Australia: land of kangroos, people that need to lighten up
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.
Actually there are plenty of psychometric tests that can test for impulsiveness.
@ 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:
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
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.
I just wanted to address one more thing though since this is so laughably stupid:
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
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.
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!
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...
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
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.
^
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
I just wanted to address one more thing though since this is so laughably stupid:
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
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"
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.
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
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
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
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
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
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
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]
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Hello, from Australia. New here.. |
02 Feb 2024, 5:06 am |
There's a store called Target in the US and Australia. |
16 Apr 2024, 9:58 pm |
Australia Marks National Day That Stokes Patriotism & Anger |
28 Jan 2024, 1:07 am |
What do people expect people of a certain age to look like? |
29 Feb 2024, 9:19 pm |