Australian living in London. Apparently I like cooking and baking. I'll also comment on random shit and tend to like word porn and philosophical stuff (as long as it's not twee). Secretly love long posts/stories about stuff too.
Australian living in London. Apparently I like cooking and baking. I'll also comment on random shit and tend to like word porn and philosophical stuff (as long as it's not twee). Secretly love long posts/stories about stuff too.
Time Lord
look after mine and not use it to headbutt dickheads when I've got perfectly good carbon fibre knuckleguards for it. 2
You can crush the impact foam inside it from dropping it off a coffee table. It's your head, you can do what you like with it, but I'll 1.
Are you fucking crazy? Helmets are designed to withstand ONE impact. I'd rather that be protecting my head from the road than hitting a fool
As a fellow Londoner, I thank you. Got any recommendations for around Battersea?
Are you trying to make my point for me?
(For completeness of results, 3% was unknown)
of those deaths would be avoided if we had tighter controls on who can buy guns, and how they must be stored and accounted for?"
18% committed by legal owners, 79% committed by a person with someone else's gun. So, I think a better question would be, "what percentage
restrictions on the TYPE of guns available, are not only are feasible, but would have a huge impact on the number of people killed. 3/3
gun ownership, I recognise that banning all guns simply isn't feasible. However, I believe that tighter controls on them, and 2/3-4?
I was hoping so, but I genuinely wasn't sure, based on how indignant you seemed. Again, although I personally am against general 1/4-5?
The fact that you would consider the right to own firearms to be on par with the right to live is deeply saddening. Or did I misinterpret?
same levels of restrictions should also apply to people who wish to obtain guns?
So, given that in 2013, the same number of people were killed from drunk driving as from firearms, couldn't you argue that the
Ok, so you concur that drunk drivers are a public risk. And you have laws, restrictions, licenses, and breathalysers to stop them, correct?
trumps other people's rights to own guns. You still seem to hold the rights of gun owners as paramount, rather than people's right to live.
similar countries experience, I'd say you've at least reached a reasonable goal". And again, the right to your continued existence 2/3
It *IS* the slippery slope argument :) My answer to that would be, "When the harm you're trying to curb falls in line with what other 1/3
make the biggest gains - source: https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx
particular element is involved in almost 70% of all homicides, then you can safely concentrate on that area first, as you're going to 2/3
Given that, according to the National Institute of Justice, c~68% of homicides in the US involve guns, personally, I'd say that if one 1/3?
Again, the answer is, "because sometimes that's the price you pay to take part in society"
A drunk driver kills someone. Alright. So why restrict all people from drink driving?
Last time I checked, a gun is capable of killing far more people from a much greater distance than fire can. Remember, risk minimisation.
You can't say that gun owners didn't do anything, when people who own guns are carrying out massacres like this.
what we're doing here. Although in your case, you're referring to the gun owners, and I'm referring to the people killed.
You're confusing or possibly conflating the ideal and the aim. And protecting the rights of those who have done nothing wrong is EXACTLY 1/2
of post-natal care. But I said not to get me started on your healthcare :) 3/3
warranted, they do. As for the mental health issues question, a lot of countries include things like that as part 2/3