The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

Sadlly I think you are correct, they have zero capacity to filter bullshit from their talking heads, and zero capacity to refrain from calling anything contradicting their most outrageous fever dreams "bullshit", facts be damned, logic be damned, history be damned, and you better believe Latinos be damned.
Like their chosen president, comprehension is not their strong suit...knowing stuff and actual facts are for liberals, and there's no such thing as an independent. That's where we are.

I know those who listen to people like this have lost all sense of logic and capacity for independent thought, but if you listen closely he TELLS you he's bullshitting.

"They WILL carry out targeted killings of Republicans. IF that happens....."

On the one hand, he's saying he knows for absolute certain something WILL happen, but in the next breath he says "IF" not "When".

Poor Bob, the BBC light ribbing over Trump's anemic "biggest inauguration audience ever in the nation's history" dwarfed by the wedding crowd upset you? Snowflake. ;-)

Not a memory lane of me saying that.
I called it for Trump when the DNC got caught....actually before then but not with certitude until then. I knew he was right, he could murder someone publicly in cold blood and not lose a vote, because his supporters are morally bankrupt tribalists. I knew decades of philandering, often with his friends wives, pussy grabbing, daughter lusting, school fraud, charity fraud, repeated bankruptcy, thousands of lawsuits, hush money, mob/Russia ties, a long history of cheating the little guy, blatant racism, being narcissism personified, and having zero capacity for honesty had no effect on them, it was clear that Clinton, whose voters had morals, was a huge long shot at best when the primary underhandedness came to light, she only drove the right to the polls, not the left. They couldn't have created a more polarizing candidate with more baggage.

Never underestimate the stupidity and gullibility, or count on the morality of the American voter or you'll look the fool like these people did.

I think I've come to view racism as a kind of "othering", we're all wired to view people who don't look like us or come from the same culture/tribe as an other.
Whites are carry the burden of responsibility because of their dominance, yes. But to imply that I am inherently evil because of the color of my skin is as wrong and as racist as a Klan member declaring that his white skin makes him superior to all others.
It's like saying only people in power have the capacity to be wrong.

"it's the assault that makes it an assault weapon" LOL. Guess we should start banning assault hammers and assault knives then.

10 yr Assault weapon ban didn't affect gun violence at all.

AR-15s aren't weapons of war, they are used by police agencies across the country.

BTW, the parkland shooter used 10rnd low capacity magazines. Looks like banning 30rnds won't do much good at all, but that's just common sense.

This gun control hysteria is the Republicans' best shot of retaining control of the house and senate. Just look at '94 when they swept into power after the clinton assault weapon ban.


You can't really show any side when you limit each exchange to a 2-sentence sound byte. Pretty pointless.

To be fair, what I thought is new is the cheaper motor running on regular unleaded gas more efficiently. Airplane fuel is insanely expensive compared to gas, and harder to get in remote places.
Ground effects plane/boats have been around for quite some time, but not in a commercially useful configuration. This seems like a big step up from small ferries or tour boats (faster and smoother rides) and far cheaper than small planes to buy and operate.

Yeah, the biggest ecranoplan was enormous, with immense lifting capacity but little evasive capacity, so they were awful in practice as military vehicles except as transports well behind the front. I can't find any instances of them being used in conflicts.

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

Even though NZ's laws were relatively stricter at the time, the real issue was that Australia's laws were lax. We went from one end of the spectrum to the polar opposite (which is a not uncommon illogical human reaction to bad events).

The laws you speak of were enacted a few years before Australia changed theirs. The salient point is that they didn't restrict or legislate for some things over the following years.

The standards you have there (fit and proper person) for gaining a license are almost exactly the same as in Australia. The endorsement for getting an AR15 can be obtained by shooting in IPSC or 3 gun competitions. Basically, if you're a fit and proper person and join one of these clubs then you can get an AR15 and full capacity magazines.

For the most part, I don't have anything against gun ownership but it seems like commonsense that we shouldn't be selling high-capacity assault rifles to anyone. You don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer or for personal defense and, therefore, they should be extremely hard to acquire. It's fine to be an enthusiast but the average person should not be able to get a hold of them. These mass killings would be much more difficult for someone to enact with a knife.

Except NZ's gun laws were already stricter than Australias. To get an AR15 here, buyers must have a standard, current firearms licence and an approved police order form. If the clip has a higher capacity than 7 rounds, you need a special endorsement. Also, you must have proper storage for firearms which the police will inspect before granting a licence.

Oh, and you will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

a history of violence
repeated involvement with drugs
been irresponsible with alcohol
a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

That's a direct quote from the police licence page

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

Mental health is a pretty big issue that is connected. So are socio-economic issues. There is a bigger puzzle of which access to firearms is only the last piece.

I don't think anyone should expect the NRA to address mental health. This is not their mandate. They exist to champion firearm rights. Mental health or other issues are some other lobby group or the general population's responsibility.

The Australian and New Zealand law changes show that restricting the types of firearm, caliber, and magazine capacities has little to no effect. There are multiple studies (the majority in fact) concluding that the draconian Australian laws didn't even affect the homicide by firearm rate.

Mental health is a completely separate issue that's being used as a distraction. It's certainly worthy of discussion but it does not belong as part of the gun debate.

I am not for banning weapons.

I would, however, set the bar for ownership so high that only committed hobbyists would own the most extreme weapons.

The more potentially impactful the weapon, the higher the bar. I have no problem with someone casually walking into a store and buying a bolt-action .22 target rifle or a break action sporting shotgun with a fast background check. The licensing, training and security check requirements would then grow progressively stringent until you get to fast shooting, large ammo capacity, medium-large caliber weapons. At which point there should be annual training and recertification requirements, in-home verification of safe storage compliance, thorough background checks and anything else.

Any committed hobbyist is already training regularly with their firearms and storing them safely. The certification requirements are no more than a verification of the practices they already follow. What's needed is to weed out the casual purchasers, the revenge-fantasy dreamers and the paramilitary idiots.