No, not only.. I'd say 20% of people are capable of independent thinking and making a difference. That's a severe minority. The horror? Indeed...
@BRUm & Corwin : Bushy boy knows better then you what's going on in your own country. The gun fairy told him
Well, he called me out on being wrong, and I politely asked him to point out a post where I was wrong and cite how I am wrong. Bushie cowardly responded with weak wit. when he knows he's been cornered he tries to change the subject. I looked at your link - yeah, not one cite there. Oddly, he reminds me of another DP poster that was banned, can't remember his name though. Wow, Webby, you have really got my attention because this is something I have been wrestling with. But isn't 20% high? I'd guess that 99 out of 100 people simply react to what is going on around them. Only one out of 100 are proactive and are capable of making a difference. IMO, being an independent thinker and making a difference are two different things. I know plenty of independent thinkers that talk a lot but mostly just follow the herd.
Perhaps I was being generous and it is not as high as 20%, but I wouldn't say it is as low as 1%. Where we both can agree that majority (That too a large number) of general population is simply a herd. I do not disagree with your statement. But to make a difference, independent thinking is required.
I do disagree with that, because I live in a rural area and a large block I see and hear guns (shooting kangaroos) all the time yet I can't tell you the last time I heard of anyone being 'shot' within 500kms of here. Sure you might get them in the big cities where most of the bigger crims are but in general I believe it has to save lives. I had a gun 20 years ago and was upset when I lost it for pittance but I can't say I've missed it. I think it has made the place safer.
Actually I came to the conclusion you weren't worth wasting my time on. See, do you ever speak truth?
See, that's you clearly surrendering the conversation and cowardly running away from my direct challenge. Or you wouldn't "waste time" on insisting you won't waste time (HA!). Pretty much everyone else here sees it that way, too. C'mon, Bushie - just one cite? You can't even eek out just one?
I don't. All I think is there's so much shooting going on in America, yet I don't hear this of other countries. We are bombarded with American news here so I guess it's not hard to see why I think America is violent compared to say the Netherlands. We likely get a lot less Netherlands news. I can see that. But, I live in Australia. I know if anyone here gets shot it's just the well known crims shooting each other. Not a lot of "innocents" actually get killed here. Why? I'm not arguing a complete ban on guns and never have. I just don't see a problem with checking out a person's background before handing them a gun. I do have a problem with claiming it's your right to have a gun even though you beat your wife and vandalise the neighbours car. My objection to just handing out guns willy nilly is that people with guns will play with them. Goodbye squirrels, goodbye kangaroos, goodbye everything that won't fight back. As WE expand there's more and more guns, less and less animals and THAT's my objection to everybody having them. Realistically I don't care if you upset mick and he comes back and shoots you. In my world you create your own trouble (mostly). However, if "riots" and "violence" was the new norm then I would likely definately go and get a gun for protection myself.
Honestly, countries with strict gun control exaggerate anything related to guns in the US, while ignoring the fact that they have their own share of violent gun crime happening everyday across the country. I can link to several articles reporting crimes involving guns in different cities of Oz in recent weeks. I agree that crime rate is much lower in rural areas, but its true for almost every country even US. As far as Netherlands is concerned, You will find it shocking That I can agree to some extends, instead of saying who can own a gun, the rule should be who can not own a gun. Guns have nothing to do with it. When they don't use gun, they use crossbow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence - see Intentional homicides by country. It says Australia 16% - USA 46% plus a load of other countries, some high and some low. I have no idea which countries have stricter gun controls but there's a huge difference in % between 16 & 46. Agreed, and if not a crossbow a cricket bat.... though you must admit a crossbow wouldn't be as easy to reload up 20 shots so obviously it wouldn't be 'as' lethal for so many.
It looks like Australia has less gun violence, though certain states in the US are somewhat comparable.
Lumping all the states together when comparing gun-crime with other nations is flawed. Interestingly, the states with the most relaxed gun laws have drastically fewer gun homicides. Take Vermont for example, in 2009 there were zero. Likewise North Dakota had zero in 2008.
We have 20 million people conservatively (probably nearer 25). When I look at Rebecca's link it shows me a list of towns. So I look for the absolutely lowest amount of homicides and try and add up 20 million worth of people. Remember I chose the towns with the lowest murder rates and worked up till I got 20 million. My figures worked out: AUS: 35 firearm related homicides - 20,000,000 USA: 463 firearm related homicides - 20,233,990 Where did I get it wrong because surely it's not that bad. How should I do it? find me any mix of 20 million people that makes a lower number.
You don't need to do that. according to both charts [TABLE="class: grid, width: 500, align: left"] [TR] [TD]Place[/TD] [TD]Population[/TD] [TD]Homicide rate per 100,000 population [/TD] [TD]Gun homicides per 100,000 population [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]New Hampshire [/TD] [TD]1,299,169[/TD] [TD]1.39[/TD] [TD]0.43[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Vermont[/TD] [TD]621,233[/TD] [TD]2.58[/TD] [TD]0.48[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Australia* [/TD] [TD]-- [/TD] [TD]1.57[/TD] [TD]0.31[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] * Data from 1998-1999
It cant be done. Your country has a land mass the size of the US with a population the size of California. As I believe both of you agreed earlier, rural areas simply do not have as much crime of any sort, especially gun related crime. Compared to any part of America, Australia is rural, even your cities. There are other reasons you cant make a comparison. I would put forward the idea that Australia does not have the quantity of inner city poor that we have in America. More than one study has linked the homocide and crime rate more directly to economic welfare than to gun laws or quantity of police on the street. Another thing, your society is homogeneous. 92% of your population is English/Irish/European heritage, with the Chinese making up the single biggest other race at whopping 3%. Here in the US, the streets of Los Angeles are cut up like a battle field, with the Mexicans owning certain neighborhoods, the blacks owning others. On a nightly basis, gang members from these two races kill each other for turf with firearms, knifes, beatings, you name it. Most murders don't even make page news these days. There are very seriously certain neighborhoods in Los Angeles sitting underneath major freeways that, if your car breaks down, its best not to get off the freeway.