• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Australia's Gun Problem

The Atheist said:
That's why they are overwhelmingly more popular among criminals than rifles.
Click to expand...
Not in the USA from what I've read. Haven't seen any rifle vs shotgun stats in Australia although I've read knives are much more often used.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
The "infinitely" claims are hyperbole.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Obviously, just as your sentence is tautological. Infinitely is deliberately hyperbolic - don't you know how staggeringly huge infinity is?

Ranb said:
Not in the USA from what I've read. Haven't seen any rifle vs shotgun stats in Australia although I've read knives are much more often used.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Well, there have been plenty of crimes conducted using shotguns, most notably the Lindt siege.

It seems to work that where handguns aren't available, shotguns are the next choice.
 
Cleon said:
Since you know they don't make guns quiet by any means, why not?

You say that you have no problem with farmers and hobby shooters, since they're strictly regulated in Oz. Why not let them shoot with a little less hearing damage?

To me it's the equivalent of banning earplugs for motorcyclists.
Click to expand...
Because they can still use earplugs and over-ear protection (and many people do), which are products that are useful for other purposes as well. Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products, only enlarges the market, puts more products on the shelves and more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and distributors.
 
arthwollipot said:
Because they can still use earplugs and over-ear protection (and many people do), which are products that are useful for other purposes as well. Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products, only enlarges the market, puts more products on the shelves and more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and distributors.
Click to expand...
We could say the same for motorists yes? Don't like that unmuffled truck or motorcycle on the road next to you? Wear ear plugs. Don't like unmuffled traffic on the road along side your house? Move, insulate your house, or walk around with ear muffs on.

Or maybe we could encourage the use of devices that reduce machinery noise? Seems rather simple right? A loud gun affects much more than the shooter and the person next to them. There should be no reason why a person would object to the noise of a high powered rifle reduced from 165 decibels to 135 decibels, or a rim fire rifle reduced to 110 decibels. I've yet to ever hear of a rational argument opposing silencers from anyone.

Ranb
 
arthwollipot said:
Legalising a single-use product that is non-necessary and the function of which is quite adequately covered by existing legal products, only enlarges the market, puts more products on the shelves and more money into the pockets of the manufacturers and distributors.
Click to expand...

Horrors! Far better to tax that money into the coffers to support govermint eaters to police unnessessary regulations.
 
Ranb said:
We could say the same for motorists yes? Don't like that unmuffled truck or motorcycle on the road next to you? Wear ear plugs. Don't like unmuffled traffic on the road along side your house? Move, insulate your house, or walk around with ear muffs on.

Or maybe we could encourage the use of devices that reduce machinery noise? Seems rather simple right? A loud gun affects much more than the shooter and the person next to them. There should be no reason why a person would object to the noise of a high powered rifle reduced from 165 decibels to 135 decibels, or a rim fire rifle reduced to 110 decibels. I've yet to ever hear of a rational argument opposing silencers from anyone.

Ranb
Click to expand...


His argument is very rational for his goals. He doesn't want people having guns, and it's rational to make is more difficult and unpleasant to own and operate a firearm to achieve that goal.

The problem is that I don't believe most people, Aussie or otherwise, agree with his specific goal, and are basing their support on misunderstandings of what silencers are, how they work, and how they are used.
 
Ranb said:
We could say the same for motorists yes? Don't like that unmuffled truck or motorcycle on the road next to you? Wear ear plugs. Don't like unmuffled traffic on the road along side your house? Move, insulate your house, or walk around with ear muffs on.

Or maybe we could encourage the use of devices that reduce machinery noise? Seems rather simple right? A loud gun affects much more than the shooter and the person next to them. There should be no reason why a person would object to the noise of a high powered rifle reduced from 165 decibels to 135 decibels, or a rim fire rifle reduced to 110 decibels. I've yet to ever hear of a rational argument opposing silencers from anyone.

Ranb
Click to expand...
Invalid analogy (and slippery slope fallacy). I was talking about the shooter wearing earmuffs for protection against hearing damage, but you're right that it would indeed be annoying for bystanders as well.
 
tyr_13 said:
His argument is very rational for his goals. He doesn't want people having guns, and it's rational to make is more difficult and unpleasant to own and operate a firearm to achieve that goal.

The problem is that I don't believe most people, Aussie or otherwise, agree with his specific goal, and are basing their support on misunderstandings of what silencers are, how they work, and how they are used.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Care to tell me what my specific goal is? I mean, because you're an expert on what goes on in my head and all.
 
arthwollipot said:
Interesting. Care to tell me what my specific goal is? I mean, because you're an expert on what goes on in my head and all.
Click to expand...

You don't want people having guns. I believe I stated that in my last post. Is this not your goal? People not being able to get guns? Guns being as expensive and unpleasant to use as possible? Isn't that what you were getting at for silencers being illegal with all that 'discouraging manufacturing' stuff?

If not that, I don't understand your argument and I was wrong about it being rational.
 
tyr_13 said:
You don't want people having guns. I believe I stated that in my last post. Is this not your goal? People not being able to get guns? Guns being as expensive and unpleasant to use as possible? Isn't that what you were getting at for silencers being illegal with all that 'discouraging manufacturing' stuff?

If not that, I don't understand your argument and I was wrong about it being rational.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you don't understand my argument, but I guess that's expected. I've only explained it about nine times.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, you don't understand my argument, but I guess that's expected. I've only explained it about nine times.
Click to expand...

You don't want silencers to be legal.

You don't want manufactures to manufacture gun accessories because people will buy them.

I'm sorry, without what you said is not your argument, I don't see an argument. Why shouldn't silences be legal again? If you don't want to explain a tenth time, could you link to your explanation? I just see the one.
 
In short...

tyr_13 said:
Is this not your goal? People not being able to get guns? Guns being as expensive and unpleasant to use as possible?
Click to expand...
No. Neither of those things is my goal. If either of them were my goal, posting on an internet forum would be a pretty piss-poor way to achieve them.

My overarching goal, insofar as I have one, is to make Americans aware of how utterly ludicrous and horrifically dangerous their collective love affair with guns is, how the rest of the world sees them because of it, and perhaps to make a few of them have second thoughts about why they want guns. But that's beside the point.

My goal in this thread, as stated in my OP, is to highlight the fact that despite comprehensive and effective gun control laws, Australia still doesn't have a perfect record with guns and to point out some of the times when those laws have failed the people they're supposed to be protecting.
 
That still makes your opposition to silencers irrational.
 
tyr_13 said:
That still makes your opposition to silencers irrational.
Click to expand...
Retraction noted. But I don't hold to the opinion that some American "freedom"-lovers hold, that you need reasons to make things illegal and that everything should otherwise be legal. I believe that there are some things that should not be legal unless there is very good reason for them to be. I see no good reason to make silencers legal.

If you start from the position that things can be illegal unless there is reason to make it legal, then my opposition is perfectly rational.

"Freedom" is the biggest con ever sold to the American people.
 
arthwollipot said:
Retraction noted. But I don't hold to the opinion that some American "freedom"-lovers hold, that you need reasons to make things illegal and that everything should otherwise be legal. I believe that there are some things that should not be legal unless there is very good reason for them to be. I see no good reason to make silencers legal.

If you start from the position that things can be illegal unless there is reason to make it legal, then my opposition is perfectly rational.

"Freedom" is the biggest con ever sold to the American people.
Click to expand...

No, your opposition is still irrational. You're opposing a safety feature, essentially, 'just because'. Your seeing no good reason is an argument from incredulity. How does one identify those 'some things' that should be illegal as a proiri? There is no such thing. You can ascribe that to 'freedom', but that's not my argument. My argument is that logical reasoning and analysis for or against (tempered by desired ideals/outcomes) determines what should and should not be legal. This first part, by the way, is the definition of 'rational'.

Your advocacy does not match your stated goals. Your advocacy is much more in line with my analysis of your goals.
 
tyr_13 said:
No, your opposition is still irrational. You're opposing a safety feature, essentially, 'just because'. Your seeing no good reason is an argument from incredulity. How does one identify those 'some things' that should be illegal as a proiri? There is no such thing. You can ascribe that to 'freedom', but that's not my argument. My argument is that logical reasoning and analysis for or against (tempered by desired ideals/outcomes) determines what should and should not be legal. This first part, by the way, is the definition of 'rational'.

Your advocacy does not match your stated goals. Your advocacy is much more in line with my analysis of your goals.
Click to expand...
It's not a safety feature. If it were, then all guns would be required to have them. Because that's what a safety feature is. It's an accessory. And an unnecessary one. It's optional. If it were a safety feature, then I wouldn't be against it being legal.
 
arthwollipot said:
It's not a safety feature. If it were, then all guns would be required to have them. Because that's what a safety feature is. It's an accessory. And an unnecessary one. It's optional. If it were a safety feature, then I wouldn't be against it being legal.
Click to expand...

Things which are not safety features: car air bags
 
arthwollipot said:
On the contrary - they are safety features, and that's why they're required on all new cars.
Click to expand...

contrasted to flashing turn indicators, seat belts, which had to be retrofitted to all cars

air bags are not safety, but an accessory. And an unnecessary one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom