It's Not Guns . . It's America's Sick and Violent Culture

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:This worked well in Australia. It is something to think about but, hey, it is too logical for us I guess? The population of Australia is much small than ours but they seem like another cowboy culture not all that different from ours. They are living proof that at least there it worked. Wouldn't it be worth a try here?

The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

You forgot the rest of the story...as Paul Harvey used to say.

Share with us what happened to the crime rate in Australia after their guns were confiscated.

The point of course is to reduce the number of people killed with guns, not a reduction in the general crime rate. Why can't you stick to the topic? As Raygun would say, there you go again.

I would rather have a few more crimes and a lot less mass shootings any day but I guess it is a matter of priorities.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

so youll trade off a few hundred more women get raped because they didn't have a gun. just so you can have 10 less murders. I get it.. wonder if you would feel the same way if the higher crime is against you and your family. or are you just ok with it if its other people being raped.

Perhaps it would be more meaningful if these questions of yours were directed to people who have had loved ones murdered in mass shootings? Guns don't really protect people in the way you envision. By-standers with guns firing into a group of panicked people is not a very attractive prospect.

well I cant talk to people who have been involved in mass shootings, but I can assure you that that group of people is MUCH smaller than the group of people who I can talk to, and that's those who have been violently raped.

Guns do protect you. Trust me, I know.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:This worked well in Australia. It is something to think about but, hey, it is too logical for us I guess? The population of Australia is much small than ours but they seem like another cowboy culture not all that different from ours. They are living proof that at least there it worked. Wouldn't it be worth a try here?

The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

You forgot the rest of the story...as Paul Harvey used to say.

Share with us what happened to the crime rate in Australia after their guns were confiscated.

The point of course is to reduce the number of people killed with guns, not a reduction in the general crime rate. Why can't you stick to the topic? As Raygun would say, there you go again.

I would rather have a few more crimes and a lot less mass shootings any day but I guess it is a matter of priorities.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Even Snopes says the information is True and False. They get picky about how percentages are figured but never deny that Australia's violent crime rate has increased after they confiscated guns.

Another difference we have between America and other nations is the culture. Most other countries do not have the culture for violence we have in America. The drive by shooting in Chicago yesterday, hardly hit the news. If President Barack Hussein Obama's former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel had any self respect, he would resign as mayor. He won't even take questions about the chaos.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:This worked well in Australia. It is something to think about but, hey, it is too logical for us I guess? The population of Australia is much small than ours but they seem like another cowboy culture not all that different from ours. They are living proof that at least there it worked. Wouldn't it be worth a try here?

The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

You forgot the rest of the story...as Paul Harvey used to say.

Share with us what happened to the crime rate in Australia after their guns were confiscated.

The point of course is to reduce the number of people killed with guns, not a reduction in the general crime rate. Why can't you stick to the topic? As Raygun would say, there you go again.

I would rather have a few more crimes and a lot less mass shootings any day but I guess it is a matter of priorities.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

so youll trade off a few hundred more women get raped because they didn't have a gun. just so you can have 10 less murders. I get it.. wonder if you would feel the same way if the higher crime is against you and your family. or are you just ok with it if its other people being raped.

Perhaps it would be more meaningful if these questions of yours were directed to people who have had loved ones murdered in mass shootings? Guns don't really protect people in the way you envision. By-standers with guns firing into a group of panicked people is not a very attractive prospect.

You would have to direct that inquiry to Australia. The murder rate in Australia is little changed since before their confiscation of weapons. Other crimes have increased, some substantially.

Chicago and several other cities are nearly war zones because the government is unwilling to put a stop to the problem. Mayor Rahm Emanuel will not even take questions on the war zone in his city.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:This worked well in Australia. It is something to think about but, hey, it is too logical for us I guess? The population of Australia is much small than ours but they seem like another cowboy culture not all that different from ours. They are living proof that at least there it worked. Wouldn't it be worth a try here?

The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

You forgot the rest of the story...as Paul Harvey used to say.

Share with us what happened to the crime rate in Australia after their guns were confiscated.

The point of course is to reduce the number of people killed with guns, not a reduction in the general crime rate. Why can't you stick to the topic? As Raygun would say, there you go again.

I would rather have a few more crimes and a lot less mass shootings any day but I guess it is a matter of priorities.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Most of the mass shootings I've read about in the papers or heard in the news happen in gun free zones.

So exactly how does restricting or taking the guns away decrease the mass shootings?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

 

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:This worked well in Australia. It is something to think about but, hey, it is too logical for us I guess? The population of Australia is much small than ours but they seem like another cowboy culture not all that different from ours. They are living proof that at least there it worked. Wouldn't it be worth a try here?

The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

You forgot the rest of the story...as Paul Harvey used to say.

Share with us what happened to the crime rate in Australia after their guns were confiscated.

The point of course is to reduce the number of people killed with guns, not a reduction in the general crime rate. Why can't you stick to the topic? As Raygun would say, there you go again.

I would rather have a few more crimes and a lot less mass shootings any day but I guess it is a matter of priorities.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

so youll trade off a few hundred more women get raped because they didn't have a gun. just so you can have 10 less murders. I get it.. wonder if you would feel the same way if the higher crime is against you and your family. or are you just ok with it if its other people being raped.

Perhaps it would be more meaningful if these questions of yours were directed to people who have had loved ones murdered in mass shootings? Guns don't really protect people in the way you envision. By-standers with guns firing into a group of panicked people is not a very attractive prospect.

You would have to direct that inquiry to Australia.  The murder rate in Australia is little changed since before their confiscation of weapons.  Other crimes have increased, some substantially.

Chicago and several other cities are nearly war zones because the government is unwilling to put a stop to the problem.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel will not even take questions on the war zone in his city.

Here is a report about the drug cartels moving into Chicago. They are a business enterprise to say the least. You don't hear anything about that in the MSM either. I guess Rahm would rather have the country think there is a neighborhood gang problem than an international drug problem in his city? As it is, to me it just looks as if they don't know what they are doing. Chicago is not the first American city to be plagued by gang violence. Surely over the years there have been tactics used that address the problem but nothing seems to be working in Chicago. I think this outside drug group explains a lot.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/17/223309103/probing-ties-between-mexican-drug-cartel-and-chicagos-violence

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

Markle wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:This worked well in Australia. It is something to think about but, hey, it is too logical for us I guess? The population of Australia is much small than ours but they seem like another cowboy culture not all that different from ours. They are living proof that at least there it worked. Wouldn't it be worth a try here?

The National Firearms Agreement -- reached among the political parties less than two weeks after a gunman killed 35 people and injured 23 at a Tasmanian seaside resort -- cut firearm homicide by 59% over the next two decades and firearms suicide by 74%, the report showed.

The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 guns, the Sunshine Coast Daily reported.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/

You forgot the rest of the story...as Paul Harvey used to say.

Share with us what happened to the crime rate in Australia after their guns were confiscated.

The point of course is to reduce the number of people killed with guns, not a reduction in the general crime rate. Why can't you stick to the topic? As Raygun would say, there you go again.

I would rather have a few more crimes and a lot less mass shootings any day but I guess it is a matter of priorities.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

so youll trade off a few hundred more women get raped because they didn't have a gun. just so you can have 10 less murders. I get it.. wonder if you would feel the same way if the higher crime is against you and your family. or are you just ok with it if its other people being raped.

Perhaps it would be more meaningful if these questions of yours were directed to people who have had loved ones murdered in mass shootings? Guns don't really protect people in the way you envision. By-standers with guns firing into a group of panicked people is not a very attractive prospect.

You would have to direct that inquiry to Australia.  The murder rate in Australia is little changed since before their confiscation of weapons.  Other crimes have increased, some substantially.

Chicago and several other cities are nearly war zones because the government is unwilling to put a stop to the problem.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel will not even take questions on the war zone in his city.

Here is a report about the drug cartels moving into Chicago. They are a business enterprise to say the least. You don't hear anything about that in the MSM either. I guess Rahm would rather have the country think there is a neighborhood gang problem than an international drug problem in his city? As it is, to me it just looks as if they don't know what they are doing. Chicago is not the first American city to be plagued by gang violence. Surely over the years there have been tactics used that address the problem but nothing seems to be working in Chicago. I think this outside drug group explains a lot.

Nothing seems to be working in Chicago because Mayor Emanuel has done all he knows and is at a loss as to what to do next.

Mexican Drug Cartels have spread their web across the United States. Meanwhile this administration refuses anything to close the border with Mexico.

othershoe1030 wrote:What we need with Mexico, of course, is a practical 'guest worker' program that would supply the needed labor for agriculture and also allow for easy return to Mexico or points south. Farmers can't get along without these workers but for some reason the powers that be see some benefit in having a system like the one we have now. Sometimes we just can't seem to get out of our own way and make things much more difficult and complicated than they need to be.

what do you mean a practical guest worker program so these people can pick oranges for 2.50 an hour?

see we have those nasty little things called laws here, you know min wage law, law to pay federal taxes etc. We can no more allow these people to come over here and work for 2.50hr with no tax burden than we can plant okra on the moon. Hence, no border closure.

besides, I have a feeling that our gov no longer thinks of America as a sovereign state. I believe they all think more on a global scale now and thus decisions are made with the global goal in mind, not just America's benefit in mind.I am opposed to global thinking.