Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

2nd amendment. You should know this silly.

Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?

And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))

You may wish to look at District of Columbia vs Heller if you want some jurisprudence that isn't 168 years old. The modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not require inclusion in a militia to exercise your rights, but for any lawful purpose such as self defense.

We can never have a meaningful debate with people throwing out derp as hard as they can with both hands on each side of the debate; Joe The Plumber on one side and "ban all handguns" on the other.

 sebster wrote:
Well, this marks the first time that kids in the 90s were considered to have a better school culture, and a lower sense of entitlement. The Golden Age myth rolls on, and now seems to have added the 1990s.

I see no problem with the idea that students in the 90s, such as... say, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had a better school culture and a lower sense of entitlement which prevent them from engaging in a violent antisocial fashion. Frankly I think you're just being difficult.

 easysauce wrote:

so much fail in your posts trex... so much lack of factual information, its just sad really...

when you make successive, untrue statements like this in a row, it just shows how ignorant you are.


Plenty of things are hunted well with handguns, plenty of peoples lives are saved by them....

that you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.

yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",

it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.

That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.

Pot meet kettle, I believe both of you are black.

Nothing has changed, the media was glamorising gun wielding psychos back in the 20's and earlier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Well, this marks the first time that kids in the 90s were considered to have a better school culture, and a lower sense of entitlement. The Golden Age myth rolls on, and now seems to have added the 1990s.

I see no problem with the idea that students in the 90s, such as... say, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, had a better school culture and a lower sense of entitlement which prevent them from engaging in a violent antisocial fashion. Frankly I think you're just being difficult.

Is Sebster ever not difficult?

Guess if hand guns get banned is the "nail gun" next in line to go?

If anyone played with nail guns

Guns don't kill people, Australians with nail guns kill people.

 djones520 wrote:
Privately owned ships, armed with the best weapons money could buy in that day and age, took more then 1,200 British ships as prize during the War of 1812. That is after the 2nd Amendment was law in this nation, just incase you weren't sure Trex.

So to spell it out, private citizens were in possession of the most powerful weapons known to man at that time, directly in the time frame the founding fathers, the guys who wrote all that stuff, were still kicking around doing their thing.

Is that clear?

This is an excellent example.

The Privateer concept was one of the important factors in keeping America safe(and other countries used them as well)

Give private citizens official license(including the same rights and protection due to prisoners of war) in exchange for their military services.


Owning your own private warship was basically the equivalent of owning a nuke back then. And often the private ships would be better armed than the government simply because things were expensive.

 Ouze wrote:
Guns don't kill people, Australians with nail guns kill people.

Australians with hammers also kill people! I say ban the building trade, keep Australia safe! http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hammerwielding-grandmother-found-guilty-of-murdering-daughterinlaw-20140605-39kfb.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/hammerwielding-grandmother-found-guilty-of-murdering-daughterinlaw-20140605-39kfb.html

33 times? Thats defence!

I am not entertain by you two. Now this.....

Bullockist wrote:
33 times? Thats defence!

Maybe he was just trying to kill one of the myriad venomous monsters that infest your death-world-esque continent, and slipped. A Huntsman spider, maybe, or perhaps a drop bear.

I know Australians are all convicted criminals and everything, but it's just cruel and unusual punishment that you guys have to live on that death continent with nothing but nail guns and hammers to keep you safe from the drop bears.

 djones520 wrote:
I know Australians are all convicted criminals and everything, but it's just cruel and unusual punishment that you guys have to live on that death continent with nothing but nail guns and hammers to keep you safe from the drop bears.

and the locusts disguised as field mice as they come and eat all the crops

Heh.
The most feared creature actually inhabits the Perth region. Known colloquially as the "American serviceman" this creature seems to have amazing powers over women and an increadible ability to find alcoholic beverages. The creature is truly terrifying when after imbibing said beverages and voiciferating (<- made up word- sounds very Richard Attenbourough though) to whoever is near about how much better "home" is.

Well.....BBQ's being one

Shush you. I agree with you , aussie BBQs are quite crap *ducks* I am a much bigger fan of Brazillian style. No plates, chicken hearts, and casava flour. feth me now I'm hungry.

