ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Australia issues , Australia politics

Reply
Old 6th September 2015, 03:49 PM   #281
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,010
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Evidence?
Nope; haven't seen you present any so far.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 05:08 PM   #282
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
It's looking like, nearly twenty years after it was made illegal, paintballing might eventually be allowed in Tasmania: http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/...-site-proposed. Although it would require an amendment to the Firearms Act 1996, so it's not a certainty.

I don't remember if paintball guns were specifically included or the law was just unnecessarily broad - looking it up, apparently the entire concept of "war games" is banned, and maybe paintball gun design - but either way it's another one of those silly things that have got stuck because the few people who care aren't enough to counteract the political difficulty of changing gun laws. At least we got to keep Laser Tag.

Incidentally, while I was trying to find more about their inclusion, I remembered getting a showbag as a kid that included a knockoff Airsoft (also now banned), that fired shoddy yellow rubber balls with an elastic band. That was a fun toy.
__________________
put tiny words on my posts how change signature forum signatue ideas best sandwich filling to disguise mold steal forum signature not get caught peanut butter expiry danger pictures how clear search history
uvar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 05:46 PM   #283
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,927
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No, you've got that bit entirely backwards. Without that bit that you just made up, it's not circular.
I made up no such thing. In response to the question of if it's a safety feature or not, you said it wasn't mandatory and was illegal. If you were not trying to make that argument that you claim I 'made up', you should have communicated it better. You should have at least provided an argument in response to what your were, responding to.

And no, it's not my understanding that's the issue. You've continually done this on this issue. You throw out a lot of things in response to something, then insist that those things you said weren't actually arguments about what you were replying to. If you're not going to address what was being said, don't bother quoting. It's confusing.

Quote:
Good thing I didn't argue that. You made that up too.
Then your statement was essentially meaningless. They are a safety feature, and you're still against them.

Quote:
True. But they should be.
Then you should want silencers to be mandatory.

Being optional doesn't make something not a safety feature. Being redundant doesn't make something not a safety feature. Being illegal doesn't make something not a safety feature. Having drawbacks doesn't make something not a safety feature. Everything thus far argued about why something that increases safety isn't a safety feature isn't remotely valid.

Let me see if I've got the things you've admitted are your arguments correct. Some things should just be illegal, because. Silencers are one of those things. Silencers should be illegal because someone might make money selling them. Silencers should be illegal because they aren't a safety feature (even though the quite obviously are). All the other parts of your posts aren't arguments of why silencers should be illegal. Correct?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 06:00 PM   #284
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,927
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Very simple. Wear earmuffs, silencer is redundant.

The end.
That's a non-sequitur. Being redundant doesn't make something not a safety feature.


Quote:
Again a completely illogical analogy.

You cannot take an option other than seat-belts. You can wear earmuffs.
Airbags. And they don't 'obstruct' you. Or one could do the reasonable thing and use both.

Having other option in no way, shape, or form, makes something not a safety feature. Hell, having a better option doesn't even make something not a safety feature. Having drawbacks doesn't make something not a safety feature. Something is not a safety feature if it doesn't increase safety when properly employed.

Quote:
In hunting, they increase the danger in two ways:

1 Obstruction.
Um, what? How is that a danger? Is a Mosin Nagant long rifle inherently unsafe because it's long? Pistols are safer because they're less of an obstruction?

Quote:
2 Hunters in the same forest can hear other gunshots and stay away from each other. Christ, even a little country like NZ gets a dozen or so hunting deaths a year and using silencers increases the chances of people getting in each other's line of fire.
No they don't. You don't tell where the hunters are by the sound of their gunshots. By the time you hear the shot, the bullet's already hit, and if you were in the bullet's way, you're already hit. Depending on what one is hunting, after you've fired, you're probably moving anyway.

You tell where the hunters are by wearing orange and coordinating. You avoid accidentally shoot someone by making damn sure about what you're shooting at and what's behind it before taking the shot. You don't simply listen for gunshots. Besides that, you can still plainly hear gunshots with silencers.

Quote:
These things should be blindingly obvious.
If they weren't blindingly wrong, maybe they would be.


Quote:
You're saying some countries insist on silencers?
Yes. Some countries insist on silencers in some situations. I believe it was Sweden and New Zealand.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 06:34 PM   #285
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
double post

Last edited by Ranb; 6th September 2015 at 06:39 PM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 06:38 PM   #286
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nope; haven't seen you present any so far.
So when you claim; "Christ, even a little country like NZ gets a dozen or so hunting deaths a year and using silencers increases the chances of people getting in each other's line of fire." someone else is suppose to provide some evidence to support or refute your claim? I understand that this is the usual sort of thing on forums like DI and LCF, but here it just gets a person laughed at. Going to suck it up and support your bizarre claim?

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 09:11 PM   #287
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
So when you claim; "Christ, even a little country like NZ gets a dozen or so hunting deaths a year and using silencers increases the chances of people getting in each other's line of fire." someone else is suppose to provide some evidence to support or refute your claim? I understand that this is the usual sort of thing on forums like DI and LCF, but here it just gets a person laughed at. Going to suck it up and support your bizarre claim?

Ranb
Here, I'll help with the first half of The Atheist's claim:
Quote:
A string of hunting accidents is proof New Zealand's firearms laws need to be reviewed, a leading gun control advocate says.

In the past 10 years, 19 people have died and 57 have been injured by firearms.

(Source, May 11 2014)
Those are specifically from hunting; overall deaths are a lot higher, and mostly suicides (e.g.).
__________________
put tiny words on my posts how change signature forum signatue ideas best sandwich filling to disguise mold steal forum signature not get caught peanut butter expiry danger pictures how clear search history
uvar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th September 2015, 10:44 PM   #288
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,010
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
That's a non-sequitur. Being redundant doesn't make something not a safety feature.
No, and I'll gladly amend it to "non-essential safety feature".

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Airbags.
I'm stunned at the false analogies, but keep going. Airbags don't do the same job as seat belts.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Um, what? How is that a danger? Is a Mosin Nagant long rifle inherently unsafe because it's long? Pistols are safer because they're less of an obstruction?
Well, a pistol would be safer to carry in the bush, but I don't like your chances of dropping a deer at 200m.

Where anyone hunts in NZ is always in bush, so obstructions are an issue. If you're hunting on the savannah, it probably doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
No they don't. You don't tell where the hunters are by the sound of their gunshots. By the time you hear the shot, the bullet's already hit, and if you were in the bullet's way, you're already hit. Depending on what one is hunting, after you've fired, you're probably moving anyway.
You've missed the point.

If I'm hunting and hear shots away to the east, I'll head west. If someone's using a silencer, it's much easier to get in harm's way.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You tell where the hunters are by wearing orange and coordinating. You avoid accidentally shoot someone by making damn sure about what you're shooting at and what's behind it before taking the shot. You don't simply listen for gunshots. Besides that, you can still plainly hear gunshots with silencers.
You can't hear them from anywhere near the same distance as gunshots and the co-ordination is a nonsense. You can't co-ordinate with people you don't know are hunting.

The identifying the target only goes to the target - the problem with being too close to another hunter is missing the target, which has been known to happen.

It's not a case of listening for shots - you can hear them miles away.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Yes. Some countries insist on silencers in some situations. I believe it was Sweden and New Zealand.
"Some situations".

I don't know of any compulsory silencer requirements in NZ, so if there are they must be secret.

I can't find any evidence of Sweden requiring silencers, either.

They are legal in both countries, but not compulsory.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 03:25 AM   #289
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by uvar View Post
Here, I'll help with the first half of The Atheist's claim:
That is not the problem. Claiming that there are hunting deaths associated with gun use is not unusual nor is there any lack of evidence to support the claim. Claiming that silencer use on hunting firearms increases that risk is different. While I've seen this claim in the past, no one has been willing to support it with any evidence at all.

Par for the course on this forum when it comes to claims about guns. Make an unsupported claim about guns and demand that anyone not falling for the crap refute it with their own evidence.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 03:35 AM   #290
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Well, a pistol would be safer to carry in the bush, but I don't like your chances of dropping a deer at 200m.
What about with a pistol like the TC Contender or Encore? https://www.google.com/search?q=tc+c...w=1093&bih=457

It seems you are falling into the same trap as the moonbats who like to call the Apollo program a hoax; they don't like it.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If I'm hunting and hear shots away to the east, I'll head west. If someone's using a silencer, it's much easier to get in harm's way.
How much easier? A lot or a tiny bit? Is it statistically significant?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
You can't hear them from anywhere near the same distance as gunshots and the co-ordination is a nonsense. You can't co-ordinate with people you don't know are hunting.
How did you determine this?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
It's not a case of listening for shots - you can hear them miles away.
If you can hear a suppressed gunshot from miles away, what is the problem?

