Australian comedian on social skills and why gun cntrol wrks

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds like I need to get in on this Australian black market gun business, I mean I can build an AR from scratch for much less than $34,000, hell, I could probably buy the tools to make one along with the materials and still turn a profit. I could make two and then flip that into CNC machinery and just print the suckers out, easy money.

Apologies I haven't replied sooner. I've been interstate at a funeral and only got 20min last night at the Motor Inn due to a faulty laptop battery. Anyways... I'm sure you wanted to know all that. lol

The shooting range was in southern AZ, so I guess you can work out what was going on there. And it wasn't an official range. I get the idea that such ad-hoc ranges pop up in certain areas.

As for traffic accidents and the like, yep! I didn't mention that I "fret over that" because that's not the topic of this thread. Some of the things she's told me about are indeed concerning. Just one example from many: Son-in-law got wiped off his Harley by an unregistered driver. Stuffed up both ankles and after hospital, he was in a wheelchair then crutches for months. They don't tell us everything, but last I heard, he was still trying to recover all costs from the other driver, with out any expectation of getting anything. Here in Oz, if that happened, you're covered under a common scheme for personal injury, from the accident and ongoing if needed. But again, that's not the topic of this thread, which is why you didn't "see me fretting" over something irrelevant.


Thanks for the congrats. If I recall (40 years ago), we used both .22 and 303 rifles. As for the depth of my knowledge/experience, let's see if that's an issue when I answer Dox - further below.


Back then (late 60's - early 70's), I'm not sure what the laws were. It was when there was less gun control. Our garage was brick and with a wooden side door. We would hang the target on the door. Our cars were never in it - Dad had it full of all sorts of junk. What were we shooting? We had .22 rifle and my grandfather's air-rifle. I remember when I was about seven, my brother missing the target once, with the air-rifle. He hit the brick instead, and it ricocheted back at my calf - stung like a nasty bee.

Now, onto Dox:



Hang on here a minute mate.

a. I didn't call you a "gun nut." I don't travel that way.
b. I picked up on two things that immediately demonstrated something of where you stand on this.
-- 1. Your avatar suggests you love guns. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, in and of itself.
-- 2. You said, "glad to see gun control being treated as the joke that it is." Let's break that into two parts (the aspie in me). You were "glad" to see people's opinions made a joke of. Being "glad" to prove someone's opinion a "joke" is more than just "dismissive" - to use your word. I sometimes become dismissive in kind, when I receive a dismissive response. That's not "acting superior," that's turning a mirror. Secondly, you treat those opinions as a "joke." That's a decided "bias with prejudice" (prejudice in the legal sense, not the common sense). How can you have a level discussion with someone who already thinks it's "a joke?"

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I see validity in arguments from both sides. And in an intelligent discussion, you don't dismiss people's opinions as a joke, especially not their whole case. Me, I'm far more likely to dismiss arrogance than opinion.

From 1998 to 2004, I was the head moderator of a Politics forum, half of which were Americans. I was elected moderator because the members all knew me as a "moderate" with a strong sense of fairness to both sides of a discussion. On the forum there was a gun collector from SC. He owns something like a thousand guns, mostly antique, loves to take part in battle re-enactments, and he often takes his 5 young girls out shooting, teaching them responsible gun handling. Also we had a US Army recruiter, very right wing, but a great level minded poster. Another was a pro-gun guy from Chicago, who I had the great fortune of having lunch with when I was sent there on business. And then there was Cookie. He's an ex-special forces Aussie who saw some awful stuff at Long Tan. As a gun-lover, he could see both sides of the debate, despite having to give up his guns in 1996 (though I wonder if he gave them all up.. lol). As a politics forum, we hashed the debate over gun control back and forth over seven or eight years. It always came back to the polarized views in the US, but as we all became mates, we learned to respect each others views.

You ask why you've made my case. My case is this.. If you're heavily invested in something, then you're going to defend it and be dismissive of the opposition views. That's why you'll never get a pentecostal to agree with an atheist. You have demonstrated both your investment and your prejudice. When people invest their energy, emotion, intellect, time etc in a thing, especially over a long period, any change of mind comes at a cost - I've been there, done that, bought the tshirt, and seen others pay the cost too - be it religion, a marriage, a belief, a job, etc.

