Posts: 1,131
Threads: 39
Joined: Oct 2016
quote:
Originally posted by HereOnThePrimalEdge
Isn't that what most people want? Gun owners who can aim, and use their acquired skill as a sportsman would? So when he/she goes hunting, their prey has a sporting chance (hence the term sportsman) and is brought down due to the hunters ability and aptitude? Not needing to fire 10 or 50 bullets in a few seconds so he/she might hit something? One might question the psychological state of a person who could find any sense of accomplishment or satisfaction in something as undemanding as that.
Actually, I question the psychological state of a person who wants to kill things for any reason other than subsistence.
Posts: 1,858
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2015
There are more subsistence hunters on this island than you might think G...
Posts: 1,455
Threads: 148
Joined: Mar 2010
quote:
Originally posted by PaulW
"A valid hunting license or watershed permit is required to enter the area."
So much for that, or does nobody check?
I last went to a rifle range a long time ago and I wasn't impressed, accidents just waiting to happen.
Hopefully it's different here.
There are good gun ranges, where a rangemaster is there to be sure anyone not following the firearm safety rules, and rules of that range, either obey the rules, or get booted out. Then there are ranges where the rangemaster is an idiot, and let's a young teen age girl fire a fully automatic weapon, and gets himself killed through no fault of the girl. It's common sense that you don't put fully automatic weapons, or, say, 12 gauge shot guns, or magnum level handguns in the hands of a newby. Recoil, in the hands of some one with no experience, can be brutal.
A gun store worker in the Seattle/Tacoma area told me, he's seen a number of new customers but a .44 magnum handgun and a box of ammo, only to return the gun with a box of ammo with one round fired.
If I went to a shooting range where the rangemaster was letting unsafe practices occur, I'd get the hell out and never go back.
This gun range near mile marker 16 will have nobody there, but the shooters. I've never been there, so don't know if it's common to be there by yourself or not.I would have liked to have a rangemaster there, the tougher the better, but maybe there won't be that many shooters there?
Jon in Keaau/HPP
Jon in Keaau/HPP
Posts: 4,216
Threads: 96
Joined: Mar 2014
I would have liked to have a rangemaster there, the tougher the better, but maybe there won't be that many shooters there?
---------
There won't be many shooters there because you have to have a hunting license - and many lawful gun owners do not hunt.
Posts: 1,557
Threads: 50
Joined: Oct 2012
Are there any shooting clubs in the area? With a place to shoot there could/should be. Shooting safety and technique along with competitions could be a 'thing'.
Okay Google... Who are these people and why ain't they working?
Posts: 210
Threads: 31
Joined: Feb 2017
Before I begin, I want to reiterate that my OP was not about being pro- or anti-gun control, but to try to show that you really can't compare with the United States a nation (Australia) having only 7% of the population of the U.S. and having a different history and culture.
"So you're saying that since 2014 the percentage of firearm-related murders has catapulted from 14% to over 50% ("a majority")?
I'd like to see a link for that, thanks."
A majority does not have to be over 50%. 38% is a majority over 37%.
[Note: In my text below, I'm using capital letters not to shout but because I find it easier than fiddling with html italics.]
In your research to prove me wrong, you must have seen the chart of Total Number of Gun Deaths. As I tried to point out in my OP, clearly this number has been declining BEFORE the 1997 gun-confiscation law. Using mean slope, I see two segments, from 1987 to 2005 when the number was 220, and from 2005 to 2016, where the slope is virtualy zero, or level. You can see that in 2016 the number of gun deaths actually increased.
Firearm homicides and suicides were falling from the mid-1980s onwards, so you could pick out any subsequent year and the AVERAGE firearm homicide and suicide rates after that year would be down compared to the AVERAGE before it.
The question is whether the rate of decline changed after the gun buyback law went into effect. But the DECLINE in firearm homicides and suicides actually slowed down after the buyback. Australia’s buyback resulted in almost 1 million guns being handed in and destroyed, but after that private gun ownership once again steadily increased and now exceeds what it was before the buyback.
In fact, since 1997 gun ownership in Australia grew over three times faster than the population (from 2.5 million to 5.8 million guns).
Gun-control advocates should have predicted a sudden drop in firearm homicides and suicides after the buyback, and then an increase as the gun ownership rate increased again. But the graph shows clearly there was no increase on average.
Having traveled extensively in Europe, did you notice that European countries such as Belgium, France, and the Netherlands have even stricter gun-control laws than Australia does, but their mass public shooting rates are at least as high as those in the United States? During the Obama administration, the per capita casualty rate from shootings in the European Union was actually 27 percent higher than the U.S. rate. In Europe every mass public shooting has occurred where guns are banned.
Let's consider New Zealand. After 1997, both Australia and New Zealand experienced similar drops in mass murders, even though New Zealand had NOT altered its gun control laws. It would be just as misleading for gun-control critics to cite only New Zealand as it is for gun control advocates to cite Australia.
Let's consider Switzerland. I tried to convey the idea that Australia has a different culture. If the U.S. has solely a “gun problem” and not a culture problem, then Switzerland should be a slaughterhouse. There are more weapons per capita in Switzerland than any other western nation, and yet the Swiss have one of the lowest crime rates in the west.
Relying on Australia requires a misreading of the evidence, and requires that we ignore what has happened in all the other countries with strict regulations.
"People of African ancestry.
The number of African-Americans is a reason why the USA wants and needs so many guns? Please do explain at great detail, I'm not following this."
Surely you've seen the statistics of how these people commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
"I've been to Australia many times, and I've been to Europe, where they are far more "socialist" but you are using the word as some sort of insult."
Your misperception.
Mahalo for that post Old Croc,
I know that took you a long time to get all down. Reads really well.
+1 on the (inner city) crime stats everyone wants to conveniently ignore while simultaneously gassing up most of the hype caused by them.
TYPE of gun will be next argument and the wheels on the bus will go round and round.
Posts: 10,991
Threads: 749
Joined: Sep 2012
Old Croc,
I'm sorry, but much of what you wrote is misleading or incorrect. For instance:
Let's consider New Zealand. After 1997, both Australia and New Zealand experienced similar drops in mass murders
The death rate from guns in NZ has varied from 3 to 15 per year. There is no trend one way or another. It goes up and down between 3 and 15 each year, too small a number to statistically indicate anything.
The European Union has a 27% higher per capita death rate from shootings than the US? Link?
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
Oh my goodness, so much basic knowledge missing in that post (and no sources), it's difficult to know where to begin.
I'm not sure I even want to debate anything with a racist. Maybe a bit later. You could start by getting a dictionary and looking up the word "majority".
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
"There are more weapons per capita in Switzerland than any other western nation"
Where do you get these crazy figures from? It would help if you named your sources. No wonder you're so misinformed as to the truth of what having liberal gun laws means and the consequences thereof.
|