Bullockist wrote:
Heh.
The most feared creature actually inhabits the Perth region. Known colloquially as the "American serviceman" this creature seems to have amazing powers over women and an increadible ability to find alcoholic beverages. The creature is truly terrifying when after imbibing said beverages and voiciferating (<- made up word- sounds very Richard Attenbourough though) to whoever is near about how much better "home" is.

I've been told that we're panty droppers over there. Glad to have independent verification. A shame I couldn't get there in my single days.

I would postulate that having to dodge spiders the size of dinner plates does make for amusing outdoor activities to do at a BBQ.

 djones520 wrote:
I've been told that we're panty droppers over there. Glad to have independent verification. A shame I couldn't get there in my single days.

Oh, it's absolutely true. Australian liberty is best liberty.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?

 trexmeyer wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?

And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))

At some point the the right to bear firearms in the service of a militia was twisted into everyone has the right to buy a handgun.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

shall not be infringed

^found it for you

 trexmeyer wrote:

shotgun is better for home defense. Machine guns are more fun to shoot, but they're not legal.

When you're defending your self you want control with the weapon. A shotgun is fine in the hands of a person who can aim correctly and handle the recoil.

For others a Rifle/Carbine/Pistol are better because they will have more control with a smaller weapon.

Also machine guns are legal if you take the proper steps to aquire one.. be prepared to pay out the wazzooo for one.

 sebster wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
yup, maybe if we were not making celebrities of these psychos they wouldnt see the "go out in a blaze and be hatefully remembered instead of forgotten",

it is very much glamorizing it when the netwroks plaster the killers name, go into great detail about the killers, and focus their entire story on the killers. Their names should NOT be mentioned at all.

That is what has changed, we are now a society that glamorizes these kinds of things, making celebrities out of killers.

Yeah, that's why after everyone in Australia learned about Martin Bryant we had that that rash of zero mass killings that's continued to this day.

china has has far more mass murders this year then the states,

Junk analysis. First up, a primary driver in the murder rate is the rate of development in a country. More education and more prosperity means less murder. So the situation in the US should be compared to countries with similar levels of development, such as Europe, Australia or Japan.

And holy crap just look at the damn numbers, please. You have an incredible rate of homicide, gun homicide and spree killing compared to any of those countries. At some point you just have to fething recognise the reality of the situation and start being a little bit honest with yourselves.

nope its totally valid, the main reasons behind the mass murders may be different, but they are still mass murders... again, you are making a farce of it by trying to act like one mass murder is somehow worse then another, simply by the tool used, or the reason for it occurring.

also, its quite disingenuous to credit gun laws in aussie town made in 1996 with the decline of gun crime, when the trend of gun crime/deaths was ALREADY heading down well before the laws were passed... so crediting them for a trend that was well established before they were created is just bad analysis.




from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2704353/figure/fig1/


or maybe the laws were just SO effective, they went back in time and started reducing crime in the past...

WAIT THAT MUST BE IT!!!! gun laws are so effective, they go BACK IN TIME and start a downward trend in crime, BEFORE the laws were passed!

They are terminator laws!

*Arnie voice* "yoar guns, GIB DEM TO ME!"

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would postulate that having to dodge spiders the size of dinner plates does make for amusing outdoor activities to do at a BBQ.

Not so fun when in Sydney and the spider is very venomous and can jump a meter. Also fun to find whilst gardening.

 djones520 wrote:
I've been told that we're panty droppers over there. Glad to have independent verification. A shame I couldn't get there in my single days.

There's nothing magical about American sailors. Everyone is a panty dropper over here. We like to feth.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Repeatedly, I have seen MH experts come onto shows on CNN, FOX News, etc. and proclaim that any coverage that publishes the shooter's name IS glamorizing these events to those who are in a similar mental state. Sure, you and I don't see the glamorizing of these thigns in coverage, but I'd reckon that we're fairly well balanced and adjusted people. It's usually pretty self-evident that people who go on a shooting spree are not balanced or well adjusted people, and since they are wanting ANY attention they feel they "deserve" they see what the news media does in their coverage, and sees that as a good way to get their "deserved" attention.

The distinction between 'glamorized' and 'might be perceived as glamorized by disturbed people' is massive, and using the former as shorthand for the latter produces nonsense thinking. It ends up with an idea in which you are placing blame on the media for the insane interpretation of fringe nutters.

Do we really want to blame JD Salinger for Hinckley's attempted shooting of Reagan? Or the Beatles for Charles Manson?

I'm not saying that we blame the media for, in essence, doing their job... Just that there have been those who've made suggestions that in certain situations, there are better ways to do that job (ie, not create a situation where a nutter sees an opportunity ie. mass shooters).

I would suppose that the better MH professionals realize that they are also one facet of this nebulous issue. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about the medication situation, at least not in the short term.

Seed, the thing is, we DO actuely have spiders the size of dinner plates over here. A lot of people think it is exaggeration, but it, well, isn't. I mean, I've seen a mubcrab sized huntsman before.

 easysauce wrote:
nope its totally valid, the main reasons behind the mass murders may be different, but they are still mass murders... again, you are making a farce of it by trying to act like one mass murder is somehow worse then another, simply by the tool used, or the reason for it occurring.

You're missing the point. First up, all that stuff about one murder being less serious than another is just silly, so stop that.

Second up, it is a basic reality that a really big driver of homicide is the level of material wealth. So we can pick any rich country, compare it to any poor country and observe the poor country will have more murders per capita. But just doing that tells us nothing about any other factors.

So, if we control for wealth by choosing only countries with similar levels of wealth, we observe that US sits way outside of the rest of the developed world. None of the other explaining factors work, because the US doesn't have more crazy people (or any poorer means of caring for them), nor does it have more crime or drugs, and in fact in other forms of crime its actually slightly lower than the average in the rest of the developed world. And yet homicides are so much higher, and they're done with guns, which the US has such a uniquely high number of.

also, its quite disingenuous to credit gun laws in aussie town made in 1996 with the decline of gun crime, when the trend of gun crime/deaths was ALREADY heading down well before the laws were passed... so crediting them for a trend that was well established before they were created is just bad analysis.

I claimed no such thing. Obviously a primary reason for the absence of a gun massacre since Port Arthur is the general rarity of gun massacres in Australia. I merely pointed out a single counter example to the junk theory that mass media is responsible for the subsequent attacks. Similar arguments can be made in any other country that has had a high profile mass killing, without any series of follow up massacres.

or maybe the laws were just SO effective, they went back in time and started reducing crime in the past...

No, prosperity has increased over time, with the effect I have already described to you. Add in the specific 'tipping point' factors that drove down crime in the US in the early 90s and you can explain the overall decline in the murder rate.

What you are basically doing here is attempting to state that guns aren't the only explanation for homicides, therefore they are not part of the explanation at all. Which is just terrible analysis.

But hey, if you've got it all figured out, perhaps you could explain why the US has such a higher murder rate than other developed countries.

I think both of you are missing the point, we are talking about panty dropping and spiders the size of dinner plates. Important issues first, trivia later! the shrouded lord gets it!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'm not saying that we blame the media for, in essence, doing their job... Just that there have been those who've made suggestions that in certain situations, there are better ways to do that job (ie, not create a situation where a nutter sees an opportunity ie. mass shooters).

I would suppose that the better MH professionals realize that they are also one facet of this nebulous issue. Thing is, there doesn't seem to be much that can be done about the medication situation, at least not in the short term.

I apologise for my strong response, as it was a reaction against people who are attempting to explain away the issue of gun massacres by reference to what are fairly minor side impacts.

I agree that there are better and worse ways of covering stories like this. I personally am not at all comfortable with the way 24 hour news agencies will show live streams from the events, often before they are fully under control.

And I agree that mental health is part of this issue, though I'd have to repeat again that mental health is not very well managed anywhere in the developed world, but we have nothing like the number of massacres.

easysauce wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

2nd amendment. You should know this silly.

Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?

so much fail in your posts trex... so much lack of factual information, its just sad really...

when you make successive, untrue statements like this in a row, it just shows how ignorant you are.


Plenty of things are hunted well with handguns, plenty of peoples lives are saved by them....

that you call any handgun "high caliber" is also stupid... may as well call them "large caliber high powered assault baby killers that rape kittens" while you are throwing out emotional garbage that you think is true.


.

Where did I say all handguns are high caliber? I may not agree with their legality but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize that there is a significant difference between the damage a .22 can do in comparison to a 45.

Relapse wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

So you hate handguns because they are used to kill people?

Why do you assume I hate handguns? Personally, I'd rather shoot a rifle over any other weapon type. I'd rather shoot a target at 200 yards+ then at 50 and I like the stability of having the butt against my shoulder.

Ouze wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I'm still trying to figure out why handguns are legal. The only thing you can hunt with them is man.

2nd amendment. You should know this silly.

Does the 2nd Amendment specifically state we're allowed to easily purchase large caliber concealable firearms that can blow a hole through flesh and bone the size of a Grand Canyon?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No, I can't find it in there. I don't see anything about firearms for hunting either. Just something about the importance of militias. Do militias even really exist anymore?

And because the dissenting judge said it better than I could. (Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846))

You may wish to look at District of Columbia vs Heller if you want some jurisprudence that isn't 168 years old. The modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not require inclusion in a militia to exercise your rights, but for any lawful purpose such as self defense.

We can never have a meaningful debate with people throwing out derp as hard as they can with both hands on each side of the debate; Joe The Plumber on one side and "ban all handguns" on the other.

In summary, the original wording of the Second Amendment was reinterpreted to mean something else. So it's okay for the extreme gun advocates to justify the legality of firearms on the basis that it is in the Constitution and was reinterpreted as a living document, but at the same time shout down any reinterpretation they disagree with? You can't have it both ways. It's either subject to reinterpretation or it's not.

The problem with handguns more so than rifles and shotguns is that they are easy to conceal and that alone makes them significantly more dangerous. Any jackass on the street can pull a handgun out and gun you down without a warning, but at least in the case of the rifle you'll see the damn thing before. The biggest problem with firearms is that they are easy to acquire and cheap. Anyone can go into a pawn shop and drop $200 or less on a 40 caliber semiautomatic pistol and go kill someone. The entire process could take under an hour. There needs to be at least a sales delay and a deeper background check. I think the best way to handle it would be to make firearm sales outside of certified dealers illegal, limit areas where they can be sold to rural areas and city outskirts, and require some form of license to purchase one. Not necessarily a concealed carry license, but something somewhat less restrictive. Simply making them harder to acquire could deter crazies from purchasing them.

 Jihadin wrote:
Hold up hand with fingers spread. now close into a fist. Say hello to oldest weapon known to man/woman


Edit

I'm a bit long in the tooth to defend myself physically. I rather exert 9 lbs

9 lbs? Dude you need a serious trigger job.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Hold up hand with fingers spread. now close into a fist. Say hello to oldest weapon known to man/woman


Edit

I'm a bit long in the tooth to defend myself physically. I rather exert 9 lbs

9 lbs? Dude you need a serious trigger job.

I'm tempted to think your profile lies about your age...

Bullockist wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would postulate that having to dodge spiders the size of dinner plates does make for amusing outdoor activities to do at a BBQ.

Not so fun when in Sydney and the spider is very venomous and can jump a meter. Also fun to find whilst gardening.

A friend of mine from Australia that moved here told me of the great fun he used to have as a child teasing Funnel Spiders with a stick. The fun lasted until his father caught him at it one day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Trexmeyer,

When you make a statement like you did about handguns, my assumption is that you hate them.

Relapse wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I would postulate that having to dodge spiders the size of dinner plates does make for amusing outdoor activities to do at a BBQ.

Not so fun when in Sydney and the spider is very venomous and can jump a meter. Also fun to find whilst gardening.

A friend of mine from Australia that moved here told me of the great fun he used to have as a child teasing Funnel Spiders with a stick. The fun lasted until his father caught him at it one day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Trexmeyer,

When you make a statement like you did about handguns, my assumption is that you hate them.

Another one is poke-the-spider. You find a spider on a wEb (a big spider) and get a stick to poke it. 1 point for a leg, 5 for the abdomen, 10 for the head, 50 for the eyes, 100 for the fangs, and a visit to the nerse's office if it spits something into your mouth or eyes.
Or pouring daddy's vodka on a spied thou found inside a tree in the backyard and watch it commit suicide.