The White House Releases New Gun Control Agenda

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Gorfias:

We don't need more gun laws or regulations. We need better responses to the evil and the murderously insane.

Jesus mate, did you even read my post, like at all? You posted an appeal to emotion based on the fear of Bad Shit happening, I contested that Bad Shit may be out weighed by the overzealous and untrained response that you are suggesting and all you bloody do is repeat that Bad Shit happened. Read my post before replying please, it is a bit rude otherwise.

the clockmaker:

Gorfias:

We don't need more gun laws or regulations. We need better responses to the evil and the murderously insane.

Jesus mate, did you even read my post, like at all? You posted an appeal to emotion based on the fear of Bad Shit happening, I contested that Bad Shit may be out weighed by the overzealous and untrained response that you are suggesting and all you bloody do is repeat that Bad Shit happened. Read my post before replying please, it is a bit rude otherwise.

I did read your post and most of your response wasn't worth commenting upon directly. You raise the bullshit about the law abiding shooting up cafeterias if someone drops a dinner plate. They're not that rickety. You don't seem to know that there was a record setting mass shooting in the UK AFTER gun control was expanded... I'll look for a link, but it was more like 2003, not 1987. I've already posted it in this forum.

Skeleon:
You can't very well defend the premise and content of your argument by simply presupposing it's a) correct and b) agreed upon.

I didn't think it common sense to agree with Lott but that having a gun is more likely, not always, but more likely, to fend off an attacker than shouting, "but wait! I'm nice and harmless!" I think that is common sense. Now, I realize, nope, there are plenty of people that think shouting they are nice will protect them better than a gun.

As for the bully? Does he have a gun, too? Does he pull it out? Do one or both of them end up dead? Hm.
But that's really not here nor there since this is about actual evidence rather than what you think would happen due to your particular view of what the common sense result would be.

New questions don't answer the original: what is more likely to be protect you: a gun, or telling your attacker your really nice and he should stop his attack as it is unlawful? I would think, common sense, the gun. No such thing as common sense anymore. Oh well.

But we're getting away from what I think makes this thread different than all the other gun control threads: what do you think of the President of the USA surrounding himself with children as he violates the constitution and engages in imperious action? I'm disgusted. You?

Gorfias:
[quote="the clockmaker" post="528.398678.16328364"]
-snip-
But we're getting away from what I think makes this thread different than all the other gun control threads: what do you think of the President of the USA surrounding himself with children as he violates the constitution and engages in imperious action? I'm disgusted. You?

.
Question - what is the difference between Obama surrounding himself with children while signing that document, and any other president in the past that signed a document with kids around him? Why would it prevent people wanting to kill him from acting? Why is it even noteworthy except for further bashing Obama?

TheIronRuler:

Gorfias:
[quote="the clockmaker" post="528.398678.16328364"]
-snip-
But we're getting away from what I think makes this thread different than all the other gun control threads: what do you think of the President of the USA surrounding himself with children as he violates the constitution and engages in imperious action? I'm disgusted. You?

.
Question - what is the difference between Obama surrounding himself with children while signing that document, and any other president in the past that signed a document with kids around him? Why would it prevent people wanting to kill him from acting? Why is it even noteworthy except for further bashing Obama?

First, and most importantly: it is always a good thing to find reasons, no matter what, for bashing Obama.
Second, Conservatives argue that politicians do things like surround themselves with children for emotional reasons when they have 0 good arguments and no logic for what they are doing. That seems to fit the bill here. I think Obama is making Americans a lot more vulnerable and distracting people from the real issue of our failing crime, social control and mental health infrastructure.

Ann Coulter this week writes a pretty good column including information about people that knew others were dangerous and said so BEFORE they went on killing sprees.

I personally had my world view affected years ago when I read of a deranged homeless man murdering a 16 year old girl with a knife because his schizophrenia made him think she was laughing at him. I wish she'd had a gun on her to deal with the guy but she didn't. May she RIP.

More importantly, I wish that guy had been someplace safe for himself and others, recognizing his incompetence to govern his own life.

Gorfias:

the clockmaker:

Gorfias:

We don't need more gun laws or regulations. We need better responses to the evil and the murderously insane.

Jesus mate, did you even read my post, like at all? You posted an appeal to emotion based on the fear of Bad Shit happening, I contested that Bad Shit may be out weighed by the overzealous and untrained response that you are suggesting and all you bloody do is repeat that Bad Shit happened. Read my post before replying please, it is a bit rude otherwise.

I did read your post and most of your response wasn't worth commenting upon directly. You raise the bullshit about the law abiding shooting up cafeterias if someone drops a dinner plate. They're not that rickety. You don't seem to know that there was a record setting mass shooting in the UK AFTER gun control was expanded... I'll look for a link, but it was more like 2003, not 1987. I've already posted it in this forum.

Skeleon:
You can't very well defend the premise and content of your argument by simply presupposing it's a) correct and b) agreed upon.

I didn't think it common sense to agree with Lott but that having a gun is more likely, not always, but more likely, to fend off an attacker than shouting, "but wait! I'm nice and harmless!" I think that is common sense. Now, I realize, nope, there are plenty of people that think shouting they are nice will protect them better than a gun.

As for the bully? Does he have a gun, too? Does he pull it out? Do one or both of them end up dead? Hm.
But that's really not here nor there since this is about actual evidence rather than what you think would happen due to your particular view of what the common sense result would be.

New questions don't answer the original: what is more likely to be protect you: a gun, or telling your attacker your really nice and he should stop his attack as it is unlawful? I would think, common sense, the gun. No such thing as common sense anymore. Oh well.

