Engineered stone ban on the table, as workers and businesses weigh up the cost

Not 'my' analysts. Seems to be uniform across all bodies that monitor such metrics regardless of location. Although I doubt that if Russia or NK had organizations that measure democratic trends world wide Australia would score very highly.

Also the Government doesn't 'allow' us our rights. That's a stupid argument. Our government can no more 'decide' what rights we have than the US government can. The difference is where those rights are written, in our case the Constitution is the founding document that protects our rights.

 

I took them out because 1) The legislation wasn't designed to eliminate that kind of killing (hence my example of the gassing) nor was it designed to eliminate gang violence. I also stated as much a couple of times.

2) Instead it was designed to eliminate Port Arthur style mass shootings - which has been my point from the beginning.

Also the shooting you posted a link to? It's under investigation as gang related. These take a couple of years to solve usually (if they are solved & many are) because it takes time for LEO to lever their way into the network responsible.

We can still compare apples with apples regardless however. Include those kinds of killings in the Australian figures or eliminate them from the US ones. Either works. Regardless go back and do the count again with or without those deaths included starting 27 years before the legislation as introduced going forward to today.

However I'm still not 'anti-firearm' I have owned and carried (professionally) in the past and am looking in to doing so again, assuming I decide I'm committed enough to make it worth my while.

 

You took them out, because they skewed your false claim that there have only been two mass shootings since 1996.

But, you'll happily include them when talking about The United States...lol

 

Wrong (again). I took them out because the Law in question was NOT designed to deal with those types of crime. How many times do I have to keep pointing that fact out to you? Nor did I hide the fact I removed those crime types from the list. I clearly pointed out what I was doing and why I was doing it from the very beginning. No subterfuge involved. I also plainly invited you to put those crimes types back in the list (or remove them from the US one whichever floats your boat) and then to do the count again. As long as we end up comparing like with like it doesn't matter which method you choose. You didn't. Why not Bill? Don't like how the numbers pan out?

And where did I include them when talking about the US? Your the one who keeps harping on about those types of crime, not me. I was quite happy to confine the comparison to only mass shootings other than gang or domestic violence related incidents. You on the other hand decided they had to be included because you insisted on using the definition of mass shootings approved by Congress. Talk about moving goal posts. You just switched them to opposite ends of the field! I also clearly stated I was happy to exclude both subsets of crime from the data for both countries but if you wanted to include them do so.

And once again (because you seem to have trouble comprehending this point) the ban in Australia was NOT designed to deal with gang related gun use or domestic homicides it was designed to deal with mass shootings of the type experienced at Port Arthur. Nothing else.

 

The "law in question" wasn't designed to deal with gun murders? That probably the most honest thing you've ever said, since, "the law in question", didn't do anything to decrease mass shootings, much less stop mass shootings; since mass shootings increased since the "law in question" was passed.

 

Bill, Bill Bill, count the number of incidents I specifically identified in my posts (ones like Port Arthur) that were committed before the laws were passed versus afterwards. Its not hard you can do it with your fingers if necessary.

We both know you won't because you seem incapable of processing information that contradicts your world view. Even when said facts/concepts aren't really applicable outside of Australia and have no possible bearing on the situation in the US (because they wouldn't work there even if by some remote chance they were tried). And no-one, no-one in this thread has suggested it would be otherwise.

 

It might also be useful to examine how many people died in such incidents before & after the ban. I'll make an informed guess that if you apply the same criteria to both periods you will see a marked decline in deaths afterward. This is not a coincidence.

Of course, if you are dealing with someone whose starting point is a dishonest argument based on propaganda then this will be a waste of time.

 

Do tell.

 

You are the one claiming the ban had no impact. How about showing that in the only terms that matter - human lives.

 

Let me point out the same is true for granite. Are you going to ban granite counters too?

Marble counters are another option but that has a disadvantage that it can be vulnerable to corrosion and staining by acidic foods spilled onto the counter in the kitchen, or by some acidic cleaning fluids in the bathroom.

The problem with tiling is that it is not continuously smooth and is harder to clean.

Engineered stone combines a crushed stone powder with a hard clear resin to hold it together. Probably they could use some other alternative mineral, perhaps artificially created, which does not contain quartz, which would not cause a problem.

 

The ideology of the modern progressive: when there is a problem, ban something.

This is very dim-witted, backwards and totalitarian, if you ask me.

At least in the older days, progressives might propose just placing a moderate tax on the undesired thing, to make it less desirable than the alternatives.

 

That's what I've been pointing to ad nauseam!

But the sticking point appears to be 'Bill's' inability (deliberate or otherwise) to differentiate between familial murder suicides, gangland violence and the other specific type of specific mass shooting involving deranged gunmen killing multiple victims regardless of any direct link between the victims and whatever it is that aggravated them in the first place. There are multiple continued incidents of the two former crimes post Port Arthur (just look at the list). That wasn't disputed, or at least it wasn't disputed by me!

Prior to the "Port Arthur' laws there were clearly lots of people who were murdered as part of the first two crime types and by default such killings have continued post the laws in question. The key point of my argument however and the one Bill absolutely refuses to acknowledge is that the 3rd crime category I described decreased remarkably post Port Arthur. Look for yourself. It's like he's literally blind to the figures such is his refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation!

And that's even after I made it clear I didn't think the same legislation would produce the same results in the US! It's like you show him a set of statistics and his brain suddenly goes into 'it does not compute' mode!

 

I already have.

 

Again: Your article stresses that not following best practices is what causes the issue. Enforce best practices, don't kill an entire industry.
I get that y'all are trigger happy because of asbestos, but this ain't that.

Further: At some point you're going to need to let it go that wearing a face panty does not stop virions. It was obvious to most of us initially, its acknowledged science now (it was then, but it also is now as well). We're talking a positive pressure mask, not a face panty. These things are different.

 

AGreed.
There is an entire job on sites or in workshops now that only does safety and regulatory compliance.
The idea an industry should be killed because someone doesn't like the safety man is so asinine to me.

 

Again - essential difference in culture

WE value life. All life - even twonks and idiots. Australia is safer than America for a lot of reasons and “someone making money” is never ever a reason to allow preventable deaths

 

But not to us.

https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/...00 in 2018.-,Deaths,604 males and 157 females).

Do you think we should have kept Wittenoom open or continued to use asbestos products? Not held James Harding accountable?

 

Not many is it.

5,838 died in Australia from falls. So theoretically, everyone should wear padding and a crash helmet.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/falls

 

I am only “anti firearm” to the point I have had to deal with those who have been shot. When you see the immediate after effects of a close range shotgun blast to the face - the missing skin and bone the ongoing disfigurement, the psychological trauma you want to do anything to reduce the rate of that happening anywhere in the world

 

Which includes elderly and there are programs in place to reduce that. BTW you cannot ride a push bike or a horse here without a helmet and they are bringing it in for scooters too

 

No you haven’t because you are playing with the statistics and relying on a questionable source

 

So? If it killing young people you can shove the engineered stone where the sun does not shine

Lung disease is a shitty way to die

 

No you haven’t. You have used a criteria rarely used elsewhere to try and prove a point. You have not factored in population growth

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066666/population-australia-since-1800/

In 1996 Australia had only 18 million people. In 1970 it was only 12 million (approx). Today it is 26.6 million. If we take the entire period pre and post gun ban you can see our population more than doubled in that time period. So we should have seen a steady rise in mass shootings even using the very low criteria used in wiki

 

The United States has 350,000,000 people. That over 10x more.

You have seen a rise in mass shootings. You've had more since the ban than before the ban.

 

No there wasn’t - try posting facts not wishful thinking.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/