Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Every socialistic dictator starts with disarming the people.
I live in the Netherlands, very socialistic, and so only government and criminals are allowed to have guns. I want to move to the US... For real. But that hard of course when your a hard working european.
http://m.thenational.ae/news/world/americas/us-gun-deaths-off-the-chart…
Of course guns don't kill people, but the attitude towards them does
American gun culture is fascinating, all reason and logic evaporates at the slightest hint of controlling firearms. Two things I'm thankful for in regards to my upbringing, 1. Not being raised religious. 2. Not being raised into an absurd gun culture.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Yes Spoons were invented for the intake of food, they are still used to this day for that purpose, if used inappropriately Spoons could be used to kill someone, though that is not what it was designed for.
Cars were invented for ease of transport , they are still used to this day for that purpose. if used inappropriately Cars could be used to kill someone, though that is not what it was designed for.
Guns were designed for one reason to kill people, they are still used to this day for that purpose! If used CORRECTLY they will kill someone or thing!
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:
Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.
Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.
Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market – the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 12 months the first 6 months using club handguns,then in the remainder of the last 6 month probationary licence, an application may be made, permit to acquire. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a financial member of an approved Pistol Club. Source http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/services/firearms
Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.
8/30/13 | by Jennifer Cruz
A study which was recently published by Harvard took a look at firearm ownership, gun laws and violent crime, and suicide rates around the world. The authors sought to answer the question would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?
The study, which was conducted by Don B. Kates, an American criminologist and constitutional lawyer, and Gary Mauser, a Canadian criminologist and university professor, offered a stark truth: More guns does not equal more deaths and less guns does not equal less deaths.
Kates and Mauser claim in the study that while some international comparisons have been viewed as evidence that more guns equals more deaths and therefore to reduce guns will reduce deaths, they indicate that some of these studies use inaccurate or misleading information to obtain the results.
According to the study, the so-called fact that the reason the murder rate is so high in the United States compared with other modern developed countries is due to the U.S. having uniquely easy access to guns, is simply not true. The study indicates those homicide rates are not an accurate representation and moreover, that those rates have nothing to do with the number of firearms in the country.
While gun ownership in the U.S. is high, the unusually high murder rate is not the norm. The study compares other developed countries with high gun ownership rates, including Norway, Finland, Germany, France and Denmark. These countries all have significantly lower murder rates than the U.S. as well as those countries in which gun ownership is much more uncommon. In other words, the high murder rate of the U.S. is the exception, not the rule, when comparing homicide rates to gun ownerships rates.
Euro guns
For example, in Luxembourg handguns are completely banned and gun ownership of any kind is extremely rare. However, the country’s murder rate is nine times that of Germany’s, despite Germany having gun ownership rates 30,000 times higher than Luxembourg.
In another instance, the study compares the U.S. with Russia. It cites that once the Soviet Union succeeded in disarming the majority of civilians, beginning in the 1960s murder rates skyrocketed. By the 1990s murder rates had become so high that the basically gun-less Russia was left with the highest murder rate of the civilized world, three times higher than that of the U.S., despite the country’s long-standing strict and stringent gun control policies.
In addition, other countries of the former Soviet Union, which have held on to the strict gun control policies, including the Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, as well as various other now‐independent European nations, all have similar murder rates.
The fact that these countries have very few firearms has not reduced the rate of violent crimes. In fact, according to the study, “Homicide results suggest that where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”
In comparing gun ownership rates with homicide rates, the study concludes that “where firearms where are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”
Just as the United States’ unusually high murder rate is used in the argument for gun control, England’s unusually low murder rate prior to the 1990s along with the country’s low rate of gun ownership presently is often cited as factual evidence that gun control reduces violence.
Yet, according to the study, what fails to be acknowledged is that first, England was already experiencing an all-time low in violence before gun control measures were introduced. Secondly, in the late 1990s England started to initiate stricter gun control policies, resulting in a complete ban of handguns as well as many long guns. Hundreds of thousands of firearms were confiscated from law-abiding citizens. By the year 2000, violent crime in England had increased so much that it had one of the highest violent crime rates in all of Europe, evening higher than that of the U.S.
When guns aren’t available for killing people, criminals just find another tool, according to a Harvard Study. (Photo credit: Lehigh Valley Live)
In addition, England’s most recent crime statistics have been grossly misrepresented. In 2006 the criminal justice system, in an attempt to conserve resources, initiated a policy in which the police would no longer investigate “minor” crimes, such as burglary and minor assault. If a mugger, robber, burglar or others engaged in minor criminal activities are caught, the police simply give them a warning – a virtual slap on the wrist – then send them on their way, without filing charges, arresting or prosecuting them. In other words, crime has not gone down in England, but rather “minor” crimes are simply no longer counted as crime.
Moreover, after years of England’s police forces not even carrying guns, with violent crime on the rise, many departments are now opting to arm their officers.
Meanwhile, as England initiated stricter gun control for its residents, the U.S. was loosening gun laws, which eventually allowed for citizens to legally carry firearms in 40 states. Concealed carry permit holders are now estimated to be at 3.5 million.
And as states adopted statutes to allow the carrying of firearms, the U.S. saw a dramatic drop in violent crime, particularly homicides. Additionally, states that approved residents to carry firearms saw a greater decrease in crime than those who did not.
However, the theory that gun ownership reduces crime is a highly controversial one. And as the study points out, even though the correlation is clear, there still remains other factors that may have influenced the drop in crime in the U.S. as well.
One study indicated that the drop in violent crime was partially the outcome of the legalization of abortion, which “resulted in the non‐birth of vast numbers of children who would have been disproportionately involved in violent crime had they existed in the 1990s.”
The same study also questioned if the possibility of the increase in both prison populations, from 100 to 300 per 100,000, and executions, from five each year to 27, resulted in reduced violent crime.
Regardless of the reason – or reasons – the fact remains that the U.S. has seen the lowest violent crime rate in the last 15 years.
The study then skims the surface of the societal problems of violent crime, citing that most violent criminals – and especially murders – almost always have a long history of criminal behavior. “So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder. By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”
A statement which aims to debunk the idea that thousands of law-abiding citizens are turned into murders each year simply because they have access to a firearm. “The day‐to‐day reality is that most family murders are prefaced by a long history of assaults.” In other words, normal, ordinary, law-abiding people don’t murder other people, but rather homicide is more likely motivated by socio-economic and cultural factors and marked by an extensive history of violence.
Suicide rates
The highly debated issue of suicide was explored as well. The World Health Organization ascertains, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.” While this is true, removing the firearm does not remove the suicide risk. The study points out that, “The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means,” concluding that there is “no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, more or less resulting in the same amount of death.”
While the question of whether or not gun ownership rates have a direct effect on violent crime and suicides will continue to no doubt remain a highly debated topic, the study does bring some interesting points to light. And although the study more strongly indicates that gun control does not reduce crime, it doesn’t necessarily strongly debate that an increase in gun ownership reduces crime either. However, a CDC study released earlier this year showed that even with the U.S. owning half the guns on earth, those guns are more often used in self-defense than for violent crimes.
Moreover, in addition to the Harvard study, at least two other studies have come up with similar conclusions. In 2003 the U.S. Center for Disease Control and again in 2004 the U.S. National Academy of Sciences both concluded that they “failed to identify any gun control that had reduced violent crime, suicides, or gun accidents.”
Should we ban knives too since that guy in China went crazy and stabbed those school kids?
Why is nobody talking about banning foreigners after the Boston bombing? That's a movement I could get behind!
I don't see why all these assholes in the US who talk about how great the gun laws are in other countries don't fucking move there then!
I'm glad for you Aussies if you are happy with the setup you have. I personally think you're kind of kidding yourselves with the brand of socialism that is slowly taking you over. A freedom limited is a freedom denied. You think we are nuts with our gun culture. Who are you going to come running to when the police and the govt. are the only ones in AUS with guns?
For anyone who believes Socialism is a good thing, please educate yourself! Socialism is very dangerous, it always leads to dictatorship. I would also like to recommend to watch some Ron Paul video's, I would like to support him, but i'm not in the US unfortunately.
Better be careful onthepipe.....the dicktators homies will be knocking on your door
It works for us, the overwhelming majority of citizens are in favour of it, sounds more like a democratic decision to me.
Freedom limited is freedom denied? So I assume in the US you can go to a bar, get absolutely loaded and drive 180mph down the freeway whilst smoking a joint? My point is, society needs a level of control, some things are legal in Australia that are not in the US and visa-versa. One law out of the vast amounts both sides have doesn't make us any less free.
I personally don't give a shit what the US does in relation to gun control, but don't say we are kidding ourselves because of how we chose to live in our country.
please.
..... And yes, either get rid of a post or two or send this to the dumbgeon.
Pit Row
You turned a thread about a funny series of pics into a gun control debate by saying;
"Pretty sure fogged goggles is the least of his concerns.
So this is in Australia? Damn, I thought the US had the lead on fat slug cops.
And why do they have guns? Surely they don't need them since guns are illegal in Australia so they should never be facing criminals with guns."
Enjoyed the pics of the bogan though. Shame Aussie cops need guns to chase down fun loving dirt bikers. He was only trying to taste the freedom known by the Baltimore Wild'n'out Wheelie Boyz.
The numbers speak for themselves. It's not surprising that the 1st world country w/ the most guns (USA), has a proportionately higher number of gun fatalities. What a shock!
Now, to address your point, it sounds as if you are saying the Australian cops should get rid of their guns because it has been proven that more guns equals more gun fatalities. Our Aussie brothers don't seem to agree with you.
and just when we thought there was no saving this thread from becoming a gun control debate......
Now, at least he had a steel frame going for him. Imagine if he had a harsh, unforgiving, rigid as an I-beam aluminum frame. He'd surely be dead right there.
Post a reply to: LOL .. Interesting Photo Sequence