More gun sickness.

Post Reply New Topic

I've been talking about the gun restrictions in Australia in 1996, and 1997, not the Brady Bill. I mentioned more restrictive law enforcement measures as a causal factor for the overall decrease in homicides and crimes in general, in the US, but not the Brady Bill as a causal factor for that general decrease.

Overall, numbers of gun fatalities in homicides, suicides, and accidents, in research, has been associated more with the number of guns per hundred people in countries, than the types of guns sold.

"Assault Weapons" and associated ammunition are more effective killing machines for large numbers of people at one time. It is part of the reason that some of the legally described "assault weapons" that can be legally purchased, were originally designed for the military. Most guns identified in the research specific to rampage killings, in the US, that do not include robberies and gang violence, are legally purchased, including the legally identified "assault weapons" that have been used in these rampage killings. The only potential of reduction in rampage killings if these "assault weapons" are restricted for sale, is the possibility that a person involved in a rampage killing, will not have access to a more efficient killing machine.

No one has any idea what that probability is, nor could it be calculated because of the number of existing "assault weapons" already legally purchased and available for use, and the rare nature of the frequency of rampage killings in the general population.

As suggested in my last post, the potential restriction of sales for existing "assault weapons" seems to be a lose lose scenario for anyone that is concerned about overall gun fatalities in the US.

While there is the possibility, however small it may be, that some lives could be saved in a rampage killings as a result of the restriction of being able to purchase an "assault weapon", there is also the possibility, however small it may be, that more guns, in general, could be purchased as a response to that restriction leading to the potential for more guns per 100 people, and the potential for a general result of more gun fatalities per homicides, suicides, and accidents.

At least in the last 4 years, that has been the potential consequence of any talk of gun restrictions in the US, whether that concern was justified or not justified.

2008 is the one I mention regarding crime rates. I know of the one from 2010 (there was another one too from some University; I never focused on the area of suicide) -- I don't consider suicide to be a crime, even if it does affect those around them negatively.

I'm sure the erroneously dubbed "assault weapons" are flying off the shelves at this time in the US. Buying them now is kinda admitting "defeat" though and not caring about the freedom of the nation as a whole; rather, just making sure they get to have one individually. Poor Jefferson; society has been moving away from the ideals of individual rights worldwide, and it's because they like where it's been going -- like communism, I don't think liberty is something the majority can handle mentally (just the thought of it. As shown, studies show that people innately live to a similar level of "justness" when you compare similar demographics).

That's just me though, and if the majority like what they do, then good for them.

I don't consider suicides or accidents crimes, but they are a major source of human suffering, and usually something to avoid if reasonable and possible, per that general concern.

In Jefferson's time people were not nearly as dependent on the infrastructure of culture as they are today. The potential of freedom to obtain instant gratification is higher than it has ever been, however humans while subject to the power of instant gratification, are not generally evolved for continuous instant gratification. Jefferson would not likely have been able to imagine the potential for the freedom to gain instant gratification today, however many people today cannot imagine the freedom from instant gratification, that he might have had in life.

Instant gratification, is a core factor associated with liberty and freedom, underlying a great deal of human suffering in developed countries. Potentially dwarfing current overall negative consequences of gun violence in the US. It is one of the reasons that the guns are flying off the shelves, the national debt continues to increase, along with more issues than I could possibly identify.

[quote="aghogday"]
The gun control in the US, under consideration is not the control instituted in Australia in 2002; it is the gun control instituted in 1996, in Australia, specific to the sale of semi-automatic weapons that is under consideration. The violent gun crime of concern in the US is rampage killings; this crime was effectively controlled after the laws in 1996 were fully instituted, in Australia. Per the New York Times, "In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings - but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-17/u ... le/4431262

http://news.yahoo.com/could-us-learn-au ... 07680.html

I am not referring to the current laws under consideration but the public outcry to ban all weapons.

one must also remember that australia and europe have better health care and acceses for the mentaly ill.

gun control laws are not the panacea of ending gun violence

one must also remember that australia and europe have better health care and acceses for the mentaly ill.[/quote]

Yeah, and I remember the hellish flak Obama got for the PPACA...from who? Oh yeah, the same people who are pushing America further to the fiscal cliff and also are staunchly NRA-funded pro gun supporters...

I mean the UK had this discussion back in the forties...

The last thing one should want is "mental health" in the hands of a government agency. As sure as the sun rises and sh*t flows downhill the government will define any kind of strong dissent as a "mental disorder".

ruveyn

We're not talking about China here?

for several different reasons socialized medicine could never work in the U.S but that doesnt mean some aspects of socialism havent been successfull.most studies indicate mental health and personal happiness are quite good in western europe,this clearly lowers crime.

1.obama care is a joke of a proposal and 2nd,obama care isnt even socialized medicine and

3.socialized medicine cant work properly in the united states

I can't see why it wouldn't work in the US? I mean Taxes would probably rise but the long term overall benefits would surely pay dividends?

socialized medicine is very expensive and most of the nations that it started to work well in were banned from having militaries after world war 2.the us would have to virtually have to gut its military.during the cold war western europe was protected by the america and eastern europe by the soviet union and without a need for a massive mlitary they built a expensive health care system.russia of coarse had health care and military but they were communsts not semi social democracies.the russian goverment took more money from the private sector leaving most people in poverty

There is currently a public outcry for gun restrictions, but not even majority support for banning any type of gun, including assault weapons. Please cite a source for your claim that there is a public outcry to ban all weapons.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/ameri ... -bans.aspx

Majority of support in the US against banning handguns is higher than it ever has been, since 1959 according to a recent gallup poll, and support for banning handguns is lower than it ever has been since 1959.

last post continued.

a nation cant have everything.
russia had money for health care and military but that required taking to much money from the private sector and hence russia could never sustain economic growth.

america has military and wealthy citizens but not enough money for health care.
europe has health care but without raising taxes so high that its citizens would have no money it cant have a big military.
the U.K is in between mainland europe and the U.S economicly.
there is no nation that can have everything

True, and that is part of the reason among many others, that no two countries can equally be compared to any gun violence statistic on it's own. The statistics that are the most meaningful are those within a country over time.

Last edited by aghogday on 27 Dec 2012, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Socialized medicine already works in the United States.

Just look at how medical care is delivered to armed forces members and their dependents. That is socialized medicine, and it works very well.

Medicare and Medicaid are not without problems--but generally speaking they successfully deliver their program goals. I see no reason to believe that with a reasonable increase to the revenue side of the equation (which would be offset in the hands of taxpayers by the reduction in medical insurance premiums) and some modest regulatory revisions the existing programs' reach could not be extended to all citizens and permanent residents.

that is still not fully socialized medicine.we are a country of 300 million people how would we pay for that without gutting the military and if america gutted the miltary european nation would have to increase there's and that would effect there health care.

also americans work more than europeans.im western europe a 30 to 35 hour work week is normal.the amount americans work causes stress that leads to cancer and heart disease.americans are sicker and less healthy than europeans which would compound even more the health care costs