continued from above wow! and they didn't make cults illegal? luckily, poisoning and mass murder are illegal in the US - but this is a great example to use to make a point: even though these were Americans, cults weren't outlawed or banned in the US. (you do realise that Guyana is a sovereign nation and not the US, right? just asking). This was definitely horrific and people were shocked, yet level heads prevailed and we didn't ban cults because you can't regulate how people believe or want to believe. It's one of those pesky US Constitutional right-thingies... do you want to remove suicides from gun deaths? it would be a fascinating comparison, to be sure I will also demand that you use source material from the CDC, FBI and BJS as a selection from an opinion article may well be selectively cherry-picking data to support their claim and it takes a long time to sift through the raw data to verify or debunk said points. The statistics are free and readily available on the aforementioned sites, and I've linked them to you before, so there is no reason to refuse that request for original source material unless you're choosing to argue from bias Thanks If the NRA is using some of my arguments then it's likely because there is a valid reason (like ignorance on the pro-control fanatical left) I am not using any of their references I am also anti-religion of all kinds (I don't care what you believe, just keep it to yourself and don't try to make others abide by your rules) I am also supportive of the Constitution which prevents state-supported religions (like god in schools) There is no scientific evidence that links shootings to Ritalin Doors, however, should be outlawed. Why have a door if you're a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to hide! The only reason you need a door is that you fear society and nature! Surely you can agree that only the fearful and cowards need doors! [humour intended, all things considered] Why is it that you can't differentiate between an explicit law and the injustice of lack of enforcement? Is there a rule that I can't comment on topics that are interesting to me? If so, please link it here so I can read it. Thanks Ah. So, because I choose to not get emotional about a topic that I am far, far, far more familiar and experienced with than you, then I lack the capacity for introspection? that doesn't sound rational. That would be like stating I am not empathetic because I'm not White, or some other prejudical comment designed to elicit emotional distress The problem lies in your lack of ability to remove your emotions before introspection, IMHO. Just because you can present outrage publicly doesn't mean everyone who doesn't follow your lead is not outraged or attempting change. It doesn't mean anything other than the fact that we're not representing your opinion or beliefs. : fanatical religious cults do the same thing, and so do political pundits.
Good for you. Like I said, note that every range you go to will have human silhouettes. Because the purpose of a handgun is to kill people. That's why it is designed the way it is. That is why cops use them when their tasers are insufficient. That is why the military uses them (often in larger format) when they want to kill large numbers of people. That's why they are the tool of choice for mass murderers. Handguns are dangerous weapons that are designed to kill. They are not just like knives, spoons, water, cars etc. If you don't understand that, you are not competent enough to own and operate a weapon safely. Correct. A gun is a tool that enables people to kill other people effectively and at long range. You are confusing "problem" with "purpose." Cops use guns to kill criminals regularly; is that a problem? Yes. But water heaters are not designed to kill people. In fact, they are designed to NOT kill people, while at the same time fulfilling their primary purpose - heating water. Same with pools, barbeques, jet engines etc. If a criminal with a knife was rushing towards you, and you wanted to kill him to stop him - would you prefer to have a handgun or a water heater? You are again confusing "fault" with "purpose." You are again confusing "fault" with "purpose" - and no one is proposing a ban anyway. I did not ask for an apology. I am simply pointing out that, like many lawyers, you prefer to use language to mislead, misdirect and obfuscate rather than speak plainly when you know your point is unsupportable.
The one thing I keep coming back to is: If you ain't a USA citizen: Why in hell do you purport to have any say in our laws or constitution? Bear in mind that we are a nation of immigrants from virtually every region of the earth. We are not an homogeneous population! Comparing us to a country with an homogeneous population is pure folly and idiocy. In this country, there is no clear majority from any tribe, clan, ethnic group, country nor region. One thing about being a melting pot and having reactionary loonies in congress is that we have "a lot of unresolved issues" often exacerbated by needless and nonproductive/counterproductive laws and regulations from that esteemed body. It seems that throughout history, every new immigration group has been met with derision, until the next immigrant group can also be met with derision from the previous immigrant group. Based on that history, I wouldn't advise taking any current derision too seriously. If you ain't a US citizen, it ain't your problem nor prerogative.
do you go out of your way to say the dumbest shit possible? by your definition something ceases to be a weapon if you put it down. a sword or a gun doesn't cease to be a weapon if its put on the floor. your showing exactly why i said for your ilk this is an emotional argument not a factual one. the mental gymnastics you go through to deny plain facts is scary. from the oxford dictionary by definition a gun reason for being is to inflict harm. you wish to deny that because than you'd have to actually protest them being treated as toys. says the person whose entire argument revolves around just that. a rational person would just admit that guns are weapons and weapons are designed to harm that you argue against that speaks a lot to irrationality on the topic. conceding the point costs you nothing unless you believe one has the right to be irresponsible with dangerous things. the simplest long term solution to gun violence is to create a culture where gun owners level of required responsbility by there own community is something akin to how the herpatology community demands those who keep hot(venomous) animals
Sounds to me like you don't take criticism very well. As outsiders, we don't get a vote on your laws or your constitution. But our opinions on your laws and constitution could well provide a much-needed additional perspective, without the vested interest. See? As a culture, your attitude to guns is quite unique among western nations. And it's not a healthy attitude. It's not good for you as a society. But a lot of you can't see the wood for the trees. And yes, not all Americans blah blah blah. Of course this is a generalisation. But you all elect your legislators, and you get a say in your laws, directly or indirectly. It is somewhat of a problem, since you also export your guns. It's also a problem for visitors to your country.
We import guns as well, James. The Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil and many other countries export guns. What's your point? Who is the last MP you guys elected that can piss straight? Why do you think you are in charge of what's healthy for us, anyway? Step off.
My point really is that there are too many guns in the world, and the US makes a lot of them. Not sure what you mean by that. I think most politicians are well-intentioned going into the job. They all tend to be ideologically driven, of course. I'm not in charge. You are. There's no need to get all defensive when you perceive outside criticism. If you're really proud of the way your nation handles guns, what are you getting all riled up about when an outsider dares to venture an opinion?
Unfortunately it is the gun and it's consequential violent culture that promotes and extends to USA foreign policy and who becomes POTUS. Threatening "fire and fury" of nuclear war, keeping the world's children awake at night in a cold sweat garners much concern. So it is our business as friends and allies to offer criticism and potential solutions. The day global reach of USA violence became a reality was when USA gun culture became relevant to the global community. As the world becomes more globally integrated the mental health of our neighbors, especially those purporting to be allied becomes even more important and not just for sympathetic or compassionate reasons. The development of social media and changes to the way the news is delivered means that the horrors of American and other nations, including our own, gun violence is all to pervasive leading, surely, to greater levels of youth despair and self harm. Globalisation makes all this inevitable. So yes, we have every right and reason to be critical of what appears to be the self destructive gun culture of the USA. (M)
Do you at least understand that handguns have the same rate of fire as any semi-auto rifle? That your proposed regulations on rifles also apply to handguns? Didn't even address any supposed statistic flaw.
Isolationist are we? The collective mind set of the US population regarding foreign affairs over that past century or two has been to mind our own business? Ha!
I proposed no such specific regulations. Every handgun and rifle has its own rate of fire, none of them are "the same". We see on this forum links by gun rights advocates to examples of AR-15s and hunting rifles - side by side - that had different rates of fire described right there in the links, which you and others described as "the same" rate of fire. Why are you unable to respond without inventing and hallucinating? I have addressed several specific common statistical flaws (invalid linear regression, data aggregation by State, invalid assumptions of mechanism, etc) and provided technical links to professional statistical analysis. I have done this in arguing against invalid claims of gun hazard and gun safety both. I have done this repeatedly and at some length. You have provided nothing of the kind - ever. Not in the US. The Republican ones, for starters, have pretty much abandoned ideology altogether, at least in the sense that it can guide or drive policy. White Christian men from the Confederacy and Western regions (west of Chicago) dominate the governance of firearms in the US, and in particular monopolize one side of the bothsides jamb. Hence the indications of fear specific to that demography - the prominence of the cowardice common to racial bigotry, for example.
The same thing could be said for you, could it not? I mean, we have run the full gamut of you posting some of the most ridiculous arguments I have heard for guns. You even went above and beyond some of the cringe worthy arguments put forward by the NRA and their lackeys. So who are you trying to convince? If the only intent or purpose is to be disciplined or effective and if "there is a whole segment of shooters" who are not interested in owning firearms for the purpose of self defense, then those firearms can be held in a secure facility, such as a gun range and they can go and get their guns and target shoot to their heart's content. Aside from that, you again ignore the obvious of the large portion of shooters who do not do this, and instead have firearms to 'kill their enemies' as Dr_Toad so aptly described his need and requirement for firearms. What do you think he is doing when he goes target shooting? What effectiveness is he after, exactly, when he openly admits: And what did you think we were talking about? You are the one who was determined to try to change the subject, TCS. Or has the penny finally dropped? Why not? La vérité blesse? What rant? Are you now denying making that argument? Actually no. You have consistently tried to change the subject and you were called out on it multiple times by different people. The irony is your whine preceding this "rant and attempt to denigrate".. And you are the one who is intent on changing the subject to everything but the core problem to focus on. Why is that? I mean, the answer is obvious to all of us. It is why you come crawling back to these threads each time there has been a mass shooting in your country. Your intent is as plain as day. I'll put it this way. It is because of people like you that your country needs gun control. Are you sure about that? Or are your grandchildren homeschooled? Have you asked your grandchildren? Have you asked your children and the parents of those grandchildren if they are concerned about the risk of a mass shooting in their kid's school? To the one, you attempted to change the subject in a ridiculous manner with an equally ridiculous comparison. To the other, you did so to appeal to emotion and you were very deliberate in how you presented it. In other words, your inane argument was called out and dealt with. There was no bias on my part. However there has been explicit bias from your end, given your repeated attempts to change the subject. Given the subject of this thread is about mass shootings in schools, why you repeatedly trying to change the subject and why are you shitty that I am actually addressing the subject of this thread? It was you who introduced the fists, poison, clubs, etc. Remember? If you want to prove that more or equal numbers of people die to those other weapons, you are free to say so. How successful do you think you will be? Go on, have a guess.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There have been 141 mass shootings in the US this year alone. In 2017, there were 427 mass shootings. There were more mass shootings than there were days in the year. And you think they are rare? Why don't you consider the probability of a school shooting happening in Australia vs in the US? Or would you be more comfortable and more at home comparing the US to Yemen? There were more mass shootings in the US than probably the amount of times you showered in a year or changed your underwear in a year. I am not the one bringing up fists, poisons, clubs, etc to try to change the subject. I am not the one who has come up with every excuse under the sun. You are. That's what the school in Texas claimed as well. Alas. It is a tragedy to say that it is essentially a matter of time. Particularly if your small rural community has a large portion of armed white males in it. The chances increase even more if there are any domestic abusers in your small rural community who has not been disarmed. And it goes up again if there are armed people suffering from or living with someone who suffers a mental illness. So, when you took those steps, did you disarm the white males in your area? How about people who are domestic abusers? Those who suffer from a mental illness or have someone suffering from a mental illness in the home? Because that would actually entail 'taking steps' to secure the school and make it safe.
Why don't you ask David Koresh that? Oh wait.... Cults come under suspicion when they start stockpiling guns. Your country has a history dealing with that too. Tell that to Charles Manson or his followers. It's around half. As per the CDC, suicide by firearms: 22,018 in 2015, I believe. Homicide with the use of firearms: 12,979 Do you think this makes it all better? You demand? Heh! How about you argue in good faith and stop changing the subject as my demand to you? Okay? Thanks! Right.. The people who are blaming lack of God in schools, abortion, doors, Ritalin for mass shootings and you think they actually make valid arguments or indicate valid reasons for their arguments? And yet, you came out with this: "If the NRA is using some of my arguments then it's likely because there is a valid reason (like ignorance on the pro-control fanatical left)" Would you say that the NRA are ignorant for suggesting lack of God and prayer in schools, Ritalin, abortion and doors are to blame for school shootings? There is no rule. It was more a question of curiousity. Why change the subject? Unable to answer? You haven't been emotional? Riiigghhtt.. And I am far more familiar about living in a society and country that has not had a mass shooting in decades than you are. Dude, you sunk so low as to come out with a ridiculous argument about the purpose and design of guns. You seem to be more outraged that we dare to discuss *gasp* gun control *end gasp* than you are at the number of children killed by guns in schools in the US on a yearly basis. Don't you find that interesting? See, it's not my emotions that are in play here, TCS. But yours.
If you are referring to the "leaders of this great country"............... I am not those men. They do not now represent me, nor, it would seem, have they ever represented me. Which, just might be why we have a bill of rights.
Words Words and more Words bereft of meaning become meaningless, and by contamination make all words from the same source seem meaningless. meanwhile from Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States "There is no fixed definition of a mass shooting, but a common definition is an act of violence — excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization — in which a gunman kills at least four victims. Using this definition, ... , Gun Violence Archive records 152 mass shootings in the United States between 1967 and May 2018, averaging eight fatalities per incident when the perpetrator's death is included." OK Perhaps you have your own peculiar definition of "mass shooting"? Perhaps, you would like to share that definition?
Who is having a say? Are you suggesting that we cannot state our opinions about your laws or constitution? Because if that is the case, then perhaps your country should withdraw it's claws out of every single country that exists on this planet and mind its own business about the politics, laws, cultures, healthcare access for women and religious ideologies of others outside of its borders. Because your country and fellow countrymen and women go beyond stating an opinion. How about your NRA attempting to influence Australian elections and politics through its close ties to pro-gun groups and Australian candidates? The irony of the ridiculous nature of your complaint is not lost on anyone. The absolute irony of this, surely, cannot have escaped you... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_Donald_Trump https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...enewal-immigrants-jeff-sessions-a7930926.html https://www.apnews.com/5508111d59554a33be8001bdac4ef830 https://www.dhs.gov/executive-orders-protecting-homeland Well of course you are going to say that. You have an orange buffoon for a President who is literally enacting a White America policy under your very nose. To suggest that we cannot discuss your country and what goes on within your borders would be exceptionally hypocritical given your country's stance, historically and currently, in matters of foreign policy and interference internationally. You also fail to note or realise just how your country's laws and policies affect the rest of the world, particularly in matters of security and trade. For example, the US is the world's largest exporter of arms.
