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

Post Reply New Topic

Not sure why you are choosing mass murderers as like Bryant and Breviek as exemplars.

How about kids who pick up their daddies rifle at home and decide to shoot little Johnny's head off or kill a parent whom is abusive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiBJj9sQbrM

(((Not surprisingly many gun lovers seem to also be abusive parents.)))

I retract the last statement

Last edited by cyberdad on 13 Jun 2012, 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Actually, I only need the license to carry concealed, any citizen in my state can legally open carry provided that they meet the legal requirements to own the gun in the first place. I believe 49 out of 50 states issue carry licenses, and most of them are the more permissive "shall issue" type. Strangely enough, gun ownership and carry permits are at all time highs while violent crime is at a historic low...

Also, you've equated "gun culture" with "thug culture" and otherwise spoke as if you know something about this subject, and yet you don't seem to know the most basic thing about US gun laws or culture. In my thuggish culture, it's considered proper to know what you're talking about before voicing your opinion on a subject, but I guess that's not a universal value. I've built a number of my guns from scratch and hold a degree in the subject, so you might want to do a bit of research before replying in the future.



I go to the counter and withdraw or deposit money?
What did you think would happen?

A study that shows you're more likely to be shot if you live around guns? Kinda like you're more likely to get cut if you work in a kitchen? Or more likely to drown if you own a pool? Or more likely to be in a car crash if you drive often? Pfft.

Come back with an example of a violent country that was made non-violent by removing the guns...

I'll wait.

I prefer the "God created man, Sam Colt made him equal" version of that quote. I also like the Westernism "Judge Colt and his jury of six".

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.

But I suspect I'm telling you things you already know here.

Citation please?

Hmm, if this thread keeps going this way, I may have to request a move to PPR to properly address it.

What's PPR?

joke redacted because others found it offensive

Care to explain why this is the case
http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html

Politics, Philosophy, and Religion. Once threads go beyond discussing the news and into arguing over themes contained in the news, they tend to get moved into the more debate structured PPR forum, which has different expectations and decorum; e.g. you will be challenged to support your statements. Coincidentally, on other boards PPR often stands for Posting Privileges Revoked.

Also, why would I shoot anyone? Sharp wit and colorful language seem more than sufficient for this situation.

Last edited by Dox47 on 13 Jun 2012, 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That would come under the parents' fault. Like how it's their fault if their child drowns in a swimming pool.

I haven't heard of this happening much where I live, i.e., a child hurting themselves with a firearm. I hear of about one hunting "accident" a year in Oz (they're always the top of the news); that's quite a small amount when compared to the number of people who hunt in Oz (lots). The last fatal accident I heard of nationally was a man shooting and killing his daughter with a bow (head); the last non-fatal accident was a man who shot his son and his friend when hunting rabbits a couple of months ago (birdshot wounds, so not too bad).

That's pretty rare, and they're also outliers too.

Is that what I asked for?

A quick perusal shows that the "methodology" was based on subscriptions to gun magazines, not exactly scientific. I don't subscribe to any gun magazines (hello, internet?), and yet I own over two dozen firearms and am not an outlier in the US. I *might* come back and rip this a bit more (I'm on lunchbreak from work), but really? Magazine subscriptions?

Also, again with the focus on "gun violence" as opposed to simply "violence", as if weapon used particularly matters to the victim.

Still waiting for that country that was pacified by gun control...

Oh ok. I haven't had time to visit all the threads on this forum.

Wouldn't know if anyone can actually "prove" that any one action made a country safer. There may be hundreds of things that need to occur to reduce violent crime including greater police, improved welfare, higher employment, improved mental health services and better education programs. What you are expecting is evidence of a simplistic connection.

The fact particular acts or events are outliers doesn't mean public safety doesn't come first in order to minimise the risk of accidental or deliberate fatality.

People put pool fences around swimming pools to minimise risk of children wondering into the area by themselves. In the same way guns should be kept in rifle ranges and security monitored where people (that way inclined) can go and shoot clay targets till they get it out of their system.

It only takes one nutcase with access to a pump action/automatic fiream to have a bad day and hundreds of lives (including women and children) are at risk. I don't personally put my trust in a gun fanatic not having a brain snap and putting my families lives at risk. The safest place for guns is in shooting ranges, same with modified engine vehicles being restricted to drag strips away from little children on roads.

Acceptable risk is the term I'd use. Life is dangerous. If you want to preach about firearms in regards to public safety, you have a long list of things that are more dangerous that come first [that also aren't "needed" to live] and are legal (smoking for example).

But they can still own pools. Why don't they just ban private pools and only have public ones monitored by trained individuals? There's no reason to own a private pool. In fact, there's no reason to have a public pool (too dangerous), and there's no reason for us to open the beaches to anyone (too dangerous). There's no reason to own a private car. Trains and buses for everyone.

One problem with keeping firearms in a single place is that they're easy targets for theft. A pistol club here in Brisbane had a heap of pistols stolen several years ago. Keep them at a police station you say? Most illegal firearms actually come from the police here.

What you say about "nutcases" in response to Dox47,

Did you know that someone in the police or military can easily "snap" as much as anyone else (they have access to the most potent weapons)? Many actual rampages in countries that have very strict firearm laws have this happen. Police and whatnot are under a lot of stress daily....