But we're getting away from what I think makes this thread different than all the other gun control threads: what do you think of the President of the USA surrounding himself with children as he violates the constitution and engages in imperious action? I'm disgusted. You?

You mean the Cumbria shootings in 2010 commited by Derrick Bird? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

So we've had a shooting on this scale at a rough rate of one per decade, how many has the US had in the same period?

jimborious:

You mean the Cumbria shootings in 2010 commited by Derrick Bird? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

So we've had a shooting on this scale at a rough rate of one per decade, how many has the US had in the same period?

The question is, I thought you guys would no longer have any such shootings! By golly, you got yourself laws and regulations!

I agree, UK and USA are apples and oranges. Another question: if the USA has more gun control, will violent crime go up or down? I predict up, but worse, if I'm right, there will be lots of Harvard studies to say that while I appear to be right, I'm actually wrong. And they'll have studies... on paper!! to prove it. Argh.

Gorfias:
Ann Coulter this week writes a pretty good column

Something must've gone wrong when you posted; Ann Coulter and the woord good appeared in the same sentence. This is impossibe.

Gorfias:
I personally had my world view affected years ago when I read of a deranged homeless man murdering a 16 year old girl with a knife because his schizophrenia made him think she was laughing at him. I wish she'd had a gun on her to deal with the guy but she didn't

You seriously think she'd have time to pull out a gun, take off the safety etc after being stabbing and while being stabbed by such a guy? Also, next time she has a gun, he also has a gun. He shoots her out of his delusion. She's still dead, and had a much higher chance of dying than when someone stabbed her. Good going gun freaks...

It's an excellent example of why self-defense with guns is a myth, it doesn't work like that. Besides, if she showed the stereotypical reaction to violence which most women display, she could've had half an armory on her without it doing any good. If you freeze up and wait, you're ussually already getting all of what was going to happen anyway. The first blow is half the battle, as they say. Decisive timely action is what saves you.

Then again, estimating that correctly and teaching that mentality is also one of the hardest things to teach. I've seen it during classes I took or taught too, some don't seem to learn it, others have a natural aptitude for it. Some goon once thought it was fun to grope my sister at a youth centre when there was a crowd. We saw it. Couldn't get to it in time though: She'd beaten him so bad he was on the ground by the time he was there. And that guy was a head taller than her.

Giving someone who hasn't got that a gun, is only going to respond in them murdering innocent people, and getting murdered by anyone who may have wished them harm, because the moment you pull a gun, attacking you becomes a matter of self-defense and self-preservation for your attacker. Rule nr 1: Always leave a way out. If you pull a gun, they have to incapacitate or kill you, or die themselves. Guns escalate the violence in any situation.

Gorfias:

jimborious:

You mean the Cumbria shootings in 2010 commited by Derrick Bird? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

So we've had a shooting on this scale at a rough rate of one per decade, how many has the US had in the same period?

The question is, I thought you guys would no longer have any such shootings! By golly, you got yourself laws and regulations!

I agree, UK and USA are apples and oranges. Another question: if the USA has more gun control, will violent crime go up or down? I predict up, but worse, if I'm right, there will be lots of Harvard studies to say that while I appear to be right, I'm actually wrong. And they'll have studies... on paper!! to prove it. Argh.

So far they have worked. After Dunblane our gun laws where tightened and owning a handgun was made illegal. Since those laws were changed there have been no mass shootings on that scale using handguns. Bird used a shotgun and rifle both of which he was a licensed owner of, and getting a license isn't easy. Now after the shooting there was uproar that he'd managed to keep his licenses, despite there being suspicions that his mental health would disbar him from keeping them. So our laws aren't perfect what happen in Dunblane could happen again next week but its much less likely to happen and thats the driving force behind gun control.

However even with that all guns aren't illegal in the UK you can own shotguns and some rifles if you have a valid reason, the key is though you have to have a good reason and self-defence or because I want one aren't considered valid reasons.

And not to be snarky but i posed a question which you ignored so i'll ask it again, the UK has had roughly 1 mass shooting per decade how many mass shootings has the US had in the last 3 decades.

jimborious:

Gorfias:

UK and USA are apples and oranges.

the UK has had roughly 1 mass shooting per decade how many mass shootings has the US had in the last 3 decades.

For the sake of argument, I'll write a lot more. So what?

How many people killed by madmen in the USA in the past 60 years? How many have starved to death in North Korea?

Blablahb:
...
[quote="Gorfias" post="528.398678.16328920"]... a deranged homeless man murdering a 16 year old girl with a knife ... I wish she'd had a gun on her to deal with the guy

You seriously think she'd have time to pull out a gun

Yes. At least she could have tried. And a bystander might have been near by to timely avenge her if she couldn't defend herself. And the lunatic might have been rational enough to not even try in the first place as he'd know he be promptly killed. A well armed society is a polite society. I think people are likely polite in North Korea, but for the wrong reasons.

Gorfias:

jimborious:

Gorfias:

UK and USA are apples and oranges.

For the sake of argument, I'll write a lot more. So what?

How many people killed by madmen in the USA in the past 60 years? How many have starved to death in North Korea?

You seriously think she'd have time to pull out a gun

Yes. At least she could have tried. And a bystander might have been near by to timely avenge her if she couldn't defend herself. And the lunatic might have been rational enough to not even try in the first place as he'd know he be promptly killed. A well armed society is a polite society. I think people are likely polite in North Korea, but for the wrong reasons.

