I personally think only well trained professionals need to get near guns
Printable View
I personally think only well trained professionals need to get near guns
Rights and liberties, whatever they are, are not conditional on intellect in democratic societies, are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Um, no you weren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Logically if you want to change behaviour, then you change the law and then enforce it. The problem is that in the case of the Second Amendment, it is seen as sacrosanct, despite the costs associated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Whenever we have these sorts of threads, the same objections are raised and the same solutions offered; meanwhile the United States also asks the same questions, does nothing and then six weeks later forgets about it until the next time that someone destroys people - even if the guns are obtained legally and even if they happen to destroy innocent people.
Der Tod eines Menschen: das ist eine Katastrophe. Hunderttausend Tote: das ist eine Statistik!
(The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!)
- Kurt Tucholsky, Französischer Witz (1932)
America likes to yell "Freedom!" in the face of statistics.
And its a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You could add;
According to polls these same people, 92% claim to be Christian" and 88% "believe" in astrology.
How's that for cognitive dissonance?
And allegedly 47% of the country believe the earth and man are more or less 6,000 years old..
Are these people I want running around armed to the teeth?
Nope.
I think I'm in a better position than you to say whether or not I was making a serious point, thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
I will say it more pointedly: the intellect of many Americans is such that I feel they should not be trusted with weapons far less dangerous than guns.
Which is exactly why I say again that American gun enthusiasts consider the toll of the innocent a perfectly appropriate price to pay for keeping their guns. There can be no other explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Not totally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Some of them are pointless, one is archaic, one is barbaric and the rest are fine.
This is an 11 minute read:
http://rollo75.blogspot.com.au/2014/...s-bill-of.html
I think that the existence of a Bill of Rights, limits people's vision to the extent of what's committed to paper. I for instance at common law have the right to quiet enjoyment of property, a right to travel, a right to be forgotten... the Ninth Amendment hints at this but "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Doe v. Bolton (1973).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../179/case.html
Under common law principles in Commonwealth countries, rights are assumed to exist unless hedged in by law; that includes rights which haven't been thought of yet.
Wealthy and educated Brits, knives, journalists, Syrian desert...Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You need to have popular support to enforce laws. Otherwise you'll have another case of brutal social engineering of the kind that often happened over the last hundred years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
To a degree I agree with you. But I think respect is the greatest tool when it comes to handling guns. Even the most proficient people in all walks of life and fields make mistakes if they don't respect their situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by steveaki13
A good dose of common sense doesn't hurt either :)
Many a right-wing American one encounters could, in my experience, do with a bit of brutal social engineering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Your point being?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Has a bit of a chuckle when I read this :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Avoid making sweeping generalizations based on an individual case.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Well said sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Such a confident statement doesn't surprise me one single bit. I've often seen the proponents of progressive and liberal views trying to show those down somebody else's throat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The tyranny of the left is as oppressive, or sometimes more so, than the tyranny of the right. Always beware the zealots who are so sure that they "know what is good for you" (right and left). They also usually fancy themselves as smarter than those who don't agree with their way of thinking - a false premise based on the conceit that they are always right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
Exactly. The logic of the "I-am-good-therefore-the-one-disagreeing-with-me-is-bad" kind is downright dangerous. When urban sophisticated liberal folks start using it, they are no different from intolerant fanatics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Absolutely, which is not applied when allowing 9 year olds to play with gunsQuote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Oh, and the right doesn't do that at all, does it? What utterly hypocritical rot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
I don't just fancy myself as smarter than the average right-wing gun-toting American; I know I actually am. Goodness, the sofa on which I'm sitting has more in the way of brain cells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
So, am I as dangerous as, say, a suicide bomber? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz
The notion that the right doesn't apply exactly the same 'logic' as you describe is spectacularly fanciful.
While I've agreed with your opinion regarding the thread topic on every level, I have found the way you have expressed your opinion as quite....ungentlemanly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And while we in Europe (even friends of mine who own guns and go shooting game every weekend) think of American gun-culture as being insane and ridiculous I have just accepted it as a quirk of their society. A quirk that has ended the lives of countless children in massacres in America, but a quirk nevertheless.
In Britain we have warm beer, in America they have automatic assault rifles. Different countries, different cultures :beer:
I've heard that is because you have Lucas refrigerators. :D (I know, that's a very old joke.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
You are much more so. A suicide bomber only harms a few people at at time. The zealot would stifle all expression with which they don't agree and force others to behave in accordance with their extremely narrow view of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I don't get it :erm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
:(
As usual, you are wrong again. Right wing American and gun toting American are not always the same thing. There are many left leaning gun owners here and many right leaning non gun owners. You have allowed your urge to stereotype Americans to get in the way of rational thought. I'd suggest your critical faculties have migrated to the portion of your anatomy in contact with your sofa.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The reference is to Lucas (also known as the prince of darkness) electrics in British cars of the 50s to 70s vintage. As I said its an old joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
The fact that you have tried to apply such a shallow stereotype to a demographic you obviously know little if anything about proves your intelligence rather lacking actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
The childish manner in which you profess your claimed superior intellect actually makes about as much sense as someone from the US claiming that everyone in the UK is just a bunch of drunks living off the government hand outs. Even us gun toting rednecks know that it really only applies to part of the UK. :laugh:
Even the simpletons could probably figure out fairly quickly that US laws and policies are not influenced very much by the will of an internet warrior from another country claiming they know the right way to do everything. But if that has escaped you, by all means keep trying.
What definitions of left and right are you using? On a Statist / Laissez-faire axis or a Libertarian / Authoritarianism axis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Oh, I quite agree. I've been extremely rude and ungentlemanly. The reason is because I'm utterly fed up with what I view as the inane arguments used by those in favour of the status quo, especially the refusal of people to acknowledge that they consider the death toll acceptable as it is as a price to pay. Clearly they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow
Do I expect to have influence? Obviously not. But I would imagine you have, at some point, voiced opinions on the internet on subjects over which you have no influence. That's all I'm doing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Thats the beauty of individuals, we all hold our own opinions and we are all neither right nor wrong in our opinions and beliefs. Imagine not having a choice/say in life. Different cultures have different beliefs and opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Expression of an opinion is not uncommon.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
In your case you are expressing an opinion, attaching shallow stereotypes, professing to be more intelligent, etc due to your opinion and little else.
Anyone who actually looked objectively at the mounds and mounds of statistics on the issue would find that it's not the everyday gun owner who commits these crimes, it's the thugs by a vast percentage. That being, the people that don't legally obtain or own their guns to begin with, and many who are by law prohibited from doing the same. There are also pages upon pages proving that the cities with the highest murder tolls are most often those cities with strict anti gun laws, the reason being that above mentioned thugs have little chance of being opposed with equal force.
The link provided earlier by Rollo shows a snapshot of the current reality. Legal un sales are soaring in the US, the population is still growing, and virtually all violent crime remains in decline for a couple of decades now. The primary argument from the anti gun crowd seems to be that more guns = more crime and death. But that doesn't agree with actual statistics.
I could attach a shallow stereotype to yourself or anyone else ignoring the facts, but this dumb redneck gun toter is smart enough to understand that shallow stereotypes are often cast due to a lack of understanding and the inability to grasp that not all of us have the same opinions.
Anti-Gun laws in cities are not designed as gun-prevention. Without borderpatrols between states or around cities, it is impossible to prevent the transportation of guns within the US. It is silly therefore to claim that Anti-Gun laws in cities are not good in helping gun prevention when that is an impossible aim to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Anti-Gun laws only work when there is a clear distinction between the pro-gun and anti-gun areas. This distinction does not exist within the US. It does exist between countries, and statistics clearly show that when a country bans guns and enforces strict border controls to enforce this ban, violent crime drops. Example: Australia.
Violent crime is dropping everywhere in the western world also in areas where there are no guns at all. It is therefore too simple to claim that the reason for the drop is pro-gun laws.Quote:
The link provided earlier by Rollo shows a snapshot of the current reality. Legal un sales are soaring in the US, the population is still growing, and virtually all violent crime remains in decline for a couple of decades now. The primary argument from the anti gun crowd seems to be that more guns = more crime and death. But that doesn't agree with actual statistics.
I could attach a shallow stereotype to yourself or anyone else ignoring the facts, but this dumb redneck gun toter is smart enough to understand that shallow stereotypes are often cast due to a lack of understanding and the inability to grasp that not all of us have the same opinions.
As I have mentioned. The answer is to register your gun with the Federal Gov and receive a national concealed carry license. Then they will know where the honest guns are and we can carry at will without all the stupid state and city laws. The best one right now is Arizona - If you got it pack it any way you like no license required.
Example of reality: AustraliaQuote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
The murders with firearms was on the decline well before the gun ban, and the murder rate in the years surrounding the gun ban peaked years after. Shoots a big hole in the theory doesn't it?
Violent crimes rates are far from dropping in much of the western world. But the US has seen declines for decades, despite more legally owned guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lousada
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...imes-per-1000# Overall crime rates realities
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html
As I've stated may posts above, what falls when guns are banned is usually only the murders committed with guns. Very rarely does it affect the murder rate. So what does it accomplish other than taking guns out of the hands of the legal owners who by statistics, will rarely if ever use them for a crime?
If the deaths by drunk drivers primarily took place at the hands of unlicensed drivers, would the solution be to ban cars?
But from my experience of my brief visit to the US different laws for state and city seems like the best solution. The rural parts of New York state I visited were like a different country to NYC with a completely different way of life. It would be ridiculous to govern the two as one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Mass shootings in Australia:Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
1984 - Milperra Masacre - 7 people
1987 - Hoddle Street massacre - 7 people
1987 - Queen Street massacre - 9 people
1990 - Surry Hills massacre - 5 people
1991 - Strathfield massacre - 7 people
1992 - Central Coast Massacre - 6 people
1996 - Port Arthur massacre - 35 people
1997 - $350m Federal Gun Buyback Scheme - 643,000 firearms were handed in
Number of shootings where more than 3 people have been shot in a single incident since: 0
Yes, it does shoot a big hole in the theory.
Namely, that the policy worked.