Why is this what Leftists do?

[Jen]

I would like to see one good answer to this question.

 

[Jen]

Enough is enough

 

[Addy]

 

[Addy]

After a 1996 Mass Shooting, Australia Enacted Strict Gun Laws. It Hasn’t Had a Similar Massacre Since.
Another mass shooting—this time at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon—has reignited the long, fractious debate over gun control in America. After the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012, Will Oremus highlighted the lessons of Australia’s strict gun laws and the resulting success in preventing subsequent mass shootings there. The post is reprinted below.
http://www.slate.com/authors.will_oremus.html


On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Advertisement
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.
What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

 

[Woolleybugger]

For the same reason we have laws making it illegal to kill someone while drunk driving. My lord, you people are logically deficient in ways that astound me.

 

[Charcat]

For the same reason we have laws making it illegal to kill someone while drunk driving. My lord, you people are logically deficient in ways that astound me.

But people still drive drunk and kill people. Even though it's against the law. Where's your logic?

 

[Craig]

But people still drive drunk and kill people. Even though it's against the law. Where's your logic?

So...by your logic, why have laws at all? People break them, so what would the point be of enacting them?

 

[marvin martian]

Actually, my civil rights do trump your desire to infringe on them. That's why we have the Bill of Rights; to protect people like me from people like you.

 

[oicu812]

a google search of "the results of gun control in Australia" produces 10,900,000 results..now thats a shitload of govt. reports,,surveys, statistics, blogs and articles etc..
many with descriptive graphs, pretty charts, important spokes people, officials, citizens etc..

tem million nine hundred thousand opinions, charts,,graphs, polls, statistics, opinions...

the progressives would like you to believe what they present as empirical evidence of their claims and just accept the 1 picture and 1 blog from slate magazine...

that leaves 10,899,000 more blogs,,statistics, charts,,graphs etc. to examine..

a cursory study of the first page of links etc. [approx. 11 links],,shows 4 that support the progressive position, 5 that refute it,,and 2 that appear to be inconclusive [neither better nor worse]...

out of 11 links, 4 support, 5 refute, 2 neutral..

lets extrapolate...60% of the links viewed refute the claims above..

10,900,000 links,,hundreds of pages,,..

60%...

do the math...

better yet,,dont take my word for it,,google it yourself...its all there, its easy to read and more important,,you can make up your own mind...

trust but verify is a good way to interact with your acquaintances, co workers,,but a foolhardy approach to politics/politicians...

best to reverse that to "verify, then trust"...

give it a shot,,

 

[oicu812]

So...by your logic, why have laws at all? People break them, so what would the point be of enacting them?

is the purpose of gun bans to reduce crime, or reduce deaths?

 

[Alias]

A white cop shoots a black thug attacking him, it's a racist cop problem. When a black homosexual shoots innocent white citizens, it's a gun problem.

 

[Alias]

Cops aren't armed to protect you. They're armed to protect themselves. It's your right to protect yourself. Use it.