Glocks and Duckfaces: Americans flaunt their new firearms on Instagram and Twitter. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38986838]'cause hitler didn't have the balls or the manpower to invade[/QUOTE] No, Hitler just didn't see the point. Nothing of value was there.

[QUOTE=cccritical;38986742]poland and france were able to defend themselves fantastically, and surely an armed civilian population wouldn't have helped them at all[/QUOTE] Oh right I forgot you were all currently in a war where the enemy were literally at your borders and the military where somewhere else and your citizens were the last line of defense [quote]instead of thinking of how many ways you can say that, try thinking of how many other daily tools used for things like cooking, sports, and self defense began as weapons designed to end another's life or to make other weapons more efficient[/quote] alternatively think of how many school shootings and armed robberies those javelins of yours were used instead of firearms [quote]from the top of my head: helicopters, jets, GPS, the internet, interchangeable parts, Jeeps, bows and arrows, javelins, knives...[/quote] hey remember all those times a revolver was used to save someone from being stuck in a storm on a mountain / at sea? Or the times where a - wait, when was the Internet wielded as a weapon? And don't say "oh people used the Internet to send a message to someone telling them to kill someone", I mean wielded as a thing used to kill a thing, no middle men, otherwise you could count a carrier pigeon as a method of murder for crying out loud. [QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;38986821]Uk managed to get buttfucked by air raids and buzzbombs multiple times though.[/QUOTE] Oh right, sorry forgot about the time where we got conquered by the nazis as a result of all of that Oh wait [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt.Sgt;38986892]No, Hitler just didn't see the point. Nothing of value was there.[/QUOTE] except from the best navy in the world at the time and an air force which essentially kept the Luftwaffe at bay for the entirety of the war Nothing of value, that's why he kept on sending as many bombs our way as possible, yepyep

[QUOTE=cccritical;38986886]why is it too bad[/QUOTE] Have you not seen the news lately?

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38986841]Silly Americans. Too bad its too late for strict laws like Australia.[/QUOTE] I've yet to see much that shows that they could have ever been successful here. Hell, it's argued (not that I fully agree with this since I don't know all the details) that the gun laws in Australia haven't accomplished much besides reduction in gun violence, and that's a worthless statistic.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986906]Oh right I forgot you were all currently in a war where the enemy were literally at your borders and the military where somewhere else and your citizens were the last line of defense alternatively think of how many school shootings and armed robberies those javelins of yours were used instead of firearms hey remember all those times a revolver was used to save someone from being stuck in a storm on a mountain / at sea? Or the times where a - wait, when was the Internet wielded as a weapon? And don't say "oh people used the Internet to send a message to someone telling them to kill someone", I mean wielded as a thing used to kill a thing, no middle men, otherwise you could count a carrier pigeon as a method of murder for crying out loud. Oh right, sorry forgot about the time where we got conquered by the nazis as a result of all of that Oh wait [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] except from the best navy in the world at the time and an air force which essentially kept the Luftwaffe at bay for the entirety of the war[/QUOTE] Well guns are middlemen. all a bullet takes to fire is a strike of the firing pin. Literally just a tube and a hammer would work

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986906] hey remember all those times a revolver was used to save someone from being stuck in a storm on a mountain / at sea? Or the times where a - wait, when was the Internet wielded as a weapon? And don't say "oh people used the Internet to send a message to someone telling them to kill someone", I mean wielded as a thing used to kill a thing, no middle men, otherwise you could count a carrier pigeon as a method of murder for crying out loud. [/QUOTE] First off, [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081162/Heroic-bystanders-jump-freezing-river-rescue-children-trapped-underwater.html"]yo[/URL] Second off, cyber warfare and cyber terrorism. You remember that time one of Irans nuclear facilities got infected with a virus that almost made it melt down? yeah me too.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38986928]I've yet to see much that shows that they could have ever been successful here. Hell, it's argued (not that I fully agree with this since I don't know all the details) that the gun laws in Australia haven't accomplished much besides reduction in gun violence, and that's a worthless statistic.[/QUOTE] We very rarely have gun related violence in Australia. But you are right the laws in Australia would never have worked in America.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;38985530]You cant even hunt with an ar-15 here in georgia. Its considered inhumane because it is such a small caliber that it takes 2-3 shots to kill a deer most of the time.[/QUOTE] yes you can, you just can't hunt with .223 there. if you've got one in 6.8 Spc or 300BLK you're good to go. the 2-3 shots thing is really about shot placement. I've hunted with a .223 and taken deer in one shot no different than if I hit one with .30-06

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38986941]Well guns are middlemen. all a bullet takes to fire is a strike of the firing pin. Literally just a tube and a hammer would work[/QUOTE] What What you're saying there is "people don't kill people, guns kill people" At the other end of the carrier pigeons / Internet / smoke signal was a person with a sword The sword killed the person, yes, but the person wielded the sword Likewise, a gun could have killed a person, but a person would have wielded the gun Sorry if I wasn't clear enough gawd, it's like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying in order to try and win this argument thing we're doing or something [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38986956]First off, [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081162/Heroic-bystanders-jump-freezing-river-rescue-children-trapped-underwater.html"]yo[/URL][/QUOTE] Oh hey look at that one time would ya look at that, totally destroys my argument, pack your things guys, guns are designed to save people from car accidents also [quote] Second off, cyber warfare and cyber terrorism. You remember that time one of Irans nuclear facilities got infected with a virus that [B]almost[/B] made it melt down? yeah me too.[/QUOTE] :v:

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986980]What What you're saying there is "people don't kill people, guns kill people" At the other end of the carrier pigeons / Internet / smoke signal was a person with a sword The sword killed the person, yes, but the person wielded the sword Likewise, a gun could have killed a person, but a person would have wielded the gun Sorry if I wasn't clear enough gawd, it's like you're deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying in order to try and win this argument thing we're doing or something[/QUOTE] Wait what We're not understanding eachother here I don't think I was saying that guns are middlemen as is they're the carrier pigeon of the message, the message being a bullet it's very difficult to kill someone with an unloaded gun, but it isn't hard to scrounge something up if all you have it a bullet

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986980] Oh hey look at that one time would ya look at that, totally destroys my argument, pack your things guys, guns are designed to save people from car accidents also :v:[/QUOTE] Theres been several other instances like that one, and that doesn't include when CC's prevent robberies/murders/muggings, but I don't feel like digging around for an hour to prove someone wrong who compares firearm ownership to owning nuclear fucking bombs. gg, you win I guess.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38986906] Oh right I forgot you were all currently in a war where the enemy were literally at your borders and the military where somewhere else and your citizens were the last line of defense[/quote] for starters america's geography didn't help poland or france so thanks for bringing it up and all but uh secondly they've got the Zeta cartel, who used to be military but now they sell drugs and kill civilians with military-grade hardware up in america lastly I'd like to point out that not only do I not own a firearm but I don't even live in america, I'm currently visiting family in texas but haven't made any plans to visit a gun store or go on a shooting spree or w/e, maybe next week? [quote]alternatively think of how many school shootings and armed robberies those javelins of yours were used instead of firearms[/quote] times have changed, astute observation obviously I don't have a compendium handy but both bows and javelins have existed since before written history and I'm p sure somebody at some point has used them to kill another, maybe they've even killed more people than guns have? (answer: yes, they have) [quote]hey remember all those times a revolver was used to save someone from being stuck in a storm on a mountain / at sea?[/quote] I could find plenty of stories of hunters encountering bears and only surviving because they had a weapon handy but you'd dismiss it as 'anecdotal evidence' lmao [quote]wait, when was the Internet wielded as a weapon? And don't say "oh people used the Internet to send a message to someone telling them to kill someone", I mean wielded as a thing used to kill a thing, no middle men, otherwise you could count a carrier pigeon as a method of murder for crying out loud.[/quote] notice I said "or to make other weapons more efficient" developed by DARPA for military communication, DARPA also created GPS to guide nuclear missiles with greater accuracy [quote]I mean wielded as a thing used to kill a thing, no middle men, otherwise you could count a carrier pigeon as a method of murder for crying out loud.[/quote] firearms need bullets to kill, therefore firearms themselves must be 'middlemen,' no?

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;38987022]Wait what We're not understanding eachother here I don't think I was saying that guns are middlemen as is they're the carrier pigeon of the message, the message being a bullet it's very difficult to kill someone with an unloaded gun, but it isn't hard to scrounge something up if all you have it a bullet[/QUOTE] A carrier pigeon would be giving someone the order to kill someone, whereupon the receiver would use whatever means at their disposal to carry out the deed, be it a sword or a gun or a rock. It would be very unlikely that they'd use the pigeon or the Internet or the smoke signal to kill the person. Shooting a bullet at someone being the equivalent of lunging for their throat or slicing a sword through the air, at least, that's what I meant. Also, I'm not an expert, but it'd probably be easier to bludgeon someone to death with an unloaded gun, than it would be to kill someone with a single bullet.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38987062]A carrier pigeon would be giving someone the order to kill someone, whereupon the receiver would use whatever means at their disposal to carry out the deed, be it a sword or a gun or a rock. It would be very unlikely that they'd use the pigeon or the Internet or the smoke signal to kill the person. Shooting a bullet at someone being the equivalent of lunging for their throat or slicing a sword through the air, at least, that's what I meant. Also, I'm not an expert, but it'd probably be easier to bludgeon someone to death with an unloaded gun, than it would be to kill someone with a single bullet.[/QUOTE] cook off [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSgGwdzESrE[/media] a bullet (or a handful) and a match are all it takes, no gun required

[QUOTE=cccritical;38987096]cook off [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSgGwdzESrE[/media] a bullet (or a handful) and a match are all it takes, no gun required[/QUOTE] Another exception A [B]big blunt object[/B] is easier to kill / injure someone with than [B]a small object that needs something very specific done to it to render it in the least bit harmful[/B], correct? Therefore, an empty gun is more dangerous than a single bullet, correct?

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38986959]We very rarely have gun related violence in Australia. But you are right the laws in Australia would never have worked in America.[/QUOTE] It's not just that though. It's that gun violence itself is an inherently useless piece of data when trying to gauge the effectiveness of gun control on crime, and the violent crime subset of that. Push a button, get rid of all guns overnight world wide. Disregard economic problems that pop up, and collapses in governments/infrastructure and anything else. You now have no gun crime. Does that make your button successful? Not on the basis of that statistic alone. If crime as a whole goes down, or at least violent crime goes down, then you could argue that it's successful. If it goes up, or remains anywhere close to where it was, you've accomplished nothing useful. (probably, more on that below) Showing that gun control reduces crime as a whole is a far more difficult thing to prove, and far more important, and it always seems to get overlooked by the "ban guns" movements. There is another angle on top of that too, if this wasn't a big enough web yet. Lets say that you extended the example above. You pushed a button and got rid of all the guns in the world. This time lets say crime rates did not change at all (obviously again accounting for trends, and any instabilities that may occur by this action). Are things safer, more dangerous, or the same than before? Well the answer is once again that it depends. Maybe violent crime rates haven't changed, but the lethality of incidents of violent crime has. That's a useful statistic. If you can show that banning guns outright even does this, you've got a case. Once again this gets entirely overlooked in these discussions. Can you see how ludicrously complicated this gets in a mighty damn big hurry? This is incredibly simplistic modeling, and it's already a righteous mess. No attempts being made to account for how to get rid of existing weapons. No attempts to account for cultural things, organized crime, political situations, etc.

All I know is that I would much rather walk down a dark alley in Australia than one in America. Its stupid to think that the strict gun laws hasn't had a positive effect in Australia. [editline]27th December 2012[/editline] We don't need guns, we don't have an established set of hobbyists to cater for.

[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;38987143]Another exception A [B]big blunt object[/B] is easier to kill / injure someone with than [B]a small object that needs something very specific done to it to render it in the least bit harmful[/B], correct? Therefore, an empty gun is more dangerous than a single bullet, correct?[/QUOTE] Jesus Christ! All of you, this is so far from the original point, kill this thread already and leave it alone!

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38987300]All I know is that I would much rather walk down a dark alley in Australia than one in America. Its stupid to think that the strict gun laws hasn't had a positive effect in Australia.[/QUOTE] As shown above, this isn't a good line of reasoning. It's allowing significant personal prejudice into your decision making.

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38987300]All I know is that I would much rather walk down a dark alley in Australia than one in America.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp6J6PF47CM[/media] I wouldn't. and by the way, Australia has a fairly high gun ownership rate

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38985642]If they were saving for something else, it's probably more valuable to them. The perceived scarcity only creates real scarcity.[/QUOTE] Are you actually trying to make sense of consumerism?

Why do people even start these massive debates on every article about guns any more? Americans will just cry about their stupid 'freedoms' and ridiculous reasons as to why everyone should own and have access to a gun.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38987340]As shown above, this isn't a good line of reasoning. It's allowing significant personal prejudice into your decision making.[/QUOTE] Think of all the people shot dead by cops in America and then look at how many people cops accidentally kill in Australia. Even after taking population into account you can't prove me wrong here less people die in Australia due to lack of guns. Ill look up some stats in a sec. There is one point, prove my " prejudice" wrong.

[QUOTE=cccritical;38986773]as a matter of fact I'll repost my previous argument to better facilitate this discussion please, somebody, tell me if I'm wrong about any of this both of those weapons have killed countless more humans than guns ever have, and, like guns, they're now used for recreational sports: all three are featured in the olympic games, played with variants designed specifically for competition and not slaughter[/QUOTE] I've had this argument thrown quite a few times. The knife isn't so much designed to Kill, it's a tool and you know it, for slicing food etc. Coming from an Archer the bow is a killing weapon, much like a gun, however, a Bow you can't really conceal, i mean really everybody is going to see you walking around with a 5 foot recurve, secondly it'd have to be strung in order to start a school massacre and third you cant just point and click a bow, it actually takes some serious practice to hit something reliably at any distance, as well as the arrow having a much larger flight time to it's target than a bullet. The Javalin I can only feel echo's the same points for the Recurve. Where as sadly, the gun is by far the most efficient and idiot-friendly weapon we as a species have created, which is what makes pistols so deadly, their incredibly concealable and fucking guardedly powerful in anyone's hand. With that said, i don't think banning guns is the right move, I'm well aware that owning a gun doesn't turn you into a suicidal murdering motherfucker. Much like i wouldn't support if England banned Archery. i do feel however, America needs tighter regulations on it, much like driving a car. Assault Weapons that function should really, really have so many hoops you need to jump through to get one, otherwise for collection purposes i would feel like the gun should be non-functional and be sold as being designed not to fire and be resilient against tampering. At the end of the day i feel like Gun control is (largely) a cultral difference between Europe and America, so it's kinda hard to sit down and have a logical debate about it sadly.

Ah I found it. [url]http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html[/url]

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38987397]Think of all the people shot dead by cops in America and then look at how many people cops accidentally kill in Australia. Even after taking population into account you can't prove me wrong here less people die in Australia due to lack of guns. Ill look up some stats in a sec. There is one point, prove my " prejudice" wrong.[/QUOTE] That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that your logic is extremely bad if you outright say that guns are to blame and do not mention anything else. There's a million other factors involved. You are saying that the average street is more dangerous in America than it is in Australia. That's a claim. One that I believe is correct, though I'm not fully informed on crime rates, specifically those in Australia. Extending that claim to say that guns are responsible for that is significantly more difficult, and this is what you are doing.

To the guy asking why we debate. Its fun and kills time.

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38987433]Ah I found it. [url]http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/261-280/tandi269/view%20paper.html[/url][/QUOTE] From the opening paragraph: [quote]This paper examines the use of firearms to inflict fatal injury in Australia between 1991 and 2001. It focuses on the five main types of fatal firearm injury: suicide, homicide, accidents, legal intervention - that is, deaths as a result of law enforcement officers performing their duties (ABS 1997), and those deaths classified as undetermined by the coroner (that is, cases in which it was unclear whether the injury was purposely or accidentally inflicted).[/quote] This paper cannot be used to advocate legislation for or against gun control as it does not mention the net effects of gun control on crime and the violent crime subset of crime.

I never said guns were to blame, sorry if it seemed like that. I just think Australia is better off without them.

[QUOTE=reevezy67;38987455]I just think Australia is better off without them.[/QUOTE] There is nothing objective about this statement without reasoning behind it. It may be true. It might not be. Without reasoning, and evidence, it's nothing beyond an opinion. One that may or may not be completely incorrect. There are a million factors beyond just guns. In order to make a statement like this, you must attempt to account for as many as are relevent/significant, and show that guns have an impact. You don't have to show that they have the biggest impact, just that they have an impact.