Okay if sarcasm and selective quotes are the way you prefer to have a discussion I think I'll leave it here before I get sucked into a pissing contest that I didn't want, I will answer your question first though because you know thats the polite thing to do.

You asked what was the point I was trying to make, its simple in the UK we have fewer guns and much tighter gun laws and as a result we have far far fewer mass shootings and other firearm related deaths.

dmase:

Assassin Xaero:
On msn they, one of the items was:

•banning "military-style" assault weapons

At least they are coming right out and saying they are trying to banning gun just because they look "scary" now.

Your right I'm still waiting for gun owners to admit they buy the military style weapons because they look cool. At least Obama is being honest.

OP the only thing on that agenda that should be remotely controversial is the assault weapon ban. Though I wonder were the clause saying the mentally ill can't buy weapons went to.

I will admit to it to a degree. I collect historically significant firearms, especially Cold War (focus on those that the Red Army used, though I would love to get a M1 Garand and a 'nam era M16) and those used in the old West. I also am in the process of getting a Curio and Relic Licence ( a type of Federal Firearm License meant specifically for collector's like myself). My collection includes: Winchester Model 1895 Lever Action Carbine and a Nagant 1895 Revolver and will soon include a Makarov, Tokarev, or Mosin Nagant and will eventually include a PPSh-41 if I can find one/afford it and intend to put them all on display. I also intend to use the fire safe I use for important documents to store the firing pins of everything I can easily remove/put back in (The lever action is an utter bitch to break down) when I want to go fire it at the range. So yes, I do get guns cause they look cool, but also because of their historical value.
(For those curious, the revolver is 1941 Tula manufacturer mark, so it was made behind the Urals during the German invasion. I overpaid far too much on that sum'bitch)

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Ann Coulter this week writes a pretty good column

Something must've gone wrong when you posted; Ann Coulter and the woord good appeared in the same sentence. This is impossibe.

Gorfias:
I personally had my world view affected years ago when I read of a deranged homeless man murdering a 16 year old girl with a knife because his schizophrenia made him think she was laughing at him. I wish she'd had a gun on her to deal with the guy but she didn't

You seriously think she'd have time to pull out a gun, take off the safety etc after being stabbing and while being stabbed by such a guy? Also, next time she has a gun, he also has a gun. He shoots her out of his delusion. She's still dead, and had a much higher chance of dying than when someone stabbed her. Good going gun freaks...

It's an excellent example of why self-defense with guns is a myth, it doesn't work like that. Besides, if she showed the stereotypical reaction to violence which most women display, she could've had half an armory on her without it doing any good. If you freeze up and wait, you're ussually already getting all of what was going to happen anyway. The first blow is half the battle, as they say. Decisive timely action is what saves you.

Then again, estimating that correctly and teaching that mentality is also one of the hardest things to teach. I've seen it during classes I took or taught too, some don't seem to learn it, others have a natural aptitude for it. Some goon once thought it was fun to grope my sister at a youth centre when there was a crowd. We saw it. Couldn't get to it in time though: She'd beaten him so bad he was on the ground by the time he was there. And that guy was a head taller than her.

Giving someone who hasn't got that a gun, is only going to respond in them murdering innocent people, and getting murdered by anyone who may have wished them harm, because the moment you pull a gun, attacking you becomes a matter of self-defense and self-preservation for your attacker. Rule nr 1: Always leave a way out. If you pull a gun, they have to incapacitate or kill you, or die themselves. Guns escalate the violence in any situation.

Or , you know, walk away. Most people that pull a gun in a self defense situation use it to force compliance much like the police. More incidents end up like Kitten's then Dirty Harry.

These are very sensible and reasonable proposals. Shame they're going up against the NRA>...

Gorfias:

I did read your post and most of your response wasn't worth commenting upon directly.

-Really, you are myopic and arrogant enough that after all of your appeal to emotion and pull up scary 'Bad Shit will happen' nonsense, you actually think that my points were the ones not worth responding to. For the folks at home, here are the points that you brought up and then abandoned, and from where I am standing it is because you have no defence for them.
-The comment about Jewish people
-The nonsense that the ban is based on how 'scary the weapon looks'
-The stupidity about explosives
-Your obligatory 9/11 comment (which was also nonsense)

You raise the bullshit about the law abiding shooting up cafeterias if someone drops a dinner plate.

hooray for straw men, because when all you have are emotional appeals that Bad Shit will happen if we don't conform to your ideal, it is easier to argue against the points you want your opponent to make rather than the ones they made. No, people will not start gunning down people because 'someone dropped a plate' but they are likely to pull a gun in situations where they feel threatened and either A-misread the situation, putting innocent people at risk or
B-Panic in a situation where they are at risk, but the targeted 'threat' is a bystander- putting innocent people at risk or
C- Open fire on a person who is actually a threat to them, but due to a complete lack of training, miss and hit a bystander -putting innocent people at risk or
D- Fail to store their weapon correctly, ensuring that their child can play with it- putting innocents at risk
etc etc ( I would put more, but something tells me you'll not read this far anyway)

They're not that rickety.

because if there is one thing that the general public is known for, it is for keeping a cool head in a stress situation.

You don't seem to know that there was a record setting mass shooting in the UK AFTER gun control was expanded... I'll look for a link, but it was more like 2003, not 1987. I've already posted it in this forum.

Well mate, you don't seem to know that when you give exactly two statistics for an event (death toll and year in this case) and neither lines up to an actual event, that is you kneecapping your own credibility. Perhaps you are referring to the atrocity that occurred in 2010 in which twelve people died (Not record setting for the UK, not record setting for Europe and barely a blip for the US).

