User talk:HiLo48

Welcome!

Hello, HiLo48, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 07:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Further

Further to my response at my talk page I note that both Longhair and Brian have come to your page to welcome you. Both are great participants here and you have some fundamental links to get you started in terms of understanding. If you need more help please ask at any time.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer and rollback

Hi, I've added a couple of flags to your account: reviewer and rollback. I hope you find them useful. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For keeping the baddies at bay...

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for keeping an eye out for damaging edits. bodnotbod (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move this barnstar to wherever in your user space you'd prefer to have it. bodnotbod (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Humor at Protected Pages

As someone who lives on an island (granted its a VERY large island) perhaps you are unaware of what the rules are on the Mainland (thats what we call it) for articles that may be considered political in nature;

1. Any cross-party hugfest can only be initiated by the right,
2. Any internal hugfest (or support of one another) within the right should NOT be constued as anything more than friendliness and cheerful banter,
3. Any internal hugfest (or support of one another) within the left could, should and will result in immediate blocks and bans to the active participants and severe reprimands to any editors that were seen smiling in the general vicinity.

These are just some basic guidelines to assure the safety and sanity of your fellow editors. A good rule of thumb to follow is that if the right is obviously humorous 3 times in a row, some humor from the left will be tolerated since the conversation will be ended via "shrink wrap" at any moment. BTW, sorry about the spelling of humour. Buster Seven Talk 20:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for information

Hello HiLo48, This lousy t-shirt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Compliments on your sang froid

I can't help but admire your reaction the other day to the namecalling you were subjected to by Encyclopedia91. You must have the patience and forbearance of a saint! I know I would have reacted quite differently. You are a model for us all. Sincerely, --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice Koekjes

Buster7 has given you a Nice Koekjes which promote fellowship, goodwill and WikiLove. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the good flavor of Nice Koekjes around Wiki World by giving someone else one. Maybe to a friend or, better yet, to someone you have had disagreements with in the past. Nice Biscuits are very tasty and have been known to calm even the most savage beast. Enjoy! Buster Seven Talk

I just gave a koekje to an Aussie friend, User:Alastair Haines and I thought of you. It's fresh. I made it last night. Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Some words I'm working on

Been thinking about this criticism issue for a while. Probably not the ideal place to say this, but I want to try putting the words together. I think criticism sections are almost always going to be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Just about everyone has somebody who disagrees with them about something. Some, like outspoken atheists, will have more than many from conservative religious parts of society who disagree. That's a given. We cannot possibly list all the criticism, so what's the point of listing any? We should just describe what's significant about someone (i.e. why they have an article here) and let others decide on the merits of their actions and views. The same goes for people significant for their strong religious views. List those views, and let it stand. Going any further will inevitably create the debate of "how much further?" So, no criticism sections. OK?

I agree with you 90+%. Criticism sections are lazy writing, often places for sneaking in their point-of-view. They are often a way of taking an obscure critic and giving them promotion by adding their opinions. I often get the impression that some editors start with a point of view and then web search until they find some obscure opinion piece and add it to the article. In these cases, only reliable sources and notable ones will do. Instead of putting criticism in its own ghetto, if legit it belongs next to the ideas being presented. Thank you for bringing up an important issue. --Javaweb (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Javaweb

You two might want to check out Wikipedia:Criticism, an essay that discourages the existence of criticism sections and goes over the main points against them.AerobicFox (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

File:PNHP poster.jpg	For your great work at the Reference Desks
	Please accept this Physicians for a National Health Program poster for all the hard reference desks you answer. You're so often catching them faster than I can. Spectacular! Dualus (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I support you

You were right in the Pregnancy talk page. The image you wanted in the lead has a much more "medical", serious and informative tone than the one that the scores of probably American nipple-o-phobic prudes finally forced there. Actually, even from a purely aesthetic point of view the bare breasted image is superior because of the more "charming" expression of the woman in the picture, rather than the a bit like "whatcha lookin' at" expression of the Asian woman. --Cerlomin (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your sport work. :)

LauraHale (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have spotted your username regularly popping up and, on occasion, beating me to a reversion. You also seem to be active in a wide variety of activities on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! LittleOldMe (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This has been due for a while. From someone who disagrees with you 3/4 of the time, to someone who understands what an objective world encyclopedia should be, and puts all else aside in pursuing that end, and who's methods of disputing are refreshingly direct. North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Wikipedia dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Stage one of the dispute resolution noticeboard request form. Here, participants fill out a request through a form, instead of through wikitext, making it easier for them to use, but also imposing word restrictions so volunteers can review the dispute in a timely manner. Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Wikipedia disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to record this before it gets buried

"...user HiLo48 has a biased towards Netball and against male sport's."

I think it's a gem.

HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	YOU are a human being with a brain, NO scarecrows allowed. Kennvido (talk) 10:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal opinion

In the RfC/U, which you have apparently stated you would not participate in, I made a comment which I think might be useful. If you look at the Bibliography of encyclopedias, you will see that there are a rather large number out there, many of which are in the public domain. I am myself currently in the process of downloading to myself the various volumes of the old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, some of whose articles have been said in reviews of more recent reference works to be possibly the best articles on those subjects ever written, with the intention of ultimately adding them to WikiSource, and, maybe, starting some articles which we don't yet have in the English wikipedia which are contained in it. I made a statement in the RfC that, should problems continue, it might be extremely productive if perhaps you found a topic of interest to you and maybe do the same. User:Blofeld, who has apparently recently retired, started the bibliography page with the intentions of giving interested editors some sources which could, hopefully, establish notability for some topics and provide some content with which to start articles that don't yet exist.

I said somewhere before that, as a citizen of the US, I often agree with your own opinions that the project tends to be overbalanced to the US side. Starting articles on non-US topics, possibly using public domain sources, is one way I am going to try to develop some of the content that is currently weak or nonexistent regarding some of those topics in the field of religion, philosophy, ethics, sociology, etc., as per the source above. And, like I said, there are a lot of other such sources.

I do think that maybe, if you find problems with other editors persisting on wikipedia, maybe one thing to do would be to do some more work elsewhere, like I intend to do. Even for a lot of the content here, in the English wikipedia, material on some topics, like older biographies, won't have changed that much since some public domain works were published, and they might be extremely useful in not only being more available to both our editors and readers, but also in at least some cases maybe one of the best ways to help get some articles here about older topics up to GA and maybe better. Just an idea, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed closure of RfC/U

Hello there, I'm a relatively uninvolved user in relation to your editing. I took a read through the RfC/U and proposed a closure at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/HiLo48#Proposed Closure. Please read it and see if it is something you could live with. Having read your user page declaration I think that it is. Please let me know. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. For reasons I've outlined many times elsewhere, I regard Wikipedia's justice and discipline processes to be appalling opportunities for the bigots and POV pushers to promote their non-constructive and malicious agendas, and pile mud on an accused, with virtually no chance that their behaviour will be scrutinised in that place, nor for the accused to defend themselves, so I really would prefer to not have to look at any of that RFC/U. It will just make me feel like being uncivil because of the masses of nonsense therein. But, because I can see that yours is a good faith proposal, I have had a look at just that section.

Again, because I know that many of those who would like to silence me do look at my User pages, I'll copy the proposal here for clarity:

HiLo48 acknowledges that their behavior, at times, is incivil and will endeavor to refrain from the identified language. HiLo48 acknowledges that future incivil behavior may result in suspension of editing privileges or referral to ArbCom for resolution of the long standing conduct dispute.

I would still argue that most of this dispute is not a conduct one, but a content one. That should be obvious to any objective reader who might notice that everybody criticising me over civility has also disagreed with me over content, some very nastily. (But possibly without naughty words, which I think only makes it worse.) Attacking me over civility was always a distraction from the truth, and from making Wikipedia a great, objective encyclopaedia.

Another point - I would like all involved to look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. That's the latest incarnation of an agonisingly slow attempt by some here to firstly define incivility, and then decide on punishment for those evil folk who allegedly display it. The discussion really hasn't got past the definition stage. If Wikipedia cannot define incivility, logically, nobody can be disciplined for it. (I know logic doesn't really apply here, sadly, but....) Interestingly, much of that discussion has occurred with virtually no contributions from any of those more interested in attacking me at the RFC/U.

I will also repeat my point that some of my allegedly uncivil language has successfully drawn attention to some very nasty POV pushing by some of those who have now tried to silence me via the RFC/U, and ended up keeping some appalling, POV nonsense out of Wikipedia. I am proud of that. I ask objective observers, which would you prefer - no naughty words, but lots of POV in Wikipedia, or occasional telling-it-like-it-really-is on Talk pages, and a better encyclopaedia as a result?

In conclusion, my position on niceness is made clear at User:HiLo48#A non-swearing vow (Lying is safer). I have no plans to change that position. Ironically, it has been in place since well before the RFC/U, but nobody seemed to notice. Trying to silence an effective enemy must have seemed a much easier option to many than finding out the truth.

Again, thanks Hasteur for your good faith proposal here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the RfC/U was closed. It's hard to tell. It seems these things aren't publicised very well. Certainly nobody told me. Not sure what it all means. Nothing seems to have changed anywhere. Just a lot of nasty words written about me by people who don't like my approach to the damage they do to Wikipedia, while I was off making another few thousand positive contributions. Oh well, such is life. HiLo48 (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

God, not good

Thank you for that. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome :-) HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wayne LaPierre

I was probably a little dismissive in my response to your comment on the LaPierre article. Just wanted to thank you for your comment. It is constructive and helpful. Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

US gun sanctions

Regarding the now-closed US sanctions thread on the Ref Desk, I thought I'd provide some follow-up info on one of the subthreads in that discussion. Jayron (I think) brought up an Aussie uni shooting and you replied with words to the effect of "he only had handguns, not assault rifles; thus the body count was lower". This is common but fallacious reasoning, and is unfortunately one of the things that US gun control discussions get bogged down in. Assault rifles look scary and thus draw attention, but there's really only one quality of firearms that allows a shooter to rack up a high body count, and that's "semi-automatic". That, and not "assault rifle", means a trained shooter can fire at a high rate for an indefinite period of time, and handguns are just as capable of that as rifles.

By way of example, see the Virginia Tech massacre, which appears to be the highest single-shooter single-incident fatality total on record, and was carried out with two handguns. The chief difference, then (to my admittedly untrained eye), is whether the shooter put himself in a position to be overwhelmed. The Aussie uni shooter went into a crowded room full of adults and was successfully rushed -- maybe when he stopped to reload, maybe he was firing revolvers instead of semi-autos (he carried both), maybe it was just as a matter of heroic desperation. The Virginia Tech shooter, on the other hand, shot many of his victims through closed doors. Those victims were blocking the doors to allow other students to escape -- maybe that reduced the death total -- but they also prevented themselves from being able to overwhelm the shooter as in the Aussie case -- so maybe it didn't help so much. The Newtown shooter had less difficulty since he was in an environment where most victims weren't adults (and were thus unlikely to be able to overwhelm him regardless), but I find it unlikely that "rifle" vs "handgun" would have substantially affected the outcome.

And any worthwhile gun control solution in the US has to deal with the fact of ~200 million privately owned semi-automatic firearms (my guesstimate extrapolation from recent Washington Post data of ~300 million total privately owned firearms in the US). This is, frankly, a problem on a scale (either absolute or per capita) no other country in the world has attempted, or can conceive of attempting, to solve. I think it'd be interesting to see what happened if some substantial block of the world tried sanctions as you suggest, but given the irrational American exceptionalism that still pervades a lot of the country (see also certain posters on the RD), I'm skeptical that it would do much other than further hardening existing positions. Anyway, lots of blather. Hopefully you'll find some of it of interest. — Lomn 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Lomn. I'll always acknowledge that because we evil foreigners who should be keeping our noses out of the USA's business don't use guns much, we're not going to know as much about them as Americans. Now I know more. That's always a good thing. Just watching the article develop here on the Sandy Hook shootings, it's depressed me that there's a subset of editors far more concerned about the precise makes and models of guns and ammunition used than anything else, like kids dying. A real obsession.

I believe it's illegal for a private citizen in Australia to own a semi-automatic weapon anyway. It MUST make a difference in the long term.

As for that thread, I'm a teacher, a pretty unusual one. among other things I like pushing the boundaries in other peoples' thinking. I expected, even though I asked them not to, that some Americans would just automatically react negatively, and play some form of the American exceptionalism card. My hope is always that in the longer term some of the thoughts of radicals like me might actually creep into their thinking. I wouldn't care if they never acknowledge my contribution. Change can happen. After all, a black President was seen as an impossibility for most of my life, and look what happened! HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know Australian law , but "semi-automatic" encompasses the majority of firearms. For example, all pistols except revolvers are semi-automatic. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And most ordinary Australians don't own them. The main exception would be gun club members who use them for competition. HiLo48 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me to hear that someplace has restrictive firearm laws. It drawing a line at semi-automatics does surprise me. Allowing firearms but banning semi-autos is sort of like allowing automobiles but banning the ones that burn gasoline. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It works here. Not sure if you're aware of the relatively recent history. The Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania in 1996 led a conservative government to bring in very strict gun laws. There was a big government buy back of weapons that were declared illegal. Since then, there have been no mass shootings. The Monash University shooting in 2002 that Jayron raised (as what I thought was a pretty weak debating point) involved the death of a whole two people! We Aussies are pretty convinced that we've got the balance pretty right now. Just as some Americans are about the USA. We just don't understand the latter fact. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not that the media would cover it, but our deaths from mass shooting in the USA are about the same amount as deaths from bee stings, and somewhere about 1/2000th the deaths from doctor errors. In fact our deaths from ALL murders committed with firearms (about 14,000 per year) are about 1/10th the deaths from doctor errors and 1/3 the deaths from automobiles. So IMHO it works here too, not that you can learn that from our media. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Surely it's not just mass shooting that are at issue. It ALL deaths from firearms. 2. I'm sure the country is aiming to reduce the number of deaths from doctor errors and road trauma. Might as well aim to reduce damage from firearms too. You see, the weird thing is that the rest of the world doesn't do it the same way as the US, and doesn't have as much drama with firearms. We just don't understand why Americans want so many guns. Have you read American exceptionalism? HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I never read it but now just did. That's a whole 'nother topic!

The answer to your sort-of-question is is really a zillion answers, trying to generalize millions of things / hundreds of millions of people spanning >500 years. But if I had to try to (over)generalize the difference, I would say that it goes like this. Every decision has its costs and benefits. Differences in decisions between countries on things like this are usually due to differences in priorities. USA decisions for itself on such things are based on us collectively placing a higher priority on freedom and individualism than most or all other countries. And we know that that has it's costs. The costs aren't as high as the impression that our media puts out, but they exist. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I can understand your frustration with the media painting a less than accurate picture. That's a problem everywhere, I can assure you. But I guess what happens is that American news does spread around the world quickly, especially when innocent kids are killed, and people everywhere ask why. Non-Americans immediately notice the gun thing. It couldn't happen as easily elsewhere. And people care about kids dying. I don't think anyone would claim to have the perfect solution. There's always going to be people going off their brains. But fewer guns just looks like an obvious part of it when that's what the rest of the world has. That Americans don't care what the rest of the world thinks won't stop them thinking it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, only Americans see gun crime as fixable with more guns...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) To quote the NRA in a recent statement: "We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen." As a law-abiding, well-trained and responsible gun-owning American, I scoff at what members of disarmed (or nearly disarmed) societies say about my right to possess firearms. These governments took away or severely limited the rights of responsible private citizens to keep and bear firearms - but it won't happen here. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 10:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

One more thing: that Piers Morgan fellow likes to point out that guns like the Bushmaster have no business being in the hands of citizens. These guns have no practical purpose. Wrong! In large areas of rural Texas, feral hogs (that were introduced by man) are a major problem. One of the best ways to control these dangerous and destructive pests is to shoot them from a helicopter.[1] You can't do this with a single-shot musket for it to be effective. The media will never tell you about this, because naturally only crazed psychos would want to possess a magazine that holds more that 10 rounds. Doc talk 10:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest calling an exterminator then...Just like for a rat infestation...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't need to. Heck, I could actually pay money to go to Texas and do it myself! It looks like fun, and it's helping correct our mistake for creating the problem. Having been trained by professionals, I understand how firearms work. Your average cop or soldier was just a private citizen at one time, with no special intrinsic "weapons genius" ability. Thankfully we can own guns legally in America without having to be military or law enforcement personnel. Doc talk 11:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Doc, have you read American exceptionalism? You seem to epitomise it. That's an observation, not a criticism. We wouldn't have the article if there weren't millions of adherents to the philosophy, so I'm just saying you're one of those millions. Perhaps more millions than there are people in my country. To me, your arguments aren't rational justification for keeping the kinds of weapons needed to control feral hogs in Texas in small towns in Connecticut. To you, they are. I'd just like to hope that before making absolute, aggressive statements in defence of such a position, you really have considered all that others say, and not just repeated NRA dogma. Statements like "but it won't happen here" aren't part of a discussion. That's a statement of rigid dogma. You chose to post here. (And you're welcome, of course.) But this is a Talk page, where we discuss stuff. Is your position flexible enough to do so? Discussion means listening. Statements like "but it won't happen here" aren't part of listening. HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In some states like Texas and Colorado, one can own a belt-fed fully automatic machine gun like the M-60, provided they go through the proper legal channels. These weapons, even more dangerous than assault weapons, are never used in these senseless massacres. Why? Because most gun owners are responsible and stable individuals. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired for a reason: it didn't actually solve anything. I appreciate the forum, and would be happy to represent the anti-gun control position anytime you'll have me. American exceptionalism is an interesting concept. I don't much care how other countries regulate their own gun rights, but when those goverments start telling us about our gun rights in our country, I get a little miffed. Sorry! Cheers :> Doc talk 02:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got American exceptionalism down pat in that last sentence beginning "I don't much care how other countries..." You see, people in those other countries see and hear about all those innocent people dying, kids especially, and they care about that. You would presumably care about innocent kids dying elsewhere in the world too. Everyone has a moral right to express their concerns about it, and to make suggestions for avoiding it in the future. While you have every right to disagree, you cannot expect others to think you're being clever in so aggressively rejecting what they say. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I own three firearms, including one "assault weapon" (an AK-47 variant) bought after the 1994 ban. They are all registered to me and I bought all of them legally in gun stores. And I don't play violent video games or read "horror comics" (which I believe are still banned in the U.K., but we realized in the 1950's that they were not the cause of juvenile delinquency). Even if a new assault weapons ban were introduced, the government can't make it illegal to own something that is currently legal to possess overnight: they can only ban the future import and sale of whatever weapons they ban next. See, the guns are already out there, in the hands of millions of citizens, just as they have been for decades - and we don't have Sandy Hook incidents on a daily basis. These tragedies are extremely rare, but the liberal media has a field day every time they happen. Each state has its own gun laws, and even the most restrictive (California) allows qualifying citizens to buy semi-automatic rifles and handguns that can hold no more than ten rounds of ammunition. With ten clips, you've got 100 rounds ready to go in the most restrictive state in the nation. We've lived with guns for centuries, and sick madmen murdering innocent children should not be the call to disarm our responsible citizens. Doc talk 02:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, one reason Australians feel they can speak with some confidence on this is that in Australia the government did "make it illegal to own something that is currently legal to possess overnight". Many styles of guns were declared illegal, and a massive (by our standards) gun buy-back was implemented. This occurred after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 where 35 people were killed by one guy. It was done by a conservative government too. Since then, there have been no mass shootings in this country. And anyway, it's not just the mass shootings that count. Any shooting that isn't necessary is surely unwanted. HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the state law system, and their right to govern themselves, such a sweeping Federal law is unlikely to pass here. In parts of Arizona you can walk down the street with a gun on your hip, and in Massachusetts you will go to prison for possessing a magazine that holds 30 rounds, with no gun or ammunition present. That same empty clip that will get you jail time can be mailed to your doorstep if you live in nearby Maine. Perhaps a sweeping law like what passed in your country could happen here, but in reality it will be a long and difficult road. Doc talk 03:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that, although state laws were an issue in Australia too, but from memory the mood was so strong the states generally stepped in line with our federal government. But I suspect your Constitution might get in the way for while too. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Guns are just one wacky thing states get to decide for themselves. Consider marijuana laws in the U.S. Possession of marijuana is illegal under our federal law, but each state decides what they want to do. In many states possession of under 1 oz. of marijuana is no longer a misdemeanor criminal offense, but in other states possession of any amount is punishable by up to a year in jail. The federal law is rarely enforced for some strange reason. America is a land of strange laws... Doc talk 04:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, just so that you know, my main motivation for posting here is that it is fun and interesting to have this discussion with you, not to try to convince. And from 9,000 miles away there are some things that are easy-to-misunderstand about the USA and I find it helpful=fun to try to provide an additional hopefully-reasonably-intelligent-perspective & info. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I love the conversation too. A decent conversation is far more enjoyable than public policy driven by 20 to 30 sound bites on TV news. We have too much of that here already. HiLo48 (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of media statements, I have a puzzle for you.....how can all of the following statements be technically true?:

In the USA there are about:

• 14,000 murders committed per year with guns
• There are about 32,000 people per year "killed with a gun by a family member"
• There are about 44,000 people per year "killed by gun violence"

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Are they all from the same source, at the same time? Anyway, for starters, murders are only a subset of people "killed with a gun". Many deaths from guns would be accidental or self-defence, etc. And those "killed with a gun by a family member" would be a subset of those "killed by gun violence" (by family and non-family members). Yeah, it can be explained. But is that what it means? HiLo48 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

By far the largest number of deaths by guns in the USA are suicides. Like about 28,000 out of about 44,000. So when folks want to make the number of murders look larger, they use terminology that makes a suicide sound like a murder. If you kill yourself, that is technically violence committed against yourself. And since you are a family member of yourself, technically when you kill yourself you have been killed by a family member.  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that drawing lines between different kinds of death by gun helps all that much. Without guns, there wouldn't be death by guns at all. HiLo48 (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On your first point, the persons doing the deceiving apparently feel otherwise. And I guess me too......IMHO suicides are very different than murders. Here suicides by railroad are popular..especially commuter lines. I guess making 50,000 people late for work / blow their commitments is a way to do it in style. (I think your bluntness moved over to me :-) ) On your second point, there no debating what it literally says. The debate would be over the course of action that it seems to imply.North8000 (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sadly, suicide by commuter train is popular here too. And it really messes with the life of the train driver, an otherwise totally uninvolved party. An interesting claim I saw recently is that if someone is thwarted in their attempt to suicide using one method, they are unlikely to try another. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that suicides are mostly when someone who is really "down" has a moment when they are down even lower, sometimes with drugs or alcohol piled on. So anything that would delay it would have some chance of that period passing. But even more so, "thwarted" means that someone else is now intervening, and somebody who now knows that they are suicidal. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe thwarted is the wrong word. A lot of attempted suicides are unsuccessful, maybe because of incompetence, or intervention after the fact - rushing a drug overdose patient to hospital, etc. That's what I was getting at. HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Victims of suicide use whatever is convenient or available to them or in some instances (like the commuter train) what they perceive will best accomplish their intention. Fewer women use a firearm as a means of suicide because fewer women own guns. This unfortunately has not stopped some individuals from walking into shooting ranges, renting a gun, buying a box of ammunition, and then using one round. This happened near me several years ago.

While I am in favor of reasonable gun laws and very much in favor of anti-violence laws and campaigns by law enforcement, blaming firearms for violence is like blaming sugar for cavities. Taking away guns will not prevent violence, people will find a way. Like was done in the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building.

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a plan to install a $45 million suicide prevention net. Its a big famous bridge, but its just one of many. Where there's a will, there's a way.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My city's not so famous big bridge (yours is much more attractive) had high fences installed a couple of years ago to prevent suicides. It's worked for that location. No idea if anyone can tell whether those fences have had any impact on overall suicide rates for the city, but it stopped police and others potentially taking risks on the bridge to stop suicides.

Do be careful with the kind of language in your second paragraph. It's deflective language, arguing against things that opponents of guns don't actually say. And I'm pretty sure that in Australia the more restrictive laws on gun use and supervision at shooting ranges would largely (but not totally) prevent suicides there. I know it's a hard concept for many Americans to accept, but there are societies out there, and Australia is one, where owning, possessing and firing a gun is a very unusual thing, especially for ordinary city folk. And most Australians are city folk. Not trying to tell other people what to do. Just describing another scenario. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There's actually a name for the syndrome or phenomenon about Americans acceptance of guns, its part of the "John Wayne Mythos". Guns are an object of empowerment here and have been for over a century. Then again according to statistics I've heard since Sandy Hook, only about 1 in 10 or 20 own a gun here in the U.S., so owning, possessing and firing is somewhat unusual here too.

