Silkroad Online Forums

Went and read your comment, we obviously share the same sentiment, spot on! Forgive me for not reading every comment in the thread, I think you can understand haha

In Australia there are restrictions on gun ownership and restrictions on hunting, too. Licenses are required in order to own a gun and hunting is restricted individually by each state. Our system allows people to hunt, keep their guns at home and all of this without any storage lock ups or ridiculous privacy invading GPS devices. What's that you say? Everyone who owns a gun is promoting mass homicide? Without the highly restrictive laws you made up there will be lots and lots of deaths? Well, lets see the actual gun related death statistics to see if a system without your gun restriction laws can actually work.


According to the AIC, these are the recorded gun fatalities in Australia from the period of 1991-2001


Source: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curr ... paper.html

As we can see, the majority of firearm deaths are actually from suicides, not from homicide. The highest year for homicides was 1996, but it should also be noted that 1996 was the year of the Port Arthur Massacre in which 35 people were killed, so that one incident influences the statistics greatly.

Now lets start to de-construct the numbers. A max of 629 deaths which progressively dropped nearly every single year over the 10 year period to 331 deaths in 2001. Considering our population was over 18 million in 2001, that number is incredibly low. Now consider how many homicides have occurred due to firearms and the figures are minimal. Under 100 deaths every single year par 1996, with the lowest being 47 in 2001. The point? Crazy lock up laws and GPS devices are not needed in order to stop gun related homicides. The evidence is right there.



My wall of text above proves that this statement is, like I originally thought, completely wrong. Gun related homicides are incredibly low in my country. Clearly there are a lot of people who legally own guns, for hunting or sport purposes, who are not promoting mass homicides. Hell, 0.000261111% of our population died in 2001 due to firearm related homicides. There must be a lot of homicidal people who own guns running around slaughtering people left right and centre

I know all of these statistics are quite old, 10-20 years old, but its the most recent data that I could get from a source that I know is credible. More to the point though the data it used to show a trend not only in the deaths caused my firearms in proportion to overall population, but also the trends in which what number of firearm related deaths are caused by homicide.

the ignorance is on your part. a guy killed 26 people with a gun that he didnt have registered to him. if he wanted to hunt he could do the same thing, just walk outside with a gun and hunt.

please read my previous posts about how making a bomb is much more difficult and timely then going into your fathers draw grabbing an assault rifle and pulling a trigger.

continue to make excuses its your people that are dieing. 3 times in 1 year in which a mass murder has occurred and your response is "oh well, nothing we can do about it."
My view on guns comes only from video games except I dont accept mass murders like this to occur and you think there's nothing you can do about it but that's just what video games taught me!

next time you can stare into the parents of those dead children and explain how you need a license to own a gun so your country is doing its best to prevent these tragedy's.

Needing a license to hunt has nothing to do with the tragedies. Please, shut the fuck up.

the more licenses you have, the harder it is for a mass murderer to get a gun, please stop being ignorant. kids are dieing because of your opinions.

Pen you really need to chill, your arguments are fairly weakly thought out ...

I am also fairly sure that you can "save" more people by banning sugar but the situation doesn't change, you just get another version of it.

So you're saying that requiring a license to hunt, helps prevent murders, despite the fact that such licenses have absolutely nothing at all to do with owning a gun? Please do tell me more, at this point you're sealing your own grave on the argument.

Everybody claims they need a gun for defense... But rarely do we hear about someone shooting
someone in self defense. Isn't that so?
Well, seriously... there should be "stricter laws regarding.. who can get a gun" not Just a criminal background check
But also... a mental analysis for all first time gun buyers etc..

And when they do, they will get punished.

Check out Kennesaw Georgia, it is a requirement to have a gun in your home.. they've gone 25 years without a murder.
Illinois bans guns and makes them hard to obtain even for your home, crime rate is through the roof. Chicago is known as "murder city" since this has taken effect.

Long story short, they can add all of the laws and license requirements they want, if somebody wants a gun they'll get a gun. I do feel that it should be significantly harder to obtain a gun in crime ridden areas, though.

Where I live there are a lot of guns, and a lot of people carry them, yet there isn't much crime here.
I've been in this city of 100k people for about a decade now and there's only been several shootings, and even less deaths.

20 kids died in the US from a shooting.

did you know that shooting requires a gun?
if you think my arguments are weak then I dont care. 20 children died and no1 thinks there is a thing wrong.

oh and i didnt say ban guns altogether. limiting them is what i said, just like sugar that also kills americans so yes you should moderate that too.

but oh well, its only 20 children that have died. its not like a gun did it.
i kinda wish this happened to a close relative of yours, maybe your children if you have any. I would repost all the messages about how guns are not the problem and laws on them dont matter, its only your child its not like its important or anything.

20 children died. blood is on your hands. 20 innocent children from 5 years old. oh well.

You completely miss the point every time, not only that, but saying you wish something happened to anyone important to me is one of the most imbecilic comments you can ever make. Don't bother responding to me ever again, not only are you ignorant, but an imbecile too. I don't usually block people on the internet, but for you I'll gladly make an exception.

I was crippled and all indicated to me dying this year, you know what changed then for me ? nothing, pretty sure I've and continue to live a good life with no regrets.

ps. full recovery at this point so don't mention it =p

20 children died and you make no attempt to make a difference.

the fact that you reacted when i wished it on your children just shows me how selfish it is that it doesnt matter that 20 children died but if it was yours you expect change

20 children died because the gun laws in america allow someone to do this easily. i dont believe this lanza guy would have killed 20 children if he didnt have access to a gun but he did and now 20 children are dead because he can. 20 families are grieving and you tell me that any idea I put forward is stupid even if you put no suggestion yourself in ways of allowing an american the right to own a gun which i already disagree with but i at least tried to show respect to that law.

it disgusts me that 20 kids have died and you blow it off like this.

You sound like the 'Facebook activists' as I like to call them. "I liked this picture because I care and it's suddenly going to do something."

Pro-tip: people who are breaking the law generally don't follow the law. He would have obtained a gun any how and pulled it off anyway. On another note, how about all the crimes that were stopped BECAUSE there was a bystander carrying a weapon? You don't hear about and won't comment on those because they aren't going to win you or the media a sympathy award.

lol the crimes stopped by a bystander carrying a gun is far less then that which are carried out even if a gun has not been fired.

i have already stated its possible to obtain a gun but dont make it easy for the guys to do so. the harder it is, the less likely this is going to happen again, if someone wants to terrorise the world they will find a way but if you had the option to give them a nuke or give them a potato i think they would be more deadly with a nuke.

ofc im going to be an activist, 20 children died and a further 2 other killing sprees happened which could have been either prevented or cause less deaths. the guy in the cinema could not have killed as many as he did with a gun with 10 bullets that he had to reload after every shot.

Hmm, computer didn't have the ignore on, anyways, if that gun is able to carry 10 bullets. Just because he had to somehow buy bullets one at a time (lol, never going to happen) doesn't mean that, somehow, that gun will magically only be able to hold one bullet at a time, IT WILL STILL HOLD ALL 10 BULLETS. Thus the whole reload after every shot thing, is complete and total ignorance.

Completely hypothetical situation here. Lets pretend I own a civilian version of the M4, I don't know guns that well, so I have no idea what it's called. Now lets say I buy the bullets now as they are available, in bulk. I now go to the theater, and with its 15 bullet mag, shoot 15 people, then have to reload, then I go back to shooting again. That's a problem, sure.

Now, lets say I have to buy those bullets one at a time, you know what I'm going to do after I've bought all of the bullets I need? I'm going to put them in the magazine (or is it clip?) and I'm still going to have 15 rounds in the gun, and 15 more for the reload, thus buying them, one at a time, will have made absolutely no difference at all.

Do you understand what I'm getting at now? Why you look so ignorant when you talk about restricting how many bullets can be bought at once? It simply wont work. Yes, it's a terrible thing that happened, in this case, there just isn't much that could have been done about it.

If you really think that having to turn in all guns will magically stop gun related crimes, you're quite wrong. The law abiding citizens will turn them in I'm sure, guess what? The criminals that already own lots and lots of guns illegally? They wont turn them in, and now they know that every single law abiding citizen, is completely defenseless against them. It's basically what has happened in Australia, guns taken from everyone, criminals kept theirs, and preyed on everyone.

There might be a few errors up in there, I'm tired, it's late (for me), but seriously, if you're going to argue for gun control, make sure you aren't arguing from a position of ignorance.

Who will be America's next top model, I mean win the internet, I mean be right, dammit.

lmao, You must not be an NRA subscriber... Every month they have a lot of stories of people using their guns to defend their home/family/self. No they aren't made up stories like penthouse... Here is also an article by Forbes. Not the most well written article, but it gets a little to the point.

@penfold1992 You are completely ignorant on this entire subject... Everything you say is based off of your emotions... and it's hideous... more kids are killed in the streets from illegal guns that aren't even able to be regulated, than these rifles we use for hunting. You really have made yourself look stupid. People owning guns is not the problem... The high murder rate from guns are due to drug and gang related crimes and those statics wouldn't change even if it was illegal for anyone in this country to even look at a gun....... Only reason your making your ignorant argument is because some crazy fucker got ahold of a gun and killed people, instead of blaming the person, you blame the gun... Come to my neck of the woods, I'll show you in a single weekend what guns are to me and most other legal gun owners.

Also... bomb making isn't hard... We aren't talking about splitting an atom... GG What next... Meth is difficult to make?



I gotta start reading your post before I post. Another good one.

Also, the M4's civilian counterpart is generally referred to as an M4 as well, it's just semi-auto(AR-15 is the M16's civilian counterpart[same thing only semi]that's the one that usually throws people.). and magazine was correct.

Now I'm just wondering when penfold is going to stop with his ignorance on the subject and take the time to learn what the hell he's spouting off about.

The gun name and magazine size were completely hypothetical anyways. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I do agree that there needs to be some restriction on who they're sold to. Just not to the ridiculous amount that some people like penfold and all the other idiots are saying after the shootings.

Agreed, made that case a couple post back with my looney Brother-in-law who has compiled a small arsenal, yet he's pretty much a sociopath. If you repeatedly try to join the military and fail their test, you probably shouldn't be allowed to buy firearms lol

Penfold's argument seems to be "20 kids died therefore I am right". Talk about letting emotions sway your reasoning.

The NRA mentioning video games also made me lol. Why can't any of these groups just refer to statistical analysis of places with different gun laws and then make choices based on that?

those guns are automatic, read my posts i said no semi automatic or automatic guns allowed at home.

the guns I am thinking of are like bolt action, guns which require you to cock the gun before firing like a revolver. it doesnt matter if there arent enough of these types of guns now, if the law was changed manufactures would find multiple ways of doing this.

take a revolver as an example that holds 6 bullets. load the gun cock it and fire, cock and fire, cock and fire etc
when all 6 rounds are fired the shooter must then reload the 6 rounds and repeat cock and fire.
buying this gun would give you 6 bullets... there you go, self defence.

hunting? bolt action rifle which again you must reload via a lever.

in fact id say all long action guns would be ok. break barrel shotguns included.

I think you're confusing the term revolver with single-action. Most modern revolvers are double action, and can fire repeatedly with just a trigger pull. Also revolvers can be reloaded just as quickly as any magazine fed pistol.

Why won't you just admit you don't know a damn thing about what you're arguing about, and go learn about it in the real world... Not reading wiki articles and headlines...

Penfold for president.

Ir really think you need some more gun experience. Must of the stuff you say sounds great but it simply won't work

Mostly this.
Even if they were highly illegal to purchase in your country they would still be incredibly easy for criminals to obtain. If a psychopath wants a gun he's going to get a gun.

However, I could see and understand them making semi-automatic rifles hard to obtain, and I would understand that.

who cares, its ur people dieing i guess. dont do anything about it and let it happen again. ill post in the next thread someone makes about another death by gun crime similar to this one.

actually..

merica.