Quantcast
House minority leader trying to blame video games for mass shootings. Update: Walmart pulls violent video game ads for 2 weeks

Forums - Politics Discussion - House minority leader trying to blame video games for mass shootings. Update: Walmart pulls violent video game ads for 2 weeks

VAMatt said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1.  The level it decreased to is still so high that it cannot be stated that firearms ownership makes people safer or even has a causal influence in the trend, especially when compared to the levels held by developed nations with gun control (many of which are experiencing decreased levels of their own).


2.  Firearms ownership is not a basic human right.  It's not even acknowledged as a human right (check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights if you don't believe me).  Heck, West Korea is virtually the only developed country that holds it as a right for its own citizens, and even West Korea fails to advocate for its adoption globally.

1)  Okay.  What's your point?  

2) The right to defend yourself is absolutely a human right. 

1.  That the decrease is an irrelevant data point when arguing in favor of gun ownership/proliferation, meritless to those who understand what numbers mean.

2.  Unfortunately, there has been a consensus among all nations, from civilization's inception to the present day, that all rights (be they real or imagined by yourself) are subject to limitations.  And further, that limitations do not inherently equate to infringements on those rights.

Appropriately enough, humanity has long since reached the consensus that gun control is not an infringement on self defense.  Were it so, West Korean leaders would be continuing an age-old condemnation of virtually every other developed nation for their 'human rights violation' of gun control.  Instead, West Korea is conspicuously soft.  What are the odds?

If you wish to argue in favor of gun control, the argument will need to meet a minimum standard of logic and accuracy.   



Around the Network
SuaveSocialist said:
VAMatt said:

1)  Okay.  What's your point?  

2) The right to defend yourself is absolutely a human right. 

1.  That the decrease is an irrelevant data point when arguing in favor of gun ownership/proliferation, meritless to those who understand what numbers mean.

2.  Unfortunately, there has been a consensus among all nations, from civilization's inception to the present day, that all rights (be they real or imagined by yourself) are subject to limitations.  And further, that limitations do not inherently equate to infringements on those rights.

Appropriately enough, humanity has long since reached the consensus that gun control is not an infringement on self defense.  Were it so, West Korean leaders would be continuing an age-old condemnation of virtually every other developed nation for their 'human rights violation' of gun control.  Instead, West Korea is conspicuously soft.  What are the odds?

If you wish to argue in favor of gun control, the argument will need to meet a minimum standard of logic and accuracy.   

"Unfortunately, there has been a consensus among all nations, from civilization's inception to the present day"

lol which nations exactly are you talking about? you do understanding that the nations that formed first allowed for abhorrent activities like slavery right?

"Appropriately enough, humanity has long since reached the consensus that gun control is not an infringement on self defense."

america was formed in direct opposition to your stated values here so its pretty much bullshit

who exactly are you talking about? you do understand that the context of this discussion is the united states which currently has written into its constitution the right to bear arms?

"If you wish to argue in favor of gun control, the argument will need to meet a minimum standard of logic and accuracy.   "

and he did while you started off by stating that we should conduct ourselves in accordance to civilisations that condoned activities like slavery



Pemalite said: 

Neon lights being a safety issue I have already touched upon. So I won't repeat myself there... Go back and re-read my prior post/posts.
People were having red and blue neon lights flashing and confusing road drivers.

Tinting your windows too dark results in less visibility at night... But that's just common sense and most certainly a safety issue.

Loud exhaust isn't a safety issue per-say, it just adds to noise pollution.

I blame both the drivers and cars.

Late reply, iv been super busy, but I couldn't ignore this. This sums up your post completely and only proves my point. 

Tinting the windows of your car does not affect safety in any form or matter. For starters, we are not allowed to tint the front windows of our cars black, you should know that, that obviously makes sense for safety however not tinting the side or rear windows does nothing to affect safety. You would have more of an issue with the sun beaming down into your eyes than tinted windows on a car which actually blocks the suns rays out that actually increases safety. Also tinted windows you can still see out of very easily. But face it. Not able to tint your windows too dark is a government control issue not a safety issue. They just want to watch you and see you at all time. To claim it affects safety is easily debatable with the sun causing more of an issue for drivers.

Let me point form this.

Lowering a car increases handling which reduces cars from losing traction or rolling over, something that generally happens but you will argue that it buckles cars in the middle which affects safety when in a car accident.. seems that both increase safety in different ways. But god forbid you lower your car too much because that buckle is more important than your car rolling or drifting into poles.

Tinted Windows blocks out the sun but you will argue it affects your vision.. doesn't affect your vision if its not the front window and we don't drive cars side ways (unless you are in Tokyo drifts) so blocking out the sun actually prevents accidents but the government wants to see you smiling when driving. Lets face it.

