USA - One person shot every 5.2 minutes

Discussion in 'World Events' started by James R, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    No Max, it's all about the numbers. Now go find some.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    quadraphonics:

    More insults?

    Maybe it's not just me and Asguard you have issues with. For some reason, you seem to resent all Australians. I wonder why. Do you envy our success or standard of living? Does our irreverance make you angry? Or what? You seem to think we're "colonials" who ought to bow down to the great U S of A or something. In short, you have some screwy perceptions and you seem to be an angry little man.

    It's a slippery slope. What if you think the government is becoming tyrannical, or is likely to become so? Do you stage a coup with your "citizens' militia"?

    Also, let's be real for a moment. What chance do you think your favorite citizens' militia would have against the US army, even with all your buddies' guns?

    Not Australians. The last poll I saw was about duck hunting in Australia. It was an online poll that was most likely stacked by the special interest group of duck hunters, but it still only came out 60-40 in favour of hunting. In reality, those who support duck hunting are in a small minority - basically, they are the duck hunters themselves (who comprise a tiny segment of the population).

    I don't recall any lectures. In fact, I haven't discussed any details of the gun laws passed in 1996.

    Please don't. We already have more than enough gun nuts.

    Are you saying it isn't?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Once again you avoid the uncomfortable question after making an obviously stupid statement.

    It's roughly equivalent to the Australian term "bogan", though perhaps with a little bit more country. (And while you're looking up "bogan", also check out "cashed-up bogan".)

    Not in the same one as you, though. You don't know anybody who owns a gun.

    It annoys the heck out of you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This is an interesting fantasy that I haven't encountered before. Is it just you, or common among Americans? See, from my point of view, you seem to have a desparate need to regard Australians and Canadians as inferior to yourself. I'm not sure why. I can only assume you're jealous or insecure or both.

    Here's an idea for you. What I think is that your fear of tyranny etc. is a hangover from your civil war. Australia and Canada never had civil wars, so we're in general more trusting of governments and our political systems. You like to imagine that you're all "free men who rule themselves", when in fact you're as dependent on your government as any other nation.

    Your perception of Australian history, like many of your views, is hopelessly warped. Australia was, from the moment of its establishment as a British colony, populated by people who were free to make new lives for themselves largely free of the strictures of the British establishment and class system. They were half a world away from Britain and as a result Britain's influence on the new colonies was limited. Australians quickly developed independence and self-sufficiency, combined with a healthy skepticism of class and an irreverance for authority.

    Your idea that Australia was built by "criminals" is also way off base. Even the earliest convicts were far from being criminals. People were transported to Australia essentially for trying to live - steal a loaf of bread to feed your family and it was life in Australia. But, besides the convicts, the Australian population was made up from the earliest times of willing immigrants searching for a better life.

    quadraphonics: You really make yourself look stupid trying to teach Australians about their own history when you so obviously know nothing about it. Isn't is about time you stopped embarrassing yourself?

    By which you mean you've read the odd linked article from the Age online - probably posted by me. And from that you've deduced a left-wing conspiracy.

    I believe you've watched Fox News, of course. Because that's American.

    Actually, the Australian media is similar to the US media in many ways. The main difference, contrary to your claims, is actually that we don't have the breadth of ownership you assume. This is not an ideal situation. On the other hand, it does mean that Australia's news journalists have limited options for employment, regardless of their political persuasion, and that tends to lead to more political balance in terms of basic reporting.

    On the other hand, as in the US, we have a lively tradition of political opinion writing. In that sense, some media outlets tend to display some bias one way or the other. Due to the size of the Australian market, though, no newspaper, for example, can afford to pander entirely to the Left or the Right in the same way that you in American can have a news channel like Fox that panders exclusively to the far Right.

    Murdoch's support of Fox's lies and sensationalism, by the way, is not entirely a reflection of his own political views. He is primarily interested in turning a profit, and the extremes sell in the United States.

    Perhaps. It turns out that many "law abiding" gun owners turn out to be not so law abiding after all when you look at the details. Along with their legal guns, many own illegal guns too. And many aren't very careful with storage and obeying all those pesky restrictions the evil government wants to put on them.

    All of which, of course, supports my argument that they shouldn't have any guns in the first place. They can't be trusted.

    There are dictionaries online. If you're confused about the meanings of the words "domestic" and "shooting", look them up.

    Not for much longer. Already, the US is basically mortgaged to China.

    Well, sciforums is mostly populated by Americans, and many of them tend to be insular and don't know much about the outside world. Like you.

    Anyway, I hope this post has given you a hint of what you need to do to start to correct just a few of your prejudices.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I see your point but I think there is some room for discussing other countries problems in a forum like this.

    Your media is a factor. Due to how effective it is, those who want to go berserk and take some people with them know that they will gain some notoriety. It’s somewhat hollow notoriety but depressed/angry/crazy people will not necessarily see it that way. They may see it as the fame and pity that they are craving. So not only does that unfortunately motivate rampage killers a little more, but it means that we hear all about it. We can’t help but read those stories. So we are pulled into your news a little more.

    What issues? Do you have any in mind or are just pointing out that every country has issues?


    Regarding the road accidents, when talking about motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 Americas rate is much higher than Australia’s, as opposed to work related incidents which you posted. The graph I saw was from 2002. I can find it if you want but it is getting off topic.

    Okay but countries, and their residents do get involved in other countries problems all the time, even America.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    james just to take up a point with you. There IS one major difference between US media and our own, the ABC. Even the age has at times panded to bias and the Sun\Advertiser ect are compleatly usless except if you want to know what the uneducated think of an issue (there online polls are so easy to guess which side will win for instance

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) but the ABC is LEGISLATED to give both sides of any political argument.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Asguard,

    Yes, the ABC is pretty good, despite being accused of having a left-wing bias (by those on the Right, of course).
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    There's a few others, to be sure. But nothing like a majority of Australians.

    I'm just responding to your bigoted slurs in kind. If that's the sort of discussion you want to have, then I'm happy to oblige. As S.A.M. has demonstrated countless times, it's a sure-fire way to derail people.

    Not at all. In fact, until I encountered you, I had an extremely high opinion of Australians. Still do, actually: you're more of the exception that proves the rule, than a representative.

    Depends on the circumstances; actual armed revolution is obviously the last resort. But the point is more that the government is vastly less likely to turn tyrranical, if they know in advance that the citizenry possesses the means to resist in kind.

    We've been over this before, you know. If you were half the intellectual you pretend to be, you'd have come up with some cogent counter-arguments in the intervening months, and be hammering me with those instead. Rehashing arguments that you have already seen the rebuttals to does not increase respect for your position.

    Pretty good actually; a great deal of said militia types are in the armed forces. The army officers would have a pretty hard time enforcing the whims of a tyrant, when most of their soldiers are busy stocking up ammo caches for resistance.

    And, likewise, the officers and political leadership are vastly less likely to attempt anything tyrannical, when they know in advance what the effect on military cohesion will be.

    There goes your faulty memory again.

    But you have cited it as a favorable example of effective gun control, no? If this is something less than an "endorsement," I'm left to wonder what exactly this particular split hair is supposed to prove.

    I'm not a gun nut. Didn't I just describe switching industries because I was creeped out by all the gun nuts? And I'm sure that I've informed you that I don't own any guns, nor plan to.

    Did you mean that you have more than enough people who would vote for legal gun ownership?

    Or are you just calling anyone who holds such a political view - regardless of their personal enthusiasm for guns - a "nut?"

    More asinine posturing. I'm confident that any reasonable reader can see the cheap dodge you're attempting here - complete with insults - so, by all means, dig yourself in deeper.

    Very good. Now, as to your overapplication of the term "redneck:" what's up with that? Do you actually believe that it accurately describes the huge swaths of the population you label with it? Or are you just throwing around ethnic slurs in order to piss people off?

    I know plenty of people who own guns. What I said was that my (local) friends don't own guns. Now where can I find these gated communities full of rich, gun-toting rednecks? Since your understanding of American culture, class and demographics is so salient, that is... ?

    Not really. It's just that your obtusity and childishness are baffling.

    And since when does annoying someone count as good-faith behavior?

    Your armchair pyschology is truly penetrating.

    But I wasn't particularly serious about that stuff. It's another of those reciprocal measures, to try to get you to understand how it comes off when you treat us to your chauvinist theories about American culture. And it worked, up to the self-application part: replace "Australians" with "Americans" in the above, and you have an apt description of James R. Not very pretty, is it?

    Especially when you add in the obliviousness to being parodied, and history of criticizing the introspective faculties of others.

    Only in the South. The rest of us feel quite justified in, and to a certain extent proud of, that particular application of government violence.

    For the rest of us, it's a product of the Revolution. Violent resistance of unaccountable, tyrranical governance is the cornerstone of American national identity. There's a reason why it's the second amendment, coming in behind only free speech, assembly and religion.

    And there's also an argument to be made that the rest of you don't need guns so long as America has them. This is pretty much already how it works when it comes to international security, and one could argue that the overbearing power of America, coupled with its support for democracy, obviates the danger to citizens of smaller allied countries of their governments turning tyrranical.

    More to the point, you never had a revolution. You retain the fantasy of the government as a benevolent parent, symbolized by the monarch on your currency.

    The question isn't whether we depend on the government, but whether the government depends on us.

    Outside of the libertarian fringe (who are admittedly highly over-represented on internet forums), Americans are pretty realistic about the importance of the government to their lives. It's more that we like to believe we can have all that without paying taxes.

    The only person who should be embarassed here is you, both for taking that tirade seriously, and for failing to see that it was a mockery of your own national bigotry in the first place. You know, approvingly quoting your head of government describing Americans as diseased slaves? Are you starting to get an idea of how that comes off?

    I've read the odd issue of the Age, as it happens. And I've also read various political criticisms of The Age. I've heard it called "The Guardian on the Yarra," for example, which seems quite apt in my experience.

    You say that as if it isn't basically a direct quote from the article I just linked.

    The question of whether individuals should have guns comes down to whether the government can be trusted.

    Nothing in the definitions of "domestic" or "shooting" contain anything about "accidental." This is at least the second time in this thread where you've introduced "by accident" as a condition after making a statement that did not imply as much. So either you're having trouble saying what you mean, or this is more cheap evasion. Either way, condescension is a counterproductive response.

    Ah, more blanket aspersions. If only we Americans could be so worldly and enlightened as you are. Then we could go around calling anyone who disagrees with us crazy rednecks.

    This may be the closest I've ever seen you get to genuine humor... still not quite there, but close.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    quadraphonics:

    You know, your posts are almost more interesting for what you leave out rather than what you put in. It shows we're making progress in some areas, which your ego won't allow you even to see, let alone admit.

    How does it go? Oh yes. "I don't believe you." Now, it's your turn to reply "Meh. Whatever."

    That's an untested hypothesis - a very weak argument.

    No. I mean we have more than enough on the looney fringe.

    It's not an ethnic slur. "Redneck" isn't a race or nationality or an ethnicity. It's more a state of mind.

    I don't think it describes "huge swathes of the population", either. It does describe a group that is loud and vocal every time the issue comes up in politics or on the internet.

    Aw, shucks. You make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside with your compliments.

    Backpeddling now? Ok then. I forgive you.

    I agree with you. It's a pity that a 200+ year old situation has made so many of you unable to adapt to the modern world.

    Nice try at diversion there, but it doesn't fly. We're talking here about private ownership of guns, not the military. That's quite a separate issue and you ought to know better than to mix up the two things.

    Again, you're a bit out of touch. A majority of Australians supports the idea of Australia becoming a republic, and has done for at least 10 years now.

    I'm glad you have some insight. That's twice I've agreed with you in this post. It's just a pity your insight doesn't extend to removing the normal US blinkers on guns.

    This is the second time I've had to correct you on this. Go back and read the OP again.

    The first (and only?) person to use the word "slave" in this thread was YOU.

    Instead of playing all hurt by the words of the nasty man who dared to question your country's obsession with guns, why not think about whether he might have had a point?

    I've heard worse things said about it. I'm kinda fond of the Guardian, too.

    I skimmed your article but didn't read it in depth. The impression I'm getting from you is that your entire perception of Australian media is based on a few internet opinion pieces written by outside observers.

    Here's a point of disagreement between you and me. Maybe the MAJOR point of disagreement.

    I think I was clear from the OP that those 276 people shot every day in the US include those who shoot themselves or others by accident. You have made several attempts to reduce the discussion to one about crime. Perhaps you feel you're on safer ground there. But I'm not obliged to conform to your restrictions.

    It works the other way around. As you become more worldly, you start to better understand the point of view of others. You develop an ability to analyse and compare the same issue, and that ultimately makes you more objective. Your instinct to try to "other" non-Americans is precisely the opposite of what you ought to be trying to do if you want to see the gun issue through a less biased lens.

    Unfortunately, I'm cursed with a dry, intelligent kind of playful humour that many people miss (for a number of reasons). Many Americans aren't too good at understanding things like irony and wryness, in my experience, and once again you fit the mould. I've been having a good chuckle all through my interactions with you in this thread, and playfully needling you. You've missed most of it.
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    200+ years of democratic self-governance doesn't count as a test?

    But, anyway, I'm happy enough for you to entrust the fate of your country to the untested supposition that an armed citizenry isn't important to freedom. All I ask is that you respect the prerogative of myself and my countrymen to make our own call on this question, and so refrain from slandering us for it.

    You also have a highly warped baseline for what's "looney" on this question.

    Which is to be expected, at this point: your own views on many issues are very far out of the mainstream.

    Fine then, a ethno-economic slur. Splitting that hair sure makes you look high-minded.

    And yet, you apply it far beyond that. Strange.

    Nope. I stand by my parody of you.

    The situation has not changed. It's not difficult to find countries where unaccountable governments exploit the inability of their subjects to resist state violence.

    Also, lectures about adapting to the modern world are pretty rich coming from somebody with a European monarch on their currency.

    And it's my contention that private ownership of guns is what ensures the US government's commitment to democracy. I'd presumed that that was clear from context, but I seem to have overestimated you. That, or you are playing dumb again. Apparently you find that more satisfying than responding with substance.

    And, indeed, did I not just congratulate you for leading the movement amongst Anglophile countries to give up on monarchy?

    But you aren't there yet.

    Personally, I'd be satisfied if your purported insight into US politics and culture was sufficient to understand gun politics without resort to attributions of irrationality.

    Oh, right, we're not "slaves," we're just "slavish." Good thing you split that hair. Somebody might have thought you viewed Americans as exhibiting the characteristics of slaves.

    Oh, wait... that's exactly what "slavish" means.

    I've thought plenty about the gun issue. Slurs from your head of government don't give me much meat to chew on. Nor do scare statistics.

    If you want to have a respectful discussion about the issue, then don't start a thread with a bunch of overt disrespect towards my nationality. Instead, find some substantial material that could serve as a basis for rational policy analysis. So far all you've provided is polemic and venom.

    Well, there you go. the Guardian is the British left equivalent of Fox News.

    And as you've mentioned before, sometimes certain things are immediately obvious to outside observers.

    And yet, not one you have anything substantial to say about, to date. So why keep responding? At least take a few minutes and come up with a substantive argument that addresses this question. So far, all I've heard is "nuh-uh" and "maybe 200 years ago."

    Dude, re-read the exchange in question. You said "police are too busy responding to domestic shootings to handle real criminals." To which I replied "are domestic shooters not criminals?" You then specified that you were referring exclusively to accidental residential shootings. I responded that "domestic shooting" doesn't imply accidental, and you told me to look up "domestic" and "shooting." To which I replied that neither definition says anything about accidents.

    Yet somehow this is me going off-topic, since you cited a statistic that included accidental shootings some time previously in this thread. And this is the second time in this thread that you've pulled this ridiculous stunt. Do you have a bad memory, or do you think that I do?

    Then it appears you have a lot of worldliness left to gain, incomprehending as you are of the ideas of others on issues so close to your heart as this one.

    "My" instinct? I've already informed you that that was a parody of your own behavior, not to be taken seriously as an indicator of my views. And suggested that you take the advice you offer here in response to it.

    It's not that I'm missing what you're going for. It's that it isn't funny. There's an extremely fine line between ironic wryness and overcompensation for insecurity. And chuckling at your own jokes puts your firmly on the wrong side of it.
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    yeah
    funny stuff alright

    as for redneck... they have a particular ancestry and a known geographic origin.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2009
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    what? Queensland? Because that state is FULL of rednecks (no offence Bells, your not one of them

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i am still waiting for your recommendations, asguard.
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    sure, my recomendation would be to look at the state acts which are in place here (will find at least some of them for you but latter because im waiting to see if our responce team gets activated because of the fire at the moment) and the acts which are inplace in England. Then i recomend that you abolish the second ammendment
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Thats pure hasbara.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    quadraphonics:

    I could hardly force you to do otherwise, even if I wanted to.

    That's because the mainstream is so often uninformed, and/or just generally dumber than I am.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The Australia Acts of 1986 removed all power of Britain and its monarch to make laws or carry out executive actions in respect of Australia. The remaining ties we have to Britain are largely ceremonial and sentimental.

    Why does the same not apply for the Australian or British or Canadian or countless other governments?

    You can hardly argue with John Howard that Americans do seem to be slavishly devoted to their guns. The phrase "cold dead hands" springs to mind for some reason.

    I don't think you're interested in discussing the issue. I think you made up your mind long ago.

    This is another discussion for another thread. I can't recall ever seeing blatant lies printed in the Guardian, but admittedly I'm not a regular reader. Fox, on the other hand, consistently distorts and lies about issues, as I understand it.
     
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    for howard of all people to say it really means its worth sitting up and paying notice. He was the most subserviant PM i hope we ever have. He seemed to want to turn the commonwealth of Australia into the 51st state of the US INSPITE of what the rest of us wanted. Therefore he is the last person i would expect to say something like that, it would be almost like Bush himself comming out and saying it
     
  19. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Perhaps, that's due to keeping your minds off your own problems?

    Of course, every country has it's issues. Australia has it's issues, too.


    I've already put up one issue that demonstrates a serious problem that is worse in Australia than the US.

    Fair enough, but again, this thread could have been handled better, but it only appears as another shot at America from James.

    Maybe James and Sam are one and the same member.
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    That is a very scary idea.
     
  21. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    SAMes R?
     
  22. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No kidding. That's why I didn't request you to stop applying force.

    What I asked for was respect. Or, to put it inother terms, civility.

    Is that another attempt at humor?

    And, again, have I not already congratulated you on this?

    However, there is something to be said for that sentiment.

    Who said it doesn't? In the first place, there are still quite a few guns in private hands in Australia and Canada (approximately 25% of households possess at least 1 gun in each country - also New Zealand), and also to some extent the UK (particularly Northern Ireland). And that's just the legal guns.

    In the United States, it's about half of all households, for comparison.

    In the second place, gun restrictions are fairly new in all of those countries, coming after a long history of widespread gun ownership in which democracy developed. In Australia and Canada, in particular, the restrictions are so new that it will be decades yet before those countries have any substantial portion of lawmakers who were raised with the assumption of a disarmed citizenry (not, again, that those citizenries are entirely disarmed).

    And, as I've just mentioned, those countries are all very close allies (or, better: dependencies) of the US, and so labor under considerable outside pressure to respect democratic norms and practices, regardless of what pressure their citizenries themselves exert.

    Meanwhile, how do you suppose Tiananmen Square would have played out if the CCP had had an armed citizenry to contend with? Or the post-election brutality in Iran? That kind of capricious state violence is impossible when the crowds are liable to fire back at you.

    Sure I can, and have done exactly that here. US gun policy is the result of a long, bitterly-contended political and social process, and the public exhibits a very wide range of attitudes towards guns, from creepy gun nuts all the way to left authoritarians with programs that would make even you blush.

    If we were slavish, there would be no internal controversy over our gun laws (and they'd be substantially more liberal). But that is not the case.

    That you only want to talk about the nuts, and then conflate them with all of America and so direct slurs at us, is exactly what is so offensive about your activities here. That you're narcissistic enough to call this "insight," even in the face of repeated correction, is particularly noxious. You've papered over the entire issue with a crude stereotype that you lack the spine to even question (let alone, substantiate).

    So apparently Charlton Heston represents all Americans now. Such insight.

    I made up my mind about Australia/Britain style gun controls a while back, it's true. But that doesn't mean a respectful discussion can't be had, or that there aren't other gun control topics that I am as-yet undecided on.

    Likewise, you give every indication of having made up your mind long ago, and don't appear to desire a serious discussion. Hence the selection of politicized, ethnocentric, disrespectful material for your OP in this thread. So you got exactly the type of thread you wanted: a mass of slur in lieu of a discussion. Congratulations.

    The issue in all cases has much more to do with selectivity, abuse of statistics, framing and politicization, rather than outright lies. Such media sources are - by design - incompatible with rational, considered discourse. They are blatantly politicized, and frequently ethnocentric and disrespectful, and so explicitly designed to evoke the sort of exchange that you've produced here.

    Is that what you were going for? If so, well, that's fine. Just don't expect to be treated as anything other than a foul troll. If not, well, you've made a hash of your thread from the outset.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    james and frazzleguard have never even been off their island.
     

Share This Page