Since major gun law reforms were introduced in Australia, mass shootings have not only stopped, but there has also been an accelerating reduction in rates of firearm-related homicide and suicides, a landmark study has found.
It has been two decades since rapid-fire long guns were banned in Australia, including those already in private ownership, and 19 years since the mandatory buyback of prohibited firearms by government at market price was introduced. A handgun buyback program was later introduced, in 2003.
Researchers from the University of Sydney and Macquarie University analysed data on intentional suicide and homicide deaths caused by firearms from the National Injury Surveillance Unit, and intentional firearm death rates from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. For the period after the 1996 reforms, rates of total homicides and suicides from all causes were also examined to consider whether people may have substituted guns for alternative means.
Source: The Guardian
(Score: 1, Informative) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday June 24 2016, @08:44PM
Haha! This is going to be great.
Irrational commenters...start your keyboard engines!
*Grabs popcorn with his cold, dead fingers.*
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Friday June 24 2016, @08:47PM
Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gravis on Friday June 24 2016, @09:02PM
i'm sure you mean dollars because soon they'll be worth the same amount. ;)
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday June 24 2016, @09:19PM
I am sure he did not as monty python is british.
I am looking forward to Ireland, Gibraltar and Scotland declaring independence from britain and joining the EU in their various ways.
I cannot see a more deserved outcome to bigotry and xenophobia.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @09:45PM
Because bigotry and xenophobia are the only reason they could have wanted to leave, sure.
God, I'm so tired of you guys who make everything under the sun into accusations of bigotry.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @10:10PM
Did you see UKIP's lovely poster?
http://leftfootforward.org/images/2016/06/UKIP-Leave-Project-Fear-1.jpg [leftfootforward.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Friday June 24 2016, @10:47PM
I like to be able to walk in green countryside, not to see it concreted over for housing - is that bigotry? I like some space around me and some peace and quiet - is that bigotry? I like continuity of culture, whether my own or others, such as that of the American Indians, the Chinese, the Arabs, and not to see it destroyed by zealous one-worldism and short-term economic selfishness - is that bigotry?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:16PM
- is that bigotry?
Yes.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:52AM
^ full on retard
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:11AM
No but its pretty much the definition of xenophobia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:21AM
You need a big black xenophobe up your ass, boy.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:47AM
xenophobia, n.
That thing that Native Americans lacked.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:33PM
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:17PM
"Lovely" has little to do with "reality". Lovely is nothing more than a perception. Reality is, the country is being invaded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:15PM
Please stop
(Score: 2, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:27PM
That ain't happening. YOu need people like me to remind you of reality. All the silly feel-good in the world won't protect you when the shit hits the fan.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @11:41PM
There's an article that criticises the poster.
https://leftfootforward.org/2016/06/ukips-new-brexit-poster-exposes-the-leave-campaigns-own-project-fear/ [leftfootforward.org]
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Friday June 24 2016, @11:47PM
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:42AM
I did. And I meant Ireland annexing Northern Ireland as with spain and gibraltar.
Or something. Not sure what the appropriate political bullshit is required for the move.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:48PM
HAHA YEAH RESTRICTION FREEDOMS CAN SAVE LIVES WHO WOULDA KNOWN! BANNING FREESPEECH COULD REDUCE HURT FEELINGS TOO!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 24 2016, @08:52PM
HAHA YEAH RESTRICTION FREEDOMS CAN SAVE LIVES
WHAT RESTRICTION? MY RIGHT TO LIVE IS BEING ENFORCED!! HAHA!!!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:59PM
YOUR RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR OWN LIFE IS NOT :^)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday June 24 2016, @09:15PM
IT'S AUSTRALIA ! GUNS ARE LESS LETHAL THAN HALF THE BUGS!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:17PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:38PM
(psst, you're not actually being denied the right to protect yourself. You lot just lost the right to play with your toys after you misbehaved with them. )
They (collectively) lost access to a useful tool for self-defense (firearms) because a few of them misbehaved.
Way to re-word the situation as if it were a childish tantrum over a playground ball.
BTW, are you in favor of collective punishment [wikipedia.org] as a method for controlling behavior in children?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:08PM
They (collectively) lost access to a useful tool for self-defense (firearms) because a few of them misbehaved.
A self-defense tool that wasn't needed until this excellent tool for self-defense came along.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @10:57PM
Yes, obviously we should go back to before the pointy stick era. And then cut off our hands and feet. Stupid bloody argument.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:20PM
Stupid bloody argument.
Wait... did you mean yours or mine?
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:38PM
If you can't tell it was both, you really are not smart enough to be in a debate on fundamental rights.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:51AM
Well, that does bring up a point I've been meaning to raise. There is no cutoff IQ for AC's to post. I think that there should be some kind of test for AC posters. If you can't pass a simple intelligence test, then you can't be AC - instead you're assigned some name like "bloody tosser", "sniveling whiner", or maybe "Stupid Yank". That way, when you address an AC, you would know that he has an IQ higher than his shoe size. Yeah, I know that's a low threshold, but at least it's a threshold.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:24PM
The problem with idiot-proof systems is that better idiots are constantly being produced.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Mr Big in the Pants on Friday June 24 2016, @09:24PM
Yes, they do. Also prevent horrific deaths, tragedies and create a safer world in general.
Nuclear weapons? Chemical Weapons? Biological Weapons?
Mass shootings? Bombings? Gang warfare?
Although I have to love the arguments of the other crowd. They are so amusing with all their hate, bluster and ramboisms.
My favourite is the one where they claim that everyone would be safer in a mass shooting if everyone had guns and started opening fire. Its hilarious. Someone should soooo do a skit on that.
Occasionally making fun of the mentally handicapped IS funny...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:33PM
Yes not having a gun makes you safer if someone is shooting at you, this is a well known fact. Don't look at facts or statistics on this just trust me fam
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by bob_super on Friday June 24 2016, @10:29PM
Why is anyone shooting at you?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @10:59PM
Because he doesn't have a gun but does have money? It's an amazingly stupid position to ever be in.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by chromas on Friday June 24 2016, @11:13PM
Because it's a gun-free zone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:36AM
They are shooting at me for being gay in an Orlando nightclub.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:55AM
They are shooting at me for being gay in an Orlando nightclub.
Not quite: the nightclub frequenter is shooting at you for being packed into a gun-free zone like a sardine.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:40AM
God I love this article. The frothing at the mouth is delectable.
Nice try although as per usual the logic behind the guns are great logic is horrendously flawed.
Its the fate of commons. It is not JUST ME (with military experience) who has the gun. All the other morons have the gun too.
Look on any given internet forum and tell me with a straight face you would feel safe in a room with EVERYONE of them packing heat when something bad happens.
Go no. I dare you. I fucking DOUBLE dare you.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:40AM
Tell ya what. Let's have the exact same situation but no one has guns, they have machetes. I can strike five good blows per second with a machete, how about you? How would you stop me if I decided to hurt you?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:05AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:45PM
Dead men don't press charges. Or do you think machete's do non-lethal damage?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:29PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:45PM
Citation please?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:00PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:41PM
I want you to show me a source that shows that a person attacked with a gun is more likely to die than one attacked with a machete. That was the jist of the claim that guns are more dangerous, right?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:05PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:36PM
I know that machetes can kill in one hit. I also know that most real life gunshot wounds are nonlethal. You made an assertion; can you back it up or were you just making an assumption?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:21AM
I know that machetes can kill in one hit.
Right... Um. Do you know much about the physics of how a gun works and how it provides... say.. different dynamics to a confrontation? I feel like this is a prerequisite to getting into showing you the stats that, frankly, I think you already know about and just want me to provide so you have something specific to argue with.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Sunday June 26 2016, @05:43PM
I do understand the physics pretty well. I say again, you made an assertion. Can you back it up?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 26 2016, @05:56PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday June 27 2016, @10:43PM
Yeah, I thought not.
You may find this interesting if you actually want to know:
https://books.google.com/books?id=xJ3Y2-CHYfMC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=machete+fatality+rate&source=bl&ots=sDN6FkQ9_E#v=onepage&q=machete%20fatality%20rate&f=false [google.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 27 2016, @11:11PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday June 27 2016, @11:18PM
It means that if someone really wants to kill you it doesn't matter much what kind of weapon they use.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday June 27 2016, @11:25PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:05AM
You're not even making sense. Maybe take a brake and try again tomorrow?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 28 2016, @12:56AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday June 28 2016, @02:42AM
The qualifier is a filter to separate those who actually want to kill from those who merely want to brawl, intimidate, cause suffering, or who's bluff was called. Fork stabbings should not be compared to GSWs, as it can reasonably be inferred that the fork wielder was likely not attempting to cause death, else they would have chosen another weapon.
If a person really wants to kill you and has a couple brain cells to rub together, there isn't much you can do about it regardless of what weapons they have available, unless you know about it and are at least similarly armed and capable. According to an ISIS spokesman, Mateen would have been more effective if he had made explosives instead of using a firearm:
http://www.aina.org/news/20160625001841.htm [aina.org]
Knowing that, would you go back in time and deny him the firearm if you could do only that?
There have been mass murders and slaughters since man could sharpen sticks and burn villages. This will not change any time soon, particularly not by banning certain types of weapons.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 28 2016, @03:15AM
There have been mass murders and slaughters since man could sharpen sticks and burn villages.
The problem is we have a disproportionate number of them.
According to an ISIS spokesman, Mateen would have been more effective if he had made explosives instead of using a firearm..
So why choose the firearm?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday June 28 2016, @04:22PM
I don't think we have a disproportionate number. Including mass killings, violent crime has been dropping year after year. A few dozen people out of 300,000,000+ are statistically insignificant. We lose about as many to lighting strikes, yet we don't have a media storm over that.
How many mass killings has the EU had in the last decade compared to the US? I don't know yet, I'll have to look it up, but I think that would be a fair comparison.
I can't pretend to know Mateen's mind, nor can I ask him.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday June 28 2016, @07:18PM
A few dozen people out of 300,000,000+ are statistically insignificant. We lose about as many to lighting strikes, yet we don't have a media storm over that.
... Hoookay. The average of lightning deaths is less than a hundred a year. Gun deaths: Over ten thousand. Accidents are not preventable, intentional killing is. Can't ban lightning.
Oh... fun fact about lighting strikes: We actually do take steps to prevent them. When I was a kid I saw PSAs on where to go if you're in a lightning storm. Hell, I think GI Joe even did a PSA on how to avoid being struck. It's almost as if life is valuable even when there's lots of it.
How many mass killings has the EU had in the last decade compared to the US? I don't know yet, I'll have to look it up, but I think that would be a fair comparison.
Look up Australia while you're at it.
I can't pretend to know Mateen's mind, nor can I ask him.
Oh really? Earlier you were rock-solid in your belief that if he didn't have a gun he would have gone in with a machete or a bomb.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 29 2016, @06:50PM
I was referring to mass shootings, not all gun deaths. Mass shootings and lightning strikes are within one order of magnitude. If you include all gun deaths, 60% are suicides, Can't ban suicide.
Fun fact about murder: we actually do take steps to prevent them, including arming ourselves. Violent crime goes down in states that pass carry laws.
Australia has seen a surge in violent crime since the gun ban, especially armed robbery and rape.
I never asserted that Mateen would have used a machete. I do stand by the assertion that without firearm availability he very likely would have used explosives. Look at what just happened in Turkey.
My main point, which you seem to be trying to sidestep, is that banning guns would not make them unavailable to criminals, and whether or not guns are available, people intent on doing harm will find a way. Do you disagree?
My secondary point, is that the primary effect of banning guns would most likely be to leave the commoner mostly defenseless against anyone intent on doing them harm. The reduction in violent crime in carry states and the increase in violent crime in Australia following the ban support this assertion.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday June 29 2016, @07:23PM
I do stand by the assertion that without firearm availability he very likely would have used explosives. Look at what just happened in Turkey.
Your assumption is that those people in Orlando would have died anyway, but it's not substantiated anywhere. It's easy for you to picture, but it doesn't even survive logical thought. With a bomb he could have set it, walked away, then gone in for another operation. For whatever reason, that's not what he wanted. Did he feel that he could kill more with the gun? Did he have someone specifically he wanted to go after and a bomb couldn't guarantee that? Did he spur-of-the-moment decide to do it and a gun is what he had handy? Is he unable to acquire a bomb? These are all important questions that cannot be reasonably hand-waved away by going "well here's what happened in Turkey."
My main point, which you seem to be trying to sidestep, is that banning guns would not make them unavailable to criminals, and whether or not guns are available, people intent on doing harm will find a way. Do you disagree?
I do disagree with your statement. It's absolute. The fact is if gun availability is reduced, the price of guns go up. Yes, that will mean less criminals with guns. Would it mean no criminals ever have guns? No. Is some better than none? Oh yes, any day.
My secondary point, is that the primary effect of banning guns would most likely be to leave the commoner mostly defenseless against anyone intent on doing them harm.
The way you wrote this implies that one who owns a gun for defense will never use it to murder or commit a crime. That's simply untrue. Gun availability is a significant part of this issue in the US. No matter which way you slice it, you're taking away the primary need to own a gun in the first place.
There's a lot of boolean-logic going on, it's not helping.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday June 29 2016, @09:36PM
Without a time machine no one will ever know one way or another, but I think it reasonable to assume that someone sufficiently motivated to plan and execute such an attack would find alternate means if his first choice were unavailable.
Theoretically true, but this introduces the chance of being tracked down after setting the bomb and brought into a court of law and/or interrogated. These kinds of people often want to die as martyrs to their cause, as shown in the plethora of suicide bombings throughout the world. I cannot answer as to why he chose one type of weapon over another. Why did he choose an MCX instead of an AR-15 or an AK-47? I can only speculate that he may have thought a firearm would cause more media uproar than a bomb, thus better furthering his cause.
Nope. He bought the MCX on June 4th and the Glock 17 the following day, so he was obviously planning ahead.
I agree they would be less available, but non unavailable. This is congruent with my earlier statement. I also agree that fewer guns in the hands of criminals would be a good thing. However, banning guns takes more guns out of good-guys hands than it takes out of bad-guys hands. I also assert that most guns taken out of criminal hands would be replaced with alternate weapons, and that most guns taken out of good-guy hands would result in braver criminals. Those are bad things.
That's very absolute. But it is true for the most part; carry permit holders are extremely law abiding, and their presence significantly deters others of committing violent crimes. Please skim the summary on page four here:
http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf [crimeresearch.org]
I agree that gun availability is a significant part of the issue. We need more guns in good-guys hands if we want recent improvements to continue, which means that they should be more available.
I think my logic is more bayesian than boolean. Look at past trends and probabilities. What has worked in the past and what hasn't?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Thursday June 30 2016, @01:49AM
However, banning guns takes more guns out of good-guys hands than it takes out of bad-guys hands
I do want to say that even though I wish we could greatly reduce gun availability, I agree with you on this statement and will be up front and say I do not have a simple solution to this problem. That's why I am driven crazy by crossed-arms and absolutist reasoning on both sides. The gridlock caused by it will result in an extreme.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday July 01 2016, @04:50AM
http://www.wistv.com/story/32308903/deputies-man-opened-fire-wounded-several-at-nightclub [wistv.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday July 01 2016, @04:16PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday July 01 2016, @04:40PM
Yup. I do believe that every firearm owner is responsible for keeping them safe. I could support a law that punishes those who's unattended firearms are stolen from insecure storage.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:37AM
How the hell are you getting 5 hits/sec with what amounts to a two-foot shortsword? You're thrusting rather than swinging, I assume...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:05AM
It's a video game. The poster is probably ten years old - he's not even a millennial. He's just trying to apply something he learned about video gaming into the real world. Except he's confused hit points with hits, or something like that.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:42PM
Actually I'm 41, and practiced in medieval style armored combat. No, these are not thrusts, they are strikes, and each powerful enough to sever an arm. My point is that if you roll back personal defense technology to medieval levels, you get medieval threat dynamics, in which the big strong guys who know how to use melee weapons effectively get their way, and smaller, weaker people have no say unless they're members of the ruling class. As they say, guns are the great equalizer; they allow little, frail people to stand up to big strong people. They allow someone with only a modicum of training to be a threat to someone who has dedicated their life to military style training. With only melee weapons that is simple not the case.
And dead men don't press charges.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:44AM
I'd probably step out of range. Or, since a machete is probably not easily concealed, I'd probably not even step into your range in the first place.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:55PM
You guess wrong; it is readily concealed. I am also capable of running. An aggressor may also back you into a corner. Point is, defending against a gun with a gun you at least have a chance. Defending against a melee weapon with a melee weapon you need to be fit and strong, and most of all skilled and practiced. Otherwise, against someone bigger, stronger, more skilled and practiced than you your chances are infinitesimal.
I practice medieval style armored combat. There are people that I can beat nearly 100% of the time if I try. There are also people who can beat me nearly 100% of the time if they try, and I hear that even they have people who can beat them around 80% of the time.
Dead men don't press charges, and the cops will likely show up 30 minutes to three hours too late.
Do you want your place in society determined by your martial ability?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:25PM
And yet, pretty much everybody's "place in society" is determined by how much money they have and who they know, and not how well they can wield a weapon of any kind, at least in 1st world countries.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:45PM
Exactly. That's not how it used to be. You want to go back?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:07PM
And yet, gun-tards believe the only solution is to plan for 'the big shootout'. because as long as one bad guy is out there, you have to walk around, constantly ready to immediately kill anyone in your vicinity. just in case.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:34PM
Whoosh.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:11AM
I'd like to see you conceal a two feet knife in an inconspicuous way, draw it without giving me a chance to run away, and then compare it to the effort to hold a gun concealed and kill someone from the same distance without even revealing the gun first.
Another point: So you trained with a machete [1]. I trained martial arts, and I don't know if you have the same impression from your training, but my experience is that people actually learning these ways of close combat are much less likely to use it than people having the power of life or death at their fingertip without the necessity to learn and practice. Learning these things means the trainee has ambitions, he is willing to invest time and effort to achieve something, which imo makes him less likely to just waste it all by going on a killing spree on a whim and getting arrested or killed, or both. One problem with a gun is, it gives power of live or death to people that might suffer inferiority complex otherwise and just enjoy the feeling of being in charge for once. I'm not sure, this is only an assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised if the majority at least of mass-shootings is done by weak persons with inferiority complex. I just assume that physically stronger people would rather get in a brawl more often, or even institutionalize it by visiting fighting tournaments to cool their engine instead of collecting the heat and blowing up in the end.
Talking about unskilled and untrained attackers being allowed a machete would of course give a totally different picture: They might pull the knife on a mood swing, but in that case running away or clubbing them with the next chair is probably an effective option.
[1] Since I don't believe it is physically possible to execute 5 strikes in one second, each of them strong enough to severe an arm as you stated above, I doubt your other claims of being well-trained as well, but for the sake of argument...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday June 27 2016, @10:32PM
Sorry for taking so long to reply; since your post is civil and well thought out I didn't want to just bash something out on my phone.
Regarding concealment, all it takes is a coat of some kind and a little preparation. Yes, you are correct in that it takes more effort and particularly more determination, but I don't see that stopping very many people who are willing to actually kill someone.
I've been made aware (2nd hand knowledge for the most part, but through several different sources) of groups of people who spend considerable effort learning effective street-fighting solely for the purpose of enforcing their will over others. Skinheads and the like; there was a big turf war between the skinheads and the gutterpunks in Mpls around 20 years ago. Their favored weapons were brick walls and curbs (fully lethal weapons), but they would also use bats, pipes, knives, and guns. I made steel torso armor for one of the combatants on the gutterpunk side on commission which was proof against melee weapons and 9mm pistols. Many of these people hold their fighting ability to be a big part of their personal worth, since they have little in the way of personal skills, job skills, or hope for the future. If you're talking about someone with a job, a family, a future, I agree with you, but many lack these.
I'll see if I can restate my thoughts in a clearer fashion.
If guns were banned for civilians there are three things that I would be really worried about. First is the imbalance in power between the commoner and the already often abusive paramilitary police force. Especially with many courts taking an officer's word as fact despite lack of evidence, which I have witnessed firsthand, the commoner will have no method of recourse or defense against police abuse and protection rackets.
Second is the inability of the commoner to defend against criminals, whether they're robbers, rapists, murderers, or gangs running protection rackets as was big during prohibition. The crooks would still have guns for at least several years, creating a huge imbalance of power. Criminal possession of guns would probably taper off after a while as the guns out there wear out or are disposed of, but there would always be some fresh supply, either imported, stolen authorized personnel, acquired through grey channels, or manufactured in garage shops. Even if somehow it were managed to prevent any black market firearms, criminals would use other weapons such as the bats, pipes, knives, and machetes I mentioned before. England has significant knife restrictions and has discussed bills to ban machetes, since they are a go-to weapon when guns are too difficult to obtain.
My parents house is in a yuppie neighborhood, yet when I was a kid there was a prison operating just a few blocks away. Occasionally someone would escape, and it would take a day or two for the cops to catch them. In the mean time my dad would leave a loaded pistol for my mom to defend herself with just in case. She's never been very strong or fit, but she would still now in her old age be able to defend herself with a pistol if need be. The same is definitely not true of any melee weapon. If the only weapons are melee, the stronger, better trained person wins almost every time, and the small, weak person has little hope at all, which makes ample opportunity for armed robberies, rape, and protection rackets.
Third of course, and perhaps most controversial, is the imbalance in power between the commoner and the ruling class. If you can afford your own senator or lobbyist, you are a member of the ruling class. If not, you are a commoner. The ruling class rules as rulers have always done, with the threat of violence and death for those who defy them. The better armed the populous is the more difficult this is, so the rulers are less likely to go to unreasonable extremes. As history has shown many time however, when the commoner has no ability to threaten the ruling class with violence in return, the rulers will go to extremes unopposed and bad things tend to happen.
Regarding my claim of five strikes; I went out to the back yard with a machete and and some wood and tested, and I'm slower than I used to be. I was only able to manage four in a second. I know you won't believe me, but that's your right.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:48AM
It is not JUST ME (with military experience) who has the gun. All the other morons have the gun too.
This is the point missed by the NRA (and everyone who really wants to live in a Sam Peckingpah western).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:54AM
Texas vs Chicago. Chicago sees two murders a day, Texas has seen two murders this year. Really, nothing more needs to be said.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:55PM
Texas vs Chicago. Chicago sees two murders a day, Texas has seen two murders this year. Really, nothing more needs to be said.
Where did you get that BS number? A quick Google search shows Texas averages nearly twice the number of murders per year than does Illinois, which includes Chicago. Not to mention that the state itself murders people...
(Score: 1) by tisI on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:16PM
" My favourite is the one where they claim that everyone would be safer in a mass shooting if everyone had guns and started opening fire."
A number of years back, I recall a minor fender bender in Reno Nevada, where the drivers of both cars got out, pulled their guns and opened fire on each other. I don't recall if both died there, but it was a classic dick event! SSDD in Reno
Now that's one way to get rid of republicans, but I prefer sterilization as being less expensive and not as messy.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:30AM
Speaking of rationality - it is irrational to insist that crime is an ever increasing problem.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurenbrooke-eisen/americas-faulty-perceptio_b_6878520.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:36AM
It is.
And since I did not actually do that you know where you can stuff your post sunshine.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:07AM
Maybe YOU didn't do that - but if you're keeping up with the "discussion", you know that several people are.
And, why you so bitchy today? You mentioned rationality - I commented on rationality. You didn't get any last night, or what?
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:10AM
lol.
I think I am just amused.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @08:50PM
But an increase in other crime, and victims having no chance in hell to protect themselves now.
Great move.
And the first person that tries to compare Australia to America is a fool. Different cultures.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Friday June 24 2016, @08:50PM
Citation or get the fuck out.
(Score: 5, Informative) by useless on Friday June 24 2016, @10:13PM
20 years of data, starting in 1993:
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/vicViolentCol.html [aic.gov.au]
Total murder and manslaughter rates fluctuating year to year, but overall homicide has been fairly consistent, with a slight downward trend in the past 6 years. But immediately after the introduction in 1996, there was in fact an upsurge of all other violent crimes. Whether the new gun laws had anything to do with it or not is not certain. But one big standout armed robbery skyrocketed by almost double, and is only recently getting back down to pre-introduction levels. Unarmed robbery also greatly increased in that time period, but have returned to their pre-introduction levels as well. Sexual assaults, those shot up but unlike the others have not seen the reduction in recent years.
So, after about 20 years most violent crimes are back down to where they were before the law was introduced. Again, this all could be for any number of reasons.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:30PM
Thank you. I've pointed that out to gun law proponents in the past. Crime DOES increase after gun laws are passed.
Meanwhile, from TFA -
“We found that homicide and suicide firearms deaths had been falling before the reforms, but the rate of the fall accelerated for both of them after the reforms. We’ve shown that a major policy intervention designed to stop mass shootings has had an effect on other gun-related deaths as well.”
Their own statement harms their credibility. Crime was falling, but passing gun laws made crime rates fall faster? This is SCIENCE? Where is the control group?
How about we use the United States as a stand-in for a control group. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm [disastercenter.com]
We see that 1993 was just about our most violent year, ever, rape, robbery, murder, basically all violent crimes. And, crime begins falling. Wow, isn't that interesting? The politicians want to take credit for falling crime rates, but there is nothing to indicate that the actions they took are responsible for falling crime rates.
I think it is safe to say that violent crime worldwide is down, unless we count crimes committed by governments. The very governments that want to take away our rights.
(Score: 5, Informative) by gawdonblue on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:06AM
The other thing that the Liberal (conservative) government did after being elected in 1996 until 2007 was degrade social welfare. Reduction in gun crime? Thank that government. Increase in overall crime? Thank that same government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:54AM
20 years of data, starting in 1993 [...] Again, this all could be for any number of reasons.
Indeed. Prior to the introduction of 7up to Australia in 1992 [youtube.com] the Ossies were a gentle peace-loving folk who lived humbly, drinking Fosters [youtube.com] and providing an exotic back-drop for international pop music [youtube.com]. The most appalling atrocity in Australian history, prior to the acts that followed the introduction of 7up, was of course Trevor Chappell's Notorious Underarm Delivery [youtube.com] on the last ball of a one-day game between Australia and New Zealand at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on 1 February 1981.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Friday June 24 2016, @09:02PM
...and victims having no chance in hell to protect themselves now.
Yeah cos the odds were even when a gun was jabbed in their back.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 24 2016, @11:52PM
Yeah cos the odds were even when a gun was jabbed in their back.
Criminals don't magically get the element of surprise. That's not their superpower.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:04AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:39AM
Actually, they don't. Think about it. The brightest people grow up with something of an education, often further their education, and tend to get jobs to support themselves. They tend to build, to accumulate wealth, to better themselves. Criminals? They get caught, again, and again, and again. The prisons are full of stupid people.
Maybe - just maybe - there are some "successful" muggers, who have been robbing people for decades, and have retired to a nice comfortable home, without ever being cuaght. Maybe you would like to interview some for us?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:39AM
There are. We call them politicians, bankers, CEOs, and--for some completely incomprehensible reason--"job creators."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday June 24 2016, @09:06PM
But an increase in other crime, and victims having no chance in hell to protect themselves now.
AC Vizinni: "Oh, yeah, a gun free zone means only criminals have guns, and Australia is populated entirely by criminals, and you knew that, so clearly I cannot chose the wine in front of me! "
Man in Black: "Truely, you have a dizzying intellect!"
Alternate explanation: Just because you are paranoid does not mean you need to carry a large capacity mag semi-auto military weapon around at all times. Besides, what kind of weakling needs a gun to defend themselves? I find a stern voice, and reminding the miscreant of what their mother would think of their actions to usually be enough. Unless it is zombies, but then, zombies usually result in a decrease in all crimes, as a result of almost everyone being zombies. Again, if you find weapons and the ability to kill sexy, you should just admit it, and seek therapy. Something's wrong with you, dude!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:38PM
"Besides, what kind of weakling needs a gun to defend themselves? "
Lets see you fight your way out of an altercation when you are confronted by 3 criminals who really dont want to listen to your 'stern talk' have have no trouble putting you down for your wallet.. Oh, wait, you think you are Chuck Norris... You dont have a clue on what happens in the real world.
you are the one that needs help. Idiot.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday June 24 2016, @10:00PM
Lets see you fight your way out of an altercation when you are confronted by 3 criminals who really dont want to listen to your 'stern talk' have have no trouble putting you down for your wallet..
Three? Oh, my! Do they have Skittles? The Motto of the Texas Rangers is "One riot, one Ranger." What works in these kinds of situations is authority. Obviously you have none, and criminals no doubt see you as you see them: fellow believers in the use of deadly force to get what you want. No wonder you are so afraid! And you are hardly afraid enough, you coward. What if there are four of them, and they don't just want your money, they want to rape you, steal your organs, damage your brain and put you to work on their plantation. . . ah, but we are back to zombies. Killing you would be an act of mercy, since at least then you could stop being a coward.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:19PM
Authority and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. Unless you want fancy Italian coffee, then it won't get you dick.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:17AM
Mightly Buzzard, always concerned about what will get him dick. I am starting to worry!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:27PM
I really wish I did prefer the cock. I would never have to put up with women's shit again. *sighs wistfully*
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:36PM
"What works in these kinds of situations is authority."
You are using and armed force as an example of why you don't need weapons? Texas Rangers have always been armed.
In fact, Rangers are some of the most ruthless armed men in the world. They can't be distracted, they can't be dissuaded, they won't be stopped. If you're the bad guy, they are going to keep coming, and coming, and coming. It isn't authority, unless you count reputation as part of authority. Virtually every criminal in America knows that if he fucks with the Rangers, he's going to die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:18AM
You are using and armed force as an example of why you don't need weapons? Texas Rangers have always been armed.
You are using an example you don't understand as an example of your lack of understanding. One Ranger, not Walker Texas.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:29AM
I don't watch television, you insensitive clod. I'm not one of the mindless masses who believe that some actor in controlled environments represents a real life cop.
I stand by my statement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:23AM
I stand by my statement.
Yes. We all know. However, the question was whether you understood the example your statement was a response to, which further implies that you do not understand the statement you are standing next too. Hardly the first time!
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:08PM
I'm afraid you're completely off-base on this one, or at least you haven't spent enough time in the USA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcJ-0bAHB4 [youtube.com]
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/06/11/fishbones-lawsuit-filed/71056630/ [freep.com]
Just two situations off the top of my head where your advice of giving the “miscreant” a stern reminder about his mother sort of falls flat on its face. Could also be interpreted as situations where the mother would have approved.
I wish your advice worked in the real world. Or maybe the USA isn't the real world or has secretly undergone a zombie apocalypse. Doesn't matter. Not practical here.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 24 2016, @10:06PM
Very, they few people ever find themselves in such a situation. Certainly, in Australia,
drug users, desperate for the next fix, may accost you, but are rarely capable of even chasing you.
More problematic are steroid-loaded body builders, who in out looking for a fight. Luckily, they go to known parts of cities, vitally you can find similar entertainment somewhere they aren't.
Why do gun-ownership advocates always want to confront?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:21PM
Because I'm too old and out of shape to outrun a 20-something kid with a knife. It's easier to just put two in his chest and one in his head. I'm not out of breath and the world is a safer place for law-abiding people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:57AM
So, the appropriate response to a *potential* crime is an *actual* sentence of death, based on a court of one.
"justice" seems to mean something different to gun people.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:18AM
The proper response to an attack with deadly force is an attack with deadly force. Even a punch can kill in one blow, so no I will not allow you to land even one if I have any say in the matter.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:31AM
Who draws the line at what constitutes an attack? If the person with the gunfeels threatened, is that enough? Actually, we know they feel threatened all the time, as that is why they have the gun, isn't it?
So anyone with a gun feels threatened enough to have a gun is threatened enough and therefore were justified to shoot anyone, because they felt threatened?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:59AM
Well, written, case, and common law all three do. Dipshit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:51AM
The Mighty Buzzard called me a dipshit. Must be doing something right.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:18AM
You're not just a dipshit. You're also a dumb fuck.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:58AM
Yes. All human beings have the right to protect themselves from attack and to use whatever force is necessary to do so. The gun is simply a convenient tool to do this with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:18AM
And since I'm a coward with a gun, I feel the need to protect myself from you and your gun.
The gun is an extremely convenient tool to do this with, most sensible people would say too convenient.
I wonder which of us will draw first?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:30PM
So, sensible is now defined as harboring a deep, irrational fear of ever having to defend themselves. I thought that was cowardice but hey...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @12:53AM
No sensible is defined here as not wanting to die over trivialities, due to the fact that it's way too easy to kill ANYONE for ANY REASON.
Say a technology develops where using my mind and a funny glove, I can kill anyone I can think about and see. Give everybody a death glove, it's only fair and levels the playing field. Now what do you imagine happens. Your utopia, where everybody just hugs and gets along? (while still wearing their death gloves for "some reason"). Or mass slaughter, where scared people like you, kill all the other scared people like you before they get killed first.
Do you want death gloves to be classified as "arms" so everyone can have one, or should there be restrictions? Everybody gets one on their 21st birthday? 18th? 10th? Have you even seen the lowest common denominator you are trying to level with?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:06AM
I think exactly the same thing would happen that happens now with guns. 99.999% of the owners would quietly go about their business and you would never hear about them. The other 0.001% would kill A) Each other, B) Themselves, and C) A statistically insignificant number of otherwise law-abiding citizens. And you would panic, run in circles, and scream the sky is falling. Exactly like you're doing now.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:10AM
The appropriate response for a timid hoplophobe, when attacked by a knife wielding maniac, is to lay down and die. The appropriate response for any rational person, is a double tap. The Buzzard opts for a triple tap - but that's just a sign that he panics easily. That's probably due to age.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:21AM
Because I'm too old and out of shape to outrun a 20-something kid with a knife.
So you'd prefer to live in a world where someone assaulting you doesn't have to be a young athlete, instead the barrier of entry is low enough that an old out-of breath fat-ass could do it. Perfect.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:55AM
Absolutely. Guns equalize the strongest and the weakest. You prefer the strong to prey on the weak at their leisure?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:40AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:14AM
You've neglected something. Weak STUPID criminals with equalizers attempt to prey on old fat bastards with guns. And, they die. Maybe not with the first attempted robbery, but soon enough, they die. Give the honest citizens the tools necessary to kill off those old stupid weak criminals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @11:40AM
It's always funny to see the idiots who grew up watching too many cowboy movies. Always thinking they will be the first ones to draw.
Give criminals easy access to guns, and count how many honest citizens they can kill before their luck runs out.
Tell us how many honest citizens do you think should die needlessly before the criminal does? Whats the magic ratio for innocents : criminals in your world? 5:1, 10:1, 100:1? Even 1:1 is too much for a civilized country.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:23PM
Oh I absolutely prefer that to being preyed upon by anyone stronger than me. And so should 95% of the hoplophobes out there because they are the weak.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:25PM
Yes, much better to be preyed upon by EVERYONE.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:07PM
You currently have roughly one third of the nation armed and a ~0.000008% chance of being shot. That right there says your supposition is a lie. Well over 99% of gun owners only ever use their guns lawfully. Or were you unaware the number of crimes prevented by guns is two orders of magnitude larger per year than the rate of homicides with them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:17AM
Because no 20-something kid ever had a gun of his own.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:28PM
That's perfectly fine by me. Being on equal footing is a hell of a lot better than being at a disadvantage.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:28PM
What on Earth makes you think you will be on an equal footing?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:01PM
Two people with guns are on equal footing, regardless of their physical abilities. Well, unless one of them is Stephen Hawking or something.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:06AM
Haha, the naivete of some people.
So you walk around 24/7 with your loaded gun pointing at every stranger you meet? Even the ones behind you? You do all your grocery shopping and all your other basic tasks one handed because you are always on 'equal footing'.
But somehow it's other people who are the scared ones...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:33AM
Yes, I walk around all day every day fondling my gun. Sometimes I even strap two on so both my hands can be busy. It's better than boobs. Idiot.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:40AM
So you realize now the folly of your own argument. :) Good.
For the slower people, maybe we should clue them into the fact that anyone can get the jump on anyone who is unprepared or even momentarily distracted. Regardless of how many guns that person owns. Unless your finger is on the trigger, you are always on less than even footing compared with someone whose finger is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:25PM
Lets see you fight your way out of an altercation when you are confronted by 3 criminals...
Or, better yet, 3 innocent people fending off just 1 criminal with a gun each. Think it through, dummy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:13AM
So you laughably think that three criminals with 3 guns will be no match for you if you also have 3 guns? Right, that's your "logic" in a nutshell isn't it?
Maybe you just need to stop living in such a violent shitty country.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday June 24 2016, @10:14PM
Besides, what kind of weakling needs a gun to defend themselves?
Women. Why do you hate women and want to return to the bad old days when women had to submit to men's greater physical strength?
For that matter, many men as well. Do you want to return to a world where the strong rule the weak?
All men were not created equal. Sam Colt made them equal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday June 24 2016, @10:33PM
What kind of Hobbsian State of Nature do you live in, jmorris? A world with firearms is still a world where the strong rule the weak, with only slight changed in technology. What makes all humans equal is not the equal lethality that Thomas Hobbes posited in Leviathan (well before Sam Colt was born), but law. Equal standing under the law. You know what they call people who believe in weapons more than law?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:45PM
If the rule of law was always just and would actually keep a violent attacker at bay, then sure. Weapons are an equalizer, otherwise you should support banning of pepper spray. If someone fears for their safety it is much more likely they can afford a weapon than train to fight off a larger opponent.
I don't own a weapon myself, but I understand why people would want one.
On a mobile, hope this comes through alright http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Conquer [dilbert.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:55PM
If the rule of law was always just and would actually keep a violent attacker at bay, then sure.
So we should be working on the law, rather than buying guns?
Are you Cicero? "Inter armes, leges silent." Pro Milone
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:23PM
You know what they call people who believe in weapons more than law?
Police officers?
The ruling class?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:46AM
Doesn't Hillary have like 100 armed men watching over her all the time? And, O'Bummer? Bush? Cheney? Yep - the ruling class.
(Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:23PM
Officer <last name>, sir.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:40PM
Isn't that cute? Some of us still believe that all men are equal in the eyes of the law. And, yet, we have a known criminal, guilty of crimes that would land most of us in prison for decades, running for president.
You should revise your statement. All money is equal in the eyes of the law. With hundreds of millions of ill-gotten gains, you can commit any crime you like, and get away with it. If you got no money, the best you can hope for is to be railroaded with a plea bargain.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:43AM
"What kind of Hobbsian State"
Chicago. The home of the most restrictive gun laws in the United States. Obviously, your law does NOT protect citizens. At best, the law takes vengeance on some of the perpetrators. The victims are dead and buried long before justice is served.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday June 24 2016, @10:34PM
I really don't buy the decrease in crime under the zombie regime, I think it is just a decrease in the reporting of zombie on zombie crime, cause you know BRAINS...
BTW target shooting is just plain fun, but I don't need an AR-15 to do that. We generally take .22's both pistol and rifle. However if you are a decent shot a 10 round semi-auto .22 is just as potentially deadly as a larger caliber handgun or rifle.
Frodo lives, the Dude abides...
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:47PM
Archfield, violent crime has indeed decreased in the past 20 to 25 years - globally. This page shows decreasing crime in the United States - http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm [disastercenter.com]
No one understands WHY violent crime has decreased, but it's a fact that crime has decreased since the early '90's.
MY problem is, that governments lie about crime, and they also lie about the reasons for increases and decreases in crime.
You may be correct that Australia is playing fast and loose with crime reporting. I've not stumbled across the evidence for that, if it be so. But, the United Kingdom does in fact lie to the public about crime rates. The reporting system is entirely different from our reporting system. The system is designed to help politicians "prove" that gun control works.
In the US, a reported crime is a recorded crime immediately. In the UK, a reported crime may be dismissed at any of at least five stages, and ultimately, if the crime is actually recorded as a crime, it may not even be included in the statistics.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:25AM
I've long touted that. Additionally if you remove New York, Chicago, SF and LA, 4 of the most heavily restricted gun zones from the general stats the gun violence in the US drops to the point where per capita the USA is like 119th in the world. I can't seem to find the article I read that from though right now. The media hypes any gun violence to epic proportions and never mentions that life is at its' most valuable now vs anytime in history. It is the population density and the ubiquitous media coverage, including personal videos and the fact that everyone carries a cell phone with a camera now that makes it seem so endemic. I personally think social pressure is one of the main reasons for the drop in violent crime, much like the drop in DUI's and smoking, though I could not begin to explain why social responsibility is gaining ground. Being a dead beat dad is a taboo these days as well, friends don't let friends not pay child support ??
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:15PM
Because Hong Kong, where they have a lot of people packed into a tiny space, gun crimes are way off the scale, right. The whole of China must also have a massive gun problem, having 4 time the population. They must have 50 times the gun deaths.
Let me go check...
What !!, don't I look the fool. It's the complete opposite. America is by far the shootiest murderiest "civilized" country on Earth.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:26AM
China does have a gun problem, they all belong to a government that shoots anyone who fails to kowtow to regime dedicated to running dissidents over in tanks. You're an idiot to even contemplate that as a fair comparison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:37PM
Hopping on this one, the second amendment is about protecting citizens from a corrupt government. Hmm, where are we today?? That's right, super corrupt and the black panthers started to use their 2nd amendment rights and were attacked by said government. I have heard they had some bad intentions, but I think pre-crime is a terrible idea.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:32PM
" I find a stern voice, and reminding the miscreant of what their mother would think"
Clearly, you have never had any business that took you through a ghetto late at night.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:11AM
Ill advised response to own post, but it has merit. I have tried, to the best of my ability and that of many others, to provoke these ammosexuals, people who love guns, and in a kind of ejactulatory way, which of course the pervs deserve. But I have only received three downmods. This renews my faith in SoylentNews, and makes me think that this is a place where a rational discussion of gun control can be carried out. Perhaps through the mutual disparagement of cowards and hoplophobes, we might reach a positions of peace and loving-kindness directed at all sentient beings? Or condemn ourselves to the Avici hell of the NRA, where the only thing that stops a bad demon with a flaming sword is a even badder demon with a glock, because, marketing matters. So kudos, Soylentils, on a reasonably rational discussion on a topic where someone could have been seriously modded
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jiro on Friday June 24 2016, @08:52PM
Crime rates have been going down in general regardless of whether the country added gun laws or not, including a huge crime drop in the US, which permits ownership of guns.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gravis on Friday June 24 2016, @09:19PM
so the fact that they haven't had a mass shooting since enacting gun reform is... coincidence?
btw, crime correlates to economic and sociological factors much more than it does with gun ownership. (눈‸눈)
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday June 24 2016, @09:33PM
That's true, the biggest driver in the US of the reduction in violent crime has been environmental factors like the reduction in lead exposure. I remember when I was a kid it was still possible to buy leaded gasoline. I don't think you can even buy a new car these days that specifies unleaded gas.
What gun ownership and regulation helps determine is the types of crimes that are committed and by whom. Removing the firearms means that if you're going to engage in armed robbery or murder, you'd better be able to overpower the victim, otherwise you're just as likely to be the one dead in a ditch as they are. It also makes it much more difficult to engage in mass murder as then you're stuck with explosives and the explosives that aren't being actively monitored by various security organizations tend to be much less easily used than the ones that are being monitored. The Oklahoma City Bomber would never have been able to procure that much material for a bomb now without being investigated by the FBI and monitored afterwards.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:55PM
"The Oklahoma City Bomber would never have been able to procure that much material for a bomb now"
Are you serious? I can still purchase diesel fuel, hundreds of gallons at a time. I can drive the Chevy and the trailer up to the farmer's coop, and load it down with nitrates, no questions asked. Assembling the detonator should attract some attention - but I'm not real sure that it will. Last summer, I listened to little explosions for several days, when a local farmer was blowing stumps out of a field.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:09AM
You can't buy hundreds of pounds of fertilizer without registration and if you're also renting a truck and buying the diesel they will know. Just because you don't understand the changes doesn't mean they didn't happen.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:20AM
You err. I repeat - I can drive up to the coop, and purchase fertilizer by the ton. No, I'm not registered. If I feel the need to "disguise" my activities, I might purchase a ton of feed, and half a ton of fertilizer, Driving a rental truck to the coop might make people suspicious - my old beaten up pickup truck and trailer won't raise any suspiciouns at all.
To be fair, I am known at the Sevier County Farmer's Coop - I've done business with them for years. But, I can just as easily go to Miller-Bowie Farmer's Coop and get the same service. Or, I can go to Tractor Supply. Or, Hempstead County Coop. Despite some feel-good laws, nitrates are used widely across the nation, and it's not a challenge to purchase a truck load.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:19AM
To be fair, I am known at the Sevier County Farmer's Coop
Chickenshit! You get your nitrates at a coop? Hyphens make all the differ-ence.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:24AM
That's not true. The DHS has regulations in place monitoring people that are buying and selling ammonium nitrate fertilizer along with thefts. There's new regulations coming, but you're an idiot if you think they weren't already monitoring that problem. Chances are good that even before the new regulations that if you were a white supremacist or sketchy that the coop would report the activity to the authorities.
I don't err, it's on the DHS page for crying out loud. I think that of all the government agencies that they would know if they were themselves monitoring it. And even before that, you'd have to be some sort of a dumbass to think that the FBI and DHS weren't keeping tabs on those substances.
Just because you don't know what you're talking about, doesn't mean that it isn't true that they're keeping their eyes on it. If it were as easy to get your hands on and weaponize as you seem to think, then why haven't there been any other bombings in the last 20 years? The answer to that is that it's not easy to get your hands on sufficient quantities and supplies without the authorities noticing.
For example
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/1601-AA52/ammonium-nitrate-security-program [federalregister.gov]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:42AM
"it's on the DHS page for crying out loud."
Yeah, well - the DHS tells us that they're keeping me safe, too. I don't believe that either.
BREAKING NEWS: Political appointees tell you whatever makes them more secure in their positions.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:50AM
If it were as easy to get your hands on and weaponize as you seem to think, then why haven't there been any other bombings in the last 20 years?
Because of the magical rock I possess. If the TSA isn't effective, why hasn't there been another 9/11? Bullshit logic. You need real evidence to show that X is effective at preventing Y, not the mere absence of Y since implementing X.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:27PM
Mass shootings are statistically irrelevant. If you're not looking to kill yourself, committing a criminal act, or in a gang, the odds of you being shot in the U.S. are something in the neighborhood of 0.000008%.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:54AM
people drowning in pools is also "statistically irrelevant" and yet we still have lifeguards. there's something about people dying easily preventable deaths that just rubs people the wrong way.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:03AM
Mass killings are not easily preventable. I could kill or injure a thousand people tomorrow if that were a goal of mine and spend under fifty bucks to do so. Hell, even with just a decent kitchen knife I could kill a dozen easily any day of the week. And there's not a damned thing the cops could do to stop it. You are not safe and nothing will ever make you safe. Live with it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:23PM
But weren't you the one telling us earlier that your gun keeps you safe from 20 something junkies with knives?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:31PM
No, guns do not keep you safe. They put you on equal footing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:43PM
Ludicrous assertion. How does merely owning a gun put you on equal footing with a criminal lowlife who is planing to do you harm?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:12PM
If we both have a gun, we both have equal means of doing harm to the other. Are you really that dense or are you going to come back with some absurdly complicated chain of reasoning to say that equality is not equal?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @02:52PM
Must just be less assholes in Australia then, or magic rocks in everyone's pockets keeping them all safe...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 26 2016, @03:11PM
So, the only way you could think it's safer in Oz is to have utterly ignored the statistics on violent crime and chose to only count it as violent crime if a gun was involved. Do you feel as foolish as you look?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:19PM
while we cannot make mass killings impossible just like we cannot make drowning an impossibility. however, what we can do is improve our odds of survival by heavily regulating assault weapons or the case of pools having lifeguards.
what you have done is conflated serial killing with mass killing. mass killing means there are many victims in a single incident while serial killing means there are many incidents. if you went to a location and killed someone with a knife, you would be lucky to get a third victim before people either ran away or you stopped you by force. as such, you would fall short of four deaths that are required for it to be classified as a mass killing.
the goal has never been to be safe, only improve one's chances of survival in the event of an attack.
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 26 2016, @07:43PM
Do you even know what an assault weapon is? It's a hunting rifle that looks scary. That's all.
And, no, sweety, I could kill a dozen people in one go with nothing but a goodly fillet knife. Why? Because we've been actively attempting to raise cowards for the last fifty years. Anyone who could stop me, wouldn't out of fear.
If you want to improve your odds of survival vs a person with a weapon, aim to have a weapon too or that goal is a lie.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 24 2016, @11:48PM
It is partly coincidence. More importantly, it is irrelevant.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by iwoloschin on Friday June 24 2016, @08:58PM
The second word of the title is "study" which implies logical, thoughtful people did something. We can throw their results out because logic has no place in this debate, because the NRA has pushed it straight into an argument of persuasion, not logic, and it's hard to beat "Teh Govnurmint iz koming fo mi guns!"
Nice try though.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 24 2016, @09:39PM
That, plus Slashdot has trained me to immediately suspect the exact opposite of the conclusion any study comes up with is actually true, since they seem to be almost always a biased study from the outset.*
In this case, see other comment that says *all* crime rates are falling already.
*How do you tell when a politician is lying?
Always follow the money
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:59PM
To be fair to the NRA the government has a long history of pushing changes slowly and steadily, and this issue looks to be another example. With the police state already here (no fly lists, secret courts, civil forfeiture, secret kill lists, militarization of police) I would actually prefer that most people be armed. Thugs often go into law enforcement, and I actually feel less safe with assault rifles in airports. If they choose me for an extensive "search" it will be done at gunpoint, and fighting against a bodily violation will land me in jail. The fact I'd be innocent wouldn't matter since they have whatever "justification", mmmhmmm. Unreasonable search and seizure my ass! Literally, and no never has happened but I get a thorough pat down when I refuse to go through a full body scan. I find that alone to be a violation, and its due to noncompliance. A metal detector and xraying my belongings is plenty... Wow that went on a sidetrack!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:28PM
Hoplophobia also has no place in logical discussion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:07AM
Hoplophobia also has no place in logical discussion.
And neither does Hoplophilia! (Gosh, that sounds even creepier than "ammosexual"). A wise person once told me that war is mass homosexual rape: Men inserting objects into the bodies of other men against their will. Works with spears and swords, works with bullets and bayonets.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:18AM
What, you think I masturbate with gun oil or something? Too thin. Would not get the job done.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:52AM
I suspect that hoplophobes may use gun oil for that purpose . . .
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:20AM
I've never actually heard someone use the word hoplophobia seriously like he did. It's like he's method-acting, writing satire and is really, really good at staying in character, but I *know* that's not the case. Poe's Law strikes again!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:57AM
Azuma, perhaps we need to revert to the Dao de Ching, which I always find a good thing to do.
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 31
Good weapons are instruments of fear; all creatures hate them.
Therefore followers of the Tao never used them.
The wise man prefers the left.
The man of war prefers the right.
Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not a wise man's tools.
He uses them only when he has no choice.
Peace and quiet are dear to his heart.
And victory no cause for rejoicing.
If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing;
If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself.
On happy occasions precedence is given to the left,
On sad occasions to the right.
In the army the general stands on the left,
The commander-in-chief on the right.
This means that war is conducted like a funeral.
When many people are being killed,
They should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow.
That is why a victory must be observed like a funeral.
Interesting translation. War is a funeral. Self-defense is suicide. You will die anyway, and your death will be made even more insignificant by the fact that you attempted to defend yourself. This is true from both a Christian and a Buddhist, or even a Taoist, position. There is no way out. You are toast. A Mighty Buzzard will feed on your innards, regardless of what you say or how you carry. You are a coward, and to cowards you will return.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:09PM
Well, my personal feeling is Shitey Buzzard can eat my ass, but that's metaphorical =P
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:51AM
Alternatively - crime is dropping, there's no need to control guns. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurenbrooke-eisen/americas-faulty-perceptio_b_6878520.html [huffingtonpost.com]
But, the debate isn't so much about guns, as it is about control. Hoplophobes feel the need to control everyone around them, because, well, FEAR!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @09:09PM
Anybody could've told you that.
What about knife/hammer/car/etc. related murders/suicides/etc?
What about what has happened to general crime/etc. rates (with other kinds of weapons/no weapons)?
What about what has happened to general crime/etc. rates (with other kinds of weapons/no weapons) compared to countries with no/lesser ban?
What about illegal gun crime rate?
What about other illegal weapon (like maybe some kind of knives for example switchblades are totally banned) crime rate?
What about training shooting in police/military? Has it gotten harder?
Australia, not only poisonous animals, also poisonous people. Australia is like north korea with their firewalls, showing refugees in islands, weapon bans, wrong side driving and other kinds of oppression.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Friday June 24 2016, @09:35PM
The study is only necessary because there's a lot of cowards out there that think owning a firearm will reduce the likelihood of them being murdered and there's no evidence to support the notion that flooding a country with weapons will make it safer. I'm not aware of a single country in the world where that's been the case where the guns weren't also being held by law enforcement. I'm sure if we made 15% of Americans law enforcement and provided relevant training that our violence rate would probably drop significantly. But, that whole idea is absolutely insane.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday June 24 2016, @09:57PM
Yes, but you have to worry about violence *by* law enforcement.. courts seem lenient, if tthey even get to trial.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:33PM
Cowards? You lot are the ones screaming about how afraid you are of guns. Takes some serious mental gymnastics to call the ones who aren't afraid cowards.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Friday June 24 2016, @11:59PM
Not really, there's literally tens of thousands of people killed by guns every year. Without guns there'd be precisely zero people killed by guns.
It takes some serious mental gymnastics to pretend like people are buying guns for self-defense that aren't doing it out of fear. And more to pretend like the criminals would be getting their hands on the firearms if we didn't have such a ridiculous oversupply of them coupled with little regulation of them.
Wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is prudent. Buying an assault weapon in case a gang of thieves break into your house is cowardly. Demanding that there be some actual regulations to keep people who shouldn't own firearms from owning them and restricting what kind can be owned is prudent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:20AM
Zero people killed by guns has no meaning though. Only being able to demonstrate that those that would have been killed by guns were in fact not killed by knives, bats, or any other means would have meaning. If you're going to argue against one of my fundamental rights, do it without logical fallacies.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Francis on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:13AM
One, that's not a fundamental right. People in Europe subsist just fine without access to crazy amounts of firepower.
Two, it's not a logical fallacy. Zero people being killed has a meaning, it means that nobody was killed by guns. You're being purposefully obtuse because you don't want to admit that the guns themselves are a problem. And yes, being killed by knives, bats and other means would be an improvement. Anybody, including toddlers can kill with a gun. A toddler isn't likely to be able to pick up a bat, let alone killed somebody with one.
Just because you choose to bury your head in the sand, doesn't mean that I should have to deal with the consequences of your cowardice and self-centeredness. There is no right to individual ownership of firearms and there's a requirement that you be in the organized militia in order to have a constitutional right to a firearm. I personally think that there should be concern for the tens of thousands that are killed every year by firearms and we should at least enact some common sense regulation.
Of course, you're going to hand wave that away because you have no idea what you're talking about and are more interested in owning firearms than actually solving the gun-violence problem. You have yet to make any valid points even as you pretend like I don't have a valid point.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:56AM
If you can't spot the problem with saying the method is more important than whether they were killed or not, there is no help for you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:34PM
And if you can't realize there have been precisely zero bat or knife related school mass killings. And would continue to be zero after guns are removed. There is even less help for you.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:34PM
The weapon is not the problem with school killings. Take guns away and they'll use homemade bombs and get a much higher body count. The problem is the fucked up culture that leads to kids who think this is a good idea.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:43PM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:53PM
No, it's really not. You can do it with household chemicals and a bag of nails if you want to be cheap about it. Effective detonators are more difficult but the bombs themselves are dead easy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:22PM
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:44PM
Only if you plan on living through it. A lot of these kids don't. In which case a fuse or other manual detonator will work fine.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26 2016, @06:15AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:30PM
Help I'm scared, I think Obama is coming for my guns.
I know, I'll just buy a few more guns. Just in case he really is this time...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:32PM
Sweety, I'm not askeert of that. I relish the prospect. Molon labe.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:15PM
What about cannons?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:27AM
What about cannons?
OK, you got me! I have an irrational fear of cannon. Probably comes from having been around when they first came out. Due to the sulphur smell of gunpower, firearms very early on were called "sons of the devil", from with the still current (in Arkansas, at least) "son of a gun" derives. But early cannon had poor quality control, and tended to "go off sideways" or "explode". I learned to stay away from them.
And cannon are hardly useful to cowards craving craven personal safety, unless they do use the "off sideways" option. I believe these are called "grenades" these days.
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Friday June 24 2016, @09:59PM
The percentage of homicides involving firearms (for which there are statistics going back to 1915) has been declining since around 1969; the total number of homicides has been declining since the beginning of the National Homicide Monitoring Program in 1989--not monotonically, but those are the long-term trends.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html [aic.gov.au]
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday June 24 2016, @10:03PM
People use firearms because their quick, painless and doesn’t require assistance. There aren’t any self administered alternatives that offer the same painless effectiveness. That means they will turn to assisted suicide. Being assisted, the authorities wont know it was a suicide.
(Score: 1) by LVDOVICVS on Friday June 24 2016, @10:13PM
First off, if you feel like suicide, get help now. But it comes to mind that carbon monoxide is relatively painless, though not quick.
So even in this case, there's a reasonable alternative to guns.
National Suicide Prevention Hotline 1-800-273-8255
(Score: 2) by Username on Friday June 24 2016, @11:06PM
Suicide is a personal choice. I do not recommend it because you may not get into heaven, but that is a religious belief that one chooses for themselves, not others. No one should prevent anyone from doing what ever they want to themselves. Morally you do not want them to die, ethically you can not stop them.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:02AM
As I understand it, nitrogen is better. You don't feel a sense of suffocation -- just a momentary sense of euphoria and then you pass out. If you don't get oxygen soon thereafter, you're done for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:17AM
I would prefer a tank of nitrogen, opened into a small enclosed space.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:50PM
This right here - a tank of nitrogen - is the surest, most painless, and least messy way to kill yourself. The feeling of suffocation comes from the buildup of CO2, not the lack of O2, and the atmosphere is already 70%+ nitrogen so you're already breathing in lots of it. The best advantage of it over firearms is that it doesn't leave a disgusting mess for your family and local EMT services to clean up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:03AM
Firearms are quick and easy to understand, but not everyone shot in the head dies and it can leave a mess. Nitrogen is best, but you have to get it and make sure it doesn't leak leading to someone else dying (or buy a mask). Dehydration is the next best, but is lesser known. It takes a few days but it doesn't feel bad. The trick is to wet your mouth without swallowing and your body will believe its hydrated even when it isn't. You only need to endure a day of hunger and have the will power to keep at it for 3-4 days. This is how some hospitals let elderly die where assisted suicide is illegal. Hanging is supposed to be a good way to die when you do it properly (the drop should break your neck), but people don't want to risk strangling to death nor perhaps the fear during the moments while you're still alive with the broken neck.
I've attempted suicide a couple times and researched different ways beforehand. I went with dehydration and was so happy that I was successfully ending my torment in hell (what most people call life) that by the third day, when I'd pass out after a moving around for a bit, I wasn't depressed enough to finish. So from experience I recommend death by dehydration. It's painless, lets you change your mind after you've started, and gives anyone that might care about you a chance to notice your suffering.
(Score: 1) by LVDOVICVS on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:02AM
I hope you're done trying, and for what it's worth, wish you the best.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:46PM
Sorry to hear, man.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:51PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @09:40PM
I expect I am done. Better stress relief through meditation, acceptance that I suck with people and should get a dog, realization of being more depressed when I get less sleep, and the ability to see a future. That last one is the most important. Many people are suicidal because everything is hopeless. The only way they can see out of that hopelessness is dying. I got some hope when I discovered you can buy businesses. I've been fired from every job I've had since I'm always late and that unfixable fault has been with me ever since I was a kid. Once I save up enough money I'll buy a few small, local companies and manage them under whatever hours I please. That gives me a future were I'm not freezing to death as a homeless guy, so something reachable to look forward to. I can't simply move to somewhere less expensive and do odd work from home jobs due to student loan payments and having no good professional references nor a social network.
Hopelessness, like you might feel in the moment when your wedding ring falls off into the drain of a flushing public toilet at the small airport in the middle of nowhere where you've been stuck for 2 days due to random cancellations when you were trying to catch your connecting flight home on Christmas eve. Expect you feel that constantly and know you are incapable of feeling happiness even though you can remember its a feeling you once had and that people around you seem to have it. Add in random people telling someone who's holding their dead child in their arms to "smile more" and "turn that frown upside down".
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday June 26 2016, @01:13AM
Thank you.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:11PM
we live in a world where you can PRINT A GUN. the technology that is 'gun' is not going back into the bottle no matter how many laws you throw at them.
let sane people buy them to protect themselves from the insane.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 24 2016, @10:27PM
let sane people buy them to protect themselves from the insane.
Yeah, after they prove they are sane! Of course therein lies the rub. People who want to buy guns to protect themselves are not sane! They are delusionary paranoids! They want to protect themselves from the monsters of their own imaginations, and no physical device is going to be effective at that. Allowing the sane to buy guns to defend themselves from the insane who buy guns to defend themselves from their own fear and cowardice is really not going to improve things, either. I suggest we start a program of accepting applications for concealed carry, and put everyone who applies (excepting law enforcement for official business) on the no-fly list, and strip them of their right to vote or contribute money to the NRA, and bar them from owning weapons and sharp implements. Sound fair!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:03PM
My hometown has seen about a murder a week since the beginning of the year. about 3/4 mile from my house there has been 2 carjackings[at gun point], 1 armed robbery, and an attempted arson in the two years that I've lived here.
Guess who wasn't here in time to stop any of the bad guys? The police. I don't really blame them for not being able to display superposition.
Nothing paranoid about those statistics. People who live in much safer towns who have never seen a gun or been this close to so much violence can fuck right off when they say that I don't have a right to defend my life against these animals.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:14PM
Nothing paranoid about those statistics. People who live in much safer towns who have never seen a gun or been this close to so much violence can fuck right off when they say that I don't have a right to defend my life against these animals.
Wow! Must be rough living in a town with that many white people!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:08AM
Holy smokes! That is insane!
What is your stance on the large clip assault rifle style weapons that there's been talk about banning? Do you think that is necessary to defend yourself, or would a pistol be sufficient? I'm genuinely interested, given your home town's problems. I live in a very small city so that kind of homicide rate is mind boggling to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @11:16PM
Wow, you're on a rampage in this thread! Pretty sure the point is that some people (criminals, etc) will always be able to get guns and also you can't outlaw knives. Someone pulls a knife, the other pulls a gun, knife guy will probably back down. You seem fixated on the idea of banning guns wholesale, yet refuse to acknowledge their use.
For me the most important part is for civilians to have some measure of real power in case the government goes full tyranny. Given the way things have been going I'm pretty sure that is the end-game for the elites, absolute control over the people with just enough freedoms to be the bread and circuses.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 24 2016, @11:43PM
Wow, you're on a rampage in this thread!
Sorry! Just sick and tired of the ammosexuals perverse fetishism of death. That and First Post still has some popcorn left!
You seem fixated on the idea of banning guns wholesale, yet refuse to acknowledge their use.
You misunderstand my desires on this issue. I only want to ban guns to people who are such cowards and idiots as to think they need them for personal protection, or to pull some kind of Biergarten Putsch and overthrow the Tyranny of the government by taking over a wildlife preserve, or something. No problem with people having guns, per se. They are great tools! But sane people would never want to own something like an AR-15, not because it is too deadly or powerful, or black, or any of the other ammosexual misunderstandings of gun control advocates. First, military weapons are military, and war is not a useful activity. Different debate, but as well, the AR-15 fires a round that is marginal for hunting, at least anything larger than "varmits" (hmm, genocide on "varmits"?). It is a .22 caliber round, for goodness sake! Extreme limits the the amount of "umph" that you can make up for with muzzle velocity. Third, military weapons are ugly. Note that well, ugly, not scary. Almost all handguns are equally useless, their only good for ease of carry, single-handed operation, and ease of concealment. Oh, and murder. So I think Australia probably has it right, although not for all the right reasons.
Jim Jefferies, again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:35AM
I would agree with all your points, except history tells a tale of caution. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to safeguard against real, physical threats. From the bandit to the government. What happens when certain groups start being rounded up again? What about when the country actually gets invaded? What will you do if there is a nuclear war and we really do go into the posts apocalyptic nightmare? Just get shot by the assholes with guns?
This is historical fact, hopefully it never becomes necessary. If some tools want to occupy a park then we just deal with it, and their group becomes marginalized and goes out of existence if they don't actually have the people's support. Their actions actually popped the bubble that so many similar folks lived in and brought them a little closer to reality (I hope anyway).
What if the KKK starts kidnapping and lynching? I'd damn sure get myself a serious weapon.
It is a thin line that keeps the authoritarians at bay, and if you're on the wrong list when they seize full power, well deity of your choice help you! The biggest problem for the authoritarians in the US is the founding principle of freedom., and the constitution to remind us of it. We can't stray so far that the general population sees the farce... I predict that the next "cleanse" will be political dissidents, and they will get shipped off to bad places. The story will paint any dissident as a terrorist and it will be decades before people realize that an actual coup took place and innocent people ate being killed. Shit, that has already happened! At least so far it's mostly limited to keeping tabs on people... But next is disappearing people on the lists.
I think you're living in a fairy tale where nothing can go "that wrong", and I can only hope that the US is diverse enough that the crimes of 9/11 are the limit to what we'll take.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:30AM
I would agree with all your points, except history tells a tale of caution.
History tells no such tale. Do you know what happened to those few who violently opposed the Klan? Of course you don't. It was not armed resistance, it was the civil rights movement that put an end to "strange fruit". You should know this, because my "armed defense" group is coming around to your neighborhood next week or so, you may want to put out a "protected by S&W" sign, or a "Trump" sign, because we would hate to lynch the wrong people by mistake. No, it is the rule of law, not vigilante action that ever established the rights of all to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And if you think otherwise, we're coming for your guns, Chuck!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:16AM
thank you for video link. [insert thumbs up emoji here]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:02AM
You fascist bastard - what gives you the right or the authority to demand that I prove something that you can't even prove? WTF told you that YOU are sane?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:10AM
You have some spittle on the side of your face, just there. . . . A little higher. . . . Well, forget it. I can see there is more coming.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:52AM
Safer to assume I'm not, they aren't, and neither are you. No guns.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:48AM
Too late: I've already got guns, will never surrender them, and my machine shop can make still more guns. What do you propose to do about it?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:23AM
In Australia's case, an amnesty, a buy-back and a restriction on sale, licensing and distribution of certain weapons.
In my case, not move to the USA.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @04:24PM
Since you missed it the first time: no, none of that will be obeyed. Your move. We're still armed.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 24 2016, @11:35PM
You can also make explosives from what you have in your cabinets plus a box of nails from the hardware store. They're much more effective at killing people too.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:43AM
Just a disclaimer: I do consider the right to bear arms to be sensible, even in its unconditional form (ignoring the "militia" clause), and I would oppose any measure infringing that right. What I am talking about here is limiting the kinds of arms we should have the right to bear, which is not controversial at all, unless we want to give a tactical nuclear warhead to anyone who can afford it.
The parent presents, imho, the only good reason to give up on most of the gun legislation, but only if we grant people enough freedom AND means to own and operate functional 3d-printers, AND to share information with willing parties in privacy and without restriction. This is not the argument we usually hear from the ammosexuals, though; usually they just spout hateful nonsense. But even the printing argument, as much as I share the belief in it, is not without practical flaws. For one, it will take decades before consumer printers are good enough to print assault rifles, which some folks think can be banned with positive results. And if a law can do some good for 30+ years, may be it's just wort passing it. Second, the effect of such laws on the culture should not be dismissed. Third, it is not exactly obvious that carry-limiting laws would be useless in a society where anyone with $1199 in the pocket can secretly obtain an untraceable assault rifle. Sure, they can print a big-ass gun, but it doesn't mean we should let them prance around with it.
Going back to the beginning, what are the chances that even here, in US, we will be allowed to 3d-print whatever the fuck we want? We can't even get rid of censorship of ideas; alas, it actually seems to be getting traction. Copyrights and patents keep growing in scope and in power, posting stupid shit on the net regularly puts people in jail, and the law enforcement is openly at war with our right to privacy. I do believe all of these trends should be reversed through sensible legislation, but while they are not, most gun control laws will remain somewhat effective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:40PM
"and the law enforcement is openly at war with our right to privacy. "
Law Enforcement is openly at war with MMAALLEESS
Anything a MMMMMMAAAALLLLEEEEE might want == prison.
Child bride == prison.
Weapons == prison.
etc etc etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24 2016, @10:12PM
Australia does not share a border with the countries we do, they do not have the drug war we do, they do not have the poor border enforcement we do, they do not have the population makeup we do, their country is not flooded already with guns like ours is, and they do not have as large inequality we do (which directly correlates with crime). Now, before you start shouting "Canada" at me, take a look at our many neighbors to the South. Their gun laws explicitly do not work. The Olympics could be a huge cesspit of crime and violence and everyone acknowledges this. But so often it is completely ignored that so many places in Central and South America have very restrictive gun legislation, and that these places have unprecedentedly high violent crime. To pretend these factors are alien to the United States is an out-of-touch, Anglo/Eurocentric, and aristocratic view which is in blatant denial of the makeup and geography of the Americas.
In short, stop pushing your Eurocentric and Anglocentric smugness where it neither belongs nor applies.
(Score: 2) by moondoctor on Friday June 24 2016, @10:27PM
Yep, Mexicans with guns. That's the real issue here.
(Score: 3, Informative) by jelizondo on Friday June 24 2016, @11:28PM
Let's see, you are saying that armed Brazilians are a threat to the U.S.? Somebody call the Pentagon! The Brazilians are coming!
Look at a map, the continental U.S. shares borders only with Canada and Mexico, whatever happens in Brazil, Colombia or Venezuela is far removed, by thousands of kilometers, from the U.S.
Now, yes, there are many illegally armed people in Mexico and do you know where the fuck they get such armament? Yes, from the U.S. of A. where anyone can purchase an assault rifle which is then used to kill Mexicans and Americans alike. Search "Fast and Furious Operation" (one link [cnn.com] only as an example.)
If the law in the U.S. called for background checks or other ways to ensure that no crazies or drug-related operators could buy guns, the drug cartels in Mexico would have a harder time getting assault weapons and the streets on both sides of the border would be safer.
Now go to your Trump rally and blame Mexicans for all the woes you suffer, including lack of intelligence.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday June 24 2016, @10:31PM
This article and the study are pure propaganda. Any science harmed was purely incidental.
First off, The Guardian; nuff said. Then they explicitly tie it to the current effort by the Dims to distract attention from Obama's corruption of the FBI to the point they refused to see the dots and thus couldn't connect them in the most recent massacre by the Religion of Peace. Being unable to admit their failure they return to their favorite woobie, gun control. So the Boston Marathon massacre by the Religion of Peace means we needed to have a national conversation about the legality of pressure cookers? No, guns didn't kill those people, a Soldier of Allah did it USING a gun.
Then the article lacks any serious numbers, but tries to ignore the elephant in the room; that barring terrorists and war the rates of murder and violent crime have been generally trending down throughout the developed world.
Even if we admit that if you can actually seize all firearms, which was apparently possible in AU with more controllable borders, you will reduce crimes involving firearms (duh!) it ignores the bigger questions. Do you actually reduce crime? And is it worth the reduction in liberty? Here in the US we can compare states that liberalized carry laws to those who didn't. Pretty clear that more guns lowered crime. This should not shock any sane person. Guns don't kill people, guns in the hands of people who can pass concealed carry checks do not kill people. Criminals kill people, with guns, knives, clubs, hammers, whatever is handy.
In the end it is a decision about what sort of world we want to live in and what sort of people we aspire to be. The police should not the thought of as the 'first responders' because they will always suck at that job. When seconds count they are going to be minutes away. The first responder is YOU. We should be preparing people to handle emergencies. And you should have the tools to handle the task. You should be trusted by your fellow citizens and your government with the responsibility carrying those tools implies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:55AM
So, since you and all the other gun zealots believe that more guns actually make your world safer, why don't we just give some of your nukes to North Korea, Libya, Iran/aq, etc. It can only serve to make the world a much safer place.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:32AM
Strawman much?
Seriously. So it is your 'reasoned argument' that Lil' Kim could pass the background check for a CCW permit for a pistol? And you want to give him fusion bombs? And no the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to a nuke or any other WMD regulated by an International Treaty signed and ratified by the United States. If our military's access to a weapon is carefully limited (or outright forbidden in the cases of chemical or biological) it isn't much of a stretch to say ordinary folk can't have them.
I am on record multiple times, including here, promoting my notion of 'common sense gun control' where access to crew served weapons would be regulated such that only registered (and carefully background checked) militia companies could possess them and only when held in regulated armories while not being used for training purposes. And said militia companies would be subject to the regular discipline of the regular Army and National Guard, be expected to participate in joint training exercises and would be expected to be activated and deployed "as-is" in a time of war. If somebody wants to play militia, they had better be prepared to be treated like one when the balloon goes up. But yea, subject to those 'common sense' rules somebody should be able to own their own company of Abrams tanks complete with live ammo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:53AM
Strawman much?
Hardly a strawman; simply an extension of your idiot logic that more guns=safer. *Your* background check bullshit hasn't prevented any of the mass shooters who happened to have passed their background checks. Li'l Kim would easily pass a background check administered by the North Korean government: it becomes a matter of perspective, then doesn't it? Many North Koreans would feel that Kim is *normal* and any POTUS is insane, and oppresses his citizens - you see how this works? It all comes down to what one is fed, who's supplying the food (who's watching the watcher)
More guns = safer defies all logic and common sense regardless how you like to spin it. The strawman appears in Oz, not here.
Nice try though.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @02:34PM
Common sense and logic? your version of it defies common sense and logic - that's all you've proved.
The most peaceful, idyllic nation that has ever existed on earth, has had it's share of criminals and predators. Only when the law can guarantee that no predators remain, does it make any sense to deprive citizens of the right and the means to resist those predators.
But - the day that any nation makes such a promise, you will know one thing for certain. The current rulers are predators themselves.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:21AM
CCW huh. I believe that stands for Concealed Carry Weapons.
I don't recall seeing anywhere in the Second Amendment the words "shall not be abridged, unless you put it inside your jacket, or stick it in your sock."
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:00AM
Virtually all "studies" that have to do with gun control had reached their conclusion stage long before any study was done. This one is no different. Someone felt the need to justify Aussie gun laws, so they tried to develop a "study" which would "prove" how effective the gun laws were.
Meanwhile - Chicago burns.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:54PM
Most studies aren't even able to be done. As the gun nuts already had their congressmen make a law against it.
How very scientific...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:28PM
Oh, PLEASE! This "study" was done in Oz. And, it's flawed. And, your whining is flawed.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Saturday June 25 2016, @12:29AM
I find it frustrating that the one statistic that never comes up in gun control discussions is how many times firearms are used by Americans to successfully defend themselves. I was never able to find any decent statistics on this, but some of the statistics I did find suggested that someone uses a firearm to defend themselves, their homes/property, or other people SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES EVERY YEAR.
Oftentimes, the simple brandishing of a firearm was able to send a mugger, rapist, home invader or robber fleeing, without a shot being fired.
But we never talk about this.
We never talk about the fact that firearms are successfully used for self defense much more frequently than they are used for homicide. Yes, even with our horribly high homicide rate.
And why was I not able to find good statistics for this when I looked into it years ago? Because much of self-defensive firearms usage GOES COMPLETELY UNREPORTED. Self defense is not a crime, so if someone injures a home invader and causes them to flee to the local hospital, or even kills the home invader, it is typically at best reported as a footnote in the local police blotter, if there even is a local police blotter. Nobody cares. It's only horrific events like Orlando that make it to the international news. No one wants to talk about the fact that the tool used by the mass murderer was probably used to defend just as many lives IN THE SAME DAY as were lost in Orlando that night. Noooo, the firearm is not a tool that can be used to defend life or property, it is an eeeeeevil murder device that can only be used to do unwarranted harm to others. If we get rid of the eeeeeevil murder device, crime will magically stop happening.
This is why I hate conversations about gun control. Most people on either side are not interested in having a rational conversation. Gun control advocates, by and large, just don't like guns, and gun rights advocates, by and large, just love guns, and there is little common ground in between.
Of course, if we actually wanted to reduce the firearm homicide rate we would end the War on Drugs and decriminalize sex workers, treat them all as public health issues and thus pull the rug out from under the drug/prostitution gangs that are continually fighting over lucrative territory, which is where the majority of the homicide rate comes from. But what the hell do I know. Maybe if we ban the AR-15 the drug gangs will sign a peace treaty.
What?
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @01:34AM
how many times firearms are used by Americans to successfully defend themselves.
C'mon, Bear! Just read the backpages column in the NRA's publication, American Mass Murderer. Wait, that's not right, American Rifleman, I think. It is very much like Letters to a certain porn mag, back in the day: "Dear American Assault Rifleman, I never thought it could happen to me, but last night. . ."
Like the porn mag, not a very good source for stats, though.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:39AM
Serious question: Does something have to be not true to be flamebait? Just curious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:52AM
If you're not happy with the way you're viewed, perhaps you should have made a choice to build a post history as something other than a button-pushing troll.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:52AM
fuch you, ammosexual creep trainer~! We are trying to have serious discussion here!
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday June 25 2016, @10:26AM
That's actually an interesting question.
There is no doubt that some true statements can predictably anger some people, but if that is because people can be irrational, then is it the statement that is flamebait or is the problem their irrationality?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday June 25 2016, @08:44PM
No, just unpalatable.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Informative) by rigrig on Saturday June 25 2016, @03:06AM
From the actual abstract [jamanetwork.com] (emphasis mine):
"Disclaimer": I'm all for gun control (as it is) in my own country, and truly believe it makes this a safer place to live. The people across the pond should have free access to small arms though, and hopefully enough idiots will manage to kill themselves/other idiots[1] before they can vote to give a Great Idiot[2] access to intercontinental weaponry of mass destruction.
[1] Because all the smart people are able to fully protect themselves with all the guns they own.
[2] I wish I could say I was only talking about one of the candidates :-(
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 25 2016, @05:07AM
And I'm not even deliberately trying to do it.
Here goes: I support the rights to small arms ownership here in the US. No one needs a goddamned AR-15 for self or home defense, but I'm friends with people who have pistols in the home and concealed carry licenses. They are all conscious of gun safety and trigger discipline, and are good about keeping things locked up when not used. They train at the range; I may actually go with them this Sunday. They understand that a gun is *not,* PAY ATTENTION YOU DROOLING BARREL-FELLATING AMMOSEXUAL PERVERTS YES I AM TALKING TO YOU RUNAWAY BUZZARD AND JMORRIS YOU SLOBBERING SOLDIER-SUCKING PIGBOTTOMS, "just another tool." They understand that a firearm is a portable Grim Reaper. They understand that the purpose of a gun, the ONLY purpose, is to put the fear of death and/or actual death into another living being.
There is a time and a place. Some people are shit, and won't leave you alone any other way. Some people will kill you if you do not kill them. This is a fucking tragedy, NOT something to hope for on a regular basis. I wish my sister had been armed at 14 when she was raped, although, of course, minors can't carry ANYWAY.
All that said: God DAMN, are the rifle-fuckers out in force tonight. The usual suspects, all. They're not even trying to hide how ridiculously sexual their obsession it; Buzzard's former sig ("wieners, put 'em in yer mouth!") and present one ("bustin' makes me feel good") are all explicitly sexual...and lest you deny it, one of the above-mentioned friends frankly admitted to me at work tonight that firing his 12-gauge "is a rush, it's like cumming, it even makes you tired at the end of it." I don't understand this, probably because I don't have that anatomy, but will take his word for it. And that is all kinds of creepy ick, oh my God.
The impression I'm getting is that male sexuality seems intimately bound up with power and control. This would explain the almost religious fervor some men have over their guns: it always seemed to be more emotional than rational, like the self-defense angle was some kind of flimsy excuse to hide fetish behavior. It would explain why so many people have such heavy identity-political components to their gun ownership.
But how does the taking of life become conflated with the creation of it? I've been told the lower brain is responsible for processing both arousal and fear, so maybe that has something to do with it if true. But I'd think a penis is the opposite of a gun, in purpose if not construction. I think Aristarchus is right where he said upthread that war is basically mass male-on-male rape, especially knowing how rape was used in ancient times. God, what a mess :(
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Informative) by caffeine on Saturday June 25 2016, @06:05AM
I agree with you. There is a middle ground here but the debate always seems to always be between extremes.
Just as some background, I'm an Australian, a registered shooter. In Australia it is not particularly difficult to get a firearms licence, you just need to do a safe firearms handling course and give a reason why you need a licence. For example. you can join a firearms club or just have someone on a rural property say that you can use their property for vermin control. I do not know of any cases where self defence was considered a valid reason except the security industry.
The types of firearms is limited, semi-automatics and large capacity pump actions are illegal. But, the types you would actually need for shooting at a club (including handguns) are available, and hunting style firearms are also available.
Firearms must be registered and kept in an approved gun safe and this is inspected by the local state police on a regular basis.
The advantages of these laws are that incidents of children accidently getting access to guns is greatly reduced. Also firearms ending up in criminal hands after a break and enter is also reduced. Shooters also get extensive background checks as part of getting their licence and that takes a few weeks.
It is not in anyway perfect, criminals just import guns illegally. Too often young men in country regions still use licenced firearms for suicide. There are people who still have semiautomatics hidden and waiting for the government to turn on them.
It frustrates me that in this debate whenever Australia is brought up. it always ends up being used by people with extreme positions, rather than a discussion on what was worked for Australia and what has not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 25 2016, @07:40AM
First, an AR-15 is a "small arm", just as the M-14, M-15, and M-16 are all "small arms". The Navy's Gunner's Mates keep all the "small arms" in the "small arms locker". Even the ship's machine guns are kept in the "small arms locker". Anything 1/2 inch or smaller is a "small arm".
Portable grim reaper? Yeah - that's the Ford (GM, Beemer, Subaru, or whatever) you have parked in the driveway.
That said - you are at least partially right. SOME GUYS have a sexual fetish for firearms. I've known a few of them. And, most of THOSE TYPE are addressed as "officer" when you meet them. Find your local constabulary's favorite donut or lunch hangout. Better yet, their favorite bar. Just slide into a booth, where you can overhear the cops flapping their gums at each other. You may get lucky, and only hear the kind of conversation you expect to hear from cops. But, keep coming back, several nights. Especially around the full (fool) moon. You'll get an earful.
But, that shit's alright with most people. After all, they're cops, right? They keep us safe.