• 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  
Followers 0
random

Australians surrender 26,000 firearms

163 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

You could minimize the genepool of guns available to the criminals. You could enforce background checks for private sales, give accountability to the seller. You could support decent interstate gun trafficking laws. You could increase federal funding for the study of socio pathologicalogical violence.

I have said many times in the past that I could support a nationwide bgc law which mirrored Pennsylvania's. I don't know that it will have any substantial impact on crime as previous studies have shown that criminals are mostly getting guns from folks who know they are giving/selling a gun to a criminal and do it anyway, they don't care about the law. I welcome more research on mental illness and sociopathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could totally cause a disturbance in the force by requiring proof of citizenship to enter the parking lot of any gun show.  That would cut down on 'accidental straw men' and force some level of proof of ID, even if it's not logged anywhere.

FWIW, I'd also like to see anyone who buys a handgun sign an document that says "I understand that depression can be caused by a chemical imbalance.  I certify that I am not currently depressed or suicidal".  You'd be amazed at how just asking people such a question will lead to intervention for those who are in a bad way.  

 

Share this post


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

Absolute HORSESHIT!  The mass shootings that garner the headlines and drive gun grabber policy have almost ALL been due to known mentally ill shitbags.  

  • Newtown
  • Aurora
  • Tuscon (gabby Giffords)
  • Maryland Navy yard
  • Orlando
  • Port Arthur
  • Va Tech
  • Charleston Church

Yeah there have been some hate and or political mass shootings.  But they have been exceedingly rare.  

And I'm not blaming ALL mentally ill for the actions of a few.  I'm saying we should address mental illness better as a root cause of a lot of this issue rather than tools.

But you sure as fuck are blaming ALL gunowners for the actions of a few.  Hypocrite much?

 

 

Is that list supposed to be examples that were caused by mental illness as opposed to politics? 

'Cause 2 of your examples, were motivated by politics as well as mental illness.

 

Share this post


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

It doesn't matter if there are stupid gun deaths, or not? It doesn't matter that gun rights are based on falsehoods?

I'm not jumping at your dog whistles. My previous post was aimed at the falsehood that there can ever be more or less deaths. Everyone dies, its one per person. That rate has been consistent forever. Find me a primitive society that has no guns and whose people live forever and I might change my mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

We could totally cause a disturbance in the force by requiring proof of citizenship to enter the parking lot of any gun show.  That would cut down on 'accidental straw men' and force some level of proof of ID, even if it's not logged anywhere.

FWIW, I'd also like to see anyone who buys a handgun sign an document that says "I understand that depression can be caused by a chemical imbalance.  I certify that I am not currently depressed or suicidal".  You'd be amazed at how just asking people such a question will lead to intervention for those who are in a bad way.  

 

If they were free, would be fine with requiring a NICS check or proof of a license to carry firearms to enter a gun show. I am also good with your proposal on the document for handgun purchases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

 

Illegal variants of legal guns.  For example, ghost guns:

 

 

So counterfeit Colt 1911s? 

Share this post


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

If they were free, would be fine with requiring a NICS check or proof of a license to carry firearms to enter a gun show. I am also good with your proposal on the document for handgun purchases.

Enter the parking lot :)

The 'accidental straw man' purchases happen there.  The basic gist is that people who want to purchase illegal guns wait the parking lots for people to come out to their car after shopping inside.  They then approach with a story about how much they 'really want that kinda gun' and offer a 50% increase on the price you probably just paid.  The guy who just bought the gun sees an opportunity for a quick $300 bucks and hands the gun over, knowing he can turn around and go buy another and now have beer money.

Once you get in the car and drive away, that doesn't happen anymore.  Then you're left with purchases at gun clubs and shooting ranges and such but those tend to have cameras.  It's just a way to keep lawful people lawful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎09‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 6:04 PM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

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

I don't have to repeat a lie. I just repeat factual statistics. They tell the story.

