Indeed, and I saw someone else saying it's illegal for you to own a gun if you were dishonorably discharged.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Hey, Firefly218, the shooter did not possess those firearms, legally, because he was DD. So your gun control laws are in place that you wanted, already. See my below post:
So, Firefly218, how do you propose we address this issue now that it has come to light that the person possess those firearms, illegally, and used them, illegally? Gun control didn't work. "more gun control" is not necessary because the gun control is already in place.
Ok no, gun control does not need to be relaxed. I'll just keep pointing to the Australia example until someone addresses it, there is hard evidence that suggests gun control legislation decreases gun massacre rates.
“While 13 gun massacres (the killing of 4 or more people at one time) occurred in Australia in the 18 years before the NFA, resulting in more than one hundred deaths, in the 14 following years (and up to the present), there were no gun massacres.”
“In the seven years before the NFA (1989-1995), the average annual firearm suicide death rate per 100,000 was 2.6 (with a yearly range of 2.2 to 2.9); in the seven years after the buyback was fully implemented (1998-2004), the average annual firearm suicide rate was 1.1 (yearly range 0.8 to 1.4).”
“In the seven years before the NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 was .43 (range .27 to .60) while for the seven years post NFA, the average annual firearm homicide rate was .25 (range .16 to .33).”
“[T]he drop in firearm deaths was largest among the type of firearms most affected by the buyback.”
Australia is not alone, there's evidence everywhere that gun policy makes a difference. The problem in America is unique because NRA is exploiting a gun culture that is tightly intertwined around our patriotism.
And I agree mental health should be covered, progress can be made on two fronts. Better healthcare for the mentally ill AND better gun control. No?
Once again, any gun that is capable of being shot rapidly needs to be banned. That includes semi-automatics that can be modified.
If a seatbelt doesn't work, that doesn't mean we get rid of seatbelts in cars. The current Gun Regulation has loopholes and is a joke, we need improved regulation and better laws.
The Vegas shooter was able to legally stockpile dozens of rifles without any fire alarms going off. The Vegas shooter was able to legally buy devices known as "bump stocks" and was able to legally modify his rifles into deadly automatic weapons. I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS TTHREAD CAN AGREE THAT IS WRONG RIGHT???
Edit: Just to make it clear, your post is inaccurate. The shooter did, in fact, purchase rifles from a store legally.
The argument you have used (it is not your argument, you're using the argument of others which is good, so do not take my disagreement as a personal attack) is a very old and tired one that has long been destroyed.
That should be the end of it. You should never use the Australia example ever again as it is just not a good example for why we should increase gun control laws in the US.
What difference? Be specific on the difference you're referring to, here. We can debate facts and statistics. I cannot debate your feelings.
Sort of. I feel you about 70% of the way on this. Some gun control laws are a bit excessive and do not make anyone safer and just make it harder on law abiding citizens. I agree that conceal and carry licenses should require you to take and pass a class including a targeting shooting class. And that you should have to periodically retake that class every 3 years (similar to drivers licenses: I think you should have to retake the test every few years so that people whose health changed can no longer legally drive...won't stop the illegal drivers which amount to 13% of drivers).
You've missed the purpose of the Australia example. It does NOT demonstrate a reduction in violent crime rates or murder rates, that's true.
What it does demonstrate is a complete and utter elimination of firearm massacres. A firearm massacre is defined as the killing of 4 or more people at one time.
Before the Australian gun legislation, there were around 13 firearm massacres in the span of 18 years that caused hundreds of deaths.
After the Australian gun legislation and up until present day 2017, there have been ZERO firearm massacres
Now that the argument is more clear, address it if you will. I haven't seen a good comeback to this ever.
This seat belt argument of yours makes 0 sense. It is nonsensical. Even a logical stretch is not good enough to even remotely come close to being a decent comparison. If a seatbelt doesn't work, you use science to figure out how to improve the purpose of the seatbelt. Since we have data that clearly shows stricter gun control laws does not equal less death but we DO have evidence that better mental healthcare, better education, and better quality of life DOES equal less crime, we should focus on that data. Not red herrings and strawman ideas that "no guns = no violence".
Bump stocks are legal: I was wrong. I thought they were illegal.
As for the shooter in this thread, if Devin Kelley was dishonorably discharged, I cited the law, it says that they cannot do the firearm thing.
If Devin obtained a gun, it was done, illegally. No matter the circumstances or situation: anyway he obtained the gun would have been illegal.
Now is not the time to discuss our gun laws, we have to wait until people are not "emotional" over this shooting and that will take us right into the next shooting and we wash/repeat.
No, I most certainly did not miss the point of the often used Australia example. However, and kudos to you, you did recognize my point so I think we can move on. We both agree that gun control should be in place: I think more gun control should be in place in some states as I'm sure you do, too.
Why? Why would I address an argument that I never argued against? Why would I address the counter to an argument I never made? It makes no sense. Do you know what this is? This is moving the goalposts. I don't want to argue about that. I don't want to debate about that. I think it's a useless argument. It's dumb. It's such a stupid argument to try to argue against because it doesn't apply to the US and the violence problem in the US.
Okay, I'll address: refer back to my post again that you just replied to. Plenty of other countries who do have firearm ownership.
Okay, so now that the argument is utterly destroyed, let's get back to a real discussion. How do we ACTUALLY solve the violence problem in the US?
Seems someone grabbed the terrorist's rifle, forcing him to flee:
After leaving the gas station, the gunman crossed the street, got out of his car and sprayed First Baptist Church's right side with his rifle, Martin said. He then entered the church and continued to fire until a local resident grabbed Kelley's rifle, forcing him to drop it and flee. The resident pursued Kelley, who drove off the road and crashed, Martin said.
Kelley was later found dead, Martin said, although it was unclear how he died.
"We don't know if it was a self-inflicted gunshot wound or if he was shot by our local resident who engaged him in gunfire," he said -snip
Oh my god, you're ducking like an absolute coward.
The topic of discussion in this thread is MASS SHOOTINGS. Not crime rates, not murder rates. It's MASS SHOOTINGS.
The Australia example applies to MASS SHOOTINGS. There have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia since the 1996 gun legislation. Meanwhile in America we've had more mass shootings than we can count.
If you're not gonna be intellectually honest there's no point continuing this discussion.
It's perfectly reasonable to see why banning rapid firing guns doesn't significantly decrease violent crime rates. Most murders/crimes don't involve high-powered weaponry.
The reason we need to ban rapid firing guns is NOT because it would decrease the violent crime rates, it's because it would decrease instances of mass slaughter.
"we need mental health" is not an appropiate answer to firearm regulation because regulating firearms does not hinder better treatment of mental health.
Furthermore, overall violence stats aren't relevant here, gun related violence is. The only question that needs to be answered here is if un regulations may reduce gun violence. If so, then they're worth trying.
Finally there are no rights being threatened here. The only right there ever has been is the right to well regulated use of firearms.
Last edited by Rockydonovang on Nov 6th, 2017 at 04:25 AM
Australia's mandatory buyback program isn't exactly feasible here, for obvious reasons.
Rapid fire bans might help, maybe.. Assuming they can't be worked around by modification..
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 6th, 2017 02:53 AM
