Kevin's Watch

Hahaha ... but also sad for Londoners

The whole buying or renting is a scary issue. The first challenge in getting a deposit for a home loan is really hard yards. Its affording the luxuries of a student in spite of working for a living, while half of your friends are off on holidays!....... and that's for at least 5 years.
Renting has its appeal if it didnt mean you could be moved on all of the time. I have absolutely hated being told to move out at the end of the lease, however reasonable or understanding the landlord.... I just hate the whole "packing up my house" process.

Interesting how the Winter Olympics skaters are having wardroble malfunctions. (Lightning has struck twice for one person..) Sometimes the dark pessimist in me believes that humans have become even greater attention seekers than before.... or maybe its just because there are more earthlings than ever before. Maybe there are more earthlings prone to sensationalised media than ever before.

I heard a report that there are 300million humans in the US, and that there are 340million "personal guns" in the US. That is an estimated 45% of the worlds "personal guns". Each time I get into conversations about the US and its guns, I am just blown away by the backlash from people who are not prepared to support big changes to gun laws there. Rant over. Apologies. This year is barely 2 months old and they've had how many school homicides?

I will just turn the Edith Piaf tunes up now, non je ne regret rien, , and climb back into the work that has been waiting all morning for me. I must remember to walk more often, and breathe. Hope you are all well!

Meh, I'm in favour of some forms of gun control, and certainly in favour of them better enforcing the requirements they do have (here in SA it's more strictly regulated) but the thing is, criminals by definition ignore the law, so making more laws about it doesn't really affect them.

--A

Hanging in there Kizza, hanging in there!

Yes, some additional gun control is clearly needed, but as Av says won't be the full answer.

I feel like all Ive done the past few days is bang on about gun control if we are friends on Facebook thats all youve seen from me ..

But Kizza I hear you - I found the pushback utterly confounding .. and to be honest not logical or reasonable

Av the laws will apply if theyre clever, they will introduce more riggor to license application processes, background checking, purchase of firearms and broadly access to firearms .. but even that wont be enough.

Most of the shooters in mass shooter events legally purchased their firearms, and will apply to the average joe that turns shooter, like Cruz.

Gun controls affect criminals quite a bit, as it reduces access. But the big thing would be reducing access to people who aren't criminals, per se, who might do something in the heat of the moment (removing guns has a huge effect on suicide rates, for example).

The unholy NRA - GOP alliance has much to answer for.

It does indeed Pete

peter wrote:The unholy NRA - GOP alliance has much to answer for.

Sure...but who's gonna put the question or make them answer?
Cuz we've become, by any rational and demonstrable measure, a place that mostly holds accountable the poor, the minority, and the powerless.

While having fired guns at a rifle range and enjoyed a big adrenalin rush, I will stay away from the accumulative "blood on their hands" topic, because it brings me no joy. I actually get the same rush from hitting a sweet one wood down a golf fairway.
Golf clubs are definitely not the NRAs answer.

Overcast today, mid 20 degrees Celsius and been for a walk already. Bikie murders all over the papers.....
Even though Costner can make my skin crawl, I recently watched Dances With Wolves for the first time in a long time..... That was a great movie.
I will reluctantly withhold my sponsorship to the seagull and pigeon health and safety unit, and look willingly for harmless mischief.

Enjoy!

Kizza wrote:I recently watched Dances With Wolves for the first time in a long time..... That was a great movie.

For reasons that are probably apparent, that movie is a favorite of mine as well.

Skyweir wrote:...but even that wont be enough.

No it won't. And they're purchased legally (when they are) because it's easier. Prevent legal purchases and they'll be obtained illegally. Killing people is already illegal...if that law doesn't stop people, why would a law saying you can't have a gun?

I'm Murrin wrote:Gun controls affect criminals quite a bit, as it reduces access.

Yet I see that gun crime in the UK has increased by 20% just in the last 12 months...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -and-wales

As for suicides, what really makes a difference is preventative work / structures / mental health assistance. Effectively no guns in the UK, but your suicide rate is only about 5 people per 100,000 lower than the US, and the favourite method in the UK is by hanging I see. (This is also the most popular method in the world.)

Yes, in the US the most common one is by firearm, but I wouldn't call it a huge reduction.

That said, what it would do is reduce "spur of the moment" suicides. But it's a far different issue than gun crime is.

Living as I do in a country where violent crime and murder is, if not commonplace, at least prevalent, it's a very simple question for me...as long as criminals have the ability to shoot at me and mine, I want (and deserve) the ability to shoot back if necessary.

If I could change the laws of physics so that no type of firearm could operate, I would do it in a heartbeat. But as long as I can face that level of force multiplier, I want to be able to respond in kind if I have to.

--A

Avatar wrote:but your suicide rate is only about 5 people per 100,000 lower

Heh...a number of odd numbers and statements in that post. But I'll just note this one. 5 per 100k is a HUGE damn difference. Around 15,000 corpses different. an over 30% reduction difference.
Much of the rest you said is at LEAST as wrong as this thing.

Avatar wrote:.......Living as I do in a country where violent crime and murder is, if not commonplace, at least prevalent, it's a very simple question for me...as long as criminals have the ability to shoot at me and mine, I want (and deserve) the ability to shoot back if necessary.

Av, nobody in their right mind argues with that from a practical viewpoint. Not for one second am I saying that Australlia is perfect - its far from it - but the effort to retrieve guns via an amnesty following the Port Arthur massacre has taken a lot of guns off the street. It has not taken all of them away, as we see from the bikie clubs and other gangs who are constantly getting guns taken from them, without ever getting all of them. Besides, to maintain order, an authority needs the gun.

Wild estimations here from over 10 years ago...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated ... by_country

I for one have never owned a gun, and have never had one in any house I have lived in over the course of my life . That alone would speak volumes for how different the societies we live in have become or been developed.The fact I feel safer knowing there are less guns around, opposed to those who feel safer with more guns around is a puzzle with an origin.
I assume the convict state which began as Australia was not encouraged to let "anyone" have a gun, while the likes of other places with origins rooted in massive confrontation would have armed its population to simply keep it alive. But times change, and so do places. Some places have changed sufficiently over time to do things about gun control, while other have not.

The biggest problem in getting everyone but a gov authority or farmer with carnivorous pests to hand back their guns would be a massive COST to a government like the US. 300 million guns at an average of say $300..... lot of money. Surely they could just start with the automatic weapons...

Maybe if the US government did a deal with Foxtel............ Foxtel could pay for the return of all guns, and set up a pay per view "public executions" channel. All the people who handed guns in go into a lottery to become the celebrity trigger puller on a handsomely rewarded pay per view execution show.............................. Our world has such a propensity for cruelty, excess and the forbidden that it would no doubt be a massive hit before it morphed into executions with cars, or sharks or the Running Man! My sarcasm overfloweth.

But, what would you pay to slow or stop the murder of children in school?

Now that I've joined the discussion, I wonder how long it will take the mods to remember that this isn't a political forum and tell me to stop ...



... anyway, in reference to this ...

peter wrote:The unholy NRA - GOP alliance has much to answer for.

... why is it that when a criminal kills people with a gun, the GOP has lots to answer for, but when an illegal immigrant kills someone, the Dems don't have to answer for anything?

Both sides have policies that can be abused by criminals. The policy of the GOP, in this case, is the defense of a Constitutional right, whereas the policy of the Dems is a violation of our laws and sovereignty. But the ones supporting lawlessness get a pass, while the defenders of our founding principles get shat upon.

The double standards are clear and galling.

Dead people only matter to Dems when it increases their chances of regaining control of the government. This is an election issue for the Dems, nothing else. A chance to capitalize on people's grief. Sickening, really.

Meanwhile, they do everything they can to help dangerous, criminal illegal aliens evade jail or deportation. You can't even bring up dangerous gangs like MS13 without being accused of race baiting.

Vraith wrote:Heh...a number of odd numbers and statements in that post. But I'll just note this one. 5 per 100k is a HUGE damn difference. Around 15,000 corpses different. an over 30% reduction difference.

15,000 more suicides and 250 million more people? Doesn't seem like that big of a difference to me...I thought that was why things got broken down into per capita numbers in the first place? To show proportional difference?

Anyway, if you look at the country with the highest rate, Sri Lanka, we can see civilian gun ownership, both legal and illegal, is about 1.5 guns per hundred people. The low number of firearms hasn't meant a correspondingly low rate of suicide.

(What else was apparently wrong there? The UK gun crime stats? Maybe, didn't look for confirmation of the link.)

Zarathustra wrote:

peter wrote:The unholy NRA - GOP alliance has much to answer for.

... why is it that when a criminal kills people with a gun, the GOP has lots to answer for...

Meanwhile this sorta annoys me...In my country, guns aren't a political issue. They're a practical one. Sure, there are people who are against them, and want all (legal) guns banned, but hardly anybody not actively involved cares.

Dunno if it's just because everything is political in the US, but every American gun discussion I've ever seen turns into political mud-slinging.

(Which can be confined to the guns thread in the 'Tank. :p Let's keep this part of the discussion a little more practical.)

Kizza wrote:It has not taken all of them away, as we see from the bikie clubs and other gangs who are constantly getting guns taken from them, without ever getting all of them.

See, that's exactly the thing. People who are normal, everyday law-abiding citizens and own guns aren't a threat to anybodies safety or security or well-being.

The people who are a threat, criminals or the mentally unstable or whatever, aren't supposed to legally have firearms. But criminals by definition don't obey the law. Make all the laws you like, but the only people who obey them are people who wouldn't have broken them in the first place.

Kizza wrote:The fact I feel safer knowing there are less guns around, opposed to those who feel safer with more guns around is a puzzle with an origin.

Apart from anything else, you do have less guns around. I don't. And the number of guns that are around are mostly in the hands of people who are not going to obey laws about not murdering etc.

Kizza wrote:Surely they could just start with the automatic weapons...

There aren't any. Or at least, very few. Even in the US the process to own an automatic firearm is extreme and requires permits etc. (Automatic: Fires multiple times / repeatedly while the trigger is held down.)

But, what would you pay to slow or stop the murder of children in school?

First off, no chance ever of undoing guns in the US now. No matter what.

Second though, it wouldn't stop it. It might not even slow it, because the people who do that kind of thing, are not going to hand in their firearms. The people who do hand them in, would never carry out such a thing.

We've seen multiple school attacks in China where the attacker used knives.

I'm not so short sighted as to claim that the ready availability of guns doesn't have an impact here, but in the US that cat is long out the bag. You could enact a total ban tomorrow and guns would still be available.

But at the end of the day, it's a social problem, not a gun one per se.

I'm in favour of a lot of "gun control" measures that the US would never accept. But all measures like that only affect the law-abiding. The criminals or the insane are not stopped by legislation.

--A

Zarathustra wrote:Now that I've joined the discussion, I wonder how long it will take the mods to remember that this isn't a political forum and tell me to stop ...



... anyway, in reference to this ...

peter wrote:The unholy NRA - GOP alliance has much to answer for.

... why is it that when a criminal kills people with a gun, the GOP has lots to answer for, but when an illegal immigrant kills someone, the Dems don't have to answer for anything?

When an illegal kills someone with a gun the Dems have much to answer for.

There - balance restored.

Avatar wrote:Dunno if it's just because everything is political in the US, but every American gun discussion I've ever seen turns into political mud-slinging.

(Which can be confined to the guns thread in the 'Tank. :p Let's keep this part of the discussion a little more practical.)

Ha, I knew it would be my participation that was the tipping point.



Neither of the two people criticizing the GOP in this thread--Peter and Sky--are Americans. I don't think you can blame the politization of this topic solely on the U.S. What's mindboggling is that people outside the U.S. don't have enough going on in their own countries that they constantly stick their noses into our business. It doesn't bother me, really. I just couldn't imagine telling people in another country that their political parties have a lot to answer for because I don't agree with their policies. They certainly don't have to answer to *me.*

Zarathustra wrote: What's mindboggling is that people outside the U.S. don't have enough going on in their own countries that they constantly stick their noses into our business. .*

If I have a view, people assume that all of my views are left or right. I am increasingly moderate these days. Possibly because I have a few summers under my belt, and experience tells me that conservatives, unionists and revolutionaries each have the ability to disappoint... and they regularly do.
Spiderman said, with great power comes great responsibility. I always liked that line. The US has a self proclaimed hegemony over many parts of the world, and so the qualities that it displays are always going to be scrutinized. Please do no take offence. I remember as a kid living in Sydney always saying "if it happened in America, its gonna happen in Australia, and it'll happen in Sydney first!"

I got up early today and while the house was quiet I knocked out the last of the stuff I had due to be done for the week. About to go do some yard chores - or really stick a bandaid on a few of them, and then the dog and I will go down the beach with the frisbee. Yes there are still beaches where I can let the dog run! It's Friday here, so all going well a few select ales later today with friends will prepare me for a weekend where the Rabbitohs are back on the field!

Have a great day everyone.

Kizza, I'm honestly not offended by anyone here. I deeply respect you guys and enjoy the debates. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, I won't question it. It just puzzles me sometimes. We get criticized in my country for being elitists or xenophobes if we criticize other cultures (as if every culture is equally worthy of respect). But it's perfectly fine for the rest of the world to talk sh*t about America and our founding principles. It's like being a white male, we're the one target that everyone can criticize with impunity, even if criticisms are just as racist and sexist as the blame directed our way.