Now you may ask how I came to the conclusion that that was the one you were referring to, well that is the only large death toll shooting that occurred in the UK since these laws were brought in. The amount that occurred in the US over that same period, 38. Now if we adjust for population differences, the US rate is roughly 7.6 times higher than the UK one.

On top of that,
"The question is, I thought you guys would no longer have any such shootings! By golly, you got yourself laws and regulations!"
a person breaching a law does not invalidate that law, it is the rate of offense that determines that. There are laws and programs against drink driving, and we can see that they are having a measure of success despite the fact that some people will break the law. a rate less than 1/7th that of the US (adjusted for population) seems like a pretty successful fucking law to me. I mean, do you actually believe what you typed there or are you just trying to point score at this point.

the clockmaker:

-The comment about Jewish people
-The nonsense that the ban is based on how 'scary the weapon looks'
-The stupidity about explosives
-Your obligatory 9/11 comment (which was also nonsense)

Er, gas is legal and explodes. Pipe bombs can be made without regulated materials.
It is not nonsense that these laws are about "scary looking guns". They are. And the demagogues are the ones pushing this crap that will leave us all easier to murder and/or oppress. It's nothing to be flippant about.
3,000 people died at the hands of people wielding box cutters, prompting even Mike Moore to ask why he was bothering with a gun control movie. I have not idea why you think this is nonsense.

And please, don't write about Jewish fears of oppression and being murdered as nonsense. For your own sake and so that people can take you seriously.

Gorfias:
Er, gas is legal and explodes. Pipe bombs can be made without regulated materials.
It is not nonsense that these laws are about "scary looking guns". They are. And the demagogues are the ones pushing this crap that will leave us all easier to murder and/or oppress.

You keep repeating and repeating that, but are yet to provide the first-ever argument of why that would happen.

While the case that it'll save lives is strong; based on experiences in other countries when they introduced gun regulations or bans. Australia's gun ban ended the phenomenon of spree shootings altogether for instance, at least untill now.
Belgium cut their number of firearms deaths in half, and deaths by other means did not increase to compensate for it.

Gorfias:

the clockmaker:

-The comment about Jewish people
-The nonsense that the ban is based on how 'scary the weapon looks'
-The stupidity about explosives
-Your obligatory 9/11 comment (which was also nonsense)

Er, gas is legal and explodes. Pipe bombs can be made without regulated materials.
It is not nonsense that these laws are about "scary looking guns". They are. And the demagogues are the ones pushing this crap that will leave us all easier to murder and/or oppress. It's nothing to be flippant about.
3,000 people died at the hands of people wielding box cutters, prompting even Mike Moore to ask why he was bothering with a gun control movie. I have not idea why you think this is nonsense.

And please, don't write about Jewish fears of oppression and being murdered as nonsense. For your own sake and so that people can take you seriously.

.
ehm... Can I just say that I love reading the banter between you?

Jews as any other oppressed minority in a country where their safety is not guaranteed. It is not a Jewish trait, but a trait of all humans. When you are a minority and the country doesn't give a shit about you, you tend to be scared of the majority terrorizing you.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Er, gas is legal and explodes. Pipe bombs can be made without regulated materials.
It is not nonsense that these laws are about "scary looking guns". They are. And the demagogues are the ones pushing this crap that will leave us all easier to murder and/or oppress.

You keep repeating and repeating that, but are yet to provide the first-ever argument of why that would happen.

While the case that it'll save lives is strong; based on experiences in other countries when they introduced gun regulations or bans. Australia's gun ban ended the phenomenon of spree shootings altogether for instance, at least untill now.
Belgium cut their number of firearms deaths in half, and deaths by other means did not increase to compensate for it.

I understand a better control experiment exists between Australia and New Zealand and I'm reading no lives saved but increases in violent crime, eventual increases in homicide can be predicted and the threat of totalitarian government easier to implement.

EDIT: From Ann Coulter: "Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach "control groups" at Harvard?)

New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth -- including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.

While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.

The only thing Australia's strict gun control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns immediately after the ban took effect. "

The scary gun thing: I'm watching this youtube where a guy assures us the ban is only for fully automatic rifles. Aren't they already illegal? What is new here?

Gorfias:
I understand a better control experiment exists between Australia and New Zealand and I'm reading no lives saved but increases in violent crime, eventual increases in homicide can be predicted and the threat of totalitarian government easier to implement.

I call you out on just throwing empty claims without proof, and you respond with even more far fetched claims with no proof? And yes, I disregard Ann Coulter's latest lies when I say that. Don't feel like wasting five minutes on google only to find she lied again.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Ann Coulter this week writes a pretty good column

Something must've gone wrong when you posted; Ann Coulter and the woord good appeared in the same sentence. This is impossibe.

Gorfias:
I personally had my world view affected years ago when I read of a deranged homeless man murdering a 16 year old girl with a knife because his schizophrenia made him think she was laughing at him. I wish she'd had a gun on her to deal with the guy but she didn't

You seriously think she'd have time to pull out a gun, take off the safety etc after being stabbing and while being stabbed by such a guy? Also, next time she has a gun, he also has a gun. He shoots her out of his delusion. She's still dead, and had a much higher chance of dying than when someone stabbed her. Good going gun freaks...

It's an excellent example of why self-defense with guns is a myth, it doesn't work like that. Besides, if she showed the stereotypical reaction to violence which most women display, she could've had half an armory on her without it doing any good. If you freeze up and wait, you're ussually already getting all of what was going to happen anyway. The first blow is half the battle, as they say. Decisive timely action is what saves you.

Then again, estimating that correctly and teaching that mentality is also one of the hardest things to teach. I've seen it during classes I took or taught too, some don't seem to learn it, others have a natural aptitude for it. Some goon once thought it was fun to grope my sister at a youth centre when there was a crowd. We saw it. Couldn't get to it in time though: She'd beaten him so bad he was on the ground by the time he was there. And that guy was a head taller than her.

Giving someone who hasn't got that a gun, is only going to respond in them murdering innocent people, and getting murdered by anyone who may have wished them harm, because the moment you pull a gun, attacking you becomes a matter of self-defense and self-preservation for your attacker. Rule nr 1: Always leave a way out. If you pull a gun, they have to incapacitate or kill you, or die themselves. Guns escalate the violence in any situation.

Blahb we've already established that you can defend yourself with a gun, there are cases of it happening. It's not a myth as myths are false, this is something that is true. GunsmithKitten has told you how she defended herself with a gun. She did it and she's not the only one. Most famous probably was that woman in Texas who defended her home against 2 men who broke in. You can defend yourself and your property with a gun.

Gorfias:

Er, gas is legal and explodes. Pipe bombs can be made without regulated materials.
It is not nonsense that these laws are about "scary looking guns". They are. And the demagogues are the ones pushing this crap that will leave us all easier to murder and/or oppress. It's nothing to be flippant about.
3,000 people died at the hands of people wielding box cutters, prompting even Mike Moore to ask why he was bothering with a gun control movie. I have not idea why you think this is nonsense.

And please, don't write about Jewish fears of oppression and being murdered as nonsense. For your own sake and so that people can take you seriously.

The thing is, while people claim to be able to make pipe bombs based off of household materials and the internet, most 'bombers' either fail or just kill themselves. I mean, a basic assessment reveals that in the same period in which there was 38 mass shootings in the US, there was not one successful bombing on the 'spree killer' scale. Also, attempting to acquire any other types of explosives will lead to your getting the attention of law enforcement.

And 'gas' really depends on what you mean by 'gas'
_________________________________________________________________________

I posted earlier with regards to how ease of use and ergonomics are far more important than how 'scary looking' a weapon is, but hey if you just want to keep shouting the same shit over and over, it's your life mate.
_________________________________________________________________________

3000 people died at the hands of people wielding what was essentially a set of multiple 442 tonne cruise missiles. Now, the failures in security that allowed the terrorists to secure those weapons were noted, evaluated and then closed. The law, shock and fucking horror, changed to accommodate a recognition of a danger posed much like another topic we could discuss. Attempting to bring a weapon onto a plane now is met with increased security, an increased awareness amongst the people you would need to subdue and an increased willingness to act on the part of the responding authorities. Furthermore, pointing to an event and claiming, 'that was worse so we don't need to look at this at all' is akin to claiming that we shouldn't treat cancer because malaria kills more people. That is why your claim and your repetition of it are nonsense, is that clear enough for you?
_________________________________________________________________________

You made a comment about not going to your death like a 'good little jew' and I asked if you were Jewish and putting forth your own fears or ascribing passivity in the face of death to another grouping. This was a reasonable question. And reading back over it I never called it nonsense, here I shall cut and paste it again,

me in the post that you just goddamn quoted, I mean wow I literally cut it out of the 'quoted' section of your own post! :
-The comment about Jewish people

But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You just cannot seem to get any fact correct can you, speaking of which,
_________________________________________________________________________

You seem quiet about your insistence that there had been a killing of 16 people 'recently' or that there had been a shooting in the UK in 2003 or that there had been a 'record setting' shooting since the passing of the Dunblane legislation. Do you admit that you were wrong?

Can you see that even if there had been, it would only take the per capita mass killing to less than one third of that in the US as opposed to the less than 1/7th that it actually is.

Although this does seem to fall into a pattern with you, you will make a claim, refuse to back it up when it is questioned and then simply repeat it a few posts down the line.
______________________________________________________________________

and as for your fear of murder and 'oppression',

Press freedom (based on reporters without borders)
NZ - ranked 13
UK - ranked 28
Aus - ranked 30
US - ranked 47

Economic freedom (based on heritage foundation and the wall street journal)
Aus- ranked 3
NZ - ranked 4
US - ranked 10
UK -ranked 14

Corruption perception index (based on transparency international)
(note, the closer to ten, the less corrupt)
NZ- 9.3
Aus- 8.7
UK- 7.7
US- 7.3

Civil liberties (based on the economist intelligence unit)
(Same as above)
Aus- 10
NZ -10
UK- 9.12
US- 8.53

Prison population per 100 000 people
Aus - 129
UK - 151
NZ - 185
US - 756

Murders per 100 000 people (Based on united nations office on drugs and crime
NZ - 0.9
Aus - 1.0
UK - 1.2
US -4.8

Firearms per 100 people
US -90
NZ -26.8
Aus -15.5
UK -5.6

So I think that your firearms don't seem to be doing all that great a job of keeping you safe or free.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
I understand a better control experiment exists between Australia and New Zealand and I'm reading no lives saved but increases in violent crime, eventual increases in homicide can be predicted and the threat of totalitarian government easier to implement.

I call you out on just throwing empty claims without proof, and you respond with even more far fetched claims with no proof? And yes, I disregard Ann Coulter's latest lies when I say that. Don't feel like wasting five minutes on google only to find she lied again.

If Ann Coulter told me the sky was blue, I'd demand timestamped and high definition evidence. You're right not to trust that piece of trash.

the clockmaker:

So I think that your firearms don't seem to be doing all that great a job of keeping you safe or free.

So if you do take away my ability to carry a firearm, exactly how will you compensate for my increased vulnerability to non-firearm related assault?

GunsmithKitten:

the clockmaker:

So I think that your firearms don't seem to be doing all that great a job of keeping you safe or free.

So if you do take away my ability to carry a firearm, exactly how will you compensate for my increased vulnerability to non-firearm related assault?

I think that I discussed this with you already in that there needs to be a corresponding increase in police responsibility and engagement in the community. Firearm legislation is not the answer on its own, but it is a key component amongst other initiatives. We had a long chat about this in the Australian legislation thread.

Xan Krieger:
Blahb we've already established that you can defend yourself with a gun

Nope, nobody even tried outside of gunsmithkitten. Let alone succeeded, in showing that actually happens once, let alone 34 times a day, and that's what's needed to balance it out.

Also, nobody of the pro-gun violence side ever bothered to account for how much violence would be removed after a gun ban,

Self-defense by murdering others with firearms, remains a myth.

And you should know by now that "This guy was fiddling with my locks, maybe he wanted to nick $ 30 worth of stuff from my kitchen" doesn't count as an excuse to murder someone in my book.

the clockmaker:

So I think that your firearms don't seem to be doing all that great a job of keeping you safe or free.

America has 5% of the population but 24% of the world's criminals.

I'm pretty sure it's a social issue and has little to do with firearms. A lot of Americans are crazies.

Kopikatsu:

the clockmaker:

So I think that your firearms don't seem to be doing all that great a job of keeping you safe or free.

America has 5% of the population but 24% of the world's criminals.

I'm pretty sure it's a social issue and has little to do with firearms. A lot of Americans are crazies.

Yes, crime is a societal issue, and societal action is necessary, but firearms exacerbate the issues by making potentially solvable problems into lethal ones. That is why I have stated time and time again that not only is firearm legislation necessary, but other initiatives to increase police involvement in the community and social cohesion are also needed.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:
Blahb we've already established that you can defend yourself with a gun

Nope, nobody even tried outside of gunsmithkitten. Let alone succeeded, in showing that actually happens once, let alone 34 times a day, and that's what's needed to balance it out.

Also, nobody of the pro-gun violence side ever bothered to account for how much violence would be removed after a gun ban,

Self-defense by murdering others with firearms, remains a myth.

And you should know by now that "This guy was fiddling with my locks, maybe he wanted to nick $ 30 worth of stuff from my kitchen" doesn't count as an excuse to murder someone in my book.

She showed it happened at least once and that's all it takes to prove it's not a myth. Also it's not murder.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
"Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)"
Blahb even if a gun ban does reduce the amount of violence it's still taking a freedom to gain a little security. Besides, you're punishing everyone for the actions of a few, something that shouldn't happen. As for defending your home, where else was she supposed to go? It was them or her and she chose them as I thought would anyone else.

edit: Blahb I decided to settle this once and for all
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.398867-Poll-Lets-settle-something-right-now-can-you-defend-yourself-with-a-gun

GunsmithKitten:

TechNoFear:

I have a WW2 Lee-Enfield (my father's army issue),

So despite you objecting so much to me keeping a firearm, to the point where you told me flat out that it's good and proper for me to be helpless before anyone who wants to attack me, that I should just "hang on and hope for the best" (an attitude I'll remind you which nearly got me killed) without defense from either a firearm or police, you actually keep a higher caliber firearm than anything I own?

Just...just wow....

Please link me to that post, as you are misrepresenting my position.

I own a number of firearms, I have never hidden that fact (read my posts, it is many of them). My long guns are locked in a gunsafe, with the ammo in a seperate locked container, my handgun is kept at the range.

The day I think I need a firearm for self defense in Australia is the day I will leave.

Gorfias:
I predict up, but worse, if I'm right, there will be lots of Harvard studies to say that while I appear to be right, I'm actually wrong. And they'll have studies... on paper!! to prove it. Argh.

Your happy to cite Lott's debunked study 'More guns, less crime' to support your argument, but then criticise studies (yet to be written) if they disagree with your opinion?

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/onepage.html

Gorfias:
It is not nonsense that these laws are about "scary looking guns". They are. And the demagogues are the ones pushing this crap that will leave us all easier to murder and/or oppress. It's nothing to be flippant about.

So, the assault weapon ban won't do anything, because it only bans scary looking guns, but simultaneously will leave the US civilian population defenceless?

One or the other.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
I understand a better control experiment exists between Australia and New Zealand and I'm reading no lives saved but increases in violent crime, eventual increases in homicide can be predicted and the threat of totalitarian government easier to implement.

I call you out on just throwing empty claims without proof, and you respond with even more far fetched claims with no proof? And yes, I disregard Ann Coulter's latest lies when I say that. Don't feel like wasting five minutes on google only to find she lied again.

This type of information is why I think I need Ann Coulter: I'm betting this is not a lie or distortion, but good luck finding it anywhere else. This information came from a column called, "Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do". I keep writing: I have to do a thread of all the things I read from her first and found her telling the truth while other's distort it, particularly on this topic. That's if they even report it in the first place.

thaluikhain:

Gorfias:
It is not nonsense that these laws are about "scary looking guns". They are. And the demagogues are the ones pushing this crap that will leave us all easier to murder and/or oppress. It's nothing to be flippant about.

