Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]
Who is online
In total there are 23 users online :: 4 registered, 1 hidden and 18 guests
Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes
This seems to happen too often here:
Teenager killed playing with airgun
I think last time it happened a (undercover) cop was shot and killed by a FX Monsoon.
No it doesn't.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_sta ... #mortality
Good luck finding the word "firearm" or "gun" in the statistics report. It is an incredibly rare event.
Also, what are you complaining about
On that topic, the media here is bitching about how many guns there are again, we've more than replaced every gun destroyed in the stealback after the Port Arthur shooting.
They said that "the guns aren't semi auto, but it only takes one shot". They didn't mention half of those guns are bolt action .22s, which is marginally legal compared to any modern centrefire.
Compared to the U.S. and other countries, it is quite rare. But I didn't mean to say that NZ has a unusually high risk of people being killed by air rifles, or proper rifles for that matter, I just meant that it was surprising how many people have been killed by air rifles over the past few years (at least 3, IIRC). Does that statistics report even cover firearm deaths? There's at least a few homicides each year and many more accidental shootings. Here's an interesting bit of stats I found (from 2009): "recent information shows some 1.1 million firearms in NZ, of which 43% are rifles, 29% are shotguns, 25% are airguns and 3% are handguns".On the topic of NZ gun crime, I can highly recommend the film Out of the Blue, which is based on the Aramoana massacre. YouTube Trailer.
We would also be #1 for the country that can have its freedom taken away the easiest since our army, airforce, and navy are so sh|t
If an invasion force was on the horizon, I bet that the U.S. will be saying "Oh, so now you want our nuclear ships to enter your waters?"
I presume you mean "marginally lethal". Depends in whose hands I guess, an accurate 22 with scope and suppressor is not to be taken lightly.
I don't think that counts as "many", per capita it is an insignificant number. It's just that some tragedies are more visible than others. When you look at the figures though, there is not need to be alarmist.
How much public money is spent fighting wasps
Or was your point that it's surprising how people are killed by such "low power" weapons? The human body can be incredibly strong but also incredibly fragile. A 12 ft/lbs 0.177" air rifle will punch through 20mm of pine board with ease at close range, most parts of your skull do not offer anywhere near that level of resistance. Access to immediate medical care is also a factor.
I presume that they are included under "assault".
[quote="AN ANALYSIS OF TRENDS IN FIREARM CASUALTIES IN
NEW ZEALAND"]Airgun accidents
Langley et al (1996) investigated airgun accidents for the years 1979 - 1992. In this
fourteen year period they found that the airgun injury rate is less than 1.6 per 100,000.
These data are for 718 inpatient hospital discharges, of which 96% (689) were
unintentional, 2.2% (16) were intentional and 1.8% (13) were ‘undetermined’. Their
data shows an annual average of 51.3 airgun accidents.
“Airgun injuries, while not as serious as powder firearm injuries, account for a
significant personal and societal burden. The results suggest strategies aimed at
controlling these injuries, especially those pertaining to children, are in need of
review”, Langley et al (1996, p.117).
Airgun incidents continue to decline, from a three-year average of 1.65 per 100,000
(1979 - 1981) to 1.27 (1990 - 1992), Langley et al, 1996. Once again, the existence of
established training programmes in the basics of safe firearms handling is suggested
as the main reason for the decline.
Airgun accidents are more likely to involve people who have not benefited from NZ
Mountain Safety Council firearm safety instruction programmes. This is because for
those aged 18 years or over, a firearm licence is not required. Although some
encouragement is given to prospective, non-firearm licensed purchasers to undergo
such training, many choose not to undergo these brief but valuable courses. The
completion of this course is mandatory for any intending firearm licence applicant.[/quote]
Not enough injuries to make it a pressing issue I would think. Another interesting point:
Since most people get their information about firearm injuries from movies, it's no wonder public perception is so out of sync with reality.
I've seen some New Zealand historical battle documentaries and it would seem that convenient ghost armies, living trees and magic eagles would step in to save the day
Last edited by jackssmirkingrevenge on Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
who is going to invade your country and why ?
I would be scared as hell if I was invading a country full of men who are said to be sheepsh######
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
I did indeed mean marginally lethal, had quite a night last night, and the day before that, and the day before that... Remember kids, 3 day benders make you make silly mistakes online.
No doubts a .22 is lethal, but it's really just a heart/CNS hit that'll kill, it won't turn your organs to pulp like a decent centrefire. I've killed a lot of different things with a .22, and I've seen a boar take two 3" slugs, then get dropped by a .22.
Didnt wanna start a thread over it but when I charge up my piston valve a tiny bit of air leaks out my barrel ,, I was thinking something on my sealing face
Sort of haha. You're questioning my statement a lot more than it was intended to be
I just meant that more people are being killed by airguns than you would think; it's not freakin' difficult to wait for your mate to clear the range before shooting. Maybe the media is just reporting on these events more than they used to so it seems like people being killed by airguns is a new problem.
That's the totality of my statement, it has nothing to do with media perception of dangerous activities that aren't actually so dangerous when compared to other things nor did I intend it to be a comment on the rate of firearm/air gun deaths in NZ compared to the rest of the world
Hahaha, that was great! I actually watched the trilogy last month for the first time since they were released, I thought it was pretty awesome but the last hour of the third film always ruins it a bit. Still have no idea how Peter Jackson convinced a Hollywood studio to invest all that money, film it in NZ, film the trilogy simultaneously, and start production three years before the first film would come out.
Definitely not a new problem, I think most of it stems from the perception that airguns are low powered and therefore not that dangerous, leading to more nonchalance to safety practices which would be respected with firearms.
Unfortunately media hysteria leads to knee jerk reactions, what happened in Scotland is a good case in point.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/polit ... nts-878242
These things happen because this rhetoric is allowed to be effective... because we live in a feminised society!
hehe sorry for "jumping the gun", I've been conditioned to respond in this thread with a flurry of vitriol and statistics
They're all pretty well done I love the renaming of the cast, reminds me of Charlie Brooker's rechristening of the gladiators here
Michael Hutchence! lol
... because nerds with relatively high paying jobs and no social life have high disposable income
Air gun owners will need licence in Scotland. Is your example of media hysteria an example in itself due to the misleading headline?
I thought it was a bit extreme to completely out-law airguns in a country like Scotland, which surely has a lot of rural farmers keen on taking care of pests. A licence isn't too bad, if it were similar here (it is if you're under 18.) I would've got a firearms licence years ago as it would be a significant motivating factor. It is quite over-the-top though, a hassle for farmers and the like; maybe it should only apply to cities and suburbs.
The reasoning behind it all is bloody ridiculous though. It sounds like two parents who are desperate to find a meaning and reason for their son's life. It's just a matter of time before someone's kid has an anti-trampoline law named after them
Any three of those actions could probably warrant a headline of their own
It is not as misleading as you think. From the BBC article:
This is completely arbitrary and as good as a ban for collectors.
From the father:
Oleg Volk recently wrote about it on his blog: http://olegvolk.net/blog/2013/01/06/the ... s-fallacy/
Yup, the fears of the few become the inconveniece the many.
Transcript (not verbatim) from an excellent Mitchell & Webb sound radio sketch:
I find it hard to argue against the above. It sounds morally repugnant to have to put a value on human life, but ultimately whether consciously or not, it's something you have to do.
If you're going to go crazy, do it with style! Ten points
It's pretty much how things are now. Council money goes to heaps of different areas, some more important than others, with the knowledge that it is more fair to distribute money over multiple areas than to just solve the problems of a few.
It leads to the wider question of pretending that all human life has equal value though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
I really, really recommend this series of lectures on death by Shelly Kagan:
This is the youtube playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL ... ature=plcp
This is the sort of stuff I have running in the background when I'm machining
In some cases, yes. Most cases it would be non-discriminatory (such as fencing a public waterway), depending on the definition of 'value'. I think we also pretend for ethical reasons (among others), as it's a very slippery slope if we stop pretending. I can't really see a radical alternative being put in to action as there are far too many ways to interpret what constitutes a more valuable life (and even more problems when it comes to implementing the ideals behind this belief). Someone may be far richer than another person, and own a business that employs thousands more, but that value is just a construct of our current society; worthless under alternate circumstances.
The different variations of the trolley problem just highlight the problems facing anyone attempting to put a value on human life as social policy. I wouldn't throw the fat man over the bridge to save 5 people but I would probably divert the trolley to hit the fat man instead of the 5 people. The differences are subtle but they are differences. Likewise, I wouldn't sacrifice the man so he can donate his organs to the 5 people; even if he were homeless and the other 5 extremely prominent people.
How things are at the moment seem to be: the most ethical; the most reasonable; easiest to implement in practice; the most safe, in terms of the risk of a society collapsing due to social policy on humans and human life; and, the most safe bet in terms of how quickly a society can evolve and advance under different social constructs.
I know saying this is whiggish but 'how things are at the moment' may be due to a current, and temporary, stabilization of ideals. We can go a bit further right, or a bit further left, but adding value to human life would be a radical leap in social policy that would require further justification to stabilise it at an arbitrary position and prevent the possibility of it spiralling out of control.
Just to be clear, when I say 'how things are at the moment' I mean the general consensus on social issues by most of the civilised world. So this encapsulates democracy, monarchy, right-wing, left-wing, socialist, capitalist, etc. What I'm comparing these ideals too is a very extreme example at the complete opposite end of the spectrum where each life holds an ever-changing value and laws are enforced that discriminate against low-value people to benefit society as a whole; even if this causes suffering or death in some instances. I know this isn't necessarily what you're specifically talking about, I'm just taking the idea and running with it to the extreme. The same thing could be done back the opposite way with socialist examples that go even further than contemporary examples of communism.
I couldn't really gauge what sort of thing you were suggesting (hence the above clarification) so, if you have any thoughts that don't fall under the arguments of my extreme interpretation of human-value, feel free to ignore the above
Who is online
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot]