View Full Version : Pro Or Anti Gun Control ?
Rincewind
17-07-2008, 10:00 AM
What is needed is a wholesale shift in the national culture — and that will take rather longer than an arms ban.
I agree with this and an control of gun ownership is one way to shap culture ni the right direction.
Rincewind
17-07-2008, 10:01 AM
You are probably right. I realised again there is no point in having a discussion with someone like RW. Have a good day.
Wow, what a snappy comeback! Did you get someone to help you write that one or did you come up with it all by yourself? :lol:
TheJoker
17-07-2008, 10:43 AM
Who on this forum feels the "need" to own a gun for self protection in Australia? I mean that you genuinely fear for the safety of your life (not your property, no property is worth killing for IMO) without being armed? If you do ask yourself is that a rational fear?
Who on this forum outside of personal protection has a reason to own a gun that is restricted by Australian gun laws (i.e. Handgun, semi-auto etc)?
I don't feel the need to own a gun for personal protection, and I live Sydney in a suburb just a few minutes outside the CDB that is probably considered a high-crime area in Australia. I previously lived in Alice Springs which IIRC has highest murder rate per capita in Australia, at no time did I feel it necessary to own (let alone carry) a gun for self protection!
IMO anyone in Oz who feels they need a gun for their own protection is irrational.
Further considering in the USA more people are killed by firearms in domestic/personal disputes than by criminals (ratio of 3:1) we are all safer by not arming our citizens.
Unless someone can prove that their is a genuine "need" in Australia to relax our gun laws then I'd use the old saying "If it ain't broken don't f*ck with it".
IMO anyone in Oz who feels they need a gun for their own protection is irrational.
Shouldn't be your decision to make. In America it's even worse, with lefties screaming for gun control while hiring armed bodyguards.
Further considering in the USA more people are killed by firearms in domestic/personal disputes than by criminals (ratio of 3:1) we are all safer by not arming our citizens.
Not so. Sowell points out (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112702.asp):
[Gun control zealots] prefer to cite a study published some years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine and demolished by a number of scholars since then. According to this discredited study, people with guns in their homes were more likely to be murdered.
How did they arrive at this conclusion? By taking people who were murdered in their homes, finding out how many had guns in the house, and then comparing them with people who were not murdered in their homes.
Using similar reasoning, you might be able to show that people who hire bodyguards are more likely to get killed than people who don't. Obviously, people who hire bodyguards already feel at risk, but does that mean that the bodyguards are the reason for the risk?
Similarly illogical reasoning has been used by counting how many intruders were killed by homeowners with guns and comparing that with the number of family members killed with those guns. But this is a nonsense comparison because most people who keep guns in their homes do not do so in hopes of killing intruders.
Most uses of guns in self-defense — whether in the home or elsewhere — do not involve actually pulling the trigger. When the intended victim turns out to have a gun in his hand, the attacker usually has enough brains to back off. But the lives saved this way do not get counted.
People killed at home by family members are highly atypical. The great majority of these victims have had to call the police to their homes before, because of domestic violence, and just over half have had the cops out several times. These are not just ordinary people who happened to lose their temper when a gun was at hand.
Neither are most "children" who are killed by guns just toddlers who happened to find a loaded weapon lying around. More of those "children" are members of teenage criminal gangs who kill each other deliberately.
Some small children do in fact get accidentally killed by guns in the home — but fewer than drown in bathtubs. Is anyone for banning bathtubs? Moreover, the number of fatal gun accidents fell, over the years, while the number of guns was increasing by tens of millions. None of this supports the assumption that more guns mean more fatal accidents. Most of the gun controllers' arguments are a house of cards.
Unless someone can prove that their is a genuine "need" in Australia to relax our gun laws then I'd use the old saying "If it ain't broken don't f*ck with it".
No, Howard fixed something that wasn't broken with his gun confiscation after a massacre—which would not have occurred in decent parts of America because another citizen would have shot him. And scholars showed that the gun ban has not made us safer (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics).
TheJoker
17-07-2008, 04:02 PM
So let's get this straight Jono, you are not arguing that their is a genuine need for Australian Gun Laws to be changed for safety reasons? Are you arguing merely against the principle of the Government restricting firearm ownership?
Can you give us brief outline of your solution to firearm control. Who could buy firearms and where? What restrictions you would have on the sale and re-sale of firearms? What requirements would there be for storing or carrying firearms?
littlesprout85
17-07-2008, 05:33 PM
Wow, This Thread is still going strong :S
Lets just weight in again on the subject for a brief moment.
First off- meh best friend TED NUGENT is now the Prez for the NRA - YAY !!!!!! #1
Secondly, The so Called Uniformed Crime Reports(Joker) are actually called the universal crime reports. These reports from each and every state in this union is Flawed Data. As a Criminal justice Major, meh have studied the law for 4 long years. Wat the sprout has concluded is that any kinda area who has a high capita doesnt report Jack about the true crime rates in their area :S
Most gun crimes are left outta the universal crime report data each and every year. For if it makes the report then the property rates fall- along with $ that drys up when a high capita area reports the crimes. Thus No Reason to truthfully report any of that crime- lets just report the petty crimes instead :D
-Sprout :)
So let's get this straight Jono, you are not arguing that their is a genuine need for Australian Gun Laws to be changed for safety reasons? Are you arguing merely against the principle of the Government restricting firearm ownership?
It's both-and. Government should not remove the means of self-defence from people, especially when it is woefully inadequate to protect them.
Can you give us brief outline of your solution to firearm control. Who could buy firearms and where? What restrictions you would have on the sale and re-sale of firearms? What requirements would there be for storing or carrying firearms?
Basically what it was like before Howard's gun confiscation.
TheJoker
17-07-2008, 11:09 PM
Wow, This Thread is still going strong :S
Lets just weight in again on the subject for a brief moment.
First off- meh best friend TED NUGENT is now the Prez for the NRA - YAY !!!!!! #1
Secondly, The so Called Uniformed Crime Reports(Joker) are actually called the universal crime reports. These reports from each and every state in this union is Flawed Data. As a Criminal justice Major, meh have studied the law for 4 long years. Wat the sprout has concluded is that any kinda area who has a high capita doesnt report Jack about the true crime rates in their area :S
Most gun crimes are left outta the universal crime report data each and every year. For if it makes the report then the property rates fall- along with $ that drys up when a high capita area reports the crimes. Thus No Reason to truthfully report any of that crime- lets just report the petty crimes instead :D
-Sprout :)
Interesting so basically what you're saying is there are no accurate statistics on which to base this argument? Or do you have a better set of statistics to go buy?
TheJoker
17-07-2008, 11:25 PM
It's both-and. Government should not remove the means of self-defence from people, especially when it is woefully inadequate to protect them.
Basically what it was like before Howard's gun confiscation.
Fair enough, I didn't have much of a problem with previous system. IIRC you could not buy assualt rifles or hand guns without a collector's license (or maybe that was only in the Northern Territory) and then they had to be secured in an approved enclosure.
Tony Dowden
18-07-2008, 07:11 PM
G'day Tony
Not at present, sorry. However, this would seem to bolster my point that far more deaths resulted from armed government than armed law-abiding citizens.
Most likely. The conclusion he draws from them is not. I draw a different conclusion about the number of lives saved by law-abiding citizens with guns, most of which didn't have to be fired to prevent the crime.
One notable non-US shooting was in Finland, the suicide-murderer Pekka-Eric Auvinen (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5435/)
Thanks a lot for your replies Jono. I can't pretend to follow the logic of these arguments - NZ is such a non-gun-packing culture (thank God).
At first, I was looking for this reply in the Global Warming thread! :rolleyes: I'll have to keep playing chess to keep that Alzheimer's at bay :lol:
Thanks a lot for your replies Jono. I can't pretend to follow the logic of these arguments — NZ is such a non-gun-packing culture (thank God).
No problem Tony. I didn't actually mind NZ's non-gun culture while I was living there; at the time I thought it was a good idea, and wouldn't want to change it. America likewise would not be good to change though.
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, praises Allah and hurls abuse at you for being an infidel dog, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have
********************
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? If only we didn't help Israel, would he hate us so much? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with killing just me, and not my family? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint-and-weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
********************
Republican's Answer:
BANG!
********************
Southern Republican's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!...click....(sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!...click Daughter: "Nice groupin', Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips I gave you for your birthday??"
Rincewind
04-09-2008, 08:19 AM
Good timing Jono. I read yesterday that a mentally ill man killed six people in a shooting spree. Made me think of my tagline.
Good timing Jono. I read yesterday that a mentally ill man killed six people in a shooting spree. Made me think of my tagline.
It shouldn't. "Just because they want to commit mass murder, it doesn't mean they are mentally ill" does not entail "no mass murderers are mentally ill".
See also Stalin's mass murders were 'entirely rational' says new Russian textbook praising tyrant (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1051871/Stalins-mass-murders-entirely-rational-says-new-Russian-textbook-praising-tyrant.html). Monstrously evil, for sure, but not mentally ill.
When laws prohibit guns, only lawbreakers have them—Thomas Jefferson (paraphrased).
Politically incorrect heroism (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell071699.asp)
Thomas Sowell
16 July 1999
YOU WOULD THINK that a man who saved three people's lives, at considerable risk to his own, would be recognized as a hero.
But his story would be politically incorrect, so it has received virtually no media attention and his name remains unknown.
It all started when a gunman took three hostages at a San Mateo, California, shooting range. He had left a note announcing his intention to kill hostages and then himself, so this was worse than even the usual hostage situation. At this point an anonymous employee of the shooting range took one of the guns on the premises and shot the gunman, freeing the hostages.
This happened on July 6th, but have you seen the story anywhere? People get more media attention than this for recycling aluminum cans. It is politically incorrect to let it be known that guns in the hands of law-abiding private citizens can save lives as well as cost lives. Yet this has happened any number of times. There have even been cases of a policeman under fire being rescued by a private citizen with a gun. One year, more criminals were reported killed by private citizens than by the police. But it wasn't reported very widely.
...
Like everything else, guns have pluses and minuses. Accidental deaths have to be weighed in the balance against the lives saved both by armed interventions and by the deterrence created when an intended victim turns out to have a gun. Just the knowledge that many citizens in a particular community are authorized to carry concealed weapons takes a lot of the fun out of being a burglar or a mugger.
that_guy
24-11-2008, 10:37 PM
I have just heard that Obama is going to put a strist restrictions on fire arm on the news. Is this one of them plans that the citizens of the United States of America is just going to ignore?? or is it serious ones with serious consiquences??
I have just heard that Obama is going to put a strist restrictions on fire arm on the news. Is this one of them plans that the citizens of the United States of America is just going to ignore?? or is it serious ones with serious consiquences??Americans won't stand for restrictions on guns on the news! After all, what fun is the news without guns?
Now, will Jono and Rincewind please move to their respective corners... Fight! (Sorry Joker, Rincewind still has precedence.)
MichaelBaron
24-11-2008, 11:47 PM
Hopefully (unlikely though) the restrictions will really take place.:hmm:
Zwischenzug
25-11-2008, 12:13 AM
Right before the elections, because of fears that Obama will introduce gun restrictions, gun sales soared.
Miranda
25-11-2008, 07:25 AM
Right before the elections, because of fears that Obama will introduce gun restrictions, gun sales soared.
Perhaps Obama is in cahoots with gun makers!
Please don't ban me for thinking like Ax!
Right before the elections, because of fears that Obama will introduce gun restrictions, gun sales soared.
Of course, bcause NRA knows his true anti-gun feelings despite his dishonest rhetoric to the contrary.
Hopefully (unlikely though) the restrictions will really take place.
It is unlikely because of America's Constitution and history, with the widespread idea that a tyranny is less likely with an armed populace that can resist. It's no accident that tyrants institute gun control. Note that governments have killed far more people than armed citizens have, so it's folly to put too much trust in them.
Boris
25-11-2008, 09:35 AM
Now, will Jono and Rincewind please move to their respective corners... Fight! (Sorry Joker, Rincewind still has precedence.)
The smart money will be on the guy with the guns.
The smart money will be on the guy with the guns.
Never take a knife to a gun fight ;)
Miranda
25-11-2008, 10:01 AM
Never take a knife to a gun fight ;)
Unless the guns aren't loaded!
I have just heard that Obama is going to put a strict restrictions on fire arm on the news.
I'd be very surprised if Obama could manage to get any kind of "strict" firearm restrictions passed. If he could merely manage to get the sale of high powered, semi-automatic and automatic firearms heavily restricted, that would be a massive achievement.
If he could merely manage to get the sale of high powered, semi-automatic and automatic firearms heavily restricted, that would be a massive achievement.
Semi-automatic? That rules out pistols and revolvers. Not that it would be much of an achievement. Far fewer people have been killed because the citizens are too heavily armed than because the government is too heavily armed.
TheJoker
25-11-2008, 01:18 PM
Semi-automatic? That rules out pistols and revolvers. Not that it would be much of an achievement. Far fewer people have been killed because the citizens are too heavily armed than because the government is too heavily armed.
Yes but that sample is rather misleading. If we were to consider the number of US citizens murdered by armed government officials in the last decade versus those citizens murdered by armed civilians, I'd expect a complete turn-around.
Anyone who lives under a genuine fear that the Obama administration is going to start murdering US civilians is IMO paranoid beyond reason.
Miranda
25-11-2008, 01:26 PM
IMO, the American people with weapons are more dangerous than the government with weapons.
IMO, the American people with weapons are more dangerous than the government with weapons.
But when it comes to facts rather than opinions, the number of innocent people killed by Americans with guns is lower than the number saved from criminals by Americans with guns (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html)(often without the gun being fired, cf. “The threat is often stronger than its execution”—Niemzovich), and dwarfed by the hundreds of millions murdered by governments with weapons (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM).
Miranda
25-11-2008, 01:51 PM
But when it comes to facts rather than opinions, the number of innocent people killed by Americans with guns is lower than the number saved from criminals by Americans with guns (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html)(often without the gun being fired, cf. “The threat is often stronger than its execution”—Niemzovich), and dwarfed by the hundreds of millions murdered by governments with weapons (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM).
If we're just talking about the USA, people wouldn't need to be saved from others with guns if they wern't avaliable to the general public in the first place.
Yes but that sample is rather misleading. If we were to consider the number of US citizens murdered by armed government officials in the last decade versus those citizens murdered by armed civilians, I'd expect a complete turn-around.
Right now, maybe, but world history of armed governments and unarmed citizens is not pretty.
Anyone who lives under a genuine fear that the Obama administration is going to start murdering US civilians is IMO paranoid beyond reason.
It's the principle that an armed people is more able to resist tyranny, which is a major reason why the Founders made gun rights into the Second Amendment of their Constitution.
If we're just talking about the USA, people wouldn't need to be saved from others with guns if they wern't avaliable to the general public in the first place.
If we're just talking about the USA, Thomas Jefferson pointed out that laws against guns leads to only the lawless having guns,
Ian Murray
25-11-2008, 01:58 PM
Yes but that sample is rather misleading. If we were to consider the number of US citizens murdered by armed government officials in the last decade versus those citizens murdered by armed civilians, I'd expect a complete turn-around.
Anyone who lives under a genuine fear that the Obama administration is going to start murdering US civilians is IMO paranoid beyond reason.
Centers for Disease Control stats for 1999 - 2005:
200704 violence-related firearm deaths, being
- 117821 suicides
- 80702 homicides
- 2180 from legal intervention
I'll take my chances with the law enforcement gunmen!
Miranda
25-11-2008, 02:00 PM
Centers for Disease Control stats for 1999 - 2005:
200704 violence-related firearm deaths, being
- 117821 suicides
- 80702 homicides
- 2180 from legal intervention
I'll take my chances with the law enforcement gunmen!
Agreed.
Centers for Disease Control stats for 1999 - 2005:
200704 violence-related firearm deaths, being
- 117821 suicides
- 80702 homicides
- 2180 from legal intervention
And how many of these homicides were from those already illegally carrying a gun against an unarmed citizen?
I'll take my chances with the law enforcement gunmen!
But worldwide, armed governments have been responsible for the worst mass murders and genocides around.
Also (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html):
For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
...
The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
...
The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of "shall-issue" laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent.
...
We know that the type of person who obtains a permit is extremely law-abiding and possibly they are extremely careful in how they take care of their guns. The total number of accidental gun deaths each year is about 1,300 and each year such accidents take the lives of 200 children 14 years of age and under. However, these regrettable numbers of lives lost need to be put into some perspective with the other risks children face. Despite over 200 million guns owned by between 76 to 85 million people, the children killed is much smaller than the number lost through bicycle accidents, drowning, and fires. Children are 14.5 times more likely to die from car accidents than from accidents involving guns.
Ian Murray
25-11-2008, 02:46 PM
And how many of these homicides were from those already illegally carrying a gun against an unarmed citizen?
Who knows? Lots
But worldwide, armed governments have been responsible for the worst mass murders and genocides around.
Irrelevant, unless you're advocating that Australians should arm themselves against the threat of government mass murders and genocides here
Irrelevant,
Hardly: gun control zealots harp on about a tiny percentage of murders from millions of legal guns in America, but ignore the mass murders from armed governments around the world.
unless you're advocating that Australians should arm themselves against the threat of government mass murders and genocides here
Howard's worst mistake was disaming the population, as a kneejerk reaction to one shootout—one that might have been prevented if there were other armed people around.
TheJoker
25-11-2008, 04:06 PM
Howard's worst mistake was disaming the population, as a kneejerk reaction to one shootout—one that might have been prevented if there were other armed people around.
Worst mistake:eh: can you outline what negative consequences have been observed that has lead you to such a conclusion?
Has there been are marked increase in violent gun crime?
The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones.
This is the fundamental problem in the US. It's a Wild West fantasy where the good guys with guns "take out" the bad guys and then ride off into the sunset.
This is the fundamental problem in the US. It's a Wild West fantasy where the good guys with guns "take out" the bad guys and then ride off into the sunset.
Why is it a fantasy? If you want a real fantasy, try the "root causes of crime" crap.
Captain Underpants
25-11-2008, 09:52 PM
Centers for Disease Control stats for 1999 - 2005:
200704 violence-related firearm deaths, being
- 117821 suicides
- 80702 homicides
- 2180 from legal intervention
I am staggered that suicides are 45% greater than homicides.
Ian Murray
25-11-2008, 10:13 PM
I am staggered that suicides are 45% greater than homicides.
Scary isn't it. Male/female ratio 7:1 (103002 men 14819 women)
"Note that a firearm is, by far, the most common method for suicide. (55% of all suicides are completed with a firearm.) Thus it is imperative that a suicidal person not have access to a firearm" (suicide.org)
A gunshot to the head is simple, painless, instantaneous and requires no planning or preparation. Other methods take longer and allow time for second thoughts.
A strong argument for gun control.
Kevin Bonham
25-11-2008, 10:19 PM
As this is turning into a generic gun control thread I will shortly merge it with Pro Or Anti-Gun Control (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7058&). I said all I can be bothered saying about Lott and reservations about his findings over there.
Chicago Defies the Second Amendment (http://townhall.com/Columnists/SteveChapman/2008/11/27/chicago_defies_the_second_amendment)
by Steve Chapman
27 Nov 2008
From listening to [Chicago Mayor Richard Daley], you might assume that the only places in North America that don't have firefights on a daily basis are cities that outlaw handguns. You might also assume that Chicago is an oasis of concord, rather than the site of 443 homicides last year.
...
The Chicago ban dates back to 1983 — a time when no one had to worry about the forgotten Second Amendment. The ordinance prohibited the possession of all handguns (except those acquired before the law took effect).
It had no obvious benefits: Homicides climbed in the ensuing years and by 1992 were 41 percent higher than before. But the policy rested undisturbed until last summer, when the Supreme Court ruled that Washington's complete ban on handguns violated the individual right to use arms for self-defense in the home.
Women (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/scalia-and-womens-rights-handgun-is.html) and gay (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/06/27/heller-decision-gay-rights-victory/)groups welcome SCOTUS repeal of DC's gun ban:
[M]ost women are best served by a handgun, lighter in weight, lighter in recoil, far less unwieldy for women with shorter arm spans, and far more easily carried around the home than a shotgun or rifle. Moreover, women who are holding a handgun are able to phone for assistance, while any type of long gun requires two hands to keep the firearm pointed at an assailant....
Women are at a severe disadvantage when confronting a likely stronger male assailant. In general, women simply do not have the upper body strength and testosterone-driven speed to effectively defend themselves without help. A firearm, particularly an easily manipulable handgun, equalizes this strength differential and thereby provides women the best chance they have of thwarting an attacker. Even more statistically likely, a firearm in the hands of a threatened woman offers the deterrence empty hands and an often unavailing 911 call do not.... Even in cases in which a 911 response would be effective, an attacker in control of the situation will not allow a woman to pick up the phone to make that call.
****
Indeed, I believe this decision is the best ruling for gays in many years, perhaps even more significant than Lawrence v. Texas, the decision overturning sodomy laws. Few states enforced those laws whereas many jurisdictions enforce gun bans. ...
With these ruling, gay people will have greater and more ready access to handguns and so be better able to defend ourselves against gay-bashers.
Kevin Bonham
30-11-2008, 09:23 PM
Women (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/scalia-and-womens-rights-handgun-is.html) and gay (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/06/27/heller-decision-gay-rights-victory/)groups welcome SCOTUS repeal of DC's gun ban:
Of course the "gay" group doing the welcoming is Gay Patriot which is a conservative gay group, or more pertinently, a group of conservatives who just happen to be gay. Their view should not be assumed representative.
They may be right in this case; it may well be that for certain groups that are potential targets of violence the benefits of carrying a gun outweigh the risks of others being able to do likewise. But if so, maybe that's an argument for just exempting gay people from the ban and still applying it to everyone else. :eek:
Igor_Goldenberg
30-11-2008, 10:03 PM
Of course the "gay" group doing the welcoming is Gay Patriot which is a conservative gay group, or more pertinently, a group of conservatives who just happen to be gay. Their view should not be assumed representative.
I see, gay group is not representative because they are conservative. To be representative they have to be socialist:doh: :doh:
They may be right in this case; it may well be that for certain groups that are potential targets of violence the benefits of carrying a gun outweigh the risks of others being able to do likewise. But if so, maybe that's an argument for just exempting gay people from the ban and still applying it to everyone else. :eek:
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal then others.
[replies moved to identity politics thread - mod]
Boris
01-12-2008, 09:09 AM
Two shot in Toys 'R' Us store (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/two-shot-in-toys-r-us-store/2008/11/29/1227491867768.html)
Two men pulled guns and shot each other dead in a crowded California toy store after the women with them got into a bloody brawl.
Without guns, the two walk away with a few bruises. With guns, they do not walk away at all.
Two shot in Toys 'R' Us store (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/two-shot-in-toys-r-us-store/2008/11/29/1227491867768.html)
Without guns, the two walk away with a few bruises. With guns, they do not walk away at all.
As the report says:
Riverside County sheriff's Sergeant Dennis Gutierrez said the fight was not over a toy. He said handguns were found by the men's bodies, but he released little other information. He would not answer a question about whether the shooting was gang-related.
...
"I think the obvious question everyone has is who takes loaded weapons into a Toys `R' Us?'' he said. "I doubt it was the casual holiday shopper.''
...
"Our understanding is that this act seems to have been the result of a personal dispute between the individuals involved. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to associate the events of today with Black Friday.''
Furthermore:
Virginia Tech: armed madman massacres 32, because the "gun free" zone left his victims unarmed and defenceless (http://townhall.com/Columnists/JacobSullum/2007/04/18/virginia_techs_gun-free_zone_left_cho_seung-huis_victims_defenseless).
Colorado New Life Church: armed madman's killing spree is quickly halted, because heroine Jeanne Assam is armed and shoots the scumbag (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/colorado-shooter-was-christian-hater.html).
Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia 2003: a man who had killed the dean, a professor and a student was subdued by two students who ran to their cars and grabbed their guns.
Once again: gun control laws mean that only the lawless have guns, as Jefferson said.
Boris
01-12-2008, 10:02 AM
This was not a murderous rampage. This was two women fighting, then it escalated when the two men joined in with guns and they both died. Live by the sword...
TheJoker
01-12-2008, 10:08 AM
Jono based on your assumption that mutual owernship of weapons makes for a safer environment. Should we be lobby to get rid of nuclear non-proliferation treaty and perhaps actively encourage every nation to develop and deploy nuclear weapons?
Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2008, 10:32 AM
Jono based on your assumption that mutual owernship of weapons makes for a safer environment. Should we be lobby to get rid of nuclear non-proliferation treaty and perhaps actively encourage every nation to develop and deploy nuclear weapons?
What was the main factor that prevented turning Cold War into WWIII?
MAD
Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2008, 10:35 AM
Two shot in Toys 'R' Us store (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/two-shot-in-toys-r-us-store/2008/11/29/1227491867768.html)
Without guns, the two walk away with a few bruises. With guns, they do not walk away at all.
If people have guns, sometimes they will use them. Sometimes it will lead to death that wouldn't happen otherwise.
The question is:
How many extra death are caused by gun ownership?
How many extra death are caused by gun ownership restriction?
The case quoted is still investigated, let's not make conclusions yet about nature of the shooting.
Boris
01-12-2008, 10:53 AM
How many extra death are caused by gun ownership?In this case? Two. Count them. One, two.
What was the main factor that prevented turning Cold War into WWIII?
MAD
And what was the main factor that allowed WW2? Appeasement and widespread disarmament campaigns in the West.
What was Reagan's winning strategy in the Cold War? Using the superior capitalist economy to strengthen the military at a rate the moribund Soviet Socialist economy couldn't match.
This was not a murderous rampage. This was two women fighting, then it escalated when the two men joined in with guns and they both died. Live by the sword...
These were likely criminals, and as we know from Virginia Tech, they are not deterred by gun laws.
Live by the sword...
The One who said this also said (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=14&verse=30&end_verse=32&version=31&context=context):
Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.
This is what Churchill tried to tell Britain in his "wilderness years" in the 1930s, and what Reagan successfully applied.
In this case? Two. Count them. One, two.
In Jeanne Assam's case, how many more were saved by her carrying a gun, compared with the Virginia Tech case.
TheJoker
01-12-2008, 11:10 AM
What was the main factor that prevented turning Cold War into WWIII?
MAD
So you support Iran's nuclear ambitions?
Using the same logic Iraq invasion should not have occured as allowing Iraq to obtain WMD would have made the world a safer place.
What about individuals possesing weapons, I know you support gun owernship what about RPGs, Artillery etc? Where does an individuals right to arm themselves end?
