Guns as the great equalizer

Post Reply New Topic

I know all about it.

A person will be able to massacre a heap of people with a sword just as effectively as an AK; it depends on the situation at hand. Former Iaido/Kenjutso and firearm geek here with lots of experience.

Where a sword lets you down is if the opposing side has a firearm.

{insert other readily available means here, like say poisoning meals and burning down a building full of people}

No, a person can't be more easily disarmed with a knife; you go near someone with a knife, and you'll likely suffer a fatal wound if they have intent to kill you. Again, this depends on the situation.

Purpose means nothing. Bladed objects were designed to kill. Same with firearms. You can use both for many things other than killing, and both provide useful purposes, such as hunting, recreation, collecting and sport, in addition to self-defense.

You're in Oz, right? A lady murdered 8 people not long ago with a knife (her kids). She racked up a higher kill count than most of our massacres, including some with "assault weapons".

We have a fairly high firearm ownership rate here in Oz. About 1 in 24 have a license (around 900,000 issued). That's just an aside.

OK, well said. I apologize. I should not have called people names.

It is my considered belief that a preoccupation with protecting ones self from dangers which are demonstrably unreal betrays a tenuous grasp of reality.

And I won't even guess as to how having the 'right' to terrorise one's neighbourhood by going around with a loaded pistol to the local supermarket could ever qualify as being a right either. The only thing that says so is your Second Amendment, because nothing else (you know, like common sense) does. How can access to, for example, education not be a basic right? Most people outside the U.S. - you know, the rest of the world - views it as such, because they understand how important it is for the further development and economic prosperity of those who have access to it. We also have FREE access to health care (i.e. Medicare), and it has worked so well, and for so long now, that there is no one in politics, no matter how right-wing, who would ever even dream of getting rid of it.

Exactly. I could not have put it better myself!

So, when I go out and about with a concealed handgun on my person, my neighbors and/or the people at the grocery store or wherever are somehow terrorised?
Explain, please.


We do have a right (if you want to call it that) to a K-12 education. Beyond that we'd better have some source of funding.
Housing is a commodity with the price driven by the market. Housing costs whatever they can get people to pay for it.
Steady employment obviously can't be a right, either.

What, you don't pay taxes over there? That's about the only way it could actually be "FREE".


If we were going to have it here it would have have been instituted before the medical industry in it's entiretly became the huge and powerful industry that it has become. They own too many politicians now.

If you're so happy over there in the land of Oz then why fret over what we're doing over here? Most Americans don't give a s**t one way or the other about Australia.
I know I don't

1. Where a firearm lets you down is if the opposing side has a grenade.

2. Where a grenade lets you down is if the opposing side has a tank.

3. Where a tank lets you down is if the opposing side has an A-10.

4. Where an A-10 lets you down is if the opposing side has a surface-to-air missile system.

I could go on with this silliness, but my point is basically this - the amendment does, after all, say this: '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.' (emphasis added)

Within the general category of 'arms' one can, and probably should, include anything and everything that can be considered to be a weapon, and it would therefore be perfectly reasonable for someone to argue that they have a 'right' to possess nuclear weapons. Every sane person on the planet would, of course, disagree.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... +Amendment

The, perfectly reasonable and valid, point is made within this document that, '...supporters of the prevailing Second Amendment interpretation maintain that any right to bear arms should be secondary to concerns for public safety. They also point out that other provisions in the Constitution grant power to Congress to quell insurrections, thus contradicting the insurrection theory. Lastly, they argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with a changing society and that the destructive capability of semiautomatic and automatic firearms was not envisioned by the Framers'.

I'm not exactly an expert on the history of firearms, but even so I understand that the weapons we have today are way beyond anything that anyone could possibly have imagined back in 1791 when the Second Amendment was adopted. Circumstances were very different back then, the country had just won its independence from Great Britain, much of what would later be a part of the U.S. had not yet been annexed, and the prevalent concern that the nation was still in danger of being snuffed out of existence was perfectly justified. 'Well regulated militias' make about as much sense in today's world as crusading knights do, and for the same reasons. The 'right of the people to keep and bear arms' makes precisely no sense.

Sigh.......
Lintar, do yourself a favor and go back and read some of the dozens of threads we've had on this topic over the years so you can see how far in over your head you are and how this thread is going to end..........with you not having brought one single valid point to the table.

That's an arms race, and it's more in the realm of governments and societies, as beyond a certain point, you need the efforts of many people to create and utilize more advanced engines of destruction. There's little difference in a town in the 18th Century having a "private" cannon compared to a state having a multitude of them nowadays; it's just the size and scale that differs.

Best to think of "arms" as personal ones that the common man can acquire, but if you get enough of them, then you have a serious threat to internal and external threats (see: Taliban and fighting off much of the world that wishes to impose its will on them). Swords, small arms, and pack weapons (cannons and such). The US government has placed restrictions on the latter.

See before. A cavalry saber can be used to murder classrooms of little kids just as easily as an "assault weapon". In the realm of murder, it's more to do with the willpower of the person rather than the weapon at hand. A person that strangles 50+ prostitutes over time is just as severe as the person that massacres 50+ with a rifle. If the latter didn't have a rifle, there's other ways to go about killing that many people that you can purchase from a hardware store.

It makes plenty of sense. If you worry about internal and external aggressors, an armed populace can quell such. Switzerland is a good example here, where they have mandatory service and optional "assault weapon" ownership for most people. It's as peaceful there as it is here in Oz.

Don't fall into the trap that the weapon makes the man and murder, or it somehow makes it easier. People find a way, and no law will stop them if they have intent. The only thing that does is other people (see: Charlie Hebdo and illegal firearms being used and no one around to stop them).

Gladly! First of all, I'll ask why you believe it would be necessary at all to carry such a concealed weapon in the first place. Does it provide some kind of sense of security? Superiority? Is there a deep-seated fear of being the victim of a violent crime at the bottom of it? Does it give you something to play with while you are passing the time? How do you justify it (apart from going on about the 'right' provided by the Second Amendement, which is the only 'argument' I ever seem to come across by those who believe that everyone has this right)?

Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime in most parts of the (civilised) world precisely because the one carrying it can use that weapon against others who, through no fault of their own, were just unlucky enough to have been in the same place at the same time. Being a weapon that allows the one using it to quickly murder a large number of people, for no reason or any reason, is why solid regulation of those firearms is a good idea (otherwise one will have a situation where someone who is mentally unstable, for example, or who has a criminal record will be able to purchase and use them). Being allowed to carry an unconcealed weapon (like what you often see in Westerns) would not be desirable either, even if someone could make a case for the necessity of it, which no one thus far actually has.

Terrorism: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigat ... definition

It states, among other things, that it involves, 'acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population'. So it includes coercion and intimidation. To terrorise someone is to induce a state of fear in a person you are trying to manipulate. Most people, if they saw someone in a public space with a gun who was unauthorised to carry one, would feel intimidated, don't you think?



Yes, and the taxes go towards making society better (unlike in the U.S. where they go towards funding N.S.A. spying on innocent people and wars of aggression, to provide just two odious examples). Everyone pays taxes, and that doesn't bother us. It's the price we pay to live in a society that is decent and caring, and not aggressively individualistic and sociopathic.



I fret because bad ideas have a way of making their way to 'the land of Oz' from your country like a highly virulent plague (ex. your violent cop shows that have someone pointing a gun at someone else every five seconds - no, I don't watch them, because they're just abominable).

I got sick of all of the long on snark short on facts posts by the anti gun brigade here, so I challenged them to give me one example of gun control working, as in a high crime problem being significantly reduced by gun control laws, and specifically disallowing weasel arguments like "gun violence" (vs absolute violence) and places with outside factors like a major economic upturn. Considering how sure all these people seem to be of their positions, you'd think such an example would be simple to come up with, but it's been several years and the OP ran into 20+ pages without a single one...

As a side note, I'm fine with being called a nut if I am in turn allowed to use the appropriate terminology for people who have no idea what they're talking about and yet loudly proclaim their rightness and righteousness in the most condescending and obnoxious manner possible; I believe the technical term is as*holes.

Sigh... If I am actually wrong, then point it out to me and explain why. ALL of my points have been valid. How could they not be? After all, I came up with them didn't I?

It isn't a 'weasel' argument, it's a valid one, and I've already provided an example. From the linked article:

"While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia. Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15% of these resulting from firearms. Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occurred in Australia.

Remarkably, American pro-gun advocates try to use the impact of the Australian gun law reform to make a case that reform “doesn’t work”. This seems amazing given the homicide rate in the United States is five per 100,000 people, with most homicides involving firearms."

