//
you're reading...
Uncategorized

Oh No!

Reports have it that there is a gunman roaming around in the general area that I live in.

I could hear some helicopters flying around a couple of hours ago, oh how I hope the police have sniped the face right off this idiot.

Call me mean, but I think an absolutely ZERO-TOLERANCE policy towards people running around with guns is the only way to go. Shoot on sight. Ba da bing ba da boom, problem solved.

Guns aren’t legal to own in any way for normal citizens in here in Australia. And I can’t even understand the pro-gun people I talk to from America and other parts of the world. Guns are clearly a problem, they kill many people, therefore, they shouldn’t be allowed to be owned by normal citizens. I know criminals will always find a way to get guns, but how about you, normal citizen, shares the risks of not owning guns, the lack of real firepower home protection and the like.

I know you love your second amendment, but I don’t care for it, really. It was written when the most deadly types of guns were muskets, muskets which were horribly inaccurate, single fire, and took at least a minute to reload…………………compare that to a semi-automatic rifle of today……………yeesh!

Advertisements

Discussion

12 thoughts on “Oh No!

  1. Only reason the 2nd amendment was written was because in response to the rioting that preceded the war of independence, the British banned american nationals from having firearms, hence it was put into the declaration as one in the eye for the colonial masters, rather than a well thought out bit of policy

    Posted by Please Bring Me My Wine | January 3, 2015, 7:54 pm
  2. Guns aren’t legal to own in any way for normal citizens in here in Australia

    Might want to spend a few minutes reviewing the laws in your own country.

    The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.

    So that is either the first lie or mistake you’ve made in this screed.

    Guns are clearly a problem, they kill many people, therefore,

    Second mistake or lie. Guns don’t kill; they are inanimate objects. People are the ones who commit murder. Guns are also used to save lives. I’m always surprised at the complete unwillingness to even consider that aspect of firearm ownership. Kleck and Gertz surveyed people and found up to 2,500,000 defensive gun uses per year. That is 2,5 million crimes stopped or prevented by the presence of a firearm. How many more rapes, more assaults, more robberies, more murders would happen if firearms were unavailable to anyone but the criminals?

    I know criminals will always find a way to get guns, hilhow about you, normal citizen, shares the risks of not owning guns, the lack of real firepower home protection and the like.

    HUH? You want the criminals to have the edge? You want people like my 77 year old mother in law to have to fight off a rapist/burglar hand to hand instead of using a firearm? You want my 26 year old daughter to have to defend her 8 year old daughter with nothing but a broom or baseball bat?

    I know you love your second amendment, but I don’t care for it, really

    Your call your choice. No one is pushing you to own or carry a firearm. Yet in America, millions and millions of people do. It is estimated that over 50,000,000 firearm owners live in America. Let’s use the number of violent crimes and firearm related homicides — they are the highest numbers by far — our Bureau of Justice Statistics record approximately 485,000 firearm related rapes, murders, robberies, etc. Let’s round that up to 500,000.

    500,000 divided by 50,000,000 times 100 to get a percentage =1%. Accidental injuries and deaths are much, much lower. So the vast majority of our people are law abiding and safe.

    It was written when the most deadly types of guns were muskets, muskets which were horribly inaccurate, single fire, and took at least a minute to reload…………………compare that to a semi-automatic rifle of today……………yeesh!

    First they were not inaccurate — just limited in their range.

    Accuracy of the Brown Bess was fair, as with most other muskets. The effective range is often quoted as 175 yards (160 m), but the Brown Bess was often fired en masse at 50 yards (46 m) to inflict the greatest damage upon the enemy. Military tactics of the period stressed mass volleys and massed bayonet charges, instead of individual marksmanship.

    And

    The rate of fire ranged from one shot every fifteen to twenty seconds (3–4 shots per minute) with highly trained troops, to two shots per minute (one shot every 30 seconds) for inexperienced recruits

    Of course there were already weapons in existence like ‘volley guns’ where multiple shots could be fired at one time. Or the “Puckle gun” which could fire up to 17 shots per minute. So obviously the writers of the 2nd Amendment were familiar with the idea of high rates of fire.

    And I find it ironic that you are exercising the equivalent of our 1st Amendment – right of free speech — which was written at a time when parchment and quill pens were the predominate means of communication to cast aspersions on the 2nd Amendment. If you don’t want to be hypocritical; shouldn’t you give up your electricity, your computer, your internet connection?

    Bob S.

    Posted by 3boxesofbs | January 3, 2015, 8:18 pm
    • I love the care and thoughtfulness in your comment, thanks for taking the time.
      To be honest, parts of this post were just trolling kinds of phrases and thoughts, written just to get a reaction. And you’ve reacted with facts and numbers and statistics and a cool, calm head…..not the person I was expecting! haha
      But anyway, here’s my thoughts…….
      I do agree that owning a gun for home-protection is THE best kind of self defense a person/s could reasonably have. But having a gun in the house is pretty risky too, is it not – I mean, little kids, mistaken identity, drunk people, mentally ill people?
      And I don’t think it is a mistake or a lie to say that “guns kill people”, because they do. They were designed to do that very thing, and they do it pretty damn well. It’s factually true to say that people with guns kill people, and more areas with more guns have higher rates of gun crime, part of the solution to this MUST be tighter laws on guns? Surely?
      And the idea that an armed civilian could stop a mass shooting seems to be a fantasy, because it hasn’t happened (unless you know of a case).
      The first amendment thing – the right to think and say what you want is timeless and is the bedrock of any “free” society, lol (I don’t know if we have a free society right now, but you know) the 1st amendment can’t kill people, and if it is used to try to kill people, it becomes a very serious crime and is punished.
      The 2nd amendment is different, because it is totally time-sensitive to the early United States era, and it reads that way, but people still cling to it like it was written by Christ!

      Some interesting facts I found –

      1. For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

      2. In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

      3. A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault”
      Charles C. Branas, PhD, Therese S. Richmond, PhD, CRNP, Dennis P. Culhane, PhD, Thomas R. Ten Have, PhD, MPH, and Douglas J. Wiebe, PhD

      It just doesn’t seem worth the risk to own a gun, to me. If you own guns, then you’re a far braver man than me.
      Thanks for commenting, peace out! 😉

      Posted by sarcasticgoat | January 4, 2015, 7:32 am
      • SG,

        27 For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

        That isn’t quite what the study looked at and found.

        OBJECTIVE: Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide

        This was, in my opinion, a deliberately designed attempt to skew the impression of Defensive Gun Uses. No effot was made to look at the number of times a firearm was used and NO shots were fired, NO injuries happened, NO crime was committed, etc.

        And it should be common sense that most of the time once a firearm is prevented that no shows would need to be fired, no one would need to be hit, right?

        . In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

        Again you mis-state what is being reported on.

        note one — he killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

        yes, more people are shot and killed illegally then they are shot and killed legally. But that isn’t the same thing as “killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime’.

        Isn’t that showing the majority of gun owners, especially those who carry concealed, aren’t going around trying to shoot people?

        and your last study is probably the worst of all

        Our control population was more unemployed than the target population of Philadelphians that it was to intended to represent. Although we did account for employment status in our regression models and our control population was found to be representative of Philadelphians for 5 other indicators, having a preponderance of unemployment among our control participants may mildly erode our study’s generalizability. It is also worth noting that our findings are possibly not generalizable to nonurban areas whose gun injury risks can be significantly different than those of urban centers like Philadelphia.64

        Certain other variables that may have confounded the association between gun possession and assault were also beyond the scope of our data collection system and, therefore, were not included in our analyses. For instance, any prior or regular training with guns was a potentially important confounding variable that we did not measure and whose inclusion could have affected our findings (although the inclusion of other confounding variables possibly related to training may account for some of this unmeasured confounding).

        We also did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault. Although our long list of confounders may have served to reduce some of the problems posed by reverse causation,65 future case–control studies of guns and assault should consider instrumental variables techniques to explore the effects of reverse causation. It is worth noting, however, that the probability of success with these techniques is low.66

        in other words, they didn’t account at all for the possibility the people involved where dealing drugs, involved with gangs or other crimes.

        It just doesn’t seem worth the risk to own a gun, to me. If you own guns, then you’re a far braver man than me.

        Let’s step back and use a little common sense. If firearms are so dangerous, why are so few people actually shot or injured?

        There are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in the country. In an estimated 50 million households. Yet, total firearm related deaths are approximately 30,000 per year – and that includes suicides. Murder or negligent deaths are approximately 12,000 — just doing the math 12,000 divided by 50,000,000 times 100 to express as a percentage gives us 0.024% – and that is if ever homicide was committed by a different gun owner. Something we know absolutely isn’t true given multiple murders committed by the same person.

        nd the idea that an armed civilian could stop a mass shooting seems to be a fantasy, because it hasn’t happened (unless you know of a case).

        I don’t know of a case — I know of 9 cases

        http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.vxML3vkWZJ

        And more importantly — look at the statistics of what happens when armed citizens react to shooting versus waiting on the police to stop the shooter.

        The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

        The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

        http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/

        People with guns save lives.

        Bob S.

        Posted by 3boxesofbs | January 5, 2015, 5:07 pm
      • You’ve given me a truckload to read and research.
        I thank you for this, no one else has ever commented on my blog like this, I love it! haha

        I will get back to you when I have the time, probably tomorrow as it happens! 😉

        Again, I like guns, they are beautiful things. I just don’t think that guns should be readily available to anyone who wants to own one.

        Posted by sarcasticgoat | January 5, 2015, 5:17 pm
      • And just as a hypothetical……..
        If you bought a house that was completely safe from outside invaders…….totally safe house……….would you still own a gun, or would you still feel the need to own a gun?
        In other words, if the society you lived in was completely safe, would you still want to have a gun, or guns?!

        Posted by sarcasticgoat | January 5, 2015, 5:21 pm
  3. Again, I like guns, they are beautiful things. I just don’t think that guns should be readily available to anyone who wants to own one.

    how about this?

    Again, I like Bibles , they are beautiful things. I just don’t think that Bibles should be readily available to anyone who wants to own one.

    Care to argue that Religion hasn’t been the cause of more deaths then firearms?

    or how about ?

    Again, I like free speech , they are beautiful things. I just don’t think that Free Speech should be readily available to anyone who wants to blog

    how free speech?

    don’t focus on the inanimate object. Look at the Right that is being restricted. Can we save lives if every phone call is monitored (background checks analogy) — certainly.

    Can we save lives if a proficiency exam and class is required to be a parent — certainly.
    Can we save lives if ever marriage has to be approved by local law enforcement and renewed every 5 years — certainly.

    Is it worth the loss of liberty to do so?

    Bob S.

    Posted by 3boxesofbs | January 5, 2015, 5:26 pm
    • Absolutely religion has been the cause of more death than guns. I cannot argue that at all.
      And he blogging thing, you’re making fun of my Blog, many have, whatever.
      This has become less about guns than I’d have liked, but okay!
      Right then, guns definitely can save lives, but is it worth the risks? Not in my opinion.
      Thanks 😉

      Posted by sarcasticgoat | January 5, 2015, 5:34 pm
  4. And just as a hypothetical……..
    If you bought a house that was completely safe from outside invaders…….totally safe house……….would you still own a gun, or would you still feel the need to own a gun?
    In other words, if the society you lived in was completely safe, would you still want to have a gun, or guns?!

    In 2013, I gathered with friends and family to celebrate my 50th birthday. We had over 45 people shooting at the range, in complete safety (not one injury the entire day). We talked, we laughed, we compared firearms and abilities.
    I taught my granddaughter how to shoot — 8 years old shooting a single shot .22lr rifle. I spent time with my son and my wife watching them interact with fellow range members, people who read my blog, and family members. My daughter and her finance came out and we spent time together; with a huge proud papa moment where my daughter out shoot her finance.
    Earlier in the year I taught my sister in law, my nephew, his finance, and a friend of their’s to shoot.

    I own firearms that my father owned, shot for recreation and for target practice. I hope to hand those down to my kids and/or their kids.

    I’m the Membership Secretary for a private gun range that has 2,500+ members. I have made good friends and spent many hours talking and learning from the people at the club.

    Would I give up those moments even if the world was completely safe?

    Absolutely NOT.

    Why would I want to?

    Bob S.

    Posted by 3boxesofbs | January 5, 2015, 5:35 pm
    • Well that’s wonderful!
      that’s a life I could only dream of here in Australia.

      But if something was to go wrong, whose fault would it be? The gun’s? Or the person’s?
      I’m not trying to be a dick, I’m generally interested!

      Posted by sarcasticgoat | January 5, 2015, 5:53 pm
      • SG,

        But if something was to go wrong, whose fault would it be? The gun’s? Or the person’s?

        If someone in your house got injured or killed using a lawn mower, a stove, a knife — would you blame the inanimate object?

        if someone killed your spouse, child, friend; would you say it was the fault of the car, the bat, the rock?

        I think societies around the world, in both our countries, have tried to make everyone the victim; leading to the idea that ‘the gun is the problem’. Sorry but it doesn’t work that way. I accept that i have introduced more danger in my home with firearms. But I balance that by looking at the risk that I’ve reduced also. In America, the average police response time to a high priority request is 6 minutes.

        Try this — imagine your spouse being attacked for 360 seconds. Count them out, out loud, one after another while you wait for the police to arrive. Do you want to sit idly by or have an effective means of defending your family?
        is there a risk, yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely.

        I carry a firearm daily where I legally can. Why risk it? Because being able to do all I can to go home every night to my family is worth it.

        66% of all violent crime in America occurs away from the home, should I as a responsible husband and father/grandfather take a little risk to reduce a larger risk? Especially when you consider the odds — 80% chance — of being the victim of a violent crime in a person’s lifetime.

        Do you accept the risks every time you drink? Every time you start the car, leave a knife out on the counter/in the drawer?
        Do you accept the risk of the dozens of hazardous chemicals in your home?

        Do you blame them if you or someone else is injured? if not, why would you blame a firearm?

        Bob S.

        Posted by 3boxesofbs | January 5, 2015, 6:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Nerd Drivel

The stuff that you want to know about but were afraid to ask.

Food for Poetryy

eat, sip, travel, click, pen down poetry = Helps best reflect on life !

beth tremaglio

Climbing, rock climbing, bouldering, inspire, soul

R. A. Douglas

Dream big! Live bigger!

Pure Glory

The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims His handiwork. Psalms 19:1

Might be, I'm Wrong

I express here what I face in my daily life, what I see around me, what I think and what I feel i.e. EXPERIENCE of LIFE.

%d bloggers like this: