This must be faked...

[Seth]

As always, for the hundredth time: Seth carrying a gun may be beneficial to Seth. It is of no benefit to me.

That's because you live in Australia.

And if it's of benefit to me, and it's not dangerous to you (which it's not), then there's no reason why your paranoia about guns should constitute good public policy. Your argument is exactly as specious as saying that some other guy owning a car may be beneficial to him but not to you and because there exists the possibility that he might either accidentally or negligently run you down you are making a rational argument for the banning of all automobiles. It's paranoid, ignorant, idiotic nonsense of the highest order.

A single Australian carrying a gun may increase safety for himself.

And what's wrong with that? That's his right. It's not your right to interfere with his self-defense preparations based on your irrational fear of guns.

It does nothing to Australia. He is merely a new risk to Australia.

Since it "does nothing to Australia" then Australia can just fuck off and mind its own business, which doesn't happen to include allowing psychotic paranoiacs who have the reasoning abilities of an infant to set public policy with respect to the individual Australian's right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...The US does have a lower murder rate than most of the rest of the world...

If you like comparing your country to third-world shit-holes or failed states, then sure. Not otherwise.

One would have thought the US would prefer to compare itself to the developed world...

One would think that comparing apples to apples is appropriate, and when it comes to crime rates and criminal violence the US falls in the upper quarter of all nations, and it has a steadily decreasing crime rate in almost all categories, something which many other nations, including nations in Europe, cannot say.

And since we know that as even BG admits, the number of guns in law-abiding citizen's hands does NOT increase the homicide rates anywhere, and since we know that there are hundreds of millions more guns in circulation in the US than there were in, say, 1940 (pick any date you like) and crime rates, gun crime rates and gun-related accidents continue their steady DECLINE, the keeping and bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens absolutely does NOT increase crime or risks to the general public, and therefore it is irrational to consider further restricting such possession.

All the rest is just irrational anti-gun politicking and nothing else even remotely related to actual facts.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth wrote:

...The US does have a lower murder rate than most of the rest of the world...

If you like comparing your country to third-world shit-holes or failed states, then sure. Not otherwise.

One would have thought the US would prefer to compare itself to the developed world...

One would think that comparing apples to apples is appropriate, and when it comes to crime rates and criminal violence the US falls in the upper quarter of all nations, and it has a steadily decreasing crime rate in almost all categories, something which many other nations, including nations in Europe, cannot say.

And since we know that as even BG admits, the number of guns in law-abiding citizen's hands does NOT increase the homicide rates anywhere, and since we know that there are hundreds of millions more guns in circulation in the US than there were in, say, 1940 (pick any date you like) and crime rates, gun crime rates and gun-related accidents continue their steady DECLINE, the keeping and bearing of arms by law-abiding citizens absolutely does NOT increase crime or risks to the general public, and therefore it is irrational to consider further restricting such possession.

All the rest is just irrational anti-gun politicking and nothing else even remotely related to actual facts.

You certainly lead the world in denial.

[Seth]

More words from Seth in a gun topic. You can see the wrong rising like steam from a fresh turd.

That's what you see because you are living with your head up your ass.

Better than having a gun up my ass.

Others opinions on the beneficial social effects of you having a gun up your ass may vary.

Or a neighbour with a gun and road rage issues, or bipolar disorder, or alcoholism.

And your paranoid fear of your neighbors should be codified into public policy why, exactly?

There are far too many gun related deaths in the USA because there are far too many fucking guns! It's not rocket science.

It is to you. It doesn't matter how many guns there are in a society, it only matters who is in possession of them.

The UK has a gun related death every 2 days, on average. The USA has 40 per day!

And the UK violent crime rate is higher than that of the US and "gun related deaths" is a bullshit number to begin with and implies that it's other than one criminal killing another most of the time, which happens to be the case.

Your reply will be wrong. Please save yourself the pixels and think twice before replying.

Thinking once is adequate since you didn't think at all when making these bullshit claims.

[Seth]

And do you have a source for this racist bullshit, collector? The website shown is just a repository for images. Where do these figures/graphics come from?

Um, the Census Bureau and the local law enforcement. It's not "racist" to point out how crime correlates with ethnicity on a geographic basis. It's not even bigoted or discriminatory, it's simply revealing the facts. Crime is simply higher in minority ethnic areas. That's a fact. Why this is so can be debated endlessly as can ideas for reducing crime in such areas, but facts are not racist, they are facts.

And, if it's true, why aren't the NRA campaigning to have those nasty black people banned from owning gnus? And please don't try telling me those cunts are scared of a liberal backlash!

Because that would be racist, and the NRA is not a racist organization. It's definitely an anti-criminal-carrying-guns organization however, and consistently advocates for the federal government to enforce the existing federal gun laws against the felons and other repeat offenders of every race who illegally possess and misuse guns...something the federal government refuses to do because if it did, gun crime would drop drastically and then the Progressives and anti-gun forces in Washington would have nothing to bitch about and nothing to misuse to try to justify their demand for yet more "common sense gun control," which is neither common, sensible, nor will it "control" anything other that the law-abiding citizen's rights.

[Seth]

And do you have a source for this racist bullshit, collector?

There is quite a strong correlation between racism and stupidity, perhaps collector has a map that shows this?

Dunno, what are your GPS coordinates?

[Seth]

The self-defence argument that everyone should carry guns to be safe can be made clearer, if you exchange the guns for dogshit, in the argument.

Imagine that some dirty people take to carrying dogshit in bags, and smearing people with it.
According to the gun argument, the intelligent response is for everybody to carry their own dogshit, so that if someone tries to smear you, you can smear them first.

No, the gun argument says that you should carry a gun or other defensive weapon, like OC spray or a Taser to use against someone who tries to smear you with dogshit, or who tries to rob and murder you.

The principle is that the victim should always have superior defensive capabilities to his or her potential attacker in order to enhance the probability that it will the the shit-smearer who gets fucked up rather than the intended victim. The more potentially lethal the shit-smearer's weapon of choice, the more necessary that all potential victims carry guns with which to shoot the shit=smearers dead if necessary.

Now, about all that shit you've been smearing about guns and gun owners...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

The wrong is approaching critical mass.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

That's because you live in Australia.

Tero is as American as apple pie...

[Hermit]

That's because you live in Australia.

Tero is as American as apple pie...

Since when have facts ever impinged on Seth's consciousness? When I pointed out that I do not live in New Zealand he replied with words to the effect that this does not matter. When someone pointed out that Apophenia is not in fact an atheist he replied with words to the effect that because she posts in an atheist forum it is reasonable for him to regard her as an atheist. In general, whenever anybody points out a factual error he employs for the sake of advancing his argument, he dismisses it as irrelevant or simply denies that he erred in the first place.

[JimC]

That's because you live in Australia.

Tero is as American as apple pie...

Since when have facts ever impinged on Seth's consciousness? When I pointed out that I do not live in New Zealand he replied with words to the effect that this does not matter. When someone pointed out that Apophenia is not in fact an atheist he replied with words to the effect that because she posts in an atheist forum it is reasonable for him to regard her as an atheist. In general, whenever anybody points out a factual error he employs for the sake of advancing his argument, he dismisses it as irrelevant or simply denies that he erred in the first place.

[rainbow]

That's because you live in Australia.

Tero is as American as apple pie...

Since when have facts ever impinged on Seth's consciousness? When I pointed out that I do not live in New Zealand he replied with words to the effect that this does not matter. When someone pointed out that Apophenia is not in fact an atheist he replied with words to the effect that because she posts in an atheist forum it is reasonable for him to regard her as an atheist. In general, whenever anybody points out a factual error he employs for the sake of advancing his argument, he dismisses it as irrelevant or simply denies that he erred in the first place.

Yes, but it is an obvious fact that Seth is wrong 78.9% of the time.
...therefore he is likely to be wrong in denying that he erred.

[Seth]

The wrong is approaching critical mass.

Then quit smearing the forum with wrong willya?

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

That's because you live in Australia.

Tero is as American as apple pie...

No he's not, he just exists here, but he's Brit to the core, as demonstrated by his irrationality on the subject of guns.

[Seth]

That's because you live in Australia.

Tero is as American as apple pie...

Since when have facts ever impinged on Seth's consciousness? When I pointed out that I do not live in New Zealand he replied with words to the effect that this does not matter.

It really doesn't matter what country you live in, when you are wrong about gun control, you're just wrong, regardless of your location on the planet. It's hard to tell the difference between Brits, Kiwis, Aussies, Germans, French, Irish, or anyone else when it comes to gun control because they all have the same idiotic and thoroughly disproven irrational claims about guns.

When someone pointed out that Apophenia is not in fact an atheist he replied with words to the effect that because she posts in an atheist forum it is reasonable for him to regard her as an atheist.

Well, if she posts like an Atheist then it's not unreasonable to label her, or anyone else here, as an Atheist until otherwise demonstrated. As it happens we cordially resolved that issue and your bringing it up here is just more smoke and mirrors ad hominem to try to avoid actually having to address the OP, which is a very typical tactic that occurs here when people realize that they've lost the argument and no longer have any rational rebuttals.

In general, whenever anybody points out a factual error he employs for the sake of advancing his argument, he dismisses it as irrelevant or simply denies that he erred in the first place.

And what "factual error" was pointed out that is pertinent to the argument by making an error in addressing the place of residence of one or another members of this forum? Where Tero or anybody else lives is utterly irrelevant with respect to the strengths (or more accurately the lack thereof) of their arguments against an armed, law-abiding citizenry.

This is all just ad hominem misdirection and a tacit admission that you've run out of rational arguments supporting your agenda and beliefs.