Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:16 pm
* NET Staff Alumni *
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10269 Location: Anchorage, AK
12evanf wrote:
Cars and guns argument is goddamn stupid.
Anyone here familiar with Australia's gun control legislation in 1996? I'm just reading up on it now. I would copy that and be happy from what I see so far. Buy back program for all self loading and semi-automatic weapons, except for special circumstances for sport. It's more extreme than a lot on here are talking about, but it has cut their firearm homicide rate by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent. Although their homicide rate was low to begin with, so there is a debate on whether that showing would be transferable to a larger population.
The guidelines are much more clear cut. None of this "military style assault rifle" non-sense.
So now you are saying you believe banning certain weapons is something you support? Because in other posts you've said that won't work and shouldn't be done. Which is it?
SonicHawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:38 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm Posts: 2365
Foghawk wrote:
SonicHawk wrote:
kidhawk wrote:
Of course YOU believe that, because it fits your "Ban All Guns" belief, but honestly, your comparison is much much worse. The facts are the facts. There are more guns than cars, and less death by guns than by cars. The only reason you don't like the comparison, is because you don't want to ban cars
Cars are used to transport goods and people trillions of miles each year. Handguns (the majority of homicide related firearm deaths) have one purpose only. Kill.
You want to compare accidental deaths in a vehicle with intentional deaths by handguns?
The U.S. Military ultimately is designed to protect and kill, much like a gun. Should we get rid of it and show the world what a wonderful peaceful nation we are?
No. The military should be used to defend our interests with complete cooperation with the UN. The military also exists to protect us from foreign invaders. Although I do think that the Posse Comitatus Act should be restored to it's full standing.
_________________ RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
SonicHawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 12:47 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm Posts: 2365
I want to be very clear with my feelings towards banning guns.
They are not my top priority, I do not think death by firearm is the most pressing issue. I don't think it's even in the top 10. I will however happily argue for their banishment as their destruction outweighs their necessity.
Death by firearm is an easy issue for that easily excites your average Joe. There's an obvious result from an obvious action from an even more obvious instrument. While thousands of deaths could be prevented with the removal of firearms, I would much rather spend the effort and energy on curing diseases, making the world a healthier (not so many fatasses/smokers/drinkers) place, improving standard of living, and social and mental health services.
_________________ RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
12evanf
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:08 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am Posts: 1711
kidhawk wrote:
12evanf wrote:
Cars and guns argument is goddamn stupid.
Anyone here familiar with Australia's gun control legislation in 1996? I'm just reading up on it now. I would copy that and be happy from what I see so far. Buy back program for all self loading and semi-automatic weapons, except for special circumstances for sport. It's more extreme than a lot on here are talking about, but it has cut their firearm homicide rate by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent. Although their homicide rate was low to begin with, so there is a debate on whether that showing would be transferable to a larger population.
The guidelines are much more clear cut. None of this "military style assault rifle" non-sense.
So now you are saying you believe banning certain weapons is something you support? Because in other posts you've said that won't work and shouldn't be done. Which is it?
I think the option should be looked at. You're right that I disagree with bans in general, I don't disagree with a buyback program to get some guns off the street. I'm more for taxation and regulations to make it harder to obtain than bans, which make it easier to access, cheaper, and enhances illegal activity which makes it harder for law enforcement.
kidhawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:11 pm
* NET Staff Alumni *
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10269 Location: Anchorage, AK
12evanf wrote:
kidhawk wrote:
12evanf wrote:
Cars and guns argument is goddamn stupid.
Anyone here familiar with Australia's gun control legislation in 1996? I'm just reading up on it now. I would copy that and be happy from what I see so far. Buy back program for all self loading and semi-automatic weapons, except for special circumstances for sport. It's more extreme than a lot on here are talking about, but it has cut their firearm homicide rate by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate by 65 percent. Although their homicide rate was low to begin with, so there is a debate on whether that showing would be transferable to a larger population.
The guidelines are much more clear cut. None of this "military style assault rifle" non-sense.
So now you are saying you believe banning certain weapons is something you support? Because in other posts you've said that won't work and shouldn't be done. Which is it?
I think the option should be looked at. You're right that I disagree with bans in general, I don't disagree with a buyback program to get some guns off the street. I'm more for taxation and regulations to make it harder to obtain than bans, which make it easier to access, cheaper, and enhances illegal activity which makes it harder for law enforcement.
Simple question:
If there were a referendum on the ballot nationwide (yes it's purely hypothetical) to banish all guns in the USA using a buyback program or whatever means is deemed appropriate, would you vote for it or against it?
12evanf
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:21 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am Posts: 1711
kidhawk wrote:
Simple question:
If there were a referendum on the ballot nationwide (yes it's purely hypothetical) to banish all guns in the USA using a buyback program or whatever means is deemed appropriate, would you vote for it or against it?
No, because I think the reward of firearms in the USA is still greater than their risk. Australia still has guns, it just more easily allows single actions which I don't think is a bad thing.
And I don't want to be painted into a corner, if your referendum ever occured, something really, really, really, awful happened and would suggest the risk now outweighed the reward, so I may vote yes if it did come to a vote.
kidhawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:24 pm
* NET Staff Alumni *
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:00 pm Posts: 10269 Location: Anchorage, AK
12evanf wrote:
kidhawk wrote:
Simple question:
If there were a referendum on the ballot nationwide (yes it's purely hypothetical) to banish all guns in the USA using a buyback program or whatever means is deemed appropriate, would you vote for it or against it?
No, because I think the reward of firearms in the USA is still greater than their risk. Australia still has guns, it just more easily allows single actions which I don't think is a bad thing.
And I don't want to be painted into a corner, if your referendum ever occured, something really, really, really, awful happened and would suggest the risk now outweighed the reward, so I may vote yes if it did come to a vote.
So you are of the opinion that there can be reason enough to take away all the guns, and you believe that taking away non-single action guns is a good idea? I'm just trying to get where your coming from, because it seems confusing. At times you seem ok with banning certain types of guns and other times you seem like banning any guns is a bad idea.
DTexHawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:38 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 5:55 am Posts: 3280
SonicHawk wrote:
I want to be very clear with my feelings towards banning guns.
They are not my top priority, I do not think death by firearm is the most pressing issue. I don't think it's even in the top 10. I will however happily argue for their banishment as their destruction outweighs their necessity.
Death by firearm is an easy issue for that easily excites your average Joe. There's an obvious result from an obvious action from an even more obvious instrument. While thousands of deaths could be prevented with the removal of firearms, I would much rather spend the effort and energy on curing diseases, making the world a healthier (not so many fatasses/smokers/drinkers) place, improving standard of living, and social and mental health services.
Aren't you a compassionate soul!
_________________ That's weak sauce!
Seahawk Sailor
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 1:44 pm
* Navy Badass *
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am Posts: 16295 Location: Bothell
This thread is starting to feel like a weirdly non-satirical version of this:
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
12evanf
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:15 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am Posts: 1711
kidhawk wrote:
12evanf wrote:
kidhawk wrote:
Simple question:
If there were a referendum on the ballot nationwide (yes it's purely hypothetical) to banish all guns in the USA using a buyback program or whatever means is deemed appropriate, would you vote for it or against it?
No, because I think the reward of firearms in the USA is still greater than their risk. Australia still has guns, it just more easily allows single actions which I don't think is a bad thing.
And I don't want to be painted into a corner, if your referendum ever occured, something really, really, really, awful happened and would suggest the risk now outweighed the reward, so I may vote yes if it did come to a vote.
So you are of the opinion that there can be reason enough to take away all the guns, and you believe that taking away non-single action guns is a good idea? I'm just trying to get where your coming from, because it seems confusing. At times you seem ok with banning certain types of guns and other times you seem like banning any guns is a bad idea.
I'm against banning and prefer required training classes and certification and a paper trail on every gun in the US that's in a government database. I would sign that bill today if I were a politician.
I don't think that means I can't look at other countries' gun policies (sort of a married, not buried policy) to see what is effective. Australia had a public massacre and enacted legislation and their PM even cited our gun policy in the US on what they don't want to become. Public support was massive for legislation. The NRA was identified as a lobby in defiance of legislation, it was outed and publicly demonized.
If our culture changed enough to where the majority demands change for the better (read, safer) and opted to follow Australia's lead, I wouldn't kick and scream. I don't think we are there yet as a nation and I don't think their solution would work in America without the same type of public support.
As a side, after reading a bit on Australia's gun control, the NRA had a heavy hand in trying to shoot down the Australian legislation and even posted false information on their website saying Australian crime went up after the passing. They have a very heavy hand on the throat of the gun debate in this country, and on what information is available to us. I think they are a lying, evil, propagandic organization that puts our country second and gun profits first.
fenderbender123
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:44 am
NET Starter
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm Posts: 343
SonicHawk wrote:
fenderbender123 wrote:
First you have to tell me why bullets fired and miles driven should be compared as equals.
Usage of a vehicle vs. usage of a gun. I feel like this isn't hard to understand.
I'm sorry you're unable to come to grips that the use of a vehicle is in fact nearly 700x safer.
You've given no reason as to why "miles driven" and "bullets fired" are comparable. Why is a mile the correct unit of measurement for this comparison? Please elaborate on why you are using a mile instead of 10 miles or kilometers.
Seahawk Sailor
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:59 am
* Navy Badass *
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am Posts: 16295 Location: Bothell
Technically the comparison formula should be miles per trip compared to yards bullet travels before impact, divided by DYAR, and then compared to deaths per each type - car and firearm - of killing machine. But it's aggregate, so you heathen laymen wouldn't understand.
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
Jiggy
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:23 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:03 am Posts: 1775
No sense in arguing with Sonic here. How can you beat a dude with a BS in math backed up with a masters in statistics from Pulling Shit Out of My Ass U.
_________________ Member formally known as AC59
GeekHawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Personally, I wouldn't mind somebody else deciding I no longer had the right to bear arms. As long as I get to decide that they no longer have the right to vote.
Jiggy
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:57 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:03 am Posts: 1775
GeekHawk wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind somebody else deciding I no longer had the right to bear arms. As long as I get to decide that they no longer have the right to vote.
Or have an abortion.
_________________ Member formally known as AC59
SonicHawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:08 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm Posts: 2365
fenderbender123 wrote:
SonicHawk wrote:
fenderbender123 wrote:
First you have to tell me why bullets fired and miles driven should be compared as equals.
Usage of a vehicle vs. usage of a gun. I feel like this isn't hard to understand.
I'm sorry you're unable to come to grips that the use of a vehicle is in fact nearly 700x safer.
You've given no reason as to why "miles driven" and "bullets fired" are comparable. Why is a mile the correct unit of measurement for this comparison? Please elaborate on why you are using a mile instead of 10 miles or kilometers.
Well, I'm not using kilometers because I live in America.
And, for your sake we'll use the average trip distance in a car (~10mi) so we have in your mind maybe a more equal 1:1 usage statistic. We're still talking about 70x safer. And when we only have intentional homicides in a vehicle:usage vs. intentional homicides with a gun:usage... which one do you think is going to win?
_________________ RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
SonicHawk
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:11 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:56 pm Posts: 2365
Seahawk Sailor wrote:
Technically the comparison formula should be miles per trip compared to yards bullet travels before impact, divided by DYAR, and then compared to deaths per each type - car and firearm - of killing machine. But it's aggregate, so you heathen laymen wouldn't understand.
Why in the world would the distance of a bullet have anything to do with anything? We know how to measure the usage of a gun (bullets discharged).
_________________ RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012
Seahawk Sailor
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:47 pm
* Navy Badass *
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:23 am Posts: 16295 Location: Bothell
SonicHawk wrote:
Seahawk Sailor wrote:
Technically the comparison formula should be miles per trip compared to yards bullet travels before impact, divided by DYAR, and then compared to deaths per each type - car and firearm - of killing machine. But it's aggregate, so you heathen laymen wouldn't understand.
Why in the world would the distance of a bullet have anything to do with anything? We know how to measure the usage of a gun (bullets discharged).
_________________ I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.
fenderbender123
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:18 pm
NET Starter
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 12:47 pm Posts: 343
SonicHawk wrote:
Well, I'm not using kilometers because I live in America.
And, for your sake we'll use the average trip distance in a car (~10mi) so we have in your mind maybe a more equal 1:1 usage statistic. We're still talking about 70x safer. And when we only have intentional homicides in a vehicle:usage vs. intentional homicides with a gun:usage... which one do you think is going to win?
So if Canada had the same usage rate of bullets fired and distance traveled by car, then guns would be even more dangerous relative to cars there because they use kilometers?
12evanf
Post subject: Re: Sporting Rifle vs An Assualt Rifle?
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:34 pm
NET Veteran
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 10:40 am Posts: 1711
One bullet leaves Los Angeles at 700mph heading for New York. One car leaves from New York at 60mph heading for Los Angeles on the same highway. After the two collide in a football forum, how long will it take for gun violence to go down?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
