Gun advocate mocks Australia's tough laws

[Dascylus]

Snip

Oh right because Australia kept a whole region down in the cold war, and inadvertently created the cartels which fuel its drug trade, gun homicide, and fueled the increase in gangs in its military to the point theft from the government is feasible.

Oh wait no it didn't, because no one cares about Australia enough to point nukes at it.

America is NOT Australia and to say gun laws would help in its current state is retarded. Gangs rule America now, and no law will ever stop it unless we actually chase them down and start to legalize certain drugs.

But we don't. Because they are heavily armed and America doesn't like fighting anything that has teeth to bite back.

We don't even vilify the drugs. We praise them for "sticking it to the man" even though the money is sent straight to the cartels who use it to buy guns to kill people, even children.

The government isn't going to declare war on multiple highly organized criminal organizations. They aren't going to legalize drugs because of treaties they signed. They aren't going to ban guns because the democrats don't even know enough about guns to know that their laws are stupid feel good laws that do nothing tangible. Not that they will do anything because gun laws are about 30-40 years late to constrict gangs.

Sure you can "stop" massacres but the real problem is gang violence. Statistically, massacres don't make much.

To say all countries are the same is like a middle class white boy who goes to Africa and tells the starving refugees to get a job or get money from their parents.

Ok, that didn't address the problem at all...

Nukes? That is a question of military. An issue entirely separate from whether John Doe is allowed to own a firearm and what requirements may be placed on his justifications.

Drugs? That's another topic isn't it...

Here, This is what you said...

They aren't going to ban guns because the democrats don't even know enough about guns to know that their laws are stupid feel good laws that do nothing tangible. Not that they will do anything because gun laws are about 30-40 years late to constrict gangs.

Sure you can "stop" massacres but the real problem is gang violence. Statistically, massacres don't make much.

To say all countries are the same is like a middle class white boy who goes to Africa and tells the starving refugees to get a job or get money from their parents.

Republican or Democrat doesn't seem relevant either, I am neither and yet I would be in favor of stricter gun laws.

So gangs then... That makes sense, but if there were stricter gun controls it would reduce the number of guns that would find their way into the hands of gangs.

Saying America is different is like saying that a teacher or doctor is not subject to the same laws and considerations as a student or a nurse.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

You should not convict a tool for the offence of the owner. The tool is just that a tool.

If that tool had any purpose other than for the killing of things, I would agree with you. However a gun is only for killing things, and a concealed handgun/assault rifle's only purpose is for the killing of people. The tool is a weapon of death and nothing more.

If you are happy for your kids to play with such things, it's not for me to interfere. But any American who defends the right for private gun ownership has no right to complain when American children are murdered by them.

 

[CAMDAWG]

2) Australia has had a mass shooting since the law, Monash university. This shooting saw very few casualties, not because of the gun laws(considering that the shooter was armed with half a dozen hand-guns similar to those used at Virginia Tech and Lubby's Massacre), but because the shooter was stupid enough to try and switch weapons within arm's reach of two men, one of whom was a martial arts instructor. Comparing this to the 2 shootings before Port Arthur in the same time frame, a difference of one is not statistically significant.

Nope, sorry. Two deaths, not a mass shooting. If you want to run by the FBI definition (unfortunately I'm unable to find a definition from an Australian source). Regardless, it was a huge fucking deal in Australia that this happened, and it led to further restrictions on firearms, because the shooter acquired his guns legally. But thanks for playing.

As I've said previously, the simple fact that this event is even significant shows how effective our system is.

As for all the other arguments floating around, yes, we know that Australia and America are not the same, and cultural and geographical differences may prevent the exact same legislation from proving as effective as it is over here, but come on. Is it not even worth a fucking try? Does everything have to be 100% effective before you even attempt to apply it?

 

[Dascylus]

So I was gonna strikethrough the stuff that was irrelevant to the discussion to highlight how you are masking the issue by diverting the question on to other areas... After starting I realised it is impossible because it is intrinsic to your point of view.
I'll let you reread what you have written...

Ok, now lets see...

What you are suggesting is that gang crime in the US is so high with such a high income from gun-trafficking that tighter restriction would have no effect.
The FBI would be unable to enforce the laws because you can bribe a soldier for his pistol or to steal arms belonging to the US military.
Same goes for anyone working for a gun manufacturer, a gang can just pay for a few crate to fall off the back of the lorry.

And then there's suicides...

Oh and drugs... Because.

Well played good sir but no sane person actually believes that stuff... It's more like the summary of a bunch of tv shows, computer games and movies.
Sons of Anarchy and Buffalo Soldiers come to mind.

 

[spartan231490]

2) Australia has had a mass shooting since the law, Monash university. This shooting saw very few casualties, not because of the gun laws(considering that the shooter was armed with half a dozen hand-guns similar to those used at Virginia Tech and Lubby's Massacre), but because the shooter was stupid enough to try and switch weapons within arm's reach of two men, one of whom was a martial arts instructor. Comparing this to the 2 shootings before Port Arthur in the same time frame, a difference of one is not statistically significant.

Nope, sorry. Two deaths, not a mass shooting. If you want to run by the FBI definition (unfortunately I'm unable to find a definition from an Australian source). Regardless, it was a huge fucking deal in Australia that this happened, and it led to further restrictions on firearms, because the shooter acquired his guns legally. But thanks for playing.

As I've said previously, the simple fact that this event is even significant shows how effective our system is.

As for all the other arguments floating around, yes, we know that Australia and America are not the same, and cultural and geographical differences may prevent the exact same legislation from proving as effective as it is over here, but come on. Is it not even worth a fucking try? Does everything have to be 100% effective before you even attempt to apply it?

What part of "didn't reduce murder/crime rates" and "not statistically relevant" did you not get. Or do you really think that 4 data points is enough to draw a conclusion? And while it may not meet the requirements for "mass shooting" that was pure luck. A guy went to school with the intent of killing a whole lot of random people, that's a mass shooting. As I've said, the weapons he had were more than sufficient to cause high casualties.

But since you're gonna be all butt-hurt about that, why don't we use someplace with a more statistically relevant sample size. Instead, why don't we look at the USA federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994-2004. I bet you didn't know(because the media wouldn't want you to) that during that time, the number of mass shootings was actually slightly higher than average? I bet you didn't know that columbine was during that time frame, and that some of the shooters used ban friendly firearms. I bet you didn't know that the recent Newtown shooter fired 130 bullets in 20 minutes, a rate of fire that can be reached with a double-barrel shotgun. I bet you didn't know that civilians stop rampage killers before they can become certified "mass shooters" more often than police stop active rampage shooters: http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/auditing-shooting-rampage-statistics/ I bet you didn't know that the UK has had more than twice as many mass murders since the 1997 handgun ban as in the 17 years before it(7 vs 15): http://www.murderuk.com/mass_murderers.html

They have a much more statistically significant data set than the UK too, a whopping 20 mass murders combined in those 35/35 years, as opposed to only 5 in Australia. This is the danger of trying to draw a meaningful conclusion from too small a data pool.

And even if you want to draw a magical line at 4 kills, like you're not a real mass killer unless you're good at it, you still get 9 incidents after the law, and 5 before the law. That's almost triple the sample size of Australia, and it still says you're wrong.

 

[seditary]

"Last week the English-born reporter made headlines and provoked outrage when he described Australia as the most comfortably racist place he had ever visited in his Bugle podcast."

This is the only bit I don't get. Who would be outraged by this? He's totally correct on that. I live here and I'd agree with that.

I think its because he's joking that some kinds of racism would be comfortable and acceptable.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

A gun can cause you to commit collateral damage, whereas with a knife/fists your attacking just the people you want to, unless someone tries to be a hero.

That's a statistically irrelevant statement. Most murders happen in pretty secluded areas. And those that don't are usually by organized crime groups that could just as easily get access to bombs, or lighter conflagration devices like Molotov cocktails that would more likely cause even more damage. I doubt you could find even 10 people in the past year who have been shot by accident while a murder attempt was taking place.

Also while we are on the point of Australia. They never banned guns. You are allowed to buy them as long as you have a 'legitimate reason' to do so, which is basically anything from pest control to sports shooting. Literally the only way you could be denied a gun is if you are a criminal or if you literally said I'm buying this gun in case I need to shoot someone.

Still, there's potential. If I wanted someone dead I wouldn't wanna kill irrelevant people, though the rare psychopath cares not.

I just don't understand gun culture, maybe if I shot a few guns I'd fall in love with it too, but videogames seem good enough.

 

[spartan231490]

Err... I'm from Australia, let me share a little of my knowledge.

Border security may seem racist/sexist, but it is usually about certain things i.e. baggy clothing can hide drugs and weapons, people who are strung out tend not to be clean shaven etc. So yes it is profiling, but it's not necessarily motivated by race. With that said, some of them are idiots, sorry bout that.

People here tend to use racial taunts and sometimes just swearing as a form of hazing whoever they talk to. For example, earlier in the week there was a topic about the C-word, here there are two contexts for it and you can tell by the manner in which it is delivered: "Yo C-word" is a greeting, where as "You are a C-word" is offensive.

My best mates include people from different races, so we refer to each other as black, white and yellow all the time. Combined with the above method of swearing in normal conversation to outsiders it does seem really offensive, but it's just friendly banter.

So on the outside I think Australians get a bad rep, but when it counts we'll always help out someone no matter who they are... Though I was bashed because a Muslim woman had "fallen" down some escalators and I helped her to get up, there was a large group of Lebanese men standing around not helping her that then followed me to the car park. It's not the only time, and is apparently against most middle eastern cultures to touch or talk to their women.

So maybe... it's just certain cultural values that conflict with Australian values that create a feeling of racism... anyway back on topic.

As a regular Australian. I've never heard gunfire, or seen a real gun that wasn't carried by a police officer. As for robberies with melee weapons such as knives, it is much easier to run away screaming for help. I remember the news around the time of the Port Arthur Massacre, and the strict gun laws have made everyone feel safer.

Now let me tell you about all those people who are like, criminals will always have access to weapons. Guns, being much harder to get do have a black market even here. This appears to be primarily controlled via bikie gangs. However, bikies and upper level criminal organisations have structure as well. This means that aside from bank tellers and gas station owners, few other members of the law abiding public will have guns waved at them. Police and other bikies appear to be the individuals most at risk. Mass shootings appear to be a concern of theirs and anyone of their own displaying mental health defects are neutralized (More for the safety of other members, but it provides a mental health checks as a secondary effect).

Someone outside of said organisations is going to have a hard time acquiring a weapon from them, let alone enough ammunition to be able to do anything on a large scale. Not to mention that the cost of illegal automatic weapons would be sky high due to their illegality.

3 things
1) you might want to look at my above post. feeling safer =/= being safer.

2) Australia doesn't have any landborders, I live in Northern NY and there are places where you can walk into Canada without even realize it, let alone run into border patrol, and the Mexican Border isn't a whole lot better. Combine that with extremely prolific gang violence and gang culture in our cities, and no gun ban will stop criminals from getting guns. Hell, did you know that the stop and frisk program in NYC alone catches around 6,000 illegal guns a year before they're used in crime. Even if you confiscated every legal firearm and magically blocked all importation/3d printing ect, there would still be many millions of illegal guns left in the US.

3) "it is much easier to run away screaming for help" How many police officers do you have down there, here in the US the average police response time from the 911 call(and that's if you can call) is 11 minutes. That's a long time to run away, especially for a single mother of 3 kids trapped on the second story. Also, there's more than robberies to worry about. Criminals pretty often go after the occupants here in the US, either trying to eliminate witnesses or worse.

Take the single mother of an infant who locked herself in the bathroom and called 911, was on the phone with them for 5 minutes when he broke the bathroom door down to get to her? Or the mother of three who locked herself and her 3 kids into a closet when a man with a crowbar broke into the house, who then pried open the closet door with it? What about the mother of a 6 year old who couldn't run from her stalker because he was between her and her child? What about the 15 year old daughter(home alone) who had three men chase her into her house trying to rape her? What about the woman who was being chased around her own house by her ex(who she had a restraining order against) and his 19 year old step-son, and couldn't find her garage door remote to get out of her house? You know what the amazing part of the above list is? Every one of those is a real event, that popped up quietly on the news in the last year alone. Even more amazing? Every one of these stories had a happy ending because of civilian gun ownership. You know what's terrifying? Not one of these had an officer show up in time to do anything but take a report.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

"Last week the English-born reporter made headlines and provoked outrage when he described Australia as the most comfortably racist place he had ever visited in his Bugle podcast."

