(February 11, 2016 at 8:15 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 8:11 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Please see my prior editing.

'Post' editing, but fair enough.

Boru

I actually had second thoughts on that, when it occured me that despite my recollection of Australia footage appearing to be wide open (maybe it's the lack of trees which I'm not used to in mountains), even a small continent should have mountains. Wikipedia does indeed cover the details of many mountains which are impressively high, more so than most in the US. As well as a lack of tree cover, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of houses there either - or maybe I saw deceptive footage in the flicks?

(February 10, 2016 at 11:51 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 10, 2016 at 12:35 am)Sterben Wrote: The views of the Anti-Gun people do hold a lot truth. The gun ownership issues have been a massive pain in the ass. I'm not comfortable being in a house or around person with a firearm. 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. Hand guns, shot guns, and hunting rifles should be the only type allowed by law to be owned by Americans. Also as well a 20% percent tax on bullets. I would want to see further and deeper background checks in place, as well a membership system (Which involves a background check) to buy bullets at a store. 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.

I don't think personal discomfort should trump Constitutional guarantees.If you're not comfortable around guns or people who own them, then you should separate yourself from them, rather than endeavor to tell them what they can and cannot own.

A shotgun can be a great home-defense weapon. So too can be a large-caliber low-velocity pistol, which has the added benefit of not being as unwieldy, and being more precisely aimed. A semi-automatic rifle is useful for a rancher hunting predators at long-range, or small-game hunters (where working a bolt will destroy one's sight-picture).

(February 10, 2016 at 9:55 am)Gawdzilla Wrote: ~300,000,000 Americans. ~600,000,000 guns.

That second figure is roughly twice the largest number I've heard for number of guns in circulation. Do you have a source for 600 million guns in circulation?

          I'm doubting his number as well, I'm giving a fair comprise to my ideal's to the gun owners. The bullet tax I have already defended my position on, I was going to add mandatory insurance on guns as well. I decided not too since if there was a 20% Tax on them it be costly enough then to have to pay insurance as a gun owner.

Hey Rhythm,

(February 11, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: The mainstream culture of ownership is not responsible for gun crime in the states, and mass shootings are an infinitesimal portion of our gun problem.

I was only talking about gun-related deaths. The higher the rate of gun ownership, the higher the rate of gun-related deaths. I mentioned Australian mass shooting stats as they're a good attention-grabber but it should be noted that gun-related deaths, period, have plummeted since the 1996 changes to their gun control legislation.

Quote:If you want to measure whats causal, let's do so.  Six of ten gun deaths are suicides, the rate of suicide is increasing while the rate of homocide is decreasing. The remaining four are inextricably linked to our war on drugs.

Are accidents not responsible for any? I think you have a hole in your stats there. Although I wouldn't be surprised if suicide was the most common category of gun-related death in the US; access to guns would provide a quicker, less painful alternative to non-prescription drug overdoses, hanging, slit wrists or falling (the European favourites). But I get your point, suicide is not combatted effectively by gun controls, neither are murder rates. Both of those are better managed with approaches like managing poverty, wage inequality, education, unemployment and other 'social health' factors. As for the war on drugs, you'll get no argument from me there; it's a concept failure, responsible for much harm and almost no good.

Quote:Contextually, the vast majority of guns and gun owners are concentrated in rural areas which have statistically low rates of gun crime (and violent crime overall).  The vast majority of guns and gun owners will never be involved in either a homocide or a suicide.

Indeed, the same is true here in the UK. I happen to live in Norfolk which, due to a largely rural community, has one of the highest rates of gun ownership, higher even than estimates of illegal gun ownership in some of the worst inner-city, crime-ridden parts of the country (although it's worth noting that those rates are still really low compared to the US). But no matter the majority impacts, wherever there's gun ownership, there are rates of gun-related deaths. The most effective way to combat those is with well-thought-out controls.

Quote:Any law we pass will effect that greater number, and almost by definition will not effect the other - they've already shown they're willing to break the law.

I'd suggest that's not strictly true. In the UK, controls have reduced the number of illegal guns by making them scarce thus expensive. Most criminals can't afford guns. If guns were to become similarly scarce in the US, I'd be surprised if that simple law of economics would fail. Additionally, a crucial part of the UK controls is that most police don't carry guns so there's no 'arms race' pressure between criminals and authorities.

Quote:With respect, the history of the UK and the history of the US have produced vastly different cultures. The guns have always been with us. We didn't suddenly become incompetent.

Indeed. But I'm not suggesting 'incompetence', I'm simply stating the basic fact that higher rates of gun ownership = higher rates of gun-related death. In terms of the 'culture of gun ownership', I'd suggest that if the US had a century-long break from gun ownership, like the UK, it would pretty much vanish.

Quote:Barring that one little cops vs robbers spike in the data, our murder rate is moving in the direction we want it to.  IMO, addressing the war on drugs directly will do more to reduce gun crime than any gun restrictions or bans ever could, and it will also decrease the rate of violent crime overall.  It would also be far easier to accomplish than any challenge to the 2nd amendment, while...likely, saving us a great deal of money.  If we wanted to address the -greater- , but admittedly less sexy portion of gun death, wider access to better mental health services is probably going to be the most effective approach.  Bet we'd catch some mass shooters in that net too.

I completely agree with that.

(February 11, 2016 at 8:54 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: I was only talking about gun-related deaths. The higher the rate of gun ownership, the higher the rate of gun-related deaths. I mentioned Australian mass shooting stats as they're a good attention-grabber but it should be noted that gun-related deaths, period, have plummeted since the 1996 changes to their gun control legislation.

If our suicide rate wasn't climbing, ours would have plummeted in the same span as well.  

Quote:Are accidents not responsible for any? I think you have a hole in your stats there. Although I wouldn't be surprised if suicide was the most common category of gun-related death in the US; access to guns would provide a quicker, less painful alternative to non-prescription drug overdoses, hanging, slit wrists or falling (the European favourites). But I get your point, suicide is not combatted effectively by gun controls, neither are murder rates. Both of those are better managed with approaches like managing poverty, wage inequality, education, unemployment and other 'social health' factors. As for the war on drugs, you'll get no argument from me there; it's a concept failure, responsible for much harm and almost no good.

Accidents account for a statistically negligible amount.  Granted, most people who are shot, survive..so that's helping the stats. If everyone who accidentally shot themselves died, they would most likely account for a larger statistical nothing.

Quote:Indeed, the same is true here in the UK. I happen to live in Norfolk which, due to a largely rural community, has one of the highest rates of gun ownership, higher even than estimates of illegal gun ownership in some of the worst inner-city, crime-ridden parts of the country (although it's worth noting that those rates are still really low compared to the US). But no matter the majority impacts,  wherever there's gun ownership,  there are rates of gun-related deaths. The most effective way to combat those is with well-thought-out controls.

Agreed, we have many in place - we fail to leverage them.  We could do better, ofc.  

Quote:I'd suggest that's not strictly true. In  the UK, controls have reduced the number of illegal guns by making them scarce thus expensive. Most criminals can't afford guns. If guns were to become similarly scarce in the US, I'd be surprised if that simple law of economics would fail. Additionally, a crucial part of the UK controls is that most police don't carry guns so there's no 'arms race' pressure between criminals and authorities.

Unless the US decides to abandon it's prohibitionist stance of drugs the profits will always be worth securing a firearm, if we ban firearms, they become an even better investment, a black market money maker that can secure greater chunks of the black market. We saw the same the last time we went this route. Pistols are the problem now, last time it was submachine guns, BARs, and pipe bombs....

Quote:Indeed. But I'm not suggesting 'incompetence', I'm simply stating the basic fact that higher rates of gun ownership = higher rates of gun-related death. In terms of the 'culture of gun ownership', I'd suggest that if the US had a century-long break from gun ownership, like the UK, it would pretty much vanish.

Why would we want it to vanish?  I have to stop you here, higher rates of gun ownership -do not- equal higher rates of gun related death, in the US..precisely the opposite.  Again, most guns and gun owners in the US are in areas with -lower- rates of gun death.  As in more than 9 out of 10.  It is a fantastically small minority of the public -and- guns that is being grossly over-represented in our overall stats. I cannot stress this enough, our gun problem is a cops and robbers problem, not an ownership problem.

(February 11, 2016 at 7:53 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: 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..."

I'm happy with that rewording

Quote: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?

The reasons for current levels of US gun ownership aren't what I'm arguing. What I've said is that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of gun-related death. Consequently, if you want to reduce those deaths, you can achieve that by reducing the number of guns. That doesn't mean a blanket ban and it would be naive of me to suggest such an approach. I'm well aware that people have rural applications for guns as tools. I would always advocate the most effective methods of gun control which would enable people to own and use guns for certain needs whilst protecting them from as many of the hazards as possible.

Quote: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,

Gun regulations are beneficial everywhere. They just have to be appropriate to the circumstances.

Quote: 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.

Really? Because that's what happens in the UK. You can't be a licensed owner without it. I understand why some people would advocate for mandatory, total disarmament however those arguments are mostly appeals to emotion and don't allow for people to enjoy guns (e.g. collectors, target shooters).

Quote:Please, these circular arguments are getting to be unhealthy!

What circular arguments?

There has been a continual growth in gun ownership in America, yet the firearms death and injury rates have continued to fall. If gun deaths are directly proportional to the number of guns available (on a rough basis, of course), should we not be seeing a spike in gun deaths?

Higher rates of ownership do not lead to higher rates of gun-related deaths in the US.  The areas with the lowest rates of gun related deaths are, perhaps quixotically, areas with high rates of ownership and nominal enforcement of lax gun laws. The highest rates of gun related deaths are recorded in low ownership areas with strict gun laws and draconian enforcement.

Don;t get me wrong, individuals in those high rate areas are complicit in the problem - they're the pipeline for straw purchases that fuel the black market.

Yeah, I was wanting to hear Ben's explanation of this fact, given his saying that "What I've said is that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of gun-related death". You, me, and the CDC know that it isn't so.

It's pretty easy to explain.  Country/City.  Obviously guns are best suited to areas with sparse populations of human beings.  This is why it's commonly a crime to discharge firearms within city limits.... even in the US.

(February 11, 2016 at 9:28 pm)Ben Davis Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 7:53 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: 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..."

I'm happy with that rewording  

Quote: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?

The reasons for current levels of US gun ownership aren't what I'm arguing. What I've said is that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of gun-related death. Consequently, if you want to reduce those deaths, you can achieve that by reducing the number of guns. That doesn't mean a blanket ban and it would be naive of me to suggest such an approach. I'm well aware that people have rural applications for guns as tools. I would always advocate the most effective methods of gun control which would enable people to own and use guns for certain needs whilst protecting them from as many of the hazards as possible.

Quote: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,

Gun regulations are beneficial everywhere. They just have to be appropriate to the circumstances.

Quote: 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.

Really? Because that's what happens in the UK. You can't be a licensed owner without it. I understand why some people would advocate for mandatory, total disarmament however those arguments are mostly appeals to emotion and don't allow for people to enjoy guns (e.g. collectors, target shooters).

Quote:Please, these circular arguments are getting to be unhealthy!

What circular arguments?

We were at some point arguing the effectiveness of gun bans, and I believe this was at least in part your response to Captain Awesome's data which negates the canard that banning guns prevent murders. Maybe you are concerned strictly with gun violence, but violence is all the same to me, especially when it's deadly.

On circular arguments, I did not necessarily mean yours. In general, this discussion is unfortunately leading in circles as we go from "Urban dwellers don't understand the geography-driven necessity for Americans in the mountains and the countryside to own guns" to "NO, I hate gun owners, I don't understand guns but I know what guns one doesn't need" to "gun prohibition is ineffective at scaling back murder rates, and HERE's THE PROOF" (valid proof from qualified sources) to comparing the US geographic apple with the UK lime and Aussie jakfruit, which ignores what has already been pointed out regarding relative geography. Sorry, but I get irritable when I get this dizzy!