Aussies on a rant - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 03:19:44 am
content: I really do love watching Aussies tell yanks what to do, when it brings out the howling-moon types, as happened with Rebel Wilson today.http://worldofwonder.net/twitter-responds-intelligently-and-compassionately-to-rebel-wilsons-call-for-gun-control-ha-just-kidding-they-eviscerate-her/

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 03:56:00 am
content: I love reading the response from average Americans. It just proves what most of us are thinking.

author: hlokk
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 05:06:19 am
content: Sadly, the nutters who reply, the ones who are rabid gun nuts are precisely the people you don't want to have guns

author: calexanian
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 05:08:16 am
content: Quote from: hlokk on July 28, 2015, 05:06:19 amUnfortunately this sometimes is the case. Not always, and not really that often.. But enough times to matter.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 05:38:25 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on July 28, 2015, 03:56:00 amThat's bad etiquette for an international forum like this one.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 06:10:19 am
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 05:38:25 amMaybe. Hard to argue when you read those twitter responses though.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 06:27:16 am
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 06:10:19 amMaybe you want to read all of the responses instead of the cherry picked onesThis is just from her first comment, I only read barely the first page because it probably goes on and on forever:https://twitter.com/RebelWilson/status/624636086741004288Anywho, don't know who she was until this post, well I still don't know who she is or what she does.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 06:53:19 am
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 06:10:19 amMaybe. Hard to argue when you read those twitter responses though.Argue what? "My country is better than yours"? That's improper and childish.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:03:32 am
content: Quote from: hlokk on July 28, 2015, 05:06:19 amThat's demonstrably untrue, since it's a tiny tiny fraction who kill with guns, but a vast majority don't like people lording opinions over them who don't really understand anything about guns or American law or American gun culture.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:21:40 am
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 06:10:19 amHow well would it go over in Australia if Kim Kardashian posted on Twitter that Australia really needs to fix their human rights laws, being so racist towards Aboriginals, hateful towards gays, and cold and heartless towards asylum seekers?I am sure Australians would...1) Think she is an idiot for having an opinion on a topic she really knows so little about, other than some sound bytes she heard2) Most likely want to tell her to f-off and mind her own business3) Not appreciate being lectured to by someone like Kim K who has enough obvious flaws in her character as to not really be in a position to lecture anyoneAnd those Australians would be right.It's very, very rare that people who don't live in the USA have any understanding of our gun laws or our gun culture. But I spend about half my time living in Europe, and it's amazing how, frankly, obsessed much of the rest of the world is with everything that goes on in America.Case in point - I just got back from a trip to the UK and Poland, and every day on local/national news they were talking about Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee, the guy who shot those 2 women in the movie theater, Hulk Hogan, Taylor Swift / Nicki Minaj fued, etc. Very little to no coverage of the two kids who stabbed their whole family to death. And nothing about the suicide bomber explosion in Bahrain that killed policemen, or the suicide bomber who blew himself up in a park in China killing and wounding a couple dozen, or the dozen plus killed in the latest Boko Haram raid.People really don't see how much they are biased by the news they watch. When Hugo Chavez died, he was regarded as a villanous dictator in the USA. I was in Belarus shortly after and he was considered a hero there. Amazing how people's opinions vary so much based on what the news feeds them. Most Americans would probably say Ahmadinejad was genuinely insane, and Israel is absolutely right to defend themselves from the aggressive Palestinian state that wants to commit genocide upon them. The views of the average person in the street would be radically different in many parts of Europe - even places like France - but especially places like Romania or Turkey. Whose right? Is there an objective right and wrong?In many places I visit, there's a constant stream of tabloid style news about America. And people form quite bizarre opinions based on this phenomenon (like my girlfriends Polish mom who is terrified of being shot to death by police if she visits the USA). It's a bit laughable to form views about another country and their laws or the situation there from such tabloid news without living there and experiencing it one's self.It's not much different than the aforementioned Kim K lecture on Oz's reprehensible treatment of Aboriginals.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:40:05 am
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 05:38:25 amI disagree. But hey, we're all entitled to an opinion, be it educated or otherwise.Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:40 amThey would probably have a whinge and bitch about it. Mind you the average Australian is pretty average indeed.I for one would somewhat agree and I couldn't care less who said it.

author: Tandy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:35:13 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:40 amI have to agree with this, that the UK news services are obsessed with the United States. We can't vote in the US elections but we get blow-by-blow coverage of what the candidates are doing. While here in the UK it could be argued that the so called historical 'special relationship' means that the UK has more interest in America but as far as I am concerned that special relationship is nothing more than a similar language and the UK being highly indebted to America after two world wars had wiped out our economy leaving us finically dependent on the US.However I think it is fair to say that even though America is not quite the superpower it once was, what happens in America does affect the world, especially economically. Much international business is conducted in US$ and the US foreign policy has a direct impact on world trade. Therefore who is in power in America is of interest to the world even if we can not influence it. It is also fair to say that everybody has an opinion and it is healthy for people to share their opinions, even Obama has expressed his opinion that Britain should stay in the EU even though the British people will be the ones to decide so he has no influence in the matter.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:36:04 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:40 amWe'd laugh *hard* and then crack a beer while watching her sex tape again.I'll edit this to say it's because unlike some other countries who we won't mention (but we all know who I mean), we in Australia have the ability to sagely nod and agree with people who make insightful comments about ourselves without getting our knickers in a twist. We then have a laugh and poke fun at the size of Texas (or the UK for that matter). It's not about who's the best, it's about who is so precious and wound up about their own issues that they are incapable of seeing the funny side. Crack a beer, have a laugh. You *do* have a gun control problem and we *will* continue to point it out. You are likewise free to point out all our flaws, we just don't get wound up about it and have the ability to laugh at ourselves.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:43:28 am
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 08:36:04 amCouldn't be more accurate. Cheers!I will say this though, I actually respect America for finally ending the debate about same-sex marriage. Too much money has already spent arguing this stupid argument when it really only impacts a small portion of the population. Australia needs to man up, follow suit, get it done so we can move on to more important things like getting my fibre to the home installed!

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:48:54 am
content: What beats me is the 2nd amendment is just that an amendment. If you have amended something once you can amend it again. But as we sell lots of guns to the US and make money from it we cant judge them.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 09:15:32 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:40 amI get fed up with it to be quite honest. I understand that what goes on in America does affect the rest of the world and it's nice to be aware of it but we do get too much American news here.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 09:19:03 am
content: I'll just leave this here...http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2014/09/03/australian-comedian-jim-jefferies-on-gun-control/

author: Deathwish
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 09:24:13 am
content: Personally I believe that all constitutions, amendments, articles , bill of rights and other such documents are only ever valid on the day they were signed, or imposed on the weaker class by the stronger class, thereafter they are manipulated, interpreted, or otherwise abused, by successive ruling parties in order to suit their needs at the time, in order to stay in power.Every country brings in gun control as far as I am concerned to stop it's general population from revolting over abuses and overthrowing the government of the day. Riots and such without guns lead to the government staying in control, what would have been the outcome in the UK if Cromwell had no guns ?. Plain old control of the masses. The UK is led by a bunch of pedophiles so it seems in the news of late, and a herd of over a thousand lords who sit on their rumps doing nothing for the money they get.As far as I am concerned if you do not pee on my lawn then I won't take a dump on yours.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 09:57:26 am
content: Quote from: Deathwish on July 28, 2015, 09:24:13 amThat's ancient history.Allowing everyone to bear arms will not stop any of that. The army will always have more effective weapons than civilians and will be better trained. What good are guns against tanks, rocket launchers and nuclear weapons?

author: Deathwish
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 10:04:15 am
content: Well , I suppose you could ask that as you watch a country sell those same rockets , tanks or such to whatever freedom fighter or other such civilian group of people they want to take over a country, then have to fight them after they take over for trying to take over their own country.Guns are no worse than any other weapon to my mind, if someone wants to kill another they will, be it with poison, knives, crossbows or any other thing, killers , assassins, freedom fighters, have been doing it for centuries.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 10:23:32 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:40 amI'll admit that, but I'd also say there's some places where people don't understand their own countries gun laws and cultures. You probably wouldn't be surprised how many people here are surprised when they find out I legally own multiple firearms. I just don't look or act how they'd expect any type of gun owner to and many just assume they must be illegal...I'd also have to say some of that is the fault of the "ultra gun nuts*" and the US politicians and news media on both sides of the argument. I've seen the stats on even NRA members views on mandatory background checks and registration etc, I've seen the stats from Democratic and Republican voters, police officers, gun owners and those who wouldn't even consider owning a gun. Amazingly it seems that the vast majority of all groups agree that getting rid of the loopholes to get around background checks, waiting periods, etc, etc is what should be done. To a level where I'd say "You might as well just have mandatory licensing." Most even seem to agree with a maximum magazine size ffs**. Are those options and views presented by politicians or the news? Are things ever presented as any less than "they're gonna take our guns!!!1!" even when something as simple as "maybe you shouldn't be able to get around the waiting times and registration if it's a private sale or gun fair" is proposed? If you present yourselves in a certain way you can't really complain when that's how people perceive you. Well you can complain but that's just buyers remorse lol.QuoteThat, I'm afraid, is the price of being the biggest bully in the playground. When the USA farts we all have to smell it. Was the case with every top world power before the "US Pacific Empire" and will be the case with every one after.Personally I'm happy we live now when my country is a tiny insignificant one with no real power or influence beyond (and some would claim within) our borders and the rest of the world barely being aware we're still here.*Most of whom I've got to say sound more like wannabe revolutionaries than sensible gun owners to me. But I know these are not the average American gun owner. They're just who you've chosen to be the public face of American gun owners.**Not something I think would make a difference personally.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 11:52:48 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 28, 2015, 08:48:54 amNo the 2nd amendment is not just an amendment. It's one of the first ten amendments and collectively they're referred to as 'The Bill of Rights' . They were a package of amendments that the original statesinsistedbe included when the Constitution was passed. As such they're not amendments but a core part of the US Constitution. People like Wilson that haven't lived in the US and that don't understand our system of Constitutional rights, really should shut up. Whether they like it or not, gun rights are part of our rights and a part of our culture. If you don't like it, then stay away. We won't miss you.Maybe taking away every one else's rights because of the actions of a few, sells in your country but not in this one!

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 12:37:34 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on July 28, 2015, 11:52:48 amShe simply expressed an opinion that looked pretty benign to me; certainly in comparison to the largely deranged response. What's more, what she said probably wouldn't be much out of accord with the opinion of as much as half of the American population:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/09/a-public-opinion-trend-that-matters-priorities-for-gun-policy/Why do the most earnest to the most rabid of pro-gun rights proponents (that being the types that get all bent out of shape over comments like Rebel Wilson's) always presume to speak on behalf of all of America?Quote from: Stray Electron on July 28, 2015, 11:52:48 amWe do have gun rights over here numbnuts, they are just restricted to a sensible degree. And our annual gun-related homicide rate is currently running at about 0.11 deaths per 100,000, as opposed to Americas ~2.7 deaths per 100,000.But no, there is still nothing particularly backwards or deranged about gun culture in America that an outsider could comprehend:http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/apr/29/armed-to-the-milk-teeth-america-gun-toting-kids

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 01:12:43 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 28, 2015, 12:37:34 pmAfter seeing that I can now more understand the reaction of a certain American police officer to the 12 year old with the toy gun. There are very sensible laws stating that toy guns must obviously be toy guns, either by having an orange tipORbeing brightly coloured. When toy guns must look like toy guns allowing real guns to look like toy guns defeats the point of such laws.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 01:37:28 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 28, 2015, 01:12:43 pmSuch guns could never be sold and distributed over here, but I guess it really is a totally sensible thing and anyone who doesn't get it is just too stoopid to comprehend Americassystem of constitutional rights- they should just STFU and get/keep out of the place -freedom of speech y'all!LOL.EDIT: I just made bold some parts of the text for the benefit of those not quite sharp enough to spot the amusing double standard being pointed out.

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 01:46:29 pm
content: Quote from: Deathwish on July 28, 2015, 09:24:13 amThat's a bit unfair! Some of those lords aren't just sitting around on their rumps, they're sampling the finest of nose-candy while trying on prostitues underwear. And he doesn't even get honorable mention when it comes to the real "peers":http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11765742/Think-Lord-Sewel-is-bad-These-are-the-seven-deadliest-sinners-in-the-House-of-Lords.htmlMcBryce.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 01:51:28 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 28, 2015, 12:37:34 pmWell, your country is better than ours. Good for you.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 01:52:59 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 28, 2015, 01:37:28 pmAll joking aside that's one they have very right. Here I don't have that right, I have a a stupid (but seeing as I'm not religious very limited) right to freedom from offenceIt's also technically illegal for me to be a republican, though I can't think of a time those laws have been enforced in my lifetime.Oh a quick unrelated (or slightly related seeing as we're discussing US laws lol) question if anyone knows the answer. What are the chances of a dual national being caught entering the US using their "other" passport and how much trouble could they potentially get in? I'm guessing "I'm sorry Mr Scary Customs Officer, I forgot I even was" wouldn't fly?

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:00:32 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 28, 2015, 01:52:59 pmI wasn't implying otherwise.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:01:58 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 01:51:28 pmAs far as gun control policy goes, yes, it is. Thank you.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:02:21 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 01:51:28 pmWe know that. It's why we call it godzone (godsown, godzown depending on your bent)You'll eventually learn not to take on an Aussie on matters of national pride, because most of what we poke at you seems to make you cry, whereas anything you poke at us just makes us laugh and poke you backWe're as proud of our country as you are yours, we just are not that precious about it and have enough introspection to see the grain of truth in anything you might say and generally laugh in agreement with a "Yeh, I can see how that's dumb of us, but it's pretty funny".And how about that Texas? It squeezes into Western Australia around 3.5 times. How big is it? Slightly bigger than one of our sheep stations

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:08:28 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 02:02:21 pmI think that's something most of us Brits have in common with you. Except maybe that we like playing up on the precious thing for comic value at times. Or unless the person throwing the criticism around is suspected to be French

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:15:45 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 28, 2015, 02:08:28 pmI'm pretty sure we inherited it from you guys. We just learned to laugh at the French and poke them back.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:21:12 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 02:02:21 pmA lot of countries have claimed that title after it was coined by an Englishman writing about Ireland.Anyway, isn't Palestine God's Own Country? He was born there, after all. Well, a third of him. And what a tranquil paradise on Earth it is, to be sure.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:27:16 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 02:15:45 pmYou have the advantage of needing a much longer stick to poke them back withAnd you also don't have such a long history of when you get to poking each other it generally involving, at the least, very sharp sticks.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:27:56 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 02:02:21 pmIf you are looking for a my-country-is-better contest, you are barking at the wrong tree.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 02:30:06 pm
content: Quote from: rolycat on July 28, 2015, 02:21:12 pmTrue that, but our claim was authenticated by Douglas Adams. That's enough for me

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 03:32:23 pm
content: Quote from: Stray Electron on July 28, 2015, 11:52:48 amOf course the context of the 2nd Amendment; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is always ignored. Every time I hear an American tell me about their new gun, I always ask "Which well regulated Militia did you join?"The rest of the English speaking world reads this as "that's the bit of law that allows for the National Guard", not "I can have an Uzi for squirrel hunting".It begs to ask the question "You banned fireworks in your state/county, but guns are allowed?"

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 03:50:00 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 28, 2015, 01:12:43 pmYeah that's why I really dislike those pictures of pink guns for women or hello kitty themed guns. I would want a cop to at all times be able to tell if a gun was real or fake withought having to put much thought into it.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 04:54:41 pm
content: Quote from: boffin on July 28, 2015, 03:32:23 pmThe second amendment is very clear. It says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", gives one justification for it, so people can join a militia if and when the need arise, and doesn't preclude other reasons a free citizen may want to own guns (sport, hunting, self defense, collection, etc.)Personal liberty is a strange concept for some.

author: warp_foo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 05:23:41 pm
content: Quote from: boffin on July 28, 2015, 03:32:23 pmOr you could read up on the actual statute:10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are—(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.But hey, why bother if it doesn't fit your worldview, right?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 05:25:53 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 04:54:41 pmSCOTUS disagrees with your interpretation, repeatedly finding that the right is not unlimited and that "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."They also disagree about your claims on the wording regarding militias, explicitly finding that anything can be banned outright that does not have "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

author: ajb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 05:57:43 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 02:27:56 pmI don't often agree with zapta (or at least i don't think I do--it's hard to actually nail him down on a particular point), but I'll agree with him wholeheartedly here. The thing is, we probably have very different reasons for holding that sentiment, and that's rather emblematic of the american sociopolitical landscape. I'd wager that nobody in the US is completely satisfied with the way things are. Some of us want the country to move in one direction, others in another, still others in a third. The net result is that making any movement at all is slow and difficult--it's hard to move forward if most people are pulling hard left or hard right. I'm sure the same thing happens in other countries, but I suspect it's more pronounced in the US due to geographical and socioeconomic diversity and the entrenched positions some segments have as a result of previous conflicts. And of course the fact that our national spats get broadcast to the world doesn't help that perception, and I would guess provides a bit of positive feedback, although surely not to the degree that our own national media does.In any case, feel free to hold whatever opinion you want about our gun laws or monetary policy, or whatever. But to paint all Americans in the same colors as the cherry-picked nutjobs that responded to a celebrity's tweet on a hot-button issue is lazy, dishonest, and yes, offensive (unless you're funny about it--most of us can take a joke, but you have to at least make the effort, and an ex post facto "but it was a joke" isn't an excuse for simple laziness). Moreover, when you paint all of us as a homogenous blend of nuttery you practice the same lazy dishonesty as many of our own blowhards and talking heads that just further entrenches the more extreme positions on all sides. It's just plain dumb and incredibly frustrating to those of us who are interested in having a nuanced discussion based on achieving shared goals and making real progress.

author: GreyWoolfe
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 06:13:12 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on July 28, 2015, 03:56:00 amI would be curious to know how much time you have spent here and just how many Americans you have had earnest conversations with to make the remark about average that you did. I am an average American gun owner. I have a CCW (carry concealed weapon) permit. I don't always carry, just depends on where/what time of day I will be. I also use Federal Hydro-Shok hollow point ammunition because if you are truly stupid enough to make me pull my gun on you, fight over. I am also not a member of the NRA. I absolutely agree with mandatory background checks and waiting periods. I believe that additional gun control laws are useless, let's PROPERLY enforce the one's we have including mandatory sentencing for criminal possession of a firearm. I also believe that just because you may have the right to open carry an AR-15 in public, doesn't mean you should-common sense should prevail. I also don't support your right to own that AR-15 for "hunting". Don't play me stupid-that weapon is made for offence/self defense, not hunting Bambi-get a Remington 700 BDL with a scope to put meat on the table. I also think trophy hunting is ludicrous-waste of natural resources. Eat what you kill with the exception of 2 legged rats or give the meat to someone else.As I said, I am an average American gun owner. I know many owners who probably don't know who Rebel Wilson is, don't care who she is and would face palm over the reactions of a small percentage of nuts. For those who love to bash America, I would hope you all could find better things to do with your time. No country is perfect. If bashing America and Americans is your thing and makes your day, all I can say is good on ya. As my tag line says, it's not your beliefs that make you a better person, it's your behavior. In ham radio terms, it's not the class of license the ham holds but the class of the ham that holds the license. Time to get back to configuring my replacement company laptop. Be happy and be blessed. Yes, I know the horror of it all- an average American gun owner who is a conservative Christian Republican.Edit:ajb

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 06:46:10 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 02:27:56 pmI don't think he was?!?

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 06:54:06 pm
content: Ah yes, the benefits of an "unorganized militia"QuoteHaving had the gun control discussion many times since the invention of the internet, I have come to the conclusion that there is no rational debate to be had on the subject. With that realisation, I have come out the other side. If a militia is essential for public order, and gun zones reduce crime, then the logical conclusion is that US citizens should be mandated to carry firearms.Therefore all US adults should be issued with a handgun, which they are required to carry at all times, for the purposes of ensuring law and order. This should effectively prevent all crime from occurring.It would also benefit civil cases. Disputes can be quickly settled out of court, preferably in the street so everyone can watch justice being done, like it was in the good old days. Of course, it should be properly regulated with seconds appointed, take 20 paces turn and fire. Definitely against the rules to shoot anyone in the back.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:05:55 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on July 28, 2015, 06:54:06 pmThat's a totalitarian argument. X is important and therefore everybody must do it. For example, all Brits must grow food.Think personal liberty.

author: Joule Thief
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:08:20 pm
content: Quote from: Deathwish on July 28, 2015, 09:24:13 amThis means a great deal to me especially since I live in a low lying valley

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:11:12 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 28, 2015, 05:25:53 pmSCOTUSs disagree even among themselves, on most topics and often disagree with the public. Free people have different opinions and view points. That's how freedom works.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:24:05 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on July 28, 2015, 08:36:04 amWell, you don't speak for all Australians, because I found a few articles showing the Twitter backlash when an American show aired in Oz with an aboriginal joke - plenty of f-bombs, calling the women C-words who made the joke, etc. So the idea that Australians would react differently is false.And the point is that unless someone understands all the nuances of the situation, then it's impossible to make "insightful comments" about issues from media soundbytes. But most people don't expose themselves to a wide enough range of information to really know anything about a situation - they just go by the soundbytes, and it's an unfortunate reality that worldwide media is genuinely obsessed with America.As for guns in the USA - we don't have a gun problem at all. We have a people problem. Or rather, some people. And a pretty small number, when it comes down to it.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:26:17 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 28, 2015, 08:48:54 amThe Constitution is intentionally difficult to amend, and amendments aren't "patches that are less important than the root document" - they are equal in force and intent to the original.You're correct that, if America wants to change the ownership rights on guns, it must happen at a Constitutional level, not at an "add more and more laws to effectively ban it" level.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:31:28 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on July 28, 2015, 09:57:26 amThat's a common response that indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of warfare.The USA is by far the most powerful military in the world... and despite a massively one-sided kill ratio, we didn't eliminate or even defeat the Taliban nor did we bring democracy to Iraq. Tanks are great against tanks, but are effectively impotent against civilian uprisings. Rockets are great against hardware, and ineffective against insurgencies. Nukes are great if you want to kill everything, which you don't want to do pretty much ever, especially with an insurgency.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:39:06 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 07:11:12 pmThis one though does have almost 200 years of the same interpretation. Until that changes what I presented is basically the law.QuoteTheir job isn't to make the law but interpret it. If you don't like where they end up the problem is the law and the responsibility is ultimately those same people. They repeatedly vote in lawmakers who make laws they don't agree with.QuoteI didn't realise I gave the impression I disagree with that sentiment, it'd be a bit daft if I meant that given my contrarian proclivities lol. But I'm sorry if I did.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:41:38 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 28, 2015, 10:23:32 amThe problem is that people who want gun control (mostly) really just want a gun ban. So you get laws like "no more than 8 bullets in a magazine", which becomes 6, which becomes 4, etc. And they ban things like folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts, barrel shrouds, etc. It's just chipping away at the issue with the intent being to ultimately render allowable guns so restricted and neutered that they effectively disappear. That's why "gun rights advocates" are fiercely against any restrictions. There never has been a serious middle ground proposed - something that makes it easier to own guns for law abiding citizens (those words make gun control advocates shudder) and harder to own guns for non-law abiding citizens (those words make gun rights advocates shudder). So it's pretty much a debate between the "all" side and the "nothing" side. And I can totally see why the gun rights folk are as strident as they are. Many people really do want to come and take their guns.QuoteLOL - I like that way of phrasing it

author: warp_foo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:44:15 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:31:28 pmMore realistically, the Battle of Athens is a real world example of what the 2nd amendment was intended for.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

author: McBryce
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:47:58 pm
content: If I may add my two cents...First off - I'm neither American nor Australian. I am a gun owner.The "problem" if you want to call it that, isn't the second amendment nor people wanting to own guns. The real problem seems to be the lack of regulation. America isn't even the country with the most guns per person as far as I know. However, in other countries you have to register each individual weapon, register that you've bought/sold a weapon, in some countries you need to pass tests to show you know how to handle a weapon or even be a member of a gun club. This allows every (responsible) person to own a gun, protect their family or whatever, but also keeps tabs on possible gun nuts, crazies etc.Of course it doesn't solve the problem completely, you'll always get a few that slip through the net, there'll also be illegal guns floating around, but it would definitely reduce the problem significantly. I've no issue allowing people to own guns, but I've never understood why Americans seem to be so against the introduction of sensible regulation.McBryce.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:49:28 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 28, 2015, 07:39:06 pmDo you says that the SCOUTSs interpret the law by some common objective standard? It can't be furthest from the truth.There are the liberal ones and there are the conservative ones and most of the time it easy to predict how each of them will vote except for one or two in between.Also, don't confuse respect to the legal process and the rules of the game with agreement to each verdict. SCOUTSs are human, like the rest of us, and they have their own biases.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:50:46 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 28, 2015, 02:01:58 pmAnd that arrogantly presumes that there is an objective standard for gun control with no room for varying laws by nationality. I reject that idea on it's face.The easy response is to point to the # of people killed by guns and claim that, of COURSE it is an objective issue. But again, that's nonsense, because it ignores the underlying reasons for the right to own guns in the USA.Compare it with alcohol. Something with has zero real benefits, and in most places (including the USA) kills a lot more people than guns do. But people aren't up in arms about alcohol because most people like to drink, and lots of people getting killed one by one doesn't instill paranoid reactionary responses the way a bunch of people getting killed at once does.I'm a *lot* more afraid of running into a drunk driver than a gun owner. And guns don't slowly kill you over time like alcohol abuse does. Is there an objective standard where banning alcohol is a superior national position? I'm not convinced there is... but it's certainly a much more obvious answer than banning guns.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 07:54:18 pm
content: Quote from: boffin on July 28, 2015, 03:32:23 pmThis is another often cited reply to the right to bear arms but is rooted entirely in ignorance of the amendment. There is *tons* of period documentation out there from when the bill of rights was written, and it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the authors intended an individual right to bear arms.It's as relevant to the gun control debate as "well, if we let gays marry, then pretty soon it will be legal to marry a horse or a sheep!" comment is to the gay marriage debate.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:08:31 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:41:38 pmI agree with much of what you say on this subject and am a supporter of 2nd amendment rights (and a gun owner) but the statement above has no basis in fact and is simply the hysteria whipped up by the usual "gun nut" sources.For examplepolls consistently show that while many in the US support stricter gun control laws, very few support a ban on handguns.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:18:23 pm
content: Quote from: McBryce on July 28, 2015, 07:47:58 pmThe problem there is... what is sensible regulation?Owning a gun is an inherent right to every US citizen. It's no different than their right to speak freely, or their right to freely assemble, or to freely practice their religion. Saying "you can own a gun, but you have to be a member of a gun club" is like saying "you can practice your religion, you just have to register with a church on the approved list" or "you can speak freely, you just have to apply for a permit".Any restriction on that right must be considered very carefully, to have specific effects and have minimum hassle to people wanting to exercise that right.Case in point - background checks. They are already required for every gun purchase at a gun shop in the USA. The exception is gun shows where private sales between individuals take place. I think most people would be in favor of mandatory background checks even for private sales, but the government doesn't need to know what guns someone is buying and building a database. Since it's an inherent right to own guns, just qualifying if a person is eligible should be sufficient.But if someone is breaking the law to get their guns (like the Colorado kids did, or the guy who shot up the black church), then more laws don't stop that. And in many of the other cases, like the crazy kid in California who shot a bunch of people because girls didn't like him - he had an extensive history of mental health treatment, which isn't connected to background checks.Actually, the biggest problem in the USA and the world in terms of mass killing is really shitty mental health treatment.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:22:12 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 08:18:23 pmThis.So much. Guns are a pretty poor treatment for mental disorders. It's high time we departed the 19th century wrt mental health and healthcare in general.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:22:49 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 28, 2015, 07:49:28 pmNo not at all, in fact that's sort of the point. But in the same way laws can be carefully drafted to be very ambiguous they can also be worded to leave no room for interpretation. I'd personally say the second does that even if the lack of ambiguity logically leads to the "wrong" interpretation given the intentions of those who penned it. If the letter of the law isn't what the law actually means that law is unfit for purpose. The fitness of that purpose is another question altogether.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:28:10 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on July 28, 2015, 08:22:12 pmThe problem is that the most strident supporters of completely unregulated gun rights are generally the same ones who oppose any sort of health care reform (keep your gub'mint hands of my medicare,etc). I can say from my daily first hand experience that funding for mental health care is pathetic and completely inadequate.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:34:16 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 28, 2015, 08:28:10 pmAnd also the sort who don't give a fuck about mental health at all. It's either your fault and you should just man up, or you're a crazy and they don't care about you (neglecting to think as far as to realize that getting you care would helpotherpeople, or just - as I rather suspect - not caring about helpinganybody).God, there are someuglypeople in this country.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:37:37 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 08:18:23 pmLaws can make it harder for weapons to get into that particular supply chain though. Just mandatory registration with no loopholes and mandatory reporting of missing weapons as soon as their absence is discovered could change that. I don't think that would impinge even on a right for everybody to own a gun no matter what either. The change in America would take longer than it would in a lot of places just due to the amount of weapons and culture but the benefits I'm sure would show. I refuse to believe that you're just so inherently more violent than other comparable population.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:38:51 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 28, 2015, 08:08:31 pmYou just proved me correct by not reading your own source.I said that people who want more gun control (mostly) just want a gun ban.Your own source states that 47% of all those surveyed want more gun control and 26% of all those surveyed want an outright handgun ban. Obviously, the entire 26% who want an outright ban would have to be in the 47% who want more restrictions, by definition.So most of the people who want more restrictions want a gun ban. Which is exactly what I wrote.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:48:02 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 28, 2015, 08:28:10 pmFalse.From your own prior source and another portion of the same Gallup survey...80% of people blame inadequate mental health care wholly or largely for gun violence issues ->http://www.gallup.com/poll/164507/americans-fault-mental-health-system-gun-violence.aspxAnd 50% of people in that same survey want guns laws to be the same or less strict as they are now ->http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspxSo while the question asked wasn't "do you want the gov't meddling in health care", it's not true that those who are against more gun restrictions don't want improved mental health care... and, really, being opposed to government intervention in health care and wanting better mental health care are two separate things.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:50:43 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 08:48:02 pmNobody else seems to be interested in doing what's necessary to fix it. As usual, the "free market" is only interested in doing things that put money in their pockets next quarter.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:51:18 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 08:18:23 pmWhat, no matter what criminal convictions or mental health issues they may have?Many other things in your society are already heavily regulated by laws because they have the potential to do harm, such as being able to drive a car for example: why is using a fire arm any different?QuoteThere has never been free speech or even freedom to practice ones religion. That's a total myth. If there is something in your religion which is not permitted by law then that does not give you freedom to do it and you can't go round saying what you like, if it encourages others to harm others.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:52:31 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on July 28, 2015, 08:22:12 pmI agree. I think mental health care is pretty bad worldwide (and probably not nearly as well understood as it should be). There was a guy here who died recently and was known as the neighborhood "crazy guy". He used to wander around the neighborhood and was given free food by some local businesses, and was harassed by local kids who pretended to throw "air grenades" at him to freak him out.He died recently and it came out he was a decorated vietnam vet. They had his military pictures at his funeral and he is a young, handsome, clean-cut man that served his country in a war that (in hindsight) was pretty much for nothing. And for his trouble got to live out the rest of his life sleeping on park benches and harassed by kids.When the newspaper ran a story on him right after his death, there ended up being several hundred people who showed up for his funeral... which is tremendously sad, but only superseded by how sad it was that the man didn't get adequate mental health care when he was alive.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:54:02 pm
content: It's amazing how little of a shit we give about our own war veterans, especially considering how much of a shit we claim to give. We are truly a nation of hypocrites.We "respect" them, right up until it affects us like giving them money for healthcare for the physical and mental wounds they suffered trying to protect us. Then fuck you, I've got mine.Also, it's a shame nobody thought to dropkick those shitty kids and/or their shitty parents.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 08:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on July 28, 2015, 08:50:43 pmI think it's a really big and complicated issue. It's a fact that physician salaries are massively higher in the USA than elsewhere - that's a big component of health care costs. Then you have the operating overhead and profits of the health insurance companies. Their overhead/operating expenses might not be cut much if it was administered by the gov't and their profit margins are relatively low - but I still think they are useless middlemen who just complicate everything.But if we switch to single payer, it means massive salary cuts for providers - and it's easy to say "fuck 'em! A radiologist making $500k a year doesn't get my sympathy", but alot of those people took on huge debts to get into medicine, and it would be unconscionable to make them gov't employees at gov't wages in one fell swoop.I'm not really sure what the solution is... I'm in favor of a phased in basic level of care through gov't financed (although maybe not administrated) care centers or a "government option" health care for basic care. We don't need kids going without shots and preventative care, etc. Then absolutely a corollary private system where people who elect to pay for better care can get it.But of course we'd need to cut some entitlement programs, preferably things like tightening up disability (rife with abuse!) and welfare, and cut back a whole lot on military spending and tell our friends around the world we can't subsidize them as much anymoreBut that is unlikely to ever happen with our two dysfunctional political parties who spend more time radicalizing their members to hate the other party more than to hate a lack of achievement.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 09:18:54 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on July 28, 2015, 08:34:16 pmTBH that's common even in places where a real (or just more competent?) effort is being put into getting a grip on that problem. It's one of the reasons I'm often so open and vocal about my problems. It's not that I particularly want to do it but I feel a need to given prevalent attitudes and my unusually secure and comfortable position for someone with them*.*And before anyone tries to point out a contradiction I am very well vetted. I'm only a danger to myself through neglect. I'm totally sane just broken, not "crazy."

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 09:46:59 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 08:38:51 pmUm, no.You saidQuoteWhich is not the same as saying a small majority of those who want gun control want to ban guns. Which is also false.It is not even the same as saying "most of the people who want gun control want to ban guns" which even that is incorrect.Perthe Gallup surveyPercentage happy with current gun control: 38%Percentage who want stricter gun control: 47%i.e. the total percentage of people who want some gun control = 85%Percentage who want to ban handguns: 26%So at best one could truthfully say that asmall majorityof those who wantmoregun control also want to ban hanguns. That is not what you said.The whole "the liberals want to take away my guns" meme just has no basis in reality. It is just used to raise hysteria, NRA funding and campaign contributions. But apparently even thoughtful, intelligent people fall for it.Point of fact #1:Obama signed a law allowing guns to be carried in Natiional Parks reversing the previous law signed by Ronald Reagan that required they be locked in the trunk of a car.He also signed a law allowing guns to be carried on Amtrack trains.I'm no fan of Obama but he clearly has expanded gun rights.Point of fact #2:Richard Nixon was in favor of banning handguns.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 09:59:32 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 08:48:02 pmThat really has absolutely nothing to do with what I said - complete straw man.What I said is "The problem is that the most strident supporters of completely unregulated gun rights are generally the same ones who oppose any sort of health care reform"Blaming the mental health system is not the same as being in favor of reform of health care. I suspect it is also true that many of the 20% that do not blame the mental health system are for no regulation of guns at all.I'm not sure what the point is of citing polls that in no way refute what I said. I think we agree on the general points of 2nd amendment rights and need for better mental health care funding.Do you disagree that many of the (often very vocal) 14% who think current gun laws are too strict are also opposed to reform of the health care system?That was my point, nothing more.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 10:12:59 pm
content: Quote from: c4757p on July 28, 2015, 08:34:16 pmAint that the truth. To be fair similaruglypeople exist worldwide, it's just that they seem to be particularly vocal and public in this country.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 10:30:30 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 28, 2015, 09:46:59 pmIt's pretty obvious that "people who want gun control" are people who want gun control from the context of where we are now - which is, they are in favor of more gun control. And your link proves that correct. Most of those support a complete ban on guns.Your assertion that such a claim is "hysteria whipped up by gun nuts" is patently false. Your own study proves it. Trying to claim otherwise by characterizing it as "a small majority" doesn't change things. A majority = most. End of story.If you want to hang your argument on the fact that you thought I meant "people who are happy with what we have now" when I said "people who want gun control", then good luck with that - it's pretty obvious what I meant, as is it is pretty obvious what "most" means.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 10:46:07 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 28, 2015, 09:59:32 pmSo if you think that "messing with health care" is a completely different issue than quality of mental health care, I am not sure why you drew some kind of parallel between the two. It appears clear from the link I posted that most gun owners recognize health care as a serious issue in terms of gun laws/crimes.As for the 14% who vocally oppose new gun laws - I think it may be true that they are often also opposed to health care reform, but I am sure you are painting the whole group with an overly broad brush and I don't think you have anything to support that claim other than anecdotal evidence. From your prior post I see that you let beliefs on issues overrule data - so I don't think it's likely to be a reasoned conclusion and rather an emotional one. Case in point - I don't think we need any new gun laws and I think many of the laws we have are stupid and should be revoked, but I am not vocal about it at all - and I think we need serious health care reform.I think you're relying too heavily on the "god, guns and (anti) gays" stereotype when in reality, there are a lot of people (possibly and maybe even probably a majority) who don't fall into that group.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2015, 11:06:28 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 10:30:30 pmNo, it is not obvious. Words have meaning (except perhaps to politicians). Look, if you meant something different than what you said, it's ok to say so. No reason to pick a fight.The truth is we have significant gun control in this country now: background checks, 3 days waiting period, etc.It's interesting to note that that poll shows that even a few years ago when the assault weapon ban was still in place, the numbers were similar.QuoteSay what? First the poll doesn't address that issue, second I never said anything about "gun nuts" Hell, some would say I'm a gun nut because I own guns. You're creating straw men again.I'm on the email list of several "Liberty Movement" organizations because I'm in favor ofsomeof their causes. Almost daily, I get emails warning me that the "liberals" or "Obama" wants to take my guns away. But there is absolutely no facts to support that idea. In fact, as far as I'm aware there has been no serious national effort to ban guns (other than assault weapons) in this country for decades.The truth is the majority of our country is in favor of gun rights and the majority of gun owners are also in favor of reasonable regulations.Saying that gun owners are (mostly) opposed to any gun control laws would be just as false as your previous (but now clarified) statement that those in favor of gun control (mostly) want to really take your guns away.It's these type of statements that are responsible for the lack of any sane political discourse in this country IMO.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 01:00:52 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:50:46 pmRubbish. There is broad public and even majority support in America for many proposed aspects of gun control legislation that we over here take entirely for granted. Under what "varying laws by nationality" unique to the USA make it sane to manufacture and distribute in the 10's of thousands lethal weapons for kiddies (just one possible example amongst many)?

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 01:17:59 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on July 28, 2015, 08:34:16 pmYes there are. Having said that, they probably make up the most vocal and outspoken 1%, same as any other country (like ours for example). The comparo is your 1% is an order of magnitude bigger than our 1% in unit terms (and probably 2 orders of magnitude in mass and/or volume) and therefore looks pretty bad when you make a superficial scan of the "media".I *do* know what the US is like. I have family in Minnesota, California, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, Georgia and one state in the midwest I can't recall off the top of my head. I've spent a lot of time over there on long family visits and I've been lucky enough to meet with and talk to a broad spectrum of the population through both family and work. I do understand that it's the scum that floats to the surface, and it's a problem we get here (and it's everywhere else too). It's just that on a sheer volume comparo, your scum is much easier to point at and laugh.As I said on another forum recently. I've seen things at Walmart (Sanford, Fl specifically) you can't un-see no matter how much you try to drink it away.In general, forum members from the US are also pretty easy to rile up, because you take a light hearted jab as an attempt at a mortal wound.To close out, don't worry about Rebel Wilson. Nobody here listens to what she has to say either. To be fair, we point and laugh when any actor (from any country) tries to get on a soap box. It's a case of "stand in the corner, keep your mouth shut and try to look pretty. That's your job".

author: warp_foo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 01:21:18 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 01:00:52 amWTF?

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 01:30:28 am
content: Quote from: BradC on July 29, 2015, 01:17:59 amTrue. Though maybe it'd be a good thing if more people would start considering these vocal, ugly assholes something to be ashamed of rather than an "eh, they're just a vocal minority" - might get some of them to shut up if the rest of us openly considered them to be a blemish on our nation...QuoteQuoteAlso true. We're not so used to lighthearted jokes of a political nature and tend to assume such things aren't jokes. I'm all for a bit of teasing, though certain subjects can get me a bit riled up too...

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 01:31:53 am
content: Quote from: warp_foo on July 29, 2015, 01:21:18 amhttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/apr/29/armed-to-the-milk-teeth-america-gun-toting-kids80,000 rifles produced in 2008 alone.

author: warp_foo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 01:41:59 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 01:31:53 amI'm sure, in your mind, these kids are walking around armed and unsupervised.Nope, not sensationalized at all.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 01:48:44 am
content: Quote from: warp_foo on July 29, 2015, 01:41:59 amUm, you can be sure of whatever you want.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:02:07 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 28, 2015, 09:46:59 pmGun control means different things to different people.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:26:19 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 28, 2015, 12:37:34 pmFirst off. All those pictures are from Louisiana. And those kids are all CITY kids. No right-minded kid from the bayou would be caught with such a puny ass rifle. My nephew has a 25-06 that he got when he wasn't much older.Second. Hunting is what you DO in Louisiana. At least when you're not eating crawfish, eating boudin and jojos at Billy's gas station, in church or watching football (I think that counts as church in some parishes). So of course these kids have rifles. How else are they going to learn to shoot? You can take multiple deer a year there, so practice puts meat in the freezer.And for all the complaining about guns by foreigners, some of the safest places in the U.S. are awash with guns. We have people from around the world come to our little slice of heaven and remark at how safe they feel.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:30:50 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 01:31:53 amHurray! America's kids can get single shot 22 rim fires that actually fit them! Power to the Prole!When I was young, we had to learn on grown up size guns. That sucked.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:57:44 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 02:26:19 amAnd what does any of what you wrote there have to do with the mass distribution of potentially lethal weapons that are at first glance indistinguishable from toys? About five percent of the Australian population is actively involved in hunting in some form or another and the majority of those are licensed firearm owners. There is a difference between embracing tradition and taking gun ownership to irresponsible and moronic extremes to defend some perceived intrinsic right.http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/25/kids-guns-and-the-american-way"Little Hank thus became one in a tally of what the makers of a Channel 4 documentary called Kids and Guns claim to be 3,000 American children who die each year from gun-related accidents. A recent Yale University study found that more than 7,000 US children and adolescents are hospitalised or killed by guns each year and estimates that about 20 children a day are treated in US emergency rooms following incidents involving guns."

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:30:43 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 02:57:44 am#1 cause of death for Australian kids are cars. Petition your government to ban the mass distribution of cars.http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/leading-causes-of-death/It's fascinating how some internationals are obsessed with the US. It's like stopping in a red light in a really nice sport car. The Honda Civic kid in the next lane always wants to prove that his car can launch faster. The wise thing to do is to let them feel good about their cars. Well, Australia is a faster car than the US.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:45:13 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 02:57:44 amWell, if all we have to do is make pink rifles to annoy you, so be it.And where do you get this 3000 children number?! Our CDC says that the *total* number of deaths due to firearms accidents in the US for 2013 for ALL age groups is 505, 69 of whom were under age 14.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdfIn short, you're being manipulated with the same lies about firearms that we've had to put up with for decades. These "facts" you're asserting just are not so. Meanwhile, if you refer to the line below accidental firearms deaths, you'll see nearly 10X as many children drowned. Where's the outrage? You should call your congresscritter and tell her/him to pass a law!Oh, that's right, you don't live here...============================================ETA:Do not interpret the above to mean I think that 69 or 505 are great numbers. There is room for improvement. I would love to see zero accidents. But there damned sure aren't 3000 deaths.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:13:59 am
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 03:30:43 amActually, it's more like watching a trainwreck. As much as you really want to look away you just can't.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 05:07:34 am
content: Quote from: BradC on July 29, 2015, 04:13:59 amYou don't need to worry about us. Just enjoy your great country. You are the lucky one.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 07:51:38 am
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 03:30:43 amI don't think anyone here is talking about banning guns completely but limiting the supply and use of guns to those who are competent enough to use them safely.Guess what? This is what your government already does with cars! There's this thing called a driving licence and you have to pass a special test to obtain one and be in charge of a potentially lethal machine.The same thing could be done with guns to minimise the risk of people getting hurt and killed. Of course criminals can still get their hands on guns, whether they have a licence or not (same with cars) but it could be made more difficult for them and I doubt all gun related deaths are intentional: some will be accidental.Another big difference is cars are more important to the economy than guns. You may argue it's important to you to have a gun so you can defend yourself and enjoy pastimes such as hunting but you don't need a gun to take you to work.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 10:30:52 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on July 29, 2015, 07:51:38 amMojo Chan, do you say that around here one needs to have a driving license in order to own a car or to operate one a private road? I am not sure thats' the case.Anyway, please mind your own great country.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 11:09:15 am
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 03:30:43 amYep! Agreed! We need to get tougher on road discipline (not speeding) with tougher penalties on mobile phone use, red lights, drink/drug driving etc... It would also solve Sydney's traffic problem and at the same time reward decent drivers. This focus on "speed kills" in Australia is totally backwards. Drivers spend more time staring at their speedos than the road when they come across a mobile or fixed speed camera. Focus should be on lane discipline; Keeping a safe distance behind, travelling with the flow of traffic and giving way where appropriate.Ditch the demerit point system. Warning for the first offence, licence suspension for the second offence then finally, licence cancellation for a subsequent offence of the same type (where they must re-apply and go through the same tests as a learner driver). That'll soon get moron drivers off our roads, reduced the death toll, shorten travel times, reduce insurance costs and free up emergency services.If only they were as tough on our Traffic Legislation as they are with our Firearms legislation....

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 12:34:48 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on July 29, 2015, 11:09:15 amIf this plan matches the values, culture and goals of your country than good for you.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 12:44:20 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 02:30:50 amI think you're missing the point of the criticisms there, it's not that there're kiddy sized rifles for people to take their children hunting or target shooting with, it's that they make so many to look like straight up toys. When it's illegal to make a toy gun look like a real gun but fine to make real guns look like toy guns you're asking for more Tamir Rice's. I'm shocked and glad that sort of tragic accident is rare, but once is too often.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:29:02 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 29, 2015, 02:08:03 pmAnd most of them don't bother, they join a club and use the clubs guns*. Almost every rifle owner I know is involved in wildlife** conservation somehow i.e. they're deer stalkers. Shotgun owners who aren't farmers seem to be mainly in it for the sport (clays, grouse shoots etc), or make money taking people on excursions for the same. But I'll admit there's a large crossover between the two groups and I'm a part of it.*It's the only place I'll deal with handguns. I personally see my guns as tools and handguns as nothing but weapons so would never have one in the house.**Bit of an oxymoron seeing as Britain hasn't had a natural landscape for over 10 thousand years I know.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:32:16 pm
content: At least we are banning phone cases that are in the shape of a gun, well, there is a proposition in Chicago for that.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:43:34 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 03:45:13 amThe reference/source for the figures is given in the quote. Can you read? Here is another link:http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/guns-injure-7-000-u-s-kids-yearly-study-article-1.1592703All lies you are telling me?Secondly, it doesn't mater if more kids are killed each year in other kinds of accidents - that is completely besides the point and a complete strawman argument.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 02:52:05 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 02:43:34 pmThe notion of 2931 accidental deaths of children not being reported each year is implausible. It would require a nationwide conspiracy to do it. And keep in mind that the Obama administration would certainly not participate in such a coverup.Gun control advocates have an outstanding track record of inventing numbers to support their claim. This is yet another easily disproved, extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:00:55 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 03:30:43 amYou keep saying that you aren't going to be baited into the us/them better rhetoric, but you do your best to devolve the discussion along those lines at every opportunity like some kind of repetitive monkey.But since you brought up car accidents:http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:01:44 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on July 29, 2015, 02:08:03 pmThis is typical to your authoritarian worldview. Every free citizen should be presumed to be mentally unstable unless he proves otherwise to the government. Utopia achieved.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:11:11 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 03:01:44 pmPlus what he wants has no weight unless he is talking about obtaining a legal gun in England.Not sure about the rest of Europe, but in Spain you can buy a gun, illegally as well as legally.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:12:17 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 02:52:05 pmI haven't looked up the restrictions and caveats of the accidental death data that you posted and I don't have the time for it now, but here is the actual report from the American Academy of Pediatrics:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdfIt is thoroughly referenced, including data from the CDC.EDIT: That isn't the Yale study cited after all - I'm still looking for it.EDIT#2: found it:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/2/219.longWhat’s Known on This Subject:Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of death among American children. Previous estimates of nonfatal injuries have relied on small samples of emergency department visits and do not allow a detailed understanding of these injuries among children and adolescents.What This Study Adds:In 2009, there were 7391 hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries in US children and adolescents; 89% of hospitalizations occurred in males. Hospitalization rates were highest for 15- to 19-year-olds and for black males. Deaths in the hospital occurred in 6.1% of children and adolescents.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:21:48 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 29, 2015, 12:44:20 pmNo. I understand completely. Colored guns offend your fashion sense. We call it personalization. We decorate our guns here - particularly the ones that only get shot at the range or for competition. Colors, stickers, paint, anodizing... We do it all. Go to the range and you might find a pink rifle next to a black shotgun with a Sponge Bob SquarePants sticker.No one is giving their kid a firearm here and equating with a toy. It's a rite of passage to get your first gun. And the lucky kids get to pick. So what if a girl picks what she thinks is pretty? It's going to be locked up in a safe when her parents aren't around anyway.And we've learned that this color argument is just another red herring by the gun control lobby. They hated blued guns with wood trim. Then they hated black guns that worked exactly like the blued/wood guns. Shiny stainless steel guns were also horrifying. (Dirty Harry! Oh my!) Is there a proper color scheme for a gun? Has there ever been?I'm beginning to think that you all just don't like guns. Which is completely fine by me. I respect your right not to keep one. It would be great if you would respect our rights and traditions in kind.And if you're coming to the northwestern U.S. and would like to try shooting as a sport, you are cordially invited. My treat.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:40:57 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 03:21:48 pmNo, you purposely misunderstood. It's nothing to do with my personal aesthetic leanings. You can't make a toy gun look like a real one in case someone mistakes the toy gun with a real gun. The legal requirements are an orange tipORa generally colourful appearance. You can make real guns look like toy guns by giving them a colourful appearance* therefore making it impossible to tell if a gun is a toy one or not. Therefore Tamir Rice...QuoteNo, they're equating toys with guns and shooting without even confirming there's any threat. As I said in an earlier first it's admittedly rare but once is too much. Or would you rather ban toy guns instead of having a definite way to make the distinction?QuoteYou haven't read my other posts in this topic have you? Two posts below the one you quoted I think is pretty typical so far.QuoteIf I ever end up getting a US passport I might take you up on that but it wouldn't be my first go*Not sure about the orange tip.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:45:44 pm
content: Actually there is no requirement of a psychiatric test for a gun licence here in the UK there is a requirement that you agrees to your GP being contacted and that your GP also countersigns the Initial application but that is as much about verifying who you are more than checking up on your mental health, there is even a section on the application form asking if you have been or are being treated for any mental health conditions such as depression but that dose not automatically preclude you from being granted a gun licence, far more likely to be turned down if lie on the form such as not revealing a medical condition or a past criminal conviction and the only thing that does not count here is a parking ticket and the checks reveal them.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:51:39 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 03:12:17 pmWell that study says 114 deaths in 2009 and that firearm fatalities as a whole among youth are on a steep decline (down by more than 50% over 15 years). The AMA and AAP have had an extreme gun control agenda for decades, and even they aren't able to gin up this 3000 number.Keep looking. I'm sure you'll find a study that will support your beliefs soon.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:52:00 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 29, 2015, 03:45:44 pmMy GP refused to countersign before consulting with my shrink. They can (and should) contact the relevant agencies if they think you have become incapable of safely handling one too, same as with driving licenses. In fact it's their legal requirement to contact the police if they think you are a potential danger to others. They can't do anything about past acts you tell them about, but must tell them about realistically possible future actions. I.e. if I tell my shrink I'm going to kill the neighbour he'd have to contact the police, if I tell him I have killed my neighbour and hid the body under the patio he can't do a thing.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:53:32 pm
content: I'm not sure what's more tedious - the argument, or the fact that you two insist on re-quoting the entire thing every time you continue it.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 03:59:35 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 03:51:39 pmOh, I've found the actual study cited:http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/2/219.longWhat’s Known on This Subject:Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of death among American children. Previous estimates of nonfatal injuries have relied on small samples of emergency department visits and do not allow a detailed understanding of these injuries among children and adolescents.What This Study Adds:In 2009, there were 7391 hospitalizations for firearm-related injuries in US children and adolescents; 89% of hospitalizations occurred in males. Hospitalization rates were highest for 15- to 19-year-olds and for black males. Deaths in the hospital occurred in 6.1% of children and adolescents.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:09:34 pm
content: OK, so now a 21yo is a "child?"And yes, debating gun control is tedious and irritating. Yet every election we have foreign parties funneling money into our elections to deprive us of our civil liberties based on these amazing "facts." Virtually every time these "facts" come up, a cursory examination of reliable data shows them to be ginned up, gerrymandered, or just completely fabricated. And so too this "3000 children/year" statistic completely unravels with just a gentle tug of a thread.The sky is not falling. And America is actually a safer place to be than in decades past.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:09:52 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 03:21:48 pmYou don't shot at live things for entertainment, right LabSpokane?

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:19:48 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 04:09:52 pmI was thinking more of flying clay frisbees. You can try eating the pieces if you like.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:25:37 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 04:09:34 pmThe study is exclusively concerned with persons <20 years of age and the 3000 figure was just a direct quotation from an article of a journalist being creative with what the study reports.In any case over 7000 hospitalizations (20 "children" per day) of which more than 6% are fatalities is hardly an insignificant statistic.Both those pediatric journal reports I posted make for somber reading, particularly the international comparison of the first paper:"The United States has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide, and unintentional deaths) among high-income countries. 9 For youth 15 to 24 years of age, fire-arm homicide rates, as documented by Richardson and Hemenway, 9 were 35.7 times higher than in other countries. For children 5 to 14 years of age, firearm suicide rates were 8 times higher, and death rates from unintentional firearm injuries were 10 times higher in the United States than other high-income countries. The difference in rates may be related to the ease of availability of guns in the United States compared with other high-income countries. This is particularly true for suicides, as guns carry a high case-fatality rate. 10 Suicides among the young are typically impulsive, 11 and easy access to lethal weapons largely determines outcome."