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 04:08 AM   #291
uvar
Critical Thinker
 
uvar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Where I am
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
That is not the problem. Claiming that there are hunting deaths associated with gun use is not unusual nor is there any lack of evidence to support the claim. Claiming that silencer use on hunting firearms increases that risk is different. While I've seen this claim in the past, no one has been willing to support it with any evidence at all.

Par for the course on this forum when it comes to claims about guns. Make an unsupported claim about guns and demand that anyone not falling for the crap refute it with their own evidence.

Ranb
While I agree that expecting someone else to research a claim is a bad setup, my 'help' was sarcastic. it was easy to find evidence in this case, and the original claim was apparently off by a factor of ten. It seemed worse to let that go uncorrected.
__________________
put tiny words on my posts how change signature forum signatue ideas best sandwich filling to disguise mold steal forum signature not get caught peanut butter expiry danger pictures how clear search history
uvar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 07:35 AM   #292
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,927
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
No, and I'll gladly amend it to "non-essential safety feature".
Yay! It was being to boggle my mind how this distinction wasn't accepted.



Quote:
I'm stunned at the false analogies, but keep going. Airbags don't do the same job as seat belts.
Actually, they do. A seat belt protects you by absorbing some force gradually and isolating your movements so as to prevent you from hitting a harder surface or be thrown from a car. Guess what airbags also do? They both have benefits and drawbacks, but the basics of what they are doing is the same; protecting you from impacts. This is very analogous (although like all analogies not perfectly so) for the difference in ear mufflers and silencers on the gun itself. Both protect your ears from the loud report of a firearm by preventing most of it from reaching your ears. They do it in different ways (although even that is closer than one might think). They have different benefits and drawbacks. I'd say using both is the right thing to do.

I meant to link to this earlier, but this is worth the watch. I know people don't tend to like argument via youtube video, but this one is short (less than five minutes), entertaining, and not from gun nuts. It's the Mythbusters. The last part is especially useful.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE




Quote:
Well, a pistol would be safer to carry in the bush, but I don't like your chances of dropping a deer at 200m.

Where anyone hunts in NZ is always in bush, so obstructions are an issue. If you're hunting on the savannah, it probably doesn't matter.

In either case, safe movement procedures should be followed. I'm not asking this to attack your knowledge on the subject, but have you ever taken a hunter safety course? They're required in New York to hunt, and moving safely with firearms takes up a lot of the course work. They even cover going over a fence safely with firearms. In no case does having a slightly longer or front heavy rifle actually make it more dangerous, unless one is not actually following safe movement practices. In that case, a front heavy gun could fall and has a (very, very small!) chance of firing. Of course if you were following safe practices, you would have unloaded the firearm before leaning it against something so you can go around/over/through and obstruction. Even better, you would have had a proper sling for your gun and wouldn't have likely needed to lean it in the first place. (This is another reason I've become somewhat distrusting of many of the people proposing more gun regulations, as some have called for bans on safety features not only on things like silencers, but on slings.)



Quote:
You've missed the point.

If I'm hunting and hear shots away to the east, I'll head west. If someone's using a silencer, it's much easier to get in harm's way.


You can't hear them from anywhere near the same distance as gunshots and the co-ordination is a nonsense. You can't co-ordinate with people you don't know are hunting.

The identifying the target only goes to the target - the problem with being too close to another hunter is missing the target, which has been known to happen.

It's not a case of listening for shots - you can hear them miles away.
Right into someone else who hasn't fired yet. You can still hear the report from a shot fired from a silencer miles away.

If you don't know who is hunting around you, you should make an effort to be highly visible and to greet anyone you find hunting so you can coordinate. This has such a greater effect on your safety than walking away from gunshots, that it's actually inadvisable to rely on the listening for safety. One's ability to tell what direction a gunshot is actually coming from can be easily confounded, and you can end up traveling into their field of fire anyway. Can it be useful sometimes? Of course, but suppressors don't actually prevent this, so it's still not a knock on them.

Quote:
"Some situations".

I don't know of any compulsory silencer requirements in NZ, so if there are they must be secret.

I can't find any evidence of Sweden requiring silencers, either.

They are legal in both countries, but not compulsory.
You know, I could be mistaken. I thought I read about when a silencer is required in one of the nordic countries, but I can't seem to find it now.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 12:03 PM   #293
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,010
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Claiming that silencer use on hunting firearms increases that risk is different. While I've seen this claim in the past, no one has been willing to support it with any evidence at all.
That is pure, unadultered nonsense.

What the hell size sample do you think there is?

They're banned outright almost everywhere.

In the lack of evidence, it's perfectly reason to use rational thinking.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
What about with a pistol like the TC Contender or Encore?
I wouldn't have a clue as I've never seen one.

I'm sure there are some hunters who use pistols.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
How much easier? A lot or a tiny bit? Is it statistically significant?
Highly significant, in my view.

If I can hear shots faintly and can pinpoint them to a mile away or more, then I'm almost 100% safe where I am.

I also know that moving in that direction will put me in harm's way, while moving away will take me further from a chance of being hit accidentally.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
How did you determine this?
With an aural receptor.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If you can hear a suppressed gunshot from miles away, what is the problem?

Ranb
I know it's an attempt at facetiousness, but I'll note anyway that you cannot hear silenced shots from miles away, exactly unlike unsuppressed shots.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
...for the difference in ear mufflers and silencers on the gun itself. Both protect your ears from the loud report of a firearm by preventing most of it from reaching your ears. They do it in different ways (although even that is closer than one might think). They have different benefits and drawbacks. I'd say using both is the right thing to do.
That is ridiculous.

Grade 5 earmuffs are specifically designed to reduce sounds to a level damage cannot occur. From hearing safety perspectives, earmuffs are 100% effective.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
ie, safe movement procedures should be followed.
I'm not talking about accidental discharges, because anyone carrying a gun with it able to fire under any circumstances is a moron and I'm not here to discuss morons.

I'm talking about the logistics of moving over broken ground and in bush. Longer things get in your way, and when you're focusing 100% attention on not falling into a ravine, extra length is not good.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Right into someone else who hasn't fired yet. You can still hear the report from a shot fired from a silencer miles away.
Yeah, right.

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You know, I could be mistaken. I thought I read about when a silencer is required in one of the nordic countries, but I can't seem to find it now.
How decidedly inconvenient.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 12:54 PM   #294
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That is pure, unadultered nonsense.
If you make a claim, either qualify it or at least be prepared to show any evidence at all to support it. You have done neither.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
What the hell size sample do you think there is?
It is rather small; about zero in Australia I presume. What about data from other countries. Have you never compared Australia gun culture to others?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
They're banned outright almost everywhere.
Wrong. Why say something so easy to prove wrong? Even a brief look at Wikipedia will show you how foolish your claim is.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
In the lack of evidence, it's perfectly reason to use rational thinking.
Evidence appears to be lacking only because you refuse to look for any. Your thinking on this topic certainly is not rational at all. It appears you have no clue about the physical limitations of silencers or their legalities.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I wouldn't have a clue as I've never seen one.
You should have one prior to making any claims then.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I'm sure there are some hunters who use pistols.
Finally, a claim that is correct. I'm good enough with mine to take game out to 200 meters. Yes it takes lots of practice.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Highly significant, in my view.
It seems you have no idea about how loud a suppressed high powered hunting rifle is. Why do you think it is highly significant?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
If I can hear shots faintly and can pinpoint them to a mile away or more, then I'm almost 100% safe where I am.

I also know that moving in that direction will put me in harm's way, while moving away will take me further from a chance of being hit accidentally.
So a suppressed gunshot heard from a mile away or more makes you feel unsafe then? Why does it matter if it is suppressed or not?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
With an aural receptor.
From your previous posts it appears that you know nothing about silencers, but now you are telling me that you've heard the actual difference between suppressed and unsuppressed gunfire? Or are you making a completely uninformed guess like the rest of your claims?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I know it's an attempt at facetiousness, but I'll note anyway that you cannot hear silenced shots from miles away, exactly unlike unsuppressed shots.
I can't? Why not? Can you explain why a supersonic bullet creating a sonic boom >100 decibels and a muzzle blast of over 130 decibels can't be heard miles away from the shooter?

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
That is ridiculous.

Grade 5 earmuffs are specifically designed to reduce sounds to a level damage cannot occur. From hearing safety perspectives, earmuffs are 100% effective.
Grade 5 ear muffs? I assume they are rated for about 30 decibel reduction? That is good, but I'll still be using ear muffs (good ones) along with the silencer when I shoot my 50 BMG rifle. Not ridiculous.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yeah, right.
What makes you the expert? Here is a video I made on the limitations of silencer use. Start watching at 6 minutes in for the relevant portion. While one has to be present to appreciated how well a silencer works, hunting rifles are still rather loud when suppressed.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th September 2015, 07:07 PM   #295
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,010
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
If you make a claim, either qualify it or at least be prepared to show any evidence at all to support it. You have done neither.
I admit there is no evidence available and your response is to demand evidence.

Highly rational.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Wrong. Why say something so easy to prove wrong? Even a brief look at Wikipedia will show you how foolish your claim is.
I admit that I was wrong. It's more 50/50 than a majority of countries.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
From your previous posts it appears that you know nothing about silencers, but now you are telling me that you've heard the actual difference between suppressed and unsuppressed gunfire? Or are you making a completely uninformed guess like the rest of your claims?
Of course I've heard the difference and it's more than significant. A measure would be that a suppressed shot is about the level of a loud hand clap or bullwhip.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th September 2015, 06:14 AM   #296
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Of course I've heard the difference and it's more than significant. A measure would be that a suppressed shot is about the level of a loud hand clap or bullwhip.
You're on the right track. I've compared a suppressed firearm using subsonic ammo to a door slamming and the sonic boom of a high speed bullet to a whip cracking sound. I'm not sure how loud an actual whip crack is as I'm not able to locate good sound data with the proper equipment.

Here is some noise data; http://www.silencertalk.com/results.htm While there has been slight improvement a suppressed 308 hunting rifle is going to be heard a long ways away.


Ranb

Last edited by Ranb; 8th September 2015 at 06:21 AM.
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2015, 05:28 AM   #297
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,156
Woman dead after being shot in head at Gold Coast McDonald's, gunman taken to hospital


Quote:
A woman is dead after being shot in the head at a McDonald's restaurant at Helensvale on the Gold Coast.

The 49-year-old was shot by a 57-year-old man, who then turned the gun on himself, in the dining area of the restaurant on Siganto Drive about 9:15am.

Queensland Police Services' Detective Inspector Mark White said the man was taken to Gold Coast University Hospital with critical head injuries.

The man and woman were known to each other and were both from Maryborough on the Fraser Coast.

No-one else was physically injured.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2015, 01:35 PM   #298
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,010
Copycats!

We had a bloke shot dead at Maccas Upper Hutt on Tuesday.

(that one was ok - the cops shot him)
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2015, 08:05 PM   #299
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,156
Pro-gun lobbyists disrupt gun control appeal in Sydney, claim they are being vilified as criminals

Quote:
Gun owners have disrupted a press conference in Sydney calling for a ban on a new rapid-fire shotgun, claiming they are being branded as criminals.

Gun Control Australia (GCA) teamed up with the Homicide Victims Support Group to call on the states and the Federal Government to ban the Adler A110 lever action shotgun in Australia.

The A110 uses a lever action to load cartridges into the barrel.
Quote:
Ms Cusumano told the press conference the A110 threatened to take Australia back to the days before the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

"I suppose I'm just a little bit angry that we're still dealing with [the issue of gun control] 20 years later," she said.

"We need to stop this gun from coming into Australia just in case it gets into the wrong hands."

New South Wales Greens MP David Shoebridge joined the call to ban the Adler and said any weapon with the capacity to fire eight shots in quick-succession should be considered a risk to the community.
Quote:
Three gun owners from NSW disrupted the press conference and claimed they were being vilified by the gun control lobby.

Gun owner Justin Luke said law-abiding shooters were being treated like criminals.

"We are being painted as criminals and that has to stop," he said.

