Gun control debate (merged)

#20,330
#20,330
GroverCleveland said:
So it didn't go into effect until 2003.
Click to expand...
Good grief you guys are tiresome. I do better understand how you come to some of your conclusions.

The Agreement comprised 28 resolutions aimed at restricting the availability and use of handguns, particularly those that are easily concealable.

The resolutions included a restriction on the possession of handguns based on calibre, barrel length and magazine capacity, a system of graduated access to handguns for legitimate sporting shooters and provisions to prevent 'club shopping', through the introduction of requirements for a person wishing to join a club to provide details to the club of any other shooting clubs to which they belonged and the firearms they owned.

The National Handgun Control Agreement (2002) was accompanied by a national handgun buyback scheme which ran from 1 July to 31 December 2003. This scheme provided compensation to owners surrendering handguns, handgun parts and accessories to state and territory authorities during the specified six month period.

The buyback scheme was only part of a much larger agreement. (Maybe reread that sentence a few times.)
 
#20,334
#20,334
luthervol said:
Good grief you guys are tiresome. I do better understand how you come to some of your conclusions.

The Agreement comprised 28 resolutions aimed at restricting the availability and use of handguns, particularly those that are easily concealable.

The resolutions included a restriction on the possession of handguns based on calibre, barrel length and magazine capacity, a system of graduated access to handguns for legitimate sporting shooters and provisions to prevent 'club shopping', through the introduction of requirements for a person wishing to join a club to provide details to the club of any other shooting clubs to which they belonged and the firearms they owned.

The National Handgun Control Agreement (2002) was accompanied by a national handgun buyback scheme which ran from 1 July to 31 December 2003. This scheme provided compensation to owners surrendering handguns, handgun parts and accessories to state and territory authorities during the specified six month period.

The buyback scheme was only part of a much larger agreement. (Maybe reread that sentence a few times.)
Click to expand...
Wait! You're saying all they had to do was pass additional laws saying don't break the law with guns and Voila! Homicides went down? Sounds like the gun buy back a year later was worthless.
 
#20,335
#20,335
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#20,337
#20,337
luthervol said:
Not worthless at all. It got some guns out of circulation.
Click to expand...
But you said the decline in homicides occurred a year earlier. If the decline occurred a year earlier than the buy back, the buy back served no useful purpose.

So it boils down to you just do not like guns and want them taken away.
 
#20,339
#20,339
GroverCleveland said:
But you said the decline in homicides occurred a year earlier. If the decline occurred a year earlier than the buy back, the buy back served no useful purpose.

So it boils down to you just do not like guns and want them taken away.
Click to expand...
What? You can't be serious.
Do you think anything about your statement is logical?
 
#20,341
#20,341
Vol8188 said:
This is pathetic. Even for you. Try to salvage just a bit of integrity and take the L here like a man
Click to expand...
I'm happy to move on.
We've established our positions pretty clearly......

I think guns are part of the problem. I think economic and societal inequalities are the leading factors in homicide rate.

You think guns are not part of the problem, nor white people. You think it is pretty much simply a black problem.

I think most anyone unfortunate enough to have followed this thread, would view that as a fair synopsis.
 
#20,342
#20,342
luthervol said:
I'm happy to move on.
We've established our positions pretty clearly......

I think guns are part of the problem. I think economic and societal inequalities are the leading factors in homicide rate.

You think guns are not part of the problem, nor white people. You think it is pretty much simply a black problem.

I think most anyone unfortunate enough to have followed this thread, would view that as a fair synopsis.
Click to expand...


You make excuses for criminals and think punishing non-criminals is the solution. There’s a better synopsis if anyone read any of your posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33, GroverCleveland and UT_Dutchman
#20,343
#20,343
luthervol said:
I'm happy to move on.
We've established our positions pretty clearly......

I think guns are part of the problem. I think economic and societal inequalities are the leading factors in homicide rate.

You think guns are not part of the problem, nor white people. You think it is pretty much simply a black problem.

I think most anyone unfortunate enough to have followed this thread, would view that as a fair synopsis.
Click to expand...

Of course you’re happy to move on. Because you’ve lost and refuse to except it. So instead you cower and hide. Your positions are baseless and empty. You’ve refused to provide anything to back your position and have ignored questions for an entire day

“Can you provide evidence”

“Google it yourself”
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and Caculator
#20,344
#20,344
So I know we have moved on, but the abstract for the US DOJ article on the 1996 Australian Gun Law is fairly negative. I didnt see anything on the 2002 bit, but this was published in 2008. It does mention a gun buy back program that got 600,000 guns off the market, but again doesnt specify if it's part of just the 96 law, or the other addons we are discussing. It does mention the other laws, but generally just refers to it all as the NFA from 96.

Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths | Office of Justice Programs

"the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearms deaths.
"
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#20,346
#20,346
joevol33 said:
It's every day down here, but it's okay as long as it can't be pinned on the right person.
Click to expand...
I chose Atlanta as this I believe is where Luther calls home. It's unfortunate and hypocritical by the left to go all in on mass shootings while turning a blind eye to their own cities. There will come a point when those in Atlanta, Chicago, NYC, LA will have to blame themselves and not the guns because this is the result of your vote. Democrat ran cities being voted in by democrats means those deaths eventually fall on the voters who keep allowing it to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joevol33
#20,348
#20,348
TheDeeble said:
I'm pretty sure that will never ever happen.
Click to expand...
It probably won't but the day more Republican up and coming candidates reach out to inner-city communities and go with the "how has your life changed" by voting democrat's into power, the last 10-20 years? It goes back to Trump saying "what do you have to lose"
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top