|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 23 2013 14:27 Leporello wrote:
Guns are necessary for security. That is obvious to everyone, and no one is disputing it. Well over here in Australia, we don't have guns. I lived in New Zealand for 2.5 years with no issues without guns, and didn't know a single person that owned one. Should I be quaking in my boots? If you honestly believe you need guns for "security" then:
- You have serious issues that need addressing
or
- Your country has serious issues that need addressing
Choose one.
|
To marigold and magpie.
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it.
|
On April 23 2013 15:24 Rollin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:27 Leporello wrote:
Guns are necessary for security. That is obvious to everyone, and no one is disputing it. Well over here in Australia, we don't have guns. I lived in New Zealand for 2.5 years with no issues without guns, and didn't know a single person that owned one. Should I be quaking in my boots? If you honestly believe you need guns for "security" then: - You have serious issues that need addressing or - Your country has serious issues that need addressing Choose one.
You're military doesn't have any guns? That's weird.
|
On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
K. That's nice to know.
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
That's nice. But the majority of car-users rely on public roads. Work, school, other needs -- most aren't off roadable, or whatever your buds get up to...
I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it.
Not really sure what you said here.
On April 23 2013 16:28 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 15:24 Rollin wrote:On April 23 2013 14:27 Leporello wrote:
Guns are necessary for security. That is obvious to everyone, and no one is disputing it. Well over here in Australia, we don't have guns. I lived in New Zealand for 2.5 years with no issues without guns, and didn't know a single person that owned one. Should I be quaking in my boots? If you honestly believe you need guns for "security" then: - You have serious issues that need addressing or - Your country has serious issues that need addressing Choose one. You're military doesn't have any guns? That's weird.
You thought he wasn't referring to civilians -- but military? That's...weird. 
|
On April 23 2013 16:35 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 16:03 Sermokala wrote:
If I could use my guns in public with all those restrictions I would do it in a heartbeat a thousand times over.
K. That's nice to know. Show nested quote +
You don't need insurance of any government permission to use your car. You just need it to use it on the roads. My cousins and I have a half dozen beaters that we can use whenever that have no government paper trail but because we don't' use them on public roads no one cares.
That's nice. But the majority of car-users rely on public roads. Work, school, other needs -- most aren't off roadable, or whatever your buds get up to... Show nested quote +I'm not allowed last time I checked to bring around my shotgun to the local holiday to get a monster. I'd like to and if I had to buy insurance pass a test and register my shotgun to do so I'd be just fine with it. Not really sure what you said here. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 16:28 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 15:24 Rollin wrote:On April 23 2013 14:27 Leporello wrote:
Guns are necessary for security. That is obvious to everyone, and no one is disputing it. Well over here in Australia, we don't have guns. I lived in New Zealand for 2.5 years with no issues without guns, and didn't know a single person that owned one. Should I be quaking in my boots? If you honestly believe you need guns for "security" then: - You have serious issues that need addressing or - Your country has serious issues that need addressing Choose one. You're military doesn't have any guns? That's weird. You thought he wasn't referring to civilians -- but military? That's...weird.
Well he was responding to the statement that guns are necessary for security. His country would not be very safe without a military with guns would it?
|
Don't be silly. He is referring to regular individuals in civilian settings...not a sovereign military. Why is it that word games are the focus more often than the brunt of points?
|
On April 23 2013 16:43 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Don't be silly. He is referring to regular individuals in civilian settings...not a sovereign military. Why is it that word games are the focus more often than the brunt of points?
Make a silly implication, get a silly response. Just because his civilians do not own guns does not mean they are not protected by them.
|
If that is your response to him, then my response is that you do not understand what he said. He's not talking about the military. He is not talking about the military protecting civilians from other sovereign nations. He is talking about inter-civilian security. According to him, in Australia, evidently there is no need for personal civilian ownership and household possession of firearms. He then compares his situation to ours. He wonders why we need guns -- is it because we have a problem that needs addressing, or does something need to be addressed in our country?
|
Well, I'll counter that notion with this little piece of info:
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
Source
|
On April 23 2013 10:02 sMi.EternaL wrote:I have withheld comment from this thread for a very very long time. That being said, I feel as though there are some seriously dangerous thoughts being passed around as fact in the last several posts. Firstly, the notion that pepper spray can effectively stop an attacker reliably is downright silly. Pepper spray is an extraordinary tool and is very effective. However, it will, by no means, "drop" a determined attacker nor will it always work. Shielding the face, not breathing, wearing glasses, a badly aimed spray or just pure brute force are all effective ways to negate a large portion of pepper sprays effect. There are even those that are immune to pepper spray and can eat it like candy. (NOTE: The percentage of people that are immune is EXTREMELY small. Either 2% or 0.2%, honestly don't remember off the top of my head at the moment.) And, after all that, there's a statistic out there somewhere, I don't know the exact number but it reads, more or less, that >50% of all pepper spray users use their entire can of pepper spray pretty rapidly. Very few people are able to emit short controlled bursts once human panic mode sets in. So, what happens when you spray an entire can at someone and they keep coming? All that being said, I am not knocking OC Spray at all, but you have to recognize its weaknesses and take it for what it is and its place in the escalation of force. Secondly, the majority of all attacks happen within 10 feet. So, there's a sobering reality that you will very possibly be taking bodily harm. This is where training comes into play. It has been proven, and we've even done the test ourselves using a variety of people from different walks of life. Essentially, if you have a holstered weapon, you cannot draw and fire/spray/stab someone inside of a 21 foot radius without them reaching you and possibly dealing damage. Yes, you can shoot them, spray them, stab them. However, the time it takes to draw and effect fire is enough time for them to reach you and deal damage with their knife/bat/hands, whatever they may have. Now, take into account the fact that most fights occur in a 10 foot radius.... You can do the math. Are there people out there that beat this test? Yes absolutely. Are you one of them? Maybe, but please don't find out the hard way. The 21 feet is also given level unobstructed terrain, if you throw obstacles, steps, uphill etc into the mix then the results are obviously quite different. I am a combat veteran United States Marine and I am a weapons instructor. My entire goal in life is teaching police, military and law abiding citizens how to manipulate and fire more or less any weapon. Pistol, Shotgun, Carbine, Rifle, Knife, Baton, OC Spray etc. I teach the entire circle of life, I or my company can teach you most of the skills to take a life and most of the skills to save a life in terms of EMT/EMS/Medic skills. Obviously my opinion on whether should people be allowed to own and carry guns is a very stout "Yes." I just wanted to chime in and hopefully break some of these thoughts that could literally get someone killed or hurt. Carry on
it does not worry me that well trained people could carry guns, in fact police and military can carry their weapon concealed when not in service in my country; what worries me is that the majority of people don't know how to handle a gun safely and are prett far away from being able to use it effectively in case of necessity, nevertheless if they were allowed to carry one some of them would. this could imply trouble in a series of situations, like shooting out of fear or out of anger; or in case there is a single shooter in a crowded place, 5 more people pulling out guns and shooting would certanly make the situation worse and not better.
i am all for owning guns and self defense, but i'd rather have my girlfriend come to your unit and learn close quarters fighting tecniques! personally i prefer to live in a country where i know that those who carry a concealed gun have the training to use it and most of all know when NOT to use it.
since in the USA in many states people can carry guns, i would make tour training compulsory and to be had every year with a practical test to be passed in order to determine if the person has the competence and the physical abilities to be allowed to carry a weapon; i think your training is very precious, keep it up!
|
On April 23 2013 15:24 Rollin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 14:27 Leporello wrote:
Guns are necessary for security. That is obvious to everyone, and no one is disputing it. Well over here in Australia, we don't have guns. I lived in New Zealand for 2.5 years with no issues without guns, and didn't know a single person that owned one. Should I be quaking in my boots? If you honestly believe you need guns for "security" then: - You have serious issues that need addressing or - Your country has serious issues that need addressing Choose one.
You missed my point completely, perhaps even deliberately.
Because this is the rest of the post, which you edited out:
That's kind of my point, yeah. And whether they ultimately trusted them or not, they didn't have one [an army]. Thus militia was a very necessary concept.
Guns are necessary for security. That is obvious to everyone, and no one is disputing it.
But it isn't "necessary for the security of a Free state" for everyone to own as many weapons of any kind that they please. The 2nd Amendment was very clearly not written for that purpose.
I wish this would be said more, so we could go about the task of amending the Amendment.
Why would you edit that out, when it completely changes the context? It's like being a politician posting on here, sometimes. Posts getting cut like media sound bites.
On April 23 2013 15:24 Rollin wrote:
Well over here in Australia, we have guns. I lived in New Zealand for 2.5 years, and didn't know a single person. You didn't build that.
Your country does have guns -- or it'd be in trouble. It has a military and a police to provide security, was my point. I was not talking specifically about civlians arming themselves without limit or regulation.
Guns are. to an extent, necessary for security. You need an armed police force. It's just that now we have a police force, and an army. The 2nd Amendment accounts for these things NOT existing, hence, a militia.
If people would read that post, and not the snippet, I think they'd understand that I was merely stating a bit of the obvious there, saying that some security is necessary for a society to exist.
The actual point I was making is that the 2nd Amendment isn't about guns, it is about providing security. An armed militia was necessary then, for providing security, which the Amendment very clearly and succinctly states. But it's not only no longer necessary to form militias -- it's no longer even desirable. There is no reason to think we need an armed-group to violently oppose our own elected-government, or foreign invaders. Some people might congregate in a fashion to call themselves a militia, but they're not. At best, they're a harmless social club. They don't need to be our military, and they don't need to be armed as such.
|
On April 23 2013 17:22 kmillz wrote:Well, I'll counter that notion with this little piece of info: Show nested quote +In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
Source
Yeah, it's pretty silly comparing the US's situation to other countries, and assume their results/solutions are transferable.
US gun culture is unique.
|
It's not silly to use it as a basis for suggesting that the US ought to change something, so that there is not a "unique gun culture", which is what the guy was getting at
I don't know what these changes might be. Maybe gun control. All I am thoroughly convinced of is that high gun ownership in the US by and large sucks, and I would love it if we were able to get by as many of our closest allies get by, without mass gun ownership.
|
On April 23 2013 18:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's not silly to use it as a basis for suggesting that the US ought to change something, so that there is not a "unique gun culture", which is what the guy was getting at
I don't know what these changes might be. Maybe gun control. All I am thoroughly convinced of is that high gun ownership in the US by and large sucks, and I would love it if we were able to get by as many of our closest allies get by, without mass gun ownership.
Why do you want less gun ownership? If your reason for that is because you think less guns = less violence/crime/murder then you are, as I literally just outlined with that article, wrong.
|
Northern Ireland23791 Posts
Article's wrong though.
Well to be fair it might be right, but my momma always told me never to try to find gun-statistics online, so biased towards either position, so often.
|
On April 23 2013 20:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Article's wrong though.
Well to be fair it might be right, but my momma always told me never to try to find gun-statistics online, so biased towards either position, so often.
Why is it wrong? Can you share something that proves taking away guns reduces violent crimes?
Most of the article is just damn statistics, how can you say statistics are wrong? That's like saying 5+5 isn't 10, because the article that said 5+5=10 is biased.
|
Northern Ireland23791 Posts
No, and yes. I can find a million and one studies that 'prove' that. Most of it is ideologically biased, selective and useless in proving anything.
|
On April 23 2013 20:20 Wombat_NI wrote:
No, and yes. I can find a million and one studies that 'prove' that. Most of it is ideologically biased, selective and useless in proving anything.
Ok so you have no proof that taking away guns will reduce violent crimes, so why do you think taking away guns will reduce violent crimes?
|
On April 23 2013 20:19 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Article's wrong though.
Well to be fair it might be right, but my momma always told me never to try to find gun-statistics online, so biased towards either position, so often. Why is it wrong? Can you share something that proves taking away guns reduces violent crimes? Most of the article is just damn statistics, how can you say statistics are wrong? That's like saying 5+5 isn't 10, because the article that said 5+5=10 is biased.
You know for sure that isn't true. Statistics are a hell of a lot more complex than 5+5. Some statistics are based on pure lies, some are slanted, or taken out of context to try and prove a particular point, some are pure basic facts and true. Unfortunately it is almost always the case that it is impossible to prove which category a particular statistic falls into, so it is much better to trust none of them, unless there is enough evidence to back them up.
How many statistics have you seen to say that smoking pot is safe? How many have you seen that say it is dangerous?
Statistics are used by politicians and lobbyists to trick gullible people into believing something, or to reinforce something that people already believe, knowing that they won't look too hard at them.
|
On April 23 2013 20:32 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 20:19 kmillz wrote:On April 23 2013 20:16 Wombat_NI wrote:
Article's wrong though.
Well to be fair it might be right, but my momma always told me never to try to find gun-statistics online, so biased towards either position, so often. Why is it wrong? Can you share something that proves taking away guns reduces violent crimes? Most of the article is just damn statistics, how can you say statistics are wrong? That's like saying 5+5 isn't 10, because the article that said 5+5=10 is biased. You know for sure that isn't true. Statistics are a hell of a lot more complex than 5+5. Some statistics are based on pure lies, some are slanted, or taken out of context to try and prove a particular point, some are pure basic facts and true. Unfortunately it is almost always the case that it is impossible to prove which category a particular statistic falls into, so it is much better to trust none of them, unless there is enough evidence to back them up. How many statistics have you seen to say that smoking pot is safe? How many have you seen that say it is dangerous? Statistics are used by politicians and lobbyists to trick gullible people into believing something, or to reinforce something that people already believe, knowing that they won't look too hard at them.
Well if you can show me something that says these statistics are wrong, then I will admit that they are wrong:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
