australia's rules around gun ownership and the rules around purchases, training and costs. The disparate and weak administrative processes in obtaining and purchasing a gun is something that undoubtedly needs to be looked at.

Ideally, I would like to say stricter measures should be implemented, but I know this is impractical. The cultural obsession is too deeply engrained to embark on any meaningful reform.
Do the two countries have the same starting point?
No.
 
I didn't say this, your comments are simply untrue about my viewpoints.

What I am saying, and many Americans like to deny this, is gun control does work. The US can take lessons from different parts of Australia's legislative and policy framework for guns.
A good start is looking at Australia's rules around gun ownership and the rules around purchases, training and costs. The disparate and weak administrative processes in obtaining and purchasing a gun is something that undoubtedly needs to be looked at.

Ideally, I would like to say stricter measures should be implemented, but I know this is impractical. The cultural obsession is too deeply engrained to embark on any meaningful reform.
It's not a "cultural obsession". It's rights protected by our Constitution. To adopt laws pushed on the people in Australia the US would have to repeal or amend two of the Bill of Rights.

Not even the Democratic Party is pushing for that.
 
Back
Top Bottom