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:29:23 pm
content: You're right. America is dangerous. You should stay home where it's safe.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:34:57 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 04:29:23 pmSo given the statistics, what do you make of the conclusion of the Yale study?"CONCLUSIONS: On average, 20 US children and adolescents were hospitalized each day in 2009 due to firearm injuries. Public health efforts are needed to reduce this common source of childhood injury."Do you think that part of the solution is to mass manufacture rifles for kids as young as four or five years old?

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:41:21 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 04:34:57 pmShouldn't you be paying attention to important things, like the test match?

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:46:00 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on July 29, 2015, 04:41:21 pmIs that cricket or soccer?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 04:52:44 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 04:19:48 pmThat's good. I never shot at those. May be worth trying one day. ;-)Meanwhile, here is an episode of the crazy Russian gun guy for your enjoyment. It involves electronics.

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 05:11:50 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 04:52:44 pmActually, he's American:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPSRussia

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 05:26:34 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on July 28, 2015, 11:06:28 pmI'm not picking a fight - I am just sitting here in incredulity about what you're saying. When someone says "people who want gun control", you're essentially saying that it means everyone - since I doubt there is a single sane person who thinks a toddler should be able to buy an RPG from a vending machine. It seems pretty obvious to me that "people who wan't gun control" doesn't include the people who think we should leave gun laws alone or have less gun control, etc. But go with whatever rationalization you prefer - the fact is that people who want more gun control just want to ban guns - fact.QuoteYou wrote "is simply the hysteria whipped up by the usual 'gun nut' sources"QuoteAnd when I drive to work, I pass a couple of loons who have a poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache and saying "pull over to stop Obama now". Take a gander over at Democratic Underground and see the folks that want a literal French-style revolution with "the wealthy" being burned at stakes in the street. These loons are the small minority.QuoteYour own source proved me correct - most people who want more gun control just want to ban guns. It's indisputable because your own survey proved it. Hanging your hat on the claim that "Ohhh, I thought when you said most people who want gun control, you meant the ones who don't want more and the ones who want less too" is laughable.QuotePeople who correctly identify the true motives of a certain section of the political spectrum are not the problem - if that identification is true. People who lump groups into categories like "gun nuts" and make presumptions such as the claim that the "gun nut" category is the same as the "don't touch my health care" category based on a sample size of one - are the problem.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 05:35:57 pm
content: Quote from: GK on July 29, 2015, 01:00:52 amYou are proving my point better than anything I could have posted.You claim that there is an objective standard for guns and there is no room for the USA to have a different standard that doesn't match yours. That is the definition of arrogance.I don't think we should be selling beer to 16 year olds in the USA, but if Germany wants to do that, let them. They have a different culture and the drinking age is subjective.You think it's "insane" that there are guns designed for children. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a parent buying a gun for their child. It's a valid sport, a valid past-time and I know countless kids who learned to shoot with Dad. To label an entire aspect of culture that you don't share and don't understand as "insane" is just bigotry.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 05:39:19 pm
content: QuoteAussies should mind their own business.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 06:01:13 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on July 29, 2015, 04:13:59 am

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 06:14:47 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 29, 2015, 03:40:57 pmHow do you achieve that? Ban paint, 3D printers/paper-mache and anything that could be used to make a fake gun that looks real? It's an impossible thing to achieve. As for Tamir Rice, he wasn't shot because he had a toy gun, he was shot because a criminal police officer murdered him. That police officer, IIRC, is still waiting the results of an investigation into whether he will be charged but a few weeks ago a judge ruled there is probable cause to charge him with murder. A tragic story, but you can't use the single example to justify the whole.QuoteI think all the people I know who had guns as kids were much more responsible with them than those who learned later in life. Like the kids who raced karts or dirtbikes were less likely to be idiots behind the wheel on the street when they got their license. The "once is too much" thing is incorrect - if the metric is "if it happens even once, we need to do something", then alcohol has to be banned immediately, along with all pocket knives, chewing gum, most forms of clothes, multi-story buildings, etc. Anything that ever led to a situation where someone was killed, if "even once is too much". But we both know that it's always a risk/reward thing. We accept cars that aren't limited in top speed to 60mph because we trust people not to abuse it - even though some do and sometimes people die. Same with many other things - and in the USA, same with guns. There's a moving delineation between laws and rights, and in the USA, that line is much further towards the "rights" end than the "laws" end, compared to most countries.But it's a subjective thing, not an objective one.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 07:01:32 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 29, 2015, 05:26:34 pmHyperbole and another straw man. Gun control means regulation of gun ownership not banning RPGs - of course almost no one would oppose that but lots of people are opposed to the current requirements of background checks and waiting periods. Lots of people are opposed to any limits on gun purchases. So opposition to gun control - even as it exists now is very strong.QuoteNot obvious to most people. Again See above. Many, many people are opposed to background checks, waiting periods and any sort of gun registration - (and no that doesn't mean they want RPGS to be legal).QuoteNo, that is not a fact as you state it. It is a fact thatSOMEof the people who want more gun control want to ban guns but the polls show it to be just over half. There are many people (and many gun owners I suspect) who would like to see background checks and waiting periods imposed at gun shows but do not want to ban guns. There are many who want to see limits on the size of magazines but not ban them, etc, etc. The facts are that there are several proposals to expand gun regulations (often supported by many gun owners) but none to ban them.QuoteI put quotes around "gun nuts" for a reason as in that is what some people call those who support repeal of current gun control laws and oppose any regulation on gun purchases. I support gun ownership and even support the right to own an assault rifle (if properly registered, strong background check, etc) and for that some would call me a "gun nut".The fact remains that the false meme of "those who want gun control really want to ban guns" is used to create fear, and create emotional reactions (i.e. hysteria) in gun owners in order to raise money for the NRA and for right wing political candidates.The big picture here is that I think we mostly agree on the broad outlines of gun rights. I am just concerned that the statements about who supports some gun control laws and what that means are accurate (which your original statement was not). The precise language matters and its the over-generalizations and hyperbole that occur on both sides of the issue (and many other issues) that cause so much of the dysfunction in our political system.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 07:26:56 pm
content: Here in SA the laws are making it harder and harder to own a gun legally. However illegal guns are the most common weapon used to commit murder, with most of them coming either from the old arms caches, the police or the Defence force. They lose hundreds of guns, rifles and automatic weapons a year, and ironically most of the members would not be able to own a legal firearm, as they either cannot pass the required testing, have criminal records, or are nutcases.Was at the scene yesterday, where they went into a shop and shot the place up.http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/gang-s-dramatic-durban-shoot-out-1.1892560

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 08:15:59 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 29, 2015, 06:14:47 pmWell seeing as everything is impossible achieve to achieve 100% by that reasoning there's no point in having any laws. Or to bother doing anything at all about anything. I'm not that cynical or nihilistic personally.Quote from: Corporate666 on July 29, 2015, 06:14:47 pmI wasn't going by the standard of 100% effective but reducing it as much as possible. I'd also say without going too far*. I would honestly say as much as my country has got certain things right I'd say it has gone too far in the other direction and trying to be absolute instead of finding a balance can be just as bad in either direction.*And I'll admit "too far" is very objective but shall we say where the benefit (say people not dying due to accidents and/or someone who is mentally incapable of handling one responsibly going off on one and/or people getting toys mixed up for the real thing) outweighs the benefit (say people saved by the good guy with the gun and/or just the problem not being so large because the object isn't a total taboo and/or there having to be a consistent standardised way to separate most guns from most gun shaped toysANDjust not effecting those who don't fall into the "bad" section) would be a reasonable place to work out where it is from and aim for to begin with?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 09:42:08 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on July 29, 2015, 07:26:56 pmThis outcome even has an off the shelf bumper sticker

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 09:59:49 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 09:42:08 pmTrue, but that policy seemed to work for Hong Kong. Not sure how it works or what the results are now though.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 10:35:43 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 09:42:08 pmNot even true, the police and army still have guns. You know, people who are at least trained to use them, have a command structure, not like the dumbass "citizen militia" who randomly fire their weapon at things.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 29, 2015, 10:55:31 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 29, 2015, 09:42:08 pmA ridiculous argument that could be used to argue against any law. I'm all for (responsible) gun ownership, but how about some intelligent arguments for it, instead ofthis?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 12:37:01 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on July 29, 2015, 10:55:31 pmYes, it embodies inherently a lot of truth. I will give you this.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:49:59 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 29, 2015, 05:35:57 pmThere is a whole a lot wrong with making firearms accessible to children and the moronic culture that celebrates the practice - and that wrong is reflected in the death and injury statistics which America doesn't share with other comparably developed countries.I also fail to comprehend why someone would need to carry a machine gun into a takeaway restaurant. But I guess that is just pure "arrogance" and "bigotry" on my behalf.That photo above really cracks me up. I know of a farmer up north that runs around his property authoritatively with a holstered revolver on his hip. Not strictly legal but the local constabulary just roll their eyes and guy is locally known along the lines of that wanker who fancies himself as John Wayne. So we have these sorts over here too, but you Americans take this particular brand of wankerism to a whole new level.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:50:25 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 29, 2015, 03:21:48 pmI'm beginning to think that you all just don't like owning slaves. Which is completely fine by me. I respect your right not to keep one. It would be great if you would respect our rights and traditions in kind.- Said by countless Americans once upon a time.Were they wrong?

author: warp_foo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:55:19 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 30, 2015, 04:50:25 amYes, said 152 years ago. Your point? We've moved past that.To equate gun ownership and slavery is silly. Really, grow the f*ck up.mETA: When you guys stop screwing the Aborigines, you can call out the USA on slavery.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:01:00 am
content: Quote from: warp_foo on July 30, 2015, 04:55:19 amSo you do agree that those Americans who said "It would be great if you would respect our rights and traditions" with regard to slavery were wrong.Interesting.And yet the same argument made to keep your precious lethal weapons is still a perfectly valid argument?Sounds like a case of double standards to me.For your sakes, I do hope the issue of gun control is not resolved the same way your country resolved the issue of slavery."Because when America farts, the world has to smell it."

