It also happened among US troops in WW2 and Vietnam. The US moved from bullseye type training targets to silhouettes of men and the shot's to kill ration improved.
Stand for the Second Amendment
- Thread starter jzeidler
- Start date
It also happened among US troops in WW2 and Vietnam. The US moved from bullseye type training targets to silhouettes of men and the shot's to kill ration improved.
Lon
Well-known member
You got a little Al Pacino on me there.
jzeidler
New member
Stand for the Second Amendment
When you value life you support the second amendment. The ability to protect your life.
https://soundcloud.com/freedomsfortress/sets/let-me-be-clear
When you value life you support the second amendment. The ability to protect your life.
https://soundcloud.com/freedomsfortress/sets/let-me-be-clear
jzeidler
New member
Stand for the Second Amendment
For those who are saying that the second amendment isn’t to defend against tyranny. First you’re wrong. Second, the founding fathers disagree with you.
Maybe you say, “take away guns because you cant fight against the military. Their too powerful. So we need to make you TOTALLY vulnerable.” First, that’s the argument of tyrants. Second that’s mathematically incorrect. If there are 326 mill citizens in America and only three percent (the estimated percent who fought in the revolutionary war) fought a tyrannical government that would be 9,780,00 fighters. That’s enough.
https://soundcloud.com/freedomsfortress/sets/let-me-be-clear
For those who are saying that the second amendment isn’t to defend against tyranny. First you’re wrong. Second, the founding fathers disagree with you.
Maybe you say, “take away guns because you cant fight against the military. Their too powerful. So we need to make you TOTALLY vulnerable.” First, that’s the argument of tyrants. Second that’s mathematically incorrect. If there are 326 mill citizens in America and only three percent (the estimated percent who fought in the revolutionary war) fought a tyrannical government that would be 9,780,00 fighters. That’s enough.
https://soundcloud.com/freedomsfortress/sets/let-me-be-clear
jzeidler
New member
Hasn’t helped in England, Australia, or others who did gun bans.
https://soundcloud.com/freedomsfortress/sets/let-me-be-clear
It really has, which is why they do demonstrably, dramatically better than us on the point.
Shouldn't be that hard a war, given how many people who live there are of French descent.
lain:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Good. Also bear in mind that the 'militia' are all peaceful, innocent, and law abiding people of the United States, and we have a duty to keep and bear arms, which is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Although, it's been continually infringed since 1934. In 1933 you could procure a machine gun through mail order. Also, when both machine guns and liquor were legal, there wasn't a gangster problem in America, then liquor was outlawed, but machine guns weren't, and then there were gangsters.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Australia's murder rate dropped after the compulsory buyback, just not as much as in the US, which was at the time increasing its AR15s per capita, instead of snuffing them out completely like in Australia.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
And that's correct---the murder rate in the United States dropped more on a percentage basis, after the Australian assault weapon ban + confiscation, than it did IN AUSTRALIA. So what does THAT tell you?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
can't we just put trudeau and trump in a steel cage match and let them duke it out?
That if you skew a consideration hard enough you can almost make data say anything you want.
What you can't do is undermine the objective data field we have across multiple countries and comparative data between states. I've set that out with links more than once. The fact remains that every country with strong, universal gun laws does a marked better job at keeping their citizens safer from gun violence and mass shootings. Equally true, the stricter state laws correlate with marked lower rates of gun violence and mass shootings. Will there be outliers in nearly any statistical examination? Sure. But the rule is pretty dramatically supported.
On rate declines, Australia had a fairly low homicide rate at the time of the Port Arthur massacre that gave birth to tougher gun laws. In 1996 the homicide rate was 1.6 per 100k. We were at 7.4 per 100k at that point and falling, a thing I'll take on more particularly in a moment.
Australia's rate of overall homicide was about the same during the buy back of 1997 as it had been for them in 1996, because it was low to begin with and mass shootings, horrible as they were, didn't make up much of that figure. Anyway, low as it was, by 2014 it had dropped to 1 per 100k, or approaching a reduction approaching half of what it was before the laws. What the tighter gun laws were mostly successful in doing (the rate being fairly low and gun laws prior not being comparably lax as, say, Alabama today) was to make mass shootings much harder to come by, which was the point of the Port Arthur related laws. In the 18 years prior to that incident Australia had witnessed 13 mass shootings. In the 22 years since those laws there have been none.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. we had seen, with the rise of the enormous baby-boom population, an unprecedented rise in homicide rates. As the 60s closed we averaged 7.3 murders per 100k. The rise continued until most of the 70s saw nearly double digit deaths nationally, per 100k. By 1980 the number reached that double digit figure.
From 1972, when we hit 9.0 per 100, until 1994, when the beginning of the aging of those baby-boomer began to impact the numbers to the good, in those 23 years our murder rate was 9 or better 14 times. It was 8 to 8.8 seven times. Or, it dipped below 8 only twice during that stretch.
The decrease in rate that began in 95 continued to follow that generation's decline steadily. From 96 to 97 it declined by .6, to 6.8. The following year it declined .5 to 6.3. By 2000 the rate was back into the 5s, and by 2010 we were back into the 4s, in the high norm for 50s to mid 60s.
To compare murder rate drops by percentage between Australia and the U.S. is to mislead people unless you set out those numbers.
Meanwhile, between 1997 and present date, since the imposition of laws taking the weapons most successful in mass shootings out of easy access and commercial circulation, there have been 0 mass shootings in Australia.
In the U.S. where those laws are not in place, we've had 168 so far this year, with 235 dead and another 597 wounded.
Here are the death tolls in the U.S. from mass shootings since 2013 on the left, with a / plus the number of dead and then the same numbers in Australia each of those years. You can figure out the comparative rates if you like:
2013: 339/ 467 dead. Australia: 0/0 dead.
2014: 325/ 364 dead. Australia: 0/0 dead.
2015: 371/ 469 dead. Australia: 0/0 dead.
2016: 477/ 606 dead. Australia: 0/0 dead.
2017: 427/ 590 dead. Australia: 0/0 dead.
That's what the laws were gunning for in a relatively peaceful country otherwise. Looks fairly effective.
I don't have the numbers for us prior on hand so I borrowed this limited data set from Mass Shooting tracker, which uses the FBI definition and notes and links to reports of each incident in every year since they began to accumulate the data. So far, with Australia giving us 16 free years, the comparative toll is:
U.S. 2,107 mass shootings, with 2,731 dead. Australia: no mass shootings (though one near, by definition) and no fatalities. I have a feeling that if we add the other years it looks even worse for us. Just a hunch, mind you.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That was precisely my point.
Actually if you compare civilian gun ownership worldwide with murder rates, you'll find zero correlation between the two, with the exception that perhaps more guns = less murders, but certainly not the other way around, as you're suggesting.
That is a very elaborate way of restating what I already put forth. "the murder rate in the United States dropped more on a percentage basis, after the Australian assault weapon ban + confiscation, than it did IN AUSTRALIA."
I summarized those numbers, and you supplied them for me. I wasn't misleading anybody in telling the truth of the matter. In a time when the number of assault weapons per capita in Australia went to zero, and instead in the US it rose, the murder rate in America dropped more than it did in Australia over the same timeframe.
More mass shootings are perpetrated with handguns than with assault weapons, and by a very wide margin. To suggest otherwise is to mislead people.
Also, just for grins, did you know that before 1934, anybody in America could order a machine gun through mail order?
In spite of your wrong view, where you believe that the inalienable right of all people to keep and bear arms ought to be infringed, and fairly severely, I nonetheless wish you well. In particular, I wish for you to have your choice of either an M4 or an M16, with an abundant supply of ammunition and maximum-capacity magazines, and I wish the same for everyone in your family, among your friends, and in your local church.
I'm not against gun ownership, but you'll have to set out that data pool. I've linked repeatedly to mine and invited people to look around in the source materials. We have more guns/higher gun ownership than any of the Western Democracies that do dramatically better at protecting their public from gun violence and mass shooting. Where the laws I'm suggesting exist (or simply much stronger, universal gun laws exist) the rate of death from gun violence is much, much lower than where that isn't the case. True comparing countries and true comparing weak sister equivalents in the U.S. state to state.
No, it's a way of demonstrating that your note needed context. The U.S. had a remarkably higher rate of violence that had sustained over a good bit of time and, as the generation responsible for much of it entered maturity that rate began to steadily decline. It had a great deal farther to go than Australia, where the rate was already lower by a staggering margin than the U.S. would see at any point in its history.
Australia decided to pass tough universal gun laws because they wanted to make mass shootings less likely. And they did just that.
Sure you were. Maybe you didn't mean to or see it, but it's there. What you did suggested that without any advancing gun laws we did better than Australia and their remarkable effort. It's not remotely true. An A student's rate of improvement might look like nothing much as he grades upward from a 95 to a 97 average, but he's doing a great deal better at his math than the kid who went from a 70 to an 80, even if the rate impresses.
Well, it didn't go to zero in that year. But a lot of weapons were turned in to be sure. And it became impossible to legally purchase them, which is really important and something I speak to in terms of the impact of laws here. Limit ease and you impact opportunity. Take a thing out of the stream of commerce and it will move the numbers.
The murder rate dropped in the U.S. for reasons unrelated to weapons. We know that because no significantly limiting laws were being passed, but the people who had in their youth sponsored an unprecedented wave of violence, staggeringly more pronounced than anything Australia (or most other democracies) had seen began to age and that rate declined. If you want to see a relation between law and effect, look to the country where laws aimed at impacting gun violence were introduced to deter a thing. Australia is one such country. They had a remarkably low rate of murder per 100k before. But they aimed to impact mass shooting following Port Arthur, trying to prevent what had happened 13 times in 18 years there. In the 22 years since they've had none.
I haven't suggested it. What I'm for, as a gun owner and supporter of the right, is a restriction banning semi and fully automatic weapons from private ownership, limiting their possession to the police and military, and a ban on any weapon capable of firing more than six rounds before manual reloading. So there go magazine fed weapons, bump stocks, etc. We're down to revolvers, breech loaded and bolt action weapons and the odd Winchester. Weapons more effective than anything the Founders had to meet the right.
Do that and you won't have someone walking through a mall killing dozens of people before anyone can do anything about it.
I did know that. Most people couldn't afford one and given the economic times weren't interested. Additionally, of course, we had a country without interstates, without the sort of consumerism and leisure we find today. And we had a greatly reduced population. That factors. Mobility, lower numbers of people with less buying power, different social conventions. Oh we had all sorts of violence, but it was still harder for most people to engage in the sort we see today with alarming frequency.
Every right has limitations in relation to a balancing among other rights and individuals in exercise. Reason and necessity compel it. So you can speak your mind, but not in my living room. You can have a rally, but you need a permit so everyone doesn't just show up downtown for six different rallies, etc. All rights are treated that way and it is irresponsible to approach this one any differently.
Yeah, we already have a version of that model. It's a charnel house compared to the nations without your approach. No thanks.
My suggestion for Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau Jong-un is to purchase North Korea's nuclear warheads and missiles and then position then to target Trump properties!
Given "The Donald's" perverse habit of denigrating his allies and heaping praise on his enemies, Prime Minister Trudeau Jong-un could replace North Korea's Kim as Trump's new best friend, allowing America's Beloved Leader to engage in another weekend of golf, secure in the knowledge that once again his superior negotiating skills have saved the world for another week!
Last edited:
Thread: Stand for the Second Amendment
in 2016, America ranked 81st in the world based on its homicide rate per 100 000 - one of the highest for any developed nation!
its Canadian counterpart which shares 5250 miles of common border raked 140th in homicides - a difference of 59 nations.
Given that Canada has no 2nd Amendment, and although citizens are allowed to own hunting rifles and shotguns, handguns and semi automatic assault type weapons most commonly associated with mass shootings, are not available for private ownership.
Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario are on either side of the Detroit River, less than a mile apart - Detroit averages a homicide daily and has long held the dubious reputation as one of America's most violent cities, while Windsor recently went 27 months without a homicide!
Most Canadian citizens don't own a firearm and there is no popular political support to legislate the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment or adopt the American approach to gun ownership.
The relatively low rate of homicides involving firearms in Canada speaks for itself, and effectively undermines the arguments used to justify the current carnage that characterizes the gun culture in America!
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
now tell us what percentage of Canadians are black (3.5%)
and what percentage of americans are black (12.6%)
mass shootings don't even register as a blip on the American murder stats - most are one on one shootings, disproportionately from one ethnicity
can you guess which one?
Spoiler
Metro Detroit: 22.8% black
Windsor, Ontario: 4.9% black
gonna ban knives next?
Spoiler
dodge
New member
Did you know if the 5 leading cities in the US were removed from the census that America would be 4th from the bottom on the gun violence list, and yes the 5 cities that make the US so high in gun violence are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
betcha you can find a correlation to a particular ethnicity as well :think: