To address your points

"Did you even read the article I linked?"
Sorry, I didn't. I opened it, but I really don't have time to read a 40-page law review article.

"In other words, you're flat out wrong when you say the 2nd amendment wasn't about self-defense".
Ok, we can agree to disagree there, but the point still stands that the statement "The WHOLE point of the second amendment... is so we can defend ourselves" (emphasis mine) is incorrect. I'll grant you it might be PART of it.

"I'm not sure why your tone is so dismissive in this thread."
Because I'm tired of trying to convince Americans to stop murdering each other.

"you're quite lucky to live in a country where your government protects you from growing your own food by throwing all those dangerous gardeners in prison. "
Please tell me you realise that's satire because your tone kinda makes me think you're taking that seriously. No, gardens are not illegal in NZ. Almost everyone I know grows some of their own food (at least, those of us lucky enough to afford a house with a garden).

"New Zealand has a shit-ton of guns (about one for every four people)"
Agreed. I even previously brought this up myself.

"people own them for a variety of reasons, from sport"
I know, I have friends who target shoot and hunt

"to self-defense"
cue wrong buzzer sound effect.

To get a gun in NZ you need a Firearms licence. To get this , you will be interviewed, and

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:
...
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

Have some people (shock, horror) lied to the cops to get a licence? Probably, but in general, no-one here actually wants a gun for self-defense.

Look, I have no problem with people using guns. I just think that maybe you could all stop fetishising them so much and realise that you live in the 21st century and not the old west.

Personally, I'm with Jim Jeffries on this one.
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Jim-Jefferies-on-gun-control

"The whole point of the second amendment... is so we can defend ourselves"

No, it's not. Have you even read your own constitution?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

There's nothing in there about self-defence. It's so that you can be drafted into a citizen militia to protect the state.

And every time I hear this argument, I thank my lucky stars that I don't live in a country where people are actually this paranoid.

The ugliness of an idea reflects on the people who hold it. Islam is an utterly abhorrent ideology; it must be correct to say that its followers are in some degree less worthy than those who endorse better ethical systems.

Why do muslims deserve to live safely, to be treated with the dignity afforded to human beings, when they deny the same rights to others? There is such a thing as self-defence.

Hey @newtboy, when was the last time the US government executed someone for the crime of homosexuality?

Slippery slope fallacy.
"If we allow gays to marry, what's next? Can I marry my dog?"

No-one is talking about banning guns. I wouldn't support that myself. I have friends who are hunters and target shooters.

But be reasonable; you can have a gun for target shooting or hunting or even "home defence" (if you're really that paranoid), but you don't need an AR-15 or anything with a high capacity magazine and it's not unreasonable to make sure that people who own guns aren't complete nutjobs.

NZ is in the top 15% of gun ownership rates per capita (22 guns per 100 people), but our average annual firearm homicide rate for the last 30 years or so is ~0.2 deaths per 100k people.

Compare that to the USA. The US tops the chart of gun ownership with 112 guns per 100 people. So the gun ownership rate is 5 times that of NZ, but the average annual firearm homicide rate is 4 deaths per 100k people. That's 20 times the number of murders. Even if you allow for the higher gun ownership rate, you're still 4 times worse than NZ.

And the difference is simple: we have sensible gun ownership laws.

I saw a great post the other day.
"The conservative mind:
Abortions? BAN THEM!
Gay Marriage? BAN IT!
Marijuana? BAN IT!
Guns? eh, banning things never works"

But hey, you're gonna need those guns for when Donary Trumpton ushers in a tyrannical dictatorship. Good luck with that; let me know how you get on with an AR-15 versus a predator drone.

Without wishing to bang on about it - that happens a LOT on the internet. I think it's less about tone of voice and more about people being so offended by inequality that they are over aggressive in their pursuit of equality. They attack the argument before fully understanding it or allowing it to be fully expressed.

It's a really tight line to walk and I know this because I have in the past offended respectful, honest people in my crusade which was against abuse of power and authority. I hated being mistreated by people in authority so much that I became prejudiced against people in authority. The reason I behaved like that is because of how I was treated by authority figures in my formative years and the defence mechanisms I developed because of it. And in the same way, some women who are very poorly treated by men may develop barriers, prejudices and coping mechanisms in response.

(... and that's why I make a dozen edits to my posts. Sometimes I get carried away and detract entirely from what I was trying to achieve.)

I'm not saying that's the underlying cause of the misunderstanding here, but the point I'm trying to make is that there may be good reasons why someone just said something you thought was sexist. Problems arise, I think, when we deal in absolutes; this person is definitely chauvinist because he's ignorant and rude, this person is definitely a man-hater because she is ignorant and rude - both may be unfair to the other.

@CrushBug

Related story: during the later years of the war, when Allied air and sea supremacy made the Bay of Biscay a deathtrap, Allied torpedo boats took up ambush positions at the entrances to U-Boot bases, particularly La Rochelle. They'd get into position at night and stay just outside of range of the coastal defence batteries. Before outgoing submarines could reach deep water, they'd be plastered with hand grenades by these speed boats.

It wouldn't be able to sink a sub, but a lucky hit might damage the periscope and it did reduce the sub's sonar abilities by massive amounts, covering the entire exit area in a blanket of noise. Not to mention the psychological effect...

Anyway, just small bits of history.

Now, about this video: that small chance to be hit by a grenade chunk is surpassed by the rather noticable chance to be hit by one of roughly 6500 steel balls within a run-of-the-mill frag grenade used over here. Doesn't make the underwater experience any better though...

God dammit, pressure is not how wings produce lift! (in his defence it's an extremely common mis-explanation)

If it was then they wouldn't ever work upside down (which they clearly can do when designed for it). Nor does the top and bottom airflow always meet again on the other side evenly, or in fact is the bottom stream always faster than the top.

Bernoulli's principle augments lift in efficient designs, but it's newtons 3rd law which actually makes them work.

You can even see the wash vortex falling down off the wings flying through smoke. It's the equal and opposite reaction from this deflection that causes the majority of lift and drag from a wing .

"'Obviously at some point they were conscious because somebody felt threatened,' said Butts, a retired law enforcement officer who previously had served as police chief in other cities."

Say what now? Hell of a defence there, Jimmy.

There was only the plume of smoke the first day - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-11/industrial-fire-sends-thick-smoke-across-melbourne/7080002

Somehow I managed to miss it, despite my office having almost the same view of the city that the thumbnail of that video has, and despite living 1.5kms from the fire! In my defence though there is terrain in the way. It is a 10 minute and 5 km drive, but that's because there is no direct road... have a look at the map, https://goo.gl/maps/PxVBFJWaLA92 and the problem is the western ring road, 400m to the south of the fire.

IS rare stupid selfish pricks, not all stupid selfish pricks are IS. It's a asymmetric relationship.

I can see you have strong views to the contrary but from where i'm sitting - Gitmo is not a solution to anything. The five men were held for 13 years without a charge, and now deemed by the department of defence as no longer being a risk. Leaving some 108 people left in gitmo.

Yes! That's what this research is telling us. I'm quite certain that this relabeling has been done already by some shady operators, without advising the consumers.

I suspect the effect would be stronger in the U.S. with direct drug advertising... is that legal anywhere else in the world?

How long until some shady character uses it as a defence in court? We just did it to increase the effectiveness of the generic drug... it's almost a public service

Idk man. I'm out looking in too, but my list of problems guns are a good solution for stops pretty short after "killing something you want dead". I mean, cars and knives can do that pretty good too, but I've not seen many getting to work or chopping vegetables with their automatic. Well, unless its an automatic transmission car, which I gather are quite popular state side. Gun, automatic gun I meant. Also I guess technically the vegetable chopping thing is _possible_ with a firearm. I digress.

When used as self defence I think they might sometimes have uses if you are prepared and have it ready. My problem is that the only person who knows for sure that they are going to be in a gun point robbery/rape/[insert crime] situation on any given day is the guy doing the robbing/raping/[insert crime]ing. I mean, is the aim to get the point where every man woman and child is so strapped to the nines that mutually assured destruction is guaranteed? Excuse me from taking it the logical extreme, but I don't think it's entirely fallacious.

They are fun? I've shot some guns. It was fun. I didn't need to own them mind. Hunting aint for me, but evidently some people enjoy it...but I guess I'm not sure how strident I would be in defence of my hobby if it involved the use of a machine that has been streamlined by war to be the most efficient man-portable tool for taking life that we can conceive.

So yeah, I certainly think your right that is more to gun violence than gun ownership. Clearly there are countries with relatively high levels of gun ownership with comparatively little gun violence. (altho the US still has almost twice as many guns per person than the next nearest...so yah). I just struggle to understand exactly what reason there is for having quite so many of them given that everybody else seems to be doing mostly ok without them. What exactly are these problems the Americans should be using their guns as a solution for? Can knives and cars, which according to gun advocates are at least as lethal, perhaps be leveraged in creative ways to be the solution to the problems for which apparently only guns can currently solve?

"Defence capability" is similar doublespeak to what we use in German, but in case of an aircraft carrier, it really is just irritating to speak of defence.

Anyways, what's the latest on these puppies? STOVL or CATOBAR? I haven't read a thing about it in years, ever since the F-35 went horribly over budget for the umpteenth time.

CATOBAR and F-35C was the last I heard, but that was quite some time ago.

It was a question as to whether you knew that.

I live in NZ. I don't currently have a firearms licence, but several of my friends target shoot and hunt, so I'm reasonably familiar with the law.

I think fundamentally the difference is cultural. I've never met anyone in NZ who wants a gun for self defence. If I said I needed a gun for protection, most people here would call me a paranoid nutjob.

You do know that in NZ you have to have a firearms licence? And that if you list self-defence as your reason for applying, you will be de used a licence?