Shot Down: gun law study shows no effect

[rushmc 18]

In the spirit of the 2020 Summit, academics have released startling new evidence about the impact of Australian gun laws, and argue that future public policy must differentiate between what does and does not work.

And its peer reviewed!!
http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=2240

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[funjumper101 15]

Excellent!!

Maybe the liberals that like "gun control" will start to get a clue.

I think that every US citizen should be required to learn how to safely shoot a rifle and a pistol, and how to clean them when they are done. If the mystery is removed, the fear goes away.

We should implement the Swiss model of civil defense. Adult males should own at least one firearm, keep a stock of usable ammunition, and be required to maintain proficiency in target shooting. Adult women should have the option to participate, if they want to.

Use of a gun in the commission of a crime should be a mandatory 10 year sentence, with no possibilty of parole, on top of any other charges.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Guns are just one of the tools that can be used to do it.

This is no joke. I honestly feel this way.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear on the matter. The language is clear, in context of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The NRA's analysis of intent is spot on.

"Consent of the governed" only works if the people have the means to resist. It is the difference between "citizens" and "subjects".

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Excellent!!

Maybe the liberals that like "gun control" will start to get a clue.

I think that every US citizen should be required to learn how to safely shoot a rifle and a pistol, and how to clean them when they are done. If the mystery is removed, the fear goes away.

We should implement the Swiss model of civil defense. Adult males should own at least one firearm, keep a stock of usable ammunition, and be required to maintain proficiency in target shooting. Adult women should have the option to participate, if they want to.

Use of a gun in the commission of a crime should be a mandatory 10 year sentence, with no possibilty of parole, on top of any other charges.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Guns are just one of the tools that can be used to do it.

This is no joke. I honestly feel this way.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear on the matter. The language is clear, in context of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The NRA's analysis of intent is spot on.

"Consent of the governed" only works if the people have the means to resist. It is the difference between "citizens" and "subjects".

What you said!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

In some circles, that's heresy!

Just wait, the anti-gun crowd will come out against guns like a Kansas School Board does with evolution!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

In some circles, that's heresy!

Just wait, the anti-gun crowd will come out against guns like a Kansas School Board does with evolution!

So, flying spaghetti monsters use guns to kill God?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

No. they dont' use guns. They use halitosis.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

No. they dont' use guns. They use halitosis.

eeewwwwhhhhh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

nothin like a "peer reviewed" study to put a kink in a position

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BIGUN 1,062]

Quote

Lady walks in the house and sees a gun on the table and asks, "Is it loaded?"
Yes, Ma'am.
Why would you keep a loaded gun in the house?
In case bad guys decide to break in.
Are you expecting bad guys to break in.
No Ma'am, but I'm not expecting a fire in the house either, but I have fire extinguishers and keep them loaded too.

Source: Unkown

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Excellent!!

Maybe the liberals that like "gun control" will start to get a clue.

I think that every US citizen should be required to learn how to safely shoot a rifle and a pistol, and how to clean them when they are done. If the mystery is removed, the fear goes away.

We should implement the Swiss model of civil defense. Adult males should own at least one firearm, keep a stock of usable ammunition, and be required to maintain proficiency in target shooting. Adult women should have the option to participate, if they want to.

Use of a gun in the commission of a crime should be a mandatory 10 year sentence, with no possibilty of parole, on top of any other charges.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Guns are just one of the tools that can be used to do it.

This is no joke. I honestly feel this way.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear on the matter. The language is clear, in context of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The NRA's analysis of intent is spot on.

"Consent of the governed" only works if the people have the means to resist. It is the difference between "citizens" and "subjects".

__________________________________________________
I second the motion!!! But as you and I know most liberals will never get a clue when it comes to gun control.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[SpeedRacer 1]

OH come on. SOME liberals support the second amendment.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[AWL71 0]

Quote

OH come on. SOME liberals support the second amendment.

__________________________________________________Good to hear. I changed my post to say that "most" liberals will never support the second amendment. Speakers Corner always has a way of bringing out those blanket statements...

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Nightingale 0]

My solution:

Take a liberal to the range. Teach them the safety basics and how to aim, pick a quiet afternoon, and give them a .22 (anything that kicks can be scary to a newbie) and a big non-human, non-critter target. Present it as a "sharing of perspectives", and make a bargain. They go to the range, you go to the next MoveOn rally or Michael Moore movie with them.

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

I think that every US citizen should be required to learn how to safely shoot a rifle and a pistol, and how to clean them when they are done. If the mystery is removed, the fear goes away.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear on the matter. The language is clear, in context of the rest of the Bill of Rights. The NRA's analysis of intent is spot on.

I agree that every man, woman, and child should know how to properly handle and fire a gun. As you said, takes the fear away. You can still choose not to own one (not sure why you wouldn't want to).

However, I don't think the 2nd amendment is as clear as we would like on this issue - even in the context of the Bill of Rights.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There are many who would argue that the term "bear arms" (in the 18th century) referred to military service, not firearm usage by civilians. And the 2nd amendment itself refers to this when mentioning a "well regulated militia."

So although I am all for gun ownership - and just a general increase in knowledge on the part of the general public, I don't think it's a clear cut issue.

[Nightingale 0]

When the second amendment was written, a "militia" was not a standing army. It was every able bodied man. The Militia Act of 1903 defined it as every male from 17 to 45. The militia were the civilians.

[Clownburner 0]

California Military and Veterans Code:

Sec 120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard, the
State Military Reserve, or the Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

Seems to me that the definition our forefathers gave hasn't changed much, so if you want to argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to Militias, you're probably right. The militia is everybody.

*Note: The code should be updated to allow women to serve as well.

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[DZJ 0]

Just to be clear, you're not trying to make a point about American guns laws using a study about Australia, are you?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Just to be clear, you're not trying to make a point about American guns laws using a study about Australia, are you?

Actually, he probably is.

What's the problem with making such a link?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Just to be clear, you're not trying to make a point about American guns laws using a study about Australia, are you?

In a sense? Yes.

Gun laws are gun laws, yes?

If taking guns from a population in one country has no effect why would one conclude it works in a differnet one?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Maybe you can help me with something. Why are the anit gun-o-phobs so quite here?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe you can help me with something. Why are the anit gun-o-phobs so quite here?

aren't you an anti gunophobe?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you can help me with something. Why are the anit gun-o-phobs so quite here?

aren't you an anti gunophobe?

Ok, I get the double negative

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[thirdworld19 0]

Quote

When the second amendment was written, a "militia" was not a standing army. It was every able bodied man. The Militia Act of 1903 defined it as every male from 17 to 45. The militia were the civilians.

I agree - it was not a standing army, but it was able bodied men able to come together in a militia when necessary. This is one of the biggest sticking points - is the right individual or collective. The Militia Act defining it after the fact has no bearing on what the founding fathers intended. But my point is, it is not clear now what it means. There are many arguments on both sides.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

When the second amendment was written, a "militia" was not a standing army. It was every able bodied man. The Militia Act of 1903 defined it as every male from 17 to 45. The militia were the civilians.

I agree - it was not a standing army, but it was able bodied men able to come together in a militia when necessary. This is one of the biggest sticking points - is the right individual or collective. The Militia Act defining it after the fact has no bearing on what the founding fathers intended. But my point is, it is not clear now what it means. There are many arguments on both sides.

It's collective, just like the other rights. The right to free speech is the right to a single free paper Pravda in which all citizens can jointly express our thoughts. The right to due process is a collective right, which applies to the law abiding citizens and not individual terrorists. Etc.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When the second amendment was written, a "militia" was not a standing army. It was every able bodied man. The Militia Act of 1903 defined it as every male from 17 to 45. The militia were the civilians.

I agree - it was not a standing army, but it was able bodied men able to come together in a militia when necessary. This is one of the biggest sticking points - is the right individual or collective. The Militia Act defining it after the fact has no bearing on what the founding fathers intended. But my point is, it is not clear now what it means. There are many arguments on both sides.

It's collective, just like the other rights. The right to free speech is the right to a single free paper Pravda in which all citizens can jointly express our thoughts. The right to due process is a collective right, which applies to the law abiding citizens and not individual terrorists. Etc.

NONE of any of the other Rights have ever been looked at by any court as collective. In every other case it is individual. Exactly as it was meant to be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln