Australia: land of kangroos, people that need to lighten up

Page 6 of 8 [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

18 Jun 2012, 12:23 am

aghogday wrote:
The difference though, is Romney wasn't likely an aspiring public figure in that picture, while the other two guys are representing their country in the Olympics per world-wide attention, and they must meet the standards provided by the Australian Olympic Committee if they want to be part of the team. Romney gets a pass, because that photo was seen acceptable as a harmless joke in a yearbook photo decades ago, but wouldn't likely get that pass today, in any yearbook. Interesting how politically correct policies change across time and culture.


I also infer this to mean the gun lobby supporting Republicans practice a form of double standards when it comes to the conduct of their own party members and the standards they expect minority groups and Democrats to uphold!



Last edited by cyberdad on 18 Jun 2012, 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

18 Jun 2012, 12:33 am

John_Browning wrote:
There's no practical way to test if impulsiveness is a factor but I agree on the substance abuse part. Even NAMI, which has expressed opposition to new gun control laws singling out the mentally ill, has stated that substance abuse with or without another disorder is the big red flag to watch for growing signs of a risk of violence both in the home and in the community.


Actually there are plenty of psychometric tests that can test for impulsiveness.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jun 2012, 12:35 am

@ DC

I wrote this some pages back in this thread, and have gone into much greater depth on the subject in other WP threads of the past:

Dox47 wrote:
People often lose the egalitarian aspect of firearms, they don't realize that no other tool so completely levels the physical playing field when it comes to physical conflict, as the gun is the current apex of personal weapons design. My favorite example is why Japan banned the gun for as long as it did, which is because it upset their civil order by allowing the rudest of peasants to defeat a highly trained samurai, something they simply could not allow to occur.

Back then, only the aristocracy could afford to pay men to do nothing but train at arms and become proficient with the weapons of the day, weapons that demanded huge commitments of time and effort to master. The common man had to work for a living, he didn't have time to train at all, let alone to the point where he could defend himself against the depredations of trained assailants, especially those out of work sorts who had no other marketable skills and turned to banditry in order to support themselves.

The gun changed all that, anyone can use one and they don't take years of training and a muscular physique to use effectively. They provide the common man with a way of resisting attacks upon his person and those persons around him, without his having to devote his life to their mastery.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Jun 2012, 12:39 am

cyberdad wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
And oh yeah, none of the gun control folks have ever shown evidence for this "More guns create a culture of violence" theory of theirs. Then again, your definition of "violent" clearly means "Anyone who owns a gun regardless of whether or not they are responsible with it". I'm convinced that terms like "gun culture" or "culture of violence" are nothing more than obfuscating horses**t.


Isn't this simple outgroup Vs ingroup stuff. Gun owners tend to mix with other gun owners because of common interests (i.e. gun clubs, shooting ducks, game, clay pellets etc). Of course when gun owners mix with their fellow gun "enthusiasts" they feed each other with the usual justification of why they have guns and of course why society "needs" civilians to have guns. The outgroup here are people who "don't" own guns and who may find it objectionable and downright scary that their neighbor has a cache of weapons.
...Still not directly addressing my post huh? I still don't see any evidence that the presence of guns alone create a "culture of violence", though you did prove that the presence of guns create a "culture of fear" among the gun control folks. Anyways I'm done with you. Looks like you're more interested in resorting to petty insults and self-righteousness than you are in making any real arguments. It's real pathetic for a 44 year old like you to act so juvenile.

I just wanted to address one more thing though since this is so laughably stupid:

cyberdad wrote:
Does it ever occur to you why you never hear never hear about the heroic dad who saves his family from armed intruders with a gun? The reason is because it's a myth.
No s**t sherlock, if it bleeds it leads. In 92% of cases where a legal gun owner brandishes a gun, either no shot is fired or a warning shot is. Not so sensational for the headlines is it? Yeah, I'm sure a a story of a man pointing a gun at an intruder until the cops arrive is going to get so much more ratings than a cracked out intruder who kills the man's whole family :roll:

Quote:
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.1 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.2

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense3:

83% of robbery victims were not injured.

88% of assault victims were not hurt.

76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.4
http://www.gunmyths.com/2008/12/23/myth-private-ownership-of-guns-is-not-effective-in-preventing-crime/

This alone s**ts on every argument you've brought to the table. But that's okay, you don't have to accept that. I've given up already so nobody's stopping you from cherry picking my arguments and dodging my points. But at least I can actually call myself civilized with a straight face since I actually do things to deserve the label, such as conducting myself respectfully and not being a self-righteous bigot.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Jun 2012, 1:21 am

cyberdad wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The difference though, is Romney wasn't likely an aspiring public figure in that picture, while the other two guys are representing their country in the Olympics per world-wide attention, and they must meet the standards provided by the Australian Olympic Committee if they want to be part of the team. Romney gets a pass, because that photo was seen acceptable as a harmless joke in a yearbook photo decades ago, but wouldn't likely get that pass today, in any yearbook. Interesting how politically correct policies change across time and culture.


I also infer this to mean the gun lobby supporting Republicans practice a form of double standards when it comes to the conduct of their own party members and the standards they expect minority groups and Democrats to uphold!
I love how you edited out the part about Americans having a bullying, racist shooter as president if Barack Obama loses the next election. I'll see what the mods think about that...



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jun 2012, 1:26 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
I'll see what the mods think about that...


No need for that, I don't know that they could do any worse to him than he's already done to himself.

Also, have I said yet how funny it is to watch a nannying Aussie get batted about by an angry Canadian? So many stereotypes crumbling before my eyes... :D


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Jun 2012, 1:32 am

I don't normally bother the mods but I put up with enough pseudo-intellectual snobbery about me doing MMA IRL and I can only take so much degeneracy before I lose even more of what little faith I have in humanity. I don't need any more of that here, especially since I'm getting a gun licence soon which is gonna set me up for even more condescending BS. Anyways come to think of it I'm done with these forums too. People are so full of unwarranted arrogance it's disgusting. Whatever, I'm not even going to bother with going to the mods anymore. It isn't my problem now.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jun 2012, 2:01 am

^
Eh, maybe it's different being in the States, but I've had my carry permit for years and tend to use the occasional startled reactions from people who disapprove more as teaching moments than as times to get offended. I look at it kind of like I do talking to people about being autistic; I don't tell people I'm just meeting that I'm into guns right away, so that by the time I do tell them I've already established myself as intelligent and articulate and educated, which often short-circuits their stereotypes (kinda like establishing relative normalcy before disclosing AS). The black wife helps in that regard, especially if I can spring her on people who are trying to make some kind of racist insinuations about me, which does happen from time to time.

Who the hell is giving you a hard time over MMA? That makes even less sense than the ant-gun people, and they don't make much sense to begin with...


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

18 Jun 2012, 3:29 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
I don't normally bother the mods but I put up with enough pseudo-intellectual snobbery about me doing MMA IRL and I can only take so much degeneracy before I lose even more of what little faith I have in humanity. I don't need any more of that here, especially since I'm getting a gun licence soon which is gonna set me up for even more condescending BS. Anyways come to think of it I'm done with these forums too. People are so full of unwarranted arrogance it's disgusting. Whatever, I'm not even going to bother with going to the mods anymore. It isn't my problem now.


Sorry? why are you taking this so personally? suggest you have a nice cup of tea and chill out as my posts are primarily concerned with public safety rather than attacking individuals.

I'm pretty sure the "Mods" aren't going to lose sleep over edited posts where the deleted material is no longer available.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

18 Jun 2012, 3:33 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
aghogday wrote:
The difference though, is Romney wasn't likely an aspiring public figure in that picture, while the other two guys are representing their country in the Olympics per world-wide attention, and they must meet the standards provided by the Australian Olympic Committee if they want to be part of the team. Romney gets a pass, because that photo was seen acceptable as a harmless joke in a yearbook photo decades ago, but wouldn't likely get that pass today, in any yearbook. Interesting how politically correct policies change across time and culture.


I also infer this to mean the gun lobby supporting Republicans practice a form of double standards when it comes to the conduct of their own party members and the standards they expect minority groups and Democrats to uphold!
I love how you edited out the part about Americans having a bullying, racist shooter as president if Barack Obama loses the next election. I'll see what the mods think about that...


Oh well since you mention it, yes I think it;s a bit of a concern that somebody with a history of racism, homophobia, bullying and pro-gun is likely to be the next leader of the free world. I think when his past became public he should have done the decent thing and retired.



18 Jun 2012, 4:26 am

Chumps like Nick D'Arcy are the reason why Australians need to legalize pistols and cut the red tape. Sometimes I wish the US was like Mongolia, where anybody(just about) can buy a gun without all the government BS of background checks, filling out federal forms, and laws about who can or cannot possess a firearm.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

18 Jun 2012, 5:12 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
And oh yeah, none of the gun control folks have ever shown evidence for this "More guns create a culture of violence" theory of theirs. Then again, your definition of "violent" clearly means "Anyone who owns a gun regardless of whether or not they are responsible with it". I'm convinced that terms like "gun culture" or "culture of violence" are nothing more than obfuscating horses**t.


Isn't this simple outgroup Vs ingroup stuff. Gun owners tend to mix with other gun owners because of common interests (i.e. gun clubs, shooting ducks, game, clay pellets etc). Of course when gun owners mix with their fellow gun "enthusiasts" they feed each other with the usual justification of why they have guns and of course why society "needs" civilians to have guns. The outgroup here are people who "don't" own guns and who may find it objectionable and downright scary that their neighbor has a cache of weapons.
...Still not directly addressing my post huh? I still don't see any evidence that the presence of guns alone create a "culture of violence", though you did prove that the presence of guns create a "culture of fear" among the gun control folks. Anyways I'm done with you. Looks like you're more interested in resorting to petty insults and self-righteousness than you are in making any real arguments. It's real pathetic for a 44 year old like you to act so juvenile.

I just wanted to address one more thing though since this is so laughably stupid:

cyberdad wrote:
Does it ever occur to you why you never hear never hear about the heroic dad who saves his family from armed intruders with a gun? The reason is because it's a myth.
No sh** sherlock, if it bleeds it leads. In 92% of cases where a legal gun owner brandishes a gun, either no shot is fired or a warning shot is. Not so sensational for the headlines is it? Yeah, I'm sure a a story of a man pointing a gun at an intruder until the cops arrive is going to get so much more ratings than a cracked out intruder who kills the man's whole family :roll:

Quote:
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.1 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.2

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense3:

83% of robbery victims were not injured.

88% of assault victims were not hurt.

76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.4
http://www.gunmyths.com/2008/12/23/myth-private-ownership-of-guns-is-not-effective-in-preventing-crime/

This alone s**ts on every argument you've brought to the table. But that's okay, you don't have to accept that. I've given up already so nobody's stopping you from cherry picking my arguments and dodging my points. But at least I can actually call myself civilized with a straight face since I actually do things to deserve the label, such as conducting myself respectfully and not being a self-righteous bigot.


http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Here is the full source for those "facts". It is a fact that a study has been done to estimate those numbers but it is not a fact the the numbers have been proven as accurate.

The author covers himself with a disclaimer at the beginning of his "research"

Quote:
Sources
All sources cited in this work are accurate to the best of my research. I use the most recent data I can easily find. If any more recent data is available (even if it weakens my arguments), I welcome receiving the same.


He's under no obligation to correct any off his statements, nor does he suggest that he will in this statement.

Some of the stretches included comparing statistics on crime in 1920 in Canada, before gun restrictions were imposed as opposed to 1986. The same methodologies to measure crime that existed in the 80's did not even exist in 1920.

Quote:
Fact: In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide
rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase. 9 In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000).10


The suggestion that violent crime rate was more than double of the US, was not based on actual statistics for homicides

The figures below are based on actual crime statistics for homicides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

Quote:
The homicide rate in Canada peaked in 1975 at 3.03 per 100,000 and has dropped since then; it reached lower peaks in 1985 (2.72) and 1991 (2.69). It reached a post 1970 low of 1.73 in 2003. The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 2.52, between 1977 and 1983 it was 2.67, between 1984 and 1990 it was 2.41, between 1991 and 1997 it was 2.23 and between 1998 to 2004 it was 1.82.[18] The attempted homicide rate has fallen at a faster rate than the homicide rate.[19]

By comparison, the homicide rate in the U.S. reached 10.1 per 100,000 in 1974, peaked in 1980 at 10.7 and reached a lower peak in 1991 (10.5). The average murder rate between 1970 and 1976 was 9.4, between 1977 and 1983 it was 9.6, between 1984 and 1990 it was 9, between 1991 and 1997 it was 9.2 and between 1998 and 2004 it was 6.3. In 2004 the murder rate in the U.S. dipped below 6 per 100,000, for the first time since 1966, and as of 2010 stood at 4.8 per 100,000 [17]

Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.[20]


He also suggests that there were gun controls implemented in 1977 prohibiting handgun possession for protection, which is not an accurate description of the gun control laws that were passed per Bill C-51 in Canada in 1977:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada

Quote:
In 1977, Bill C-51 required firearms acquisition certificates (FACs) to purchase any firearm, and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. Applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before receiving the FAC.


Laws vary by countries per what the definition of violent crime is. Homicide rates between countries are considered the only reliable measures of comparing violent crimes across countries.

I suppose that he his betting on the odds that not many of the fans of his "facts", will check the actual sources and compare them to other sources for this "free" gun myths "fact" checker download on the internet used as a teaser to purchase his book. But, the "facts" as presented, when checked, do not make a good argument for those who oppose stricter gun control laws.



Last edited by aghogday on 18 Jun 2012, 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

18 Jun 2012, 5:36 am

what does one expect from a site actually called gunmyths?


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

18 Jun 2012, 5:52 am

Oodain wrote:
what does one expect from a site actually called gunmyths?


**Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.**

Pretty good argument for gun control.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jun 2012, 3:21 pm

cyberdad wrote:
**Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.**

Pretty good argument for gun control.


Actually, it's just a pretty good argument for man being a pragmatic tool user; an argument for gun control would have to prove that the guns caused the murders, which that little factoid does not. If the per capita murder rates were similar, it would even be an argument against gun control as it would show that people manage to kill each other just fine with or without guns.

IIRC, Canada has a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of violent crime, which doesn't exactly support your position.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,561

18 Jun 2012, 3:58 pm

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
**Approximately 70 percent of the total murders in the U.S. are committed with firearms, versus about 30 percent in Canada.**

Pretty good argument for gun control.


Actually, it's just a pretty good argument for man being a pragmatic tool user; an argument for gun control would have to prove that the guns caused the murders, which that little factoid does not. If the per capita murder rates were similar, it would even be an argument against gun control as it would show that people manage to kill each other just fine with or without guns.

IIRC, Canada has a high rate of gun ownership and a low rate of violent crime, which doesn't exactly support your position.


That was the problem with the Gun myth "fact" checker guy, he was painting a negative picture of crime in Canada that was embellished by selective research, in an attempt to support anti-gun control ideology in the US.

Canada has gun control restrictions that are more effective than the US; the US could learn from Canada and require the type of educational efforts that Canada imposes on it's citizens before purchasing a firearm. Tests are required to gain licensing for a motor vehicle in the US, because of the potential dangers of driving a motor vehicle; there is no reason that holds stronger credibility than safety as why knowledge per the safe handling of guns should not be required, and tested for all those gaining licenses for guns in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#United_States

Quote:
Canada
Main article: Gun politics in Canada

The stated intent of Canadian firearms laws are to control firearms so as to improve public safety. Canadians have a somewhat limited access to firearms, but are still able to purchase them with relative ease. They must have a firearms licence, and can usually only purchase shot-guns and handguns. Fully automatic rifles are prohibited.

Licensing provisions of the Fireams Act endeavours to ensure proper training and safe storage.

Users must possess a licence, called a "possession and acquisition licence (PAL)". A firearms safety course must be passed prior to applying for a PAL.
A non-resident (i.e., non-Canadian) can have a "non-resident firearms declaration" confirmed by a customs officer, which provides for a temporary 60-day authorization to have a firearm in Canada.[6] There are three categories of firearms for purposes of Canadian law: non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited. Restricted and prohibited weapons may actually be owned and used in limited circumstances.[7]