• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

i think that normalizing hate which foments - or in some cases actively attempts to incite - violence as satire, even offensive satire, is a problem.

undiminished689 said:
You gonna deny the Armenian genocide too?
Click to expand...
that's an odd non sequitor. i have no idea what you're talking about but maybe try to reign in the assumptions...

alasdair
 
Captain.Heroin said:
I thought AUS already banned the guns? How's that gun control working out?
Click to expand...

since 1996, this horrific incident is the worst mass shooting we've had.
the gun culture (of which regulation is just one part) in australia has meant "mass shootings" pretty much don't happen here - think there has been one single attempt at a shooting spree here since 1996 (at monash university in 2002 which resulted in two deaths)

this tragic murder-suicide was a domestic violence incident - not a spree killing - they are exceedingly rare in australia.

so i'd say "gun control" has worked about as well as we could possibly have hoped, if our hope is to reduce gun violence, especially with regards to spree shootings.


Australia's worst modern mass shootings

Date / Location / state / Total deaths (including shooter)

May 11, 2018 Osmington, WA 7

September 9, 2014 Lockhart, NSW 5

April 28, 1996 Port Arthur, Tas 35

January 25, 1996 Hillcrest, Qld 7

March 31, 1993 Cangai, NSW 6

October 27, 1992 Terrigal, NSW 6

August 17, 1991 Strathfield, NSW 7

August 30, 1990 Surry Hills, NSW 5

September 25, 1988 Oenpelli, NT 6

December 8, 1987 Queen Street, Vic 9

October 10, 1987 Canley Vale, NSW 6

August 9, 1987 Hoddle Street, Vic 7

June 19, 1987 Top End, NT/WA 6

June 1, 1984 Wahroonga, NSW 6

September 24, 1981 Campsie, NSW 6​
Click to expand...

source: ABC Australia
 
Last edited:
It's like this guys.

26 out 27 mass shooters didn't have fathers

Almost all of them were on anti psychotics

And ur solution is take guns.

While completely bypassing this beautiful line of the constitution "Shall not be infringed"

You take guns, ppl will use knives, take knives ppl will use acid. Ppl will still kill each other and being able to have a gun is a freedom ur trying to give up for a sense of security.

I understand the anti gun argument.

But it's ammoral and completely makes way for an oppressive and authoritarian regime
 
undiminished689 said:
It's like this guys.

26 out 27 mass shooters didn't have fathers

Almost all of them were on anti psychotics

And ur solution is take guns.

While completely bypassing this beautiful line of the constitution "Shall not be infringed"

You take guns, ppl will use knives, take knives ppl will use acid. Ppl will still kill each other and being able to have a gun is a freedom ur trying to give up for a sense of security.

I understand the anti gun argument.

But it's ammoral and completely makes way for an oppressive and authoritarian regime
Click to expand...

It’s actually mind blowing, but saying all on the left are against the right to bear arms is facually wrong. Many on the far/alt left including tankies, anarchism communists, etc want guns for the eventual over throw of the government to install an authoritarian communist government. Had no idea this was the case till I listened to a few pod casts and started following far left sub forums. It’s just neo liberals and other mainstream liberal factions that want rights stripped the constitution and oppose personal gun rights.
 
Droppersneck said:
It’s actually mind blowing, but saying all on the left are against the right to bear arms is facually wrong. Many on the far/alt left including tankies, anarchism communists, etc want guns for the eventual over throw of the government to install an authoritarian communist government. Had no idea this was the case till I listened to a few pod casts and started following far left sub forums. It’s just neo liberals and other mainstream liberal factions that want rights stripped the constitution and oppose personal gun rights.
Click to expand...

U realize anarcho commie don't want a government right? It's in the name like "anarchy" right?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna41966

For the knife thing
 
Droppersneck said:
It’s actually mind blowing, but saying all on the left are against the right to bear arms is facually wrong.
...
It’s just neo liberals and other mainstream liberal factions that want rights stripped the constitution and oppose personal gun rights.
Click to expand...
it's amusing that you open by dismissing one vague generalisation yet close with another...

alasdair
 
undiminished689 said:
I'm pretty sure most Americans where strapped to the teeth from the 1700-1800-possibly 1900s
Click to expand...

Try reading a few history books. Handguns didn't exist back then. Rifles were nothing like they are now.

Why pretty sure? Why not do some research?

alasdairm said:
stephen paddock wouldn't have killed 58 people if he'd used a knife.

alasdair
Click to expand...

he had wealth and could have planned a mass murder through other means.

spacejunk said:
since 1996, this horrific incident is the worst mass shooting we've had.
the gun culture (of which regulation is just one part) in australia has meant "mass shootings" pretty much don't happen here - think there has been one single attempt at a shooting spree here since 1996 (at monash university in 2002 which resulted in two deaths)

this tragic murder-suicide was a domestic violence incident - not a spree killing - they are exceedingly rare in australia.

so i'd say "gun control" has worked about as well as we could possibly have hoped, if our hope is to reduce gun violence, especially with regards to spree shootings.




source: ABC Australia
Click to expand...

Thank you for using statistics to back up your point. It was well said :)

Glad to see fewer and fewer recent mass shootings in your country.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Semi-automatic handguns as we know them today obviously didn't exist back then.

Handguns were more compact but needed individual rounds hand-loaded, like a rifle.

Your point is lost on me. Try again.
Click to expand...

Cool handgun did exist back then so ur original statement was false

So we are denying handguns now?
 
undiminished689 said:
Cool handgun did exist back then so ur original statement was false

So we are denying handguns now?
Click to expand...

When people in today's world say "handguns", they think of semi-automatic handguns.

Please get off your high horse, you're not winning any points. This isn't a game show.

Revolvers are not what people are trying to ban. They want to ban semi-autos and assault weapons. Please wake up and read some headlines. :\
 
Captain.Heroin said:
When people in today's world say "handguns", they think of semi-automatic handguns.

Please get off your high horse, you're not winning any points. This isn't a game show.

Revolvers are not what people are trying to ban. They want to ban semi-autos and assault weapons. Please wake up and read some headlines. :\
Click to expand...

Gosh I'm stupid I thought the term handguns meant a gun that can fit in your hand. Not like it's in the name or something
 
alasdairm said:
could have. but did not. he selected a gun.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Do you not think he could have easily kept his weapons if a ban had been instigated? I mean, rich people can afford to hide and hide all their stuff.

Why would an assault weapon ban be more effective than drug laws?

How much more $ are we going to have to pump into law enforcement and the justice department to enact these laws? How many more citizens are going to end up in jail/prison?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top