Philosophy Discussion Forums

Came to look at gun control arguments and got climate change talk instead. I'm curious how the topic changed, but you guys make make short essays as comments. I ain't got no time for that.

Wgk7, I copy my first post to this topic here for your benefit, and to hopefully bring the discussion back on track. And I note that for all the wishful thinking eg about a well-armed and therefore polite society, the US has a massive problem, which could be significantly reduced if sensible controls were put in place.

***

Universal Alien, in the OP, wrote:

'Australia after a similar incident some years ago outlawed all guns. And then the crime rate went up so high they had to rescind the law.'

I have only just started reading this thread, but have to comment. This blatant ******** cannot go unchallenged.

Please check your facts, Universal Alien. While you are right that Australia had a similar incident (in 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people, and wounded 18 others) you are completely wrong in the rest of the above quote.

As a result of Bryant's actions in the "Port Arthur Massacre" Australia benefitted from a rare example of political leadership. Then Prime Minister took on the gun lobby, and even members of his government, to introduce the National Firearms Agreement (NFA). All guns were not banned, although 640,000 were bought back by the government, and scrapped. Private ownership of semi-automatics like Bryant used was banned, universal registration introduced giving police a record of ownership, along with rules regarding safe storage of weapons. These laws have not been rescinded

And the crime rate did not rise.

More facts: In the 18 years prior to Port Arthur, there were 13 gun massacres ( defined as 4 or more people killed) in Australia. Since then, there have been NONE.

Gun deaths have fallen from 600/year in the early '90s, to less than 250/year. These figures include gun homicides and suicides, and the overall figures for homicide and suicide show that the use of a gun has not been replaced by other means.

And there has been a huge economic benefit besides the obvious social benefits of so many lives not being lost or taken. Gun reform cost Australia about $500 million, and has result in estimated savings approaching $10 billion. Follow this link to the Harvard research if you don't believe me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opini ... .html?_r=0

The (so-called) United States have a gun problem. Australia does not, nor do other nations which have taken serious action on gun control.

Robert66 wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2020, 1:26 pm Wgk7, I copy my first post to this topic here for your benefit, and to hopefully bring the discussion back on track. And I note that for all the wishful thinking eg about a well-armed and therefore polite society, the US has a massive problem, which could be significantly reduced if sensible controls were put in place.

***

Universal Alien, in the OP, wrote:

'Australia after a similar incident some years ago outlawed all guns. And then the crime rate went up so high they had to rescind the law.'

I have only just started reading this thread, but have to comment. This blatant ******** cannot go unchallenged.

Please check your facts, Universal Alien. While you are right that Australia had a similar incident (in 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people, and wounded 18 others) you are completely wrong in the rest of the above quote.

As a result of Bryant's actions in the "Port Arthur Massacre" Australia benefitted from a rare example of political leadership. Then Prime Minister took on the gun lobby, and even members of his government, to introduce the National Firearms Agreement (NFA). All guns were not banned, although 640,000 were bought back by the government, and scrapped. Private ownership of semi-automatics like Bryant used was banned, universal registration introduced giving police a record of ownership, along with rules regarding safe storage of weapons. These laws have not been rescinded

And the crime rate did not rise.

More facts: In the 18 years prior to Port Arthur, there were 13 gun massacres ( defined as 4 or more people killed) in Australia. Since then, there have been NONE.

Gun deaths have fallen from 600/year in the early '90s, to less than 250/year. These figures include gun homicides and suicides, and the overall figures for homicide and suicide show that the use of a gun has not been replaced by other means.

And there has been a huge economic benefit besides the obvious social benefits of so many lives not being lost or taken. Gun reform cost Australia about $500 million, and has result in estimated savings approaching $10 billion. Follow this link to the Harvard research if you don't believe me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opini ... .html?_r=0

The (so-called) United States have a gun problem. Australia does not, nor do other nations which have taken serious action on gun control.

Actually the US has a paranoia problem that causes folks to buy (and use) too many guns. Similar but a little different

We are catching up. We had a rush of gun buying in Australia too. Not as bad as toilet paper, which has somehow become porous white gold, but enough to catch the government's attention.

We are still unsure whether we are a state of America or a Chinese province.

Robert is correct. Universal Alien's claim about crime in Australia was an obvious lie.

Greta wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2020, 6:48 pm We are catching up. We had a rush of gun buying in Australia too. Not as bad as toilet paper, which has somehow become porous white gold, but enough to catch the government's attention.

Isn't that amazing? Paper towels too.

Human priorities on display. Pooping and protection.

'We are catching up. We had a rush of gun buying in Australia too.'

True, Greta. Thanks to wilful misleaders like Universal Alien, the pressure on legislators to wind back and undo post-Port Arthur gun law reform in Australia has been unrelenting.

Global news agency AFP fact-checked another dangerously misleading piece last year:

https://factcheck.afp.com/no-post-does- ... s-gun-laws

When it comes to guns, and fake news, I hope Australia never catches up to the US, or gets anywhere near it.

I'll go further. It is more than misleading. The people who post these lies do so with malicious intent. They are complicit in the human tragedy wreaked by out-of-control gun ownership and use. They may as well be squeezing the trigger.

Maybe some light at the end of a very long tunnel, with encouraging words from Biden. Surely Americans will agree with him that no one needs assault weapons, and will stand up against the NRA and their entourage of dangerous idiots, who will no doubt redouble their efforts to thwart much needed progress.

Robert66 wrote: ↑April 15th, 2021, 4:58 pmSurely Americans will agree with him that no one needs assault weapons ...

But ... but ... how do they keep their families safe? Are assault rifles enough?

The US needs to urgently legalise the use of hand grenades, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads for use in the suburbs. How else can Americans feel safe??

Yes the ultimate question in this context: would more, or fewer, weapons make one feel safe.

Cue the rolling out of all the old excuses masquerading as arguments. But does anyone truly need convincing that better control of guns is needed in the U.S.? I mean anyone on this planet.

I doubt that the US's founding fathers would have written the Second Amendment with the same loose wording if they had the benefit of seeing today's situation.

Oh, and anthrax too. These days you really, really need a good supply anthrax to force potential assailants to keep out of your suburb.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 15th, 2021, 5:39 pm

Robert66 wrote: ↑April 15th, 2021, 4:58 pmSurely Americans will agree with him that no one needs assault weapons ...

But ... but ... how do they keep their families safe? Are assault rifles enough?

The US needs to urgently legalise the use of hand grenades, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads for use in the suburbs. How else can Americans feel safe??

Like I said before, the US has a paranoia problem that leads to too many guns, which leads to a gun problem. But it doesn't start with the guns.

Is it paranoid to know that one's social class is a lot less valuable than others' social class. Extreme class differentials are divisive.

Belindi wrote: ↑April 16th, 2021, 3:18 am Is it paranoid to know that one's social class is a lot less valuable than others' social class. Extreme class differentials are divisive.

Very true, but the solution to that doesn't lie through guns.