Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Gun Control In Australia vs the USA


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
122 replies to this topic

#81 Jacob Jingle   Members   -  Reputation: 223

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:24 AM

This is just sad all the way around. In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.

 

You could do this for just about anything.

 

5 members of SoCal family killed by alleged drunken driver ID'd



Sponsor:

#82 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4680

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:30 AM

This is just sad all the way around. In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.

 

You could do this for just about anything.

 

5 members of SoCal family killed by alleged drunken driver ID'd

 

If the point was to be arbitrary, then yeah you could. But since we're talking about gun control and not drunk driving, your point is lost on me.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#83 Jacob Jingle   Members   -  Reputation: 223

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:35 AM

Give me liberty or give me death.

In the US this has morphed into "Give me positive liberty or give me death."



#84 Jacob Jingle   Members   -  Reputation: 223

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:14 AM

What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?



#85 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 27519

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:36 AM


What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?
uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

#86 Jacob Jingle   Members   -  Reputation: 223

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:49 AM

uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

 

I can see the difference, but I can also see that if your neighbor is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and build a nuke...He could probably find another way to do the same damage. If you can't trust him with a nuke then you can't trust him with anything. He needs to be locked away.



#87 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4680

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:56 AM

uh, they could try to murder me with a car, which they have a good reason to own for other purposes, or they could instantly murder 20,000,000 people using a nuke.
You really can't tell the difference?

 

I can see the difference, but I can also see that if your neighbor is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop and build a nuke...He could probably find another way to do the same damage. If you can't trust him with a nuke then you can't trust him with anything. He needs to be locked away.

 

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#88 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:24 AM

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

I think the point was he wasn't talking about an 'accident'.

#89 Jacob Jingle   Members   -  Reputation: 223

Posted 07 May 2013 - 06:43 AM

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think?

 

Well first off I don't think any billionaires are going to waste their money making a nuclear bomb. Not even Bill Gates would do that. I think it's a bogus argument.

 

Second, for the sake of argument, I would hold them to the same standard as our government. Do you trust your government with nuclear missiles?


Edited by Jacob Jingle, 07 May 2013 - 07:38 AM.


#90 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4680

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:18 AM

Maybe the risk assessment of a nuclear accident compared with a car accident warrants a bit of extraordinary caution. Don't ya think? I mean there is such a thing as levels of trust. I trust someone with a bottle of vodka. But I wouldn't trust someone with that same bottle filled with nerve gas. Just sayin.

I think the point was he wasn't talking about an 'accident'.

 

One is an extension of the other. If you don't trust someone to be responsible enough to not have "accidents", then you're surely not going to trust them when they are -- as Spock said-- "emotionally compromised".


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#91 szecs   Members   -  Reputation: 2092

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:34 AM

What? I trust my neighbor to drive a (highly regulated) car, so I therefore should trust them to own a nuke?

Regulations or not, your neighbor could murder you with both, right?

 


In my country, you you must have a licence to drive a car, and you get that licence if you pass some exams, and you pass the medical examination (plus a first aid test).

 

Plus a car is relatively short range and it's much easier to evade than a gun even if someone intentionally wants to kill you.

 

 

A question to all:

 

How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

 

Hmm... it would make a good poll


Edited by szecs, 07 May 2013 - 09:37 AM.


#92 irreversible   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1199

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:12 AM

The thread is tl;dr so sorry if this has been posted, but has anyone been following this?

 

3D printed guns now grim reality.



#93 frob   Moderators   -  Reputation: 18832

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:29 AM

A question to all:
 
How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

I have shot firearms many times at shooting ranges and other events.  I have seen armed guards.  I respect my nation for the codified right to keep and bear arms.

 

I have used firearms against live animals. This includes against wild coyotes (which have a bounty in my state and are considered an aggressive pest) and against assorted other animals it is legal to kill.

 

I have never wielded a gun against another human.

 

 

Alternative perspective:

 

my-neighbor-is-unarmed-39219775365.jpeg


Check out my personal indie blog at bryanwagstaff.com.

#94 jms bc   Members   -  Reputation: 415

Posted 07 May 2013 - 10:55 AM

How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

 

1 case of defense for me (a fairly serious episode but I didn't have to point the gun at the problem, much less shoot). What's funny is that I have been deterred (justifiably). Otherwise, have seen where guns where used to intimidate in a general way -- people with weaponry can often get their way without conflict, reputations can provide a buffer zone of deference. 

 

Computer programmers and game developers aren't usually where the friction is -- bad neighborhoods and male vs male competition for women and prestige (add a bottle of whiskey).

 

Edit: When I defended, I showed the gun but didn't aim. When I was deterred the gun was shown but not pointed at me. Two cases where guns were good things and were used appropriately. Got more than a couple of stories where guns were misused -- carelessness or amusement (not criminal) -- but only one guy got hurt and that was when he shot himself in the foot (literally).


Edited by jms bc, 07 May 2013 - 02:35 PM.

The Four Musketeers of Happiness have left.


#95 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1718

Posted 07 May 2013 - 02:03 PM

How many of you actually defended yourselves, your families, homes or properties with a gun (by using it or just by deterring)? Or do you know someone close to you (family member or friend) who did? How many?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

 

Middle estimates of around 1 million defensive gun uses in the USA each year.

 

And a few of the news stories around defensive gun uses that actually get reported. Most of these involve shootings, where are the vast majority of defensive gun uses do not require pulling the trigger and are not likely to be reported either to the police or to the news.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu


Edited by tstrimple, 07 May 2013 - 02:05 PM.


#96 ChaosEngine   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2137

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:42 PM

BTW can we stop using Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of how a poorly armed "insurgency" can defeat a well armed modern military?

 

Because they are terrible examples. Obviously for the families of the troops killed, it's awful, but in real terms, there have been barely any casualties compared to a "traditional war".

 

The IEDs etc are a political problem not a military one. The US steam rolled into both countries and effectively crushed any meaningful opposition. Neither insurgency group were ever even close to achieving any kind of military victory.

 

TL;DR A bunch of armed civilians can not actually defeat a modern military with drones and tanks and what not.


if you think programming is like sex, you probably haven't done much of either.-------------- - capn_midnight

#97 Promit   Moderators   -  Reputation: 6077

Posted 07 May 2013 - 04:28 PM

There are valid arguments for gun ownership. However, if your argument for guns is that you need to defend yourself against government tyranny, please seek psychological counseling immediately. That is all.



#98 JTippetts   Moderators   -  Reputation: 8157

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:26 PM

Relevant: http://news.yahoo.com/gun-crime-plunges-though-most-americans-think-risen-211107290.html

#99 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1718

Posted 07 May 2013 - 08:47 PM

This is just sad all the way around. In Kentucky, 5 year old shoots 2 year old sister with rifle.

 

Sad? Yes.

 

A reason for more strict gun control? No. 

 

It was not okay for republicans to appeal to fear when passing the travesty that is the patriot act, and it's not okay for democrats to appeal to pity when trying to pass more gun control legislation.

 

If we want to have a serious impact on crime then we should do away with the so called War on Drugs. It has ruined so many families in the USA and continues to devastate Mexico. It has been a major supporting factor for gangs in the US which account for a very large percentage of violence in this country. Lets fix our education system which allows for high school dropout rates of over 50% in some major cities. Lets fix our fucked up sense of "morality" and get serious about sex education and birth control. There is no reason anyone in the USA should have to pay for birth control (including students). The cost of single parent families in the US is much, much higher than the cost of providing the means to prevent it!

 

Instead we're distracted by bullshit like whether a rifle can have a pistol grip or not, even though "assault weapons" are used in less than 5% of all gun crimes.



#100 Khaiy   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1342

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:18 PM

Sad? Yes.
 
A reason for more strict gun control? No. 

 

How do you figure? I agree it's not a good argument for banning guns, but this is exactly the kind of situation that makes people uncomfortable about the almost total lack of restrictions around gun ownership. These parents bought a gun, legally, and thought that their son would be able to handle it safely and responsibly so they gave it to him. They kept it out in the open, in a corner, and were obviously not careful enough to ensure that it was unloaded while they weren't around. It's a tragic accident, but the misjudgments and  carelessness of this family left a lethal instrument in reach of a kid, and now an innocent person is dead.

 

Do you think it's unreasonable to question this family's ability to manage something as dangerous as a gun in a safe and responsible manner? Or to be concerned about similar incidents? I may have forgotten a post of yours upthread (I'm not going to dig through from page 1 again to check), but where do you stand on legally mandated liability insurance for gun owners, or some sort of "strike" system for gun owners relating to dangerous accidents? Would you oppose any and all restrictions relative to the current system?

 

If we want to have a serious impact on crime then we should do away with the so called War on Drugs. It has ruined so many families in the USA and continues to devastate Mexico. It has been a major supporting factor for gangs in the US which account for a very large percentage of violence in this country. Lets fix our education system which allows for high school dropout rates of over 50% in some major cities. Lets fix our fucked up sense of "morality" and get serious about sex education and birth control. There is no reason anyone in the USA should have to pay for birth control (including students). The cost of single parent families in the US is much, much higher than the cost of providing the means to prevent it!

 

I agree with these. But there is zero reason that doing any of these precludes making changes to gun policy.

 

Instead we're distracted by bullshit like whether a rifle can have a pistol grip or not, even though "assault weapons" are used in less than 5% of all gun crimes.

 

So then the argument is for broader gun control, not a thin reform that creates arcane distinctions between types of gun used in crimes that, by definition, are gun crimes, and would be less severe without guns involved at all. And if you want to talk percentages, it's something like ~70% of homicides in the US are caused by guns. I don't know if those are "assault weapons" or not, and at that proportion I don't especially care.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS