EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Sionyn on November 07, 2012, 04:09:03 pm
-
a picture says a thousand words
-
Who is she?
Alexander.
-
Dumb bottle blonde?
-
Um, someone I trust tells me that the Prime Mister of Australia is neither a he, nor a Christian.
-
[sarcasm mode ON]well in todays world, women are equal to men. so he or she doesnt matter.
[sarcasm mode OFF]
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/148193_551089854920472_2117925981_n.jpg)
Though, firearms ownership is fairly widespread in Oz, point of fact...
-
Seems like her page is getting a lot of attention, its been pulled off twitter. Here's the cache.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9f57aoDL4owJ:https://twitter.com/KristenNeel_+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9f57aoDL4owJ:https://twitter.com/KristenNeel_+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
-
No President here. There's a Monarch, but she lives on the other side of the world...
-
Um, someone I trust tells me that the Prime Mister of Australia is neither a he, nor a Christian.
Or a President!
It gets worse though. Not only is he a she. She's an atheist, a redhead, unmarried, childless, and belives in global warming! :o
It could only get better if she was a lesbian ;D
Dave.
-
You mean she's an unmarried atheist with no children and red hair and she's NOT a lesbian?
Are you sure?
-
You mean she's an unmarried atheist with no children and red hair and she's NOT a lesbian?
Are you sure?
Well, her partner is a hairdresser... ;D
Dave.
-
Uh huh. There ya go. She even has a beard. Definitely a fag hag :)
-
Now there's a candidate for Nauru!!
-
Though, firearms ownership is fairly widespread in Oz, point of fact...
No, it's not, it's about 3% of our population.
Some more facts:
- We have no ingrained "gun culture".
- We have very tough gun ownership laws.
- We had a massive (and popular) compulsory gun buyback scheme, funded by the taxpayer by a tax levy.
Dave.
-
It gets worse though. Not only is he a she. She's an atheist, a redhead, unmarried, childless, and belives in global warming! :o
How does believing in global warming constitute it getting worse? I also believe in global warming. And global cooling. And global warming. On a diurnal basis. Oh wait, that's local warming. Aaah screw it. :P
-
So now only the criminals have the guns?
Sounds about right, that's how you know they are criminals. Saves on a whole load of police work :)
-
Australia doesn't have guns? I thought they had guns, just weren't gonzo about it?
-
So now only the criminals have the guns?
Oh no, the usual bullshit :(
No, strict gun laws don't ensure that only criminals have guns. Strict gun laws raise the bar for everyone, including the criminals. When you have strict gun laws the cost (monetary and in jail time) to illegally obtain a gun rises. It makes "the cost of doing business", if you want to call it that, more expensive for criminals.
At the same time the need for a criminal to own a gun is reduced, because the probability he'll meet armed resistance is going down.
The result is most criminals don't see a gun as an essential, affordable tool for the "business". It is no longer "a good investment" to help doing "the job".
-
Compulsory gun buyback? So you mean they took your guns but were nice enough to throw you a few bucks?
I don't understand why anyone would give up their gun to a government. I can see getting rid of your guns, say, if you get bored with them. Or if you get kids and no longer feel they're safe. Or if you're depressed and fear for your life. But I cannot understand wny anyone would willingly surrender their guns to the government. I saw something like that about Katrina, the National Guard came in and took a lot of people's guns. Took them and never gave them back. I cannot understand those folks giving them up. If I had a collection of guns and the gov came knocking I'd leave before I'd give them up - just pack up my shit and leave town. But no way would I give them up.
And before you get to thinking stereotypes, I'm not a republican, don't live in the south (anymore) and am glad to be gone from there, not a racist nor do I smoke or chew tobacco and I voted for Obama - twice. Some of us are fair enough to see this for what it is: an issue of liberty, and making sure the government always fears the citizens (as a whole, not individuals) and not the other way around. There's a Billion Chinese in China - do you think those in charge fear them? Imagina a tianenmin square happening in the US... it would start a civil war. That's why we have "a gun culture."
-
But guns are not intended to be a deterrent to tyranny. The 2nd ammendment says they're to protect the country. I don't understand why anyone would NOT want to give up their guns. This isn't Somalia.
-
I don't know much about the US but in the UK we've got extremely strict gun laws. You can own certain types of shotgun I believe, but it's very difficult to get a license for it, and they're exclusively for hunting uses only.
We have a very low gun homicide rate. 0.2 per 100,000 from memory. US is around 5 per 100,000 (correct me if I'm wrong.)
-
I don't know much about the US but in the UK we've got extremely strict gun laws. You can own certain types of shotgun I believe, but it's very difficult to get a license for it, and they're exclusively for hunting uses only.
You can own a hell of a lot more than shotguns, including large calibre rifles, semi-automatic handguns, and even cannons. And you can use them for a lot more than hunting:
- Vermin control
- Clay pigeon shooting
- Various other forms of competition shooting
- Even simply maintaining a personal collection
But as usual, nobody knows the laws or anything else about firearms, except OMG GUNS ARE BAD THEY KILL PEOPLE.
-
Vermin control IS hunting.
What, you mean you don't cook your rats after blowing their guts out? :o
But yes, gun usage is very restricted. Knives are proving a problem, at least according to the press. I don't know how much of a problem it actually is.
-
Australia doesn't have guns? I thought they had guns, just weren't gonzo about it?
I just stated the approx figure.
About 3% of our population have registered guns (it's illegal (in all states) to have an unregistered one).
And a large percentage of those would be farmers who actually need one for a real purpose other than sport ogling/collecting.
It is also illegal in Oz to own a gun for the purpose of defending yourself.
It is also illegal to keep your gun loaded and not locked up.
Dave.
-
Vermin control IS hunting.
I disagree. The act and the intention are entirely unrelated to hunting.
But yes, gun usage is very restricted.
It is? You can shoot them. You can shoot anything you like with them, so long as it's not a person, it's legal to hunt or exterminate it, or it's yours and on your land. I don't really see any restrictions here beyond 'don't commit murder'. Ownership, however, is a different matter.
Knives are proving a problem, at least according to the press. I don't know how much of a problem it actually is.
Knives are only a 'problem' because some brain damaged judge decided that the vast majority of every day knives are illegal to have on your person, and the equally brain damaged police have decided that precedence is the same as written law. Beyond that, usage of them as weapons is pretty much the same as everywhere else.
-
Compulsory gun buyback? So you mean they took your guns but were nice enough to throw you a few bucks?
Yes. IIRC I paid about $250(?) levy on my tax return for one year for the gun buyback scheme.
I don't understand why anyone would give up their gun to a government. I can see getting rid of your guns, say, if you get bored with them. Or if you get kids and no longer feel they're safe. Or if you're depressed and fear for your life. But I cannot understand wny anyone would willingly surrender their guns to the government.
That's because you don't live in Australia, a country that does not have a gun culture, where its not ingrained into you at birth that it's a right to have one to *insert reason here* ::)
I saw something like that about Katrina, the National Guard came in and took a lot of people's guns. Took them and never gave them back. I cannot understand those folks giving them up. If I had a collection of guns and the gov came knocking I'd leave before I'd give them up - just pack up my shit and leave town. But no way would I give them up.
I suspect you'd have a hard time leaving after you've been arrested for not complying with their order.
So it's either leave before they come knocking, or make the 6 o'clock news ;D
Dave.
-
I don't understand why anyone would give up their gun to a government. I can see getting rid of your guns, say, if you get bored with them. Or if you get kids and no longer feel they're safe. Or if you're depressed and fear for your life. But I cannot understand wny anyone would willingly surrender their guns to the government.
That's because you don't live in Australia, a country that does not have a gun culture, where its not ingrained into you at birth that it's a right to have one to *insert reason here* ::)
I don't live in a gun culture, either, but I also don't see why you'd willingly hand over a tool because the government says you shouldn't have it.
-
Why is selling your gun to the government any different to selling it to a 2ndhand gun shop?
-
In NZ you need a full firearms license with extra 'restricted weapons endorsement' to own a fully automatic BB gun.
Although, that rule is going to be reviewed soon. They're some confusion about automatic paintball guns.
It's expected that they will loosen the law so auto BB and paintball guns are a bit easier to use/own legally.
-
Vermin control IS hunting.
It was a joke, read it with the other sentence ;). Vermin control isn't hunting, no one sensible would say that.
-
Vermin control IS hunting.
It was a joke, read it with the other sentence ;). Vermin control isn't hunting, no one sensible would say that.
Sorry, but it's hard to pick out jokes and sensibility in firearms 'discussions' (I use the term loosely, as there are three types of participant: Raving anti-gun lunatics, raving pro-gun lunatics, and actual firearms owners).
-
No, strict gun laws don't ensure that only criminals have guns. Strict gun laws raise the bar for everyone, including the criminals. When you have strict gun laws the cost (monetary and in jail time) to illegally obtain a gun rises. It makes "the cost of doing business", if you want to call it that, more expensive for criminals.
At the same time the need for a criminal to own a gun is reduced, because the probability he'll meet armed resistance is going down.
The result is most criminals don't see a gun as an essential, affordable tool for the "business". It is no longer "a good investment" to help doing "the job".
Absolutely spot-on for Australia.
That is why we have very low gun crime here. Gun crime usually stops with usual rival bikie or drug gangs shooting each other with their illegal guns.
If one person gets shot in a regular non-gang related crime crime here in Australia it makes the national front page news, and calls for even tougher gun laws.
The average criminal on the street who might mug you or car jack you will almost certainly not have a gun.
Some stats for firearm crime in Oz:
- 25% of attempted murder cases
- 17% of murder cases
- 7% of robbery offences.
Dave.
-
I don't live in a gun culture, either, but I also don't see why you'd willingly hand over a tool because the government says you shouldn't have it.
People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.
Our gun buyback scheme was hugely supported by the population.
Dave.
-
I don't live in a gun culture, either, but I also don't see why you'd willingly hand over a tool because the government says you shouldn't have it.
People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.
Certainly can't apply that description to this government.
Our gun buyback scheme was hugely supported by the population.
Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.
My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.
-
People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.
The "government" SHOULD be of the people, by the people, for the people.
But that hasn't been the case in the USA in a long time.
-
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" So this is the justification.
Notice nothing in here about hunting, vermin control, or competition shooting. The were clearly not of immediate concern of the founding fathers.
So a Couple Questions
What is a Militia? Is it the same as a Professional Military or Police force?
Why is a Militia necessary to the security of a free state?
What in the context of the founding fathers situation made them rank the right to bear arms as important as the freedom of speech, fair trial, cruel and unusual punishment etc?
-
Really! I'm in Canada and we have very strict gun laws. This doesn't seem to be stopping the criminal element from using guns. Google Toronto year of the Gun for one example.
That's because they're getting all their guns from the US - which has very crap gun laws.
-
People seem to forget that the "government" is actually the people.
you are short on definition. the "government" is actually the people who:
1) sucking and lying other people
2) have the power
3) have exception to law and regulation
4) tell the other people that they are the people for the people
dont get too hypnotized. whatever they say.
-
Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.
My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.
You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back. It's not the responsible gun owners that cause a problem, but sometimes its the people around them, and it can be the people you least expect. At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen. But the fact is, if it does happen, once it's done, it's done. And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?
-
What in the context of the founding fathers situation made them rank the right to bear arms as important as the freedom of speech, fair trial, cruel and unusual punishment etc?
It was a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists (as was the whole Bill of Rights) to get the Constitution (which many anti-Federalists felt gave too much power to the federal government) passed by the States. Federalists (generally) believed in standing armies (controlled by the central govt) for protection (of the country) - anti-Federalists in an armed populace.
-
Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.
My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.
You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back.
And people commit suicide very successfully via other means, too. Come up with a more convincing argument some time.
At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen.
No, they'll use a knife, or some pills, a plastic bag, jump off a bridge, run in front of a bus.. Changing the method doesn't change the act.
And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?
I knew someone who committed suicide by firearm. So you're going to have to try another cheap tactic.
-
Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.
My family lost a business and a very large number of firearms were destroyed because it was too expensive to keep them after changes to the law in this country. No lives were saved, no good came of it. Just the loss of a community, a sport, and a hobby.
You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back.
And people commit suicide very successfully via other means, too. Come up with a more convincing argument some time.
At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen.
No, they'll use a knife, or some pills, a plastic bag, jump off a bridge, run in front of a bus.. Changing the method doesn't change the act.
And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?
I knew someone who committed suicide by firearm. So you're going to have to try another cheap tactic.
People may try other methods, but their chances of survival are far greater than putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger.
It's not a cheap tactic. What does it mean that you knew someone that did this? It means your brain is not fully functional, if you continue to believe that it is a good thing for guns to be freely available and commonplace.
-
What in the context of the founding fathers situation made them rank the right to bear arms as important as the freedom of speech, fair trial, cruel and unusual punishment etc?
It was a compromise between Federalists and anti-Federalists (as was the whole Bill of Rights) to get the Constitution (which many anti-Federalists felt gave too much power to the federal government) passed by the States. Federalists (generally) believed in standing armies (controlled by the central govt) for protection (of the country) - anti-Federalists in an armed populace.
So It's a hedge against federal power? That seems consistent with the other amendments in the bill of rights. So is that purpose achieved when the federal government confiscates weapons? And is this hedge still needed or use full? Would our free state be less secure without it?
-
What does it mean that you knew someone that did this? It means your brain is not fully functional, if you continue to believe that it is a good thing for guns to be freely available and commonplace.
My brain is quite functional, and not once have I said I think firearms should be freely available and commonplace. You are merely automatically placing me in the 'raving pro-gun lunatic' band because I happen to shoot.
As a matter of fact, I believe there should be tighter restrictions on air weapons. I don't, however, believe that those of us rational, responsible, and skilled enough to own and operate firearms should be unable to access the firearms we desire for reasonable use.
You can go and buy a stupidly powerful car, drive it like an idiot, and kill someone. People do that every day. But I can't go buy an AS50 and place holes in a piece of paper from 1500m away in a safe, controlled manner.
I know, next time someone drives into a bus and kills a load of children on their way to a field trip, we'll ban all cars except Kei cars.
-
Certainly can't apply that description to this government.
Well, yeah, in theory ;D
YMMV!
Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.
At least in this country you were the small minority, so sorry, but that's the way society works and progresses.
Just like the smokers complain about not being to smoke anywhere any more etc, that's just too bad, you are the minority, your viewpoint lost out.
Counties and societies are run by the people, and the predominate prevailing views eventually win out (on average over time).
Some win, some lose.
Dave.
-
At least in this country you were the small minority, so sorry, but that's the way society works and progresses.
Just like the smokers complain about not being to smoke anywhere any more etc, that's just too bad, you are the minority, your viewpoint lost out.
Limiting freedoms which do not harm others is not progress.
Counties and societies are run by the people, and the predominate prevailing views eventually win out (on average over time).
Some win, some lose.
The predominant prevailing views forced upon those who have no view, by those who have money and power. The vast majority of non-shooters in this country, 30 years ago, would not give a toss, as us shooters did nothing to bother them and never have. The stigma attached to firearms was manufactured and stapled onto a pair of tragic incidents. Incidents I could recreate right now with a kitchen knife. Or the entirely uncontrolled bow and arrow.
-
Certainly can't apply that description to this government.
Well, yeah, in theory ;D
YMMV!
Perhaps, but not by those who've spent years happily using a firearm and causing no danger to anyone, only to be told they can't have it anymore because people who have nothing to do with it have decided they're not allowed them.
At least in this country you were the small minority, so sorry, but that's the way society works and progresses.
Just like the smokers complain about not being to smoke anywhere any more etc, that's just too bad, you are the minority, your viewpoint lost out.
Counties and societies are run by the people, and the predominate prevailing views eventually win out (on average over time).
Some win, some lose.
Dave.
So its alright for the majority to oppress the rights of minority groups?
-
Limiting freedoms which do not harm others is not progress.
Progress is just change, it does not have to be good for all people involved and their viewpoints.
In the case of guns, the claim "does not harm others" is laughable. Guns are designed as a weapon to kill people (with great efficiency and ease).
Argue all you want over the semantics of the whole gun debate, but that's what guns are designed to do and can do, so they can and do affect and harm other people and society in a big way.
You can't put guns up on the same shelf as say gay rights, or women's reproductive rights, which really do not effect other people but the person in question.
The predominant prevailing views forced upon those who have no view, by those who have money and power. The vast majority of non-shooters in this country, 30 years ago, would not give a toss, as us shooters did nothing to bother them and never have. The stigma attached to firearms was manufactured and stapled onto a pair of tragic incidents. Incidents I could recreate right now with a kitchen knife. Or the entirely uncontrolled bow and arrow.
Complain all you like. In this country the majority our our society want strict controls on guns, so that's what the laws now reflect.
Dave.
-
And is this hedge still needed or use full?
It was specific language invented for political purposes by people trying to solve a practical problem while living in a much different time. To adhere to it as if it was divine wisdom is idiotic.
Would our free state be less secure without it?
Free state? I'm not sure what free state you're talking about. Do you mean:
The Land Of The Free (Condiments), Home of the Brave (Gun Owners)?
The 'gun ownership as freedom' pap which is fed to young children growing up in the US as part of the illusion that the country is not only the birthplace of freedom, but the most free nation on the planet, is rather humorous for anyone living some place with much more freedom.
-
So its alright for the majority to oppress the rights of minority groups?
When it affects the majority, yes, they then have the right to become involved. That's how society works.
If minority things didn't affect the majority, then there would be no reason to have laws to control the minority thing.
Like I said, something like gay rights does not affect the majority in a physical or economic way, so there is no reason to limit that right.
But something like smoking or guns does affect the majority, so the majority have a right take action to control that.
Dave.
-
In the case of guns, the claim "does not harm others" is laughable. Guns are designed as a weapon to kill people (with great efficiency and ease).
Wrong. Far from all firearms are designed for killing, and 'great ease' is laughable. Just because they're simple to operate, doesn't mean they're simple to use effectively.
You can't put guns up on the same shelf as say gay rights, or women's reproductive rights, which really do not effect other people but the person in question.
No, but I'm going to put them on the same shelf as the automobiles which kill and maim so very many more people every year. The petrol used in them is legal, too, and arson claims many more deaths than firearms every year in this country. And that was no different prior to the changes to the law.
Shall I bring up alcohol, too? I drink responsibly. Many others don't, and it costs more lives than firearms.
51 people were killed by firearms in the UK in 2011. 1901 were killed in road accidents, with a further 23,122 seriously injured. In just six months in 2011, 149 people died in fires, and only 87 of those were accidents. But yes, I'm sure firearms have a much greater impact on society than dangerous driving, gangs, arson, excessive drinking, and simple stupidity. But we still have cars, we still allow people to gather, you can still buy flammable material over the counter, alcohol is easily obtained in great quantity, and stupidity still isn't a crime.
-
And is this hedge still needed or use full?
It was specific language invented for political purposes by people trying to solve a practical problem while living in a much different time. To adhere to it as if it was divine wisdom is idiotic.
Would our free state be less secure without it?
Free state? I'm not sure what free state you're talking about. Do you mean:
The Land Of The Free (Condiments), Home of the Brave (Gun Owners)?
The 'gun ownership as freedom' pap which is fed to young children growing up in the US as part of the illusion that the country is not only the birthplace of freedom, but the most free nation on the planet, is rather humorous for anyone living some place with much more freedom.
Well as old fashioned and humorous as it may seem I do believe the constitution was inspired and the us is a great country. Blessed to be quite free.
-
Wrong.
Then please enlighten us all as to what guns were designed for?
No
So your point was invalid, thanks for clarifying that.
but I'm going to put them on the same shelf as the automobiles which kill and maim so very many more people every year.
There are many strict laws in place to help reduce that from happening, just like with guns.
Not a good example, try again.
The petrol used in them is legal, too, and arson claims many more deaths than firearms every year in this country.
You don't need petrol to start a fire.
In this country there are actually laws on restricting petrol in certain communities were petrol is a problem (not arson).
Shall I bring up alcohol, too? I drink responsibly. Many others don't, and it costs more lives than firearms.
There are also laws in place to help reduce that too.
Keep trying, you won't win the argument. Guns affect the whole community, and if the community decides they want strict laws in relation to guns, they have every right to have those laws enacted.
Dave.
-
Well as old fashioned and humorous as it may seem I do believe the constitution was inspired
Please explain why it had to be amended no less than 27 times ???
Dave.
-
Well as old fashioned and humorous as it may seem I do believe the constitution was inspired and the us is a great country. Blessed to be quite free.
Tell me, how do you judge those freedoms that you possess? I mean, how do you know how 'free' you are, comparatively? Have you ever lived in another country for any extended period of time?
Or do you judge the freedom you have based on quality of life issues? Such as the free healthcare you get - or the 6 weeks of free paid vacation from your work?
Or do you judge them based on the statistics of your free country? Such as 6 million American citizens in prison (more than any country in history) - that's about 760 per 100,000 citizens. Are they blessed to be quite free?
-
Well as old fashioned and humorous as it may seem I do believe the constitution was inspired
Please explain why it had to be amended no less than 27 times ???
Dave.
Since they provided a mechanism to amend it they must have been at least inspired enough to know it would need to be a living document. :)
-
Well as old fashioned and humorous as it may seem I do believe the constitution was inspired and the us is a great country. Blessed to be quite free.
Tell me, how do you judge those freedoms that you possess? I mean, how do you know how 'free' you are, comparatively? Have you ever lived in another country for any extended period of time?
Or do you judge the freedom you have based on quality of life issues? Such as the free healthcare you get - or the 6 weeks of free paid vacation from your work?
Or do you judge them based on the statistics of your free country? Such as 6 million American citizens in prison (more than any country in history) - that's about 760 per 100,000 citizens. Are they blessed to be quite free?
Wow your idea of freedom is getting free health care and time off?
-
Keep trying, you won't win the argument.
I'm really not sure you're having the same argument I am. Let me just ask: Do you have any problem with me or any other sane, rational person owning a firearm because we find it enjoyable and interesting?
Guns affect the whole community, and if the community decides they want strict laws in relation to guns, they have every right to have those laws enacted.
I'm sure, but.. we never voted to have the firearms laws we have. None of the 50 million people were asked by the three governments who put them in place. The house of commons decided, in one case, that the ban was not needed. The government (NOT of the people, NOT by the people, and NOT for the people. This is not Australia, just in case that needs clarifying) put them in place all by themselves. And they've done nothing useful.
And, I will once again point out, that I do not argue with strict laws. I argue with the specifics of them. I have no problem with requiring safe storage, extensive background checks, and all that. I even believe anyone who wishes to own a firearm or even an air gun should have compulsory training and testing on their handling and maintenance. Hell, give me a psych eval. I just don't believe I shouldn't be allowed to shoot a pistol because.. well, 'because'!
I can own a cannon, though! ::)
-
Wow your idea of freedom is getting free health care and time off?
Of course it's part of your freedom - if one illness can devastate you financially, what kind of freedom is that? The freedom to file bankruptcy? Freedom is about having choices - affordable health care, affordable university - these things - and many others - affect your available choices in life.
As a fellow American, I can tell you what special freedoms you possess by living there that I no longer do:
Free condiments at the fast food joints.
Freedom to easily own a gun.
Freedom to buy a bunch of crap (mostly from China) at a lower price than I do.
And I'm afraid that's the extent of it.
On the other hand, I have some freedoms which you don't have - which are SLIGHTLY more important in life than those listed above.
-
Wow your idea of freedom is getting free health care and time off?
Of course it's part of your freedom - if one illness can devastate you financially, what kind of freedom is that? The freedom to file bankruptcy? Freedom is about having choices - affordable health care, affordable university - these things - and many others - affect your available choices in life.
As a fellow American, I can tell you what special freedoms you possess by living there that I no longer do:
Free condiments at the fast food joints.
Freedom to easily own a gun.
Freedom to buy a bunch of crap (mostly from China) at a lower price than I do.
And I'm afraid that's the extent of it.
On the other hand, I have some freedoms which you don't have - which are SLIGHTLY more important in life than those listed above.
Free condiments? Really? I Think you're confused about the difference between free as in beer and free as in speech. When I talk about freedom it has nothing with people giving me stuff.
-
Debates like this (guns) will never be won by anyone.
There will always be many pros and cons from all sides.
Anyway, we (in Australia) seem to be having much more of a problem/issues related to younger generation.
Car abuse http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-stupid-decision-three-teens-dead-in-midnight-road-carnage-20121108-28z91.html, (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-stupid-decision-three-teens-dead-in-midnight-road-carnage-20121108-28z91.html,)
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Violence, disrespect, etc. etc. I wonder how much of this due to our so called "Progress/Political Correctness" in relation to government "regulated" upbringing, education? Maybe I have gone off topic and opened another can of worms?
-
Debates like this (guns) will never be won by anyone.
There will always be many pros and cons from all sides.
Anyway, we (in Australia) seem to be having much more of a problem/issues related to younger generation.
Car abuse http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-stupid-decision-three-teens-dead-in-midnight-road-carnage-20121108-28z91.html, (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-stupid-decision-three-teens-dead-in-midnight-road-carnage-20121108-28z91.html,)
Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Violence, disrespect, etc. etc. I wonder how much of this due to our so called "Progress/Political Correctness" in relation to government "regulated" upbringing, education? Maybe I have gone off topic and opened another can of worms?
Corrected link to teenage car tragedy
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-stupid-decision-three-teens-dead-in-midnight-road-carnage-20121108-28z91.html (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-stupid-decision-three-teens-dead-in-midnight-road-carnage-20121108-28z91.html)
-
Free condiments? Really? I Think you're confused about the difference between free as in beer and free as in speech. When I talk about freedom it has nothing with people giving me stuff.
Yes, I understand - you have completely swallowed the stuff you were taught in school about it - and are repeating it back here. I know the spiel well - I learned it also in school there.
And yet, you ignore everything in my posts which points to something seedier lurking under the 'freedoms' of the US - such as more people jailed there than anywhere, anytime in the history of mankind.
Also, I hate to burst your bubble but every Western nation has free speech - and has for a long long time - many before the US was ever conceived. For example, Holland has been a republic since 1581 - 200 years before the Bill of Rights was a fevered dream in James Madison's mind.
Anyway, this is like hammering nails with a fish... I'm off to bed.
-
If this has moved to a discussion about guns, Penn & Teller have some viewpoints on this
Penn & Teller: Gun Control (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs#)
I feel like this |O whenever a chat about politics comes up, mostly because over 99% of people cannot separate "what they feel" from logical/fair ideas and/or empirical facts. even most people who would consider themselves progressive (or what-have-you) blur and skew the lines; and they don't even know they are doing it.
-
Debates like this (guns) will never be won by anyone.
There will always be many pros and cons from all sides.
yes because the problem is not the tool, but the mindset. thats the problem people forget (or havent figured out how) to fix in the first place. you give a monkey anything it will treat it the same... banana.
as for freedom of speech... do people have right to call out loud you or any other people a moron?
suicide? ahaks! cough cough. give me reasons why people should have a right or freedom or not to kill himself? the way i see it the world goes? if you are above 18 you should have the freedom to kill yourself :D but its should be compulsary to make it as clean as possible to avoid mess and involvement of 3rd party. such as shooting your head (or cut throat or jump from 100m above with head goes first) after digging your own grave and setup a trap so when it goes bang you will be covered by soil automatically. failing to do so, you'll be sentenced to life imprisonment!
-
The stigma attached to firearms was manufactured and stapled onto a pair of tragic incidents. Incidents I could recreate right now with a kitchen knife.
Fuck no, you couldn't. Try to kill (not that I recommend or endorse it), 30 of your coworkers or school pupils and wound 20 more with a kitchen knife, all in five minutes.
-
So It's a hedge against federal power?
As if that worked out, ha, ha, ha.
Many years ago, when the Bush clan stole the presidential election in Florida, I was seriously fearing that the Floridians would resort to their guns to make it right. You know, there were those criminals in power, soiling the most sacred event in a democracy, elections, creating the very situation from which US gun-owners derive their right to have guns.
And what did all those gun-owners, self-styled defenders of the American freedom do? Nothing.
Why? Because the Bush are white. The bush are right-wing, catering for the gun owners. And because whatever they claimed, gun ownership was and is not about keeping the government in check. It is about compensating for insecurities, for a small penis and feeling strong and superior. It is a fetish.
-
Fuck no, you couldn't. Try to kill (not that I recommend or endorse it), 30 of your coworkers or school pupils and wound 20 more with a kitchen knife, all in five minutes.
Indeed, including with the silly bow and arrow example too.
Reminds me of some idiot (politician?) who made the news after a gun massacre saying that he could do the same damage of one of these mass shooting with a spear. He was the laughing stock and made the front page for his effort.
The only way it could be done with a knife or any other hand held weapon is to do it "serial killer" style one by one. Kill one, hide, kill another, hide...
Dave.
-
I'm really not sure you're having the same argument I am. Let me just ask: Do you have any problem with me or any other sane, rational person owning a firearm because we find it enjoyable and interesting?
You said:
Limiting freedoms which do not harm others is not progress.
So you were saying that having your gun does not affect others. You are wrong, it does, and if you were in Oz it would affect me, gives me a position at the table to ague about this right of yours.
You are setting up a straw man argument with the latest question. There is lot more to the issue than simply agreeing with whether or not you as a responsible person should be allowed to own a gun for interest sake or other reason. A lot more.
I like our current tough gun laws in Oz, and I like our lack of a gun culture in our society.
Dave.
-
At least in this country you were the small minority, so sorry, but that's the way society works and progresses.
Just like the smokers complain about not being to smoke anywhere any more etc, that's just too bad, you are the minority, your viewpoint lost out.
One of our Patriots called that "the tyranny of the majority" and so this is why we have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy and not a winner takes all free for all of pitchforks and torches.
Counties and societies are run by the people, and the predominate prevailing views eventually win out (on average over time). Some win, some lose.
And this is why we have a Constitution. Like in DC, where they managed to pass a law that stood for twenty years while a city that OUTRIGHT banned guns became one of the most violent in the nation - until a case finally went before the SCOTUS, who promptly pointed out "you can't do that because the Constitution says you can't." You wanna change the law? Amend the Constitution
And why all these stupid semantics and apologies over guns? OF COURSE the Constitution says guns being necessary to preserving a free society. It doesn't say "all farmers have the right to shoot coyotes" or "all shooters have the right to target practice." It says YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS BECAUSE YOU CAN KILL THE MOTHERFUCKERS WHO OPPRESS YOU.
Know why we're the most powerful nation on earth? Because no one will fuck with us. Because they know if they try to invade, screw the army and the air force and the marines, we have enough guns to arm every man, woman and child in the nation and enough ammo to kill every other motherfucker on the face of the earth. So leave us alone.
-
And why all these stupid semantics and apologies over guns? OF COURSE the Constitution says guns being necessary to preserving a free society.
It might say or imply that, but it doesn't mean it was right. In fact, given a that a lot has changed with society since it was written, there is a chance they are now wrong. How wrong? just look at your countries gun crime/death stats compared to others that have have much tougher gun laws and no ingrained gun culture that was the result of this old amendment.
I'll take our stats any day of the week, thanks.
Dave.
-
Seriously? You can't change human nature.
I'll ask again: how many think a Tiananmen could happen in the US? There are patriots in this country today who own tank killers.
"Yeah your stand against the tank holding a can of gas is a beautiful picture, we sure can relate to your spirit but too bad your country has no real freedom and no means of acquiring it because you can't own the tools of liberty."
"Oh, so BTW, here's a tank killer for you.... "
"What's that? No need for the gas because now there's no more tank and no more tank driving soldier of an army standing against its own citizens? SEE? NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE TELLING YOU?"
-
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" So this is the justification.
And why all these stupid semantics and apologies over guns? OF COURSE the Constitution says guns being necessary to preserving a free society. It doesn't say "all farmers have the right to shoot coyotes" or "all shooters have the right to target practice." It says YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS BECAUSE YOU CAN KILL THE MOTHERFUCKERS WHO OPPRESS YOU.
I heard arguments based on this many times before, and I think it's laughable. IF people are so afraid of their own government and feel the need to defend themselves against it, then perhaps the very same people should consider to nip the problem at the bud and ensure no fascist moron gets elected into power in the first place. This principle seems to work extremely well for most Western civilisations around the world.
I find this logic bizarre. I mean, we don't have this level of anti-government paranoia in Australia. Yes, we do have the usual clowns in Parliament, but nobody is afraid of them, because they get shot down pretty quickly (no pun intended).
Know why we're the most powerful nation on earth? Because no one will fuck with us. Because they know if they try to invade, screw the army and the air force and the marines, we have enough guns to arm every man, woman and child in the nation and enough ammo to kill every other motherfucker on the face of the earth. So leave us alone.
Really? So that means Russia is up for grabs then? The EU and China, yeah?
Knock out major infrastructure in your country and your disorganised, undisciplined, gun toting civilians will be paralysed. Your only real hope of defence is the US army, the nuclear stockpile, and not a bunch of hobby gun owners.
Reality check: Invasion of a Western nation of any kind is unrealistic these days. The world is too intertwined and dependent on each other. Starting a war is will be at the detriment of everyone.
-
So you were saying that having your gun does not affect others. You are wrong, it does, and if you were in Oz it would affect me, gives me a position at the table to ague about this right of yours.
What right? I never claimed any right, owning a firearm (outside the US, at any rate) is a privilege, not a right.
You are setting up a straw man argument with the latest question. There is lot more to the issue than simply agreeing with whether or not you as a responsible person should be allowed to own a gun for interest sake or other reason. A lot more.
No, I'm attempting to determine if it's even worth attempting to discuss the subject of firearms with you. It is, apparently, not.
I like our current tough gun laws in Oz, and I like our lack of a gun culture in our society.
I do not like our current insufficiently tough (there are many better ways to handle firearm ownership) but overly restrictive (again, there's a discussion there you refuse to even see) laws here, and there is no gun culture to speak of and never was. Beyond our essential invention of the shooting sports which we're now slowly but surely killing off without having any effect on criminal use of firearms, that is.
-
What right? I never claimed any right, owning a firearm (outside the US, at any rate) is a privilege, not a right.
It was a figure of speech.
And you are still wrong.
No, I'm attempting to determine if it's even worth attempting to discuss the subject of firearms with you. It is, apparently, not.
I find the subject interesting, but that lot I was talking about, really is a lot. I could type for hours and hours and still not even scratch the surface of all the issues.
I do not like our current insufficiently tough (there are many better ways to handle firearm ownership) but overly restrictive (again, there's a discussion there you refuse to even see) laws here
I know nothing about your local laws.
But it seems that you are upset because you can't (easily?) shoot a certain type of weapon?
and there is no gun culture to speak of and never was. Beyond our essential invention of the shooting sports which we're now slowly but surely killing off without having any effect on criminal use of firearms, that is.
Please cite references and stats to show your shooting sport is dying off, and provide a convincing argument why this matters to your general population.
And also please explain why you can't have the same level of fun with the (many I'm sure) weapons that are available to you.
And be careful when you claim that it has no effect on the criminal use of firearms, because that is a big call that involves a lot of factors, both immediate and long term.
There are a lot of sports and recreational activities that are either banned or limited in many respects in this country alone. And they usually don't involve potentially deadly weapons that can impact the community as a whole. So gun arguments on these grounds can go straight to the back of the line, thanks! :P
Want an example of a stupid technicality that is hurting a sport? Try Geocaching here in my state. It is banned in all national and state parks, which petty much means almost everywhere interesing. Yet I am able to "bushwalk" to the exact same location with a GPS. But if I say I'm geocaching instead of bushwalking, I'm breaking the law ::)
Dave.
-
IF people are so afraid of their own government and feel the need to defend themselves against it, then perhaps the very same people should consider to nip the problem at the bud and ensure no fascist moron gets elected into power in the first place.
You've missed the point entirely. We're not afraid of our government. Sure, individuals all have their own fears and burdens, but as a society we're not afraid. We don't need to be. Suspicious yes. On the guard at all times. But we know (third time now i mention it and no one dare comment) there will not be oppression like in some "civilized" countries.
Yes, we have a lot of prisoners. We're also a very young nation. And, unlike some, we don't round up college students and make them work in factories until they get so exhausted and crazy from the stress they hurl themselves out of windows.
-
I know nothing about your local laws.
But it seems that you are upset because you can't (easily?) shoot a certain type of weapon?
'A certain type' meaning 'most firearms', yes.
I can own and shoot a Lee-Enfield No.4 Mark 1. I cannot own and shoot an M1 Garand. The difference? You can empty the magazine of a Garand very rapidly and very ineffectually. As a weapon, they're essentially equal in capability in capable hands, the semi-automatic fire of a full calibre rifle like the Garand is of little or no utility in killing, only suppressing (and if you've never seen a trained rifleman rapid-fire an Enfield, well, it's something to see). As a firearm, they're very different in operation and shooting, and of historical (but not in the legally defined sense of rarity) value.
Please cite references and stats to show your shooting sport is dying off
I'm not digging up numbers right now, but once again: My family lost a business due to the extreme difficulties in supporting it and the lack of shooters due to the poor laws introduced by successive clueless governments.
and provide a convincing argument why this matters to your general population.
Jobs and a healthy community? Not that the general population here has any say if they were able to form an opinion of the subject for themselves. Which they aren't, because that requires actual knowledge of it other than 'guns kill people'.
And also please explain why you can't have the same level of fun with the (many I'm sure) weapons that are available to you.
And that is where discussing the subject with non-shooters runs into a brick wall. Let's see.. I don't get the opportunity to practice competitive pistol shooting at all. That's pretty much an immediate killer of that side of things. Nor do I get to experience the vast majority of semi-automatic or automatic firearms, which hold major interest for me.
I'm sure people ask you why you have so many power supplies, oscilloscopes, and multimeters. Most of them won't understand why you have so many multimeters (honestly, far more than you actually _need_, we all know that). Nor would they understand why I enjoy different types of firearms, it's outside their experience. Explaining it is not easy, is it?
-
You've missed the point entirely. We're not afraid of our government. Sure, individuals all have their own fears and burdens, but as a society we're not afraid. We don't need to be. Suspicious yes. On the guard at all times. But we know (third time now i mention it and no one dare comment) there will not be oppression like in some "civilized" countries.
Name one modern western democratic nation that "oppresses" it's people.
Should be bring up the fact that the US is now fast becoming a police state in many areas? ;D
Dave.
-
I'm sure people ask you why you have so many power supplies, oscilloscopes, and multimeters. Most of them won't understand why you have so many multimeters (honestly, far more than you actually _need_, we all know that). Nor would they understand why I enjoy different types of firearms, it's outside their experience. Explaining it is not easy, is it?
It's very easy to explain, just as it is for you.
I understand where you are coming from. I enjoy watching the Professional Russian shoot shit up on Youtube, and the Mythbusters shooting shit on TV, I like paintball, I have an interest in all forms of military hardware. Although I don't shoot guns, I get it.
The issue I'm asking you to explain is entirely different though.
I am asking why it matters to the good of the general population why you should be allowed to own all these types of mechanised killing machines for your personal amusement, when it a demonstrable fact that these types of weapons (and arguably guns of any type in general) can lead to a culture of guns and greater deaths et.al.
It sounds like you might be getting a raw deal, but I am an advocate of tough gun control laws, and I do think it's for the greater good of the entire community and that communities future. And if that inadvertently results in you not being ale to shoot the guns you want, well, sorry, but that's too bad. That's a real bummer, I feel for you.
Have you tried paintball?
Or maybe the part time army reserves? They let you shoot lots of big dangerous toys.
EDIT: I just read something that even your olympian pistol shooters had to go outside the country to train. Thats stupid, and sucks.
At the very least they should let you own the gun and keep it under lock and key a the pistol club. Go for your life at the pistol range.
Dave.
-
Seriously? You can't change human nature.
I'll ask again: how many think a Tiananmen could happen in the US? There are patriots in this country today who own tank killers.
"Yeah your stand against the tank holding a can of gas is a beautiful picture, we sure can relate to your spirit but too bad your country has no real freedom and no means of acquiring it because you can't own the tools of liberty."
"Oh, so BTW, here's a tank killer for you.... "
"What's that? No need for the gas because now there's no more tank and no more tank driving soldier of an army standing against its own citizens? SEE? NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WERE TELLING YOU?"
Wow......
If it is to gain freedom, there are other ways to acquire your freedom from dictators/invaders:
One thing is sure with an armed militia it it sure possible to gain freedom. for example Afghanistan and the soviet troops, hell that gave the soviet Union the death stroke. More recent look at Libya where the rebells could get rid of their dictator.
BUT there are quite good examples of other ways to get rid of other invaders/ dictators
Lets start with an older example (not that old)
India was a territory of the British Empire and they could gain their sovereign through violence free demonstrations
There was the fall of the the iron curtain ("Berliner Mauer")the violence free demonstrations of the east germans led to the union of east and west germany.
more recent the events in Tunisia which weren't all violence free but the demonstrants didn't need to rely on an arsenal of guns to gain their goal (get rid of their president)
Of course I did simplify the events (obviously it would require more than 3 sentences to describe this complex topic but I think good enough to make my point clear).
So it is clear that there are ways to get residence without guns, so I think it is pointless to have guns at home for this purpose to defend your freedom,
cheers.
-
I'm sure people ask you why you have so many power supplies, oscilloscopes, and multimeters. Most of them won't understand why you have so many multimeters (honestly, far more than you actually _need_, we all know that). Nor would they understand why I enjoy different types of firearms, it's outside their experience. Explaining it is not easy, is it?
It's very easy to explain, just as it is for you.
I understand where you are coming from. I enjoy watching the Professional Russian shoot shit up on Youtube, and the Mythbusters shooting shit on TV, I like paintball, I have an interest in all forms of military hardware. Although I don't shoot guns, I get it.
Apparently not. I'm sorry, but if that's the sort of shooting you enjoy watching (which has nothing to do with doing it), you don't get what I enjoy. Paintball has nothing to do with competition shooting, nor any of the other interests I have in firearms.
It sounds like you might be getting a raw deal, but I am an advocate of tough gun control laws, and I do think it's for the greater good of the entire community and that communities future.
So am I, and so do I. I just disagree with the methods and restrictions on type. It's not an argument easily seen from the non-shooting side, as the lethality of firearms is not something a non-shooter actually knows a lot about.
I would be perfectly happy to never be allowed a handgun in my house. I would be quite content to only use one under supervision at a secured range, where it has no effect on the community (other than providing the aforementioned jobs and community!). Same goes for semi-automatic rifles. As for fully-automatic ones, that is a rather different kettle of fish perhaps best served by a secure collection rather than private ownership.
Have you tried paintball?
Or maybe the part time army reserves? They let you shoot lots of big dangerous toys.
And again, neither have any relevance to my interest in firearms.
Well, okay, I would like to get to shoot a Javelin. I already know how to work one..
-
EDIT: I just read something that even your olympian pistol shooters had to go outside the country to train. Thats stupid, and sucks.
What Olympian pistol shooters? We didn't have any, they can't practice their sport. They haven't been able to since the actions of two governments in 1997. Pistol shooting is dead and buried in this country.
We only had seven competitors in six events this year. We used to dominate the shooting sports (they ORIGINATED here, and we used to do 1000yd rifle events) in the Olympics, now we can barely scratch together some competitors. We got 21 medals including 6 golds in the 1908 Olympics. This year, we got 1. But it was a gold.
-
Apparently not. I'm sorry, but if that's the sort of shooting you enjoy watching (which has nothing to do with doing it), you don't get what I enjoy.
You have a passion for something, I understand passion.
So am I, and so do I. I just disagree with the methods and restrictions on type. It's not an argument easily seen from the non-shooting side, as the lethality of firearms is not something a non-shooter actually knows a lot about.
I would be perfectly happy to never be allowed a handgun in my house. I would be quite content to only use one under supervision at a secured range, where it has no effect on the community (other than providing the aforementioned jobs and community!). Same goes for semi-automatic rifles. As for fully-automatic ones, that is a rather different kettle of fish perhaps best served by a secure collection rather than private ownership.
Then we are in complete agreement.
It sucks if you can't go and shoot (any type of) guns at a secure range. Any laws that prevent that are just stupid.
Dave.
-
Apparently not. I'm sorry, but if that's the sort of shooting you enjoy watching (which has nothing to do with doing it), you don't get what I enjoy.
You have a passion for something, I understand passion.
So am I, and so do I. I just disagree with the methods and restrictions on type. It's not an argument easily seen from the non-shooting side, as the lethality of firearms is not something a non-shooter actually knows a lot about.
I would be perfectly happy to never be allowed a handgun in my house. I would be quite content to only use one under supervision at a secured range, where it has no effect on the community (other than providing the aforementioned jobs and community!). Same goes for semi-automatic rifles. As for fully-automatic ones, that is a rather different kettle of fish perhaps best served by a secure collection rather than private ownership.
Then we are in complete agreement.
It sucks if you can't go and shoot (any type of) guns at a secure range. Any laws that prevent that are just stupid.
Dave.
As for home storage and non-range use (hunting, vermin control, shooting on own property, etc), those are things which should be decided on a case-by-case basis, imo. By the police, and involving a psychological evaluation. Access to significantly powerful firearms outside of a controlled setting (or at the very least their ammunition, although I would strongly oppose handguns stored at home even without ammunition) needs to be carefully controlled.
But broad bans on ownership of particular types of firearm are stupid. Including Australia's laws, imo, although they're better than ours. Also, you have restrictions on suppressors, which makes little sense (they're to protect your ears, not make you silent but deadly).
-
US is in their infancy (with other countries). US will learn. The hard way.
Alexander.
-
As for home storage and non-range use (hunting, vermin control, shooting on own property, etc), those are things which should be decided on a case-by-case basis, imo. By the police, and involing a psychological evaluation. Access to significantly powerful firearms outside of a controlled setting (or at the very least their ammunition, although I would strongly oppose handguns stored at home even without ammunition) needs to be carefully controlled.
I agree, and I don't think our laws go far enough. You should not be allowed to own and keep a firearm of any sort at home unless you have a legitimate need, like a farmer for example.
If you want to play with guns, go to a secure gun club/shooting range and have a ball. Any gun laws should not affect these places.
Dave.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)
Did you actually just quote American wikipedia as a source for undisputable fact about gun control statistics? You talk about sheep?
And aren't you the same guy who claimed a few posts back that gun control doesn't work because guns are easily available to criminals in Canada - but forgot to mention the tiny fact that Canada happens to have a massive, virtually open border with the Western country where guns are most easily obtainable?
This whole discussion is so silly for anyone with comprehension skills. The USA is such a painful example of what happens when you don't have adequate gun control that nothing else needs to be said about it.
-
Some of you people are all sheep. I guess sheep are big business in Australia. Canada has one of the highest home gun ownership rates per capita in the world but violence by guns is comparable to Australia.
If you want to point to Wiki, we can do that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)
10.27/100,000 for America
4.78/100,000 for Canada
2.94/100,000 for Australia
If you don't count suicides, it is:
4.14/100,000 for America
0.76/100,000 for Canada
0.44/100,000 for Australia
So your rate is over 70% higher than ours, congratulations.
And Canada seems to have the 5th highest accidental gun related child death rate in the world, congratulations again:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/child-enfant-eng.htm (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/child-enfant-eng.htm)
In firearm-related deaths among children aged 0 to 14 years, Canada had the fifth highest rate, behind the United States, Finland, Northern Ireland and Israel, respectively.
The rate of firearm-related child deaths in Canada was .4 per 100,000 population, one quarter the U.S. rate of 1.6.
According to separate statistics provided by the Centers for Disease Control, 43% of child firearm deaths in Canada were unintentional, 17% were homicide, 35% were suicide, and 4% were undetermined.
Approximately 9% of all child homicides in Canada were committed with a firearm, and 24% of all suicides involved a firearm.
+ http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/youth-and-firearms (http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/youth-and-firearms)
+ some old stats for Oz http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342?OpenDocument (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342?OpenDocument)
But yes, you are right that it's generally how violent a societies culture is, + other lifestyle factors, that is why the US is much higher than Canada.
My view is that the less guns the better.
And there is no point dwelling on the past stats etc, each society needs to progress and decide about the future. The options are:
1) Change the laws to reduce the number of guns in society
2) Keep the status-quo
3)Change the laws to increase the number of guns in society and/or make it easier to own or carry one etc.
#1 seems the most logical choice to me, and the stats seems to back it up. Less guns ownership = less gun deaths, more or less. It just makes sense, I simply can't see how this option could be a bad thing for the general population and society? The less guns in society, the less there are for criminals to steal etc, Therefore the prices of illegal guns goes up and they get harder to get, less regular crooks can afford one, the less the crooks think they need one, and so on it goes.
#3 seems to be the stupid delusional option only considered by those like the US with such an ingrained gun culture, that they think it's the best way out of their mess. (e.g. lets have everyone conceal carry so the criminals think twice, or every person in that batman movie theatre could have taken out the guy in full body protection ::) )
Encouraging and/or allowing people to own firearms for protection is simply contributing to a violet mindset within the society. It doesn't make sense.
Neither does more guns in society in any form (apart from aforementioned secure clubs/ranges) .
Dave.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia)
Did you actually just quote American wikipedia as a source for undisputable fact about gun control statistics? You talk about sheep?
And aren't you the same guy who claimed a few posts back that gun control doesn't work because guns are easily available to criminals in Canada - but forgot to mention the tiny fact that Canada happens to have a massive, virtually open border with the Western country where guns are most easily obtainable?
This whole discussion is so silly for anyone with comprehension skills. The USA is such a painful example of what happens when you don't have adequate gun control that nothing else needs to be said about it.
The wikepidea page has independent sources. Gun control doesn’t work. The point is gun violence has been going down for decades before stricter controls came in.
Here is a link to stats.can you can review all data since it was collected relating to violent crime and guns.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm)
I posted the Wiki page because it offered a summary. If you have a source you feel is unbiased feel free to post it.
Gun control doesn’t work we still have a large amount of guns in the population. These aren’t the guns doing the crimes though it is illegally owned guns. So yea my point is it doesn’t work. You can read all the stats you want violent crime was on the decline for decades and it started before stricter regulations with guns were brought in. So its not the laws that are responsible for the decline its something else.
Assuming that your argument that crimes are committed with illegal guns is correct, and there is certainly validity to it. Where do these illegal guns come from? A criminal makes a wish and they appear?
According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html) most illegal guns come from:
- Straw purchases at legitimate shops
- Corrupt gun dealers
- Thefts from legally licensed owners
So remove the legal distribution of guns and voila, remove illegal acquisition of guns for criminal.
Tom
-
You never know what could have happened. Every day where guns are commonplace there are teen suicides and if they do it with a gun, there's no going back. It's not the responsible gun owners that cause a problem, but sometimes its the people around them, and it can be the people you least expect. At the end of the day, if the gun is not there, it cannot happen. But the fact is, if it does happen, once it's done, it's done. And then how would you feel about your precious 'tools'?
Probably about the same as you would feel if you stepped outside your lab and your teen daughter decided to stick her finger in a HV outlet to end it all.
A teen here recently committed suicide because she was bullied, she hung herself. I guess all rope should be confiscated.
Have you figured out you can say the same thing about a lot of things. There are favourite places in the world where people commit suicide (bridges, forests and waterways) governments try all sorts of things to stop them but yet it continues.
Maybe you should give up your cellphone there are a lot of deaths from distracted drivers. This would require you to sacrifice for the greater good. Lets see how sincere you are. Remember now even if you never text and drive some teen may borrow/steal your phone and text and drive and wipe-out a whole family. Then how would you feel?
Electricity has many uses and was not designed for killing.
Rope has many uses and was not designed for killing.
Bridges allow people to move across obstacles, and were not designed for killing.
Cellphones are very useful and were not designed for killing.
Have you figured out that your point is invalid?
Your phone theft/text-drive accident analogy is ridiculous. I wouldn't feel bad that I owned a useful item, not lethal in itself, not designed to kill. I wouldn't feel bad that someone got hold of said item. And I would feel bad about the accident, sure, but that's a result of their stupidity, which isn't what I was talking about before. Plus, the chances of them wiping out a whole family? I don't know, but it seems like the chance of survival from a road accident is much better than from a bullet in the head.
What does it mean that you knew someone that did this? It means your brain is not fully functional, if you continue to believe that it is a good thing for guns to be freely available and commonplace.
My brain is quite functional, and not once have I said I think firearms should be freely available and commonplace. You are merely automatically placing me in the 'raving pro-gun lunatic' band because I happen to shoot.
As a matter of fact, I believe there should be tighter restrictions on air weapons. I don't, however, believe that those of us rational, responsible, and skilled enough to own and operate firearms should be unable to access the firearms we desire for reasonable use.
You can go and buy a stupidly powerful car, drive it like an idiot, and kill someone. People do that every day. But I can't go buy an AS50 and place holes in a piece of paper from 1500m away in a safe, controlled manner.
I know, next time someone drives into a bus and kills a load of children on their way to a field trip, we'll ban all cars except Kei cars.
In a controlled environment I don't have a problem with guns. Just like I don't have a problem with fast cars on a race track. But cars have uses beyond killing, and whatever you say, guns do not. You can use them for target practice, but for what, so you can get a better shot when you're hunting something, to kill it? Even if you have no intention of doing such a thing, there's no other reason to have the skills in the real world - unless you're a farmer or similar, then I can see the point, but I'm not talking about farmers anyway.
And if you're afraid enough of naighbours/the government to think you need a gun for protection, well maybe you're not cut out for the world we live in, or need some psychological help. (Not aimed at you personally)
-
Here is a link to stats.can you can review all data since it was collected relating to violent crime and guns.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm)
Your understanding of statistics is extremely narrow - and you're ignoring my previous point. Gun availability in Canada (for criminals) is DIRECTLY related to the United States - you can't divorce Canada's success/non-success with gun control from this fact. It's no coincidence that gun control laws enacted in the US (what few there have been) have a direct and obvious effect on homicide deaths and gun crime in Canada.
-
At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.
Put simply, nobody cares that much about gun ownership here. Nobody misses out on anything, nor do they feel their freedom is inhibited in anyway as a result. If you want to play with guns? Of course you can. Get a license and have fun at the shooting range.
A guns sole purpose is not for killing human beings it’s for hunting, recreation and sports. Granted it can be used for killing people but so can fertilizer (Timothy McVeigh) baseball bats , golf clubs, hockey sticks, hands…..
As for what guns were designed for, let us not delude ourselves. They are weapons, designed by humans to kill humans (and animals). Particularly hand guns. You may justify alternate uses, such as sport, or whatever, ultimately they are designed to take a life.
-
You must be illiterate gun violence has been on the decline for decades no matter what statistic you read. The decline started before stricter regulation came into effect. So naturally a person with any intelligence would question whether or not the laws are the source of the decline or other forces in society.
I may be illiterate - but you are most certainly obtuse. Compare when these gun control laws were enacted in the US with charts of firearm-related violent crime in Canada. It doesn't take a math whiz to work out the correlation:
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968)
Gun Control Act of 1968 (1968)
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986)
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993)
-
At the end of the day it is not the guns but the mentality of the people owning them. In some parts of the world just about every house in the country has at least one fully automatic rifle in it, country's such as Switzerland. But they have a very low gun crime rate they also have a very low general crime rate so this has to say something about the people and society.
The claim by the gun lobby that owning guns protects them from an evil intent government is total bullshit, what ever guns the citizen has the government will always have bigger better and more plus heavy artillery, tanks and aircraft.
I am a gun owner and used to own pistols and be a registered range officer.
-
It's refreshing that on this forum U.S. gun culture isn't being defended by a bunch of dumb two-bit trigger-pumping morons with low hairlines, little piggy eyes and no conversation.
I'm confident that despite our differences our friends in the US are intelligent caring guys who we'd probably quite like if we met them socially. ;D
-
At the end of the day it is not the guns but the mentality of the people owning them. In some parts of the world just about every house in the country has at least one fully automatic rifle in it, country's such as Switzerland. But they have a very low gun crime rate they also have a very low general crime rate so this has to say something about the people and society.
While there is truth to this statement, it doesn't alter the fact that gun ownership in the US is almost double the next closest country - and at least triple any of the EME (Established Market Economy) nations (except Switzerland - which has that long tradition of 'armed neutrality').
It seems to me this issue boils down to the following:
What happens when you have very little gun control in an EME nation? Lucky for us, we have a test case: the USA - which leads the EME countries in:
Highest homicide rate by a factor of 2 (by a factor of >5 to most of the other EMEs).
Most dangerous inner cities.
Most dangerous police force.
Most imprisoned citizens in the history of mankind.
Now if all those things seem a good trade-off to you for the 'freedom' to indiscriminately purchase guns, well, there's nothing more to be said. To me it seems too high a price to pay.
-
You should not be allowed to own and keep a firearm of any sort at home unless you have a legitimate need
Given our current dysfunctional and corrupt government it could be reasonably argued that every Australian citizen indeed has a legitimate need for firearms. But thankfully enough of the born here stupid people will have caught on by a 2013 election to avoid Australia needing to follow another US bred political tradition.
-
Inspired by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas. Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA! :)
-
Gun violence in Australia was on a steady decline before the buyback and it seems to be maintaining the same trajectory “down” regardless of what laws some self serving politician tries to pass.
Australian States,in general, have had strict gun laws for many years.
In Western Australia,they had a "gun amnesty" period when I was a kid in the 1950s,where people could bring in unlicensed firearms,& either license them,or have them disposed of.
In the same state,at least from the 1960s.if you wanted to own & register a Rifle,you needed to have a certificate from a Property owner giving you permission to shoot on his property.
Of course,if you were a member of a target shooting association,they normally have their own shooting range,so that was covered.
Kangaroo shooting was a popular pastime among some folks.
The country people knew what they were doing,& would go out with a bolt action 0.22" rifle,bag a couple of 'roos & take them home to eat.
Idiots from the city would load up their cars with grog & firearms,"go bush" & shoot up roadside signs & the like,whilst driving drunk.
It never occurred to them that they were shooting into peoples farms,endangering their livestock,& families.
All completely illegal,but they got away with it if the farmer didn't catch them,or they didn't drive into a tree.
This sort of behaviour made farmers very reluctant to let people shoot on their properties,so gun ownership started to drop off in WA & other States with similar laws.
At least in WA,illegal firearms were fairly rare,& most gun injuries & deaths were from legal rifles.
Except among serious Sporting Shooters,gun ownership fell away,with an accompanying decrease in firearm injuries.
Queensland stood out among the States with quite easy going gun laws.
Around the early 1990s,there were reports that gun fanciers in that State were acquiring large numbers of modern
semi-automatic weapons,including comments from various senior Law Enforcement people.
Ultimately,though,the "buyback" was precipitated by a mass shooting in Tasmania,& gun laws around Australia were tightened up at the same time.
Guns in Australia were traditionally regarded as "tools" to shoot game animals for food,protect stock from predators, for
competitive shooting,& for war,& never gained the mystique they enjoy in the USA.
Gun fanciers in North America,for reasons of their own,tend to misrepresent the difference in strictness before & after the "buyback".
We did not go from a USA type system to a "No guns at all".
An already fairly strictly regulated system was tightened up a bit.
Looking back to the nonsense the OP was laughing about,the young lady had probably read one of the "reports" generated by some right wing halfwit in the USA which have been variously accredited to both our current PM,the two previous ones & the PM of France!
-
I seem to have been misinterpreted, I was not advocating the indiscriminate ownership of guns I was trying to point out that what is going on in the US is down to the mentality of many US citizens.
Lest not forget that the US constitution was drawn up by what the modern day US government would class as a bunch of terrorists.
And by what at the time was seen as a gang of criminals by many nations except the french who had hoped that stirring up trouble in the Americas would cause the British to loose the war in Europe or at least pull out in order to attend to matters in the Americas.
-
Inspired by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas. Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA! :)
Now go back to the mall - locate a police officer - pull a (completely clean) marijuana pipe from your pocket while standing in his visible line of sight (heavens forbid, I don't mean smoke marijuana! I just mean hold a pipe in your hands) - then use your freedom of speech to call him a fascist when he starts to arrest you (or better yet, pull your XD40). Give us a full report later when you're out of prison in a year :)
-
Inspired by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas. Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA! :)
Now go back to the mall - locate a police officer - pull a (completely clean) marijuana pipe from your pocket while standing in his visible line of sight (heavens forbid, I don't mean smoke marijuana! I just mean hold a pipe in your hands) - then use your freedom of speech to call him a fascist when he starts to arrest you (or better yet, pull your XD40). Give us a full report later when you're out of prison in a year :)
Give me a couple hours I'll drive to grand junction and let you know how it goes.
-
Give me a couple hours I'll drive to grand junction and let you know how it goes.
No need to go that far - it's more of a 'freedom' test in Idaho.
-
Here I am in South Africa, pretty far up the list on Wiki. Legal gun ownership is hard ( 2 year wait so far if you want to buy a gun, and it gets longer every month, as there is 1 person in the whole country who does the permit inspections, and he is on stress related leave for the last year) with a very hard license and regulation.
Does this stop illegal gun use? Not a bit, there are still hundreds of thousands of either stolen ( from the police or the military) or ex soviet ere guns around ( thanks Joe for that) that are freely available. There was a big program of blowing up gun caches, though there are still some around known of by certain ex MK members who are a little paranoid. Has done little to stop gun use in crime. Been there, got 2 T shirts.
-
Inspired by this thread I woke up this morning. Loaded my XD40 with the hottest jacketed hollow points I had, slid it under my belt then drove to the mall and went shopping. While there I swung by the food court and grabbed a ketchup packet even though I didn't buy any fries. Afterwards as I drove home I stopped filled up my car on cheap gas. Then I opened up Google music on my phone and streamed GOD BLESS AMERICA! :)
For the official record I didn't really do this. It's totally not my style....
I much prefer fry sauce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry_sauce try it, it's really good) and Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." or Niel Diamond "America" not sure. :)
-
As for home storage and non-range use (hunting, vermin control, shooting on own property, etc), those are things which should be decided on a case-by-case basis, imo. By the police, and involing a psychological evaluation. Access to significantly powerful firearms outside of a controlled setting (or at the very least their ammunition, although I would strongly oppose handguns stored at home even without ammunition) needs to be carefully controlled.
I agree, and I don't think our laws go far enough. You should not be allowed to own and keep a firearm of any sort at home unless you have a legitimate need, like a farmer for example.
If you want to play with guns, go to a secure gun club/shooting range and have a ball. Any gun laws should not affect these places.
Dave.
And of course, legitimate need is not a fixed term. Say you live 80 miles away from your range, you're an active competition shooter, and you need to practice. You have written permission from a nearby land owner who has a sufficiently large and sheltered area you can safely shoot in. That, in my books, is justification for storing your firearm on your property.
You can use them for target practice, but for what, so you can get a better shot when you're hunting something, to kill it? Even if you have no intention of doing such a thing, there's no other reason to have the skills in the real world
It's called sport. I'm going to assume you entirely disown the hard earned gold medal of Peter Wilson this year, then? ::)
-
The problems in the US mentioned by some regarding our prison population is a misnomer, because our prison population is mostly non violent offenders. Our prison population has to do with insane drg and three strike laws which are rooted in racism and social-economic discrimination. For a while the punishment for having crack cocaine was a hundred times that for having the same amount of white powder cocaine. A few years ago Congress finally officially recognized this unjust disparity and lowered the punishment for crack - to "only" ten times that for the white powder.
One by one states are saying enough. California has legalized medical pot for years and usually refuses to police marijuana use. Arizona, where I live, has medicial marijuana and two states, Colorado and Washington I believe, just two days ago voted to legalize pot completely. Prohibition doesn't work in this country, has never worked in this country, but no politican dares to be seen as "soft on crime" so they continue to posture and pretend the problem isn't the prohibition laws but that we're "not tough enough."
Crime, in all, has been on a downward trend SINCE THE SEVENTIES. Gun violence, in some very narrow cases, has increased statistically but this is at the same time overall crime has gone down. And I don't need to quote wikipedia for all this, the FBI does a fine job (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). Gun control laws are notoriously unpopular and yet the number (not just the percentage) of crimes, and gun related crimes overall, remain on a downward trend in spite of the population of this country growing by nearly a third since the first published reports of this nature by the FBI.
If it is to gain freedom, there are other ways to acquire your freedom from dictators/invaders
Yes, seems to have worked wonders for the people of Tibet, as well as China with its short list of jailed dissidents (http://www.cecc.gov/pages/victims/20101010_PPD_AR10.pdf). And don't forget that the present government of China, as well as that of the Soviet Union and even the U S itself, are rooted in revolution by the people. France, the US, China - not one, but FIVE revolutions for China in the last two centuries in spite of having no guns. And look how well revolution has worked out for the people in the places where there were few guns and other implements of destruction.
One thing is sure with an armed militia it it sure possible to gain freedom. for example Afghanistan and the soviet troops, hell that gave the soviet Union the death stroke. More recent look at Libya where the rebells could get rid of their dictator.
Exactly my point. IT wasn't standing armies that won these battles, it was militia. Armed citizens. Because tanks and bombs from the air and shells from the navy are all weapons of mas destruction and terror, but they are notoriously ineffective at getting the guys you want. How many bombs did we drop on Iraq before we got Hussein? We pulverized Germany and still didn't manage to get Hitler. All this is still being amply demonstrated in the mideast where we continue to kill civilians who "get in the way" of our "surgical" drone strikes. Dropping bombs on an armed populace doesn't make them succumb, it pisses them off and strengthens their resolve.
BUT there are quite good examples of other ways to get rid of other invaders/ dictators
LOL
India was a territory of the British Empire and they could gain their sovereign through violence free demonstrations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army)
There was the fall of the the iron curtain ("Berliner Mauer")the violence free demonstrations of the east germans led to the union of east and west germany.
UH huh. And what was it that started the fall of that empire?
(http://www.theodora.com/wfb/photos/poland/three_crosses_monument_gdansk_poland_photos_gov.jpg)
more recent the events in Tunisia which weren't all violence free but the demonstrants didn't need to rely on an arsenal of guns to gain their goal (get rid of their president)
Yes, I'm sure the Trillions of dollars we've spent destabilizing the entire mideast had nothing to do with these recent uprisings.
Of course I did simplify the events...
Indeed....
-
Oooh... Guns! Guns! Guns! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmOfcXlbv1U#ws)
-
Well as old fashioned and humorous as it may seem I do believe the constitution was inspired
Please explain why it had to be amended no less than 27 times ???
Dave.
I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone -- we come from different cultures and have different experiences. However, let me point out that the Constitution and Bill of Rights *DO NOT* grant rights. Rights, our founders believed, ALREADY EXIST as inherent and inalienable rights of Man. The enumeration of rights in the Constitution is intended to especially protect specific rights, but it does not grant them. Any rights NOT specifically recognized by the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people.
Having said that, I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms. We live in a dangerous society. Not because of weapons, but because of MANY factors: the decaying family structure, loss of jobs and a poor economy, attitudes of entitlement, etc. Individuals absolutely have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and their families from the threat of deadly violence, especially when inside their own homes.
In the USA, firearms are used defensively about 2.4 million times per year -- usually with no shots fired (John Lott, senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, has written much on this). Without firearms, there would be millions of additional crime victims.
If you live in a safe society and don't want guns, fine -- but I don't want someone else telling me what tools I can use to protect my own life. I'd rather live in a FREE society than a "safe" one, but perhaps that's what makes Americans unique!
-
Know why we're the most powerful nation on earth? Because no one will fuck with us. Because they know if they try to invade, screw the army and the air force and the marines, we have enough guns to arm every man, woman and child in the nation and enough ammo to kill every other motherfucker on the face of the earth. So leave us alone.
'merica!
Who the fuck would want to military invade any developed nation these days?
-
I dunno. WTF did we invade Iraq? You think Iraq wasn't "developed" before we bombed the shit out of it?
You think China would not invade Japan today if they thought they could get away with it? It's not the unarmed citizens of Japan the Chinese fear... wanna guess?
Everyone hates violence and guns until there's a guy holding a gun to their head and they're powerless to fight back. Something about atheists and foxholes comes to mind.
-
The problems in the US mentioned by some regarding our prison population is a misnomer, because our prison population is mostly non violent offenders. Our prison population has to do with insane drg and three strike laws which are rooted in racism and social-economic discrimination. For a while the punishment for having crack cocaine was a hundred times that for having the same amount of white powder cocaine. A few years ago Congress finally officially recognized this unjust disparity and lowered the punishment for crack - to "only" ten times that for thw white powder.
You're mixing apples and oranges - drug laws are not the same as three-strike laws - which are applied to, in general, persons previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies. In any case, it's all part of the same madness there - which includes drug laws, over-sentencing in general, gun availability, concealed carry laws, stand-your-ground laws, death penalties, etc, etc.
Crime, in all, has been on a downward trend SINCE THE SEVENTIES. Gun violence, in some very narrow cases, has increased statistically but this is at the same time overall crime has gone down. And I don't need to quote wikipedia for all this, the FBI does a fine job (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). Gun control laws are notoriously unpopular and yet the number (not just the percentage) of crimes, and gun related crimes overall, remain on a downward trend in spite of the population of this country growing by nearly a third since the first published reports of this nature by the FBI.
Hmm... I wonder if that downward trend is in any way related to enactment of the few federal gun regulations that exist? It's appears they started trying to regulate guns RIGHT BEFORE THE SEVENTIES.
Yes, seems to have worked wonders for the people of Tibet, as well as China with its short list of jailed dissidents[/url (http://www.cecc.gov/pages/victims/20101010_PPD_AR10.pdf)
Well, if you want to compare the freedom and quality of life in your nation to third world places, fine. I prefer to compare it (as I did in a previous post) to other EME countries - in which it lags sadly behind in both areas.
-
One by one states are saying enough. California has legalized medical pot for years and usually refuses to police marijuana use. Arizona, where I live, has medicial marijuana and two states, Colorado and Washington I believe, just two days ago voted to legalize pot completely.
LOL... for every state like Colorado or Washington, there is a state like Idaho:
Being in a place where people smoke marijuana = 3 months in jail.
If you are found to be stoned in public = 6 months in jail.
Being caught with a marijuana pipe (with no marijuana) = 1 year in prison.
If you also have some marijuana with the pipe = +1 year in prison.
If you do any of this around a child = felony 5 years in prison.
Selling pipes, bongs, grinders, and kief boxes = felony 9 years in prison and a $30,000 fine.
But no problem to score some guns there. Ahhh... the land of the free ;D
-
You're mixing apples and oranges - drug laws are not the same as three-strike laws - which are applied to, in general, persons previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies.
No, you're mixing apples and oranges and calling them pears. Felonies encompass a great more crimes than simply "stick'em up." Felonies include possession of more than an ounce of pot, pulling a jack on someone in a fight, attacking a cop, breaking into a computer, passing a hold up note to a teller in a bank, insider trading...
It is often felony drug arrests that lead to people being imprisoned. And much of that voiolence in our cosiety - just like in the "roaring twenties" - is due to prohibition itself. Blaming guns on the problem is like blaming bulldozers for killing wild animals.
Being in a place where people smoke marijuana = 3 months in jail.
If you are found to be stoned in public = 6 months in jail.
Being caught with a marijuana pipe (with no marijuana) = 1 year in prison.
If you also have some marijuana with the pipe = +1 year in prison.
If you do any of this around a child = felony 5 years in prison.
Selling pipes, bongs, grinders, and kief boxes = felony 9 years in prison and a $30,000 fine.
Thanks for making my point again. And yet "most three strike offenses" apply to violent criminals?
Not according to the FBI... nor even according to you.
-
At the end of the day it is not the guns but the mentality of the people owning them. In some parts of the world just about every house in the country has at least one fully automatic rifle in it, country's such as Switzerland. But they have a very low gun crime rate they also have a very low general crime rate so this has to say something about the people and society.
This tells us that to reduce deaths caused by guns more effectively, we should focus on reducing all crime in the first place. And why most of the crime happens? It is related to a bunch of conditions, some of them seem to have no relation at all. Let me tell you about a good book that covers this subject, Freakonomics, chapter 4. Here's a good summary on it:
http://tomablakejie.blogspot.com/2009/04/summary-of-chapter-4.html (http://tomablakejie.blogspot.com/2009/04/summary-of-chapter-4.html)
This is why we have to look at things on a bigger scale whenever possible.
-
One by one states are saying enough. California has legalized medical pot for years and usually refuses to police marijuana use. Arizona, where I live, has medicial marijuana and two states, Colorado and Washington I believe, just two days ago voted to legalize pot completely.
LOL... for every state like Colorado or Washington, there is a state like Idaho:
Being in a place where people smoke marijuana = 3 months in jail.
If you are found to be stoned in public = 6 months in jail.
Being caught with a marijuana pipe (with no marijuana) = 1 year in prison.
If you also have some marijuana with the pipe = +1 year in prison.
If you do any of this around a child = felony 5 years in prison.
Selling pipes, bongs, grinders, and kief boxes = felony 9 years in prison and a $30,000 fine.
But no problem to score some guns there. Ahhh... the land of the free ;D
So to be clear marmad believes some of the US is OK just not Idaho. But what he has forgotten is what we lack in easy access to pot we make up for in free fry sauce something you won't find as readily in Colorado and Washington.
Seriously I just got back from Carl's Jr for lunch and you have to try fry sauce with Idaho potatoes and you'll swear off pot forever. FREAKING AMAZING!!
-
Not according to the FBI... nor even according to you.
Would you like to post that link to the FBI site which states that most three-strike convictions do NOT involve violent offenses? Because I can't find it. Oh never mind...
If you live in a safe society and don't want guns, fine -- but I don't want someone else telling me what tools I can use to protect my own life. I'd rather live in a FREE society than a "safe" one, but perhaps that's what makes Americans unique!
No, what apparently makes Americans unique is their inability at critical analysis of the things that were spoon-fed to them when they were young. "FREEDOM" is an abstract concept - it means DIFFERENT things to DIFFERENT people, ok? Some people might think that being "safe" makes them feel more free then owning a gun. Just because Madison wrote this down to placate some anti-Federalists doesn't make it a truth about humanity - it just makes it a law in one specific country (which didn't even apply to many of it's inhabitants for a LONG time).
Geez, do you guys also believe all the stuff about savage redskins, Manifest Destiny, most free country on the planet, and the rest of the crap? Gosh, I bet we could just have oodles of fun conversation about the glorious Founding Fathers and the wonderful history of these United Snakes.
Anyway, this is pointless... as I pointed out in several previous posts, I gave up my 'freedom' to own a gun (plus the condiments, cheap gas and Chinese crap) - and got a whole lot of better 'freedoms' in return. But trying to explain this to 'true blooded' Americans is an exercise in futility.
-
"Safe" is also an abstract, and an illusion. If you don't own a gun, and your oppressor does, from whom are you "safe?" Your neighbor, who has the same gun pointed to his head?
-
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Not that everyone here would put much stake in the words of Benjamin Franklin.
But he apparently thought there was a difference between liberty and safety.
If liberty and safety were the same thing why would anyone ever put themselves in harms way to defend their Liberty?
-
Not according to the FBI... nor even according to you.
Would you like to post that link to the FBI site which states that most three-strike convictions do NOT involve violent offenses? Because I can't find it. Oh never mind... this is tedious.
If you live in a safe society and don't want guns, fine -- but I don't want someone else telling me what tools I can use to protect my own life. I'd rather live in a FREE society than a "safe" one, but perhaps that's what makes Americans unique!
No, what apparently makes Americans unique is their inability at critical analysis of the things that were spoon-fed to them when they were young. "FREEDOM" is an abstract concept - it means DIFFERENT things to DIFFERENT people, ok? Some people might think that being "safe" makes them feel more free then owning a gun. Just because Madison wrote this down to placate some anti-Federalists doesn't make it a truth about humanity - it just makes it a law in one specific country (which didn't even apply to many of it's inhabitants for a LONG time).
Geez, do you guys also believe all the stuff about savage redskins, Manifest Destiny, most free country on the planet, and the rest of the crap? Gosh, I bet we could just have oodles of fun conversation about the glorious Founding Fathers and the wonderful history of these United Snakes.
Anyway, this is pointless... as I pointed out in several previous posts, I gave up my 'freedom' to own a gun (plus the condiments, cheap gas and Chinese crap) - and got a whole lot of better 'freedoms' in return. But trying to explain this to 'true blooded' Americans is an exercise in futility.
Let me give you an example of the absurdity of some gun "control" laws: I am a licensed amateur "Ham" radio operator. I use antennas for my hobby. I like to support my antennas using trees, since they are readily available and are cheaper than steel towers. Probably more "green," as well. Many hams raise antennas into trees by attaching a small weight to fishing line and shooting that over a choice branch by means of a slingshot. They then attach the loose end of the fishing line to support ropes, etc., and hoist the antenna.
Unfortunately, I cannot purchase or own a slingshot, because my state has decided that slingshots are "firearms" and they've outlawed them. So, I had to tie a rock to a rope and toss that. Obviously, not as effective as the slingshot method. Plus, a rock attached to a rope is probably considered a weapon some places...
-
So to be clear marmad believes some of the US is OK just not Idaho. But what he has forgotten is what we lack in easy access to pot we make up for in free fry sauce something you won't find as readily in Colorado and Washington.
Seriously I just got back from Carl's Jr for lunch and you have to try fry sauce with Idaho potatoes and you'll swear off pot forever. FREAKING AMAZING!!
I actually have no problem whatsoever with Idaho - it's a beautiful place - and one of my brothers lives close by. In fact, if I lived in Idaho, I'd likely own a gun. The problem with guns in the US is not primarily those that are owned by the 20% of the populace who live in rural areas - it's the ones owned and used by the 80% who live in urban areas.
But, anyway, I'll try the fry sauce next chance I get ;)
-
At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.
Yes indeed, and that's the point the gun people don't understand. Forget the stats etc, the general lack of guns and gun culture in society ultimately leads to a better, safer, and generally less violet and need for a defensive society. So reducing them in the hands of people on the street is a good idea. And doing so takes nothing away from those who want to play with them.
Dave.
-
At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.
Yes indeed, and that's the point the gun people don't understand. Forget the stats etc, the general lack of guns and gun culture in society ultimately leads to a better, safer, and generally less violet and need for a defensive society. So reducing them in the hands of people on the street is a good idea. And doing so takes nothing away from those who want to play with them.
Dave.
There's a difference between owning firearms and carrying them around with you. A point a lot of non-gun people don't understand.
-
At least one thing is certain. When you get pulled over by a cop in Australia and you innocently reach for the glove box when he asks for your licence, at least the cop won't drag you out the car by your hair and force you to kiss the asphalt. Neither will he tear your car apart to search for weapons and contraband materials. The inherent threat of someone randomly wielding a gun is practically non-existent here. Personally, I feel safe even in rough neighbourhoods at night. I'd rather have that than "freedom" to carry firearms wherever I go.
Yes indeed, and that's the point the gun people don't understand. Forget the stats etc, the general lack of guns and gun culture in society ultimately leads to a better, safer, and generally less violet and need for a defensive society. So reducing them in the hands of people on the street is a good idea. And doing so takes nothing away from those who want to play with them.
Dave.
There's a difference between owning firearms and carrying them around with you. A point a lot of non-gun people don't understand.
There's actually little difference, if there's a gun, there's a gun. No gun = no risk. A point a lot of gun people don't understand.
-
I think that this says enough about gun controls or the lack of them.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20121108loughner-sentencing-giffords-shooting.html?source=nletter-breakingnews (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20121108loughner-sentencing-giffords-shooting.html?source=nletter-breakingnews)
-
Having said that, I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms. We live in a dangerous society. Not because of weapons, but because of MANY factors: the decaying family structure, loss of jobs and a poor economy, attitudes of entitlement, etc. Individuals absolutely have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and their families from the threat of deadly violence, especially when inside their own homes.
You forgot one massive and obvious thing from that list of factors, the self perpetuating nature of guns themselves.
Dave.
-
There's actually little difference, if there's a gun, there's a gun. No gun = no risk. A point a lot of gun people don't understand.
If only. If someone is going to snap, they'll snap. The possession of a firearm doesn't change that.
But I understand: You only see a firearm as a weapon. That's fine, be ignorant and naive. I'll continue with my sport and you won't even know I'm doing it, because I really can't be practicing competitive shooting, it doesn't exist. ::)
-
But I understand: You only see a firearm as a weapon. That's fine, be ignorant and naive. I'll continue with my sport and you won't even know I'm doing it, because I really can't be practicing competitive shooting, it doesn't exist. ::)
Monkeh, stop being so defensive about your sport when talking about gun control.
The majority of advocates of gun control would not want you to stop playing your sport and playing with guns, they just want them off the streets, out of homes, and out of the countries cultural mindset in general as defensive weapon or "right".
I won't put words in 8086's mouth, but this is what people usually talk about when they talk about gun control. They would be happy for you to go use them legally in a controlled environment. And if you have special needs, like being a serious sport shooter and living out in the sticks, then allow it on a strict case by case basis.
Dave.
-
But I understand: You only see a firearm as a weapon. That's fine, be ignorant and naive. I'll continue with my sport and you won't even know I'm doing it, because I really can't be practicing competitive shooting, it doesn't exist. ::)
Monkeh, stop being so defensive about your sport when talking about gun control.
Perhaps others could stop being so offensive, then.
The majority of advocates of gun control would not want you to stop playing your sport and playing with guns
Well they've yet to make any attempt to control firearms without doing so, and 8086 apparently refuses to admit shooting sports exist.
they just want them off the streets
Further firearm restrictions in countries which already make carrying firearms illegal do not further this goal.
out of homes, and out of the countries cultural mindset in general as defensive weapon or "right".
They've so far succeeded in the former (by making it infeasible for people to keep them at all) and managed to turn the cultural mindset to firearms being the root of all evil.
-
Where I live, anyone can carry a gun on the street. You never know what the person next to you is packing.
Amazing, isn't it, that the gun crime here is relatively low?
-
Australian States,in general, have had strict gun laws for many years.
Strict in comparison to the USA but it isn't that long ago that gun purchase was an entirely different exercise to gun licencing.
In Western Australia,they had a "gun amnesty" period when I was a kid in the 1950s,where people could bring in unlicensed firearms,& either license them,or have them disposed of.
That situation always existed, it is only in recent years grand-standing politicians created the hoop-la title for what was common sense policing.
In the same state,at least from the 1960s.if you wanted to own & register a Rifle,you needed to have a certificate from a Property owner giving you permission to shoot on his property.
True but own & register was just the legal way, you could legally purchase/acquire a firearm without a licence. Firearm owners (or more specifically firearm users) were expected to be licenced, but there was no automatic linkage.
Of course,if you were a member of a target shooting association,they normally have their own shooting range,so that was covered.
Making membership the easy path to licencing. There was no lingage between initial justification for use and the actual use a firearm was put to, suffice to say shooting of friends and relative has always been seen in a poor light.
Kangaroo shooting was a popular pastime among some folks.
The country people knew what they were doing,& would go out with a bolt action 0.22" rifle,bag a couple of 'roos & take them home to eat.
Idiots from the city would load up their cars with grog & firearms,"go bush" & shoot up roadside signs & the like,whilst driving drunk.
It never occurred to them that they were shooting into peoples farms,endangering their livestock,& families.
All completely illegal,but they got away with it if the farmer didn't catch them,or they didn't drive into a tree.
Which gets to the lunacy of the situation, I'm not some nutjob PETA advocate and have had to drop many roos, foxes etc at different times, it's a job that has to be done. How anyone sane can believe this particularly nasty task is a "popular pastime" beggars belief?
And I can assure you the bush (country) has it's fair share of home bred idiots too.
This sort of behaviour made farmers very reluctant to let people shoot on their properties,so gun ownership started to drop off in WA & other States with similar laws.
I can assure you without exception Aussie Property owners do not welcome recreational shooters no matter how much of a vermin problem they have. It's the landholders that have to clean up the mess when the alco-shoot brigade have had their fun.
At least in WA,illegal firearms were fairly rare,& most gun injuries & deaths were from legal rifles.
I would dispute that. While I do not see the current laws as a panacea they have at least gone some way towards reducing the number of firearms laying about with potential for misuse.
Except among serious Sporting Shooters,gun ownership fell away,with an accompanying decrease in firearm injuries.
Queensland stood out among the States with quite easy going gun laws.
Around the early 1990s,there were reports that gun fanciers in that State were acquiring large numbers of modern
semi-automatic weapons,including comments from various senior Law Enforcement people.
And of course none of those weapons ever crossed state borders to places they had been illegal for decades?
Ultimately,though,the "buyback" was precipitated by a mass shooting in Tasmania,& gun laws around Australia were tightened up at the same time.
The laws that evolved from that event were a good thing the took thousands of unnecessary weapons out of the community. They were however not a cure all for for violence or gun crime. The could never do a thing about drive-by shootings or other gun crime. What they do achieve is reducing the occurrence of drunken panel beaters shooting themselves or their spouse during domestics. The new laws also did well at reducing the numbers of weekend alco-rambos shooting everything that does or does not move generally including themselves and each other.
Guns in Australia were traditionally regarded as "tools"
The were always tools, and just like nail-guns chain and power saws, tractor PTOs and all manner of other tools need to be used sensibly for their intended purpose. I just don't get it with guns, I have a circular saw here that's take your head off without dropping a rev, but unlike for some reason (mainly sanity) there is not some need for every member the small penis set to own one. Thankfully there are no copies of "Saws and Lumber" in the newsagents and no need for anyone to want to fit cabin of their truck with saw racks.
to shoot game animals for food
Yeah I can see the wisdom in less wealthy folk spending thousands on guns, fuel and ammo to acquire some budget pet food. And yeah the misses just loves to supplement the household budget with some lead ridden wildlife of a few Khaleesi afflicted rabbits. Although Gillard and Swan are working hard to recreate the period it is not the 1930's anymore.
protect stock from predators,
A completely legitimate use. Does still beg the question why those without a mob of sheep and a persistent fox or dingo problem would feel the need to own a gun.
for competitive shooting
To each their own I guess, but A game of darts has a similar outcome and is far more appropriate for those who wish to combine booze and targets.
for war
Yeah and for the same reason I have a tank under a tarpaulin in the driveway, and a couple of crates of mortars and commando squad in the tool shed.
& never gained the mystique they enjoy in the USA.
Good thing too! Maybe it was a language thing with much of the population here still trying to work out wtf Rambo said or was on about.
Gun fanciers in North America,for reasons of their own,tend to misrepresent the difference in strictness before & after the "buyback".
We did not go from a USA type system to a "No guns at all".
An already fairly strictly regulated system was tightened up a bit.
I'd argue a somewhat lax system was rightly tightened up unfortunately with the accompanying pedantic legislation. But just like all other things community we need to cater for the lowest common denominators.
Hand guns were never popular here and thankfully are in few hands (legal & illegal), that is a major difference between continents. While there are circumstance a rifle is a dangerous but necessary tool, I am yet to see a purpose for a pistol other than to create personal injury.
There have been several statistic put forward in this thread, the one statistic that is universal in Australia, SA, UK, Canada and the USA is that the person/s most likely to be shot injured and killed by a firearm is the owner and his family. Just because criminals have them does not make it a good idea for you to have them too
Looking back to the nonsense the OP was laughing about,the young lady had probably read one of the "reports" generated by some right wing halfwit
Or some left-wing propagandist or other driven nutjob.
-
OK wait a second... I'm unnerved by the idea of poptones walking down the street next to me with a gun. Can I rethink my stand on this issue? :)
-
Where I live, anyone can carry a gun on the street. You never know what the person next to you is packing.
Amazing, isn't it, that the gun crime here is relatively low?
imagine what will happen if one villain take out his gun. i imagine there will be alot of stray bullets flying around. and if the crime is really low, whats the need to bring the gun all along? here crime (none gun related) was pretty occasional until police start to setup their camp everywhere. we dont have gun since we were born, crime still occured, i guess its not related to gun or no gun. +1 to ninja school.
-
Where I live, anyone can carry a gun on the street. You never know what the person next to you is packing.
Amazing, isn't it, that the gun crime here is relatively low?
What is less amazing is that the rate of gun injury and death there is comparably high!
If the crooks are packing only absolute numbskulls would think it a good idea to take more weapons to the crime scene?
Think about it? All you are doing is offering criminals a choice of weapon or police a chance to shoot first and ask questions later. Hollywood has a lot to answer for!
-
Amazing, isn't it, that the gun crime here is relatively low?
It might be, if we knew where here was - and could arrive on an agreed upon definition of what "relatively" meant.
we dont have gun since we were born, crime still occured, i guess its not related to gun or no gun. +1 to ninja school.
Crime is crime - and exists everywhere. Death due to bullets is a different cup of tea.
-
I think everyone's had their fun and their fair suck of the sav in this thread.
I don't want it to appear in the Top 10 thread list like the religion one did, and I do see it going that way, so thread hereby locked.
Thanks for playing.
Dave.