• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
random

Australians surrender 26,000 firearms

Recommended Posts

Australians surrender 26,000 firearms as part of the national gun amnesty

September 8, 2017 2:57pm

“There’s guns that’ve been handed in that would’ve been used during World War II, guns from the 1850s,” Justice Minister Michael Keenan said.

“Among the more unusual firearms handed in under the amnesty have been a Beaumont Adams revolver circa 1856, a WWI era Lee Enfield rifle and two WWII US M1 carbines.”

One farmer told the Herald Sun he handed in some of his family’s rare weaponry because “there are some real bad buggers out there”.

As part of the first amnesty since John Howard’s scheme after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australians have handed in approximately 464 firearms a day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does it feel to watch your countrymen bend over and spread their cheeks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moderate said:

How does it feel to watch your countrymen bend over and spread their cheeks

Better to leave unused/unwanted guns laying around?  My dad died in '02 and he had a licensed .38 revolver and none of us wanted it.  I took it to the local PD for "disposal. "  Did I bend over and spread my cheeks?  With all your ass talk, I can only assume you want something up yours...maybe shut you up for a minute.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Moderate said:

How does it feel to watch your countrymen bend over and spread their cheeks

1ec69ea80b7beaf38ec6dcf999ce3fcb--fabulo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moderate said:

How does it feel to watch your countrymen bend over and spread their cheeks

Hi Moderate. This attitude is pretty typical of Americans today, certainly, but it has evolved in an aggressive direction since the founding fathers.  It seemed to shift massively at the time of the civil war, and the 14th Amendment happened soon after. At that time 44% of state constitutions restricted guns and recognized only militia gun rights, but the nation was flooded with guns. Values changes based on the psychology of gun use. Self defense laws began to be supporteded and re-defined at that time.

I don't deny what the values are today...but I can intelligently present many angles which show that the FF and their English contemporaries were quite restrained about justifying personal violence based on self defense. 

I found an interesting scholar, Darrel Miller, quoted in MacDonald vs Chicago. He examines the values during the FF era.

Quote

Self-Defense, Defense of Others, and the State  see p98

  • The power to kill another human being was, according to English common law history, a power traditionally exclusive to the sovereign.
  • the state cannot rid itself of the responsibility to ensure that deadly force in service of the law is exercised according to constitutional constraints.112
  •  “[t]he government may delegate the task but not the responsibility, and the private actor performing that governmental function must act within the constitutional limitations that apply to the government.”110

  •  Outlawry at common law was the power of the king to declare a person outside the sovereign’s protection—outside of the law.
  •  It is the state’s removal of the person from a baseline of legal protection that raises due process concerns.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Keenan said this about the gun amnesty-

Quote

Despite talking up the amnesty, Keenan also said it is:

… probably not going to be the case [that] we would have hardened criminals who have made a big effort to get a hand on illegal guns [who] would necessarily be handing them in.

https://theconversation.com/a-national-amnesty-will-not-rid-australia-of-violent-gun-crime-79563

 

Rolande Browne from Gun Control Australia said this about the amnesty-

Quote

But Tasmanian lawyer and Gun Control Australia vice chair Roland Browne said the amnesty would just pick up old or unwanted guns.

"Amnesty won't fix this problem, amnesty is a band-aid," Mr Browne told AAP.

"By its definition, it will not take the guns away from criminals or would-be terrorists."

 

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party Victoria MP Jeff Bourman backed the amnesty, but doubted that it would reduce the black market.

"It's not going to solve the crime problem we have at the moment," he told AAP.

He thought it was more likely people would hand in old weapons "like granddad's shotgun".

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/06/16/05/17/amid-terror-threat-govt-offers-gun-amnesty

 

Also in today news a meth addict caught with drugs, pistol and self loading rifle which means semi auto or full auto. He wasn't going to hand them in. Mr Keenan said you can get 14 years jail for having an unregistered gun these guns were unregistered criminals cannot have firearm licenses so why did he get 2 years, is 2 years the average sentence for someone with nearly 20 grams of high purity meth?

Quote

Ice addict drives car full of drugs and weapons to report for bail at police station and is busted

After receiving the tip-off, police searched the young man's car, which he had driven to the station on a disqualified licence, where they discovered a smorgasbord of illegal items.  

They found 19.917 grams of meth at 74 per cent purity, seven knuckle busters, a self-loading firearm, a hand gun, two vials of steroids, oestrogen, a loaded magazine and a second magazine,

A 23-year-old meth addict and 'weapon enthusiast' has been sentenced to two years prison following an 'almost comical' arrest in Rockhampton.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4862370/Ice-addict-caught-driving-car-drugs-weapons.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

Mr Keenan said this about the gun amnesty-

 

Rolande Browne from Gun Control Australia said this about the amnesty-

 

Also in today news a meth addict caught with drugs, pistol and self loading rifle which means semi auto or full auto. He wasn't going to hand them in. Mr Keenan said you can get 14 years jail for having an unregistered gun these guns were unregistered criminals cannot have firearm licenses so why did he get 2 years, is 2 years the average sentence for someone with nearly 20 grams of high purity meth?

 

Mohammed, you must have the Dabs syndrome. You seem to be gauging your behavior by criminal behavior. You want meth addicts leading the way for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LenP said:

 

Macho nonsense.

I disagree, Len. In fact, I'm calling you on it, he's role model material IMO. True macho is when one is bigger than violence.

The National Organization for Women has taken a gun stance. Their plea isn't for gun regulation, directly. What they want is the definition of U.S. masculinity to be re-examined. They would roll with Rollins, random and me. They'd quiz you about your hollow point preferences, and the extreme Pennsylvania statutes you support.

Quote

Gender Roles Must be Part of Dialogue on Gun Violence    

Posted December 18th, 2012 (SIx days after Sandy Hook)

But the aspect of this crisis that deserves more time and thought is our society’s continued attachment to rigid gender roles. The killings listed above involve people of various races and income levels, but the one thing they all share is a male perpetrator.

You may have seen it by now, but zooming around on the internet is an advertisement from Bushmaster Firearms, the maker of the rifle Lanza used to kill 20 schoolchildren. The ad shows a picture of a rifle with the words “Consider your man card reissued.”

That’s not a feminist claiming men are more violent than women — that’s the maker of an assault weapon telling men they aren’t really masculine until they’ve got a deadly gun in their hands. No, Bushmaster didn’t make up sexist stereotypes, but they are cynically exploiting and perpetuating centuries of sexist bullsh*t.

 

N.O.W., STOP GUN VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

WHEREAS, research by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) indicates that 700 women are murdered with a gun each year; 81% of them were dating or married to the attacker, and another 10% knew the attacker; and

WHEREAS, it costs $67 billion per year to provide for women and children who are victims of domestic violence; and

WHEREAS, the American Journal of Public Health found that  femicides, or intimate partner homicides, occur at an alarming rate of five times more often when there is access to a firearm; this puts the United States death rate at 19 times higher than that of any other industrialized nation in firearm homicides; and...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

What else needs to be said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

What else needs to be said?

If you wait a bit longer, Jeff will be along to tell you that there are black people in the USA.  It's different apparently, supposedly the difference has nothing to do with Laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, random said:

If you wait a bit longer, Jeff will be along to tell you that there are black people in the USA.  It's different apparently, supposedly the difference has nothing to do with Laws.

I don't really care to wait. As you know, stats don't lie. A gun related death is a death that wouldn't have happened without that gun. More guns equals more dead people. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deceiving themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice! said:

More guns equals more dead people. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deceiving themselves.

If you keep repeating a lie you can deceive yourself and others it's true.

Gun licenses and registered firearms in Australia have nearly double since 1996 while the population has increased from 18 million to 24 million people a huge per capita increase in guns. Gun crime and deaths have simultaneously decreased while gun numbers have increased, an inconvenient truth.

Quote

Table 2.24: Records and searches on the National Firearms Licensing and Registration System

Total number of firearms , 5,798,980 Total number of licences 1,973,522

Page 63-https://www.acic.gov.au/sites/g/files/net1491/f/2016/10/crimtrac_ar_2015-16_final_071016.pdf
 

 

What caused the pre existing decline in all firearm deaths before our gun laws from 1980-1995 when semi auto rifles with sound moderators and pump action shotguns were allowed for self defence? Why do people ignore the pre existing downward trend with all firearm deaths before our gun laws does it go against the narrative they are trying to construct?

Quote
FIREARM DEATHS BY TYPE OF DEATH
ecblank.gif
Number of deaths
Number of deaths
Number of deaths
Number of deaths
Standardised death rate (a)
Standardised death rate (a)
Standardised death rate (a)
Standardised death rate (a)
Year
Accidents
Suicides
Homicides
Total(b)
Accidents
Suicide
Homicide
Total(b)
1980
62
516
109
700
0.4
3.7
0.8
4.9
1981
36
495
87
632
0.2
3.5
0.6
4.4
1982
48
541
100
701
0.3
3.7
0.7
4.7
1983
40
512
92
654
0.3
3.4
0.6
4.3
1984
32
523
120
687
0.2
3.4
0.8
4.5
1985
35
550
97
710
0.2
3.5
0.6
4.5
1986
28
548
101
696
0.2
3.5
0.6
4.4
1987
27
571
96
711
0.2
3.5
0.6
4.4
1988
30
521
123
695
0.2
3.2
0.7
4.2
1989
19
450
80
569
0.1
2.7
0.5
3.4
1990
30
486
79
614
0.2
2.9
0.5
3.6
1991
29
505
84
629
0.2
2.9
0.5
3.6
1992
24
488
96
622
0.1
2.8
0.5
3.6
1993
18
431
64
522
0.1
2.4
0.4
2.9
1994
20
420
76
529
0.1
2.3
0.4
3.0
1995
15
388
67
479
0.2
2.1
0.3
2.6

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nice! said:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

What else needs to be said?

The Czech Republic has a similar gun death rate to Australia with similar rights to own guns as the USA, the gun grabbers will never cite Czech gun laws it goes against the narrative they're trying to construct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Nice! said:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

What else needs to be said?

Don't live in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, ...?   It's where all the weak, violent, stupid people DumbDumb and JokeOff continuously post about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I disagree, Len. In fact, I'm calling you on it, he's role model material IMO. True macho is when one is bigger than violence.

The National Organization for Women has taken a gun stance. Their plea isn't for gun regulation, directly. What they want is the definition of U.S. masculinity to be re-examined. They would roll with Rollins, random and me. They'd quiz you about your hollow point preferences, and the extreme Pennsylvania statutes you support.

 

I bet your wife would prefer you were weak and use violence to stop here rape than be macho and allow it to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pusstrailia at its best.  Fill yer boots, girls.  Different culture, different laws, different history.

Meh.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Pusstrailia at its best.  Fill yer boots, girls.  Different culture, different laws, different history.

Meh.  

What they do better than the US is keep weed out criminals before they can become murderers.  If the US did that in major urban areas the country would have similar murder rate stats of where I live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Nice! said:

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

What else needs to be said?

If only these stats were for the wealthy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rockdog said:

I bet your wife would prefer you were weak and use violence to stop here rape than be macho and allow it to happen.

People get permaflicked for race baiting or posting an image, while you and others post this shit.  I'm pretty tolerant but I object to this, don't like it at all.

The next time I see you or anyone else use this approach I'm reporting it with links to all the other times I've seen it, including a compelling paragraph on why the poster needs to go.

You choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, random said:

People get permaflicked for race baiting or posting an image, while you and others post this shit.  I'm pretty tolerant but I object to this, don't like it at all.

The next time I see you or anyone else use this approach I'm reporting it with links to all the other times I've seen it, including a compelling paragraph on why the poster needs to go.

You choose.

I don't care what you do.  Go ahead and 'report' me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

People get permaflicked for race baiting or posting an image, while you and others post this shit.  I'm pretty tolerant but I object to this, don't like it at all.

The next time I see you or anyone else use this approach I'm reporting it with links to all the other times I've seen it, including a compelling paragraph on why the poster needs to go.

You choose.

I don't get it.  What's flickable about that post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2017 at 8:58 PM, random said:

1ec69ea80b7beaf38ec6dcf999ce3fcb--fabulo

Those who beat thier swords into plowshares will plow for those who dont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

People get permaflicked for race baiting or posting an image, while you and others post this shit.  I'm pretty tolerant but I object to this, don't like it at all.

The next time I see you or anyone else use this approach I'm reporting it with links to all the other times I've seen it, including a compelling paragraph on why the poster needs to go.

You choose.

What do you see here that could be resolved with superior firepower

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, frenchie said:

I don't get it.  What's flickable about that post?

IMO there's quite a bit you don't get, frenchie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Huh??

They weed out criminals better than we do.  If you do that the number of guns around is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, frenchie said:

I don't get it.  What's flickable about that post?

Nothing.   DumbDumb obviously complained about someone who was flicked and now thinks he's Superior.   That or he's trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on that.

I myself identify as a militant black lesbian trans of  north korean decent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, By the lee said:

God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal.

Just sayin'.......

Samuel Colt improved the chances of the weak and the gutless. Equality has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Samuel Colt improved the chances of the weak and the gutless. Equality has nothing to do with it.

You must have a real bad inferiority complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, ease the sheet said:

Samuel Colt improved the chances of the weak and the gutless. Equality has nothing to do with it.

Increasing the chances of one side simultaneously decreases the chances of the other resulting in equalization of chances.

technology has that effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, By the lee said:

You must have a real bad inferiority complex.

It's not bad enough that I need to hide behind a gun

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Rockdog said:

Increasing the chances of one side simultaneously decreases the chances of the other resulting in equalization of chances.

technology has that effect.

So an American soldier with a rifle is no better than an Afghani with rifle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rockdog said:

Nothing.   DumbDumb obviously complained about someone who was flicked and now thinks he's Superior.   That or he's trolling.

I have not complained about a single post from a single poster for years.  I'm not trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8 September 2017 at 4:34 PM, Moderate said:

How does it feel to watch your countrymen bend over and spread their cheeks

How does it feel to have your national identity and manhood determined by ownership of an object? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2017 at 6:32 AM, random said:

Australians surrender 26,000 firearms as part of the national gun amnesty

September 8, 2017 2:57pm

“There’s guns that’ve been handed in that would’ve been used during World War II, guns from the 1850s,” Justice Minister Michael Keenan said.

“Among the more unusual firearms handed in under the amnesty have been a Beaumont Adams revolver circa 1856, a WWI era Lee Enfield rifle and two WWII US M1 carbines.”

One farmer told the Herald Sun he handed in some of his family’s rare weaponry because “there are some real bad buggers out there”.

As part of the first amnesty since John Howard’s scheme after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, Australians have handed in approximately 464 firearms a day.

 

Well I hope that the older guns were preserved, rather than just wantonly destroyed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mad said:

Well I hope that the older guns were preserved, rather than just wantonly destroyed. 

nuh.

1473815579425.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, random said:

nuh.

1473815579425.jpg

That photo does say much about what a nanny state we are - why can't they just smash them with a sledge hammer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 7:13 PM, Nice! said:

I don't really care to wait. As you know, stats don't lie. A gun related death is a death that wouldn't have happened without that gun. More guns equals more dead people. Anybody who thinks otherwise is deceiving themselves.

More guns = more dead people? OK I'll give you a chance to convince me. And if you do, I'll give up my guns. Here is your question. A good answer that sways me will be the proof 

how many Australians live forever? If there are less deaths, there has to be a corresponding number of those who never die. In the USA the death rate is 1 per person.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, chinabald said:

More guns = more dead people? OK I'll give you a chance to convince me. And if you do, I'll give up my guns. Here is your question. A good answer that sways me will be the proof 

how many Australians live forever? If there are less deaths, there has to be a corresponding number of those who never die. In the USA the death rate is 1 per person.  

george-marks-puzzled-businessman-scratch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mad said:

Who's Henry Rollins?

Actor, writer, television and radio host, comedian, singer.

Back in the 80's, lead singer for Black Flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LB 15 said:

How does it feel to have your national identity and manhood determined by ownership of an object? 

Only men own guns?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rockdog said:

Only men own guns?   

Good point - I was simply responding to Moderates assertion that handing in a gun is the same as 'spreading your cheeks'. I wouldn't at all be surprised if there were female gun owners who take it up the ass. My apologies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Good point - I was simply responding to Moderates assertion that handing in a gun is the same as 'spreading your cheeks'. I wouldn't at all be surprised if there were female gun owners who take it up the ass. My apologies...

The optics are the gun owners actually WANTED their guns.  If they didn't they would have turned them over to authorities before the call to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Good point - I was simply responding to Moderates assertion that handing in a gun is the same as 'spreading your cheeks'. I wouldn't at all be surprised if there were female gun owners who take it up the ass. My apologies...

If men enjoy shooting sports  to enhance their 'manliness' why do women enjoy them?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rockdog said:

The optics are the gun owners actually WANTED their guns.  If they didn't they would have turned them over to authorities before the call to do so.

Not all gun owners are gun nuts. My father handed his in after Port Arthur, not because he didn't want them, but because he felt it was the right thing to do. And if you think he is a pussy there are quite a few dead north Koreans that might argue otherwise. It is more likely that those who need to hang onto their phallic symbols that might spread their cheeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rockdog said:

If men enjoy shooting sports  to enhance their 'manliness' why do women enjoy them?

 

Why do women enjoy men? Should I draw you a picture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/09/2017 at 4:34 PM, Moderate said:

How does it feel to watch your countrymen bend over and spread their cheeks

Never seen it happen here. Perhaps ask a few Trump not-supporters over on the other continent. Why not drop them a line, see how they handle it. You can swap hints on how to deal with getting reamed on a daily basis, them politically and you on the dating circuit.

 

On 09/09/2017 at 11:10 AM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

The Czech Republic has a similar gun death rate to Australia with similar rights to own guns as the USA, the gun grabbers will never cite Czech gun laws it goes against the narrative they're trying to construct.

Yeah, just like the US won't cite Czech gun laws because there is a licensing and registration requirement that yanks don't want to have anything to do with. A license that can be denied based solely on excessive consumption of alcohol if the police so desire.

Not to mention the US has over 7x the guns per capita as the Czech Republic (as in less guns per person than Australia). You know, something you might consider important if you were trying to refute the statistical correlation between guns and homicide in first world countries. :rolleyes: 

Yet again, MBL proves he doesn't know jack shit about what he's whining on about. I'd be amazed at the sheer level of stubborn stupidity from the guy... but he did mention living in Queensland at one point and those guys are a special case all to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Not all gun owners are gun nuts. My father handed his in after Port Arthur, not because he didn't want them, but because he felt it was the right thing to do. And if you think he is a pussy there are quite a few dead north Koreans that might argue otherwise. It is more likely that those who need to hang onto their phallic symbols that might spread their cheeks.

What's that have to do with the recent 26k  turned in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LB 15 said:

Not all gun owners are gun nuts. My father handed his in after Port Arthur, not because he didn't want them, but because he felt it was the right thing to do. 

And see...... this is what confuses me about the whole gun confiscation mandatory turn in scheme.  Had your father been having feelings about killing other fellow Aussies with his gun?  Was he going to shoot your or your mother in the next few months or so after Port Arthur?  Did he have mass murder tendencies in his heart?  Was he undergoing psychiatric care?  

If you answer no to all of those questions above - then how was his turning his gun in "the right thing to do"?  How did him not having a gun anymore - assuming he had never previously used it for evil purposes or was likely to ever do so - help society?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Not to mention the US has over 7x the guns per capita as the Czech Republic (as in less guns per person than Australia). You know, something you might consider important if you were trying to refute the statistical correlation between guns and homicide in first world countries. :rolleyes: 

And this is another common argument that never makes sense.  How does Gunz per capita have anything to do with crime or violence rates?  Many many US gun owners own multiple gunz.  If I own 50 gunz, am I 50x more likely to commit murder with them?  How many can I shoot at once in a crime spree?  Even if I were a Bad Mutherfucker and could shoot two Glocks sideways at once - my other 48 gunz would be lonely and still sitting in my safe at home while I'm in a running street battle.

pulp-fiction-bad-mother-fucker-walletwmk

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And this is another common argument that never makes sense.  How does Gunz per capita have anything to do with crime or violence rates?

The higher the number of guns, in general, the more accessible they are to those that will use them to injure/kill. The more accessible a tool, the more likely it's use in tasks they are suited for. When the tool is a lethal weapon, the tasks it is suited for are more likely to cause a lethal result. 

 

1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

If I own 50 gunz, am I 50x more likely to commit murder with them?

No, but 7x more guns per capita doesn't mean the same number of collectors possessing 7x more firearms. Guns per capita is a rough measure of the number of people that own guns within a given population. The Czech Republic also has gun collectors with a higher concentration of guns owned by them and them alone. Try another line, cos that one is trivial bullshit. Easier to refute than MBL's attempt (and that's saying something).

It's quite indicative that the same logical fallacies are dug up time & time again by pro-gun folks. Though, I guess with Tom being somewhat busy, you're pulling double-shifts for the team :lol: 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And see...... this is what confuses me about the whole gun confiscation mandatory turn in scheme.  Had your father been having feelings about killing other fellow Aussies with his gun?  Was he going to shoot your or your mother in the next few months or so after Port Arthur?  Did he have mass murder tendencies in his heart?  Was he undergoing psychiatric care?  

If you answer no to all of those questions above - then how was his turning his gun in "the right thing to do"?  How did him not having a gun anymore - assuming he had never previously used it for evil purposes or was likely to ever do so - help society?  

I am sure the old man felt like shooting me when I rolled his Mercedes when I was 19. After Port A the entire nation was in shock and I guess he felt that having guns in a house just wasn't responsible particularly as he didn't use them anymore and they certainly weren't needed for self defence. Having served in Korea he had/has no romantic visions about what guns are for. So yeah not having guns lying around that could be stolen by bad guys was helping society. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:
35 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And this is another common argument that never makes sense.  How does Gunz per capita have anything to do with crime or violence rates?

The higher the number of guns, in general, the more accessible they are to those that will use them to injure/kill. The more accessible a tool, the more likely it's use in tasks they are suited for. When the tool is a lethal weapon, the tasks it is suited for are more likely to cause a lethal result. 

But that's only true if you operate on the assumption that everyone that owns gunz either are more likely those that will injure or Kill others or have their tools accessible to those that are likely to injure or kill (i.e. theft).  

The first one is a huge fucking fallacy because the vast vast majority of American gun owner do not kill or injure other people.  The theft issue is a completely different story and I agree its a problem in some place where thieves can get their hands on gunz and then those gunz find their way into bad people's hands.  However, that is a separate issue.  I am an advocate of storage regulations and holding people accountable for gunz they let get stolen too easily that are not secured or reported stolen.  

If your main argument to remove guns from society is because they might get stolen, then you have a weak ass argument.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

I am sure the old man felt like shooting me when I rolled his Mercedes when I was 19. After Port A the entire nation was in shock and I guess he felt that having guns in a house just wasn't responsible particularly as he didn't use them anymore and they certainly weren't needed for self defence. Having served in Korea he had/has no romantic visions about what guns are for. So yeah not having guns lying around that could be stolen by bad guys was helping society. 

Fair enough.  However, I'm not an advocate for having gunz "lying around".  YMMV.  However his decision and his society.  

Its a shame that an "entire nation in shock" didn't direct their energy and their angst against the likely fact that the shooter was mentally deranged and mental health issues and treatment need to be addressed.  Same for the US.  I am not aware of a single US mass murderer who was also not mentally unhinged to some degree.  But yeah, lets blame the tools and ignore the actual root causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the OP.  Several decades ago, a friend asked me to 'look after my rifle till the next time we go hunting'.  That's what i have been doing but we never went hunting together again, don't know where he is.  But I have been keeping it as he could swing by any day. 

So I will have to hand it in this time.  Sorry mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But that's only true if you operate on the assumption that everyone that owns gunz either are more likely those that will injure or Kill others or have their tools accessible to those that are likely to injure or kill (i.e. theft).

I am not arguing the former. You later agree the latter is a problem.

 

Quote

The first one is a huge fucking fallacy because the vast vast majority of American gun owner do not kill or injure other people.

I agree - it is a fallacy. It's your strawman. Have fun beating the tar out of it.

 

Quote

The theft issue is a completely different story and I agree its a problem in some place where thieves can get their hands on gunz and then those gunz find their way into bad people's hands.  However, that is a separate issue.  I am an advocate of storage regulations and holding people accountable for gunz they let get stolen too easily that are not secured or reported stolen.

It's not a separate issue. It is a factor even you agree is a problem when it comes to guns and their prevalence in the hands of those that will use them. When you get around to addressing the problem and proving that you can keep guns out of the hands of thieves - let us know. We have gone a different route and have a far lower homicide rate. I'm a big fan of proof. I await to see yours.

 

Quote

If your main argument to remove guns from society is because they might get stolen, then you have a weak ass argument.  

It isn't my main argument. You decided to cherry-pick one element of what is meant by "prevalence of guns in a population" and are running with it. Seems to be your main argument, not mine. It is, as you point out, an important element to the problem and when you get around to fixing it - let us know... but it is not the "main argument" by any stretch.

As you've spoken about in the past - deranged killers will often use their own guns or the guns of those their family owns. So regardless of the precautions taken against thieves, people with intent to kill will often find themselves in possession of a firearm. If there are less friends and family to get them from, if there is less capability for a person to walk in off the street to buy one, there is less chance of that firearm being used in a homicide. Logic bears that out. The statistics bear that out.

It's not, and no-one has ever argued it being, a simple one-to-one correlation between one person owning a firearm and one using it in homicide. It is inarguable, however, that firearms homicide needs a firearm. Remove the firearm, remove that avenue for murder (whether premeditated or in the heat of the moment). When a more effective means at preventing homicide comes along that leaves us with as many or more freedoms as we have now - you get back to us with the evidence it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Siri. If we need to know anymore we will hold the button down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno Jeff, if you scroll through the list of Youtube videos about Hurricane IRMA and read of all the god botherers wailing about how this is the culmination of all humanity not repenting and God's wrath is descendiing on us all,  I'd argue a few million shouldn't be near a sharp knife let  alone a decent rifle or handgun.

The comments are enlightening, some are more scary than the videos.

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, shaggybaxter said:

I dunno Jeff, if you scroll through the list of Youtube videos about Hurricane IRMA and read of all the god botherers wailing about how this is the culmination of all humanity not repenting and God's wrath is descendiing on us all,  I'd argue a few million shouldn't be near a sharp knife let  alone a decent rifle or handgun.

The comments are enlightening, some are more scary than the videos.

   

 

I don't disagree.  I'm happy to entertain any ideas on how we screen for that type of mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rockdog said:

If men enjoy shooting sports  to enhance their 'manliness' why do women enjoy them?

 

To meet manly men at the gun clubs and ranges of course. There aren't as many at the free range organic food store. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites