Today's mass shooting in the US

Dont know how that corresponds to 1/5 of guns being given in.
You are using 700k guns being sold back to government in the 90's against a document about the amount of guns in Australia in 2017.
That does not prove your point of 1/5 of all guns were turned in. What it does potentially prove is that post legislation and massacre Australians can still get hold of guns.
 
Dont know how that corresponds to 1/5 of guns being given in.
You are using 700k guns being sold back to government in the 90's against a document about the amount of guns in Australia in 2017.
That does not prove your point of 1/5 of all guns were turned in. What it does potentially prove is that post legislation and massacre Australians can still get hold of guns.
basic math?
3.2 million in circulation, 700k surrendered... :cry:
 
Then offer them training or no gun, not pretending this is a solution but at least it's some kind deterrent against cowards that may target them because it's a gun free zone.

What if no teacher wants to take that up? Do schools need a minimum number of armed and trained teachers in order to function? Do you get to a point where you sack teachers who don't want to be a "designated shooter"?

Do teachers carry at all times and, if not, what arrangements would be made for storage and distribution? Do you keep guns in classrooms?

What if that hugely increases liability insurance for schools?

What if a majority of parents are pro/ anti arming teachers? Does that need regulation/ guidance to define policy on agreeing a way forward?

What if an armed teacher has a bad day, and decides to start shooting?

How much deterrent is anything against people who are acutely mentally ill, and do not value their own life?

I am always surprised that anyone thinks that putting guns into schools is a good policy.
 
Yeah, you can see it happening can't you.

"Arm teachers" is not a logical or practical solution to this issue.

Both my daughter's primary and secondary school have security gates to get through. This girl was simply allowed to drive through dressed up as limp biscuit right up to the front door and get out of her car and get loaded. I am surprised actually how easy it was for her. Keeping a secure school is not only good for shooters entering but also protecting children from pedo's and also them running away.

Equipping schools with some form of panic rooms and better road security seems like the best bet imo.
 
Last edited:
20 years difference between the events you are quoting....
Do you struggle with basic reading?
The 3.2 milliion figure is the number of guns in circulation in 1996, prior to the massacre. The 700k figure is the number of guns handed in the following months after the bill was passed, also in 1996. Jesus

are you an alt of murphy? He has the same level of reading comprehension.
 
Do teachers carry at all times and, if not, what arrangements would be made for storage and distribution? Do you keep guns in classrooms?

I am always surprised that anyone thinks that putting guns into schools is a good policy.

Of course they would be, just like your average gun owning american, they carry pretty much everywhere.

I even hear of employees at gas stations and other high robbery rate places say they carry regardless of policy, because theyd rather be able to defend themselves and not get killed than be a sitting duck. I really dont think people have any idea how common defensive gun use is in the states.
 
Do you struggle with basic reading?
The 3.2 milliion figure is the number of guns in circulation in 1996, prior to the massacre. The 700k figure is the number of guns handed in the following months after the bill was passed, also in 1996. Jesus

are you an alt of murphy? He has the same level of reading comprehension.

And were all of those 3.2 million guns targeted in the buy back?
IIRC Australia has quite a lot of rural people who deal with the sorts of pests that rural people tend to find, and one of the most common ways to do that is via guns. From memory it didn't ban normal shotguns (but did pump action etc), and many but not all rifle types.

Basically their firearms laws are much closer to ours than the US now.

You seem to have a problem with understanding that Australia didn't ban all firearms, just certain types and brought in better checks for those who wished to have one.
 
Of course they would be, just like your average gun owning american, they carry pretty much everywhere.

I even hear of employees at gas stations and other high robbery rate places say they carry regardless of policy, because theyd rather be able to defend themselves and not get killed than be a sitting duck. I really dont think people have any idea how common defensive gun use is in the states.

How common is it, I'm intrigued?
 
Do you struggle with basic reading?
The 3.2 milliion figure is the number of guns in circulation in 1996, prior to the massacre. The 700k figure is the number of guns handed in the following months after the bill was passed, also in 1996. Jesus

are you an alt of murphy? He has the same level of reading comprehension.
More factors to be considered, some guns will be kept for sporting purposes and other means as werewolf suggested.
Can you confirm how Australia hasn't had such a massacre since the ban too? Why would it work is aus but no US?

Also don't go throwing accusations or try to insult my reading ability.
 
Last edited:
How common is it, I'm intrigued?
I got kind of curious and I had a quick search

The estimate varies from 500,000 per year to over 3 million per year. It hard to get official data for this because people don't bother to report defensive use to the police (to be fair why would they).

This link appears to collate data from incidents that had a media presence. So you can click through and get more details.

The most recent survey I found estimated it to be 1.67 million per year but this only included people using guns they owned. As with all of these types of surveys (were they try to estimate patterns for a whole population) they hope they have a large enough sample size that errors due to extrapolation are minimised,.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that anything meaningful needs to be bipartisan and pass both houses.

The Republicans and the NRA however don't want to do anything about it because the NRA makes money from the fear of the "other" and selling guns, whilst the Republicans make money by doing whatever the NRA tell them to do and claiming guns aren't an issue and everyone should have the right to carry whatever they want without training or checks at all times (whilst quietly banning them at their events).

The Republicans have at least more largely stayed consistent on their view on firearms.... mostly pro second amendment.

The Democrats on the other hand seem hell bent on following a course that, whether intentionally or not, has seen gun ownership rates increase quite heavily in the US. With some previously less well armed demographics seeing some of the biggest increases.

In the past few years we have seen Democrats tacitly support if not actively cheered on mass fatal riots, unlawful and lawless 'autonomous zones' and Marxist agitators. Whilst also witnessing senior democrats push insane gender ideology and socialism

Senior Democrats have also repeatedly spread false narratives around incidents that had led to mass disorder years after the facts were established.



And what have the Democrats got to say in response with regards to the rhetoric coming from the Republicans?

Hysterically go on about a supposed 'insurrection', in one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, where almost none of the alleged belligerents brought firearms and the only person shot was one of the crowd (not unjustifiably in my mind but that's a separate matter).

Of course it should come as no surprise that some of the biggest rises have come from those either less able to defend themselves or more likely to be in the riot zones whilst the senior Democrats cheering on the mayhem are shielded in their gated communities.


It's entirely rational to tell then Democrats to go do one every time they bring increased gun control to the table because the facts are that it is the Democrats and their base that have shifted the most over the past 30 years or so, and then with the biggest swing int he last decade, not the Republicans.

The trend was also well underway before the 45th president came into office so you can't claim he's the cause. In deed more the reaction would appear to be the case.


The Democrats need to address the extremism in their own ranks before any meaningful progress can be made re gun control
 
Last edited:

The American voters keep electing these corrupt brain-dead officials, so these things will keep happening. Don't want innocent poeple being mass shot with guns? Vote in actual gun laws by voting out republicans, who don't care about American lives, they care more about cancelling trans people instead.
 
Last edited:
I got kind of curious and I had a quick search

The estimate varies from 500,000 per year to over 3 million per year. It hard to get official data for this because people don't bother to report defensive use to the

Ta, that's very helpful.

1.67m would mean around 1 in 150ish gun owners are involved in such an incident every year, give or take. That seems high, but there you go.
 
The thing that always shocks me about first world politics is how cheaply you can buy a huge amount of power. The amounts involved in effectively buying peoples lives is shocking. I watched something about the flint water crisis a few years ago and they were selling their souls for $10,000 dollars or so at times.
 
The thing that always shocks me about first world politics is how cheaply you can buy a huge amount of power. The amounts involved in effectively buying peoples lives is shocking. I watched something about the flint water crisis a few years ago and they were selling their souls for $10,000 dollars or so at times.
How else do you think politicians sit on millions in the bank? They all sell their soul to the highest bidder.
 
How else do you think politicians sit on millions in the bank? They all sell their soul to the highest bidder.

It wasn't that they were doing it. We all know they are corrupt as hell, I was just astonished at how little money was required to do so much damage. I assumed it would be hundreds of thousands or millions required.
 
Back
Top Bottom