Private ownership of firearms

Sebastian VIC • Posts: 137

51 19 Apr 2011

Jesse said:

TheSixthStitch said:

The problem with comparing deaths caused by car and deaths caused by gun is that a car is almost all of the time is used in a -controlled- environment: the road.

The other problem with the comparison is that cars serve a purpose beyond harming or the threat of harming others. The primary purpose of a gun seems to me to be to cause harm or pose the threat of causing harm to others (if you watch enough Hollywood movies, then you might add to that: opening locked doors). So when weighing up the cost-benefit of permitting the use of cars, you also have to consider the benefits of efficiency in transport - whereas in the case of guns the only costs/benefits to weigh up are those that relate directly to causing harm or the threat of causing harm to others.

I see what you are saying but what causes more innocent people to die? Cars. You can't get past that fact. Cars kill more innocent people than guns do.

Yes, there are more than just ads to try and bring down the death toll, but is that working? No, it's not and yet the greens are more concerned about banning 'machine handguns' (Bob browns version of a semi auto pistol a deliberate attempt to make people scared of guns using misinformation)

would it hurt to much to up the age of driving? say to 22 when people are more responsible. Nah, no chance that will affect a huge amount of people, we couldn't have that now could we? rolleyes

0

TheSixthStitch Aruba • Posts: 988

52 19 Apr 2011

Sebastian said:

Jesse said:

TheSixthStitch said:

The problem with comparing deaths caused by car and deaths caused by gun is that a car is almost all of the time is used in a -controlled- environment: the road.

The other problem with the comparison is that cars serve a purpose beyond harming or the threat of harming others. The primary purpose of a gun seems to me to be to cause harm or pose the threat of causing harm to others (if you watch enough Hollywood movies, then you might add to that: opening locked doors). So when weighing up the cost-benefit of permitting the use of cars, you also have to consider the benefits of efficiency in transport - whereas in the case of guns the only costs/benefits to weigh up are those that relate directly to causing harm or the threat of causing harm to others.

I see what you are saying but what causes more innocent people to die? Cars. You can't get past that fact. Cars kill more innocent people than guns do.

Yes, there are more than just ads to try and bring down the death toll, but is that working? No, it's not and yet the greens are more concerned about banning 'machine handguns' (Bob browns version of a semi auto pistol a deliberate attempt to make people scared of guns using misinformation)

would it hurt to much to up the age of driving? say to 22 when people are more responsible. Nah, no chance that will affect a huge amount of people, we couldn't have that now could we? rolleyes

I think you might have missed the point. I was highlighting the problem in comparing car fatalities with guns because they are two very different things. You'd be better off comparing guns with other utilities designed to kill/maim/destroy, such as swords.

This:
" what causes more innocent people to die? Cars. You can't get past that fact. Cars kill more innocent people than guns do"

what of it? Heart disease is the number one killer in Australia. Heart disease kills more innocent people than cars do. You can't get past that fact... (do you see where I am going with this?)

+ 2

Sebastian VIC • Posts: 137

53 19 Apr 2011

TheSixthStitch said:

Sebastian said:

Jesse said:

TheSixthStitch said:

The problem with comparing deaths caused by car and deaths caused by gun is that a car is almost all of the time is used in a -controlled- environment: the road.

The other problem with the comparison is that cars serve a purpose beyond harming or the threat of harming others. The primary purpose of a gun seems to me to be to cause harm or pose the threat of causing harm to others (if you watch enough Hollywood movies, then you might add to that: opening locked doors). So when weighing up the cost-benefit of permitting the use of cars, you also have to consider the benefits of efficiency in transport - whereas in the case of guns the only costs/benefits to weigh up are those that relate directly to causing harm or the threat of causing harm to others.

I see what you are saying but what causes more innocent people to die? Cars. You can't get past that fact. Cars kill more innocent people than guns do.

Yes, there are more than just ads to try and bring down the death toll, but is that working? No, it's not and yet the greens are more concerned about banning 'machine handguns' (Bob browns version of a semi auto pistol a deliberate attempt to make people scared of guns using misinformation)

would it hurt to much to up the age of driving? say to 22 when people are more responsible. Nah, no chance that will affect a huge amount of people, we couldn't have that now could we? rolleyes

I think you might have missed the point. I was highlighting the problem in comparing car fatalities with guns because they are two very different things. You'd be better off comparing guns with other utilities designed to kill/maim/destroy, such as swords.

This:
" what causes more innocent people to die? Cars. You can't get past that fact. Cars kill more innocent people than guns do"

what of it? Heart disease is the number one killer in Australia. Heart disease kills more innocent people than cars do. You can't get past that fact... (do you see where I am going with this?)

No, cars are controlled by humans, and a huge amount of these deaths are caused by human acting stupidly and the only reason nothing will be done is because the solution will affect a huge amount of young voters and it won't be against a small group of people that the government can afford losing the votes from

0

TheSixthStitch Aruba • Posts: 988

54 19 Apr 2011

Sebastian said:

No, cars are controlled by humans, and a huge amount of these deaths are caused by human acting stupidly and the only reason nothing will be done is because the solution will affect a huge amount of young voters and it won't be against a small group of people that the government can afford losing the votes from

Again, I think your missing the point of cars: their utility. There is a great disparity between the use of guns as a societal past-time and the use of cars whose primary purpose is transport.

In respect to cars, I think you may have overlooked the fact that advertising, tighter speed limits, the installation of speed cameras, improvement of roads, police initiatives, changes in the design of cars (if you're old enough to remember, more than a score of years ago cars up late 80's/early 90's weren't designed to crumple - which negatively affected the chances of survival in a car crash. And then came airbags), and tighter regulation of licenses and registration. How can you say nothing will be done if so much has been done over the years? Check out the below link which is the statistics in road fatalities between 1908 to 2009:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/fatality_rate_1908_to_2009.pdf

If you want to talk stupidity, then I suggest taking drastic action against alcohol. In 2009 alcohol was a factor in a whopping -32%- of road deaths. Just over 1 in 3 fatal crashes in Western Australia involved at least 1 driver who was over the legal 0.05 limit and 52% of these crashes involved drivers who were 3 times over the legal limit. That's...pretty bad.

But of course, cars remain confined to the road and are arguably more essential to everyday operations than having a gun. A gun on the other hand has the potential to be used on the road as well as anywhere else, with -the singular function to shoot-

0

Sebastian VIC • Posts: 137

55 19 Apr 2011

TheSixthStitch said:

Sebastian said:

No, cars are controlled by humans, and a huge amount of these deaths are caused by human acting stupidly and the only reason nothing will be done is because the solution will affect a huge amount of young voters and it won't be against a small group of people that the government can afford losing the votes from

Again, I think your missing the point of cars: their utility. There is a great disparity between the use of guns as a societal past-time and the use of cars whose primary purpose is transport.

In respect to cars, I think you may have overlooked the fact that advertising, tighter speed limits, the installation of speed cameras, improvement of roads, police initiatives, changes in the design of cars (if you're old enough to remember, more than a score of years ago cars up late 80's/early 90's weren't designed to crumple - which negatively affected the chances of survival in a car crash. And then came airbags), and tighter regulation of licenses and registration. How can you say nothing will be done if so much has been done over the years? Check out the below link which is the statistics in road fatalities between 1908 to 2009:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/fatality_rate_1908_to_2009.pdf

If you want to talk stupidity, then I suggest taking drastic action against alcohol. In 2009 alcohol was a factor in a whopping -32%- of road deaths. Just over 1 in 3 fatal crashes in Western Australia involved at least 1 driver who was over the legal 0.05 limit and 52% of these crashes involved drivers who were 3 times over the legal limit. That's...pretty bad.

But of course, cars remain confined to the road and are arguably more essential to everyday operations than having a gun. A gun on the other hand has the potential to be used on the road as well as anywhere else, with -the singular function to shoot-

Ok, I see what you are saying, but are they so essential that it would hurt to lift the limit to 20-22?

You mention all these stuff but every night I hear about something being killed or injured in a car accident.

So lets take alcohol as an example, that has no purpose, much less than a gun and it would casue much more deaths than legaly owned firearms but people don't have to own a licence to buy some. They don't have to keep their alcohol under lock and key. Hows that fair?

This is another thing were nothing will be done becasue it will affect way to many people and the party that suggests reform will loose votes.

0

Kirrilly VIC • Posts: 2092

56 19 Apr 2011

Sebastian said:

TheSixthStitch said:

Sebastian said:

No, cars are controlled by humans, and a huge amount of these deaths are caused by human acting stupidly and the only reason nothing will be done is because the solution will affect a huge amount of young voters and it won't be against a small group of people that the government can afford losing the votes from

Again, I think your missing the point of cars: their utility. There is a great disparity between the use of guns as a societal past-time and the use of cars whose primary purpose is transport.

In respect to cars, I think you may have overlooked the fact that advertising, tighter speed limits, the installation of speed cameras, improvement of roads, police initiatives, changes in the design of cars (if you're old enough to remember, more than a score of years ago cars up late 80's/early 90's weren't designed to crumple - which negatively affected the chances of survival in a car crash. And then came airbags), and tighter regulation of licenses and registration. How can you say nothing will be done if so much has been done over the years? Check out the below link which is the statistics in road fatalities between 1908 to 2009:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/fatality_rate_1908_to_2009.pdf

If you want to talk stupidity, then I suggest taking drastic action against alcohol. In 2009 alcohol was a factor in a whopping -32%- of road deaths. Just over 1 in 3 fatal crashes in Western Australia involved at least 1 driver who was over the legal 0.05 limit and 52% of these crashes involved drivers who were 3 times over the legal limit. That's...pretty bad.

But of course, cars remain confined to the road and are arguably more essential to everyday operations than having a gun. A gun on the other hand has the potential to be used on the road as well as anywhere else, with -the singular function to shoot-

Ok, I see what you are saying, but are they so essential that it would hurt to lift the limit to 20-22?

You mention all these stuff but every night I hear about something being killed or injured in a car accident.

So lets take alcohol as an example, that has no purpose, much less than a gun and it would casue much more deaths than legaly owned firearms but people don't have to own a licence to buy some. They don't have to keep their alcohol under lock and key. Hows that fair?

This is another thing were nothing will be done becasue it will affect way to many people and the party that suggests reform will loose votes.

I think that comparing alcohol to firearms is really reaching. Just about everyone drinks. You are only affected if you drink to excess, which the majority of people don't. A firearm is unpredictable.

0

Sebastian VIC • Posts: 137

57 19 Apr 2011

Kirrilly said:

Sebastian said:

TheSixthStitch said:

Sebastian said:

No, cars are controlled by humans, and a huge amount of these deaths are caused by human acting stupidly and the only reason nothing will be done is because the solution will affect a huge amount of young voters and it won't be against a small group of people that the government can afford losing the votes from

Again, I think your missing the point of cars: their utility. There is a great disparity between the use of guns as a societal past-time and the use of cars whose primary purpose is transport.

In respect to cars, I think you may have overlooked the fact that advertising, tighter speed limits, the installation of speed cameras, improvement of roads, police initiatives, changes in the design of cars (if you're old enough to remember, more than a score of years ago cars up late 80's/early 90's weren't designed to crumple - which negatively affected the chances of survival in a car crash. And then came airbags), and tighter regulation of licenses and registration. How can you say nothing will be done if so much has been done over the years? Check out the below link which is the statistics in road fatalities between 1908 to 2009:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/fatality_rate_1908_to_2009.pdf

If you want to talk stupidity, then I suggest taking drastic action against alcohol. In 2009 alcohol was a factor in a whopping -32%- of road deaths. Just over 1 in 3 fatal crashes in Western Australia involved at least 1 driver who was over the legal 0.05 limit and 52% of these crashes involved drivers who were 3 times over the legal limit. That's...pretty bad.

But of course, cars remain confined to the road and are arguably more essential to everyday operations than having a gun. A gun on the other hand has the potential to be used on the road as well as anywhere else, with -the singular function to shoot-

Ok, I see what you are saying, but are they so essential that it would hurt to lift the limit to 20-22?

You mention all these stuff but every night I hear about something being killed or injured in a car accident.

So lets take alcohol as an example, that has no purpose, much less than a gun and it would casue much more deaths than legaly owned firearms but people don't have to own a licence to buy some. They don't have to keep their alcohol under lock and key. Hows that fair?

This is another thing were nothing will be done becasue it will affect way to many people and the party that suggests reform will loose votes.

I think that comparing alcohol to firearms is really reaching. Just about everyone drinks. You are only affected if you drink to excess, which the majority of people don't. A firearm is unpredictable.

What? You only kill people with guns if you use them irresponsibly, guns just don't fire off as soon as you pick it up, first you have to put a magazine into the rifle, then you have to work the action, then you have turn the safety off. The don't just go boom.

Plain ignorance

0

Kirrilly VIC • Posts: 2092

58 19 Apr 2011

If you're angry you can't kill someone by pouring vodka on their head. What's the comparison with alcohol about?

0

Sebastian VIC • Posts: 137

59 19 Apr 2011

Kirrilly said:

If you're angry you can't kill someone by pouring vodka on their head. What's the comparison with alcohol about?

Alcohol is not necessary and cause much more deaths than firearms do, and yet you don't have to have a licence for purchasing it.

Also if your druck and angry at someone you might just go over to them and bash them to death, but if you not drunk you might say 'she'll be right mate'

0

TheSixthStitch Aruba • Posts: 988

60 19 Apr 2011

Sebastian said:

Ok, I see what you are saying, but are they so essential that it would hurt to lift the limit to 20-22?

You mention all these stuff but every night I hear about something being killed or injured in a car accident.

So lets take alcohol as an example, that has no purpose, much less than a gun and it would casue much more deaths than legaly owned firearms but people don't have to own a licence to buy some. They don't have to keep their alcohol under lock and key. Hows that fair?

This is another thing were nothing will be done becasue it will affect way to many people and the party that suggests reform will loose votes.

I agree with you there. Political parties and governments are much too focused on securing votes and protecting their interests (e.g. donations made by industry businesses to persuade them to pass or not pass certain legislation). It's not a matter of nothing getting done as much as it is how little will be done.

Again, I agree with you on alcohol. On its own its purpose is to pleasure the consumer, intoxication being the consequence of this. At a glance, it's easy to say that it's a very passive past-time that affects only the consumer. If you compare it to a gun, alcohol is safer hands down, no question. Totally different purposes and no way comparable. BUT, it's not that simple. Alcohol affects the imbibers judgement and inhibition. If it screws up the person, it's very likely going to muck with whatever they do (driving, firing a gun, rape, etc).

I don't think enough is being done with alcohol, honestly. From an economist point of view, if you raise the age limit, it will have minimal impact, or very possibly make things worse. From a cultural point of view, we have social institutions such as bars and clubs, that focus on alcohol. What kind of message does that send to youngsters as they grow up and see the world? It's in our households, our venues, on advertising, and I know at highschool for us drinking was a sign of social capital. The more you drank the more badass you were seen as, which led to more credibility.

So what do you do? (ANOTHER topic tongue

) Limit the alcohol % in a beer? Ban it? Make people acquire an alcohol license If you've kids around, putting it out of reach or in a locked cabinet might be a good idea.

Just to reiterate earlier, I said I understand why laws require you to keep ammo locked separately, not that I agree with it. If this measure helps keep fatalities by firearm down, wouldn't you want to keep it if it meant one less kid was accidentally shot at home? But how do you measure that? How do we know that this measure actually works? I mean, it makes sense and is a possible pain in the ass for gun owners, and I'm sure most gun owners would put up with the inconvenience if it meant saving more lives, but that rests on the assumption that keeping ammo in a separate safe will help keep fatalities down, something that has yet to be quantified.

Edit: I can't believe I just used the word 'youngsters'

0

what are your thoughts?