This is the only bit I don't get. Who would be outraged by this? He's totally correct on that. I live here and I'd agree with that.

I think its because he's joking that some kinds of racism would be comfortable and acceptable.

And? People in Australia are comfortably racist.

 

[seditary]

"Last week the English-born reporter made headlines and provoked outrage when he described Australia as the most comfortably racist place he had ever visited in his Bugle podcast."

This is the only bit I don't get. Who would be outraged by this? He's totally correct on that. I live here and I'd agree with that.

I think its because he's joking that some kinds of racism would be comfortable and acceptable.

And? People in Australia are comfortably racist.

I know. We are.

I was just trying to assist in understanding how some people would react. There's plenty of people who wouldn't want to be viewed as racist.

 

[CAMDAWG]

I didn't address any of those points because I'm sick of trying to argue about gun control who think that it should be a right to own such dangerous weapons, and not a special privilege confined to a select few who have sufficient need for one.

I pointed out that what you said, by every definition I've seen, was wrong. The Monash shooting was NOT a mass shooting, regardless of whether or not you personally consider it one. You were wrong. Man(or woman) up and accept it. 4 is not the "magic number" for a mass murder, it's an entirely arbitrary point, but an arbitrary point set by a major group, and it serves no one to constantly move it around to fit your argument.

While it may have been "luck" that prevented it from blowing out to an ACTUAL mass murder (and not the fact that the killer's profile suggests he did not want to kill indiscriminately), "luck" can only hold out so long. If we had a replication of the Monash shootings every few months, it would only be so long before we did start to get higher death counts. Hence why when one of these things happens, you look to prevent it from happening again, rather than sitting around prattling on about some piece of paper written 200+ years ago.

Sure, let's look at that weapons ban. The piss weak piece of shit legislation that it was. I'm not going to say that it was good, because it wasn't. To make a meaningful change, you need to be tougher, and address handguns, which are likely the cause of the majority of firearm murders (I don't have any stats on that, but I assume you'd agree, given how ineffective you think that legislation was). Your next statement confirms this. Although I would argue that it is less a matter of removing access to these weapons entirely, but rather making them much more difficult to purchase or steal.

130 shots in 20 mins is 1 every ~ten seconds. Sure, doable, for someone extremely experienced, who could reload very quickly, had easy access to their ammunition, and didn't have to walk between successive targets. It's possible that the sandy hook shooting could've happened with a double barreled shotgun, but if you're sitting there telling me that it's equally likely, or even comparably likely, given all other parameters remained the same, then you're talking out of your arse.

The next point, not an argument for an armed populace. That's an argument for an overhaul of your (from what I understand from other escapists) grossly inadequate police force. In Australia, although we have some problems with our police, they are for the most part highly effective because they are (to a reasonable approximation) the only people with guns, and thus have the final say in most escalations. Hell, the british police are apparently even better, and they don't even need guns to do that.

As for murderuk, care to find somewhere that lists its sources?

Also, you didn't address my last point. Is it not worth trying heavier gun control to potentially save lives, or are your toys more important to you?

 

[spartan231490]

I didn't address any of those points because I'm sick of trying to argue about gun control who think that it should be a right to own such dangerous weapons, and not a special privilege confined to a select few who have sufficient need for one.

I pointed out that what you said, by every definition I've seen, was wrong. The Monash shooting was NOT a mass shooting, regardless of whether or not you personally consider it one. You were wrong. Man(or woman) up and accept it. 4 is not the "magic number" for a mass murder, it's an entirely arbitrary point, but an arbitrary point set by a major group, and it serves no one to constantly move it around to fit your argument.

While it may have been "luck" that prevented it from blowing out to an ACTUAL mass murder (and not the fact that the killer's profile suggests he did not want to kill indiscriminately), "luck" can only hold out so long. If we had a replication of the Monash shootings every few months, it would only be so long before we did start to get higher death counts. Hence why when one of these things happens, you look to prevent it from happening again, rather than sitting around prattling on about some piece of paper written 200+ years ago.

Sure, let's look at that weapons ban. The piss weak piece of shit legislation that it was. I'm not going to say that it was good, because it wasn't. To make a meaningful change, you need to be tougher, and address handguns, which are likely the cause of the majority of firearm murders (I don't have any stats on that, but I assume you'd agree, given how ineffective you think that legislation was). Your next statement confirms this. Although I would argue that it is less a matter of removing access to these weapons entirely, but rather making them much more difficult to purchase or steal.

130 shots in 20 mins is 1 every ~ten seconds. Sure, doable, for someone extremely experienced, who could reload very quickly, had easy access to their ammunition, and didn't have to walk between successive targets. It's possible that the sandy hook shooting could've happened with a double barreled shotgun, but if you're sitting there telling me that it's equally likely, or even comparably likely, given all other parameters remained the same, then you're talking out of your arse.

The next point, not an argument for an armed populace. That's an argument for an overhaul of your (from what I understand from other escapists) grossly inadequate police force. In Australia, although we have some problems with our police, they are for the most part highly effective because they are (to a reasonable approximation) the only people with guns, and thus have the final say in most escalations. Hell, the british police are apparently even better, and they don't even need guns to do that.

As for murderuk, care to find somewhere that lists its sources?

Also, you didn't address my last point. Is it not worth trying heavier gun control to potentially save lives, or are your toys more important to you?

American civilians used firearms 1.5 million times in 1994 to stop violent crimes, that's 3 times more often than their were violent crimes that succeeded(both from the Justice department, even though a better study conducted in 1995 by Gary Kleck found the number of defensive gun uses each year to be about 1 million higher than that). People with legal pistol permits and concealed carry permits commit less crime than the rest of the populace, less than police even. Civilians stop more criminals each year than police through legally justifiable shootings and have a lower rate of shooting non-criminals, not to mention a higher accuracy rating. The Australian bans had no effect on violent crime or murder rates, neither did either of the UK bans, that's from publicly available data. The UK rates were climbing, continued to climb at the same rate. The Australian rates were declining, had been for decades, continued to do so at the same rate. As for sources, why don't you read this article written by an expert in the field: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html

Also, about your snide comment about listing sources, if you had actually read the sites, you would have seen that the first one did site sources, he just did it in the bulk of his text where he explained his methods, not at the end.

As for the old "i'm sick of it argument": so am I. I am sick of people like you who blindly champion gun control without knowing anything about it because their government and media says it's a good idea. You're on the internet, why don't you actually go look at the data, it's once sided as hell: my side.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
http://www.guncite.com/Kleck-Hogan.html (you're more likely to be a murderer because you are male, black, hispanic, unmarried, southern, or a Veteran, and of those, the only ones with statistically significant ratios(over 3 by rule of thumb, mentioned in link) are black, male, and veteran.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Seriously, they should just outlaw guns completely and get rid of that amendment that says they've got the right to bear arms.

Or at least change it to the right to bear melee weapons.

Or possibly the right to bear farming tools as weapons. And yes, that includes tonfa and nunchucks.

At least that way, they can't kill anyone from a few hundred meters distance, just by pointing at them.

 

[CAMDAWG]

Also, about your snide comment about listing sources, if you had actually read the sites, you would have seen that the first one did site sources, he just did it in the bulk of his text where he explained his methods, not at the end.

Snide? You link me to a website without any sense of being official, that doesn't quote sources from anywhere, and expect me just to trust it? Asking for a source isn't snide, it's called keeping you accountable. I don't know how much time you've spent in R&P, but this is bread and butter stuff. If you give a source that doesn't quote its sources, and has no other reason why I should consider it reliable, then you are not doing a good enough job at presenting your information.

And please, stop leaning on the old "anyone opposed to my position is blind or being brainwashed by the government/media" crutch. If I can avoid calling you brainwashed, you should be able to extend the same courtesy to me.

I don't have time to read through all your sources at the moment, but i'll try and get through them and reply later.

Just a thought though, if having your guns stops so much violent crime, how come the homicide rate is the US roughly 4-5 times that of Australia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf (wiki's source, pg 93-94 has stats for US and Aus)

 

[spartan231490]

Also, about your snide comment about listing sources, if you had actually read the sites, you would have seen that the first one did site sources, he just did it in the bulk of his text where he explained his methods, not at the end.

Snide? You link me to a website without any sense of being official, that doesn't quote sources from anywhere, and expect me just to trust it? Asking for a source isn't snide, it's called keeping you accountable. I don't know how much time you've spent in R&P, but this is bread and butter stuff. If you give a source that doesn't quote its sources, and has no other reason why I should consider it reliable, then you are not doing a good enough job at presenting your information.

And please, stop leaning on the old "anyone opposed to my position is blind or being brainwashed by the government/media" crutch. If I can avoid calling you brainwashed, you should be able to extend the same courtesy to me.

I don't have time to read through all your sources at the moment, but i'll try and get through them and reply later.

Just a thought though, if having your guns stops so much violent crime, how come the homicide rate is the US roughly 4-5 times that of Australia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/s


I call 'em like I see 'em. There is solid evidence that completely disproves the validity of gun control, the only reason people would believe it is by mindlessly accepting media spoon-fed info instead of looking for themselves.


Parting shot is a circular reasoning fallacy. You're assuming the reason that our crime/murder rate is higher is because of guns (as opposed to culture, higher poverty rates, more drug use, or more gang violence, and that's just off the top of my head) to justify your argument that guns cause murder. An anti-gun Justice department came up with 1.5 million, not exactly an unreliable source.

Parting source is pointless. The use of gun deaths as a statistic is, in and of itself, an irrelevancy fallacy. The argument behind gun control is that reducing access to guns would save lives, thus being good for the society as a whole, and justified despite the flagrant restriction of both property rights and the rights to self-defense. Gun deaths is irrelevant to this argument, since the idea is that restricting ownership would reduce overall deaths. The reason anti-gun sites use this statistic despite the obvious fallacious reasoning is because violent death rates and overall death rates have no correlation with gun ownership or gun laws. Since this doesn't suit the media agenda, they continue to report gun deaths until you are bludgeoned into believing it's relevant.

Most of the tactics used by anti-gunners are blatant logical fallacies, makes you wonder why their argument is so weak that their most common argument is "Think of the children" an obvious appeal to emotion fallacy. Must not have much by way of actual evidence.

I mean, think about your statement regarding my sources for a moment. You have been so conditioned to be dogmatic on this issue that you fire off a completely opinion based argument instead of reading the readily available sources or using the power of the internet to uncover your own.

 

[spartan231490]

Take the single mother of an infant who locked herself in the bathroom and called 911, was on the phone with them for 5 minutes when he broke the bathroom door down to get to her? Or the mother of three who locked herself and her 3 kids into a closet when a man with a crowbar broke into the house, who then pried open the closet door with it? What about the mother of a 6 year old who couldn't run from her stalker because he was between her and her child? What about the 15 year old daughter(home alone) who had three men chase her into her house trying to rape her? What about the woman who was being chased around her own house by her ex(who she had a restraining order against) and his 19 year old step-son, and couldn't find her garage door remote to get out of her house?

And you mock the gun control advocates for using obvious appeals to emotional fallacies?

Let me see how I'd describe this post; Oh, right, "Think of the children".

I posted a source and data as my arguments, these were just examples since so many seem to think it's impossible. It's not an appeal to emotion if it's a factual argument that just happens to coincide with an emotional topic. I am literally at a loss for words that you could be so wrong . . .

 

[spartan231490]

I posted a source and data as my arguments, these were just examples since so many seem to think it's impossible. It's not an appeal to emotion if it's a factual argument that just happens to coincide with an emotional topic. I am literally at a loss for words that you could be so wrong . . .

All of your examples involve mothers and children, even the person who was alone you described as a "daughter" , not a person. That's not "just happens to be coinciding", that's an obvious appeal to emotion. Stop being a hypocrite and deal with it.

ah yes, it was in the other post I made, the one that you blatantly ignored because it didn't fit with your agenda, where posted the raw data and sources. Like 1.5 million defensive gun uses each year.