What kind of ignorant f*cks inhabit this planet?

DrSweden wrote:

I know you folk buy guns now like mad men now because some of you fear Obama will do something (he hadn't said ANY about that)...

I know you folk buy guns now like mad men now because some of you fear Obama will do something (he hadn't said ANY about that), and I also know you think this has nothing to do with guns. I heard this guy on the radio who owned 18 rifles, and now bought no 19 because of this Obama fear! LOL! This really doesn't happen in countries that don't have guns or more restrictions towards guns, and since retards are everywhere and impossible to kill, wouldn't you people at least CONSIDER that gun laws are way to liberal? We have to have a drivers license to drive a car, but owning a gun is way easier?


Just a tiny little bit of consideration?


My point is we all have nut cases in our countries, but in yours they own guns. Occam's razor...

DrSweden wrote:

Calm down people. One might think you hate a different opinions more than these murderers? LOL! MX455. Interesting read: Instead of falling into this: I don't...

Calm down people. One might think you hate a different opinions more than these murderers? LOL!
MX455. Interesting read: Instead of falling into this: I don't like what I read so therefore fuck etc I have to agree this is interesting, and disturbing for my argument? It really doesn't make any sense why less guns would lead to more death? There's to much info to take in here, and you can probably use this stats to make more than one argument. The closing argument is that this law didn't have large effect on reducing firearms homicides and suicides rates. Not that this lead to more murderers which I assume NRA will tell you. It also states that 80 % of guns confiscated where newer legally purchased. So maybe those buying legal guns are not a major concern? The reason for this whole law in Australia appeared was to prevent any further massacre like the Port Arthur massacre 1996 (13 massacres prior that incident during 18 years) and now no massacre has happened after 1996. So can we thank the law no massacre has happened? I don't think so. I don't know what the conclusion is, but I don't see this as a reason for more guns, as I assume you will see this as a reason for more guns?

Seems rather unbiased from wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#The_Port_Arthur_…

In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The AIC have published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[20][25] In 2002 the AIC announced that they had proof of many lives saved, but their paper which was released months later demonstrated only continuing downtrends in gun deaths since many years before the buyback.[26]
In 2000, the American National Rifle Association claimed that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws based on some highly selective statistics from newspaper articles. Federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the NRA to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.[27]
In 2003, CLASS reported that no benefit-cost analysis of the buyback had been published, and that scientific debate was politicised and ignored benefits of shooting and costs forced on legitimate owners.[28]
The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia says there is no evidence that gun control restrictions in 1987, 1996 and 2002 had any impact on the already established trends.[29][30]
Some researchers have claimed a dramatic effect on firearm deaths, by counting the drop in firearm suicides and ignoring rising suicides by substitute methods. One such author is Ozanne-Smith et el. (2004) in the journal Injury Prevention.[31]
The head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[32] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little effect on violence. In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology by Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).[33] A discussion paper by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh,published by the Australian National University's Centre for Economic Policy Research[34] criticised the mathematical basis underlying the Baker and McPhedran study. It also argued that while time series methods were not the best way of answering the question, the time series evidence suggested that lives were saved as a result of the gun buyback based on their view that falls in gun suicides were not substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[35] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods.
Don Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[36] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that although there was little evidence that the new laws had helped, they were needed to prevent an emerging problem with handgun violence potentially worsening.[37]
A study co-authored by Professor Simon Chapman, former convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, argued that reduction in firearm numbers had prevented mass shootings because in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been none.[38] Data interpretation of trends in this study differs from other authors, while clearly being based on the same data. Media reports gave Professor Chapman wide publicity while failing to reveal his involvement in gun control activism[39].
Baker and McPhedran then published a meta-study pointing out that differing authors' conclusions were based on the same data, but that interpretations diverged. This was taken up by Lee and Suardi at the Melbourne Institute who stated:
"Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[40]