"The vilification of law-abiding shooters has to stop and ... the attention needs to be on criminals."
Sounds like our gun lobbyists are trying to import American arguments and methods into our country. These are exactly the same invalid arguments that gun owners on this forum have used.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2015, 09:01 PM   #300
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,212
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Pro-gun lobbyists disrupt gun control appeal in Sydney, claim they are being vilified as criminals







Sounds like our gun lobbyists are trying to import American arguments and methods into our country. These are exactly the same invalid arguments that gun owners on this forum have used.
Australians, eh? There's no accounting for folk, I suppose. Good luck with your lever action shotgun problem.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th November 2015, 10:10 PM   #301
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Sounds like our gun lobbyists are trying to import American arguments and methods into our country. These are exactly the same invalid arguments that gun owners on this forum have used.
Which of the arguments listed in your post are American?

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 05:22 AM   #302
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,212
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Was there a silencer crime problem in Australia? I never heard of one.
It was silenced.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 05:56 AM   #303
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,212
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I admit there is no evidence available and your response is to demand evidence.

Highly rational.
Why did you make a claim without evidence?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 11:01 AM   #304
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,882
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Australians, eh? There's no accounting for folk, I suppose. Good luck with your lever action shotgun problem.
Lever action shotguns? Rapid fire? I have a lever action shotgun. It's a model 1887. Damned newfangled technology.

Oh crap!
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!
Beady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 04:14 PM   #305
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,156
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Which of the arguments listed in your post are American?
Certain American gun-owning posters have used the "law-abiding gun owners painted as criminals" argument on this very forum.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 07:47 PM   #306
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Certain American gun-owning posters have used the "law-abiding gun owners painted as criminals" argument on this very forum.
I'm an American. I've been accused of criminal activity by people on this forum simply for engaging in discussions about legal firearms. I think most any gun owner in the world would object to being painted as a criminal especially if they are careful to obey the law where they live.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 10:00 PM   #307
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Certain American gun-owning posters have used the "law-abiding gun owners painted as criminals" argument on this very forum.
When a whack-job goes on a mass-shooting and gun owners who have never committed a crime in their lives are accused of having "blood on their hands" because they own a similar kind of gun as the whack-job used, what else would you call it?
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th November 2015, 10:51 PM   #308
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
When a whack-job goes on a mass-shooting and gun owners who have never committed a crime in their lives are accused of having "blood on their hands" because they own a similar kind of gun as the whack-job used, what else would you call it?
They aren't. It is the NRA

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 03:12 AM   #309
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,156
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
When a whack-job goes on a mass-shooting and gun owners who have never committed a crime in their lives are accused of having "blood on their hands" because they own a similar kind of gun as the whack-job used, what else would you call it?
Yes, because that's exactly what's being talked about.

Law-abiding gun owners by definition abide by the law. They can't be criminals if they don't own any illegal firearms. In this case we're talking about legalising a weapon that previously wasn't legal - so no law-abiding gun owners own one. You can't be suddenly made a criminal by not allowing a gun that already wasn't allowed.

That's why the argument is invalid. A law-abiding gun owner by definition doesn't own any illegal weapons.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 07:13 AM   #310
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
In this case we're talking about legalising a weapon that previously wasn't legal - so no law-abiding gun owners own one. You can't be suddenly made a criminal by not allowing a gun that already wasn't allowed.

That's why the argument is invalid. A law-abiding gun owner by definition doesn't own any illegal weapons.
I thought you were discussing the Adler A110 lever action shotgun. From what I've read it is legal in Australia but some people are attempting to block import by calling a lever action shotgun semi-auto.

Unless I'm mistaken, the gun is legal and the efforts of those who would block import by calling it new technology or semi-auto are lying.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 07:50 AM   #311
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
They aren't. It is the NRA
How dare an organization stand up for civil rights you disagree with!

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
I don't care what kind of phone you have or for the software advertisement.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 06:30 PM   #312
Hungry81
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How dare an organization stand up for civil rights you disagree with!


I don't care what kind of phone you have or for the software advertisement.
It's ashame that the right to bear arms exists at all. It seems to me it is the only excuse the USA has for its gun culture in this day and age. Owning a gun should not be a right, it should be a privilege. The 2nd amendment should be reammended.

Last edited by Hungry81; 9th November 2015 at 06:33 PM.
Hungry81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 06:38 PM   #313
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,038
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
How dare an organization stand up for civil rights you disagree with!


I don't care what kind of phone you have or for the software advertisement.
Was a bit silly personalising it then

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; 9th November 2015 at 07:06 PM.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 06:45 PM   #314
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,156
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I thought you were discussing the Adler A110 lever action shotgun. From what I've read it is legal in Australia but some people are attempting to block import by calling a lever action shotgun semi-auto.

Unless I'm mistaken, the gun is legal and the efforts of those who would block import by calling it new technology or semi-auto are lying.
Oh. As far as I was aware it was not legal, and the proposal was to make it legal. I might have to re-check my sources on that. If what you say is true, then you might have more of a point.

ETA: having another look at the sources, it seems that you are correct. The issue is that this particular weapon basically exploits a loophole in the law, being a rapid-fire weapon that isn't technically considered semi-automatic. There is little functional difference between this and a semi-automatic weapon (which are illegal) other than the mechanics of its loading mechanism. I (and others) believe that the law should prohibit this weapon for the same reason that it prohibits semi-automatics - its rate of fire. This thing can put a lot of metal in the air in a very short time and has the potential to be incredibly destructive.

Gun advocates are comparing its rate of fire with that of a bolt-action rifle, but I don't think the comparison is very good. A bolt-action rifle requires four separate movements to reload (up, forward, back, down) while this requires only two (forward, back), and a bolt action rifle puts only one largeish piece of metal into the air with each squeeze of the trigger, whereas this weapon puts hundreds of smaller ones in a tight group.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

Last edited by arthwollipot; 9th November 2015 at 06:54 PM.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 07:22 PM   #315
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The issue is that this particular weapon basically exploits a loophole in the law, being a rapid-fire weapon that isn't technically considered semi-automatic.
Can you point out the loophole to me? As far as I know semi-auto and pump shotguns were restricted by the type of action. Lever action shotguns have been around for a long ass time, so they must have known about them. The last time I read Australian gun control law I didn't notice that it was in any way ambiguous.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
There is little functional difference between this and a semi-automatic weapon (which are illegal)
You mean restricted?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
other than the mechanics of its loading mechanism.
Semi-auto, pump, bolt action and lever actions all contain a bolt. Semi-auto actions use a recoil mechanism or gas operation plus a spring to move the bolt. The others rely on the person's hand to operate the bolt; at a much slower speed. Semi-auto is fastest (by a wide margin), then pump, then lever and last is bolt by my experience.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I (and others) believe that the law should prohibit this weapon for the same reason that it prohibits semi-automatics - its rate of fire. This thing can put a lot of metal in the air in a very short time and has the potential to be incredibly destructive.
Isn't there a less embarrassing way to keep the guns out of the country than trying to convince fellow Australians that they're idiots? Why not change the law instead of trying to suggest that lever action is like semi-auto?

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Gun advocates are comparing its rate of fire with that of a bolt-action rifle, but I don't think the comparison is very good. A bolt-action rifle requires four separate movements to reload (up, forward, back, down) while this requires only two (forward, back), and a bolt action rifle puts only one largeish piece of metal into the air with each squeeze of the trigger, whereas this weapon puts hundreds of smaller ones in a tight group.
This argument is naive. There are bolt action shotguns. Shotguns can use shot or slugs. They are available in smooth or rifle bores. Rifles can use shot in place of bullets; doesn't work as well as a shotgun though because even my 50 caliber rifle is going to be less effective than a 20 or 28 gauge shotgun when loaded with shot. Compared to a rifle shooting bullets, a shotgun with shotshells does not put anything in a tight group unless it is less than 5 meters away.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 07:29 PM   #316
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,944
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I'm an American. I've been accused of criminal activity by people on this forum simply for engaging in discussions about legal firearms. I think most any gun owner in the world would object to being painted as a criminal especially if they are careful to obey the law where they live.

Ranb
Hell, I'm a trained armorer and small arms instructor living in San Francisco.

If I was registered to vote as a republican they'd arrest me on sight and deport me to Montana.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 07:38 PM   #317
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,156
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Can you point out the loophole to me? As far as I know semi-auto and pump shotguns were restricted by the type of action. Lever action shotguns have been around for a long ass time, so they must have known about them. The last time I read Australian gun control law I didn't notice that it was in any way ambiguous.
As far as I am aware the law restricts semi-automatic and pump, but does not restrict lever-action, despite the fact that lever-action weapons can fire about as fast as pump. Basically, the mechanism shouldn't be the factor, it should be average rate of fire. I consider that to be a flaw in Australia's gun laws.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
You mean restricted?
Yeah, whatever particular terminology is required. You know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Semi-auto, pump, bolt action and lever actions all contain a bolt. Semi-auto actions use a recoil mechanism or gas operation plus a spring to move the bolt. The others rely on the person's hand to operate the bolt; at a much slower speed. Semi-auto is fastest (by a wide margin), then pump, then lever and last is bolt by my experience.
So there is no disagreement then that semi-auto should be illegal sorry, restricted because its rate of fire is so much higher than the other types. What would you say the difference is between pump and lever? Lots? A little? My opinion (admittedly uninformed by direct practical experience) is that it seems to me that there isn't much of a difference between pump and lever, and so the difference in the way the law treats them is out of proportion.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Isn't there a less embarrassing way to keep the guns out of the country than trying to convince fellow Australians that they're idiots? Why not change the law instead of trying to suggest that lever action is like semi-auto?
Yes, there are some people trying to change the law, and that is what I would suggest too. There are parliamentarians such as Leyonjelm who actively work in the opposite direction. And in a legislative fight between me and him, he wins because he's in Parliament.

Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
This argument is naive. There are bolt action shotguns. Shotguns can use shot or slugs. They are available in smooth or rifle bores. Rifles can use shot in place of bullets; doesn't work as well as a shotgun though because even my 50 caliber rifle is going to be less effective than a 20 or 28 gauge shotgun when loaded with shot. Compared to a rifle shooting bullets, a shotgun with shotshells does not put anything in a tight group unless it is less than 5 meters away.
I was not aware that it was possible to fire shot from a rifle. Thanks for that. But you've already said that bolt-action weapons are the slowest, so I don't think it's relevant. Pump- and lever-action weapons have a similar rate of fire, so I think the law should treat them similarly.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 08:35 PM   #318
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,212
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
So there is no disagreement then that semi-auto should be illegal sorry, restricted because its rate of fire is so much higher than the other types.
I think you misread Ranb. The lever action rate of fire is actually lower than every other type except for bolt action.

Also, I don't think Ranb expressed any inclination to agree with you on the basis you suggest above. Rule of So?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 08:48 PM   #319
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
So there is no disagreement then that semi-auto should be illegal sorry, restricted because its rate of fire is so much higher than the other types.
I was not making any sort of judgement on what should be restricted. I like my pump, bolt and semi-auto shotguns; not going to give them up without a fight.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What would you say the difference is between pump and lever? Lots? A little? My opinion (admittedly uninformed by direct practical experience) is that it seems to me that there isn't much of a difference between pump and lever, and so the difference in the way the law treats them is out of proportion.
I have used pump shotguns and lever and pump rifles. Pump beats the lever for speed, period. In fact my Mossberg pump shotgun can be rapid fired by keeping the trigger held back and pumping fast. I can't do the same with my Winchester M94 carbine. I would say the rate of fire of the M94 in my hands is about half as fast as my pump 12 gauge even though the recoil of the shotgun is heavier.

Here is a lever gun, but it is trick shooting with a modified action from what I'm told. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IVCwYPjFXc

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I was not aware that it was possible to fire shot from a rifle.
It is, but not very useful.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Pump- and lever-action weapons have a similar rate of fire, so I think the law should treat them similarly.
I think the lever shotgun is slower. Unless there is a real possibility that people will abuse lever guns in Australia, they should be left alone.

I'm not impressed at all with the Adler A110. It is like the California legal AR-15's with the gas system not installed making the rifle a straight pull, spring loaded bolt action. A poor solution for a political problem.

Ranb
Ranb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2015, 09:06 PM   #320
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,156
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
I think the lever shotgun is slower. Unless there is a real possibility that people will abuse lever guns in Australia, they should be left alone.
There is a real possibility. The risk is such that you have to assume that there is a real possibility of any weapon being abused and implement controls appropriate to the risk. Rapid-fire weapons have a higher inherent risk than single-shot weapons.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.