Sometimes it's better to be willing to ask questions, than to be holding all of the answers. - I read something like that somewhere, I forget where.

Call me a ret*d, but if you'd made that clear from the get-go you wouldn't have had to clarify it.

Since you usually make the instant assumption that anyone who disagrees with any single aspect of your personal opinion is the exact opposite of you in every way shape and form, clarification is usually needed (and usually misinterpreted, insulted, or ignored).

As for the comedian, if you ever watch his whole (only slightly amusing) routine, it basically boils down to asking why anyone feels the need to make up BS reasons to justify loving guns?

The fact that it was in AZ means nothing significant to me where I could "work out" what was going on there. Arizona is just another state to me. When you say "range" I assume you mean a real shooting range which is under supervision.


Yes, well there are a large number of people that will fret and fuss over gun related injuries and fatalities as if guns are the single cause of all misfortune and that their demise would somehow ensure perpetual life and blissful wellbeing for all eternity or something. The sarcasm is intentional since I've been exposed to that kind of handwringing mentality long enough to call a pig?s ass pork.


That would make sense since the .303 SMLE would have been the previous service rifle for Australia back then, the L1A1 being current in the 1960's-70's. I have two No.4 SMLE's myself.


I?ll let Dox fisk that one out more thoroughly but I will say this about what you wrote down there.
The subject should be treated a joke and the proponents of gun control jokers since they have shown nothing to support their argument but emotion most often fueled misinformation and just plain ignorance.
Of course, you are free to make your arguments anyways but in doing so expect those arguments to be fisked out line by line by those who actually know what they are talking about. If there are resultant tears then oh well.

Yes, someone with a deep knowledge of any topic can usually be counted on to have a vested interest. On the other hand that person will also have the knowledge to base their argument from. The people who screech for gun control rarely if ever know diddly about the hardware, the method of operation, or current gun laws.
How can someone make an argument without knowing the first thing about what they are talking about?

Other than some competitive and backyard shooting 40+ years ago I?m not seeing much depth to your knowledge on the subject, either.

On the subject of debates, go up to the search window here and copy & paste gunz-r-bad into it. I have intentionally inserted that into most all of the gun debates to facilitate searches on that topic. Also as a wry summation of the gist of all the feeble rationale the gun haters have brought to these debates.
Go read though some of those debates and see for yourself.

BTW, right now I am assuming that you are actually being sincere.


It must have been a pretty tough door if it could sustain a hail of .22 projectiles.

You know me too well.


Most comedians are idiots.

Would you care to explain why you assert this? If it's based on the supposition that comedy routines should be fact-based and well-researched, you're missing the point of comedy.

Because I am an asserter of all things controversial and a artist in the medium of butthurt.


Fact based and well researched comedy would be boring. If you'd actually read what I said earlier in this thread you'd have noted that I don't have much use for political humor. I find comedians that use their real life off the wall experiences (if told right and maybe even embellished a little ) to be quite humorous. I have a good sense of humor, albeit sick and a little sadistic at times, so any comedian that can't crack me up is incompetent when it comes to dispensing humor to the masses.

All humour is political, even if only on the very basic level of "I want you to like me". Politics is the art of persuasion, comedy is just one of many political 'genres'.



Rare is the individual who claims to have a bad sense of humour. Obviously it's all subjective, and the relative competence of a comedian can be measured either fiscally, or by simply listening to the reaction of their audience. The opinion of a single WP regular does not suffice.

Oh, and you haven't really explained your claim that "most comedians are idiots".

Close enough for government work.
Let your imagination fill in the rest.

Truth be told, you don't need to go down to the docks to reach the black market. You can actually now order anything you want online. Here in America, the U.S. Postal service will even deliver the contraband right to your doorstep for a small shipping fee. And you can bigger, badder, machine guns from Europe via the black market with an online transaction for a lot, lot cheaper than $34,000 and all sorts of other stuff too. They ship to Australia and England too. And to pay for the cost of the guns, you can also double your money with %99.99 proof counterfeit too.

Let the fisking begin!

You may have used different words, comparing me to a religious fanatic who's mind has long ago been made up and will not be changed, but the sentiment is the same; "obviously, you're biased, and therefore can be dismissed".



Let me translate; you took my avatar and a flippant comment, and made a whole bunch of assumptions about me based on those two things. Unfortunately, you're no Sherlock, and should leave the deductions where they belong, on TV. It's not like I'm a cipher, you could have easily clicked on my name and read my prior posts on the subject and seen how I've laid out my case over the years and supported it with reason and evidence, but you went with the quick and lazy snap judgment, and now you're trying to cover for your ignorant assumptions by reading way to much into my humorous statement playing on the fact that a comic routine was being presented as an argument for gun control. If I were having a "serious" discussion on gun control, which I've spent the last decade or so doing, I'd have approached things differently, but I don't regard this as serious.



That may be the case in a real discussion, i.e. not one premised on a comedy routine, or one that is new, but as I've said, I've essentially been having this discussion off and on since 2008 on this board alone, and as not one person has been able to make and defend a rationale case for gun control, I feel rather confident in dismissing the entire premise. Further, I'll note again that I've made several assertions supporting my position in this thread, that gun control has not been shown to have any real impact on violent crime besides weapon choice, that violence is much more tied to socioeconomic factors than to the availability of firearms, and that countries held up as examples of successful gun control never had gun crime problems before they adopted the gun control laws, which you've not answered nor put up your own rationale. Instead, you've devoted all your time to attacking me personally, not exactly a sign of intelligent debate, wouldn't you say? Also, don't try and be subtle when you imply that someone is arrogant or unintelligent, it's just insulting.



What's your point? How does any of that establish any credibility regarding firearms and the laws governing them on your part? You can get along with people and be seen as fair, congrats, but completely irrelevant to what we're talking about.



Actually, what I've demonstrated is my sense of style and sense of humor, you][i], on the other hand, have demonstrated a propensity to make assumptions, and then dig yourself in deeper rather than confront that fact that you might have been wrong. Yes, I like guns, I also know a lot about them and about the laws regarding them, all of which I came by honestly, having been raised in an anti-gun household and having to learn this stuff for myself. More importantly, I can address any and all anti-gun arguments and dismantle them with facts and reason, and have done so [i]ad nauseam here, which again, you'd know if you'd bothered to check before making assumptions, and I can cite factual bases for all of my opinions, in stark contrast to what is put out by the anti-gun side.

You mentioned chickens and eggs before, and you're assumption (noticing a pattern here...) is that I like guns and therefore am anti gun control, when the reality is that I came from the gun control side and came to like guns when I started actually looking into them and started discovering how factually wrong the anti gun people are, to say nothing of dishonest and emotionally manipulative.



I agree, if I'd never started asking questions of the gun controllers who were so certain of their righteousness and moral superiority, I never would have realized how full of s**t they all are.

Maybe you should have put that philosophy into action by actually looking into me before making asinine assumptions, would have saved you a lot of trouble.

My apologies for my incorrect assumption. I've mentioned the ad-hoc gun range in southern AZ to others, and they immediately know what I'm talking about... which is this.. there's a lot of spanish and illegals down there who apparently have a propensity for setting up those ad-hoc ranges. I was told this by my American son-in-law.


See, this is where I draw the line on any issue where intelligent people sit on both sides. If someone calls the other side's arguments a joke, then why should I bother wading in? Especially since it's been debated here over several years. Yes I have opinions and thoughts and questions, but I'm not going to bother raising any of them when one side has already made up their mind - not only made up their mind, but also calling the arguments of the other side a joke. Who knows, maybe you consider Obama a fool for taking the other side. Only a fool would believe something that has to be held up to ridicule.


Like you, I don't put a lot of stock in opinions from ignorance. And there's a lot of that kind of rhetoric on both sides of the debate. Catch phrases like 'guns don't kill people - people kill people' I tend to toss out in the same way I toss out other simplistic responses to any issue, regardless of which side they come from.

I prefer to listen to people who have taken the time to give proper consideration to the arguments. Experience isn't everything, but on that side, I've participated in a gun debate where gun users with a long history of use and great depth of technical knowledge, have acknowledged validity to some of the control arguments (no, not the simplistic ones).


I mentioned some of my shooting history to correct any assumptions that I'm anti-gun, not to give any credence to my knowledge or possible arguments. I'm really not interested in getting into the actual 'debate,' because it's already been decided. It's a joke, right?

When it comes to such a prejudiced issue, I won't debate, but I will ask questions. And on that score, I was at first glad that Dox responded to my post with other information, which I wanted to ask more about. Then he had to go and add that gun control is a joke, and now you back him on that. Again, why would I bother if it's already decided? I came to ask questions, and ended up wondering why I bothered.


I will do that, thank you. I was wondering what search words to use. I won't of course bring it back here though, or even bother replying to that thread.


Thank you again. I can point you to my old board, if you'd like to ask about me. Being only a politics board (and not about anything else), it went dormant after all the arguments went in circles so many times over so many years, but some do still post there occasionally. Ask for a poster named 'AllHell.' He's an American back-woods, gun-loving, anti-control conservative - possibly the most pro-gun guy I know. Ask him about me. ( here: http://lastrefugeofthesane.yuku.com/forums/1/Welcome-to-LROTS/Welcome-to-LROTS )


They don't make things like they used to.

I called you a gun lover, just as I did with friends in my old politics forum. You took it to mean 'gun-nut.' when that was not on my agenda. If I had meant gun-nut, then I would have said it. I'm sorry you took it that way. And I didn't compare you to any fanatic, unless you believe pentecostals are fanatics. I don't.


I'm not the only one who took your "flippant" comment as not so flippant.

So then.... should gun control be treated as a joke or not?


Noticing a pattern? lol. Nope.

I asked a question, and I'm genuinely interesting in learning more about the chicken or egg angle. But you see it is a ploy or some such. I apologize if my shorthand requires a more detailed question.

As for bringing me into a debate on the issue, I'm not interested. Not when it's already a foregone conclusion. I didn't enter this thread to debate the issue. I can see validity on both sides. I came into this thread to ask questions. Thank you for your initial response, it was helpful. The rest has made me a little 'gun-shy' (to coin a phrase) of even bothering to ask more.

Ad-hoc shooting ranges are common anywhere where there is land available for them, not just in Arizona and it has nothing to do with illegals.


So go find an anti-gun argument that has any merit.


Mmm hmm, but you tossed this in early in this thread.

What conclusion are we to draw from that?


Why toss it out? It?s an old saying but perfectly logical. No one has ever been able to refute it without lying or resorting to emotion.


Yeah, we?ve hashed out all the ?considerations? here for several years. Next.

Shooting history does not automatically correct anything having to do with being pro or anti-gun. I?ve encountered enough anti-gun shooters and gun owners in real life not to dismiss a shooting history as automatically being indicative of a pro-gun stand.


Why keep bringing it up then?


There are probably dozens of them and most have been dead for quite some time. There will definitely be others in the future, though.


I?m not even going to bother with it because it don?t mean a thing here. For all practical purposes it?s part of another world.


I know enough about .22?s to know that a wooden door doesn?t make a very good backstop. At least not for very long, depending?.

So really you haven?t done much but try and bait people.


You gingerly take a half-ass stand and get called on it. After that you just tap dance around and repeat yourself a lot. Either s**t or get off the pot but don?t keep trying to keep this thread alive on life support. Make a point or don?t.

Ok, have it your way.
I tried. You've decided I'm baiting or tap dancing.
I came into the thread looking for reasonable answers to stuff. Almost immediately butted up against a clearly prejudiced response.
I can't expect to get the answers I seek from people who want to call the debate a joke, then label me as a baiter.
Clearly it won't get any better.
I won't waste any more of your time sir