Jump to content

Looking for a 'news' story about an experiment with kids and guns


Recommended Posts

As for the numbers posted suggesting that when assaulted I am safer unarmed, there are lies, damn lies and statistics. For myself, I'll take my chances armed. Those who feel safer unarmed are always free to remain so.

But therein lies the rub mate.Due to there being lots and lots of guns floating around in the states then the chances of an armed intruder are way higher (ditto muggings,road rage,theft,ETC).Because these very same people will know that there is a good chance that the innocents are armed.So they will go tooled up.So the general population feel that they "NEED" to be armed to make them "SAFER".So its a vicious circle.

Where as due to there being many less guns (per population) floating around over here the the chances of an intruder(mugger/robber/road rager ) being armed are microscopic.So we don't feel the need to be armed as the threat level over here is way lower.

So as I said above the issue of guns over here is a non event.We don't even think about then in day to day life.

Do you feel the need to be armed 24/7?

If so why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Does possession of firearms help with policing those?? :confused:

What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

And you accuse the OP of being glib??!! :rolleyes:

It's called a statement of fact. :rolleyes:

no it isn't - it's a simple statment of fact -

Oh, so you DO know what that means.

what you & others have identified is that in the US, as a whole, there is NOT the will.

C'est la vie - if you have knowledge of alternatives and choose not to follow them then that's OK - you are adults, you are allowed to make these choices.

But at least you (the royal you - not you personally) should accept the obvious consequernces of your choice.

We have the will to outlaw Cocaine, Meth and Marijuana. They are still easily available. What's missing? You seem to have all the answers, so tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that have to do with anything? :confused:

You are the one who connected guns and the border - you tell me?

It's called a statement of fact. :rolleyes:

Oh, so you DO know what that means.

<about glibness> - yes - and why is it that when you say it, but you're all upset when someone says it about you??

We have the will to outlaw Cocaine, Meth and Marijuana. They are still easily available. What's missing? You seem to have all the answers, so tell me.

Why thank you for your confidence - but I dont' think I have all the answers at all. but like yourself I find it quite easy to have an opinion - but you shouldnt' confuse that with answers.

And my opinion is that society, collectively, accepts all sorts of things, but often seems quiet stupid when it comes to understanding that there are consequences and then dealing with them. For example "you" collectively accept thatall those drugs should be outlawed, and then get upset that they still get dealt, and unwilling to do whatever it takes to stop the dealing - whether it be by living in a police state, executing dealuers, or legalisiing the drugs, or whatever else might actually stop the resultant problem.

Again - c'est la vie - it's nto really surprising - societies have always had such problems.

Just my opinion of course :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But therein lies the rub mate.Due to there being lots and lots of guns floating around in the states then the chances of an armed intruder are way higher (ditto muggings,road rage,theft,ETC).Because these very same people will know that there is a good chance that the innocents are armed.So they will go tooled up.So the general population feel that they "NEED" to be armed to make them "SAFER".So its a vicious circle.

Where as due to there being many less guns (per population) floating around over here the the chances of an intruder(mugger/robber/road rager ) being armed are microscopic.So we don't feel the need to be armed as the threat level over here is way lower.

So if all the law-abiding citizens were to voluntarily disarm the criminals would follow suit? I don't buy it. Criminals will take whatever advantage they can get. Counting on them to fight fair is a losing position.

So as I said above the issue of guns over here is a non event.We don't even think about then in day to day life.

Do you feel the need to be armed 24/7?

If so why?

No, I don't feel the need to be armed 24/7. In fact, the only gun I own is a bolt action hunting rifle. The reason is that I live in a part of the country that has a low rate of violent crime (murder rate is about 1/2 the national average).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if all the law-abiding citizens were to voluntarily disarm the criminals would follow suit? I don't buy it. Criminals will take whatever advantage they can get. Counting on them to fight fair is a losing position.

Meanwhile, in the evidence-based universe ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are the one who connected guns and the border - you tell me?

I never claimed we needed guns to police the border. Your comment was a non sequitur. What I said is that guns can move across these borders as easily as any of the other contraband that flows across on a daily basis.

<about glibness> - yes - and why is it that when you say it, but you're all upset when someone says it about you??

Because it's not true?

the will to actually combat them - which is different from "merely" outlawing them.

You think we don't have the will? We spend around 20 billion dollars a year on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed your edit.

And my opinion is that society, collectively, accepts all sorts of things, but often seems quiet stupid when it comes to understanding that there are consequences and then dealing with them. For example "you" collectively accept thatall those drugs should be outlawed, and then get upset that they still get dealt, and unwilling to do whatever it takes to stop the dealing - whether it be by living in a police state, executing dealuers, or legalisiing the drugs, or whatever else might actually stop the resultant problem.

Again - c'est la vie - it's nto really surprising - societies have always had such problems.

Just my opinion of course :)

If the argument is that it is theoretically possible to do these things, but we are unwilling to do those things, I don't disagree. The question is are the solutions (police state or whatnot) worse than the problem? Legalization is hot topic. Of course, guns have already been legalized. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have nothing...

Yeah. Nothing

The rate of deaths due to guns in Oz has fallen from 9 per 100000 head of population in 1979 to 1.8 per 100000 in 2002 with 0.25 due to crime 1.45 by suicide and 0.1 by accident.

USA is 15.22 per 100000, with 7.07 Homicide , 7.35 suicide and 0.59 accidental.

Nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. You lack the will.

No one questions you ability to spend vast sums of money chasing chimeras.

And if you have paid any attention at all to recent US political news you know that we are feeling the limits to that ability. I happen to think adding one more chimera to the list is a bad idea. You call that a lack of will, I call it a lack of stupidity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You call that a lack of will, I call it a lack of stupidity.

What do you call continuing to chase the existing chimeras - a surfeit of stupidity? There is a saying about repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. Ok. So evidence that you don't like isn't evidence. Got it.

But as I said; meanwhile, in the evidence-based universe ...

Round and round indeed.

Ok, if you want to be pedantic it is true that I provided no evidence to support my contention. That is because the guy I was answering provided none to support his (which apparently didn't bother you...) He was stating his opinion, I stated mine. End of story.

What do you call continuing to chase the existing chimeras - a surfeit of stupidity? There is a saying about repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.

Exactly. Thank you. Adding another chimera to our list of chimeras is not a change of course. The fact that we have done stupid things is not a good argument in favor of doing more stupid things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed your edit.

sorry about that - I tried to be a bit less confrontational - it's a new tactic that seems to work better for me! :)

If the argument is that it is theoretically possible to do these things, but we are unwilling to do those things, I don't disagree. The question is are the solutions (police state or whatnot) worse than the problem?

Absolutely - it's all about perceptions of profit/loss or risk/gain or however you choose to label it.

As I see it the current overall perception in the US is that the down side of other approaches outweighs their benefits. Individuals obviously differe - but there is not enough support to change your society's approach.

this may change over the years - in fact I bet it will.....but I'm not so bold as to predict a time frame!!

Legalization is hot topic. Of course, guns have already been legalized. :D

and were done so by the British in 1689 which you piggy-backed on and extended.

but times change......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia is not the United States. You live on an island. The US has 2 very long and very porous borders. As long as there is a demand for guns there will be guns available.

So, I was thinking about this, since it seems to be the bedrock upon which your 'lack of evidence' claim rests.

Let me restate that quote:

Australia is not the United States. They live on an island. Australia has coastline that is very long and very porous. As long as there is a demand for guns there will be guns available.

Except ... there isn't and they aren't. Have the new gun control restrictions been 100% effective? No, of course not. Have they had an effect on rates of gun crime? Yes, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except ... there isn't and they aren't. Have the new gun control restrictions been 100% effective? No, of course not. Have they had an effect on rates of gun crime? Yes, of course.

There isn't a demand for guns and guns are not available? :confused:

In any case, the last sentence of the article states:

"And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results are not necessarily applicable to the USA"

EDIT: And to be clear, my "no evidence" statement referred to the fact you had posted none, it was not a claim that no evidence exists anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry about that - I tried to be a bit less confrontational - it's a new tactic that seems to work better for me! :)

Absolutely - it's all about perceptions of profit/loss or risk/gain or however you choose to label it.

As I see it the current overall perception in the US is that the down side of other approaches outweighs their benefits. Individuals obviously differe - but there is not enough support to change your society's approach.

this may change over the years - in fact I bet it will.....but I'm not so bold as to predict a time frame!!

It's cool. Right now we're just trying to avoid bankrupty. Banning guns and massively increasing spending to enforce that ban is near the bottom of our priority list. As it should be. :)

but times change......

But people stay the same. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drugs and guns are in no way comparable in terms of their "smugglability". $1000000 worth of drugs is a substantially smaller and easier concealed shipment as opposed to a similar value of "Midnight Specials".

If you make guns illegal then a large amount of infrastructure and cost associated with administering the legalities automatically goes out the window. I am sure out of 14 Trillion dollars and amount can be found, short term, to offer to buy anyone's gun. A criminal may well find themselves with a choice, hold up a liquor store and risk arrest for $50 or get a guaranteed $500 (or whatever) if they sell their gun.

Personal protection. Think of the logic. If someone has a gun and threatens you with it you have two choices 1. Give them what they want or 2. Pull your own gun. In the first instance you lose your wallet, in the second you are almost certain that the assailant will "attempt to defend himself" and there is a good chance you will be shot, and a good chance you will die.

If an assailant pulls a gun on you and attempts to rob you he is guilty of armed robbery. If you shoot and kill someone who is robbing you you are guilty of murder. Why? Intent. His intent was to rob, your intent was to kill. In all probability the verdict would be self defence but a case could be made that is wasn't. The assailant could argue he shot YOU in self defence and he had no intention of shooting you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that all this arguing is pretty much irrelevant, at least as far as the US is concerned. Private ownership of firearms is not going to be prohibited. Recent court cases, including a key Supreme Court case, have affirmed that the US Second Amendment gives an individual Constitutional right to gun ownership. There is almost zero chance of a change to the Constitution (given the high level of support for gun ownership in the US). If anything, gun rights are expanding in the US, with a large increase and liberalization of concealed carry laws in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that is what makes it all the more sad.

Thing is there are hundreds of other ways to get around the constitution.

Don't ban guns, ban ammunition.

Use environmental legislation to restrict the use of the components in primers.

Restrict the sale of primers as they are an explosive.

Tax the buggery out of gunpowder.

Make guns not manufactured in the US illegal in the US and require all US gun manufacturers to be licensed and make the license fees astronomical.

I'm sure there are other ways from outside the box. Main thing is you have to want to.

But given the current bloke had a **** storm trying to introduce a health care system...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes that is what makes it all the more sad.

Thing is there are hundreds of other ways to get around the constitution.

Don't ban guns, ban ammunition.

Use environmental legislation to restrict the use of the components in primers.

Restrict the sale of primers as they are an explosive.

Tax the buggery out of gunpowder.

Make guns not manufactured in the US illegal in the US and require all US gun manufacturers to be licensed and make the license fees astronomical.

I'm sure there are other ways from outside the box. Main thing is you have to want to.

But given the current bloke had a **** storm trying to introduce a health care system...........

Yes, there are ways if making legal gun ownership marginally more difficult and expensive. But don't believe that it will be easy to do so to at a level that creates a constructive ban. Many of the more drastic steps you propose are likely (and quite correctly) to be viewed as unconsitutional for the very reasons that you would advocate their use. They would have the practical effect of a ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...