Howard's gun legacy - 200 lives saved a year

@oralloy,

Quote:

The gun ban movement is like al-Qa'ida -- trying to create a world with no freedom.

Seriously, orally, that is a very strange thing to say. Confused

2 Replies

@msolga,

Wearing your insanity on your sleeve deserves some sort of kudos, surely?

1 Reply

Insanity is having 60,000 people killed by snakes every year and leaving your people unarmed.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Snakes aren't a choice. Guns are.

PS compare snake deaths per capita with vehicular fatalities. Ban cars first gunga, then work on the snakes. You fuckhead.

Powered by red wine.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

A nation whose people are armed will never have 60,000 people killed by snakes in one year.

0 Replies

Do those statistics include all of the people who become victims of crime, e.g. robbery and home invasion, because criminals know that the people are defenseless? Once you accept the right to personal liberty, you must accept the right to preserving one's own life, and once you accept that, you must accept the right to possess the means to preserve one's own life.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The gun ban movement is like al-Qa'ida -- trying to create a world with no freedom.

Seriously, orally, that is a very strange thing to say.

Telling the truth about the freedom haters is the first step in opposing their war against freedom.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Wearing your insanity on your sleeve deserves some sort of kudos, surely?

As if it were insane to support freedom and oppose oppression?

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Snakes aren't a choice. Guns are.

Guns protect against dangerous animals.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Do those statistics include all of the people who become victims of crime, e.g. robbery and home invasion, because criminals know that the people are defenseless?

The freedom haters are always so intent in concocting bogus stats to make it look like "taking away freedom is beneficial" that it usually never occurs to them to try to concoct bogus stats to make it look like "taking away freedom does no harm".

Brandon9000 wrote:

Once you accept the right to personal liberty, you must accept the right to preserving one's own life, and once you accept that, you must accept the right to possess the means to preserve one's own life.

I think it's safe to say the freedom haters oppose any right to personal liberty.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I'm aware you live in a very different universe and country, Brandon, but in Australia I assure you that none of these things have increased. In fact they are decreasing:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/91f72cb52e908514ca25709f0000a6a8/c26b0eeb1db291d7ca25773600179f51/Body/0.682!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/91f72cb52e908514ca25709f0000a6a8/c26b0eeb1db291d7ca25773600179f51/Body/0.1310!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

Sourced from the impeccable ABS http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Products/C26B0EEB1DB291D7CA25773600179F51?opendocument

I expected the gun nuts to come out of the woodwork, and fair enough. But can any of them/you tell me how much better AUSTRALIA (that's the one with kangaroos, not the one that Mozart came from) would be if we still had those guns in circulation?

I'm at a loss to why you feel safer because you have guns - check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country

Your Homicide rate is three times higher than ours, and interestingly you are the only nation whose gun homicide rate is higher than the non-gun homicide rate. Clearly you can't be trusted with easy access to hole making equipment.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

I'm aware you live in a very different universe and country, Brandon, but in Australia I assure you that none of these things have increased. In fact they are decreasing:

Sourced from the impeccable ABS http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Products/C26B0EEB1DB291D7CA25773600179F51?opendocument

The only way your stats could possibly be an argument against the notion of people using guns to defend themselves is if those stats showed that crime was a flat rate of zero every year.

As long as you have a crime rate over zero then you are going to have victims that could have defended themselves with a gun.

hingehead wrote:

I expected the gun nuts to come out of the woodwork, and fair enough.

It's a safe presumption that any time you freedom haters start babbling about how great it is when you repeal people's civil rights, people who care about freedom are going to step in and set the record straight.

hingehead wrote:

But can any of them/you tell me how much better AUSTRALIA (that's the one with kangaroos, not the one that Mozart came from) would be if we still had those guns in circulation?

That's easy. You'd still be a free country.

hingehead wrote:

I'm at a loss to why you feel safer because you have guns - check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country

Your Homicide rate is three times higher than ours, and interestingly you are the only nation whose gun homicide rate is higher than the non-gun homicide rate.

So?

If those people had been killed with knives instead of with guns, would they be less dead?

hingehead wrote:

Clearly you can't be trusted with easy access to hole making equipment.

The US military is prepared to defend our civil rights -- with nuclear weapons if necessary.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

You really have trouble stringing together coherent thoughts don't you?

Consider yourself ignored. Click.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Telling the truth about the freedom haters is the first step in opposing their war against freedom.

Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever ... but your "truths" kinda sound like meaningless jargon. Wink

Sorry, but it's true.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

You really have trouble stringing together coherent thoughts don't you?

Consider yourself ignored. Click.

You freedom haters are something else. The fact that people are strong enough to refuse to drink the Cool-Aid when you tell them to doesn't mean they can't string together a coherent thought.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Telling the truth about the freedom haters is the first step in opposing their war against freedom.

Yeah, yeah, sure, whatever ... but your "truths" kinda sound like meaningless jargon.

Sorry, but it's true.

Freedom is hardly meaningless jargon.

BTW, looks like Australia's criminals sure had a lot of fun robbing people in the period from 1997 to 2001:

Armed Robbery Rate (per 100,000 people):
1993: 30.0
1994: 28.3
1995: 29.1
1996: 34.2
1997: 48.9
1998: 58.0
1999: 49.9
2000: 49.5
2001: 57.9
2002: 39.9
2003: 36.1
2004: 30.0

Unarmed Robbery Rate (per 100,000 people):
1993: 42.3
1994: 50.0
1995: 51.5
1996: 55.3
1997: 66.1
1998: 69.2
1999: 69.5
2000: 72.3
2001: 79.1
2002: 66.9
2003: 62.9
2004: 52.1

The biggest blow of course has to be the fact that you are no longer free. But that crime spree couldn't have been fun.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Freedom is hardly meaningless jargon.

This is probably my last comment on "freedom" & "freedom haters", etc, oralloy.

I have only ever heard such terms used in relation to gun ownership from a small contingent of US A2K pro-gun posters. Perhaps such terms have some meaning to you, but I repeat, they mean absolutely nothing to me.
For the life of me, I can't see how seeming unlimited gun ownership creates more freedom. To me, it's the other way around. I feel considerably safer & more secure living in a society where guns aren't anywhere near so prevalent. I would hate to live in a society where I felt I needed to own a gun for my own self-protection, to feel safe. I feel sorry for anyone who actually could be in such a situation.
I guess I don't believe that anyone is completely "free", either, with or without a gun.
I can't see much point discussing this any further with you because you'll inevitably respond with the same meaningless jargon, over & over.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Freedom is hardly meaningless jargon.

This is probably my last comment on "freedom" & "freedom haters", etc, oralloy.

I have only ever heard such terms used in relation to gun ownership from a small contingent of US A2K pro-gun posters. Perhaps such terms have some meaning to you, but I repeat, they mean absolutely nothing to me.
For the life of me, I can't see how seeming unlimited gun ownership creates more freedom.

It is not that freedom is caused by owning guns; it is that free people can choose to own a gun if they wish to.

People who do not have that choice, are not free.

msolga wrote:

To me, it's the other way around. I feel considerably safer & more secure living in a society where guns aren't anywhere near so prevalent.

You are confusing freedom with security. Freedom and safety are two completely independent concepts. A given society may have both, one or the other, or neither.

Also, you are mistaken to believe that a society with guns is unsafe. America is plenty safe. So are many other countries with high levels of gun ownership. Switzerland for instance. Also most of the Scandinavian countries. Canada and France too I believe.

msolga wrote:

I would hate to live in a society where I felt I needed to own a gun for my own self-protection, to feel safe. I feel sorry for anyone who actually could be in such a situation.

Americans don't need guns to feel safe. We are just free people who have the choice to have guns if we feel like it.

msolga wrote:

I guess I don't believe that anyone is completely "free", either, with or without a gun.
I can't see much point discussing this any further with you because you inevitably respond the same meaningless slogans, over & over.

The truth is never meaningless.

However, I agree that the truth never changes from post to post.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Needless to say, I can't relate in any way to what you're saying oralloy.
We're on two completely different planets.
There's no point in continuing.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

It is not that freedom is caused by owning guns; it is that free people can choose to own a gun if they wish to.

People who do not have that choice, are not free.

Complete and utter BS oralloy.

Freedom is not based solely on the ability to buy one thing or another.
If it was then :

You obviously aren't free oralloy because you can't buy contaminated meat at your supermarket if you wanted to.
You aren't free because you can't buy a nuclear weapon.
You aren't free because you can't buy child pornography.

Quote:

You are confusing freedom with security.

I don't think msolga is the one that is confused oralloy. You are the one making an irrational argument that freedom is based solely on the ability to buy something and being unable to buy it makes you not free.

1 Reply

Howard's gun legacy - 200 lives saved a year

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know