Elementary school shooting in Conneticut (1 Viewer)

[a c]

I don't think guns should be carried for self-defence. Even if concealed carry and possession of handguns for personal defence was legal in NSW, there would be very few situations where you could practically use it, under Zecevic vs DPP the high court held that force in self-defence must be reasonable and proportionate, and that 'excessive self-defence' isn't a defence. So you'll probably be convicted of murder most of the time.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

lies, damned lies, and statistics. Violent crime has dropped in almost all categories since the introduction of tighter gun control by Howard in 1996. This is a correlation, I'm not sure the two were linked because there wasn't that much crime before etc... but crime overall has decreased continuously, for whatever reason. Probably the influx of somalian muslim asylum seekers and out of control teen binge drinking.

http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov....ch-2012---Crime-falling-across-Australia.aspx

The top five states for gun violence in america have extremely strict gun laws.

By your logic, Chicago should on the safest cities in america (spoiler alert: the opposite is true).

I heard conneticut had 'extremely strict gun laws' by american standards - i.e. a two week waiting period for a handgun, lmao.

If levels of gun violence are linked to gun control, it doesn't necessarily mean the correlation is linear and continuous. It might be the case that gun control only becomes effective when certain discrete regulatory measures that go beyond what is implemented in chicago, are enforced. Chicago is still liberal by international standards.

 

[Dash8]

I don't think guns should be carried for self-defence. Even if concealed carry and possession of handguns for personal defence was legal in NSW, there would be very few situations where you could practically use it, under Zecevic vs DPP the high court held that force in self-defence must be reasonable and proportionate, and that 'excessive self-defence' isn't a defence. So you'll probably be convicted of murder most of the time.



lies, damned lies, and statistics. Violent crime has dropped in almost all categories since the introduction of tighter gun control by Howard in 1996. This is a correlation, I'm not sure the two were linked because there wasn't that much crime before etc... but crime overall has decreased continuously, for whatever reason. Probably the influx of somalian muslim asylum seekers and out of control teen binge drinking.

http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov....ch-2012---Crime-falling-across-Australia.aspx



I heard conneticut had 'extremely strict gun laws' by american standards - i.e. a two week waiting period for a handgun, lmao.

If levels of gun violence are linked to gun control, it doesn't necessarily mean the correlation is linear and continuous. It might be the case that gun control only becomes effective when certain discrete regulatory measures that go beyond what is implemented in chicago, are enforced. Chicago is still liberal by international standards.

This.

 

[ladiesman217_]

I don't think so. Someone could just take up a hidden position with a sniper rifle and shoot people down. I don't think it would be difficult to kill a lot of unsuspecting people even if they had guns. Also, children can't use guns so the maniacs will probably just target more schools and pre-schools. I think that allowing people to have guns has more flaws that not allowing people guns.

hahahahahahahaha since you're actually fucking retarded im just gonna post what's already been posted before

America needs to ban guns like norway!

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

by your fucking perverted logic we should be banning the ownership of cars next. (how many people are seriously injured or killed in vehicle related incidents each year????)

 

[ladiesman217_]

I don't think guns should be carried for self-defence. Even if concealed carry and possession of handguns for personal defence was legal in NSW, there would be very few situations where you could practically use it, under Zecevic vs DPP the high court held that force in self-defence must be reasonable and proportionate, and that 'excessive self-defence' isn't a defence. So you'll probably be convicted of murder most of the time.

do you seriously realise how retarded that sounds.

"I don't think fire-extinguishers should be placed in buildings. Even if they were placed, there would be very few situations where you could practically use it, so you'd just end up wasting your money most of the time"

also please l2law. the excessive use of force in situations where self-defence is justified would gain you a conviction of manslaughter, not murder.

lies, damned lies, and statistics. Violent crime has dropped in almost all categories since the introduction of tighter gun control by Howard in 1996. This is a correlation, I'm not sure the two were linked because there wasn't that much crime before etc... but crime overall has decreased continuously, for whatever reason. Probably the influx of somalian muslim asylum seekers and out of control teen binge drinking.

http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov....ch-2012---Crime-falling-across-Australia.aspx

yea maybe the correlation is that australia is becoming wealthier and more educated?????????

I heard conneticut had 'extremely strict gun laws' by american standards - i.e. a two week waiting period for a handgun, lmao.

If levels of gun violence are linked to gun control, it doesn't necessarily mean the correlation is linear and continuous. It might be the case that gun control only becomes effective when certain discrete regulatory measures that go beyond what is implemented in chicago, are enforced. Chicago is still liberal by international standards.

or maybe the whole thing goes beyond 'hur derp let's bannn all da gunzzzzz" and has to do with education, culture, social engagement etc???

 

[a c]

do you seriously realise how retarded that sounds.

no, you sound retarded

"I don't think fire-extinguishers should be placed in buildings. Even if they were placed, there would be very few situations where you could practically use it, so you'd just end up wasting your money most of the time"

that is dumb, the innappropriate or excessive use of fire extinguishers in house-defence has no serious negative consequences, there are few situations where you can use a gun in self-defence because Zecevic - there isn't an analogy to fire extinguishers.

also please l2law. the excessive use of force in situations where self-defence is justified would gain you a conviction of manslaughter, not murder.

who cares

yea maybe the correlation is that australia is becoming wealthier and more educated?????????

yes, I'm just refuting kfnmpahs link which said some things

or maybe the whole thing goes beyond 'hur derp let's bannn all da gunzzzzz" and has to do with education, culture, social engagement etc???

yes those things, and maybe banning guns has some effects also.

 

[ladiesman217_]

no, you sound retarded



that is dumb, the innappropriate or excessive use of fire extinguishers in house-defence has no serious negative consequences, there are few situations where you can use a gun in self-defence because Zecevic - there isn't an analogy to fire extinguishers.

Would shooting someone who's armed with a bladed/blunt weapon be an excessive use of force? how about if you were a women and somebody were trying to drag you into his car? sure there's no immediate "danger" to your person, but what would happen if he did succeed?

to say that guns shouldn't be carried for self-defence because of some vague "negative consequences" and the fact that there would be few situations where you'd use them IS retarded.

think of it this way: when worst comes to worst, would you rather be dead/kidnapped/raped/seriously injured, or be convicted? this is essentially the same kind of cost/benefit analysis a teenager would have to run when she/he decides whether or not to wear a bike helmet and risk appearing 'goofy' in front of their crushes/peers

yes those things, and maybe banning guns has some effects also.

maybe you don't exist, maybe you're just some clever chatbots programmed by harrionsy

 

[Dash8]

hahahahahahahaha since you're actually fucking retarded im just gonna post what's already been posted before



and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

by your fucking perverted logic we should be banning the ownership of cars next. (how many people are seriously injured or killed in vehicle related incidents each year????)

Im sorry, but I dont argue with rude, insulting and arrogant people. Calling people 'fucking retarded' will get you nowhere in life. Learn some manners and then we can have a proper discussion and I might take you seriously.

 

[ladiesman217_]

hahahahahah #have nothing to say#

"omgzz but i dunt argue wif rude arrognat ppl11!!!111!!"

ad homiums do u knw wat dey r

 

[Absolutezero]

Keep it civil guys

 

[pony_magician]

nicola do you support capital punishment?

 

[Alexis Texas]

Im sorry, but I dont argue with rude, insulting and arrogant people. Calling people 'fucking retarded' will get you nowhere in life. Learn some manners and then we can have a proper discussion and I might take you seriously.

hahahahahah #have nothing to say#

"omgzz but i dunt argue wif rude arrognat ppl11!!!111!!"

ad homiums do u knw wat dey r

beat me to it k3k3k3k3kkk3kk3k3k3

clutching at straws with the whole 'i dun argue with rud ppl' welcome to the real world bby people will be rude to you

nicola do you support capital punishment?

what does this have to do with the right to bear arms?

(to answer you though, no. I don't think the state has the right to take someone's life. but seriously I have not really thought about this much before)

 

[Alexis Texas]

l SUPPORT JUSTlCE

 

[pony_magician]

so if the state doesn't have the right to punish someone for committing a crime, what gives you (you being the owner of a gun) to decide ?

 

[Alexis Texas]

shooting someone in self defence isn't making the decision to take someone's life it's making the decision to protect your own

 

[Graney]

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

[pony_magician]

shooting someone in self defence isn't making the decision to take someone's life it's making the decision to protect your own

you could argue that a murderer getting the death sentence is also to protect someones life.

 

[Alexis Texas]

well that is what gaol is for, isn't it.

 

[Dash8]

beat me to it k3k3k3k3kkk3kk3k3k3

clutching at straws with the whole 'i dun argue with rud ppl' welcome to the real world bby people will be rude to you



what does this have to do with the right to bear arms?

(to answer you though, no. I don't think the state has the right to take someone's life. but seriously I have not really thought about this much before)

Yeah and guess what, I'm not going to waste my time talking to them. Im standing by my belief that the US should make guns illegal like Australia or Japan but unfortunately I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[soloooooo]

Yeah and guess what, I'm not going to waste my time talking to them. Im standing by my belief that the US should make guns illegal like Australia or Japan but unfortunately I doubt that will ever happen.

Guns are not illegal in Australia. They are just more restricted. I got my gun license maybe 18 months ago and it wasn't hard to get.

 

[soloooooo]

nicola do you support capital punishment?

I do.