Where are the anti-gun nuts now? 28 killed at a Train station. 113 wounded.

[Simple Simon]

Well, if your happy to increase your chances of dying, go right ahead.  Acting sensibly can also turn a potentially fatal one into a survivable one, sadly, you will never be able to test that out.  Personally, I leave the hero stories to the comic book writers.  I will leave you to your personal fantasy of taking down heavily armed aggressors rambo style.  It's patently obvious that gun ownership for so called self protection  reasons and fantasies of being a hero go hand in hand.  For the insecure, it proves a powerful psychological technique to give them a feeling a pseudo sense of being powerful and strong.

My dad always said to me, if something doesn't sound true, it probably isn't true.

You just have to be trolling, no one could keep giving examples based on what "might" happen in a given situation.
Having a gun, not having a gun, could end up with you dead, all the statistics in the world isn't going to change the outcome of your individual incident.

If guns didn't exist then no one would get shot with one.
It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Guns do exist and people do get shot, hardly a surprise either.

Now as guns have been invented you had better work out a viable solution to your problem but you need to add the existence of guns into your equation.

[manuelsonn]

Once again, you fail to perceive overt differences between vastly different objects.  Cars and knives primary purpose is utilitarian, they help countless people, their primary purpose isn't that of killing efficiently.  Guns have ONE primary purpose, nobody is preparing dinner with their AK-47's or delivering freight across the country with their semi automatic pistol.  If knifes and cars served no other purpose than to efficiently kill people, then yes, banning them would make perfect sense.  Either you are an idiot who struggles to differentiate between a cat and a dog, or you are consistently obtuse because you have a self serving agenda.

ok, u obvisously u have a clear mind ; so please help me with that thing that i cannot undferstand (i agree with u )-- so guns are made for killing (people or not) and they make a pretty good job -10,3 dead at 100000 , i say ok , ban them. But now i have to ask, if we ban an objct designed for killing, who has a 10,3 efficency what we have to do with an object which isnt made for killing- a car- that has a even bigger  eficieny at killing people 10.9  that an object made for that (guns)- !! CAN U IMAGINE WHAT DAMAGE THE CARS WILL DO IF THEY WILL BE USED TO KILL PEOPLE IF THEY KILL NOW MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS ,EVEN IF THEY ARENT USED FOR THAT? u stupid troll

[Simple Simon]

Once again, you fail to perceive overt differences between vastly different objects.  Cars and knives primary purpose is utilitarian, they help countless people, their primary purpose isn't that of killing efficiently.  Guns have ONE primary purpose, nobody is preparing dinner with their AK-47's or delivering freight across the country with their semi automatic pistol.  If knifes and cars served no other purpose than to efficiently kill people, then yes, banning them would make perfect sense.  Either you are an idiot who struggles to differentiate between a cat and a dog, or you are consistently obtuse because you have a self serving agenda.  Guns serve a purpose in a farmers, hunters, military, or policeman's hands, they have no purpose other than to create a violent society in the hands of every citizen.  The question is, how many dead children will it take before that obvious truth is recognised?

Anyway, where I live, knifes are banned.  You can't carry one in public.

I doubt very much thats true, where do you live?

[chaos]

I doubt very much thats true, where do you live?

Fantasyland.

[Radical Plato]

My dad always said to me, if something doesn't sound true, it probably isn't true.

You just have to be trolling, no one could keep giving examples based on what "might" happen in a given situation.
Having a gun, not having a gun, could end up with you dead, all the statistics in the world isn't going to change the outcome of your individual incident.

If guns didn't exist then no one would get shot with one.
It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Guns do exist and people do get shot, hardly a surprise either.

Now as guns have been invented you had better work out a viable solution to your problem but you need to add the existence of guns into your equation.

lol, you're dad is an idiot, what he said wasn't true, because truth isn't determined by whether or not you like the sound of it you moron, truth is verifiable, testable and repeatable.  Truth doesn't give a flying fuck if you like the sound of it or not. It's patently obvious you have taken this fools wisdom and used it as an excuse to justify your obvious Confirmation biases.  I am convinced a simpleton could see through the falsehood of such an absurd cliche, yet you have obviously incorporated this ridiculousness into your perverse worldview.

ANd I have a viable solution, it happens to be the one my government adopted, we chose the option of minimising the chance of innocent children being shot by a crazed gunmen stalking the halls with an automatic weapon.  I know you find it hard to believe, but Australia is nothing like America, it is difficult to get guns, even for criminals, regardless of what bikies like Teutonic Knight say.  The last thinh the average Australian wants is to model Americas absurd society.

[Simple Simon]

Fantasyland.

Hes run away now hes fucked up, he has no idea what the law is where he lives, hes gone to check.

[Radical Plato]

I doubt very much thats true, where do you live?

This is where I live, Victoria Australia.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=26793


You can be searched for knives in a public place anywhere, anytime, with and without notice.

If you are 16 and over and get caught carrying a controlled weapon such as a knife, you face an on the spot fine of $1,000, or you may have to go to court and face a fine of over $14,000 or one year imprisonment.

This penalty is doubled if you are inside or within 20 metres of a pub, club or bar.

If you are under 18 you will no longer able to buy any type of knife, including kitchen knives or knives for school or work. To do so is against the law and you will face a $239 on the spot fine, or you could face court and a fine of over $1,400.

Anyone who knowingly sells a knife or other controlled weapon to a minor faces a fine of over $2,300.

[manuelsonn]

lol, you're dad is an idiot, what he said wasn't true, because truth isn't determined by whether or not you like the sound of it you moron, truth is verifiable, testable and repeatable.  Truth doesn't give a flying fuck if you like the sound of it or not. It's patently obvious you have taken this fools wisdom and used it as an excuse to justify your obvious Confirmation biases.  I am convinced a simpleton could see through the falsehood of such an absurd cliche, yet you have obviously incorporated this ridiculousness into your perverse worldview.

ANd I have a viable solution, it happens to be the one my government adopted, we chose the option of minimising the chance of innocent children being shot by a crazed gunmen stalking the halls with an automatic weapon.  I know you find it hard to believe, but Australia is nothing like America, it is difficult to get guns, even for criminals, regardless of what bikies like Teutonic Knight say.  The last thinh the average Australian wants is to model Americas absurd society.

what? to ban the cars because theyre killing more people than guns?

[Simple Simon]

lol, you're dad is an idiot, what he said wasn't true, because truth isn't determined by whether or not you like the sound of it you moron, truth is verifiable, testable and repeatable.  Truth doesn't give a flying fuck if you like the sound of it or not. It's patently obvious you have taken this fools wisdom and used it as an excuse to justify your obvious Confirmation biases.  I am convinced a simpleton could see through the falsehood of such an absurd cliche, yet you have obviously incorporated this ridiculousness into your perverse worldview.

ANd I have a viable solution, it happens to be the one my government adopted, we chose the option of minimising the chance of innocent children being shot by a crazed gunmen stalking the halls with an automatic weapon.  I know you ind it hard to believe, but Australia is nothing like America, it is difficult to get guns, even for criminals, regardless of what bikies like Teutonic Knight say.

My dad wasnt that much of an idiot that he failed to understand what the word "probably" meant when used in context.

My dad always said to me, if something doesn't sound true, it probably isn't true.

Way to totally fail to grasp any points made, if you aint trolling you are the dumbest fuck on this forum.

I know you ind it hard to believe, but Australia is nothing like America, it is difficult to get guns, even for criminals, regardless of what bikies like Teutonic Knight say.

Are you aware there are around 15 guns per person in Australia?

[Radical Plato]

what? to ban the cars because theyre killing more people than guns?

It gets tiresome explaining the difference between black and white to morons.  Cars  primary purpose is utilitarian, they help countless people, their primary purpose isn't that of killing efficiently.  Guns have ONE primary purpose, nobody is delivering freight across the country with their semi automatic pistol or driving to work with their hand gun.  If cars served no other purpose than to efficiently kill people, then yes, banning them would make perfect sense.  Not only that, there are countless restrictions imposed on driving and owning a car, countless laws, licenses etc etc all designed to minimise the potential for ACCIDENTAL injury.  Normal people just want the same types of effective legislation with other risky behaviour also, it just so happens in terms of guns, serious restrictions or bans may be the best preventative legislation.

[Radical Plato]

My dad wasnt that much of an idiot that he failed to understand what the word "probably" meant when used in context.Way to totally fail to grasp any points made, if you aint trolling you are the dumbest fuck on this forum.


Are you aware there are around 15 guns per person in Australia?

Are you aware you are an idiot, it's 15 guns per 100 people. ANd probably means 'almost certainly'.  Either way, what he said wasn't true.  Hope this helps

[manuelsonn]

It gets tiresome explaining the difference between black and white to morons.  Cars  primary purpose is utilitarian, they help countless people, their primary purpose isn't that of killing efficiently.  Guns have ONE primary purpose, nobody is delivering freight across the country with their semi automatic pistol or driving to work with their hand gun.  If cars served no other purpose than to efficiently kill people, then yes, banning them would make perfect sense.  Not only that, there are countless restrictions imposed on driving and owning a car, countless laws, licenses etc etc all designed to minimise the potential for ACCIDENTAL injury.  Normal people just want the same types of effective legislation with other risky behaviour also, it just so happens in terms of guns, serious restrictions or bans may be the best preventative legislation.

so its ok for cars to kill more people than guns just because the cars have other purposes? .. it doesnt matter that the cars kill more than guns because cars get u from homobar to daddyissues home , u dont want to reduce the number of dead person , only the number of dead persons killed by devices made for killing u stupid troll

[manuelsonn]

so u have two objects : one for driving and one for killing. Its ok to have the device for driving , even if it kills more than the device for killing ,because , well, it s made for driving  u dumb but funny

[Simple Simon]

This is where I live, Victoria Australia.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?document_id=26793


You can be searched for knives in a public place anywhere, anytime, with and without notice.

