DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus School walkouts to protest gun violence and laws.

If there isn't a bullet in the gun, there can be no accidental discharge. Agreed.
Again, if there is no loaded gun and no mag in the gun as the mag is in the teachers pocket, there is no concern. An unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a pen (for stabbing), or a book (for hitting. )
Very possible, I agree. That's why I'm not sold either way.

But, we DO hear, at least often times, of - in a school shooting, some teacher/coach confronting the shooter. While un armed, that is.

I don't have the answers, just throwing things out. Where do you live?

Thanks for the correction. While you knew exactly what I meant, and often times the 2 are interchangeable term wise, you got me.

That's all you got from my post?

I completely disagree with this. It takes courage and bravery.

We had coaches and teachers jump in front of bullets to save children, with no training. We had KIDS who barricaded classroom doors - with not training.

Sadly, we will never know if that coach had a firearm, many more deaths may have been prevented.

The sexual assault rate is higher, but that's actually been credited to feminist movements in which women feel more comfortable reporting the crimes against them. Disturbing, none the less, and something we need to work on.

The gun death rate wasn't falling, and in fact the chances to our gun laws followed the Port Arthur Massacre in which 35 were killed and 23 were wounded. It was after that in which we put through stricter gun laws and have not had issues since.

Guns don't commit crimes, people commit crimes - which is why people with guns is scares us. I hardly trust people to use their indicator when turning, much less waltzing around with a semi-automatic rifle.

As for African-Americans and racism with police - I am sorry for your issues but that won't change without the public demanding accountability.

As for Jews in Nazi Germany, their problems started long before 35. Anti-immigration/Anti-Semitism was a significant issues starting post-Great War and leading in to all elections at the end of the Weimar Republic. Guns wouldn't have saved the Jewish people - it would have started the murders the moment Hitler was "elected" in 1933 and resembled a short-lived civil war.

We take in a reasonable amount of refugees, with relatively strict vetting. Most of our immigration is actually from China, England and New Zealand. With that said, if you're getting at what I think you are, we're not short on Muslim immigrants and have had some ISIS/Extremist issues - our AFP (Australian Federal Police, our version of the FBI) have done a tremendous job of keeping the country safe. They're great at what they do and we trust them to do their job.

And his actions were incredible. Maybe with a gun he saves lives. But maybe another kid comes running in the room and he pulls the trigger in panic. We don't know.

I'm not trying to suggest that teachers haven't shown a wonderful proclivity for bravery. In many instances, their names are attached to lives saved or themselves dying in the process of saving lives.

What I do know - the military and police have both stated that it takes an incredible amount of training to handle such situations. I'm in no position to disagree with that assessment.

You realize there is no way to prove that right? Its purely speculative.

According to SNOPES



Also, trying to compare your country to ours for ANYTHING doesn't hold water, GEOGRAPHY alone, makes it harder for ILLEGAL guns to come in and easier to control.

Ahh, so yeah its a bad idea for only the police to have guns.

Not as a whole, no. But I would be dollar to donuts that more would have had a better chance to survive and make it out.

I believe its about 13K, doesn't seem reasonable to amount we take in. why do you hate refugees? You should take them all in, without vetting them at all.

What I was getting at is that we do not vet our refugees, and we allow thousands more in, which leads me to believe that is why we have more Islamic terrorist than say, Australia.

As we saw in Florida, they fail. Its purely on a personal level how one is going to react in that situation - not just training. you will be better prepared to handle a firearm, place a shot, etc I agree. But in a scenario like that, you have no idea how someone is going to react. You just don't. Adrenaline takes over, and training is pretty much out the door when its the first time you have ever been in this scenario.

FYI Australia was always on my bucket list to visit.

However, I believe having a firearm is a must to go there. I aint having no dingo eat my baby without being able to defend it.

Sure, it's purely speculative, but we can't ignore the amount of women who attest to what a powerful moment feminism (Especially international movements like #metoo) have been.

You left this out from the same SNOPES article...



I agree geography is certainly an issue, which is why I didn't directly mention the NFA nor propose directly any opinions on what might or might not work.

I'm confused by your statement regarding it being a bad idea for cops to have guns because of racial tensions. You want people firing back at police? I would argue cops are far more relaxed here because police in the US are well aware of just how common it is for someone to have guns. That's why nations with strict gun control have so few police shootings. It isn't simply racism - it's a safety issue.

To each his own on Nazi Germany.

I have no idea what you're on about with immigrants. We don't hate immigrants. That's weird.

What is really disgusting is the fact your government would allow those murdered people to die like weak livestock, unable to defend themselves, all in the name of the Greater Good, the Good of the Masses.

In America, each individual citizen has a RIGHT to defend themselves if they so choose.

The weak and tired old lady can carry a gun and practice till she is good with it, as an equalizer to the criminal wishing to do her harm.

Right after granting us the Right to free speech and freedom of religion, our Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So if bad things ever come your way, say to yourself, "This is for the greater good." "This is for the greater....

I agree with most of your post, but I disagree with "Adrenaline takes over, and training is pretty much out the door."

When adrenaline takes over, training is what the body/person falls back on, often times unknowingly.

I find it fascinating that the GOPers choose to fight and slander kids protesting for the right to feel safe in school and not be killed. Trumpians don't want that?

FB today is filling up with memes on the subject... I wonder where those come from comrades?

The GOP battles to give the rich more money, to end programs that help the poor, to limit healthcare to those with money, to kill the arts, to build the perpetual war machine while ending meals on wheels, etc. etc. etc.!

Prerequisite to be a member must be being a douche.

I wonder if they have Trolls in Australia like we do here?

Liddle buddy, wherever you are there will be Trolls.

Likewise.

Mini trolls now?

Did Australia’s ban on guns lower violent crime rates and lower suicide rates?

https://winteryknight.com/2017/10/06/did...uicide-rates-2/

Someone asked me about what I thought of Australia’s experience banning the use of handguns for self-defense against criminals, and so I thought I would link to an article from The Federalist, then explain what peer-reviewed studies say about the issue.

Let’s start with The Federalist.

It says:

The argument, as Vox’s headline puts it, is “Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.”

The piece, along with many gun control advocates, cites a Harvard University study whose conclusion begins with this line: “It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States.” Not a great start for Vox’s angle, but I digress.

The study doesn’t conclude that “murders and suicides plummeted” in Australia after the 1996 gun ban, as Vox claims in its headline. Instead, it focuses solely on firearm-related murders and suicides.

After the gun ban, violent crime rates were up:

Yes, as with the gun-happy United States, the murder rate is down in Australia. It’s dropped 31 percent from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012.But it’s the only serious crime that saw a consistent decline post-ban.

In fact, according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.

It’s even less impressive when again compared to America’s decrease in violent crime over the same period. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. Again, this happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate.

So although you have fewer firearm-related deaths when you disarm law-abiding civilians, violent crime increases, because there is now NO deterrence to criminals. Even a criminal with a knife can rob, rape and murder someone who is unarmed.

What about suicide rates?

Look:

The Australian gun ban’s effect on suicide in the country isn’t any better. While Vox repeats the Harvard study’s claim that firearm-related suicides are down 57 percent in the aftermath of the ban, Lifeline Australia reports that overall suicides are at a ten-year high. The Australian suicide prevention organization claims suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians 15 to 44 years old. So, while Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often than before the ban.

So, overall suicides are not down, people simply found other ways to kill themselves. So the gun ban had no effect on the overall suicide rate. But it did raise the violent crime rate. Should we be surprised by this? Actually, this is consistent with peer-reviewed research.

Gun crime also skyrocketed after the 1996 gun ban. The Washington Free Beacon reports.

Excerpt:

Australia has seen a rise in gun crime over the past decade despite imposing an outright ban on many firearms in the late 1990s.

Charges for crimes involving firearms have increased dramatically across the island nation’s localities in the past decade according to an analysis of government statistics conducted by The New Daily. It found that gun crimes have spiked dramatically in the Australian states of Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, and Tasmania. In Victoria, pistol-related offenses doubled over the last decade. In New South Wales, they tripled. The other states saw smaller but still significant increases.

Experts said that the country’s 1996 ban on most semi-automatic firearms has actually driven criminals to those guns. “The ban on semi-automatics created demand by criminals for other types of guns,” professor Philip Alpers of the University of Sydney told The New Daily. “The criminal’s gun of choice today is the semi-automatic pistol.”

[…]Regardless of the reasons for the jump in gun crime, the numbers reveal the true size of Australia’s illegal gun market. “Taken together, the data suggests that despite our tough anti-gun laws, thousands of weapons are either being stolen or entering the country illegally,” The New Daily said. “The fourfold rise in handgun-related charges in NSW in the past decade points to the existence of a big illegal market for concealable firearms that seems to have been underestimated in the past.”

If you take guns away from law-abiding people (which is what Australia did), then only criminals will have guns. And that means that the criminals will become bolder in the face of their disarmed victims.

Great work Vambo! Thanks.

Circle smirks...

lmao, whats a "wintery knight"?

i can't believe some of the crap links being posted around here.

Great Troll OCD. Thanks

US gun control advocates exaggerate benefits of Australia's gun restrictions

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/02/2...strictions.html

After each mass public shooting in the U.S. – such as the horrific attack at a Florida high school last week that killed 17 people – gun control advocates keep pointing to Australia as the role model America should follow to reduce gun deaths.

If only reducing crime and suicides was so easy. In reality, gun control efforts in Australia have not been as successful as we’ve been led to believe.

In fact, the only proven policy to stop gun attacks is deterrence – by allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and others, as President Trump correctly pointed out Thursday on Twitter and in remarks at the White House.

The president tweeted: “If a potential ‘sicko shooter’ knows that a school has a large number of very weapons talented teachers (and others) who will be instantly shooting, the sicko will NEVER attack that school.”

The president added: “Cowards won’t go there ... problem solved. Must be offensive, defense alone won’t work!”

European countries such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands have even stricter gun control laws than Australia does, but their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States.

This effective action proposed by the president has been greeted with disdain by most of the media.

Instead, news organizations such as USA Today, the New York Times and the Washington Post have all run stories in recent days crediting Australia’s 1996-1997 gun buyback program with cutting the firearm homicide and suicide rates in half, and eliminating mass public shootings.

Our friends in Australia have been only too eager to offer advice telling us to follow their example.

Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop recently offered to explain to Americans the best gun control regulations. Over this past weekend a church in Australia got international attention for putting up a sign saying: “When will they love their kids more than their guns.”

Responding, anti-gun politicians from Hillary Clinton to President Obama have pointed to Australia’s gun laws as a model that we should closely examine.

But looking at simple before-and-after averages of gun deaths in Australia regarding the gun buyback is extremely misleading. Firearm homicides and suicides were falling from the mid-1980s onwards, so you could pick out any subsequent year and the average firearm homicide and suicide rates after that year would be down compared to the average before it.

The question is whether the rate of decline changed after the gun buyback law went into effect. But the decline in firearm homicides and suicides actually slowed down after the buyback.

Australia’s buyback resulted in almost 1 million guns being handed in and destroyed, but after that private gun ownership once again steadily increased and now exceeds what it was before the buyback.

In fact, since 1997 gun ownership in Australia grew over three times faster than the population (from 2.5 million to 5.8 million guns).

Gun control advocates should have predicted a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides after the buyback, and then an increase as the gun ownership rate increased again. But that clearly didn’t happen.

For other crimes, such as armed robbery, what happened is the exact opposite of what was predicted. The armed robbery rate soared right after the gun buyback, then gradually declined.

Gun control advocates like to note that there has been no mass public shooting in Australia since the buyback. But they are simply picking out a country that happens to “prove” what they want it to prove.

European countries such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands have even stricter gun control laws than Australia does, but their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States.

During the Obama administration, the per capita casualty rate from shootings in the European Union was actually 27 percent higher than the U.S. rate.

Even excluding fights over sovereignty and including the recent attacks in Las Vegas, the Texas church shooting in November, and the Florida school massacre, the number of mass shootings in the rest of the world has been much worse than in the U.S. since at least as far back as 1970.

Many point to the widely covered work by the University of Alabama’s Adam Lankford, who claims that 31 percent of mass public shootings from 1966 to 2012 have occurred in the U.S. But Lankford’s totals don’t line up with others, and he has refused repeated requests to release a list of his cases.

New Zealand also provides a useful comparison to Australia. They are both isolated, island nations, and have similar socioeconomics and demographics. Their mass murder rates were nearly identical prior to Australia’s gun buyback.

From 1980 to 1996, Australia’s mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people. New Zealand’s was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people. After 1997, both countries experienced similar drops in mass murders, even though New Zealand had not altered its gun control laws.

It would be just as misleading for gun control critics to cite only New Zealand as it is for gun control advocates to cite Australia.

The right approach is to look at a lot of similar places and see what gun control measures actually made a difference. To do just that, Bill Landes of the University of Chicago and I collected data on all multiple-victim public shootings in all the United States from 1977 to 1999.

We examined 13 different gun control policies, including: waiting periods, registration, background checks, bans on assault weapons, the death penalty, and harsher penalties for committing a crime with a firearm.

But only one policy reduced the number and severity of mass public shootings: allowing victims to defend themselves with permitted, concealed handguns.

Since 1950, all but six U.S. mass public shootings have happened in areas where general citizens were banned from having guns. And in Europe, every single mass public shooting has occurred where guns are banned.

Killers have good reason to avoid places where people have guns. In dozens of cases concealed-carry gun permit holders have stopped mass public shootings. In the Texas church shooting last year, the killer was killing the wounded when a man living near the church shot him.

Yet gun control advocates keep focusing on laws that won’t make any difference. None of the mass public shootings since at least 2000 would have been stopped by universal background checks.

Relying on Australia requires a misreading of the evidence, and requires that we ignore what has happened in all the other countries with strict regulations. The truth is that gun control hasn't worked for anyone.

Bro, I ranted on this the other day. Slimy lowbrow sites so lowdown that they find them clustered like festering pustules under a snakes nuts! You have to be way out there to dig some of these up.

It's really things that used to only be in 'BB News Threads' and in creepy sites on the dark web. Most of links he posts are a notch above 4chan, or a notch below. But if it's on the internet it must be true.

It's exactly what it sounds like.

"European countries such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands have even stricter gun control laws than Australia does, but their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States."

thats odd because:

When adjusted for population, the United States ranks in the upper half of their list of 11 countries, ranking higher than Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany and Mexico. The United States did rank lower than three countries -- Norway, Finland and Switzerland -- but they have populations so small that one or two mass-casualty events can produce a relatively high per capita rate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/14/what-we-know-about-mass-shootings/

it seems that yall can't accept the FACT that it worked in australia.

can keep posting from bogus websites and blogs, but it won't change the FACT that gun control in those countries work.

The Australian Gun Ban Conceit

Australia’s gun ban isn’t what the Left wants it to be.

September 3, 2015 By Stephen Gutowski

http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/03/the-australian-gun-ban-conceit/

As they’re wont to do, in the immediate aftermath of the brutal and calculated murders of two Virginia reporters many gun-control advocates pointed to Australia’s gun ban and confiscation as a successful model America should adopt.

The idea wasn’t just limited to the fringe Left, either. It was put forth in places like the The New Republic and Vox. The Gray Lady herself published a column advocating Australian-style gun confiscation less than 24 hours after the killings.

Now, the practical problems of instituting an Australian-style gun ban and mandatory buyback program have been well flushed out. But I think it’s important to examine the main claim about Australia’s gun control. Namely, that it worked. The argument, as Vox’s headline puts it, is “Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.”
Murders and Suicides Didn’t ‘Plummet’

The piece, along with many gun control advocates, cites a Harvard University study whose conclusion begins with this line: “It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States.” Not a great start for Vox’s angle, but I digress.

The study doesn’t conclude that “murders and suicides plummeted” in Australia after the 1996 gun ban, as Vox claims in its headline. Instead, it focuses solely on firearm-related murders and suicides. In that category they found a marked decline (although, interestingly, it still makes up nearly 20 percent of all homicides nearly two decades after most guns were banned by the island nation).

But at the same time Australia was banning guns and experiencing a decline in gun homicides, America was more than doubling how many firearms it manufactured and seeing a nearly identical drop in gun homicides. That throws a bit of a wrench into the idea that Australia’s gun ban must be the reason for its decline in gun crime.

However, what’s more important is the fact that overall suicides and murder have not “plummeted” in the years after the gun ban. Yes, as with the gun-happy United States, the murder rate is down in Australia. It’s dropped 31 percent from a rate of 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1994 to 1.1 per 100,000 in 2012.But it’s the only serious crime that saw a consistent decline post-ban.

In fact, according to the Australian government’s own statistics, a number of serious crimes peaked in the years after the ban. Manslaughter, sexual assault, kidnapping, armed robbery, and unarmed robbery all saw peaks in the years following the ban, and most remain near or above pre-ban rates. The effects of the 1996 ban on violent crime are, frankly, unimpressive at best.
Violence Declined Stateside Without A Gun Ban

It’s even less impressive when again compared to America’s decrease in violent crime over the same period. According to data from the U.S. Justice Department, violent crime fell nearly 72 percent between 1993 and 2011. Again, this happened as guns were being manufactured and purchased at an ever-increasing rate.

The Australian gun ban’s effect on suicide in the country isn’t any better. While Vox repeats the Harvard study’s claim that firearm-related suicides are down 57 percent in the aftermath of the ban, Lifeline Australia reports that overall suicides are at a ten-year high. The Australian suicide prevention organization claims suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians 15 to 44 years old. So, while Australians kill themselves with firearms less often, it seems they don’t actually take their own lives any less often than before the ban.

Whatever you think of the merits of Australia’s gun ban or the practicality of using it as a model for American gun control, it most certainly has not caused suicide or murder rates to plummet. Furthermore, Australia has seen violent crimes peak in the years following its ban while the United States experienced the exact opposite phenomenon.

Australia isn’t much of a model for Australia, let alone for America.

Hardly.

I figured you would go there instead of addressing the fact that the whole rest of your statement about them not caring about all those other subject being hogwash made up by you to try to make some point.

Yes, my kids dont want some kid to sneak into their school and tip toe up to them and stab them before they know whats coming.

Why can't the kids do their protesting either before school hours , or after? Does it mess up mommy and daddy's day?

Distraction propaganda is the GOPer mindset for debating things they don't like. Most weak dems just put their heads down and agree, when they should be calling it what it is, douchebaggery and shenanigans.

because if they do it before or after, it has less of an impact than if they do it during school hours.

the point of protest isn't for it to be convenient. its to bring awareness, however much awareness as possible.

Why should they have to? Because you don't like it? Big deal you don't like it. They should do it the way they are because it's working.

The Liberal/Progressives can't hijack the protest after hours because it cuts into wine and dope time.

You're the only whining dope I see.

WOW! These protesters are above reproach. They are so peaceful and classy. True left wingers. I do not like something let's tear up my neighborhood.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/16/chi...ut-protest.html

My wish is that each person that did this be punished. As the song goes "Red brown yellow black or white, they are precious in his sight" does apply here. Put them all in JD for a year.

Yes the ones who did it... not the entire movement and all the teens protesting.

I'm not really a fan of teachers carrying guns because that could lead to situations of rape. It's just not cool. I want trained military men or police officers paid for by a federal budget whose sole purpose is to protect every single public school. Private can pay for their own.

I've been thinking about this approach and I thought what about trained dogs in every school or vulnerable location like this. Just a thought.