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:21:46 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 30, 2015, 04:49:59 amMy major concern is how you feel about the color scheme. Is the olive drab on black too flashy and attractive to children? Does OD have a place on your color wheel, or are earth tones out these days?Then there is the small matter of rifle dude's handgun missing its magazine. That's a serious fashion faux pas here.And what about the guy on the left? We have a Glock guy hanging with a Sig guy. Does that make you feel uncomfortable? It seems kind of icky to me.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:25:30 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 05:21:46 amThat's not you is it?

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:26:58 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 30, 2015, 05:25:30 amThat's not you is it?No, my rifle is pink. Chicks really dig it. It's better than going to the park with a puppy.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:30:22 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 30, 2015, 04:50:25 amYes. If you read a little history we "northern aggressors" said "that's it, no more slavery," then went and kicked their asses over it. How much more commitment to human rights would you like?

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:30:42 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 05:26:58 amUntil they find out what it's compensation for............

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:36:21 am
content: Quote from: GK on July 30, 2015, 05:30:42 amThat my belt and shoe colors are mismatched? We Americans are really going to need more guidance from the British Empire if we are ever to achieve the gun fashion nirvana you demand.This is what my rifle looks like. Do you think the kids will like it? I'm shipping 400,000 of these to Toys R Us to sell for Christmas.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:46:35 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 05:36:21 amIs this really the best you can do now?Bye!

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 05:48:22 am
content: This is me with one of the prototype rifles. Do my glasses make my Caddy look fat?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 06:15:40 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 05:48:22 amI take back my former statement. You probably didn't misunderstand on purpose. Your total lack of even trying to address any point but just latch onto out of context sentences, or to even notice you're throwing the "ridicule" at the wrong person, I don't think it's just a conscious manipulative and dishonest tactic any more...If you have no will to actually have a dialogue about the topic why bother posting on it?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 06:33:12 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 30, 2015, 06:15:40 amWhy should he have a dialog with foreigners try to tell us how to run our country?With all the respect, mind your own country.

author: cimmo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 06:44:44 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 05:30:22 amYou don't get it - the south were STILL Americans. And they used that exact same argument - that it was THEIR RIGHT and part of THEIR TRADITION to own slaves. Why is it wrong for non-gun freak Americans to say "that's it, no more guns" and institute laws to further restrict gun ownership?Why is your pro-gun argument better than their anti-gun argument?Because you've got the guns and you're not afraid to use them?The slave owners were on the wrong side of history, how are you sure that gun owners will not end up being on the wrong side of history?Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 05:30:22 amI think implementing laws that actually reduce the incidence of getting shot would be a damn fine way of ensuring everyone's human rights.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 06:48:03 am
content: Quote from: zapta on July 30, 2015, 06:33:12 amI wasn't telling anyone how to run their own country. I was discussing issues brought up on an international, public forum. Quite a few people seem to have noticed that (and thanks peeps, especially those who didn't agree without taking it as an affront to your Goddamn given rights blah blah blah, it was fun and a bit eye opening), only LabSpokane and yourself seem to have not done.And TBH an American going on about how foreigners (even those who technically aren't) should keep their noses out of other countries business is just a little rich don't you think?

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 07:08:33 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 30, 2015, 06:15:40 amWhat dialogue? You still think we're a British colony and get to dictate what goes on here. You think our laws should mirror yours. You're wrong on all accounts.You Brits and Aussies have been whining that we aren't playing by the rules for 11 pages now. Your rules haven't applied here for a couple of centuries. You lost on multiple occasions. If you'd like that to change, you'll need to give it another go and see if you can make it past Elvis.You act like none of us have ever travelled and been to these gun-less Utopias. I have. I like it much better here. You like it much better there. So let's worry about our own problems, shall we?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 07:25:01 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 07:08:33 amIf you didn't ignore anything that doesn't fit your persecution complex you'd see I've been saying nothing of the sort. I was talking about your laws and your laws only and how there's a massive loophole in one that defeats it's point.QuoteI haven't, but thanks for showing your hypocrisy. People lumping all Americans and all gun owners together (something I argued against too) was one of your major sulks earlier.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 07:29:59 am
content: Quote from: cimmo on July 30, 2015, 06:44:44 amWe have. We let honest people defend themselves. It's led to a several decade long decline in crime rates.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 07:33:46 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 30, 2015, 07:25:01 amWe fixed the persecution problem a couple of centuries ago. Sorry you're not happy with our solution.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 07:37:06 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on July 30, 2015, 07:33:46 amYou do realise I'm a dual national don't you? And nah, there's a definite persecution complex with you or you'd have known that from one of the replies you cherry picked 1 point out of context from.And you only managed because of the French, funny how you never want us foreigners to keep our noses out when you want us to help fight your wars, like how you got all out of joint when the French tried to keep their noses out of Bush vs Hussein 2 isn't it?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 08:15:18 am
content: Don't you just love it how as grown ups we can all put our opinions forth and have a constructive discussion and healthy debate about world issues without resorting to sarcasm, pouting and having a good old sook, right?(That wasn't aimed at any particular user or country either, although we all know the British are a bunch of whingers just like Americans are obese, the French are arrogant, Australians are a bunch of convicts, German's are all Nazis and Asians can't drive for shit.)

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 08:19:41 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on July 30, 2015, 07:37:06 amQuote from: Mechanical Menace on July 30, 2015, 07:37:06 am'you' ? And you are surprised that people consider you to be a foreigner?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 08:45:02 am
content: Quote from: zapta on July 30, 2015, 08:19:41 amNah, I'm considered a sort of foreigner everywhere really and I sort of did that on purpose. If you honestly can't see why I might do that given the childish jingoism getting thrown at me I'll just say this; Similar situations with things going in the other direction would and have had similar responses. <-- I've a feeling you could that way around.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 09:30:53 am
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on July 29, 2015, 10:35:43 pmMost criminals here in the UK don't own guns.The majority of the police force don't even have guns. Only specially trained armed response units are allowed to carry guns.Because guns aren't a main part of out culture.In the US guns are like a religion and any talk of introducing any laws to control who owns them is seen as blasphemy, irrespective of how logical they may be. They site the constitution but the constitution hasn't protected people against human rights abuses carried out by the US state such as torture that's silly.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 11:23:21 am
content: Well, from a bit of light hearted poking this appears to have escalated.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 03:41:58 pm
content: Quote from: BradC on July 30, 2015, 11:23:21 amNot a good idea. Same goes for trashing other people kids and dogs.Quote from: Hero999 on July 30, 2015, 09:30:53 amSame here. It's considered contraband and the guard confiscate them.Quote from: Hero999 on July 30, 2015, 09:30:53 amIf we ignore the core value of freedom, then your worldview may make sense.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on July 29, 2015, 10:35:43 pmThat's like saying that medicine X doesn't save life because a few patients died despite taking it. Be serious.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:44:25 pm
content: Quote from: Hero999 on July 30, 2015, 09:30:53 amhttp://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/stabbed-cop-latest-victim-of-hell-run-1.1892745

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 04:49:17 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on July 30, 2015, 03:41:58 pmThe hell are you even on about?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 04:45:14 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on July 28, 2015, 07:21:40 amHere is one more reason, a new video with 10 hours of Trump insults. Can't beat that.

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 01:06:01 pm
content: The Aussies should be more concerned about the murder at Trent Bridge this morning.

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 01:11:17 pm
content: Quote from: KJDS on August 06, 2015, 01:06:01 pmI searched for that expecting an actual murder, then I find out they had a bad day swinging their cricket rackets...

author: KJDS
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 06, 2015, 01:30:58 pm
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on August 06, 2015, 01:11:17 pmNottinghamshire police have tweeted that they're investigating reports of Aussies in trouble.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 01:44:26 am
content: Quote from: Mechanical Menace on August 06, 2015, 01:11:17 pmA bad day? I'd call that polite understatement.

author: hendorog
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 01:52:24 am
content: QuoteSuper comment thatBroad on fire.(As a Kiwi its my sworn duty to support the All Blacks, and anyone playing against Australia)

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 07, 2015, 02:10:22 am
content: My old man wants to have the Aussie team declared terrorist and have their passports revoked.