Gun Control Thread- Should we?

And, as I already said, that source has been discredited for two reasons.

1) The statistical model they used was flawed.
2) That source was created by people in the Australian gun lobby and hence had a predetermined outcome.

Find out more here:
http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf

Or try this source from Harvard:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/bulletins_australia_spring_2011.pdf

All reputable research indicates that the Aussie get-tough-on-guns approach worked.

Counter to that is a far more thoroughly researched paper by Lee and Suardi (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lee+and+suardi+gun+buyback+debunk&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnrlott.tripod.com%2FAustralia_ Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf&ei=oB3SUPWmG4y40QHv6YGICw&usg=AFQjCNENP-ugwHTYBghV5vhBfAkYlZINLA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ)which would suggest otherwise.

Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the
public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that
in the Australian context, the high expenditure
incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not
translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.

It will take a more concerted effort by everyone to counter societal ills that foment this kind of act.

Because you didn't have a gun in the first place?
because it seems to me that people are so self absorbed that they are worried about themselves, instead of maybe looking at the big picture

because it seems to me that people are so self absorbed that they are worried about themselves, instead of maybe looking at the big picture

From the point of self defense, I am exceedingly self absorbed or as I prefer to look at it: Proactive.

I live in a remote, high crime area. There is no way that cops are getting to my location, should I need their help, in under 30 minutes at best. I choose to have a defensive solution to hand.

I could understand your stance if I was out brandishing my handgun and big pimpin'.

Tell me what you think the bigger picture is? Kumbayah around the firepit with marshmallows? Eff that!

Also I'm sick of the guns don't kill people argument. If you want to make a literal argument for the sake of justifying a position without facts I have one too; nukes don't kill people, countries pressing the red button do. Why should we even discuss reducing nuclear stock piles or preventing states from getting them? They are just deterrents!!

See how I took a ridiculous point, interpreted super literally, to counter? We can do this all day. Its stupid and pointless. Guns, especially high ammo and high fire rate, make killing people easier and really are not needed for practical purposes.

What does that mean?

If they are used for practical purposes, why should it matter, they are not harming anyone. You say they are not needed, do you really think you are qualified to speak for every law abiding citizen that owns one?

Please explain what legal guns you think have high fire rate.

Counter to that is a far more thoroughly researched paper by Lee and Suardi (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lee+and+suardi+gun+buyback+debunk&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnrlott.tripod.com%2FAustralia_ Gun_Buyback_EI.pdf&ei=oB3SUPWmG4y40QHv6YGICw&usg=AFQjCNENP-ugwHTYBghV5vhBfAkYlZINLA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ)which would suggest otherwise.

Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical
and sensible policy that helps to placate the
public’s fears, the evidence so far suggests that
in the Australian context, the high expenditure
incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not
translated into any tangible reductions in
terms of firearm deaths.

It will take a more concerted effort by everyone to counter societal ills that foment this kind of act.

And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?

And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?

One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
Different history, different culture, different etc etc etc

One of the more powerful statements I have heard:

If only the first victim, Adam Lanza's mother, had been a gun owner, she could have stopped this before it started.

One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
Different history, different culture, different etc etc etc

The Harvard study that I provided discusses this exact issue.

We can learn from the Aussie experience and still create our own, uniquely American solution. The current American status quo clearly is not working.

And as you know from the links that I provided, the study by Lee and Suardi has been refuted.

Any more discredited research that you guys would like to cite, since you are 0 for 2 so far in providing substantive research which supports your position?

There is no mention of Lee and/or Suardi or their work in the first link and the second makes some vague rebuttal that there may have been a lag between the implementation and the effect.

However it does make this comment you obviously overlooked:

It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States. Levitt provides three reasons why gun buybacks in the United States have apparently been ineffective: (a) the buybacks are relatively small in scale (b) guns are surrendered voluntarily, and so are not like the ones used in crime; and (c) replacement guns are easy to obtain.

Once again you try to bluster or bluff your way through an argument you can't validate.

One problem with that whole thing.
This isnt Australia.
Different history, different culture, different etc etc etc


Actually they are all descendents of crimmnals.