If you are 16 and over and get caught carrying a controlled weapon such as a knife, you face an on the spot fine of $1,000, or you may have to go to court and face a fine of over $14,000 or one year imprisonment.

This penalty is doubled if you are inside or within 20 metres of a pub, club or bar.

If you are under 18 you will no longer able to buy any type of knife, including kitchen knives or knives for school or work. To do so is against the law and you will face a $239 on the spot fine, or you could face court and a fine of over $1,400.

Anyone who knowingly sells a knife or other controlled weapon to a minor faces a fine of over $2,300.

Controlled Weapons

Controlled weapons are weapons that can be used for legitimate purposes but require regulation because of the possible danger they pose to the community. This category of weapon includes knives that while not considered prohibited weapons, still are a potential danger to the community.

A person must not possess, carry or use a controlled weapon without lawful excuse. Lawful excuse includes:

a) the pursuit of any lawful employment, duty or activity

b) participation in any lawful sport, recreation or entertainment, and

c) the legitimate collection, display or exhibition of weapon.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=25574

So knives are "controlled" not banned.
You can carry a knife with lawful excuse.

Learn the law, dont just follow hearsay , its what got you into the daft mindset you have already

[chaos]

lol, you're dad is an idiot, 

[Radical Plato]

so its ok for cars to kill more people than guns just because the cars have other purposes? .. it doesnt matter that the cars kill more than guns because cars get u from homobar to daddyissues home , u dont want to reduce the number of dead person , only the number of dead persons killed by devices made for killing u stupid troll

Of course we want to minimise road accidents.   Society takes measures to minimise these incidents, and car fatalities have dropped drastically over the decades.  The irony is, the car industry, much like the gun lobby, heavily resisted and lobbied against government legislation forcing them to make safer cars, they were simply worried about their bottom line and not the welfare of their customers.  Had the car industry got it's way and the Ralph Naders of the world not been so persistent, the fatality rate today from car accidents would be far greater than it is.  The only difference being the car industry found a way to market and profit from safer cars and justify the higher prices, the gun lobby is unlikely to find a way to profit from minimising the fatality rate caused by the product they profit from.

[manuelsonn]

Of course we want to minimise road accidents.   Society takes measures to minimise these incidents, and car fatalities have dropped drastically over the decades.  The irony is, the car industry, much like the gun lobby, heavily resisted and lobbied against government legislation forcing them to make safer cars, they were simply worried about their bottom line and not the welfare of their customers.  Had the car industry got it's way and the Ralph Naders of the world not been so persistent, the fatality rate from car accidents would be through the roof.  The only difference being the car industry found a way to market and profit from safer cars and justify the higher prices, the gun lobby is unlikely to find a way to profit from minimising the fatality rate caused by the product they profit from.

so we ban the cars ?    -- it seems than guns arent as eficient as killing  as u say if a device made for.. .driving, it s more eficient at killing than an object made for killing-- i dont give a fuck about cars, u dumb fuck

[Simple Simon]

Are you aware you are an idiot, it's 15 guns per 100 people. ANd probably means 'almost certainly'.  Either way, what he said wasn't true.  Hope this helps

Yep, 15 per 100 my mistake
As for the probably analogy 'almost certainly' doesn't mean 'definitely' , now I know most analogies don't bear close examination , but your ludicrous ideas are 'probably' not true, thats the example my old dad would have used.

[Simple Simon]

Your argument consists of several logical fallacies, namely a red herring and the fallacy of relative privation. The red herring is offering up unrelated issues to distract from the real one and the fallacy of relative privation is dismissing an argument due to the existence of other important, but unrelated, problems in the world.eg: Why ban guns when there are  more people killed in car accidents.

Of course we want to minimise road accidents.   Society takes measures to minimise these incidents, and car fatalities have dropped drastically over the decades.  The irony is, the car industry, much like the gun lobby, heavily resisted and lobbied against government legislation forcing them to make safer cars, they were simply worried about their bottom line and not the welfare of their customers.  Had the car industry got it's way and the Ralph Naders of the world not been so persistent, the fatality rate today from car accidents would be far greater than it is.  The only difference being the car industry found a way to market and profit from safer cars and justify the higher prices, the gun lobby is unlikely to find a way to profit from minimising the fatality rate caused by the product they profit from.

Just to swerve off topic slightly, who is making all this profit, where does it come from, and why do they need it?

[manuelsonn]

Your argument consists of several logical fallacies, namely a red herring and the fallacy of relative privation. The red herring is offering up unrelated issues to distract from the real one and the fallacy of relative privation is dismissing an argument due to the existence of other important, but unrelated, problems in the world.eg: Why ban guns when there are  more people killed in car accidents.

Of course we want to minimise road accidents.   Society takes measures to minimise these incidents, and car fatalities have dropped drastically over the decades.  The irony is, the car industry, much like the gun lobby, heavily resisted and lobbied against government legislation forcing them to make safer cars, they were simply worried about their bottom line and not the welfare of their customers.  Had the car industry got it's way and the Ralph Naders of the world not been so persistent, the fatality rate today from car accidents would be far greater than it is.  The only difference being the car industry found a way to market and profit from safer cars and justify the higher prices, the gun lobby is unlikely to find a way to profit from minimising the fatality rate caused by the product they profit from.

lol, i ask why dont we ban the  cars also if it kills more people than guns? (i am ok with banning guns, but i think the real menace are the automobiles so we have to ban them also, aa, and knifes to)

[Radical Plato]

so we ban the cars ?    -- it seems than guns arent as eficient as killing  as u say if a device made for.. .driving, it s more eficient at killing than an object made for killing-- i dont give a fuck about cars, u dumb fuck

Your argument consists of several logical fallacies, namely a red herring and the fallacy of relative privation. The red herring is offering up unrelated issues to distract from the real one and the fallacy of relative privation is dismissing an argument due to the existence of other important, but unrelated, problems in the world.eg: Why ban guns when there are  more people killed in car accidents.

And surely you don't believe cars are more efficient at killing than guns, please tell me you are joking.  People aren't using their cars to kill people, the deaths that occur are accidents, this doesn't mean they are more efficient than guns at killing.  If one was to have a contest between how many school children you could kill in the hallways of a schoolyard with a car or a gun, I am pretty sure the car has trouble killing one, the gunmen continue on until they are all dead if not stopped.  The ability of a car to kill is limited to a narrow environment, the moment one goes indoors or under suitable cover, the threat is virtually eliminated.

The SOLE reason a crazed gunmen chooses a gun over say a knife or a car to go on a killing spree is for the very reason it is the most efficient tool to kill as many people as possible.  Any suggestion otherwise is simply nonsense.

[manuelsonn]

Your argument consists of several logical fallacies, namely a red herring and the fallacy of relative privation. The red herring is offering up unrelated issues to distract from the real one and the fallacy of relative privation is dismissing an argument due to the existence of other important, but unrelated, problems in the world.eg: Why ban guns when there are  more people killed in car accidents.

And surely you don't believe cars are more efficient at killing than guns, please tell me you are joking.  People aren't using their cars to kill people, the deaths that occur are accidents, this doesn't mean they are more efficient than guns at killing.  If one was to have a contest between how many school children you could kill in the hallways of a schoolyard with a car or a gun, I am pretty sure the car has trouble killing one, the gunmen continue on until they are all dead if not stopped.  The ability of a car to kill is limited to a narrow environment, the moment one goes indoors or under suitable cover, the threat is virtually eliminated.

if cars kill 10,9/100000 and guns only 10,3/100000 do u think cars are not more efficient at killing people than guns? ( i thought 10,9 >10,3) what is the formula u re using?, besides being a total damaged mind?

[Simple Simon]

If one was to have a contest between how many school children you could kill in the hallways of a schoolyard with a car or a gun, I am pretty sure the car has trouble killing one, the gunmen continue on until they are all dead if not stopped.

You sure about that?

[Radical Plato]

Just to swerve off topic slightly, who is making all this profit, where does it come from, and why do they need it?

The profit comes from you idiot, buying the gun manufacturers wares.  And they don't need it, they simply like collecting money.  Their motivation is pure greed.  Do I need to go into the philosophy explaining human greed?  They simply want to maintain the power and privilege that comes with extreme wealth.

[Radical Plato]

You sure about that?

Odd looking hallway!  You obviously failed to read my post, cars can kill, but they are cumbersome and limited.  They are useless in a building and simply can't access many places.  A gunmen with a gun is far more versatile.  You morons can remain in denial all you like between the killing efficiency of particular items, it's simply absurdity.  Your ridiculous logic shatters your own arguments, if knives and guns are all you need, why do you need a gun then.  Just use your car or knife to defend yourself in case of a threat.