Neon Lights adds more visuals at night for traffic. Neon lights are not strobe lights or spot lights, they don't blind traffic or in any way affect anyone. Service vehicle lights are completely different and instead of banning the bad drivers for misusing these lights, lets just make it illegal to have on the roads completely. (except in car parks, otherwise, get slapped with a fine) How about the drivers who cant tell the difference between ground Neon lights and emergency lights get taken off our roads instead? That sounds like a bigger problem. I hear no complaints in any other country that are allowed to have Neon's on there cars. But Australia has to be Australia.

Loud exhaust? I guess you are just going to submit to that one right? Loud exhausts increases attention on the road, making it easier to hear on coming traffic etc. Motorbikes are allowed to have loud exhaust for that exact reason yet cars are not allowed.. this is exactly the proof that all these decisions that are made don't affect safety in any way, just more of the government wanting to be able to control you. If you can hear a car coming, that increases safety rapidly and not just to other drivers but to pedestrian's as well.

You see the issue when you give the government an inch? they take a mile and these examples are exactly that. They will continue taking and taking until you cannot do anything, and they will claim its for safety which I call BS on all fronts. This is why the US public don't want to fall in that dictatorship. They know what happens once you give in a little. Just look at all the non logically calls our government has done. I laughed at a female copper acouple of years back when she saw I had a steering wheel lock sitting on the front seat of my old car. She asked me, do you mind telling me what you are doing with this? I told her "Yeah to lock my steering wheel" and I chuckled. And she looked at my dumbfounded like how dare you. How stupid some of the rules we have in place.  

They want to see your face so police can identify you, they don't want you to corner to well because they want to chase and catch you, and loud exhausts and Neon lights.. there just being assholes and want something to fine drivers with because there is too much money to make off innocent drivers. Heck sounds exactly the same as Loot boxes and taking advantage of gamers wallets except on the roads.  

Last edited by Azzanation - on 17 August 2019

Azzanation said:

Late reply, iv been super busy, but I couldn't ignore this. This sums up your post completely and only proves my point. 

Tinting the windows of your car does not affect safety in any form or matter. For starters, we are not allowed to tint the front windows of our cars black, you should know that, that obviously makes sense for safety however not tinting the side or rear windows does nothing to affect safety. You would have more of an issue with the sun beaming down into your eyes than tinted windows on a car which actually blocks the suns rays out that actually increases safety. Also tinted windows you can still see out of very easily. But face it. Not able to tint your windows too dark is a government control issue not a safety issue. They just want to watch you and see you at all time. To claim it affects safety is easily debatable with the sun causing more of an issue for drivers.

Let me point form this.

Try riding a motorcycle or bicycle with a pair of sunglasses at night. Exact same thing.
Tinted windows reduces the amount of light that enters the vehicle, which in turn impairs your vision in low-light conditions, it's basic physics and common sense.

You need to look left and right, it's not as vital as the windscreen however with it's wide field of view, hence why tinting of side windows is legal, up to a point.

As a road crash technician, I like tinted windows because it's much easier to cut the glass with the recip, the tint keeps the glass together rather than having it shatter and get everywhere.

So no... It's not a government control issue, that is very much just a conspiracy theory on your behalf, one you should probably step away from.
But hey, if you think you have more knowledge on this because of google verses a road-crash technician who deals with this daily...

Azzanation said:

Lowering a car increases handling which reduces cars from losing traction or rolling over, something that generally happens but you will argue that it buckles cars in the middle which affects safety when in a car accident.. seems that both increase safety in different ways. But god forbid you lower your car too much because that buckle is more important than your car rolling or drifting into poles.

False. That is not what I said at all.
I recognized there are some safety benefits namely: Handling that lowering a vehicle and thus lowering it's center of gravity brings to the table, again... Basic Physics and common sense.

But fine, I will bite.

Lowering a Car does have some caveats, it places more strain on various suspension and steering components, which can result in more wear and tear and potentially more failure points.
The Government/Road Transport/Councils designs many road features with certain allowances like speed humps, shoulders, curbs and so on... Often a road will not be resurfaced until it's degradation reaches a certain point, which said vehicle may have difficulty in navigating, especially at speed.

Camber changes can also result, resulting in reduced breaking performance. - Think about that one long and hard for a moment.

And of course... You need to think about other vehicles... For example most trucks and trailers feature an Underride Guard/Front/Rear Underrun Protection System... Which are built to a certain specification and thus tolerances, lowering your vehicle to low, reduces the effectiveness of those protection mechanisms...
What that means is your vehicle can end up underneath the truck/trailer far more easily, which makes my job, cutting you out... All that more difficult.

And you completely ignored the question I put forth prior... And that is... What happens if you have a collision with another vehicle of the same type, same speed, same direction, but the only difference being is one vehicle has been significantly lowered?

And just FYI, there are restrictions on raising the height of the vehicle for other safety reasons, care to know what those are?

Azzanation said:

Tinted Windows blocks out the sun but you will argue it affects your vision.. doesn't affect your vision if its not the front window and we don't drive cars side ways (unless you are in Tokyo drifts) so blocking out the sun actually prevents accidents but the government wants to see you smiling when driving. Lets face it.

Cars have other features to block out the sun. You should look in your car manual for those before resorting to conspiracy theories.

Azzanation said:

Neon Lights adds more visuals at night for traffic. Neon lights are not strobe lights or spot lights, they don't blind traffic or in any way affect anyone. Service vehicle lights are completely different and instead of banning the bad drivers for misusing these lights, lets just make it illegal to have on the roads completely. (except in car parks, otherwise, get slapped with a fine) How about the drivers who cant tell the difference between ground Neon lights and emergency lights get taken off our roads instead? That sounds like a bigger problem. I hear no complaints in any other country that are allowed to have Neon's on there cars. But Australia has to be Australia.

Let us say that a vehicle has neon lights underneath, be it yellow, orange, blue, red etc'. - How does a driver differentiate that between two reversing lights, brake or head lights at a distance at night where they can't see the vehicle specifically, especially when not everyone on the road has guaranteed perfect 20/20 vision? Heck, think about the 8% of men and 0.4% of women who are colour blind too, so the neon colours are ultimately irrelevant for those individuals.

Emergency Service vehicles lights are the main reason why there is a neon light ban, because people abused the privilege more often than not, rather than blame the Government, hows about blaming the people who abused the privilege? Makes more sense.

Fact is, unnecessary lighting on vehicles will just create additional lighting pollution on the roads and thus reduces safety.

Azzanation said:

Loud exhaust? I guess you are just going to submit to that one right? Loud exhausts increases attention on the road, making it easier to hear on coming traffic etc. Motorbikes are allowed to have loud exhaust for that exact reason yet cars are not allowed.. this is exactly the proof that all these decisions that are made don't affect safety in any way, just more of the government wanting to be able to control you. If you can hear a car coming, that increases safety rapidly and not just to other drivers but to pedestrian's as well.

I already have stated it's a pretty pointless law.

However, I guess it does allow SAPOL to pick those up with a noisy muffler easier... A noisy muffler is a good sign that the muffler is degrading and thus may have a carbon monoxide leak, which can leak into the cabin which displaces the oxygen causing asphyxiation... But that is the firefighter coming out in me.

But no, it's not proof that "all" (Which is a pretty encompassing term) laws are made without safety in mind, rather the opposite. - Are there some silly laws? Sure. But you need to think a little harder on why they exist, because often many laws are introduced because death tolls were rising from a specific cause.

And you are right, noise is a safety feature of any vehicle... Especially for the blind, which is why there was a bit of a stink-up about silent electric vehicles, which later had to have vehicles be modified/design rules introduced so that vehicles could create additional noise.

Azzanation said:

You see the issue when you give the government an inch? they take a mile and these examples are exactly that. They will continue taking and taking until you cannot do anything, and they will claim its for safety which I call BS on all fronts.

If you hate the Government so much, then move to a country that has a system you like?

Azzanation said:

This is why the US public don't want to fall in that dictatorship.

Australia is far removed from being a dictatorship, again I have already presented the evidence necessary that we enjoy far more freedoms on a multitude of fronts.

Azzanation said:

I told her "Yeah to lock my steering wheel" and I chuckled. And she looked at my dumbfounded like how dare you. How stupid some of the rules we have in place.  

In saying that, she isn't the one who comes up with the rules, she just enforces them.

It's actually rather droll being put in a position where you have spent an obscene amount of hours training, learning and experiencing something (I.E. Roadcrash) and then having a random member of the public waltz in with their conspiracy theories/assertions thinking they know more about the entire situation.

Azzanation said:

They want to see your face so police can identify you, they don't want you to corner to well because they want to chase and catch you, and loud exhausts and Neon lights.. there just being assholes and want something to fine drivers with because there is too much money to make off innocent drivers. Heck sounds exactly the same as Loot boxes and taking advantage of gamers wallets except on the roads.  

Don't do anything stupid/illegal and you have absolutely nothing to worry about.



Pemalite said:

However, I guess it does allow SAPOL to pick those up with a noisy muffler easier... A noisy muffler is a good sign that the muffler is degrading and thus may have a carbon monoxide leak, which can leak into the cabin which displaces the oxygen causing asphyxiation... But that is the firefighter coming out in me.

Apologies for how pedantic this point is going to be, but my "ears" perked up when I read this as a biochemist. What you stated was true for carbon dioxide (the stuff you breath out) as the only danger from that is that oxygen gets displaced, but carbon monoxide is actually more deadly than that. It's thought to be related to CO binding heme rather tightly. Originally this was assumed to be because CO replaced O2 in one's blood, but some studies on dogs (obviously before this was deemed no cool) showed that you could replace a dog's blood with 80% CO bound blood and they could survive, but if their blood become 20-30% CO bound from CO they are breathing they'll die. Now it's hypothesized that CO binds other important heme proteins like cytochromes and myoglobin.

Here's a study that references the dog study if anyone is curious (it's surprisingly difficult to get the dog study itself as its from a smaller journal and published in 1975: https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-018-1385-4



...

Around the Network
Pemalite said: 

Don't do anything stupid/illegal and you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Look that's fair enough, I understand your views and respect you are a technician so no disrespect here, and neither was I giving disrespect to the lady officer, I was chuckling at the rule not the officer enforcing the rule, it was just stupid how the rules have gone so far even after removing guns we still find ways on making anything seem like a weapon. and I guess we are at a disagreement here. Just so you know I have been a mechanic for majority of my life and cars use to be my thing every day. I will say this, Australia is a peaceful country but its not because we removed guns in my opinion, its because the Australian culture is just simply different. We still banned video games and heavily censored them in the 90s and early 2000s even after banning guns, because why not, we took guns away, why not take everything else that can be assumed deadly for the public as well. The USA is ran completely different, the public have a lot more freedom and less monetisation than Australia.. for what we know of anyway with the insane amount of restrictions we have here.

I just wanted to add, there are two ways on lowering a car, there's professionally and unprofessionally. We use to get a bunch of P platers come in every week wanting there springs cut because they wanted a low car, sure I 100% agree that caused strain on the chassis and wheels etc. However a professionally lowering on a car includes supporting the chassis with minimal wear and tear and allowing the car to have increased handling and traction without much flaws. Yes I will agree when it comes to head on collisions it will affect the impact however its a two way street here too. Where you fail in one aspect you gain in another. Even when cars have head on collisions it still doesn't always end well regardless of your cars height, its just more of a slighter chance you will survive obviously depending on the accident at hand. That will always differ because each accident is different to the other. However with a professionally lower car you add more traction and wheel grip to avoid other kind of accidents etc. But the government choose to take that away because well.. back to my original point.

I also ride a motorbike and the face shield on a helmet is considered the same as a car's windscreen. We accept we are not allowed to tint the front windscreens on our cars black, same would go for bike helmets as well otherwise it would be dumb as you need to see in front of you at all times. I 100% agree with that but disagree with the tinting of the sides and rear windows. People just are not allowed to have privacy it seems.

Your last point is spot on, that is also a universal point you make. Same can be said the other way around.

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree. Again no disrespect just my point of view on the topic at hand.



Pemalite said:
Azzanation said:

Late reply, iv been super busy, but I couldn't ignore this. This sums up your post completely and only proves my point. 

Tinting the windows of your car does not affect safety in any form or matter. For starters, we are not allowed to tint the front windows of our cars black, you should know that, that obviously makes sense for safety however not tinting the side or rear windows does nothing to affect safety. You would have more of an issue with the sun beaming down into your eyes than tinted windows on a car which actually blocks the suns rays out that actually increases safety. Also tinted windows you can still see out of very easily. But face it. Not able to tint your windows too dark is a government control issue not a safety issue. They just want to watch you and see you at all time. To claim it affects safety is easily debatable with the sun causing more of an issue for drivers.

Let me point form this.

Try riding a motorcycle or bicycle with a pair of sunglasses at night. Exact same thing.
Tinted windows reduces the amount of light that enters the vehicle, which in turn impairs your vision in low-light conditions, it's basic physics and common sense.

You need to look left and right, it's not as vital as the windscreen however with it's wide field of view, hence why tinting of side windows is legal, up to a point.

As a road crash technician, I like tinted windows because it's much easier to cut the glass with the recip, the tint keeps the glass together rather than having it shatter and get everywhere.

So no... It's not a government control issue, that is very much just a conspiracy theory on your behalf, one you should probably step away from.
But hey, if you think you have more knowledge on this because of google verses a road-crash technician who deals with this daily...

Azzanation said:

Lowering a car increases handling which reduces cars from losing traction or rolling over, something that generally happens but you will argue that it buckles cars in the middle which affects safety when in a car accident.. seems that both increase safety in different ways. But god forbid you lower your car too much because that buckle is more important than your car rolling or drifting into poles.

False. That is not what I said at all.
I recognized there are some safety benefits namely: Handling that lowering a vehicle and thus lowering it's center of gravity brings to the table, again... Basic Physics and common sense.

But fine, I will bite.

Lowering a Car does have some caveats, it places more strain on various suspension and steering components, which can result in more wear and tear and potentially more failure points.
The Government/Road Transport/Councils designs many road features with certain allowances like speed humps, shoulders, curbs and so on... Often a road will not be resurfaced until it's degradation reaches a certain point, which said vehicle may have difficulty in navigating, especially at speed.

Camber changes can also result, resulting in reduced breaking performance. - Think about that one long and hard for a moment.

And of course... You need to think about other vehicles... For example most trucks and trailers feature an Underride Guard/Front/Rear Underrun Protection System... Which are built to a certain specification and thus tolerances, lowering your vehicle to low, reduces the effectiveness of those protection mechanisms...
What that means is your vehicle can end up underneath the truck/trailer far more easily, which makes my job, cutting you out... All that more difficult.

And you completely ignored the question I put forth prior... And that is... What happens if you have a collision with another vehicle of the same type, same speed, same direction, but the only difference being is one vehicle has been significantly lowered?

And just FYI, there are restrictions on raising the height of the vehicle for other safety reasons, care to know what those are?

Azzanation said:

Tinted Windows blocks out the sun but you will argue it affects your vision.. doesn't affect your vision if its not the front window and we don't drive cars side ways (unless you are in Tokyo drifts) so blocking out the sun actually prevents accidents but the government wants to see you smiling when driving. Lets face it.

Cars have other features to block out the sun. You should look in your car manual for those before resorting to conspiracy theories.

Azzanation said:

Neon Lights adds more visuals at night for traffic. Neon lights are not strobe lights or spot lights, they don't blind traffic or in any way affect anyone. Service vehicle lights are completely different and instead of banning the bad drivers for misusing these lights, lets just make it illegal to have on the roads completely. (except in car parks, otherwise, get slapped with a fine) How about the drivers who cant tell the difference between ground Neon lights and emergency lights get taken off our roads instead? That sounds like a bigger problem. I hear no complaints in any other country that are allowed to have Neon's on there cars. But Australia has to be Australia.

Let us say that a vehicle has neon lights underneath, be it yellow, orange, blue, red etc'. - How does a driver differentiate that between two reversing lights, brake or head lights at a distance at night where they can't see the vehicle specifically, especially when not everyone on the road has guaranteed perfect 20/20 vision? Heck, think about the 8% of men and 0.4% of women who are colour blind too, so the neon colours are ultimately irrelevant for those individuals.

Emergency Service vehicles lights are the main reason why there is a neon light ban, because people abused the privilege more often than not, rather than blame the Government, hows about blaming the people who abused the privilege? Makes more sense.

Fact is, unnecessary lighting on vehicles will just create additional lighting pollution on the roads and thus reduces safety.

Azzanation said:

Loud exhaust? I guess you are just going to submit to that one right? Loud exhausts increases attention on the road, making it easier to hear on coming traffic etc. Motorbikes are allowed to have loud exhaust for that exact reason yet cars are not allowed.. this is exactly the proof that all these decisions that are made don't affect safety in any way, just more of the government wanting to be able to control you. If you can hear a car coming, that increases safety rapidly and not just to other drivers but to pedestrian's as well.

I already have stated it's a pretty pointless law.

However, I guess it does allow SAPOL to pick those up with a noisy muffler easier... A noisy muffler is a good sign that the muffler is degrading and thus may have a carbon monoxide leak, which can leak into the cabin which displaces the oxygen causing asphyxiation... But that is the firefighter coming out in me.

But no, it's not proof that "all" (Which is a pretty encompassing term) laws are made without safety in mind, rather the opposite. - Are there some silly laws? Sure. But you need to think a little harder on why they exist, because often many laws are introduced because death tolls were rising from a specific cause.

And you are right, noise is a safety feature of any vehicle... Especially for the blind, which is why there was a bit of a stink-up about silent electric vehicles, which later had to have vehicles be modified/design rules introduced so that vehicles could create additional noise.

Azzanation said:

You see the issue when you give the government an inch? they take a mile and these examples are exactly that. They will continue taking and taking until you cannot do anything, and they will claim its for safety which I call BS on all fronts.

If you hate the Government so much, then move to a country that has a system you like?

Azzanation said:

This is why the US public don't want to fall in that dictatorship.

Australia is far removed from being a dictatorship, again I have already presented the evidence necessary that we enjoy far more freedoms on a multitude of fronts.

Azzanation said:

I told her "Yeah to lock my steering wheel" and I chuckled. And she looked at my dumbfounded like how dare you. How stupid some of the rules we have in place.  

In saying that, she isn't the one who comes up with the rules, she just enforces them.

It's actually rather droll being put in a position where you have spent an obscene amount of hours training, learning and experiencing something (I.E. Roadcrash) and then having a random member of the public waltz in with their conspiracy theories/assertions thinking they know more about the entire situation.

Azzanation said:

They want to see your face so police can identify you, they don't want you to corner to well because they want to chase and catch you, and loud exhausts and Neon lights.. there just being assholes and want something to fine drivers with because there is too much money to make off innocent drivers. Heck sounds exactly the same as Loot boxes and taking advantage of gamers wallets except on the roads.  

Don't do anything stupid/illegal and you have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Pemalite.....  You really need to step back, read what you wrote, and think about how you became such an apologist for the state.  I'm not trying to talk shit here, really.   It's not meant as personal attack.  I truly think you should try to look as objectively as possible at your words and think about what they really are saying  You're in here arguing that laws about window tint aren't an example of government control, and saying stuff like "don't break the law and you're fine'. That's some Orwellian stuff right there.  



Torillian said:
Pemalite said:

However, I guess it does allow SAPOL to pick those up with a noisy muffler easier... A noisy muffler is a good sign that the muffler is degrading and thus may have a carbon monoxide leak, which can leak into the cabin which displaces the oxygen causing asphyxiation... But that is the firefighter coming out in me.

Apologies for how pedantic this point is going to be, but my "ears" perked up when I read this as a biochemist. What you stated was true for carbon dioxide (the stuff you breath out) as the only danger from that is that oxygen gets displaced, but carbon monoxide is actually more deadly than that. It's thought to be related to CO binding heme rather tightly. Originally this was assumed to be because CO replaced O2 in one's blood, but some studies on dogs (obviously before this was deemed no cool) showed that you could replace a dog's blood with 80% CO bound blood and they could survive, but if their blood become 20-30% CO bound from CO they are breathing they'll die. Now it's hypothesized that CO binds other important heme proteins like cytochromes and myoglobin.

Here's a study that references the dog study if anyone is curious (it's surprisingly difficult to get the dog study itself as its from a smaller journal and published in 1975: https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-018-1385-4

It's also true for Carbon Monoxide, that it displaces oxygen in a room, hence why we wear breathing apparatus, the other aspects you pointed out is true as well.

Biology isn't exactly a strong point for me, even if I am a Hazmat operator, so I will take your word for it. :P

Azzanation said:

and I guess we are at a disagreement here. Just so you know I have been a mechanic for majority of my life and cars use to be my thing every day. Just so you know I have been a mechanic for majority of my life and cars use to be my thing every day.

You can disagree all you want... I am speaking from a highly educated perspective, you can choose to ignore it if you so wish, but with all due respect... That is appealing to ignorance logical fallacy.

A mechanic doesn't deal with road crash at a technical level like a road crash technician, it's as simple as that, you are going to need better credentials.

Azzanation said:

 I will say this, Australia is a peaceful country but its not because we removed guns in my opinion, its because the Australian culture is just simply different. We still banned video games and heavily censored them in the 90s and early 2000s even after banning guns, because why not, we took guns away, why not take everything else that can be assumed deadly for the public as well. 

So unless you can remove all crime, guns shouldn't be banned? That is silly reasoning.
You introduce laws that target specific problems, because no singular law can solve every problem.

Gun related massacres stopped after we introduced gun legislation, that's hard evidence you cannot refute, it's proven to work.

Azzanation said:

The USA is ran completely different, the public have a lot more freedom and less monetisation than Australia.. for what we know of anyway with the insane amount of restrictions we have here.

What do you mean less monetization?

And again... I have already provided evidence that Australia is extremely free, even more-so in many aspects than the USA...

Azzanation said:

I just wanted to add, there are two ways on lowering a car, there's professionally and unprofessionally. We use to get a bunch of P platers come in every week wanting there springs cut because they wanted a low car, sure I 100% agree that caused strain on the chassis and wheels etc. However a professionally lowering on a car includes supporting the chassis with minimal wear and tear and allowing the car to have increased handling and traction without much flaws.

Great, you recognize that it can negatively impact steering and breaking.

Azzanation said:

Yes I will agree when it comes to head on collisions it will affect the impact however its a two way street here too. Where you fail in one aspect you gain in another. Even when cars have head on collisions it still doesn't always end well regardless of your cars height, its just more of a slighter chance you will survive obviously depending on the accident at hand. That will always differ because each accident is different to the other. However with a professionally lower car you add more traction and wheel grip to avoid other kind of accidents etc. But the government choose to take that away because well.. back to my original point.

Well no. We need to harken back to the example I provided about trucks, you haven't refuted that.

Yes each accident is different, but that is why there are "tolerances" in design codes to account for that, modifying a vehicle undermines all of that.

In saying that... When it comes to road crashes, there are usually a limited number of causes, more often than not it's drivers at fault, but the mechanical issues do occur, more so in heavier vehicles or cars which have been modded from it's original intended design.

Even with a professionally lowered car, the physics of the vehicles handling is changed, it's tolerances are changed, wear and tear on certain components are changed...

Azzanation said:

I also ride a motorbike and the face shield on a helmet is considered the same as a car's windscreen. We accept we are not allowed to tint the front windscreens on our cars black, same would go for bike helmets as well otherwise it would be dumb as you need to see in front of you at all times. I 100% agree with that but disagree with the tinting of the sides and rear windows. People just are not allowed to have privacy it seems.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Don't like the rules? Don't drive.

If you want privacy? Stay at home and don't go out in public in the first place.

The rules are there for safety, not for simply making peoples lives more difficult.

Azzanation said:

Your last point is spot on, that is also a universal point you make. Same can be said the other way around.

Anyway, lets just agree to disagree. Again no disrespect just my point of view on the topic at hand.

I am not debating with you to change your mind, clearly that isn't going to happen even with evidence provided for certain contentious points that you have chosen to ignore. (I.E. Freedom.)
Agree to disagree is usually brought up as one individual is tired of debating or can't really refute the other persons perspective, so it's a way to save face.

I am doing it for others who may be browsing this thread, they get to learn a thing or two.

VAMatt said:

Pemalite.....  You really need to step back, read what you wrote, and think about how you became such an apologist for the state.  I'm not trying to talk shit here, really.   It's not meant as personal attack.  I truly think you should try to look as objectively as possible at your words and think about what they really are saying  You're in here arguing that laws about window tint aren't an example of government control, and saying stuff like "don't break the law and you're fine'. That's some Orwellian stuff right there.  

Apologist for the state? No. I have already established that some laws introduced by the state were bullshit. (Loud Exhausts.)

The other points I am speaking from experience and as a trained professional... At the end of the day, I am the one who goes out to a vehicle crash to cut you out, I am the one who jumps on a boat to search for you floating in the middle of the ocean once your boat has sunk and your EPIRB has activated, I am the one who scales down the side of a cliff-face to rescue you from the bottom of a cliff, I am the one who runs inside a burning building to drag your children out.

I have actually been to vehicle accidents where a driver "didn't see" an oncoming vehicle at night because the side window tints were far to dark, that isn't being a state-government apologist... That is someone who has seen first hand why these laws exists.

If you are whinging about being fined for breaking a law... The solution is simple, conform to your laws.
If you believe the laws are incorrect, then petition your council/member of parliament etc' and try to enact change with your own view, it's the appropriate process.




Pemalite said: 

You can say what you wish with what you believe is correct. however the debate will always remain and I will always disagree with anyone thinking the strick laws we have in Australia is for safety only. You still didn't tell me why Australia banned and heavily censored games even after removing the guns? That's my entire point with this topic. Once a country gives in a little, they only keep getting things taken away until you end up with nothing. We are down to a sad point in Australia where a Car Steering wheel lock is considered a weapon and should not be allowed visible without being asked the question on why you have one in your car. < Is that what we want?

The car points I brought up to you has its advantages and disadvantages and its still rather funny that the road rules are so strick here with one of the highest amount of speed cameras in the world earning $1b yearly in fines from drivers.

https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/australias-top-earning-speed-cameras-53919

Quote: "So, a camera that people don't know is there, located at a point where the limit drops from 70 to 40, and it rakes in more fines and revenue than the 26-camera system at five sites along the Hume Freeway? Doesn't sound like a revenue-raising trap at all."

^ Is that what we want?

What you and many want to support is more monetization to people where everything becomes a fineable offence. You shouldn't be fined for having a low car, nor a car with tinted windows nor a loud exhausts nor the 1000s of speed cameras that are set up to trap innocent drivers. And before you argue that if you follow the law than you have nothing to worry about, well again that can be said with a country with guns. 

Removing guns hasn't stopped gun massacres, as I pointed out with Russia's crime waves only increased with gun shootings when guns were taken away or placed under strick laws. Not all countries will reap the benefits Australia did. Also Australia banned a lot of other things and you couldn't walk the streets with a box cutter in your pocket without being stripped searched and fined for carrying what is considered a weapon. 

The government here is like EA, they want to monitor your every move and make sure the moment you slip up you will be fined drastically which they pocket. We hate seeing it in gaming so why do we want to see it in real life? Maybe that's where me and you are different people. I respect peoples freedom of choice and if Americans want to own guns than more power to them. After all taking guns away or placing them under strick laws will only benefit the bad guys. 

This is why America supports gun ownership.



Azzanation said:

You can say what you wish with what you believe is correct. however the debate will always remain and I will always disagree with anyone thinking the strick laws we have in Australia is for safety only. 

I think the issue you have is that... Because there are a couple of laws which weren't created with safety in mind, that you are under the false assumption that all laws aren't created with safety in mind.
Rather you need to judge the implementation of each law on it's individual merits, otherwise your position is highly fallacious.

Azzanation said:

You still didn't tell me why Australia banned and heavily censored games even after removing the guns? That's my entire point with this topic. Once a country gives in a little, they only keep getting things taken away until you end up with nothing.

Australia has actually started to relax it's video game censorship rules, even overhauling the rating system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Classification_Board#Adult_ratings_for_video_games

But the reason for the censorship is because the excessive violence, drugs, sex and so on wasn't deemed fit for children under a certain age, those same censorship rules exist in Europe, even in the United States. Aka. ESRB ratings... So Australia isn't unique in this aspect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board

Azzanation said:

Once a country gives in a little, they only keep getting things taken away until you end up with nothing.

This is the slippery slope logical fallacy, meaning your view on this is actually incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Azzanation said:

We are down to a sad point in Australia where a Car Steering wheel lock is considered a weapon and should not be allowed visible without being asked the question on why you have one in your car. < Is that what we want?

It's a large blunt object. You do the math.

Azzanation said:

The car points I brought up to you has its advantages and disadvantages and its still rather funny that the road rules are so strick here with one of the highest amount of speed cameras in the world earning $1b yearly in fines from drivers.

https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/australias-top-earning-speed-cameras-53919

Quote: "So, a camera that people don't know is there, located at a point where the limit drops from 70 to 40, and it rakes in more fines and revenue than the 26-camera system at five sites along the Hume Freeway? Doesn't sound like a revenue-raising trap at all."

https://www.statista.com/chart/16913/countries-with-most-speed-cameras-per-km2/
Your fear mongering has no basis in reality, we don't even rank.

And even in regards to CCTV we are actually doing better than a multitude of American cities.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-spied-on-cities-in-the-world.html

Azzanation said:

What you and many want to support is more monetization to people where everything becomes a fineable offence. You shouldn't be fined for having a low car, nor a car with tinted windows nor a loud exhausts nor the 1000s of speed cameras that are set up to trap innocent drivers. And before you argue that if you follow the law than you have nothing to worry about, well again that can be said with a country with guns. 

False. You don't get to choose what I want. I decide that.

You should be fined for having a car that is to low.
You should be fined for having excessively dark tinted windows.
You shouldn't be fined for having a loud exhaust.

Again, the evidence on what those safety implications are and why those laws exist has already been discussed with evidence presented... If you choose to ignore it, then that is on you...

Azzanation said:

Removing guns hasn't stopped gun massacres, as I pointed out with Russia's crime waves only increased with gun shootings when guns were taken away or placed under strick laws. Not all countries will reap the benefits Australia did.

Removing guns has stopped gun massacres in a multitude of countries, it works more often than not.
Russia has it's own socio-economic and safety issues.

Azzanation said:

Also Australia banned a lot of other things and you couldn't walk the streets with a box cutter in your pocket without being stripped searched and fined for carrying what is considered a weapon. 

Absolutely fake news.
You can walk the streets with a box cutter in your pocket without being fined or having it considered a weapon. - Perhaps you don't actually understand the law at all?
Shit, I carry a multi-tool/pocket knife on me at all times, never had an issue with the police, I actually need it for my line of work.

The law states you are not allowed to carry such devices, concealed, without an appropriate reason, if you need it for work or so on, then it is perfectly fine, you just need evidence. - This was a very specific law to target a very specific problem that was rife. - Know what that was?

http://www.sportingshooter.com.au/gun-law/when-can-you-carry-a-knife-the-loose-cannon

Azzanation said:

The government here is like EA, they want to monitor your every move and make sure the moment you slip up you will be fined drastically which they pocket. We hate seeing it in gaming so why do we want to see it in real life? Maybe that's where me and you are different people. I respect peoples freedom of choice and if Americans want to own guns than more power to them. After all taking guns away or placing them under strick laws will only benefit the bad guys. 

Nah. Evidence says the opposite.

Azzanation said:

What happens in a nation that isn't democratic, highly advanced, developed and stable... Isn't representative of what will happen in a state like the USA or Australia, simple as that.

Azzanation said:

A meme is not evidence for anything, unless you are trying to reinforce a confirmation bias of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Not to mention that the UN disarming the world is pretty much a conspiracy theory not based in reality anyway... Which makes your position even more tenuous at best.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 24 August 2019