As for the deflective comment, its the point that the "gun owning non gun nuts" work to promote (at least how I think you mean that). Going after guns is "treating a symptom" of violence, not a cause. Drunk driving is a horrendous problem here in the U.S., but no one is attacking the alcohol industry because of it, why are guns such an easy scapegoat? I consider myself a responsible gun owner and regardless of the propaganda from the both the pro- and anti- gun sides, I'd like to keep doing my hobby (as a collector and shooter) without finding myself suddenly in violation of the latest knee-jerk reaction gun law. I hope I'm not being horribly obtuse... :)

Good to hear that your fence is working, I hope the city can find the money to get ours.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My point about the second para was the "blaming firearms for violence" bit. That's not what anti-gun campaigners do. Or I certainly don't. The simple point is that once violence is going to occur, the presence of a gun or guns makes the result inevitably worse. Just before the Sandy Hook shooting there was an idiot lost it at a school in China. Similar number of kids attacked. None were killed. The difference? He had a knife. No guns. So no, guns don't cause violence, but they make the results of violence worse. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh goodness yes, I could not agree more with that statement and standpoint. Point taken about the knife nut in China. But "guns beget violence" is unfortunately the main (or only) message of many of the anti-gunners here in the U.S.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, they can't be that stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The NRA says they heard they say. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The people who say it aren't stupid, it is a clever tactic. Now, the people who believe it , that's a different story. In the USA if you can get gullible people to hypervenilate, stupidity can move mountains here. . Don't forget we're the country that did Prohibition (which launched the crime syndicate in the USA), Japanese internment, the McCarthy era, from the "war on drugs" police get to keep your car if they find a joint in it, from our "war on sex offenders" somebody who streaked in college has to register for life as a sex offender, and where our reaction to 911 cost us 100 times (in lifetimes of time vs. lives, and $) more than the event, including moving several notches towards a police state in response. North8000 (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Boy, I'm glad you said that, and not me. If I said it (and I have pointed out some of those facts in the past) I'd be and have been branded anti-American and be banned from certain topics here. You live in a diverse nation. HiLo48 (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledging mistakes (and understanding how the really unbelievable ones happened) is a helpful experience.

But on the flip side, (and on the gun topic above) where else could one have a state (or provincial) motto (statement of priorities) of "Live free or die". IMHO it's a cool place even with a huge list of flaws and problems. In relation to gun freedoms, the price to pay isn't "die" but (for a non-gangbanger) it is to endure a 1 in 100,000 chance per year of getting murdered by a firearm Also to endure a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying from a car wreck each year, and a 1 in 2000 chance of killed by a doctor error each year. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy, North hit it on the head. Stupidity is the root of all evil, IMHO. Worse yet, it knows no limits.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

American exceptionalism certainly explains the attitude. HiLo48, imagine you did not live in a society but in a Hobbesian world made up of selfish individuals. If you don't have money to protect you and cannot rely on government, then you get a gun, pray to God for protection or calm your nerves through prescription or illegal drugs. TFD (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have heard the term "American exceptionalism" more in this talk page than I have in my entire life. On HiLo48's advice I read the Wiki article on it twice to try to figure out what it means. I found the article to be just an assemblage of about 10 widely varying things.....if there is any coherent meaning of the term I still don't know what it is. But in this thread I see to see the opposite. Specifically in the conversation between USA and country "B" why I see said or implied in the thread, conversation between USA and "Country B" person regarding gun freedoms:

• USA person: "We like it how it is in the USA and think that such is best for us, and have no comment on how you should do it in country B"
• "Country B: person. "We do it different in country B. You USA people just don't understand that you are wrong and that our way would be better for you."

Sounds like "Country B" exceptionalism to me!  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the theory that lacking a feudal past, American views fall within a narrow range that is more classically liberal and individualistic than other countries. It explains why Canada, which is otherwise similar to the U.S., has monarchy, appointed senators, a socialist opposition, respect for government, a developed welfare state, banks that didn't fail, state support for religious schools, a lower crime rate, no death penalty, stronger gun control, less crime, fewer prisoners but longer sentences for violent crime, censorhip, greater economic equality, laws against hate speech and a very weak religious right. It means that what works in the rest of the world may not work in the U.S. and vice versa. TFD (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

North - I hadn't heard of the formal concept of American exceptionalism until someone else here pointed it out to me as an explanation of why Americans are so sensitive about any criticism. I think it helps to explain things a bit. As for your suggestion that Americans think "We like it how it is in the USA and think that such is best for us, and have no comment on how you should do it in country B", have you heard of the expression "Yankee go home"? Ever wondered why it exists? Are you aware that the US has troops stationed in more than half the other countries in the world? (Well over 100 of them.) And that doesn't include the troops protecting US embassies. (Ever wondered why they're needed?) The US does tell other countries how to do things. Then there's the cultural imperialism. Generally unavoidable because of the massive size of the US economy and it's domination of world entertainment and media content. It means that American values and fashion become the values of cultures far removed from the US. This annoys some people in those other countries who despair over the loss of their individual cultures. Why do kids in African slums wear baseball/gangster hats backwards, when they really do need something to keep the sun out their eyes? And please don't tell me again that guns are OK because they don't kill as many people as cars and doctors. I have no idea of the accuracy of your numbers, but true or not, we should be aiming to reduce all of them. Now, combining a few of those things, the US's media made sure the rest of the world instantly heard about the innocent kids killed at Sandy Hook. The rest of the world cares about innocent kids dying, anywhere. I certainly do. We all like to think that such events could be prevented. Compassion forces us to say something. That's not telling Americans how to live their lives. That's caring. Artificial things like national borders should never get in the way of that. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Lots of good and huge topics that you touched on there. One thing that I should clarify is that in my paraphrasing conversations (e.g "We like how it is....") I was referring to only the comments on this page, not trying to summarize the big picture.North8000 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Y'all need to be aware of this website if you are not already. The state scorecards look very discouraging at the moment for those who want to get rid of guns here. Jim Brady was shot in 1981 with a .22 revolver, which is not even a semi-automatic weapon. 10-round semi-automatics are still legal in California to this day. There is a long, long way to go before guns are banned in this country. Just trying to put it into perspective. Doc talk 11:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So, stop ordinary citizens carrying revolvers. They don't in most other countries. (I know, you don't care what other countries do, etc. Well, maybe we can all learn from each other.) A long way to go? Yes. But every journey begins with a single step. So start now. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And one thing on "American exceptionalism". Have any of my fellow Americans here ever heard of "glassing"? No? Well, they know all about it in the UK and Australia.[2] It's when you smash a pint glass or bottle into somebody's face because you got into a disagreement in a pub with them. It's common enough to have its own term, with hundreds and hundreds of "glassings" occurring every year. Pint glasses have actually had to be redesigned so that they are less prone to breakage because of it. I met a guy in England who had been glassed - deep, hideous scars on his cheek and nose, and he was lucky he didn't die from it (could have hit an artery in the neck). We don't do that in pubs here, and 9 out of 10 Americans would have no clue what "glassing" even means. We don't want to see that trend ever happen here. So much for being disarmed. Doc talk 12:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's apples and oranges. There's no crossover between glassings and gun crime. Eliminating guns doesn't mean people will walk the streets with pint glasses. It sounds more like an NRA scare story with no factual evidence to back it up. Glassings are more common in the UK and Australia solely because of pub culture and thugs, whereas the USA tends to have bars and a gun culture. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, glassing is completely irrelevant. If you're going to play on my Talk page, please stay on topic. HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The dirty little secret is that murders are just pawns in the political battle on guns. If you will notice, the proposals of anti-gun folks NEVER include getting tougher on crimes committed with guns, and they always are on creating new criminallizations of behaviors of everyday citizens.North8000 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Silly generalisation there North. I'm sure the word "NEVER" is not true. You seem to be making the mistake of trying to pretend that you're in favour of some stricter gun control, but then going and painting those more firmly in favour of it as idiots. AND most of them aren't. It makes you look silly when you use absolute words like "NEVER". HiLo48 (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said I was in favor of stricter gun control, I am quite the opposite. Stronger penalties who commit real crimes using guns...yes. And I stand by my word "never". It not only matches immense observation of reality, it is quite logical that they would avoid that. If you'd like another example, look at Obama's long list of items that he put out today.....see anything in there about being tougher on use of guns to commit crimes? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh don't be silly. Crimes are already illegal, by definition, whether guns are used or not. You're obfuscating. It's a "look over there" tactic. I still do not believe "NEVER". HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that they are already illegal. What I said was "getting tougher on crimes committed with guns". On the next part, OK, we'll leave it at that. But sooner or later you may notice that in 3 years I've never given you incorrect or deceptive info. About the worst I ever do is generalize /broad broad brush for the sake of speed or brevity. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you seem a pretty honest fella, but I think you're avoiding reality a bit around the gun thing. But to me that's pretty normal in the US, so don't take my comment too personally. I heard a Texan Senator on radio this morning telling the world (yes, including Australians) that the Constitution (especially the Second Amendment) came from God, with the implication that it's sacrilegious to oppose gun ownership. I don't know the real basis of your belief in gun ownership. Supporters too often do seem religious in their zeal, rather than rational. That forces them into debating strategies that really avoid the main issues, such as your insistence that being tougher on the use of guns to commit crimes is the real issue. It's not. It's the culture that says private possession of massive numbers of unnecessarily powerful guns is right and good. I'm pretty sure that's not what the writers of the Second Amendment intended. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

For me the #1 reason is freedom, with that being one of the mineshaft canaries in the struggle to maintain it. It would take me a lot more writing to cover my #2 and #3 and #4 reasons. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Freedom? Wow, there's a cliché. One of the things I feel least of when I visit the US is freedom, when I get off the plane and find myself surround by people with guns. I frankly feel quite frightened. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are TSA employees, police officers and National Guardsmen you're seeing when you get off the plane. This isn't the "Wild West" anymore, with guns on every hip. Doc talk 03:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Who they are doesn't change the way it makes me feel. Maybe deep down, to many Americans, it is still like the Wild West, and they do want a gun on every hip. They like the idea and feel comfortable with it. I dunno. I'm desperately trying to understand what to the rest of the world is a weird attitude towards guns in America. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This I can say unequivocally: they will never disarm your average police patrolman like in London or elsewhere. In fact, there is a marked trend in arming our police forces in a more and more militarized fashion. After incidents like the North Hollywood shootout, every police department is armed to the teeth. After 9/11, we have armed soldiers with M-16's in airports. We just have to deal with it here, and you should not worry too much about them, as they are the "good guys". Doc talk 04:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Right. I think you've missed my fundamental point. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed mine as well. While it's one thing to oppose "sweeping statements", dismissing opinions as "silly" is pretty sweeping, too. The Brady site I pointed out above is a perfect example of how nearly impossible it is to ban guns in this country. My "tangent" about marijuana laws was an attempt to illustrate that our states make their own laws. It's one of the fundamental principles of this country. Without private gun ownership we would not have not wrested away from the English colonial system as early as we did. While it's nice to say, "That's an antiquated reason to allow private gun ownership", it is not realistic to think that millions of law-abiding citizens are going to suddenly "wake up" and say, "Yes! Take my guns!". Quite the contrary. If you want to understand how actual, real-life gun-owning Americans live their lives every day with guns, and will continue to, you should refrain from dismissing valid opinions as "NRA propaganda" and the like. Doc talk 05:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've mentioned NRA propaganda. I have mentioned in this thread that Australia has a federal system too, with states having their own legislative powers, including over firearms. There was enough change in mood nationally to allow cooperation on gun laws. So we've heard the arguments. We've seen it still happen. We saw those arguments proven wrong, at least in this country. I wonder if those saying "It's too hard" are really saying "Don't take my guns away." That turned out to be largely the case in Australia. One of your Presidents spoke of doing things not because they are easy, but because they are hard, and the right thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The reality is that unless you go to the extreme of taking guns out the hands of civilians (which ain't gonna happen in the USA) all other proposals just smack law-abiding citizens and have microscopic good effects. North8000 (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that argument was used in Australia too. HiLo48 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You have to arm your people. What if there's a zombie outbreak? =P Or something like Mars Attacks? ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Jenova, whoever said that? I think that you are behaving too rude/insulting to participate in this type of a conversation. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, no sense of humor at all? So much for trying to lighten things up a bit on this thread...ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would call that sarcasim, not humor. Even if you did mention the funniest movie ever made (Mars Attacks) And the thread was already enjoyable. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a bit of both i suppose. Still there was no target for it and Mars Attacks is a decent film. If you take offence then i can't help that as it wasn't aimed at anyone specific. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 18:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The North Hollywood shootout, wow, that's something I haven't heard mentioned in quite a while. I was within earshot of the whole incident when it happened. Just thinking about it still gives me a chill when I think about that day. I'm an avid shooting enthusiast, collector of antique guns, and even part owner of a shooting range, but that kind of firepower just "walking around the streets" really does scare me.

HiLo, speaking of what the Founders had in mind for the 2nd Amendment, I've done some reading about Constitutional analysis in addition having read the Federalist Papers and there is an interesting school of thought regarding the 2nd (it's purpose and position as #2). Basically the Founders felt so strongly about the 1st Amendment, that, well... they made it #1. Free speech is, among other things, a significant part of the foundation of the American republic. OK, yes, there are limits on its. Famously, its illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. But that hasn't changed its importance or from being #1.

That said, the school of thought is that the 2nd Amendment exists AND is 2nd behind "free speech" as the "might" or "power" or as one Constitutional scholar puts it, the "teeth behind the 1st Amendment" that solidifies its purpose. It's a deterrent. An armed populace cannot be persecuted or tormented or stripped of its rights by its government under threat of it being overthrown.

Now take a step back and view this from the "50,000 ft level" and its pretty easy to see why we have the biggest military on the planet and have appointed ourselves the "world police". Hence why the US has accumulated so much destructive force as a deterrence from being invaded, overthrown, attacked, etc.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, getting back to your comment which is on a topic(s) that is huge on both of our minds: "have you heard of the expression "Yankee go home"? Ever wondered why it exists? Are you aware that the US has troops stationed in more than half the other countries in the world? (Well over 100 of them.) And that doesn't include the troops protecting US embassies. (Ever wondered why they're needed?) The US does tell other countries how to do things. Then there's the cultural imperialism. Generally unavoidable because of the massive size of the US economy and it's domination of world entertainment and media content. It means that American values and fashion become the values of cultures far removed from the US. This annoys some people in those other countries who despair over the loss of their individual cultures. Why do kids in African slums wear baseball/gangster hats backwards, when they really do need something to keep the sun out their eyes?" That is of course about 10 topics, all of which have been huge in my mind for decades. There are equally poignant questions that Americans ask, usually revolving around how we tend to spill blood and money trying to help and then offer to leave and still get cast as the bad guys while those who do far worse don't. Including having thousands of hours of conversations when I travel outside of the USA. The answers to the 10 questions are myriad, but the answer to most of those questions, whether it be our boorish and unaware behavior or unwarranted crappy treatment / resentment of us by others is that it is the lot that whoever is the "big guy" is stuck with. And right now that is us, and so we are stuck with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The "big guy" used to be Britain, now it's us. It's easier to forget the British Empire now, but there is no actual declared American Empire. Implied, maybe, but nowhere near as official. Doc talk 03:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, the sun never sets on the British Empire... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The LGBT Barnstar
	It's the very special LGBT Barnstar for the way you calmly handled the dispute with DarkGuardianVII on Talk:Homophobia. Congratulations and keep up the good work! ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does Hollywood copy our films?

Nice cover. Moving the hat while changing your comment doesn't make your comment any more useful. I'm not going to revert you but please don't touch the discussion again unless you have something useful to contribute. --Onorem♠Dil 01:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you on about? There was no offense intended in the post I uncovered. It was a serious contribution to the topic. It IS a reason subtitles are not used in a lot of cases. It wasn't anti-American, as some suggested. I modified the post to clarify that point. That some here are paranoid, and don't read the actual words I've posted, is no reason to criticise me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. If you are actually suggesting that your comment is useful, please provide a reference for it. English speaking people from all countries are too stupid to read and that's why they remake movies instead of just using subtitles. (cn) please. --Onorem♠Dil 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the comment from Stu Rat (a seemingly wise American) in that thread about precisely the problem I described? No. Didn't think so. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did read it. I've read the entire thread. (even the hatted parts...) What's your point? --Onorem♠Dil 02:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a point that you clearly are not comprehending. Maybe there's a literacy problem here. It's OK, for your sake I'll accept that it's in my writing style. I'll take the blame. HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather hear an explanation. I'd also still prefer that your comment was included in the hatted section if you're not willing to discuss it with a lowly American who you seem to think has a literacy issue. --Onorem♠Dil 02:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no offense intended in the post I uncovered. It was a serious contribution to the topic. It IS a reason subtitles are not used in a lot of cases, and not just in America. And I don't mean all citizens of the places I'm thinking of. Just those who find it difficult, if not impossible to read the subtitles quickly enough to keep up. Sometimes that can be a high percentage of the target demographic for a film. It wasn't anti-American. I modified the post to clarify that point. HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Going to bed now. I flat out just don't believe you at all. I didn't think it was offensive. I thought it was silly. I thought the IP severely overreacted, but I really just don't believe you when you say it wasn't just a simple poke at US education. Your comment explains why they might dub instead of just using subtitles. Either way. Whatever. Have a good night (for me...Have a good afternoon?) --Onorem♠Dil 03:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an irony in you saying you don't believe me, and that you didn't find my comment offensive. Some close friends whose opinions I value say that possibly my biggest fault in relating to other people is that I'm too honest. They suggest that I can't easily moderate the truth to avoid injuring fragile egos. I just don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ALP "forced" by Greens to adopt carbon tax

Hey Hilo,

Happy new year and all that. Are you the editor that keeps writing Labor was "forced" to make concessions to the Greens (ie introduce the carbon tax)? This is way off the provable mark, as the Greens were never-ever going to back an Abbott Government, and Gillard clearly "elected", rather than was "forced" to adopt Greens policy. As Bob Brown put it, the Greens weren't "holding a gun" during negotiations with Gillard. So could I request that please try to construct your sentence on adopting the Greens policy more neutrally/accurately in future edits? I'll go ahead and correct the edit in Julia Gillard. Best regards Observoz (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it amusing to watch which of two politicians you clearly detest you claim to believe. I guess the ALP is your major target, so it makes some sense I suppose to attack Gillard more on this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a detester, so no I don't detest either of those people, and obviously could quote from multiple other sources to make Bob Brown's point. But as you appear to recognise above, to claim that the ALP was "forced" to do anything by the Greens is clearly NPOV (Bob Brown contests you for a start - and he can't be accused of being one of your much loathed "conservatives" now can he). It'll be interesting to see the ultimate round of political biographies about the negotiations when each of the participants have moved on. But for now, we must stick to the neutral language along the lines of "in the context of a hung parliament, Labor adopted a Greens preference for a carbon tax" (or go down the route of including the generally contradictory or vague quotes from the various participants), don't you think? Observoz (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That wording's not a bad suggestion. It's sad that for so long the Labor haters just wanted to concentrate on calling Gillard a liar, rather that recognising the real political pressures at play. And again, while plenty of people do stalk my Talk page (Hi everybody!), it's not really a substitute for the article's Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK - I've put something in discussion. My main objection is to the word "forced". In politics I'd say, there's rarely any such thing!Observoz (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but it's closer to the truth than calling our PM Juliar. While it may have made some rusted on Libs feel good, it was never going to convince non-Lib supporter to vote for Abbott. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi there HiLo48 - thanks for the welcome. I do a lot of writing, research, editing in my day job, and I have background in a lot of topics spanning media, law, policy, internet and Asia etc. so in some ways I am interested in being a more active editor here. The next few months are pretty busy, though, so I will hold off volunteering just yet. Thanks for the reminder about using four tildes etc. I have got the hang of it now. NotherAussie (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Articles like that one yesterday about Wikipedia can be a real problem. They attract all sorts of emotionally involved, single issue newcomers, often with no idea of how Wikipedia works, throwing abuse around and generally being unhelpful. It's great that at least one new positively inclined editor has emerged from the drama. My main suggestion to you now is to have a look around. Check out some other articles in your areas of interest. You're bound to find some mistakes that need fixing (I note you've already tackled a couple), and doing so will do a lot to improve your credibility here. Good luck and keep up the good work. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Your userbox

You really don't understand why Americans have trouble with metric? Aside from soda and bottled water (though some of that comes in gallons) and aside from scientists and military folk (whom, I think we agree don't have trouble with metric units), we never use them. -Rrius (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Strange post. My perspective is that since the rest of the world has converted to metric (apart from Libya and Burma), and Americans haven't, they must have some sort of trouble with them. That's how the other 95% of the world sees Americans. Unfortunately, American scientists do have problems. Are you aware of the NASA disasters caused by metric/imperial confusion? HiLo48 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so strange: I saw your userbox after noting a change at your page in my watchlist. The fact that the United States has not changed to metric has nothing to do with having "trouble" with the system. The UK only changed because the EU made them. It amounts to inertia, bloody mindedness, arrogance, and perhaps even xenophobia. It may be true that if metric were taught as more than an afterthought in schools (at least that's the way it was from the 1980s to the 1990s), perhaps things would be different (though I wouldn't bet on it). As for the "disasters", I think you are may be talking about one particular thing, namely when a subcontractor gave its data in Imperial units and either it wasn't labelled as such or no one noticed. That's not having trouble with metric; that's having trouble either following directions or actually reading what is put in front of you (depending on whether Lockheed or its subcontractor is to blame). -Rrius (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Going by memory there was once a commercial airliner that ran out of fuel in flight with a full load of passengers. due to an english/metric. mixup. The gauge wasn't working but that was considered no big deal because they always fueled by the numbers as needed. But the amount that was supposed to be loaded in kilograms was loaded in pounds instead. One by one the jet engines flamed out. They landed safely with no power at a smaller airfield that they were able to glide to. North8000 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that might be the Gimli Glider - a fascinating story, although the aircraft was Canadian. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And still less about trouble with the metric system than people making foolish mistakes. -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pure inertia, and being the "big guy" has been an enabler to let the inertia hold sway. I prefer and am fluent in metric, but am still only 1/2 way through a 20 year transition to fully thinking in metric. North8000 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more than pure inertia. When we have had moves to implement metric, there has been significant push back. Especially from the group HiLo48 complains about on his user page. "The French can keep their sissy key low meters," being the sort of thing you'd expect to hear. -Rrius (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

There's still some weird exceptions to metric usage in Australia. One is newborn babies' weights. These are still announced publicly in pounds and ounces, although I suspect that when told a baby is, say, "7 pound 2", which is the usual way of saying it, many young mums would have no idea what that's 2 of. And the baby's weight is still recorded in kg in its medical records. Tyre pressures are still very commonly given in pounds per square inch. And old folk like me who were fully grown when we metricated are more likely to know their height in feet and inches than in cm. Real estate agents still seem to get away with advertising land sizes in acres rather than hectares. Because acres are smaller, you can use a bigger number of course. Not that such folk would ever try to deceive a buyer... HiLo48 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Although metric is also used, sailing boats still tend to be measured in feet. I never learnt imperial, but I still only understand the length of boats in feet rather than metres. Perhaps that is dying off, though. - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

question

Are, you black since you dont like my quesiton?? In, my home-country are nigga not a insult. It was actually a serious question of why political correctness is used as little outside the African-American contexts? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing that post had nothing to do with anyone's skin colour. It's about the fact that the question itself seemed based on an opinion that many would disagree with (that "political correctness is used little outside the African-American contexts"), and it could only be answered with further opinion. That would only lead to debate, not a well-sourced delivery of information, the primary goal of the reference desks. In addition, Americans ARE particularly sensitive about the word nigga. Best not to use it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Brilliant thoughts and prose that emanate from you...! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Talk:Wayne LaPierre

Thanks for your comments. What I did that upset some editors of the Wayne LaPierre article was to describe an error of fact that LaPierre had made during Senate Testimony this past week. I wrote a short, factual, straightforward description of what he said that was wrong. I never entered into a revert-war, but I did defend my position on the Talk:Wayne LaPierre page, and it is my spirited defense of the edit that has them so upset. They are trying to use WP:BLP as an excuse to eliminate all criticism of the subject. However, LaPierre is a public figure by his own choice, so many of the normal exclusions for a living person don't apply (see: WP:BLP#Public figures). Anyway, three editors have turned the discussion increasingly personal because they haven't been able win the argument on the merits. --Zeamays (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It certainly was a personal attack, that they tried to conceal by not naming their target. Nasty tactic. I'm not American (as you have probably realised by now) and, like almost every other non-American, cannot comprehend America's gun laws. That makes my POV pretty obvious. I think LaPierre and all his mates are nutters. And there's a few billion of us think the same way. I don't want to get too close to the debate. From my perspective it's quite an irrational set of arguments from the gun lobby. I'd just suggest you keep your cool and be patient. The nutters will probably do something pretty dumb soon. Right now they're running scared. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)