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
On ‎09‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 6:04 PM, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

 

Share this post


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

So counterfeit Colt 1911s? 

Yes, counterfeit guns are included.

Share this post


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

I'm not jumping at your dog whistles. My previous post was aimed at the falsehood that there can ever be more or less deaths. Everyone dies, its one per person. That rate has been consistent forever. Find me a primitive society that has no guns and whose people live forever and I might change my mind. 

It's just a conversation. Nobody but you is discussing living forever, anywhere. But some deaths make less sense than others. Some can be prevented. Gun deaths aren't particularly worth encouraging, especially if falsehoods are needed to justify or employ them. My .02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

Enter the parking lot :)

The 'accidental straw man' purchases happen there.  The basic gist is that people who want to purchase illegal guns wait the parking lots for people to come out to their car after shopping inside.  They then approach with a story about how much they 'really want that kinda gun' and offer a 50% increase on the price you probably just paid.  The guy who just bought the gun sees an opportunity for a quick $300 bucks and hands the gun over, knowing he can turn around and go buy another and now have beer money.

Once you get in the car and drive away, that doesn't happen anymore.  Then you're left with purchases at gun clubs and shooting ranges and such but those tend to have cameras.  It's just a way to keep lawful people lawful.

 

Yep, I am fine with that. I would even go a step further and be comfortable with the ATF defining a sale like that as being in the business of selling guns, I don't know what time threshold I would be comfortable with, but it is certainly longer than 15 minutes. I think saying if you are flipping guns within the same week, then you are in the business of selling guns and need a license. Maybe even longer than that, however I would need to think about what cutoff makes sense to me.

Share this post


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

Yes, counterfeit guns are included.

Just a small point to note. It is not illegal to create a homemade unserialized gun (ghost gun), it is only illegal to sell it.

Share this post


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

Just a small point to note. It is not illegal to create a homemade unserialized gun (ghost gun), it is only illegal to sell it.

Point taken!  

 

Share this post


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

By the way, the corollary to the " Few of the laws being discussed will have any impact on either situation"  discussion is that HAVING a gun for 'personal protection' doesn't make you any safer or less likely to actually be the victim of a violent crime.  That's also a red herring.  

 

The CDC would disagree with you since they found as part of Obama's study on gun violence after Sandy Hook that using a gun as part of a self-defense strategy resulted in fewer injuries than other methods of self-defense.  

Quote

 

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study, entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” states.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

 

 

Share this post


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

The CDC would disagree with you since they found as part of Obama's study on gun violence after Sandy Hook that using a gun as part of a self-defense strategy resulted in fewer injuries than other methods of self-defense.  

 

I'll take a look at it :)  If you take a look at that first video in the series, it talks a lot about the studies. I appreciate the link!

 

 

Share this post


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

I'll take a look at it :)  If you take a look at that first video in the series, it talks a lot about the studies. I appreciate the link!

 

 

Both could be true if gun owners in general are more likely to find themselves with a need to defend themselves. That could be a correlation, and in some ways it makes sense. I would expect someone who feels like they might be a victim to be more likely to purchase a gun, and if they are then in a self defense scenario the outcome may be better with them having it.

Share this post


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

The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides and the vast majority of homicides are committed by people against people who know each other Few of the laws being discussed will have any impact on either situation

I disagree, and do happen to live in a country where this is shown. The overwhelmingly vast majority of assaults are also committed by people against people they know. It's a simple fact that violence is generally targeted at people one knows - guns make that violence far more lethal. It's basic logic, if you get into a loud drunken argument with your wife over your girlfriend, which weapon in her hand is more likely to have you dying in a pool of your blood - a gun or a knife?

Restricting the prevalence of guns reduces the chance that "person you know and are about to engage in violence with" happens to be armed with something that'll put you down from the other side of the room. That homicides are mostly committed by people that know each other is a red herring - it doesn't change the likelihood a gun will turn a violent assault into a homicide. 

Share this post


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

I'm not jumping at your dog whistles. My previous post was aimed at the falsehood that there can ever be more or less deaths. Everyone dies, its one per person.

That's a dog whistle.

You have deliberately spun that, unsuccessfully I point out.  The rationale with guns is people checking out early, you know that of course but it doesn't suit your personal views to admit it.

I have no idea how you maintain that stance while toddlers are blowing their brains out on a regular basis.  But I'm speculating that you will come back with "but a toddler can only blow their brains out once, they were going to die anyway!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

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. 

 

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: 


 

 

If that is true 7X. Is waaaay low.

Share this post


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

 

The guns can be sold and registered or sent for destruction.

 

Of course the gun grabbers will say every gun was surrendered for destruction they will leave out the fact many of them could have been sold and registered.

Only 3579 were surrendered to Police and all the others were surrendered to firearm dealers to be sold and registered.

That is the same reason that cops always have the best pot.

Share this post


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

That's a dog whistle.

You have deliberately spun that, unsuccessfully I point out.  The rationale with guns is people checking out early, you know that of course but it doesn't suit your personal views to admit it.

I have no idea how you maintain that stance while toddlers are blowing their brains out on a regular basis.  But I'm speculating that you will come back with "but a toddler can only blow their brains out once, they were going to die anyway!"

Leading cause of death among toddlers is drowning. Obviously we need to outlaw boats, pools and have tougher regulations on bathtubs. I mean if you want to impact death rates you should start at the top. 

Share this post


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

If that is true 7X. Is waaaay low.

Yes. Cos having over four times more of something negative (i.e. homicide) is generally considered "way low". Pretty damned sure if you told most people they are four times as likely to get cancer if they drink one beer over another, they're going to avoid the "Tumour Ale".

Share this post


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

Leading cause of death among toddlers is drowning. Obviously we need to outlaw boats, pools and have tougher regulations on bathtubs. I mean if you want to impact death rates you should start at the top. 

Why bother, didn't you say they are all going to die anyway?

Share this post


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

Yes. Cos having over four times more of something negative (i.e. homicide) is generally considered "way low". Pretty damned sure if you told most people they are four times as likely to get cancer if they drink one beer over another, they're going to avoid the "Tumour Ale".

Yes well that theroy goes well with cigarette smokers doesn't it. Why are you so concerned about what happens in 'Mericia?

Share this post


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

Why bother, didn't you say they are all going to die anyway?

Why bother arguing against gun ownership when you own several yourself. -Wait, i forgot. You are a hypocrite. 

Share this post


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

I don't have to repeat a lie. I just repeat factual statistics. They tell the story.

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

What else needs to be said?

We have a higher percentage of lefty snowflakes in Aus than the US yet the ALP still can't form a federal government. Go figure.

Share this post


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

I'll take a look at it :)  If you take a look at that first video in the series, it talks a lot about the studies. I appreciate the link!

The link is poor info. Disinformation. It butchers that report, cherry-picks it, then avoids the report's tone and conclusions.  The report contains disclaimers to offset the influence of Gary Kleck. (Long, colorful story.)

Firearms are not represented as an "important crime deterrent" in most current gun rights cases. They have no research to make such claims. Rather, "right to carry" crime increases are documented in today's important Wrenn decision, quoting Donohue and Fleegler studies.

Here's the full and honest account, which Jeffie Poo clipped...

Quote

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=15

 

 

Share this post


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

Why bother, didn't you say they are all going to die anyway?

Hey. If you're looking for intellectual honesty then you need to question why you and others aren't more worked up about the number of early deaths due to all causes. Start with what causes the most and work your way down the list. The guns will still be there for you to demonize once you solve drownings and car accidents, slip and falls... 

Share this post


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

If you're looking for intellectual honesty then

Well yeah I am.  But you are the one who said they were all going to die anyway.  Faaarkin hell.

Share this post


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

I don't have to repeat a lie. I just repeat factual statistics. They tell the story.

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

What else needs to be said?

 

Australia has always had much lower gun deaths compared to the USA, in 1995 before our gun laws when semi auto rifles with sound moderators were allowed for self defence we had 67 firearm homicides- http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbytitle/9C85BD1298C075EACA2568A900139342?OpenDocument

 

The bedwetting hoplophobes are easy to spot they cherry pick gun stats and never give a fuck about anyone killed without a firearm, they say guns are meant for killing and knives are not yet knives have always killed far more people compared to guns in Australia.  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

One lady stabbed 8 to death in Australia , for mass murder 600-900 Jews had their heads chopped off in one day by muslims so it's absurd to claim knives were never meant for killing.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

 

Of course the bedwetters include suicide figures in gun deaths to make the numbers look bigger, they think killing yourself instantly with a gun  is really bad it's much better to find a rope and tie it somewhere high then around your neck and strangle yourself in a much slower death. It takes much longer to prepare to hang yourself they obviously prefer to extend the suffering of these people. The bedwetters never mention how hanging has become our most common method of suicide they are OK with that, many of them probably believe in voluntary euthanasia , as long as you don't use a gun.

Quote

In 2013, the most frequent method of suicide was hanging, strangulation and suffocation (X70), a method used in more than half (55.2%) of all suicide deaths.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by Subject/3303.0~2013~Main Features~Method of Suicide~10011

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Moh ... that's a lot of words (didn't count or read them) to fail in an attempt to discount ...

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

giphy.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well another valuable gun thread. I am sure as a direct result of this the USA will now outlaw the ownership of all guns and every Australian will rush out and buy one.

 Who says arguing with people on the internet is a waste of time? 

Share this post


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

Hey Moh ... that's a lot of words (didn't count or read them) to fail in an attempt to discount ...

Gun related deaths per 100,000 per year:

   Australia: 0.93

   USA: 10.54

giphy.gif

 

Why do you keep posting the queer guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chinabald said:

Hey. If you're looking for intellectual honesty then you need to question why you and others aren't more worked up about the number of early deaths due to all causes.

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you would know we are. Which is why we do not let people drive cars without a license, which you cannot get without repeated testing and long probationary periods in which you are more limited in your driving speed, alcohol limits, etc than other fully licensed drivers. 

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you would acknowledge the difference between accidental deaths and wilful homicide. You will acknowledge that having a wilful homicide rate 4x less than the USA is a good thing. You will acknowledge that vehicular homicide did not, and still does not, make up anywhere near the proportion of murders as firearms homicide did (& does).

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you'd acknowledge the fact that removing guns from 90% of the population will have a near zero impact on the rest of society outside being less likely to be shot. Removing cars in the same manner would devastate the economy driving the country into a recession/depression that would adversely affect everyone.

Then again - you're not looking for intellectual honesty. You're looking for a way to justify your personal desire to keep guns over the societal benefit of reducing their prevalence. 

Share this post


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

Australia has always had much lower gun deaths compared to the USA, in 1995 before our gun laws when semi auto rifles with sound moderators were allowed for self defence...

...we still had licensing and registration requirements that the USA will not countenance. No matter how much you focus solely on the 1996 changes, we've always been more strict than the USA and, as such, we've always had better homicide figures. Try another red herring.

Share this post


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

Why do you keep posting the queer guy?

Tell us all about your problem with "queer guy"s.  This should be good.

tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif

Share this post


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

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you would know we are. Which is why we do not let people drive cars without a license, which you cannot get without repeated testing and long probationary periods in which you are more limited in your driving speed, alcohol limits, etc than other fully licensed drivers. 

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you would acknowledge the difference between accidental deaths and wilful homicide. You will acknowledge that having a wilful homicide rate 4x less than the USA is a good thing. You will acknowledge that vehicular homicide did not, and still does not, make up anywhere near the proportion of murders as firearms homicide did (& does).

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you'd acknowledge the fact that removing guns from 90% of the population will have a near zero impact on the rest of society outside being less likely to be shot. Removing cars in the same manner would devastate the economy driving the country into a recession/depression that would adversely affect everyone.

Then again - you're not looking for intellectual honesty. You're looking for a way to justify your personal desire to keep guns over the societal benefit of reducing their prevalence. 

I think removing cars from 90% of the population, particularly NY and NJ, would result in a dramatic increase in quality of life and help reduce climate change in a meaningful way. When people really need to get somewhere they could uber or use one of the car sharing services. Deaths from car accidents would drop to almost nothing compared to where they are now, the environment would be better, people might actually get to know their neighbors so another big benefit for society and communities. Why wouldn't we do it? Because people insist on having office workers travel to another building to sit at a desk and type on a keyboard rather than do it remotely? Because people can't stand the idea of shopping on the Internet? I really don't think that it is a bad idea at all, and there is not a real good reason not to do it. Maybe I could get some peace from all the tourists and they would stop cutting down trees to make space for said tourists. Whatever the economy lost would be gained back someplace else, weak excuse.

Share this post


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

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you would know we are. Which is why we do not let people drive cars without a license, which you cannot get without repeated testing and long probationary periods in which you are more limited in your driving speed, alcohol limits, etc than other fully licensed drivers. 

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you would acknowledge the difference between accidental deaths and wilful homicide. You will acknowledge that having a wilful homicide rate 4x less than the USA is a good thing. You will acknowledge that vehicular homicide did not, and still does not, make up anywhere near the proportion of murders as firearms homicide did (& does).

If you're looking for intellectual honesty, you'd acknowledge the fact that removing guns from 90% of the population will have a near zero impact on the rest of society outside being less likely to be shot. Removing cars in the same manner would devastate the economy driving the country into a recession/depression that would adversely affect everyone.

Then again - you're not looking for intellectual honesty. You're looking for a way to justify your personal desire to keep guns over the societal benefit of reducing their prevalence. 

If you are looking for intellectual honesty on a unmoderated political forum then you are a moron.

Share this post


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

Try another red herring.

And the oysters. And don't forget to tip your waitress.

Share this post


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

Tell us all about your problem with "queer guy"s.  This should be good.

tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif

I'm still waiting.  Rockdog should be along shortly.

Share this post


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

Whatever the economy lost would be gained back someplace else, weak excuse.

Speaking of weak excuses, that post was a doozy. The issue was the effect on the economy and you focused what you think would happen on non-economic issues. You think quality of life would go up... despite people being unable to get to the goods and services that make up said quality of life. You think all the sailors are living within walking distance of their boat? The elderly are capable of making it to the doctors, the local bowling club, etc from wherever their house happens to be?

The last century of infrastructure planning in our nations has been built around the concept of common, easy transport. Suburbs exist that cannot survive without it. It might not be something you would have done if you'd had a choice, but it IS the way things are. Gold rush ghost towns would have nothing on the upheaval necessary if you take away nine out of every ten cars on the road and tell people they need to seek local employment instead.

Share this post


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

Speaking of weak excuses, that post was a doozy. The issue was the effect on the economy and you focused what you think would happen on non-economic issues. You think quality of life would go up... despite people being unable to get to the goods and services that make up said quality of life. You think all the sailors are living within walking distance of their boat? The elderly are capable of making it to the doctors, the local bowling club, etc from wherever their house happens to be?

The last century of infrastructure planning in our nations has been built around the concept of common, easy transport. Suburbs exist that cannot survive without it. It might not be something you would have done if you'd had a choice, but it IS the way things are. Gold rush ghost towns would have nothing on the upheaval necessary if you take away nine out of every ten cars on the road and tell people they need to seek local employment instead.

Suburbs suck, and saying we should keep doing it because it is the way things are is weak. Just because it is that way now does not mean it's the way things should be. I would be very happy if cars largely went away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2017 at 2:24 AM, frenchie said:

Yeah there have been some hate and or political mass shootings.  But they have been exceedingly rare.

So you are telling us that hate and political mass shootings are done by sane people?

Share this post


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

Suburbs suck, and saying we should keep doing it because it is the way things are is weak. Just because it is that way now does not mean it's the way things should be. I would be very happy if cars largely went away.

That's all well and good... but it is completely irrelevant as to what I was saying. You're arguing that you think the world is a better place without cars. I'm pointing out the economic impact that will have because we've built a century of infrastructure around the concept people can use them.

You may be right - the world might be a better place overall when we tell 90% of the population they cannot own a car and should move their families to live within walking distance of their job. However, that's irrelevant to why cars are not targeted in the same way as firearms when it comes to reducing homicide and accidental death. You cannot remove 90% of cars from the system without immense detrimental effects on the economy. You can remove 90% of guns from the populace without the economy falling into ruin.

Share this post


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

Tell us all about your problem with "queer guy"s.  This should be good.

tumblr_ljh0puClWT1qfkt17.gif

I didn't post I had a problem with "queer guys".   

Share this post


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

I didn't post I had a problem with "queer guys".   

But you asked me

8 hours ago, Rockdog said:

Why do you keep posting the queer guy?

So why did you ask?

2d3e70191a5e43a4aae8464eea24fb7e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

That's all well and good... but it is completely irrelevant as to what I was saying. You're arguing that you think the world is a better place without cars. I'm pointing out the economic impact that will have because we've built a century of infrastructure around the concept people can use them.

You may be right - the world might be a better place overall when we tell 90% of the population they cannot own a car and should move their families to live within walking distance of their job. However, that's irrelevant to why cars are not targeted in the same way as firearms when it comes to reducing homicide and accidental death. You cannot remove 90% of cars from the system without immense detrimental effects on the economy. You can remove 90% of guns from the populace without the economy falling into ruin.

Salient. Thanks for getting back to the point.

Frenchie and others make the argument that the means of death is immaterial (that one would be just as dead in a non-firearm homicide). You may be able to add a comment better than Siri, Bent. Care to take a shot at that one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll be picking my own causes, chinabald. Horses for courses.

On 9/12/2017 at 3:55 AM, chinabald said:

Hey. If you're looking for intellectual honesty then you need to question why you and others aren't more worked up about the number of early deaths due to all causes. Start with what causes the most and work your way down the list.

Here's similar logic: burglaries are more common than murders, therefore all homicide cops should resign to fight burglary. 

Quote

The guns will still be there for you to demonize once you solve drownings and car accidents, slip and falls...

Guns and gun extremists have demonized themselves.

False equivalence, big time. Any benefit of gun possession is more arbitrary, and harder to justify, than the possession of a car or a sidewalk or a pool .  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

I think I'll be picking my own causes, chinabald. Horses for courses.

Here's similar logic: burglaries are more common than murders, therefore all homicide cops should resign to fight burglary. 

Guns and gun extremists have demonized themselves.

False equivalence, big time. Any benefit of gun possession is more arbitrary, and harder to justify, than the possession of a car or a sidewalk or a pool .  

Whats the societal benefit of owning a pool? I can provide dinner for my family with a shotgun, a pool is simply a drain on resources that sits in your backyard and silently  waits for its next victim. Does the constitution mention my rights to have a pool, a car or a sidewalk? 

Share this post


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

Whats the societal benefit of owning a pool? I can provide dinner for my family with a shotgun, a pool is simply a drain on resources that sits in your backyard and silently  waits for its next victim. Does the constitution mention my rights to have a pool, a car or a sidewalk? 

You need this to be about swimming pools. You have put yourself on the level of Boothy.

"The constitution" was framed to be about a citizen militia, in a day which dis-allowed a standing army. Your Heller scholarship is your flagship, and it's a joke. A joke limited to indoors by English tradition. JOYCE MALCOLM's HELLER DETAILS HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED BY REAL HISTORIANS:

Quote

'Arms for Their Defence?':

An Historical, Legal, and Textual Analysis of the English Right to Have Arms

Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, 2009

Footnote 698 The Supreme Court did not report one instance of the use of “keep arms” in a colonial law. The phrase can be found in many different forms in militia laws.

The use of the phrase “bear arms” was only distinctly used in militia laws. There is not one instance of “bear arms” appearing in any self-defense, gun, hunting, or slave law. It is true that the Pennsylvania minority had proposed a “bear arms” provision that includes hunting, but this amendment never reached the floor of Congress or the Constitution’s drafting committee. There is also no proof that it even reached the floor of the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention. Moreover, the Supreme Court and Individual Right Theorists only selectively incorporate the language of that proposal. See CHARLES, SECOND AMENDMENT, supra note 14, at 17-27, 39-40.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You need this to be about swimming pools. You have put yourself on the level of Boothy.

"The constitution" was framed to be about a citizen militia, in a day which dis-allowed a standing army. Your Heller scholarship is your flagship, and it's a joke. A joke limited to indoors by English tradition. JOYCE MALCOLM's HELLER DETAILS HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED BY REAL HISTORIANS:

 

1 you mentioned pools so I used that as my example

2 People had the right to own and bear arms long before Heller. In fact it was true for well over 200 years that US citizens owned guns. You seem to pretend like it all began with Heller, when in fact the Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd amendment for a long time prior to that particular ruling. 

Share this post


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

1 you mentioned pools so I used that as my example

2 People had the right to own and bear arms long before Heller. In fact it was true for well over 200 years that US citizens owned guns. You seem to pretend like it all began with Heller, when in fact the Supreme Court has upheld the 2nd amendment for a long time prior to that particular ruling. 

You brought pools in CB. Then you brought trite conversation back to them.

I studied the authors on both sides of the history debate, chinabald.  One side is incomplete. The gun right came with rich history, but NOT, repeat not, as some individual right. The British were consistently developing a culture free of arms in public. They never departed from this in their 1689 Declaration of Rights. The Brits never legislated against arms confiscation at that time, they employed it. And they never approved Protestant arms vs, Catholic arms, the issue of the day. They formatted their natural rights into a legal right to herald and oppose the sovereign by assembly: the philosophical principle that Parliament may overthrow a tyrannical government.

THere were steps, for stated cause, each by petition in assembly...and then if necessary by armed action. Those arms were not to be infringed upon. This legal muscle was dubbed Blackstone's Five Auxiliary Rights. Our Declaration was a Number Four (grievance after failed petition).

The constitution's Second Amendment wasn't about armed confrontation between citizens. The courts of that day enforced the provisions to not bear arms in markets, taverns, and townships.

The confiscation of personal arms as a rights violation was not mentioned in the Declaration, in the newspapers, in the pamphlets, or in letters. There was not such right in play based on English tradition, culture and law. In fact, only rich protestants were granted the right to arms in England. Malcolm is way off CB.

If the founding fathers changed this, present their discussions.

Quote

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.—English Declaration of Rights of 1689

 http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=clevstlrev

 

Share this post


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

But you asked me

So why did you ask?

2d3e70191a5e43a4aae8464eea24fb7e

I wondered why you posted, multiple times, a guy with an apparent gag reflex problem.

Share this post


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

I think I'll be picking my own causes, chinabald. Horses for courses.

Here's similar logic: burglaries are more common than murders, therefore all homicide cops should resign to fight burglary. 

Guns and gun extremists have demonized themselves.

False equivalence, big time. Any benefit of gun possession is more arbitrary, and harder to justify, than the possession of a car or a sidewalk or a pool .  

Bad example.  My dad had multiple guns because he was an avid hunter (his only use for them).  What ebony the corvette that's sits in storage and virtually never driven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 5:29 AM, 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.

   

 

And yet, that storm hit an entire state where it's fairly easy to get a gun and, if desired, a concealed weapons permit.

And lots of us do one or both of those things. We have no registration here.

There should be some evidence that having all those people near guns after a storm created huge problems, right? I haven't seen it and I live here. Maybe you've heard about it and can educate me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Border farmer has guns taken after confronting man armed with a knife at his home          

r0_0_4896_3264_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

A FATHER who armed himself with an unloaded rifle during a home invasion has been left wondering what he could have done differently, after having his guns seized.

Police took David Dunstan’s three firearms from his farming property at Bungowannah on Thursday afternoon.

 

A man armed with a knife and piece of wood had knocked on his back door about 3.30am.

Mr Dunstan, who has a gun licence, went to his nearby gun safe and grabbed a .22 rifle after finding the man outside his home.

He said he didn’t point the weapon at the offender, and essentially used the gun as a “prop”.

The father of three forced the man into his vehicle and drove him towards the Albury police station, and was met by officers nearby.

Police seized his guns, which he uses for pest control at his property, later that day.

“I just don’t know what I should have done, what would have been the right way to do it,” Mr Dunstan said.

“My gun licence is for vermin control. 

“I suppose, technically, trying to protect yourself is not classed as that.

“I’ve always done the right thing, but I feel like I’ve done the wrong thing.”

It followed an incident at a property in Splitters Creek three hours earlier where the man allegedly smashed his way into a home and tried to enter a child’s bedroom.

That owner had armed himself with a hockey stick. 

Mr Dunstan's firearms licence will undergo a review following the incident. 

Police did not want to comment on the development, but had earlier urged people to call Triple-0 during emergencies. 

The alleged offender has been denied bail and will return to court November 6. 

http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/4927063/border-farmer-has-guns-taken-after-confronting-man-armed-with-a-knife-at-his-home/?cs=11#comments

 

Our politicians want criminals to have a safe working environment, the police tell you to comply with intruders in home invasions.

Quote

Detective Inspector Johnstone advised people not to confront intruders, following the unusual incident.

"My advice to people would be to comply with [the intruder], not to confront them, certainly not to engage them in a physical altercation, let them go and let us investigate," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-07/intruder-shot-with-arrow-during-break-in-at-home-in-sydney/8000696

 

Share this post


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

 

Our politicians want criminals to have a safe working environment, the police tell you to comply with intruders in home invasions.

 

A cashier or a bank teller would be given similar instructions. Police don't encourage confrontation with criminals. What's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

A cashier or a bank teller would be given similar instructions. Police don't encourage confrontation with criminals. What's the problem?

The only reason we have as many crims as we do is because its difficult to shoot them.  Too much paperwork.....

Share this post


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

A cashier or a bank teller would be given similar instructions. Police don't encourage confrontation with criminals. What's the problem?

So what you're saying is if a home invader wants to rape your wife or daughter perhaps I should include son with that so people don't think I am homophobic then you should comply rather than fight back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

So what you're saying is if a home invader wants to rape your wife or daughter perhaps I should include son with that so people don't think I am homophobic then you should comply rather than fight back?

I didn't say that. I just quoted police policy, and bank teller policy. Ask your local pizza parlor manager if he hires heroes.

You sound like a drama queen and a crybaby. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2017 at 6:03 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And yet, that storm hit an entire state where it's fairly easy to get a gun and, if desired, a concealed weapons permit.

And lots of us do one or both of those things. We have no registration here.

There should be some evidence that having all those people near guns after a storm created huge problems, right? I haven't seen it and I live here. Maybe you've heard about it and can educate me?

A victory lap. Whether you "need" the guns or not, you'll thump your chest. Win win. Got it.

 

Looks like looting and unrest didn't happen. Social order prevailed, in spite of Dana Loesch's warnings and in spite of nonstop, dour, Libertarian subversion. Your guns were un-needed, but social order was not un-needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0