Since the introduction of gun control legislation, we have had NO large-scale massacres of the kind that had happened prior to the introduction of the aforesaid legislation. They simply don't happen anymore. How is that for evidence that they work? It's pretty convincing in my view.

No, the technical term is 'well-informed'.

actually in the usa their only job is to ticket and punish people for breaking the law. they don't have to try to prevent crime. so they don't have to stop a mass shooting, just show up afterwards and arrest the person. most time they do show up afterwards. I'd rather be the living guy then the one with chalk around them.

I think at least half want to help people though. but takes too much time. especially with budget cuts. we have whole counties here with no police after 5 pm and on weekends. the state troopers are stretched thin, all police forces are having to cut down on officers. they encourage people to buy and carry guns. rich areas are now hiring private military contractors to patrol their areas. I'm not in a rich area nor am I rich.



yep they were so stupid and ignored the advancing tech during their life time. I mean not like they went from swords to muskets to rifled guns that hold and shoot 22 rounds rapidly all within some of their framers lifetime. they knew technology would advance. they weren't stupid people.

well when/if china or russia invade you don't come crying for help., if they invade here they'll face a active insurgency.

we'd had iraq/afghanistan under control in a few months if they people didn't have guns. instead it dragged on for years and years and years ending with us withdrawing. now they'll slowly taking it back.

as others have said, you don't live here so why do you care? why must you force your ideas and beliefs on others? we don't want what you like leave us alone. we don't care what you do over there.



.... ok well using your definition you found, you would need to do both. an act dangerous to human life that violates law and intimidate or coerce. or as you said manipulate.

well 1. carrying a gun here is legal. so there goes violating law. 2. carrying a gun is not a act dangerous to human life.(which is more implying to idk blowing up a bomb in a group of people) 3. we are not out to intimidate, coerce or manipulate anyone.

so nope doesn't meet any of that, funny you talk out against the nsa and stuff then try to label like 100 million citizens in our nation as terrorists. almost like you work for them.

a black person walks into a restaurant full of white people, gee they might and some will feel intimidated. are we going band black people? no . here's the deal. people here anyways are protected against actual threats and stuff. not against their own irrational fears. I fear bugs many do. but we don't go about killing all bugs in the nation. that'd be stupid. fear of bugs in most cases is irrational, a common irrational fear be it though. just like you are protected from other people hurting your feelings. or you can't ban sex just because it makes you feel unsafe or sick. we have freedom here. so that means as long as no one harms physically or harrasses you, you just have to deal with it. just as they/we have to deal with the stuff you do.

do you think we enjoy you calling us names, saying were crazy and trying to ban the thing we enjoy. nope. sure we might wish to ban you or lock you up so we can live our lives unafraid or with hurt feelings. sure most people would want to just remove people who do things that upset them. but we don't because violating other freedoms to make you feel better is wrong.

a guy down the street with a glock on his hip doesn't harm you. he'll likely never fire it outside of a range, and well for you its several hundreds of thousands of miles away. you don't' even have to see it. but if you did then tough dibbly s***T. lots of things I don't want to see but have to just deal with.

"what was the murder rate last year"
"150 sir"
"what is it this year after gun ban"
"150 sir"
"success"

because that doesn't make sense unless the goal isnt' to stop deaths but to control people.

Monash University shooting - In October 2002, Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

2011 Hectorville siege - A mass shooting that took place on Friday, April 29, 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. It began after a 39-year-old male, Donato Anthony Corbo, went on a shooting rampage, killing three people and wounding a child and two police officers, before being arrested by Special Operations police after an eight-hour siege.[6]

seems to have been too. that are comparable to most mass shootings in the US.

as for homicide rates. whom. we have a larger population squeezed into a cities. we have gang problems. we have a population made up of ethnic and cultures from all over the world. we have drugs and crime flooding in from our southern border. wonder if any of that could have a negative effect on our homicide rates.....

crime has gone down since our ban on assault weapons and magazines was let to expire. hmm... but by your logic and others there should been blood running in all our streets, 1/2 or more of our population should be dead. i mean giving a 5-1 kill ratio of mass shooters and following the suggestion all gun owners will do mass shootings. and being there's 100 million gun owners. the death rate should be 500 million. so really our whole population, canada, mexico and some of europe should already be dead. yet none of that has happen. as stated crime has gone down as gun ownership has gone up. now the debate is if that's from gun ownership alone, probably not but its clear that the gun ban had no effect here.

also it appears you've had a few mass killings by fire over there. I'd rather be shot then slowly burn to death.