Prayers For Las Vegas Nevada

Yeah, no shit. We have 15x as many people here.

Did you really mean to make such a stupid point just now?

 

It is rigged, in your favor. Which is why you’re saying it isn’t.

 

Hey now that’s not a very Christian response, it’s a sin to be so mean.

 

Cute. You'd like to believe that gerrymandering is the reason why six blue states flipped to red last November.

Go head and keep believing that. Just don't be surprised when you keep losing.

 

@SuperFan, if only the bad guys have guns, then there will be less guns, because less people are bad, than good. This is a massively reductionist statement, I know, but it means that anytime anyone has or uses a firearm, law enforcement will not be confused as to who is the aggressor.

No, I am not hoping that the good people of America will simply give up their guns. I think the situation is too complex and too far gone for such an approach. But I hope that you would honestly, and critically, assess your perceived need for such extreme weapons.

And if, as an Australian, we have more per capita violent crime (which I’m not sure is true), why are we not clamoring for such defensive measures ourselves? Maybe you missed it, but I have 10 years in policing. I’m not talking from inexperience.

I guess my purpose in arguing here is just to try and broaden people’s thinking, if possible. You are so heavily invested that you lack objectivity.

 

Um, generally, the "per capita" number for a certain statistic is more significant than the raw number because it scales the statistic by the population of whatever country you're talking about. For instance, Google tells me that China has a per capita GDP of about $8100 and Singapore has a per capita GDP of $52,960. That means Singapore has a much higher standard of living even though China's raw GDP is many times bigger.

 

It's a sin not to tell the truth. And the truth is, that was a stupid point to make.

 

No it wasn’t. Per capita stats are bullshit. I’d rather know exactly how many instances of rape, assault and burglaries are happening. Not a percentage based on how many people are living in that area.

 

Extreme according to who? Extreme by what definition?

A ban on semi-automatic weapons? Are you of the belief that when I pull the trigger once, I should have to re-cock the gun before I can fire again? Ban semi-automatic firearms, and you're basically leaving people to defend themselves with muskets.

I know of no reasonable person on my side of this issue who is arguing that citizens should be allowed to have fully automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have been banned here since 1986, and even as we speak, the NRA has called for the ATF to review its rules on modified stocks that essentially create the effect of full-auto.

Who knows? I can't speak for the Australian people. Presumably Australians, as a free people, have decided that they'd rather suffer the higher rates of violent crime (which is undeniable, btw) in exchange for fewer gun homicides (which to Australia's credit, is also undeniable).

Both nations are free to choose. I don't judge the Australian people for making choices that fit their values. But I take offense when Australians judge Americans for making a different choice.

 

I’m disengaging, @SuperFan. Not because I have nothing to add, but because whatever I say to you is of no effect. You will only consider information that does not threaten your current thinking. If you ever visit Australia, you’ll enjoy the freedom that comes with knowing you don’t need your personal weapon to enjoy life. And re violent crime here, that is mostly committed by intimate partners. Domestic violence in Australia kills an average of one woman a week. This is our cross, and you have yours. Enjoy your echo chamber. I’m really sad you missed an opportunity to learn from other people here.

 

I'm going to play a game with you. You're not going to respond, because if you do, you'll look like a fool. So you're going to ignore the question, deflect, or call me some name ... but you won't dare answer it because you have too much pride to admit when you're dead wrong.

"Country A" is 1000 square miles. It contains 100 million people. Last year, 1 million people were the victims of violent crime, which means the per capita violent crime rate was 1%.

"Country B" is only 100 square miles. It contains 10 million people. Last year, 500k were the victims of violent crime, which means the per capita violent crime rate was 5%.

In which country is a person five times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime?

Take your time. I'll wait.

 

And to think, if only those women were allowed to be armed ...

If you would have left it at that, this wouldn't have been a debate. But you aren't content to allow us to have our own cross. You think we should do things the Australian way.

This assumes that fewer guns = less crime. There's little evidence for that. Perhaps the book "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott would be of interest.

 

I have never owned a gun myself; probably will one day, but I don't feel a need for one yet. Didn't have a good sense of what the exact distinction was between automatic and semi-automatic; I just had kind of a vague concept of a machine gun in my mind. Your description helps to clarify that for me.

I guess I mainly just wish that semi-automatic weapons had never been invented. Then, it would be a perfectly adequate answer to say, "yes, I expect people to defend themselves with muskets." But given your description, I understand that the existence of semi-automatic weapons makes the whole situation more complex.

 

Of course, guns are the solution to you, instead of addressing the issue of toxic male violence..

The Australian way has been empirically proven to work, over the last 19 years. I don’t know why it would offend you to entertain the idea. That’s actually all I’m asking, that you would dare to engage with a different possibility.

Also, American imposition on national sovereignty is endemic across the globe. Pot, kettle?

 

I appreciate you admitting that.

Fully automatic: you hold down the trigger and bullets come out as fast as the firearm is able to discharge them.

Semi automatic: you pull the trigger, and a single bullet is discharged. You can only fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

The Las Vegas shooter used a loophole in the gun laws--a type of stock that uses the recoil of a rifle to "bump" the trigger rapidly against your finger. So while it technically doesn't make it an automatic weapon, for all practical purposes, it does create the effect of automatic fire. That, more than anything else, is one of the issues currently being debated.

The fact that the NRA has asked the ATF to review its policies on these types of loophole devices is strong evidence that rabidly pro-gun groups can see value in common sense regulations.

 

I’ll go ahead & add condescending to the list of adjectives I’d use to describe you. Is that enough predictable deflection & name calling for you?

Anyway, I suppose you feel safer where you are because you probably live in the middle of nowhere Texas where nothing ever happens, while I’m in a high crime area of California. I’d feel a hell of a lot safer walking the streets of Australia or the UK than I do walking around my own neighborhood.

 

Of course violence is the issue (I refuse to use the term "toxic male violence"), but you can't control what other people do. I don't think guns are the only solution. In fact, I think there are no solutions. There will always be violence--so there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. And as we've been discussing, arming citizens and disarming them both involve tradeoffs.

I support women being armed because when a shorter, smaller, weaker woman is being physically threatened by an aggressor who is much bigger and stronger, a firearm is one of the only real equalizers available to her.

Where has America impeded on national sovereignty? Where has America said to a nation's people, "you have no right to choose your own leaders or your own form of government?"

That's not rhetorical--I'm actually wondering if you have examples.

That's what I've been doing. To my knowledge, I haven't said that the Australian way is wrong. I've only said that it's a trade-off that I find unacceptable for America, and thankfully most Americans seem to agree.

 

Yes, actually, it's perfect. Because just as I told you and everyone else reading along at home, you avoided answering the question.

So, once again: in which country is a person 5x more likely to be the victim of violent crime? (my guess: you still won't answer)

Have you considered that one of the reasons "nothing ever happens" in Texas might be because a huge number of us are armed? Have you considered that California might be "a high crime area" because they have very strict gun regulations?

 

I cannot do justice to this question at length in this forum but two instances that sprung to mind are the refusal to acknowledge the decomcratic election of Hamas in the West Bank, and the lie that was the supposed presence of WMDs to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein.