So what’s the furthest position toward “pro-gun” that’s reasonable in your worldview? Maybe name an exemplar country’s set of laws, perhaps.
Well, good thing they’re both good guys with guns. And that they fired their magical bang-sticks of manliness into the air in an attempt to frighten off challengers.
You make it sound like I said that every gun suicide would be replaced by a hanging or something, I’m not talking about a 100% substitution effect. Are you trying to defend the ridiculous position that an absence of guns would result in the reduction of the suicide rate by the previous rate of gun suicides?
The gun buyback/confiscation in Australia began in 1996 and ended in 1997. So with so many fewer guns in private hands in 1997 and 1998, why did the gross number of suicides stay level for several years while the gun suicide rate dropped off immediately if there wasn’t some substitution effect (in fact, didn’t the aggregate suicide rate went up by 10% from 13.07/100,000 to 14.69 in 1997)?
Gun suicides used to account for 22% of all suicides and after the gun buyback accounted for 7% of all suicides and yet the suicide rate didn’t drop 14% from the pre-buyback levels until about 2002 which could just as easily be attributed to the economy or unemployment.
Not yet. You haven’t even proven that you have the better argument never mind one that would force me to admit error.
BTW, do you still think that the mere fact of having a gun in your home causes you to be three times more likely to die from gun homicide?
How many defensive gun uses do you think occur every year?
And do you not have a reply button because you clip quote in a way that requires more effort on my part to identify the context of the statement you are responding to.
He’s not trying to radicalize you. He’s just crazy.
Yeah we should disarm the cops too.:rolleyes:
That doesn’t sound like an apology.
Folks, this is a prime example of the combination of deceitful and stupid that Damuri Ajashi is.
Here’s his original quote:
There is evidence? Sure, it’s his cute little reference to “Australia, gun ban” as if he is the index of some compendium of knowledge. Okay, let’s have him show that evidence to us.
So he comes back a while later having grabbed something post hoc from wikipedia that says that someone found something about the rate of hangings using a data series that almost exclusively predated the gun ban. So, his evidence of the effect of the gun ban on suicide-method substitution comes before the gun ban. Oh and also too all those people who show the opposite haven’t taking into account the anti-suicide campaigns of the early 1990s!
So, his “evidence” turns out to be complete bullshit. Does he have the integrity to acknowledge this? No, he’s a deceitful little shit.
He has nothing to say about the actual evidence, such as that cited in my post here.
All he can do is cling to a wiki-grab and spit bullshit. His latest claim is this:
Look, again he’s trying to talk about changes that occurred prior to the completion of the gun buy back, also without providing a link or actual data.
Here’s the actual data as to the rate of suicide following the gun ban/buyback period (from here:
Suicides by year in Australia:
1997: 2,722
1998: 2,683
1999: 2,492
2000: 2,367
2001: 2,457
2002: 2,320
2003: 2,214
2004: 2,098
2005: 2,102
2006: 1,799
A steady decline in the period following. In addition, if you look at the report, Figure 2.2 demonstrates that not only was there a decline, but by 2006 the rate of suicides among men had fallen to their lowest point it at least 30 years.
bolding mine.
As to the rate of suicide, this is false. Please cite your sources. The rate of suicide in Australia using actual data sources has fallen precipitously since 1998.
As to your purported explanation, this is just pure spitballing. But note that you are not arguing at this point that people simply substitute other methods of suicide. You’re now arguing that the economy or unemployment explains why you don’t see the effect you’re claiming is there.
Are you a man? Do you have any integrity whatsoever? You appear to lack any sense of shame, that’s for sure.
There’s part of the difference. Ted Nugent is consistent and honest. 
Name almost any fucking other one anywhere. The UK and Australia are good ones, for instance. Surely you’re not going to tell us how they’re groaning under the crush of tyranny, helpless without their ability to fight back against the government jackboots, are you? Oh wait, you are? Or some of your allies are going to? Really? 
You’re *really *having trouble grasping that the US’s laws, and the size of its gun-fetish culture, are on the extreme howling nutbag end of the spectrum, aren’t you?
You can’t turn the USA into the UK or Australia simply by restricting guns. And no, it isn’t the “gun fetish culture” that’s the reason. Overall, the gun violence rate closely correlates with how big an impoverished underclass a nation has. Australia has little, the UK only moderate, the USA substantial, and some Latin American nations with endemic poverty have even worse gun crime problems than the USA.
Seriously, subtract gang and drug related gun violence and the rest of society has very little problem with guns. And conversely, do you really think that an entire barbaric alternate sub-culture, which has virtually seceeded from civilization as we know it, can be effectively disarmed?
If this is true, it should be evident in the data. Cite?
Who wants to? The goal is to make our own country a better, safer, more decent place to live. Are you opposed to that?
At least you seem to be recognizing that it exists. Yes, as a major social entity rather than a few nutjobs, that culture is pretty much unique to the US.
There’s also the domestic violence problem, and the uncontrolled-anger problem, and the suicide problem, and the damn-idiot problem in all of its manifestations, all of which society most certainly does have a problem with. But yes, except for the gun problem, we don’t have a gun problem. 
I think we all know that very few of the self-styled militia types would dare to risk their own precious hides if they found themselves up against a law enforcement operation of any size. They certainly wouldn’t have the self-discipline to start to join forces and “well-regulate” themselves. Nobody came to help at Ruby Ridge or Waco, did they? Nobody. Besides, if they really are “law-abiding citizens” as they stereotypically claim to be, then they can be expected to abide the law, right? Or are you telling us otherwise?
Apparently all the whacko-helping-whacko religious pedophile gun-toting troglodyte crime supporters were busy that day.
Ya think?
No, but banning guns will work about as well as banning alcohol did; the effort isn’t merely useless but actually counter-productive.
I guess I didn’t add enough quotes marks and :rolleyes:
Meaning what? That if one person per decade in the entire United States dies from misuse of a gun, they ought to be banned? Because OF COURSE no one “”“”“needs”“”“” a gun. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Have you sunk to being a troll, or are you really that obtuse? I was referring to the inner-city “street” culture, not the pro-gun culture you seem to fear and loath so much. Do you actually think worse of them than gang member and drug dealers?
That has not been the experience everywhere else it’s been tried. Why are you sure of the opposite result here? You’re asserting your ideology, not data.
Haven’t you run out of straw yet?
The more net lives saved, the better. That’s basic morality. But you don’t quite get that. All you know is how good that shaft feels in your hand, right?
If only that were all of the problem. If only. But it’s only a small fraction of is, as you’ve been shown repeatedly in this thread (btw, thanks for your efforts, Hentor). But you *know *it isn’t so, even though indulging in yahoo racism (“inner-city street culture” indeed - who do you think you’re fooling? :rolleyes:) instead of confronting the real problem is obviously another thing that makes you feel good.
Killers are killers. Even when they’ve been “law-abiding citizens” up to that point. What difference does it make to the dead?
No, using those examples was just to show how the people spouting about militias and resisting tyranny and “Second Amendment solutions” are pretty much all a bunch of damn cowards, full of bluster that makes them feel self-righteous and important, but who still know how hollow they are. We’ve even got people in the last few pages of this very thread telling us how punching a few holes in a piece of paper down at the range constitutes “well-regulating” themselves for participation in a militia, whose orders they’d follow if they felt like it.
Come on, guys. You’re not fooling anyone. You’re a bunch of fucking loudmouth cowards. The feeling of courage you get by hauling around a device intended to kill other people is an illusion. If you had any real courage, you wouldn’t need it. If you gave a shit about the world you live in, or even about anybody but your own damn self, you wouldn’t invent these fears about it that you use to justify doing something that makes you feel adequate, but really only makes you a fucking menace. It’s time to grow up.
I wish I could buy you a tall cold one. You are my hero.
So in other words, you’re officially an idiot–I’ve proposed Germany’s laws as a starting point (although I’m very skeptical of their “need”-based rationale in general, I’m very on board with requiring secure storage and showing “need” for more than a few guns, and licensing/training mandatory) in this very damn discussion. TO YOU.
I’m not oblivious to it at all. It’s most certainly a tradeoff between “if I have a gun I can threaten someone else” and “if I don’t have a gun I can’t effectively defend myself against a gun wielder”. If I was, I wouldn’t…
…call for gun use policies much closer to, say, Germany or Scandinavia (licensed owners, registered weapons, required training).
[/quote]
You seriously just accused me of being against a position I’ve taken in the same thread while addressing you, and I’m the one with a problem grasping things?
Hell, if you took Germany’s laws and removed the “need” section from the issuance of carry permits (while keeping everything else, including the mandatory training and “personal adequacy” judgement call), I’d take it. Provided that judgement call couldn’t be used as a de-facto gun ban, but that’s one of the major problems politically with gun control–there are a lot of places where “may issue” IS used that way as the local political winds blow one way or another.
Thanks, crucible. 
Zeriel, it ain’t all about you, now is it? There’s more than one gun fetishist in this thread alone, and a helluva lot more out here in the real world. Get over it.
Now: Show me where I’ve accused your precious hurt little butt of anything nonfactual.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable starting position to me.
You do have to start somewhere, yes. But as long as more people are dying than being saved, you’re still only discussing the *degree *of barbarity, not its presence. And as long as there’s no willingness to work for starting somewhere, then any such position can be dismissed as self-soothing blowhardism.
What’s *unreasonable *about having to show you *need *a weapon of personal destruction? Is it the fear of government jackboots asserting tyranny that’s in play with that fear, or the fear of encountering The Other in some other form, or what?
Gun bans have been successful in countries with already low crime rates; IOW, gun bans only work where they’re predisposed to work. I reiterate my starting position: you can’t make a violent country peaceful by an (attempted) ban on weapons.
Having fewer unarmed victims would save more lives. But you don’t care about that.
It’s not my fault that white gangs have gone out of style (see When Gangs Were White by Anders Walker). I said “inner-city street culture” because that’s what I was opposing, regardless of the ethnicity of those participating in it.
Even the most rabid, paranoid, “we’ve got to prepare for Obama’s U.N. Islamic-Communist invasion”, camo-wearing, gun and ammo stockpiling preppers kill and assault surprisingly few people. They mainly want to be left alone.