When seconds count, the police are only...seconds away

[pErvinalia]

His "you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted" is bollocks anyway. He's happy for the state to quarantine people, under threat of machine gun, who've potentially been infected with Ebola.

That's because spreading Ebola is "something wrong"

How can one being doing something "wrong" if they don't actually have ebola??

[pErvinalia]

His "you have to do something wrong before your rights can be restricted" is bollocks anyway. He's happy for the state to quarantine people, under threat of machine gun, who've potentially been infected with Ebola.

Oh, by the way, this is a classic example of the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

No, it's a classic example of you being totally retarded at prosecuting an argument.

[Hermit]

To begin with, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that firearms regulations do not per se equal a blanket ban on all guns.

While this is technically true, as demonstrated by the fact that there are already more than 50,000 firearms regulations in force in the US

In 49 of your states an owner does not need a license for long guns, in 46 an owner does not need a license for handguns, In 48 of your states long guns don't need to be registered and in 43 of them handguns don't need to be registered either and 40 out of your 50 states have a "shall issue" policy on concealed carry firearms. What exactly do those already more than 50,000 firearms regulations in force in the US actually enforce? They certainly do not require licensing or registration in the vast majority of states, and I doubt they enforce the need for competence in handling firearms training and testing thereof.

What you keep thinking of as a ban on guns in Australia is in fact regulation.

It's both. It's a regulation that bans the possession of certain types of firearms

Not much of a ban when 80% of firearms remained in private possession after the buyback scheme. As for the 20% that were bought by the government and taken out of circulation, they were weapons of the design that made them eminently suitable for massacres or designed specifically to kill human beings. Almost none of us are shedding any tears about their disappearance.

So, yes, cars cause deaths. They can even be used to intentionally kill people. Same with kitchen knives. Same with cricket bats. Same with the 80% of remaining rifles in private possession. While we regret those deaths, and while we continually work towards the reduction of such deaths, we tolerate them because deaths of humans caused by cars, kitchen knives, cricket bats, hunting and sporting firearms et cetera are not caused by implements that are designed for the primary purpose of killing people. They are unfortunate, incidental to the fundamental purpose of those implements and increasingly rare side effects. And that is why we don't ban cars, knives, cricket bats, hunting rifles, sporting pistols and whatnots even though they can and do cause the deaths of human beings.

You "tolerate" those deaths not because those items are not "designed for the primary purpose of killing people," you tolerate those deaths because those items have utility to the public for transportation, food preparation, recreation, hunting and sport shooting.

That is a very good summary of what I said.

you falsely assume that a particular type of firearm that you believe to be "designed for the primary purpose of killing people"

What is so false about it? To return to the car analogy, I can imagine that someone at some time has used an M1A2 Abrams tank to go out and do the shopping with, but that is not what the thing is primarily designed for, is it? Sure, you can go hunting with an Uzi, but an Uzi is not made to merely "to eject projectiles at a specified velocity in a specific direction for the purposes of putting holes in inanimate objects like paper and tin cans and the occasional game animal." It is designed specifically to kill human beings. You are being disingenuous now.

you can OWN a car without having to be licensed to drive it on a public highway, and you may drive any car on private property, particularly your own, without having to be licensed to do so.

Correct. And that is where the difference lies between cars and weapons that are designed primarily for the purpose of killing people. At least this is the case here in Australia and many other civilised countries. In Australia you cannot own an MG0815 just because you want to, no matter which cupboard you like to keep it in, and we are happy with that.

A firearm is an inanimate object that does nothing without being operated by a human being

No matter how true, the act of repeating an irrelevance does not make it relevant. We distinguish between things that are primarily designed to kill human beings and those that are not, and we do not want to see any of the former in private possession.

[Tero]

The gun dudes that do mass killings are always going to be there. We can reduce the more common redneck shooting his wife while drunk crimes by 100%. By taking away the guns of course.

So he'll just knife her or beat her to death with a cricket bat. And since SHE cannot own a gun for self defense, she's placed at greater risk.

She's not going to have a gun. She might be able to stash away a baseball bat in a secret place. he will "take care" of any guns she has.

[Seth]

The gun dudes that do mass killings are always going to be there. We can reduce the more common redneck shooting his wife while drunk crimes by 100%. By taking away the guns of course.

So he'll just knife her or beat her to death with a cricket bat. And since SHE cannot own a gun for self defense, she's placed at greater risk.

She's not going to have a gun. She might be able to stash away a baseball bat in a secret place. he will "take care" of any guns she has.

Maybe, maybe not. Who the hell do you think you are to interfere in her decision to have a gun if that's what she thinks she needs to stay alive?

[Tero]

It's not me. She gave away her gun rights when she married mr Redneck. He may allow her some use when he is in control.

[Seth]

To begin with, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that firearms regulations do not per se equal a blanket ban on all guns.

While this is technically true, as demonstrated by the fact that there are already more than 50,000 firearms regulations in force in the US

In 49 of your states an owner does not need a license for long guns, in 46 an owner does not need a license for handguns, In 48 of your states long guns don't need to be registered and in 43 of them handguns don't need to be registered either and 40 out of your 50 states have a "shall issue" policy on concealed carry firearms. What exactly do those already more than 50,000 firearms regulations in force in the US actually enforce? They certainly do not require licensing or registration in the vast majority of states, and I doubt they enforce the need for competence in handling firearms training and testing thereof.

That's because the facts show us that registration is neither necessary nor desirable and that licensing is most often used to interfere with law-abiding individual's rights rather than providing any realistic check on criminal possession of firearms. As for training, such laws are quite effective. The universal requirement for hunter safety education has reduced the incidence of hunting accidents dramatically. The vast majority of gun owners are also not complete idiots and fully understand the gravity of possessing firearms and so they obtain training voluntarily, at their own expense, and pass it on to their children as well. The NRA is the world's premier gun safety educator and has been for a hundred years. Through the NRA's efforts, accidental gun deaths have been reduced by more than 95% in the last century.

The laws enforce safe and lawful gun ownership and punish bad conduct quite severely, and the effectiveness of all these efforts is demonstrated in the huge number of guns in the US and the quite tiny number of gun-related accidents that occur each year.

What you keep thinking of as a ban on guns in Australia is in fact regulation.

It's both. It's a regulation that bans the possession of certain types of firearms

Not much of a ban when 80% of firearms remained in private possession after the buyback scheme. As for the 20% that were bought by the government and taken out of circulation, they were weapons of the design that made them eminently suitable for massacres or designed specifically to kill human beings. Almost none of us are shedding any tears about their disappearance.

Appeal to fear and appeal to the consequences of a belief fallacies.

So, yes, cars cause deaths. They can even be used to intentionally kill people. Same with kitchen knives. Same with cricket bats. Same with the 80% of remaining rifles in private possession. While we regret those deaths, and while we continually work towards the reduction of such deaths, we tolerate them because deaths of humans caused by cars, kitchen knives, cricket bats, hunting and sporting firearms et cetera are not caused by implements that are designed for the primary purpose of killing people. They are unfortunate, incidental to the fundamental purpose of those implements and increasingly rare side effects. And that is why we don't ban cars, knives, cricket bats, hunting rifles, sporting pistols and whatnots even though they can and do cause the deaths of human beings.

You "tolerate" those deaths not because those items are not "designed for the primary purpose of killing people," you tolerate those deaths because those items have utility to the public for transportation, food preparation, recreation, hunting and sport shooting.

That is a very good summary of what I said.

And firearms have utility to the public as well, particularly in the realm of personal self defense.

you falsely assume that a particular type of firearm that you believe to be "designed for the primary purpose of killing people"

What is so false about it? To return to the car analogy, I can imagine that someone at some time has used an M1A2 Abrams tank to go out and do the shopping with, but that is not what the thing is primarily designed for, is it?

So what? So long as the tank owner (and I knew one...he died a couple of years ago) operates the tank (or armored car, of which there are many street-legal versions on the highways) in a lawful and peaceable manner, what business is it of yours or anyone elses what vehicle he chooses to drive to the market?

Sure, you can go hunting with an Uzi, but an Uzi is not made to merely "to eject projectiles at a specified velocity in a specific direction for the purposes of putting holes in inanimate objects like paper and tin cans and the occasional game animal." It is designed specifically to kill human beings. You are being disingenuous now.

Strawman. I didn't say "for the purposes of...." I said that all firearms are designed for one, and only one thing: to eject a projectile at a specified velocity in a specific direction." What the target of that projectile is has nothing whatever to do with the design of the weapon. But let's posit, arguendo that an Uzi is "designed specifically to kill human beings." So what? Whatever it may be "designed" for, what is pertinent is how it is used. If it's not used to kill human beings, then its design purpose is entirely irrelevant. You might as well say that nuclear power plants are immoral because nuclear energy was "designed to kill people" since the first practical use of nuclear energy was to blow shit up.

Once again you are positing a fallacious appeal to fear and an appeal to the consequences of a belief. As I said, your objection is a "design" objection, or in other words it's an aesthetic judgment based on your personal fear and dislike of "ugly guns." If someone uses a gun to kill someone illegally, does it matter if it's a sinister-looking (to you) "black rifle" or the most beautifully designed and hand-built custom shotgun "designed" to shoot birds with? No, it doesn't matter. It only matters to you because you are mired in an irrational fear of firearms that you think have some maleficent "intent" or "purpose."

you can OWN a car without having to be licensed to drive it on a public highway, and you may drive any car on private property, particularly your own, without having to be licensed to do so.

Correct. And that is where the difference lies between cars and weapons that are designed primarily for the purpose of killing people. At least this is the case here in Australia and many other civilised countries. In Australia you cannot own an MG0815 just because you want to, no matter which cupboard you like to keep it in, and we are happy with that.

See above. You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

A firearm is an inanimate object that does nothing without being operated by a human being

No matter how true, the act of repeating an irrelevance does not make it relevant. We distinguish between things that are primarily designed to kill human beings and those that are not, and we do not want to see any of the former in private possession.

See above. You have an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

[Seth]

It's not me. She gave away her gun rights when she married mr Redneck. He may allow her some use when he is in control.

What makes you think she gave away her rights? Besides, there is rather a serious distinction between her abusive husband infringing on her rights because she's in a voluntary relationship with him and you (via the jackbooted thugs of government) doing so well in advance of any need she might have just because you don't think she will need to exercise those rights.

It's not for you or for government to say whether any person might or might not need a weapon for self defense, which is why it's a right, not a privilege.

[Seth]

Armed Citizen Stops Suspect’s Furious Assault on a Cop

by AWR Hawkins10 May 20150

On Tuesday, an armed citizen drew his gun and intervened to save an Oklahoma City police officer who gotten separated from his fellow officer during a foot chase and was allegedly being savagely beaten by a burglary suspect.

The incident happened at approximately 2 pm.

According to News 9, Rookie Officer Adam Eller and field training officer Sgt. Michael Lambert” responded to a burglary call, then became separated while chasing suspect Jermaine Williams on foot.

Eller was able to corner Williams in a driveway, only to have Williams allegedly fight instead of comply with arrest orders. During the fight Williams “was able to take Eller’s police baton and then proceeded to strike him over the head somewhere between six and 12 times.”

As the fight continued an armed citizen approached the two with his gun drawn. He told the suspect he was going to shoot if he did not stop hitting the officer. Williams complied.

Williams was taken into custody and booked into jail. Officer Eller was rushed “to OU Medical Center with serious injuries, but was released on Wednesday and is expected to make a full recovery.”

The name of the citizen who intervened to save the officer has not been released.