User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 150

Thread: Guns!

  1. #61
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    ^The source originated from USA Today, and covered the period from 1996 to 2002. I admit I'm rather drunk right now, but it doesn't look to me like your graphs discredit the aforementioned findings during that time period (what the hell was going on in 2001, anyway!?). As for the progress since that time, I don't currently have more recent sources through which to compare the impact of more stringent gun-control laws in Australia and the decline of gun-control laws in America on pre-existing crime patterns. In any event, it doesn't seem that draconian anti-gun laws have much of positive overall impact on violent crime statistics (which in my opinion would be necessary to justify on a utilitarian basis the erosion of individual rights and autonomy inherent in strict gun-control laws), though I admit that counter-factual arguments are always iffy.
    Last edited by lowtech redneck; 06-29-2010 at 11:35 PM. Reason: more to add

  2. #62
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strawberries View Post
    the rationale for the law in australia is simple: guns are very dangerous so we should make it difficult for people to own them. clearly, culturally and constitutionally this notion doesn't fly in the US, but it does here. as I mentioned above, i find this dichotomy fascinating.

    the home invasion stuff is interesting to me - and this is where i think there is a very different mindset about guns in australia. i can't speak for other australians, but if I had a gun in my house i would worry that in the event of a home invasion i could be overpowered and they'd end up using the gun on me, or that if the intruder saw me with a gun they would become more aggressive/violent than they would ordinarily. having a gun in my house would not make me feel safer - it would make me feel paranoid - i don't want to feel paranoid. i also don’t think about home invasion or random people with guns hurting me - i do lock my doors, but it's not something i consciously worry about often enough to want to procure some weapons for just in case.


    As I said in another thread...........








    Now the only question is are they misinformed, paranoid, crazy or they trully think about waging a war against everybody else. (I mean it would be a fair fight if you take nukes out of the equation)


    Basicly there is nothing you can do here. It is just part of their culture.

  3. #63
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    Basicly there is nothing you can do here. It is just part of their culture.
    Yeah it's an American thing, you wouldn't understand. Kinda like how the Balkan traditions of mass genocide are foreign to most Americans.

  4. #64
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yeah it's an American thing, you wouldn't understand. Kinda like how the Balkan traditions of mass genocide are foreign to most Americans.
    What makes you think I will disagree with this ?

  5. #65
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    [Pretty Picture]


    Now the only question is are they misinformed, paranoid, crazy or they trully think about waging a war against everybody else. (I mean it would be a fair fight if you take nukes out of the equation)


    Basicly there is nothing you can do here. It is just part of their culture.
    That money has largely been devoted to securing profits for various oil companies, Chevron, Exxon, Shell in Iraq. It's kind of like a socialistic system where the people pay the government for goods to be protected. It's called the military industrial complex for a reason... and I think the money could be devoted elsewhere by a more progressive socialistic system like in many of those countries listed, but that's never going to happen any time soon.

    This isn't due to a "gun nut" culture. This is far more complex.

  6. #66
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strawberries View Post
    oberon - self defense is legal in australia, but there is a reasonable/proportionate criteria.

    you just can't cite self defense as being a reason to own a firearm. if you really wanted one for self defense you could go join a firearms sporting club and cite that as a reason.
    I understand that this is your public policy... it just makes zero sense to me. Self-defense is a perfectly valid and reasonable justification for being armed. Basically, under your system if you want a weapon for self-defense you have to lie to the authorities.

  7. #67
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    That money has largely been devoted to securing profits for various oil companies, Chevron, Exxon, Shell in Iraq. It's kind of like a socialistic system where the people pay the government for goods to be protected. It's called the military industrial complex for a reason... and I think the money could be devoted elsewhere by a more progressive socialistic system like in many of those countries listed, but that's never going to happen any time soon.

    This isn't due to a "gun nut" culture. This is far more complex.

    I know.


    However if people on highy places did not convince a number of people that this is a right way then this probably would not be happening.
    So as people in general feel insecure they agreed to this.
    This is the main reason why I said that it is related to culture.

  8. #68
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    As I said in another thread...........

    Now the only question is are they misinformed, paranoid, crazy or they trully think about waging a war against everybody else. (I mean it would be a fair fight if you take nukes out of the equation)


    Basicly there is nothing you can do here. It is just part of their culture.
    Once again, this is the nature of hegemony. It is not cultural. It is neither unusual, nor unique.

    The hegemon is forced to spend significantly greater amounts on the military than other countries because they have to have the most advanced military. Once it is created by the United States (or contractors which the US has paid for) other countries can buy it from us, steal it from us, or have it given to them by us. The US can't do this from other countries.

    I'm sure a lot of people will think, "Ok...so why does the US always have to be the hegemon then?" These people don't realize that receding power in a hegemon is the thing that World Wars are made of.



    EDIT: In regards to the oil business...

    Are they making money off of the wars? Yes, but it is extremely naive to think that the US is waging war just to inflate oil tycoon pockets.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  9. #69
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    I'm sure a lot of people will think, "Ok...so why does the US always have to be the hegemon then?" These people don't realize that receding power in a hegemon is the thing that World Wars are made of.
    I think there's a more direct point to be made, which is that if you are the hegemon, then remaining the hegemon confers enormous advantage. From a games theory point of view, it's what winning means.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I think there's a more direct point to be made, which is that if you are the hegemon, then remaining the hegemon confers enormous advantage. From a games theory point of view, it's what winning means.
    It means more than that, to be honest I think the world wins by the US remaining hegemon.

    Which is shit for US citizens I reckon because it means that military keynesianism and military-industrial complex which doesnt know its limits and could any day turn and devour itself and behave domestically how it does abroad are here to stay.

    I mean I know a lot of US conservatives dont want public health etc. to be sorted out, have they ever thought its just not possible? In reality its not a choice any of you guys can make and how you vote doesnt matter?

Similar Threads

  1. The Gun Appreciation Thread
    By Rainman in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 506
    Last Post: 12-20-2012, 12:19 PM
  2. Teachers stage fake gun attack on kids
    By digesthisickness in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 04:35 PM
  3. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. "Guns Are Good" Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 526
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 06:53 PM
  4. The "Guns Are Evil" vs. Thread
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-19-2008, 10:01 AM
  5. Gun Control
    By Kiddo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-13-2008, 03:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO