I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

12th March 2012, 23:06
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Another straw man argument.

BS. His example is fully valid. Unless ofcourse you don't want to accept it. And your knee jerk reaction proves it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

The US is not Australia ...

That much we all figured out on our own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

...and, though I profess ignorance of Aussie prior law,...

Then why even make a comment on it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US.

Ever heard about proportions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

And, yes, it is accepted in the US by a large majority of people. That's why various proposed gun control laws keep getting voted down. Also why more and more states are relaxing existing laws.

Let's be honest, we have nothing against you shooting each other as long as you keep it for yourselves.
12th March 2012, 23:22
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Another straw man argument.

What you mean is 'an argument with which I disagree'. Two very different things. What Rollo posted is far from a 'straw-man argument'. Read this sentence: 'The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."' In what sense can you — having, I presume, not undertaken a detailed study of the matter yourself — just dismiss the findings of said study?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US.

And as a percentage of total numbers of guns held in the country, how does it fare then?
12th March 2012, 23:22
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Let's be honest, we have nothing against you shooting each other as long as you keep it for yourselves.

Only if we have scant regard for human life.
12th March 2012, 23:40
Rollo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

Another straw man argument. The US is not Australia and, though I profess ignorance of Aussie prior law, I don't believe Australia had relatively lax gun control before the period you quoted. Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US. And, yes, it is accepted in the US by a large majority of people.

You're right, which is why you look at per capita rates. Obviously 700,000 guns is "a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US". You're also correct that Australia didn't have lax gun control laws before the period quoted; even if you look at the period before 1996, per capita injury and death rates were still far far lower in Australia.

It's hardly a straw man argument, when you asserted that my stance "flies in the face of reality" and I went and proved otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Starter

That's why various proposed gun control laws keep getting voted down. Also why more and more states are relaxing existing laws.

No. Gun control laws keep on getting voted down in the United States because guns are so entrenched in your culture.
13th March 2012, 11:58
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. A completely true statement that is backed with the weight of evidence.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian Government via a buy back scheme took 700,000 guns out of society.

News | The University of Sydney
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Australia which has far tighter gun control and which engaged in a mass buy back has a gun-related death rate which is 14.7 times lower per 100,000 people.
Having been down this road before, I can't actually make a convincing argument because it isn't accepted. What is accepted and apparently acceptable is 14.7 times the number of dead Americans as a result of guns per 100,000 people. What's also accepted is a health care system which has to cope with accidents and injuries up and down the land. America as a nation has found it acceptable to wear these costs through increased health insurance premiums.

But that's Australia, a whole different country. Therefore your Aussie examples don't count, in exactly the same manner that everyone wants to dismiss any example from Switzerland. I'm calling "different circumstances". So you can't use Austrailian examples.
13th March 2012, 12:01
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eki

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking generally. When there's no chance, some people do prefer to live instead of dying. In 5 card stud poker, would you go against three aces with king high?

So Liberty and Freedom are things to be gambled away to you? Again telling, very telling.

A puzzle is begining to come into focus with each and every piece (as if it wasn't already). Eki doesn't believe in any absolute rights, liberties, or freedoms. He only accepts what a stonger person tells him are his rights and liberties. That and what Wikipedia tells him.

Tell me Eki, assume for a minute that you would have had the unfortunate "privledge" of being an African, plucked from you peaceful existance on the planes of Africa, to be shipped to work on a Plantation in Gerogia, would you have just been a "good little worker"? I mean afterall you had no chance, why not just fold your cards?
13th March 2012, 12:10
chuck34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rollo

No. Gun control laws keep on getting voted down in the United States because guns are so entrenched in your culture.

Yes they are. And what the hell is wrong with that? We, Americans, keep being told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again (and in many circumstances rightfully so) that we should just keep our noses out of other people's business. That we "don't understand" other cultures. That we "don't live the way others do". That we "have no right to tell others how to live".

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?

If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?

If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?

If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?
13th March 2012, 12:51
BDunnell

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

Yes they are. And what the hell is wrong with that? We, Americans, keep being told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again (and in many circumstances rightfully so) that we should just keep our noses out of other people's business. That we "don't understand" other cultures. That we "don't live the way others do". That we "have no right to tell others how to live".

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?

If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?

If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?

If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of victim mentality.

Also, you fail, Chuck, to grasp one essential difference between those who object to America imposing itself around the world and those here who are against the American gun laws. Those who say the US should, as you put it, 'keep our noses out of other people's business' are objecting to years of policy on the part of successive US administrations, some of whose foreign policy adventures have been deeply counterproductive to global security. All those of us here who object to US gun laws are doing is voicing our opinion against one law and the basis for it. We are entitled to do so, and will go on doing so. This is totally unconnected to any criticism of US foreign policy, except for the extent to which I believe there exists in sections of US society a certain 'gung-ho', 'trigger-happy' mentality which guarantees public support for misguided efforts like the 2003 Iraq conflict — an entirely separate discussion.

You say that Americans are often criticised for their lack of understanding of other cultures. I consider it wrong to apply this across the board, but from my experiences on these forums I can see exactly what people mean, I'm sorry to say. Does not the often greater worldliness of Europeans, and our greater understanding of other cultures, render it far from hypocritical for us to make comments on said cultures?
13th March 2012, 13:52
Eki

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

Because you try to tell the rest of the world how to live. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea,..., etc. You don't understand their cultures or even our cultures and don't live like they or even us live. Why are their nuclear power plants or even nuclear weapons any of your business?
13th March 2012, 14:16
schmenke

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

...
So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? ...

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

...You have no right to tell us how to live. ...

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

Quote:

Originally Posted by chuck34

... Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?
If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?
If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?
If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?
If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

Why so defensive?

Why can't we simply debate the pros-cons of private firearms ownership, weather in the U.S. or elsewhere?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page