Aragorn, I don’t think having a homicide rate per gun is an accurate way of looking at things. That means if a person who has 20 guns shoots 5 people (a rate of 0.25 per gun) and a person with one gun shoots one person the latter is more dangerous.
Australian stats are from the Aust. Institute of Criminology.
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/
Rainjack you represent what people think is wrong with America. You prioritise some silly right from a bygone era over human life.
I’m not sure why I’m arguing with you Aragorn, you’re supporting my point.
If the number of guns within a population increases so does the number of murders.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Rainjack you represent what people think is wrong with America. You prioritise some silly right from a bygone era over human life.[/quote]
Who gives a fuck what the anti-gun people think is wrong with America? Honestly, those are the people who matter the least yet cry the loudest.
I prioritize ALL of my constitutional rights equally. If your “give up your rights because someone doesn’t like you” philosophy is a mark of the new generation, I pity the new generation.
Thanks for your concern, but I could give a flying fuck what some anti-gun sissy-boy thinks of me, or my State, or my Country.
Just smart enough to question what the purpose of a right is and whether it should exist.
Most people who are wankers make themselves feel better by saying they don’t care what people think about them. You are too stupid to make any decent point you girly keyboard warrior.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Regular Gonzalez wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
dhickey wrote:
AndyG wrote:
I can walk down any street in Australia and feel safe. How about you?
We don’t have to walk, we drive cars over here. Really nice ones. You guys still riding kangaroos down there?
coughobesitycough…
coughnoclevercomebackforaustriacough…
coughsomebodyhelpmeoutherecough…
Australia is the fattest country in the world.
We beat you by 1 percentage point.
Ironically, the world’s fattest nation also has the worlds second longest average life expectancy.
Wait, never mind. He asked for a comeback against AUSTRIA.
What is the difference?[/quote]
kangaroos?
[quote]AndyG wrote:
4.4 per 100 00 in Texas.
0.4 in Australia.
Not astronomical at all![/quote]
Who gives a shit about gun related death stats? Is it any more pleasent to be killed by knife or baseball bat? Total murder rate or accidental death rates would be more telling.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
I’m not sure why I’m arguing with you Aragorn, you’re supporting my point.
If the number of guns within a population increases so does the number of murders.
[/quote]
That is however a wrong assumption because Switzerland has way more guns than Australia and yet a lower homicide rate.
Then, wherever concealed carry permits where introduced in the US violent crimes went down, when UK practically banned firearms violent crime went up.
Correlation does of course not mean causation but there is no causation without correlation.
Meaning, while I cannot prove that more guns in the hands of responsible citizens make a country safer, though it appears that way, your assumption is most definitely wrong.
If we banned cars we could eliminate death by drunk driving.
If we castrated every male we could eliminated rape.
Let’s ban everything we thing increases risk of cancer. No carcinogen producing barbies mates.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
I’m not sure why I’m arguing with you Aragorn, you’re supporting my point.
If the number of guns within a population increases so does the number of murders.
[/quote]
Guns or no guns the homicide rate in Australia has historically always been 1-2 per 100,000. In fact, crime in Australia is lower than in Texas across the board. I don’t think it is fair to compare one specific crime, homicide by firearm, between two areas with inherently differenct crime rates, and then conclude that the reason for this one specific rate is gun laws, or lack thereof.
This isn’t even to mention the principle of the matter, and the respect for the individual. My murder rate is exactly zero. Taking my guns away or giving me a few more isn’t going to change this at all, but may in fact increase the probability of my own murder.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Just smart enough to question what the purpose of a right is and whether it should exist.
Most people who are wankers make themselves feel better by saying they don’t care what people think about them. You are too stupid to make any decent point you girly keyboard warrior.[/quote]
No one questioned your "smartness’. But the fact that you feel the need to defend it is rather pathetic.
If you don’t want rights for yourself, or if you feel the need to surrender them because they might clash with your skirt, that’s fine. But why do you need to stick your nose into that which is none of your fucking business? You are not from this country, and there is no way my owning a guns, or hundreds of them will have any effect on your quaint little emasculated life down under.
You don’t get it. I don’t need to feel better. I have done nothing to require finding a way to rationalize my stance. it is what it is.
You are the one turning it into a fucking popularity contest. “This is why people don’t like you”. Really. I stopped trying to be popular about 25 years ago.
The US has the same ability to repeal amendments when we see that they are stupid (prohibition). If you don’t want a gun - don’t fucking buy one. But just because you are a pussy does not mean everyone should be forced to the same level of pussiness as you.
I am stupid? How so? Because you are wrong? Because you can’t keep your emo-estro nose out of something that has absolutely nothing to do with you?
You sound eerily similar to this rimjob.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Rainjack you represent what people think is wrong with America. You prioritise some silly right from a bygone era over human life.[/quote]
I use my concealed firearm for the same reason a beat cop does. In defense of myself, my loved ones, and society. Are you going to tell me that cops don’t need guns?
Step back for a second and think of these “astronomical numbers”. We are talking about FOUR people out of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND. I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I’d bet you good money that 75% of all gun deaths fall into 2 catagories: suicide and criminal vs. criminal. Is that a reason to take a right? Dammit man I used to love you guys but you aussies are intent on making me dislike you.
mike
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Just smart enough to question what the purpose of a right is and whether it should exist.[/quote]
So you are questioning whether the right of self defense should exist?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Who gives a shit about gun related death stats? Is it any more pleasent to be killed by knife or baseball bat? Total murder rate or accidental death rates would be more telling.[/quote]
Speaking of which, did you hear about that mother in Roseville?
I think we should have some knife control.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Just smart enough to question what the purpose of a right is and whether it should exist.
So you are questioning whether the right of self defense should exist?
[/quote]
Or even the right of owning property?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you don’t want rights for yourself, or if you feel the need to surrender them because they might clash with your skirt, that’s fine. But why do you need to stick your nose into that which is none of your fucking business? You are not from this country, and there is no way my owning a guns, or hundreds of them will have any effect on your quaint little emasculated life down under.
[/quote]
And I am getting a lifetime membership of the NRA anyway, just to spite you and defend your right to own guns.
Could the libertarian circle please tell me how they draw a line?
A knife a gun, a rifle,all OK, right?
100 rifles? Machine spring guns and mines? A tank batallion? Weapons of mass destruction?
What’s forbidden in Utopia?
The constitution guarantees us that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Interpret away.
Once again - what business is it of non-Americans what we are allowed to have?
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Could the libertarian circle please tell me how they draw a line?
A knife a gun, a rifle,all OK, right?
100 rifles? Machine spring guns and mines? A tank batallion? Weapons of mass destruction?
What’s forbidden in Utopia?[/quote]
I draw the line at the largest caliber weapon I can carry, yet still be accurate with. Bigger than that and someone is bound to get hurt unintentionally.
Nothing is forbidden in Utopia, but if someone gets hurt unintentionally the culpable part is held ultimately responsible.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What’s forbidden in Utopia?[/quote]
This is not a simple answer but I think I can give one – you must allow me to preface what a libertarian society means though. Firstly, there is no utopia. There is freedom and there is not freedom.
In a libertarian society there would ideally be no real national borders but rather property lines. The implication of this is that conflict would be extremely localized. There may be the occasional despot who seeks to expand his wealth at the expense of others but this would mean he must cross the property lines of those whom he wishes to harm. To get from one side of the world to the other would be no easy task in this circumstance. This despot may acquire the alliance of others and move freely in those regions but it will not be so easy to do this with everyone; especially once his intent becomes more clear.
Essentially what this means is there would be no reason to have any lines to draw whatsoever. The same implications of mutually assured destruction arises as a consequence but to a much smaller localized community. One would think twice to bomb his neighbor because it would assure his own destruction in the process.
It must also be made clear this kind of society is possible only when everyone is free to arm themselves to the teeth. Without a means of self defense one will lead a life of serfdom in this society. It also becomes clear that we must act responsibly and step in to defend our neighbors lest we be next.
I have a really hard time accepting the idea of despots like Genghis Khan acquiring as much territory and power as he did, for example, if these ideas had been understood back then. Of course, back then it was easier for the despot because there was a notion of “divine right” above the commoner and the powerless accepted such notions.
To give some finality to this answer, it must be understood that to the libertarian arms are a means to attain and keep his freedom and a consequence of living with the possibility of conflict. There really should be no limit to the kinds of arms one might require to defend himself.
If there were such place as Utopia would we need guns there in the first place?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The constitution guarantees us that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Interpret away.
Once again - what business is it of non-Americans what we are allowed to have? [/quote]
Because you are supposed to be the shining beacon in the sky and we can hardly see the light anymore.