(February 11, 2016 at 6:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, if you want to believe the childish story that "the policeman is your friend" be my fucking guest. 

They are in it for themselves and you don't want to get in their way.  They'll gladly shoot you and claim it was your fault.  And if there is no video they'll get away with it.

Case after case is now coming out - thank goodness for cell phone video - and taxpayer are having to pay millions to settle up with the victims of the blue wall of silence.  These are facts, pal.  Believe them or not.  No skin off my nose.

Yep, that confirmation bias is showing nicely.

(February 11, 2016 at 1:55 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: But although the UK has one of the lowest gun death rates in the world, that's primarily because we've had strict & well enforced gun control for so long (~100 years) that we no longer have any mainstream culture of gun ownership, neither are there any environmental pressures (like in the US) that increase propensity to own guns according to region.

That should be "...primarily because there aren't any environmental pressures (like in the US) that could increase propensity to own guns according to the region..."

Quote:If you want evidence of the effectiveness of enacting gun controls, you need look no further than Australia. Since the 1996 changes in law, deaths by guns have dropped by nearly 70%. It's very simple: if you want to reduce deaths by firearms, improve controls and restrict availability. The most dramatic stat is that prior to 1996, there were 13 mass shootings in a 17 year period; since 1996, there have been none.

Wow, I didn't even know there were a lot of high and maximally-occupied mountains (relative to mountains elsewhere) covering much of Australia! Where are those Aussie Outback mountains on the map, anyway? How come they aren't featured in the Road Warrior flicks?

What, you mean mountainous, but relatively highly-occupied land isn't a major Australian geographic factor, which has already been cited without debate as a reason why Americans need guns?

Also, large as the Australian land mass is, it is by necessity sparsely populated throughout most of it. The small amount of truly habitable land would therefore be densely populated, a situation where at least some gun regulations may be beneficial, but still no manner of practice by the Nanny-Statists of confiscation of forbidden property could ever compete with what the fuckstick liberals will not do, which is support mandated and comprehensive firearms training for all.

Please, these circular arguments are getting to be unhealthy!

(February 11, 2016 at 2:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: That's not evidence of what is claimed, which is a drop in homicide rate.

Who's claiming this? I've only encountered gun control proponents who are trying to reduce the numbers of gun-related deaths. Are there seriously people who are trying to equate the two?

Quote:What's the point of having low gun deaths if your murder rate is still the same?

And this illustrates why I asked the above question, there's a misconception under which I think you're labouring: most gun deaths are not murders. In Europe, accidental death, death by misadventure and suicide (in no particular order) are the most common categories. I think the same is pretty much true in the US. In fact, the overwhelming majority of murders are not carried out using guns in either Europe or America. So the point of having low gun deaths is to reduce the number of deaths, period.

Quote:Would you much rather live in a society with low gun deaths or a low homicide rate?

Can I pick both? I'd prefer that.

Quote:Homicide rate is the only stat that matters. 'Gun deaths' is just a propghanda statistic designed to look like a murder rate and designed to make it look like the murder rate drops. But if it doesn't actually, what's the point?

As I've said, homicide rate is the least important statistic when discussing gun controls. Far from being a 'propaganda' stat, gun-related deaths are the only truly representative measure of the effectiveness of controls.

Quote:Wow, I didn't even know there were mountains in Australia! Where are those Aussie Outback mountains on the map, anyway?

We'll just add that to the list of things you don't know. Victorian Alps, the blue Mountains, the MacPherson Range, lots more.

Boru

(February 11, 2016 at 8:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Wow, I didn't even know there were mountains in Australia! Where are those Aussie Outback mountains on the map, anyway?

We'll just add that to the list of things you don't know.  Victorian Alps, the blue Mountains, the MacPherson Range, lots more.

Boru

Please see my prior editing.

(February 11, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 6:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, if you want to believe the childish story that "the policeman is your friend" be my fucking guest. 

They are in it for themselves and you don't want to get in their way.  They'll gladly shoot you and claim it was your fault.  And if there is no video they'll get away with it.

Case after case is now coming out - thank goodness for cell phone video - and taxpayer are having to pay millions to settle up with the victims of the blue wall of silence.  These are facts, pal.  Believe them or not.  No skin off my nose.

Yep, that confirmation bias is showing nicely.

Yeah - you deny reality with the finest of creatards.

(February 11, 2016 at 8:11 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 8:07 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: We'll just add that to the list of things you don't know.  Victorian Alps, the blue Mountains, the MacPherson Range, lots more.

Boru

Please see my prior editing.

'Post' editing, but fair enough.

Boru

(February 11, 2016 at 8:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Yep, that confirmation bias is showing nicely.

Yeah - you deny reality with the finest of creatards.

Of course, of course.

Google is your friend.  You should use it.

(February 10, 2016 at 10:34 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 10, 2016 at 12:35 am)Sterben Wrote: I'm not comfortable being in a house or around person with a firearm.

How can you justify that, when you have been invited in? Would you enter the house of one who appears to be drunk or unstable anyway? Are you aware that half of the quaint, proprietary business owners which you patronize while on vacation in the countryside keep guns behind the counter? They need to, and if they are alive and in business they do know how to handle them safely because law enforcement is spread too thin there. You never know who owns a gun or has one in close proximity, but when people who think like you see one in somebody's house, then all of a sudden the owner is a dangerous monster. Then so are half the objects in the house, should you escalate an argument to the point of belligerence. He may use his dick as a weapon! Therefore, you should choose with care the sort of people whose abode or private establishments you enter in with, and if they seem to be decent and safe people before you saw that double-barrel shotgun mounted over the fireplace, then they probably still are after you saw it. If machine guns are mounted all over the walls, then this may indicate an obsessive personality which is potentially dangerous, especially if the eyes are particularly dead compared to those who collect model trucks.

Quote:I ideally favor a complete blanket ban on gun ownership with exception of single shot hunting rifles and a massive tax-hike on bullets; I know it will never happen. I am willing to settle on a more toned down version of it though.

You should be aware of the fact that no type of gun can do harm if the firing pin is removed. As for handguns, if you think nobody other than cops need them, then you don't understand life outside of your urban neighborhood. It's where I happen to live now, and since I've lost my interest in hunting and target shooting I don't own a gun anymore, but this situation is not so for many US citizens, and their rights need to be respected.

Quote: Is there is a rational need for semi-automatic firearms? Na, there is not need for anything more powerful then a shotgun for home defense. Hand guns, shot guns, and hunting rifles should be the only type allowed by law to be owned by Americans.

Is there really a need for people to collect model trucks? Probably not. Guns are a hobby for some, and any gun is safe if sold without a firing pin. You may find the sort of person with an interest in weapons more so than trucks to be dead-eyed and scary, and in my experience this is the case, but you can't change the fact that such people do exist. If a gun hobby is what keeps the scary dude in the basement taking care of his "babies" instead of out on the street killing people, then I am very much in favor of allowing him to have whatever his money can buy on his own property, so long as it doesn't violate zoning laws, and the potentially dangerous items are de-weaponized. Just because he's got a missile launcher on his front lawn doesn't mean that it could actually launch a missile, if he could actually obtain rounds for it. Also, your town doesn't have to live with missile launchers on neighbor's front lawns, you can deal with this in your zoning laws!

Quote:Also as well a 20% percent tax on bullets.

How the fuck can you justify a tax on bullets? That's just utterly stupid, to punish poor farmers and sustenance hunters - oh yeah, there really are regions of the US where people actually live that way! How much good sense do you really think it makes to discourage target shooting, which is essential for the safe handling of any gun which anyone may actually need to use?

          Firearms are one the biggest safety hazard to American's, and the company's behind them wield to much power. They make billions off the suffering of people across the world as well as there private military counter parts. As far as your missile launcher example goes, good luck getting guns out of a town or city. They will just wine about there rights being stripped for the sake of public safety. There has been to many mass-shootings in recent years too excuse practically no actions taken to limit or halt fire arms. Finally the bullet tax, I know that hardly any of you support this but, how else would we pay for the background checks in stores to buy bullets? The money needs to come from some where, and taxing a product associated with firearms is logical. It be unfair to tax smokers, or any other business for it. Stores would have to pay higher costs to sell bullets as well'; the computer systems, and training of there personal would cost a lot to ensure that no one can walk into a Walmart and 11:00pm and buy bullets.