Z
Zaf
Guest
Removed by user
Last edited by a moderator:
This is very interesting. It's often said that if the democrats were to come up with a "compromise" position on abortion that they could vastly improve their position in the South, where there's a whole lot of single-issue voters who consider it immoral to vote for someone who supports abortion. Witness, for example, the fact that Roy Moore was defeated by the skin of his teeth in Alabama after lots of credible information emerged that he had sexually assaulted minors whilst a district attorney (30+).2. Religion: Religion wields an unholy influence on politics, and ergo American society at large. Any aspiring atheist US politician has buckley's chance of progressing beyond local representation, leaving predominately the bible bashers (or at least those who espouse those views) in charge at the top. Again without wanting to offend anyone, religion by and large is not noted for its progressive attitudes to gender equality and modern progressive societal values. I'm sure there will be 'burners who will disagree with me, but given the attitudes and ideals promoted by messers Abbott, Abetz, Bernadi and Cormann over the past decade here, how would you fancy an entire government comprised of that crowd?
Would it though?mass shootings like this only account for around 7-10 percent of gun deaths or something like that, now these mass shootings, instead of been mass shootings, will just end up been mass stabbings or mentally ill people going around bashing people with bats and etc..
I run a R&D team which designs systems which are installed onto a lot of US and world military vehicles, aircraft and munitions. I know what the difference is between military and civilian spec perfectly well, thanks, and the distinction between "shares a basic design" (broad) and "is a variant of an design" (very specific). You might even say it's part of my job to know the difference.You're trying to call a pencil a pen, and remaining to miss the entire fucking point.
But seeing as you want to argue symantics, you have failed to comprehend the difference between a select fire capability, that is only available for military use, and a civilian pattern that resembles it. I'm guessing the Ar-10 is also the same rifle in your world because it shares a basic design?
There is a reason they put different identifying numbers on them...that usually has a little more to do with it than marketing.
It, imo doesn't matter what someone uses or how many they injure or kill, the underlying cause as to why someone decided to do it be it with a sword, bat hunting knife or rifle needs to be solved. getting through gun control legislation won't solve the underlying cause for why it happned to begin with.Would it though?
I would think someone with a bat or knife would be overpowered well before he killed 17 and wounded scores more like he could with an automatic rifle.
In the U.S gang warfare is the biggest contributor to the gun homicide rate, mass shootings like this one really don't add that much to the statisticsAppreciate your point about gang warfare; maybe there's something in the fact that the bulk of the shooting that goes on here in Oz is gang-related, with very few lone psychos shooting randoms.
It doesn't diminish the tragedy of it, I am simply just pointing out how small the issue of mass shootings like this actually are in the statistics.I don't see how "mass shootings like this only account for around 7-10 percent of gun deaths" diminishes the tragedy of it all, or should affect the response?
Given things like rampant social inequality and mental illness (particularly without subsidised healthcare) aren't like to be solved soon, if at all, wouldn't limiting access to assault rifles at least make a difference to 7~10% mass-shooting figure?I'd rather solve the actual underlying cause first rather then attacking an inanimate object.
It would seem that using Australia's law changes and experience as a reference, the majority of gun crime here is crim-on-crim with lone psychos largely locked out of the option.People bang on endlessly when a mass shooting happens and always use it as an argument for tighter firearm laws but they never care about the fact that across the United states a similar number of people die every night due to gang warfare.
Thank you, I appreciate the courtesy (no snark).Okay, point conceded.
And how will banning them reduce homicide rates exactly?
So you'd rather stop many others from safely enjoying said rifles for the actions of a few?Given things like rampant social inequality and mental illness (particularly without subsidised healthcare) aren't like to be solved soon, if at all, wouldn't limiting access to assault rifles at least make a difference to 7~10% mass-shooting figure?
And so:
Refer to my above statement.It would seem that using Australia's law changes and experience as a reference, the majority of gun crime here is crim-on-crim with lone psychos largely locked out of the option.
There seems to be an anecdotal link at the very least.
What attitude is that then?attitudes like yours.
.
In this case, on balance, yes - that's not to say that inequality and health care are ignored. A lot of politics these days seems to be dumbed down to the level of we can't do X now because we have to do Y first; guess what, you can do more than one thing at a time. Obviously a gun ban in itself doesn't solve society's ills overnight.So you'd rather stop many others from safely enjoying said rifles for the actions of a few?
I refer to bleeding heart liberals as though who have knee jerk reactions not based on any sort of logic or reasoning.I noticed you referenced 'bleeding heart liberals' earlier, which I assume suggests some sort of irrational emotion-based reaction. Am I a bleeding heart liberal?
New Zealand still allows these rifles to the average punter under their standard car A licence but they are only allowed to have a 10 round mag in it on cat A which imo is fine, but if you apply for the E Endorsement (I think it was) you are allowed to have semi autos with a collapsible stock and a 30 round mag.All I've done is asked some questions and suggested that if assault rifles were not available to the average punter, perhaps there would be less mass-shootings. I don't know that for a fact, but I see anecdotal links.
Why kill loads of people to begin with? What drives someone to do this? is the reason treatable?Let's say all these school-shooter types were only bent on killing loads of kids. Why not take the ISIS route and plow a truck into a crowd? I put it to you that perhaps they see a specific appeal in shooting people with automatic weapons.
As I said in my previous comment, the major issue with gun related deaths in the U.S is gang warfare, so by solving that issue and satisfying the jobless issues in poor african/latino communities where the majority of the violence occurs you will find America isn't that violent.In this case, on balance, yes - that's not to say that inequality and health care are ignored. A lot of politics these days seems to be dumbed down to the level of we can't do X now because we have to do Y first; guess what, you can do more than one thing at a time. Obviously a gun ban in itself doesn't solve society's ills overnight.
There are many reasons for semi autos, be it for target shooting, hunting etc all of which do require reasonably fast follow up shots, then there's the reason that some people just like them.I guess I don't really see what the sporting shooter gets out of an AR-15 that they couldn't get out of a slower firing rifle with a small mag.
Taught.But the U.S is a strange country.
My brother had kids in school there and the way they get teached is to think of everything as a business case.
So nothing will change really when people are learning like that.
Rights are never unconditional. Americans also have the right to free speech in the press that shall not be infringed either, but you can't write an article threatening to make Donald Trump drink his tanning solution or they'll throw you in jail. You can't even (and this is important) use your right to free speech to threaten to overthrow the government with your freely-borne arms. The implication that the right to bear arms was intended as a constitutional backstop against against tyranny doesn't really hold water. The true safeguards against tyranny are implemented through the separation of powers and the constitutional limits of each branch of government, although the executive has gotten progressively more powerful over time.Just going to put this one to bed straight away, but your interpretation of it is incorrect. The Second Amendment guarantees an invidivual's rights to keep and bear arms unconnected with any militia service. This is no longer even a point of contention and shouldn't be used any further.