NRA's top lawyer was convicted of murdering his girlfriend's mother in 1964

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@teapot

We’ll have to agree to disagree on the paper then. IMO households will typically fall into one category or the other because that’s how domestic relationships tend to work.

The 2nd country in the list is Switzerland. Here is a great quote from Wikipedia:

The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personally assigned weapons, at home (until 2007 this also included ammunition[5]). Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily.

This means that almost ALL males will have a gun, and some women. This means that every household with an adult male will be armed. A few years ago, they did have to start buying their own ammo.

@teapot

On the real name thing, I’d highly recommend changing it. Even on Facebook. Why the fuck should they know that? If you’re truly worried about the NSA’s snooping then you should just avoid using your real name anywhere you don’t have to. Not all dangers are physical and the physical dangers don’t all happen when you’re expecting them.

On Facebook, everything is private, except for friends. I will probably have to make a new account on here. I have some things that I make public (like on here), and other things that I expect to be private (e-mail and text messages to my wife). I do separate the two. If the NSA wants to spy on my messages here, they will see a guy who loves his family, loves is country, loves his freedom, and wants his children to experience the same freedom that he did growing up. This is a public forum

[robulus]

@Kevin_Harrelson

If you do not believe in owning guns

Thats pretty much the problem. You see any attempt to regulate gun ownership as an attempt to ban all guns. You don’t think anyone can accept your right to own guns, but simply want better laws around the types of guns that can be owned and who can own them.

Yet there is no such problem for something like driving, where everyone seems to be able to see the need for a drivers license, because it is a potentially dangerous activity, and we expect drivers to be accountable.

[Kevin_Harrelson]

I see that you deleted a post that questioned my Australia statistics. First of all, no mass shootings in Australia. So, somehow people killed one-by-one are less important than people killed in a single event? Good to hear. Now, on to the Australia numbers…

Australia had a big gun-grab back in 1995.  I want to know what effect this has had, so I will start at 1995.

Australia, 1995
Population - 18,100,000
Murders - 321
Attempted Murder - 301
Manslaughter - 30
Robbery - 16466
Assault - 101149
Sexual Assault - 12809
Kidnapping - 469
Total Violent Crime - 131545

Murder, per million - 17.73
Violent Crime, per million - 7267.68

Australia, 2007
Population - 21,180,630
Murders - 282
Robbery - 17,988
Assault - 176,427
Sexual Assault - 19,781
Kidnapping - 4,730
Total Violent Crime - 215,208

Murder, per million - 13.31
Murder, change from 1995 - 24.9% decrease
Violent Crime, per million - 10160.6
Violent Crime, from 1995 - 39.8% INCREASE

Australia, 2010
Population - 22,300,000
Murders - 260
Robbery - 14,582
Assault - 171083
Sexual Assault - 17757
Kidnapping - 603
Total Violent Crime - 204285

Murder, per million - 11.66
Murder, change from 1995 - 34.3% decrease
Violent Crime, per million - 9160.72
Violent Crime, from 1995 - 26.05% INCREASE
…
…
…

Yes, read that again. Murder dropped by 34.26%, but overall violent crime is up by 26.05% For every life saved, an extra 312 people were the victims of violent crime…

Things were far worse in 2007. Violent crime was up by 40%, and for each life saved that year, an extra 654 people were the victims of violent crime.

Wow, WHAT a slam dunk! Sign our country UP for some of that!

During the SAME period (1995-2010), here are the USA trends.
Murder - 42.6% down (compare to 34.3% down in Australia)
Violent crime - 43.5% down (compare to 26.05% UP in Australia)

By the way, in your deleted post, you mentioned that Australia murder was down by 68%. Sorry, but that does not look like 68% me. It only looks like 34.3% to me.

Austalia, 1995 numbers.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/818290ca7df32b80ca2570ec001b2fc2!OpenDocument

Australia, 2007 numbers.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/victims.html

Australia, 2010 numbers.
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2012/facts12.pdf
I used 2010 becaise of this note:
2011 figure does not include information from Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania. Therefore, the assault figure cannot be compared with those prior to 2011

USA figures (spot-checked, and the numbers were very close to FBI estimates.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@robulus

Yet there is no such problem for something like driving, where everyone seems to be able to see the need for a drivers license, because it is a potentially dangerous activity, and we expect drivers to be accountable.

I mentioned this, but since you missed it… You do NOT need a license or insurance to drive a car on your own property. If you have 100 acres, you can drive a car all day without even a license plate. You only need insurance and a license to drive a car ON A PUBLIC ROAD.

Similarly, you need a concealed carry permit to carry a gun in public.

[robulus]

@Kevin_Harrelson

I see that you deleted a post that questioned my Australia statistics.

I didn’t delete anything. That was a mods call. We’re done now.

[catgrin]

You’re right (sorta) - on private land, you don’t need a license to drive (sometimes). More correctly:

On isolated private land, you don’t need a license to drive a privately owned vehicle.

That doesn’t wash away your legal responsibilities.

It all depends on the type of private property you live on. If you own private land and no one else has access to it, then yes, an unlicensed driver can drive there. However, if you live in a large multi-family complex, like a gated condo community, it doesn’t matter that the public doesn’t have ready access, or that the roads are private. What matters is that you may not know where other people are (pedestrians and drivers), and so an unlicensed driver may pose a risk. On that type of private property, you can’t drive unlicensed - even if you own there.

It’s also illegal for anyone underage or unlicensed to drive a rented vehicle on private property or anywhere else. That’s standardly written into the contract, so if you ever drove a rented tractor on private land while unlicensed, you were breaking the contract, and wholly liable for all damages. They don’t care where you were at the time.

Not only that, if you’re unlicensed and you drive a borrowed vehicle on private land, the insurance won’t cover you. Have an accident, and if it’s your fault, you may be sued by the insurance company. In fact, in many states, “unlicensed driver insurance” (for the driver themselves) isn’t available at all. Where it is, it may only cover you on your own land. California requires insurance for car registration, and so offers this option which applies the insurance to the vehicle - not the driver - just so that cars may remain legally registered.

You may think it’s just a case of “my land, my law” - but there’s quite a bit more to it. Any time risk for other people is involved, the law isn’t that simple. Unless you plan to become a hermit, and never let anyone on your land who may encounter risk, external law does apply. There’s also the question of doing anything on your land that can affect people off your land - like adding toxins to water - you can’t do that either.

That’s all I was fixing. Bye now!

[Kevin_Harrelson]

@robulus

We’re done now.

Yes, I agree completely. Besides, after proving that Australia (a gun control “poster boy”) has actually had an INCREASE in violent crime despite* passing strict gun laws, combined with the fact that the USA still had a greater percentage drop in murder (plus a similar drop in violent crime), pretty much puts the nail in the coffin

• Could “despite” be replace with “because?” There is not enough data to support this conclusion, but I will let you ponder.

[anon67050589]

@Kevin_Harrelson

Because you are questioning why I own one, which is typical of people who believe that you have to prove a reason to own one.

Show me where I have EVER said that on any thread on any forum anywhere. Go ahead, I’ll wait.