Gun Violence Higher In States That Vote Republican

Actually, it seems the US has about 270 million civilian firearms... (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)
So, given that the US population is approximately 14 times that of Australia (http://alldownunder.com/australian-facts/compare-population.htm), I believe it would be fairer to ask whether Australia began with 19,285,714 firearms.

Whether Australia shares a 5000 miles of border with other nations is also an interesting question, given that most of the illicit firearms our neighbors have to deal with were smuggled into their countries from the USA and not the other way around. (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/6.Firearms.pdf)

 

But that is the way to bet. We are already in the beginning stages of a tyranny in the US.

And you do have sinister motives. Busybodies always do. Oh, you and the other busybodies believe you are harassing us for our sake. You must be completely and utterly defeated.

 

I know you believe you have a duty to confound and confuse when possible.

Did Australia begin with 20 million privately owned weapons?

And if the gun grabbers succeed do you believe that 5000 miles of porous border would magically be a barrier to the transfer of guns made more expensive by state actions?

 

Is it the concept of "comparing apples to apples" that confuses you, or is it the basic math involved?

Do you believe that having no border is preferable to having a porous one?
Besides, given that most firearms are being supplied to our neighbors by the US, do you really believe they will suddenly have enough to start sending them back?

 

I understand you now. Truth is unimportant.

Ditto my first comment. Thanks for playing. I shall play no longer.

 

Using your standards, we could compare the US to the Vatican and conclude that Americans are all atheists. Is that "the Truth", or is that a "false analogy"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy)

Dodge and run for cover rather than admit you made a mistake. That's a sure sign of a mature and rational person... said no one, ever.

 

Jeez, you have a way of hitting a nerve with me (metaphorically, of course)! Porous border v. no border? Porous border = no border. The only southern border we have now is a line on a map. Translate that to the ground, and it is a mere illusion. We have the ability to close the border, but we never will because the Democrats want the votes and the Republicans was the cheap labor. The people have neither a say, nor a shot (that is, figuratively speaking, of course) in this matter!

- - - Updated - - -

Jeez, you have a way of hitting a nerve with me (metaphorically, of course)! Porous border v. no border? Porous border = no border. The only southern border we have now is a line on a map. Translate that to the ground, and it is a mere illusion. We have the ability to close the border, but we never will because the Democrats want the votes and the Republicans was the cheap labor. The people have neither a say, nor a shot (that is figuratively speaking, of course) in this matter!

 

Don't be silly. It is unbecoming.

There is no point in further discussion. It is my opinion that nothing will be gained. I shall continue to engage you in other areas. I am confidant we will disagree about nearly everything. Our world views are polar opposites. I believe the individual sovereign. You believe the state must be all powerful. So we will clash.

On to the next thing.

 

Having a Porous border is not the same as having no border. All barriers have vulnerabilities, the object is to minimize the vulnerabilities wherever possible.
The process of ELECTING decision makers who represent our values (you know, the whole "democracy" thing), is the people having a voice.

 

Come on, wake up! Slap! Slap! Snap out of it!

You just tried to tell me that we haven't the capability of closing that border if we wanted to, and that our "Elected" representatives are responsive to our wishes! You could not have been awake when you said that!

 

Very colorful, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Let's look at these two statements:
a) Any border can still be penetrated by those with the will and means of doing so.
b) Elected representatives respond to the wishes of their electorate in order to remain elected representatives.

Let's look at a micro-version of this scenario:
A bank vault can be broken into. This does not mean that the security team who put it in place did not prioritize the security of the bank's assets, it just means that the option selected (within the budgetary constraints set by the bank) was inadequate to the task.

On a national level, we could post an armed serviceman every 20 feet of the border, as well as electrified fences and a mine field covered with dedicated sattelite surveillance. Just for additional fun, we could even have drone patrols and heavy armored vehicles at checkpoints... But would you be willing to pay the taxes required to fund this, or would your priorities suddenly shift?

Does this help clear things up?