So, the assault weapon ban won't do anything, because it only bans scary looking guns, but simultaneously will leave the US civilian population defenceless?

One or the other.

Why one or the other? Aren't people with scary guns going to be affected by new regulations and less able to be liberties teeth? I think so. Why go after them? Are we headed toward, "first they came for the scary looking guns and I said nothing because my gun wasn't scary looking. Then they came for the larger caliber bullets and I said nothing, etc. But if I did write the current ban would leave us totally defenseless (and I don't think I did) I apologize. There's always box cutters.

TechNoFear:

Gorfias:
I predict up, but worse, if I'm right, there will be lots of Harvard studies to say that while I appear to be right, I'm actually wrong. And they'll have studies... on paper!! to prove it. Argh.

Your happy to cite Lott's debunked study 'More guns, less crime' to support your argument, but then criticise studies (yet to be written) if they disagree with your opinion?

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/onepage.html

That's about the size of it. Lott's study makes sense to me. Telling me UK crime is way up, but that studies... on paper!!! With graphs and numbers... actual freaking numbers!!!!, show the crime increases have nothing to do with stricter gun laws and I have to shout, "shenanigans!" I really don't know how we tell the truth anymore.

Not from the "paper of record" as they are dis-proven on a regular basis. Certainly not from Harvard "studies" as they are so full of crap. And "common sense" doesn't exist anymore.

EDIT: This from leftist, pro-gun control ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98678&page=1 It seems to concede the main point of Lott's thesis: crime rates went down as stats became concealed carry. They just (OMG the surprise *sarcasm*) don't like the way he did his study and claim other studies could show he is wrong.

I live in State with LOTS of guns. I do not own one. But I feel safer with criminals wondering if I do. Increased guns means increased likelihood that I do means criminal may not attack at all as the risk is to great. That makes me feel safer. Maybe our crime rate is lower than it would otherwise be. Maybe not. I'm sure you could come up with fascinating studies to explain higher crime rates if we adopt more gun laws. I won't care. I just want the lower crime rate.

the clockmaker:

... in the same period in which there was 38 mass shootings in the US, there was not one successful bombing on the 'spree killer' scale.

Not sure what period you are writing of. Does this include the unibomber? Bill Ayers group and people like them? Oklahoma, done with fertilizer? And this was done while killing spree types still had box cutters and air planes to depend upon to murder thousands.

Attempting to bring a weapon onto a plane now is met with increased security

I draw a line at rectal exams. Do you? How about trains? Lot of security there? Evil will find a way.

You made a comment about not going to your death like a 'good little jew' and I asked if you were Jewish and putting forth your own fears or ascribing passivity in the face of death to another grouping.

Sorry, missed it, though, not relevant, but, I was born to two Jews and raised following many of their traditions. The Jews have faced and continue to face violence and the threat of violent extinction. I would be silly to think fear of murder dis-placed. Agreed?

You seem quiet about your insistence that there had been a killing of 16 people 'recently' or that there had been a shooting in the UK in 2003 or that there had been a 'record setting' shooting since the passing of the Dunblane legislation. Do you admit that you were wrong?

I admit I was inaccurate. From Jimboraine "You mean the Cumbria shootings in 2010 commited by Derrick Bird? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings" posted earlier in this thread.

That raises a whole other problem. Is the Internet now owned mostly by the left? Because I looked hard for this thing and couldn't find it. My searches kept coming up with, "gun control laws work!". Even if they do, there has to be a bunch of gun nuts insisting they don't. Why aren't my searches coming out with more balanced links?

and as for your fear of murder and 'oppression',

I wonder where Cuba, Israel, North Korea, the former USSR, Nazi Germany and New Zealand would rank? EDIT: Not really though as you have to wonder how those numbers are arrived at. I'm sure I'd find plenty of fault with them.

So I think that your firearms don't seem to be doing all that great a job of keeping you safe or free.

I do, and thankfully, the 2nd Amendment assures, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Gorfias:

Not sure what period you are writing of. Does this include the unibomber? Bill Ayers group and people like them? Oklahoma, done with fertilizer? And this was done while killing spree types still had box cutters and air planes to depend upon to murder thousands.

I was referring to the same sample period that I used as a comparison between the US and UK systems, the passing of the Dunblane laws. In other words, 1996 till now. And note that I just explained to you how 9/11, while horrible, depended on a whole lot of factors that have now been closed and which you just ignored in your reply.

I draw a line at rectal exams. Do you? How about trains? Lot of security there? Evil will find a way.

Okay, experiment, you shove a knife up your arse, (which, by the way will likely still set off the metal detectors) and tell me if you can get it out discretely enough to take maintain the element of surprise (remembering that passangers are less likely . Trains tend to have a lot more central control, so hijacking is not really an issue. Furthermore, the issue of other threats does not negate the threat posed by firearms. I said just before, the issue of malaria does not negate the issue of cancer.

Sorry, missed it, though, not relevant, but, I was born to two Jews and raised following many of their traditions. The Jews have faced and continue to face violence and the threat of violent extinction. I would be silly to think fear of murder dis-placed. Agreed?

As someone with Jewish heritage, it is your prerogative to engage in those concerns (ie due to your heritage your concern was not the 'jew' but the passivity) . My issue was the concern that somebody was applying the attribute of passivity in the face of death to the 'other'.

I admit I was inaccurate. From Jimboraine "You mean the Cumbria shootings in 2010 commited by Derrick Bird? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings" posted earlier in this thread.

cool, but my point of 1/7 per capita still stands.

That raises a whole other problem. Is the Internet now owned mostly by the left? Because I looked hard for this thing and couldn't find it. My searches kept coming up with, "gun control laws work!". Even if they do, there has to be a bunch of gun nuts insisting they don't. Why aren't my searches coming out with more balanced links?

First off, I am not of the left, I am of the right, just of the Australian right. Second off, are you joking?! I found it, (you'll find that I referred to it in a previous reply to you) by googling 'spree killings UK' and then correlating through multiple results. Just because the facts don't conform to your bias does not mean that they are being bent to someone else's.

I wonder where Cuba, Israel, North Korea, the former USSR, Nazi Germany and New Zealand would rank? EDIT: Not really though as you have to wonder how those numbers are arrived at. I'm sure I'd find plenty of fault with them.

Well you don't have to wonder where NZ would rank as it was one of the grand total of four nations listed in my examples. Cuba is living in a siege mentality constructed due to living next to powerful and hostile neighbors, ditto for Israel, the Nazis enjoyed quite a lot of German and Austrian popular support until the ruskies came knocking (they did after all come to power by popular will) and the USSR came to power in a popular revolution and civil war. How, pray tell would your precious firearms have saved you from any of those? I mean, I thought it best to compare British descendent English speaking first world nations to British descendent English speaking first world nations but if you want to compare apples to nazis it's your life.

Furthermore, if your could find fault with these statistics, do it, I provided who I sourced the details from (except for the prison statistics, that's my bad, that comes form the international center for prison studies.) So all you are doing at the moment is muttering, 'I could totally prove you wrong, if I wanted too'. Put your money where your mouth is, I have backed up my claim, you have not.

In addition, the above statistics actually put paid to your idea that NZ is armed to the teeth, it has less than a third the firearms per capita than the US and its licensing ( because you do need a license) is closer to Aus than the US. Your example comparing Aus to NZ, was, as usual, nonsense.

I do, and thankfully, the 2nd Amendment assures, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Okay, first off, quoting a law is not a defence of that law. I mean some of you yanks treat the US constitution like extremists treat religious texts.

Secondly, this is the vibe I'm getting right now
you-guns keep us free
me-but according to just about every respected source I can find, the US is less free than comparable nations
you-but we have the freedom to keep our guns
me-but why do you need your guns
you- to protect the right to keep our guns.

Gorfias:

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
I understand a better control experiment exists between Australia and New Zealand and I'm reading no lives saved but increases in violent crime, eventual increases in homicide can be predicted and the threat of totalitarian government easier to implement.

I call you out on just throwing empty claims without proof, and you respond with even more far fetched claims with no proof? And yes, I disregard Ann Coulter's latest lies when I say that. Don't feel like wasting five minutes on google only to find she lied again.

This type of information is why I think I need Ann Coulter: I'm betting this is not a lie or distortion, but good luck finding it anywhere else. This information came from a column called, "Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do". I keep writing: I have to do a thread of all the things I read from her first and found her telling the truth while other's distort it, particularly on this topic. That's if they even report it in the first place.

No, Coulter is lying again.

Firstly, the Australian government didn't ban weapons, it tightened the restrictions on who could have them. When people talking about the ban, it generally means they don't know what they are talking about.

Secondly, likewise anyone who argues that this left Australian helpless without their guns. Most Australians didn't own a firearm even before the new laws were in place, the population is mostly urban, not many people go hunting etc.

Thirdly, actual real statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics do not show the sudden drastic increase in homicides, assaults, rapes or whatever violent crime US gun groups pretend happened in Australia. Any number of gun advocates keep making lies up about Australian conditions, and have done so for years.

Gorfias:
Why one or the other? Aren't people with scary guns going to be affected by new regulations and less able to be liberties teeth? I think so. Why go after them? Are we headed toward, "first they came for the scary looking guns and I said nothing because my gun wasn't scary looking. Then they came for the larger caliber bullets and I said nothing, etc. But if I did write the current ban would leave us totally defenseless (and I don't think I did) I apologize. There's always box cutters."

Ah, if you mean the slippery slope, that's fair enough I guess.

Gorfias:
North Korea, the former USSR, Nazi Germany and New Zealand

I chuckled when I read that list.

the clockmaker:

I just explained to you how 9/11, while horrible, depended on a whole lot of factors that have now been closed

So, now you feel safe? I think that is fool hardy. I'm familiar with a number of ways such systems can be beaten easily that include all sorts of undetectable plastics and nylon. Evil is. You should always be vigilant and stop waiting for laws and regulations to protect you.

I have no idea what you're writing about re: Jews. Never again. Never again should a Jew allow themselves to be disarmed only to be lawfully murdered. Everyone has a moral duty to protect themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings" posted earlier in this thread.

cool, but my point of 1/7 per capita still stands.

As does mine. Your laws and regulations did not protect you.

your idea that NZ is armed to the teeth

They are freer than the Aussies, other wise similar, did not have a wave of gun control and are doing just as well. Case closed. Gun control does not make you safer.

I do, and thankfully, the 2nd Amendment assures, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

you yanks treat the US constitution like extremists treat religious texts.

If the Constitution is irrelevant, what rules? A whole other thread. Been over it often.

the US is less free than comparable nations

I'm doing my part for freedom. Others keep trying to put us on the slippery slope to tyranny and mass death. We should all do our part for freedom.

thaluikhain:

snip re: New Zealand vs. Australia

Austrailian gun control tightening is lauded as an example of these laws working, but when you compare comparable New Zealand, you see that they do not. But liberty has been lost for no good reason. That's a problem.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked