Father slain in front of daughter after dog sniffs man's leg

[slim 1,525]

So it's not a gun issue, it's a race issue?

Not a lot of "that demographic" in AUS, is there?

..... and why should "they" not have the same Rights as the rest of us?

[Heracles 417]

So it's not a gun issue, it's a race issue?

Not a lot of "that demographic" in AUS, is there?

..... and why should "they" not have the same Rights as the rest of us?

Yes, it's a gun issue. If guns were heavily restricted, as they are in other first world countries, the US's homicide rate would be lower. No brainer.

That is the point, no one should have unrestricted gun ownership since there is a problem with homicides in the US. Some people being more responsible with guns than other is a different issue.

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,525]

Yes, it's a gun issue. If guns were heavily restricted, as they are in other first world countries, the US's homicide rate would be lower. No brainer.

How so? The AUS homicide rate didn't decrease (well, .2/100,000 from your link) after the gun ban. Why would ours?

That is the point, no one should have unrestricted gun ownership since there is a problem with homicides in the US. Some people being more responsible with guns than other is a different issue.

As long as it's a race issue it's OK to regulate it. If it was only political or something, that wouldn't be right, would it?

[Heracles 417]

Where did you get 0.2 from?

[slim 1,525]

From your Wiki link about the overall homicide rate in AUS. It has declined .2/100,000 in the past eight years or something like that. Gun ban must've worked, eh?

[Heracles 417]

From your Wiki link about the overall homicide rate in AUS. It has declined .2/100,000 in the past eight years or something like that. Gun ban must've worked, eh?

First off, their rate was already low, therefore, how lower would you like it to go?

Second of all, they never had access to the types of guns people have access to here to begin with.

[slim 1,525]

First off, their rate was already low, therefore, how lower would you like it to go?

Well, I'd like it to go away completely! I mean, if nobody has any guns, there shouldn't be ANY homicides, right?

Second of all, they never had access to the types of guns people have access to here to begin with.

So we only have a higher rate of murder by firearm because we have better guns?

[Heracles 417]

Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have remained relatively static for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[18]

In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[19] In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[20] The majority of firearm related deaths are suicides, of which many involved the use of 'hunting rifles'

Edited November 28, 2009 by Booyah!

[slim 1,525]

....ah, where's the part about ALL homicides? I know, you keep proving over and over and over (ad nauseum) that gun deaths went down. I get it. But..... why didn't all homicides go down?

[Heracles 417]

....ah, where's the part about ALL homicides? I know, you keep proving over and over and over (ad nauseum) that gun deaths went down. I get it. But..... why didn't all homicides go down?

Because gun bans are targeting guns. No brainer.

Why would I discuss anything else when the topic is guns?

[slim 1,525]

Why would I discuss anything else when the topic is guns?

Because we're also talking about homicides, murders, whatever you want to call them.

If we reduce the number of guns, shouldn't that also, by default, reduce the number of homicides since guns are partly to blame for all this carnage?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Why would I discuss anything else when the topic is guns?

Because we're also talking about homicides, murders, whatever you want to call them.

If we reduce the number of guns, shouldn't that also, by default, reduce the number of homicides since guns are partly to blame for all this carnage?

But knives and other weapons don't count. Just guns. Please try to stay on topic.

[Heracles 417]

Why would I discuss anything else when the topic is guns?

Because we're also talking about homicides, murders, whatever you want to call them.

If we reduce the number of guns, shouldn't that also, by default, reduce the number of homicides since guns are partly to blame for all this carnage?

Yes, hence the low homicide rates of every other first world country.

[slim 1,525]

Yes, hence the low homicide rates of every other first world country.

Wait a minute, you mean 2/100,000 as opposed to 5/100,000 is enough to give up your Liberty?

Also, you still haven't answered the question - if guns were reduced.... why wasn't the homicide rate reduced?

[Heracles 417]

Yes, hence the low homicide rates of every other first world country.

Wait a minute, you mean 2/100,000 as opposed to 5/100,000 is enough to give up your Liberty?

Also, you still haven't answered the question - if guns were reduced.... why wasn't the homicide rate reduced?

What part of this do you not get? Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%