Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    BestGarbagePerson

    + friends - friends
    425 link karma
    42,757 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago * (lasted edited 37 minutes ago) in pics

    I don't doubt there is a sensible middle ground (personally I like waiting times to be increased a bit) but in my country most people here are talking about complete disarmament and treat anyone who disagrees like they're Hitler or something.

    You also have to realize we have vastly different governments in each state (and many so very very incompetent and corrupt so that for example, when a "shall issue" is made people who are legit in fear of their lives from an ex-lover that they have a restraining order on for example...are denied for over 6 months by petty admins (literally people have sued due to racial discrimination successfully this way) until they're murdered anyway...this happened in Connecticut for example), so that's another tough one.

    Obama (and I voted for him btw) tried to implement an extremely unconstitutional policy of banning people who have a dependent fill out an SSI form for them (social security) from having a gun. A blanket ban. Unconstitutional btw, as it would violate 14th amendment equal protection. In case you didn't know, you can have a number of non-mentally (and non sight related) related disabilities requiring you to have someone fill out the SSI form for you....like rheumatoid arthritis for example.

    I believe there was also another one that even the ACLU (civil rights lawyers) went after (again Obama did this) because it created a secret court (no due process) which would ban people from their 2A rights without them even knowing.

    So there's that.

    But with regards to CC, oh man, first of all, again different states have different laws, so open carry for example, is illegal in certain counties in my state. So if they ban CC too, then wtf? You're disarmed basically. But man, there are so many reasons why CC is an important right. Like I said check out r/dgu.

    You should also know, my SO is a refugee from former Soviet Ukraine. His experiences have also lead me to be even more supportive of 2a rights than I was before. Totalitarian nations only successfully rule with terror over a disarmed populace. That way they can go into people's homes at will and kidnap you and send you to camps and stuff. It's not about owning tanks and bombs, its about you having the gun to go into the disarmed person's house and take them away.

    Firearm homicides are a fraction of a percent. In our whole country in 2015, less than 200 firearm homicides occurred.

    Which country? Australia? If so, remember you guys also have a fraction of our countries population. I'm pretty certain there are parts of the US where 23 million people live with the exact same homicide rate as australia (no joke I bet you %100.) There are so many things wrong with assuming a place like Australia which has such a small population, less income inequality, less diversity and less population density, would then therefore have a smaller fraction of homicides merely because of gun laws. (Nope, btw, more people in the US are murdered with things other than guns.) Anyway, if us gets down from 4 per 100k to Aussies .98 per 100k (as of 2015) I think that would make us even more saints than australia, given our current socio-economic issues.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 2 points ago in pics

    What about a country like the UK where the average police officer doesn't carry a firearm?

    I definitely am for a gradual de-militarization of the police. In the US there is no reason for our cops to be so heavily armed even though a lot of us have guns.

    One other interesting thing you should take into account as well. Although the GB police are less armed in general having a chest holster (in the UK) vs a hip holster (in the US) means you are more likely to hit the wrong target when firing (pulling the gun in an arc across your chest vs. firing in a vertical line from your hip.)

    Maybe your police need guns because so many of your citizens have them?

    I don't know about how it is in the US exactly but I dont think that's the exact answer. I think a lot has to do with the war on drugs. I do also know that despite the fact we've always had the 2A and many people owning firearms, the arming of our police has been a very gradual thing (like average cop in the 60's didn't own a gun), whereas even though our crime rate has gone down, the police have become more and more armed.

    I think also there was what happened in the 1990's with the LA riots. The police ran away and the national guard had to be called. I was only 5 at the time though and I remember very little.

    In the UK the opposite happened (the police were disarmed) due to massive public outcry if I remember correctly, was it because of Bloody Sunday?

    I'm trying to reason that there is not a real need for everyone to carry them around all the time.

    If I didn't have a gun at one time in my life I'm sure I'd be seriously injured or dead. That's a fact.

    Most people don't "need' a radon detector in their home either.

    I'll read more into dgu, but I wonder how those prevalences vary from country to country.

    It's very very hard to measure dgu's in a country where it is illegal to own a gun.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in pics

    How many of those issues in your link could be reasonably solved by inserting a gun into your equation?

    Start here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

    Note even Hemenway and NCVS (both ridiculously anti-gun) state a minimum of 67,000 defensive gun uses per year. BTW They only count dgus as 1) if the gun goes off AND 2) the gunshot wounds the attacker, which is disputed here in this study as being too low:

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.531.9717&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    I also suggest you start reading r/dgu

    Provide for me similar statistics for countries like Somalia

    What do you mean and why? These stats worldwide are comparable with only slight variance.

    Do you mean something like this?

    http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/9789241564625/en/

    nd do a real comparison between a country with violence and a country with relative safety.

    And what do you mean by a "real comparison." What criteria are you demanding?

    Do you mean something like the social progress index like discussed in this huff po post?

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-porter/america-behind-social-progress_b_5325877.html

    I have a better question for you actually.

    Why are your politicians surrounded by armed guards? Why do police have guns? Why do banks have armed security? Why do prisons? Etc?

    If guns don't work why do those with wealth and power use them?

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 0 points ago in pics

    You've now moved the goalpost from Homicides to "Crime"

    I've not. Homicide is crime. You want to talk only of homicide you do you. I guess you don't care about rape, assault and robbery in your country do you. How are those rates btw compared to the rest of the world?

    Enjoy being 20x more likely to die from another person then i am.

    No one who is sane wishes harm on another person. Whatever happened to make you this way, I feel sorry for you.

    Anyway, likelihood of me being a victim is much smaller now that I'm no longer poor, homeless, I have many tools for my self defense, and I live in a good neighborhood. What you are really saying is you think the poor, (especially the poor) should remain defenseless and victims of crime.

    Because you vote for politicians and support the rich that surround themselves and their children with armed security.

    So what you mean to say is "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others."

    Everyone else should just get raped and die, because they dont deserve the same tools that I let others have.

    Nice.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 0 points ago in pics

    Again, you are moving the goalposts away from "Gun based homicides" to "all homicides"

    You cannot separate the two! (facepalm)

    Crime and suicide are motivated by social factors.

    If fewer guns leads to fewer homicides and suicides and violent crime then prove it!

    That doesn't make your homicide rates acceptable. The only acceptable homicide rate is 0.

    Don't disagree, but I think your methods are rather fucked up.

    Also you kind of fucked up there with the words. A rate is a measurement of data. If a rate is zero, that could merely mean no change in the amount. In this case the rate means "fraction of." Australia in 2015 actually had a rate of .98/100,000k. Hm. It went up...

    But even so, that's a fraction. If Australia has zero homicides (not just as some fraction) of it's 23 million people then I will applaud you.

    I bet you there are millions and millions of people who live in counties in the US right now, that have that same rate of homicide at .98/100k (or even less!)

    Do you expect therefore, that the US, with 400 million, should be able to as easily achieve this appealing zero (or near zero fraction) of the entire population?

    I think you are not really aware of statistics nor are able to analyze why these fractions would be different based on even just population density itself.

    you shouldn't be killing each other in the numbers you are while doing NOTHING about it.

    NOTHING about it.

    I also don't think you understand what the word "nothing" means. Nothing means an absence of, not simply "not doing the things I want you to do."

    Please prove that the US is doing "nothing" about crime. In fact, please prove that our crime is getting worse.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago * (lasted edited 4 hours ago) in pics

    a death by firearm, (suicide or not) is still a death by firearm.

    No, it's not. One is homicide the other is suicide.

    It is dishonest as fuck to claim that firearm ownership determines suicide rates. That is a complete lie and very dishonest.

    Japan has a suicide rate comparable to the US. Yet how many guns do the Japanese own per capita? I could easily go on.

    3.6 Homicides per 100,000 people in 2014 in the US 0.18 Homicides per 100,000 people in 2014 in Australia

    So the US has a total of 20x more homicides due to guns then Australia

    Do you understand how exponents and fractions work? Seems like you don't. 50 cents is 50x more than a penny, but how much really is 50 cents?

    The US is currently 94th in the world ranked most to least homicidal. Right in the middle there, with countries of all types on all sides. Sure though we could definitely and happily get into the conversation of "1st world" status, I would happily debunk that for you, being someone who deals with the fucked up social system of the US personally, and I've got a nice collection of data on how fucked up US society is that its a miracle we aren't more violent. So, therefore, I don't really know what you are saying about this, except that you are hoping two data points alone can be used to support an entire theory.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago * (lasted edited 4 hours ago) in pics

    I'm saying that the risk is less for a woman than a male.

    Consider these statistics:

    http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

    Also, I'm confused, are you saying men cannot use guns for self defense because they are more likely to be victims or that women should be barred from using guns merely because the "risk" is smaller?

    Yes, something like that. Airbags can't really be used to kill people, though.

    No, logic doesnt work like that. You cannot make an illogical statement suddenly logical by saying "this one class of things is an exception to logic because it's a different class."

    Anyway;

    Guns have a purpose of protecting life, liberty and property. You vote for politicians that protect themselves with armed security, which is all supported by banks protected the same way, which you support. (Which I know, even if you are an Aussie or a Swede that they do.)

    So what you mean to say is "guns have a purpose of protection that I am okay with, as long as it's only for people I approve of."

    Aka "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others." (have you read Animal Farm?)

    Ok, so please show me casual link between gun ownership and decreased sexual harassment/rape/domestic violence.

    Sure start here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

    Even the most anti-gun nuts (Hemenway and NCVS have a low end estimate of dgu use that's higher than all homicides and suicides multiplied times 2 btw, even though they only count "defensive use" as the gun 1) going off and 2) actually injuring the attacker...which is dumb imho. as I defended myself never having to shoot or hurt anyone.)

    Anyway why? Correlation doesn't equal causation. You can own a car for driving and there is definitive correlation between car ownership and vehicular manslaughter yet it's not banned. And like you said, males are more prone to violence, yet we haven't got a curfew for males between 18-35. (Ban penises? Let's talk about this horrible proliferation of maleness right?)

    No, you misunderstand me. They do not want a weapon because 1) weapons are dangerous and 2) they do not see the need for it. My argument comes from their perspective, not purely the fact that they are many.

    Okay so, you're still making an argumentum ad popularum. Do you not understand that?

    which in turn has the effect that gun-related homicides is something like 15 times as unlikely in Sweden than in the US

    1. Sweden has a rape and domestic violence and crime rate about the same as everywhere else in the world.

    2. Homcide rate in sweden here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Is listed as 1.18 per 100,000k and us is 4.88 per 100,000 k

    So not that big of a difference really. Next I'd like to know how much of these are done by guns. (I don't know)

    It seems to me you are implying that your country is safer. You realize it's actually not by much if at all. Do these macro statistics though, really matter for a single woman living alone while her house is being broken into? I don't think so.

    Or are you stating there is a causal relasionship?

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 2 points ago in pics

    Guns have one purpose: to kill.

    Guns do not have one purpose. You confuse method with purpose.

    Guns have multiple purposes. Their method is ballistics (which can kill). Their purpose is either hunting, sport or self defense. You can most definitely have a purpose with a gun and achieve your purpose without causing anyone any harm.

    Why do you need it, if you live in what is otherwise one of the safest countries in the world

    My chances of needing my airbag to deploy in my car is low but I still have it.

    But hey lets talk about this "safe"

    http://www.thehotline.org/resources/statistics/

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in pics

    There's a reason why the aboriginals in Australia were barred from owning guns during the times they were being kidnapped, their lands stolen, their children stolen etc. . .

    Here in the US it's not so long ago we interned tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans, and stole their land. I wonder if the Japanese were allowed to keep their guns while they were being sent to camps?

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in pics

    Consider that most violence is between males, though

    And men cannot use guns for self defense either? (or eta men are as strong as men so I mean what is your point? Women are still bested easily by 12 year old boys. . )

    And no women here that I know of would want a weapon, because they don't need it.

    The vast majority of people don't need airbags to deploy either. So I guess that's what you mean by "don't need it."

    I know this is non factual anyway since at least 1 in 7 women has been a victim of sexual assault, rape or domestic violence.

    I also used to know a lot of women who were pro-life too. Your fallacy is called a fallacy of mass appeal (besides it being anecdotal but I digress.)

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in pics

    Because the world is different for women. There's a reason guns are called "the great equalizer."

    I'm a woman I have used a gun for self defense. (Threat of, I didn't even brandish, but I said "I have a gun" and attacker ran away.)

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in pics

    It has been posted before on askreddit threads like "whats something really dangerous people don't know is dangerous." etc

    Spread the word next time you and your buds go to the lake.

    We call summer season "drowning season" where I live.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in pics

    And 1 is 4 times more than .25. So what you are saying is we should also judge the shit out of things even if they are pretty good.

    Us is ranked 94th in the world from most homicidal to least homicidal exactly in the middle there. In fact, most of the countries all hover in that area between 0 and 5 or so (now reporting might not be truthful in all countries but...) Most of the "developed" world hovers at a rate between 1 and 4 per 100,000.

    Considering the US ranks 1# in the world in guns per capita you would think with all the "logic" around here we'd be murder capital too.

    What you are saying is America is obese when we are, in fact, not.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 0 points ago in pics

    US has 10x the non-gun related death rate too. In fact we kill more people here without guns than with guns.

    Also saying "gun related deaths" is dishonest as I know the us homicide rate is not 10 per 100,000. It' is 4.5-5 per 100,000. Half of that.

    You are using suicides aren't you?

    Dishonest of you.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in pics

    As a very small woman, Australia scares me as your rape and sex assualt rates are the same yet I could never even buy a pepper spray for my own self defense.

    I've also heard that your self defense laws are so lacking that a person assaulted in their own home could be sued by the intruder.

    It's almost like you're telling women in Australia its better to just let yourself be raped.

    [–] Australia's response under a conservative government following the death of 35 people during the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. BestGarbagePerson 2 points ago in pics

    Freshwater can kill you in less than 2 minutes and it can kill even if it is really shallow. The other fucked up thing about it too, is that even if you are rescued before complete cardiac arrest and brain death, freshwater destroys your lungs (unlike saltwater) and many are ignorant to the fact that even if your child is now out and breathing and walking they can still suffocate to death within a 48 hour period due to the damage in their lungs. If you know a child has had a near-drowning (I.e. were drowning, got water in their lungs), even if they seem okay, TAKE THEM TO THE HOSPITAL IMMEDIATELY ANYWAY.

    [–] Redditor explains what Australia did to prevent gun related deaths. BestGarbagePerson 1 points ago in bestof

    You proved my point perfectly. It's either classic graphic images/concepts to illicit fear and conditioned thinking, or pure, baseless insults and demonizing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

    So glad you could show us who you are u/pee_pee_tape. Keep being you : )