So you support Iran's nuclear ambitions?
No. That would be like allowing criminals to have guns. No gun rights supporter opposes some checks on those having them.
Using the same logic Iraq invasion should not have occured as allowing Iraq to obtain WMD would have made the world a safer place.
No, that would be like allowing criminals to arm.
What about individuals possesing weapons, I know you support gun owernship what about RPGs, Artillery etc? Where does an individuals right to arm themselves end?
Why should I have to define this? At a minimum, a handgun should be allowed to those without a criminal record or serious psychiatric history.
Gun controllers effectively demand that people are defenceless against criminals. The police can't be everywhere, especially when they are so busy revenue raising, and in Britain they don't even care about burglary any more.
TheJoker
01-12-2008, 12:01 PM
Why should I have to define this? At a minimum, a handgun should be allowed to those without a criminal record or serious psychiatric history.
I think it is an important part of the arugment, what type of weapons are justified for self defence (if any)? Why a minimum handgun? Why not a minimum AK-47 or M-16? If everyone has handguns aren't the criminals going to go out and get assualt rifles so they have the upper-hand?
TheJoker
01-12-2008, 12:09 PM
No. That would be like allowing criminals to have guns.
But since criminals do not acquire there weapons through official channels such checks are pointless. The more guns in the community the easier it is for criminlas to acquire them. This is why there is a nuclear non-proliferaton treaty countries that don't already have nuclear weapons capabilities are no supposed to persue them because it is understood that the proliferation of nuclear weapons makes it easier for terrorists to get there hands on them.
By allowing braod-based gun owernship, you essentially ensure every criminal no matter how petty has access to guns. How does that make the environment safer?
I think it is an important part of the arugment, what type of weapons are justified for self defence (if any)?
Anything that does the job of making sure that the scumbag is hurt and not his proposed victim. What type of weapons would you approve of (if any)? Should victims just let themselves be robbed, beaten, raped or murdered? The British legal system already decrees that home-owners should allow themselves to be burgled rather than use force to protect their property. No wonder home invasion is rampant. It is not in Florida where home-owners are allowed to be armed, and are exempt from penalty if they kill a home invader inside their home. Would be invaders don't want to meet the same fate as Thomas Thompson II (http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/sep/19/home-invader-fatally-shot/), Mark Johnson (http://centraltampa2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/24/241758/clair-mel-city-woman-kills-home-invader-deputies-s/), or Anthony Giuffrie (http://www.local6.com/news/10832086/detail.html?rss=orlpn&psp=news) or this unnamed one (http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/6/21/homeowner_shoots_kills_home_invader.html). And unlike in many other places where sickly liberal ideas about "root causes" have taken hold, the shooters were not charged. In a case in Tennessee, a robbery was prevented by an armed home-owner without having to fire (http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2008_09_01_archive.html). TheJoke would evidently rather that home owners suffer the fate of this family (http://www.ifonlytheyhadagun.com/2008/08/27/sentencing-in-melrose-park-home-invasion-and-child-rape/)or this man (http://www.ifonlytheyhadagun.com/2008/08/28/tulsa-ok-man-stabbed-to-death-in-his-own-home/)who were unarmed.
See also Second Guessing Crime Victims Who Have Defended Themselves (http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/10/17/second-guessing-crime-victims-who-have-defended-themselves/).
Also: How Gun Control Lost (http://townhall.com/Columnists/SteveChapman/2008/06/29/how_gun_control_lost)by Steve Chapman
—Gun control didn't work. In the 1990s, despite its draconian ban, Washington became the murder capital of the United States. Chicago's homicide rate, which had been declining in the years before it banned handguns, climbed over the following decade. Gun control didn't work.
During the time the federal assault weapons law was in effect, the number of gun murders declined — but so did murders involving knives and other weapons. When the law was allowed to expire in 2004, something interesting happened to the national murder rate: nothing.
—Laws allowing concealed weapons proliferated — with no ill effects. In 1987, Florida gained national attention — and notoriety — by passing a law allowing citizens to get permits to carry concealed handguns. Opponents predicted a wave of carnage by pistol-packing hotheads, but it didn't happen. In fact, murders and other violent crimes subsided. Permit holders proved to be sober and restrained.
I think it is an important part of the arugment, what type Why a minimum handgun? Why not a minimum AK-47 or M-16? If everyone has handguns aren't the criminals going to go out and get assualt rifles so they have the upper-hand?
If they can find them. This appeasement mentality merely empowers criminals, who are more likely to find an easier target, or maybe try an honest living.
And if they were widespread, then yes, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to use them. Handguns are the most practical for most people though, as women's groups recognize (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/06/scalia-and-womens-rights-handgun-is.html).
Boris
01-12-2008, 12:20 PM
These were likely criminals, and as we know from Virginia Tech, they are not deterred by gun laws.What makes you think they were criminals prior to this? Wasn't each man defending his wife?
The One who said this also said (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=14&verse=30&end_verse=32&version=31&context=context):
Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.
This is what Churchill tried to tell Britain in his "wilderness years" in the 1930s, and what Reagan successfully applied.Sorry I am not following your argument here. Isn't this saying that the person with inferior arms has the option to negotiate and avoid conflict? Surely this supports the argument that it is not necessary to carry like weapons.
What makes you think they were criminals prior to this? Wasn't each man defending his wife?
The cryptic avoidance of answering whether it was gang related, how it wasn't over toys, and that carrying guns into Toyland was hardly normal practice.
Sorry I am not following your argument here. Isn't this saying that the person with inferior arms has the option to negotiate and avoid conflict? Surely this supports the argument that it is not necessary to carry like weapons.
No, the superior force persuades the one with inferior force to negotiate, and deters aggression. This was Reagan's strategy to win the cold war. The Western strategy against Hitler was disarming and appeasing, hoping that he would be a nice guy and do the same. Yet if the French had not retreated when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, the German soldiers had orders to fall back.
Boris
01-12-2008, 12:44 PM
The cryptic avoidance of answering whether it was gang related, how it wasn't over toys, and that carrying guns into Toyland was hardly normal practice.Weren't you saying yesterday about women carrying a gun around their home with them as a matter of course? If this is normal practice for some people, then taking it out into public should come as no surprise, whether one of the stops is a toy shop or not. The article said he was asked a question about gangs and did not answer, this does not seem cryptic to me.
No, the superior force persuades the one with inferior force to negotiate, and deters aggression. This was Reagan's strategy to win the cold war. The Western strategy against Hitler was disarming and appeasing, hoping that he would be a nice guy and do the same. Yet if the French had not retreated when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, the German soldiers had orders to fall back.OK that POV makes sense, not really sure how it ties back to the quote though.
Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2008, 01:06 PM
So you support Iran's nuclear ambitions?
Why should I? World will be a safer place for me, my family and friends if Iran does not have nuclear weapon.
TheJoker
01-12-2008, 01:58 PM
A study in 2000 (Hemenway & Miller) that looked at the correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rate across the 26 most developed countries in the world found:
"there is a strong and statistically significant association between gun availability and homicide rates.... Across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides."
:hmm: seems there might be a major flaw in the "guns for safety/protection" argument.
TheJoker
01-12-2008, 02:02 PM
Why should I? World will be a safer place for me, my family and friends if Iran does not have nuclear weapon.
You shouldn't its a poor argument that mutual armament reduces harm. Just as you should'nt support liberalised gun owenrship because the World will be a safer place for you, your family and freinds if guns are not widely available to the public (at least according to the study cited above).
Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2008, 02:06 PM
You shouldn't its a poor argument that mutual armament reduces harm.
Unsubstantiated claim
Just as you should'nt support liberalised gun owenrship because the World will be a safer place for you, your family and freinds if guns are not widely available to the public (at least according to the study cited above).
Only according to the study you choose to cite. There are many studies that come to a completely different conclusion.
Would you be so kind to explain a low crime rate in Switzerland?
TheJoker
01-12-2008, 02:41 PM
Unsubstantiated claim
Only according to the study you choose to cite. There are many studies that come to a completely different conclusion.
Would you be so kind to explain a low crime rate in Switzerland?
No I wouldn't because I have no idea. But if you are sugesting it is related to high gun owernship then I would simply say "Hong Kong" and "Japan"
Edit: wiki seems inaccurate.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Weren't you saying yesterday about women carrying a gun around their home with them as a matter of course?
Or having it readily available, as opposed to in a gun safe and unloaded which is no use against a home invader.
I am not sure what the Joke thinks we should do instead. Lefties who support gun control also tend to support lenience towards scumbags, so there is even less deterrence.
If this is normal practice for some people, then taking it out into public should come as no surprise, whether one of the stops is a toy shop or not.
Concealed carry is a different issue, but its harm is widely over-estimated.
The article said he was asked a question about gangs and did not answer, this does not seem cryptic to me.
It means he didn't rule out a gang connection.
OK that POV makes sense, not really sure how it ties back to the quote though.
Yes, it's Niemzovich again: the threat is often stronger than its execution.
that_guy
05-12-2008, 10:33 PM
Unless the guns aren't loaded!
Isnt it also stupid to bring an unloaded gun to a gun fight?
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html):
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
Joyce Lee Malcolm | November 2002
Not only has crime increased as gun ownership has declined, but the right to defend one’s person has been denied in many cases.
Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.
None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control.
...
In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.”
...
In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.
...
The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
This sea change in English crime followed a sea change in government policies. Gun regulations have been part of a more general disarmament based on the proposition that people don't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It also will protect their neighbors: Police advise those who witness a crime to "walk on by" and let the professionals handle it.
...
The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber's victim in respect of his person and property.
...
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted stg 5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.
Robber who killed newsagent jailed 7½ years (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24792662-5006009,00.html)
By Lisa Davies
Daily Telegraph, December 13, 2008
A MASKED robber who fled with just $195 before using a fence paling to kill a newsagent was jailed for at least 7½ years yesterday.
Steven Momir Katic, 31, was acquitted of murder but convicted of the manslaughter of Chinh Nguyen, 41, at Glenfield in Sydney's southwest in February last year. He also was found guilty of aggravated armed robbery.
...
Sentencing Katic in the Supreme Court, Justice Peter Hidden said Mr Nguyen handed over all the money in the till and Katic ran from the shop.
"Unfortunately, Mr Nguyen, who must have been a man of no little courage and who could not have known whether the air rifle was loaded or not, pursued the offender," the judge said.
After a struggle, Katic dumped the money and the air rifle was wrestled from him, before Mr Nguyen pursued him into a laneway where Katic hit him with a fence paling.
He died in hospital a week later.
"At that point, the offender picked up a loose paling from the ground and struck Mr Nguyen forcibly to the head," he said.
Justice Hidden concluded Katic had not intended to kill the newsagent, but had engaged in "excessive self defence", fearing Mr Nguyen was going to attack him.
So now it's OK to claim “self-defence” to kill a man you chose to rob at gun point? Now will every violent criminal think he has free rein to kill his crime victims who resist in the name of “self-defence”?
Ian Murray
13-12-2008, 05:19 PM
....So now it's OK to claim “self-defence” to kill a man you chose to rob at gun point? Now will every violent criminal think he has free rein to kill his crime victims who resist in the name of “self-defence”?
Obviously the killing with the fence paling was not premeditated, so the murder charge failed and the manslaughter charge stuck. That's the law.
Had the self-defence claim been legally justified, he would have been acquitted, leaving only an armed robbery charge to face. At law anyone has a right to defend themselves against violence, but only to the point where the threat is nullified and not beyond. Killing the assailant goes beyond nullifying the threat and is indefensible at law (although the circumastances will often lean a jury to acquit).
eclectic
13-12-2008, 05:30 PM
the real question:
why pursue the offender for a lousy $195?
Obviously the killing with the fence paling was not premeditated, so the murder charge failed and the manslaughter charge stuck. That's the law.
Come off it. The scumbag picked up the paling, so clearly planned to use it.
Had the self-defence claim been legally justified, he would have been acquitted, leaving only an armed robbery charge to face. At law anyone has a right to defend themselves against violence, but only to the point where the threat is nullified and not beyond.
As SCOTUS judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. observed, but many criminal-loving lefties don't care about: "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife." That's why most American states allow would-be crime victims to defend themselves with deadly force if they believe that an attacker is about to kill or seriously injure them, or to prevent a violent crime.
Killing the assailant goes beyond nullifying the threat and is indefensible at law
Not always, if a person has reason to believe that the assailant will try again straight away. A scumbag with a gun has already demonstrated a willingness to kill.
(although the circumastances will often lean a jury to acquit).
I certainly would vote to acquit if a home-owner killed a home-invader in the owner's house. The invader had no right to be there.
why pursue the offender for a lousy $195?
Read the whole article. This amount wasn't so lousy to former dirt-poor refugees who had made something of their lives with honest hard work.
Ian Murray
13-12-2008, 05:52 PM
This is Australian law under discussion - US laws and interpretations have no bearing here.
There is nothing to gain by arguing the merits of this case when the only known facts, if they are factual, come from a newspaper report. The trial transcript contains all the facts.
As the law stands, there was no murder, nor were there any grounds for a self-defence plea. Manslaughter is the correct verdict, based on the given facts. That's not leftie opinion - that's the law of the land.
A non-parole period of 7½ years seems light, but we don't know all the facts (including the actual sentence).
As the law stands, there was no murder, nor were there any grounds for a self-defence plea.
Picking up a dangerous weapon looks like premeditation. And the benefit of the doubt should not be given to an armed robber, despite that soft-headed judge and equally soft-headed lefties.
Manslaughter is the correct verdict, based on the given facts. That's not leftie opinion — that's the law of the land.
If so, then the law is an ass. Florida, Texas and some other jurisdictions have the right idea: the crime of felony murder. That is, during a felony with a foreseeable danger to life (e.g. armed robbery), even an accidental killing or one not premeditated is charged as felony murder to all participants in the felony.
A non-parole period of 7½ years seems light, but we don't know all the facts (including the actual sentence).
We know very well that there has been far too much lenience recently shown to killers and gang rapists of children.
Ian Murray
13-12-2008, 06:38 PM
Picking up a dangerous weapon looks like premeditation
No, picking up a bit of wood lying on the ground is spur of the moment, not premeditated
If so, then the law is an ass. Florida, Texas and some other jurisdictions have the right idea: the crime of felony murder. That is, during a felony with a foreseeable danger to life (e.g. armed robbery), even an accidental killing or one not premeditated is charged as felony murder to all participants in the felony.
We know that. However this is not USA - our laws are based on British tort. What happens in USA or France or anywhere else is irrelevant
No, picking up a bit of wood lying on the ground is spur of the moment, not premeditated
Good grief: picking it up then using it so viciously looks premeditated, esp. from a scumbag who was already prepared to kill as shown by his armed robbery.
We know that. However this is not USA — our laws are based on British tort.
Mostly a good thing. But even British law once cared more about the victims than criminals, and would not allow such a defence. One wonders if this soft-headed judge would have allowed such a defence if it had been the crim victim who had killed with a piece of wood.
Denis_Jessop
13-12-2008, 07:34 PM
I would normally not get involved in one of these arguments. But, in this case, it seems to me that both protagonists, Jono and Ian, have not quite cottoned on to what the judge decided, if the report cited by Jono is correct.
From that report it appears that what happened was that A, armed with an air rifle, held up and robbed B. B then pursued A, grappled with him, disarmed him and recovered his money.
Then B continued to pursue A who, fearing he was to be attacked, took up a fence paling and struck B with it causing him injuries from which he later died.
The judge held that A had acted in self defence and so was guilty of manslaughter, not murder. Self defence is a defence that reduces a crime from murder to manslaughter and pre-meditation is largely irrelevant.
Moreover, it is important to note that the incident leading to B's death was separate from the robbery and the recovery of the money. One could assume that B continued to pursue A in order to make a citizen's arrest though there are no facts on that. A apparently established that he was in fear of his safety so there must have been was evidence that B intended to harm A, not just arrest him.
Thus it appears to me, on the report cited by Jono, that the judge's decision was correct under the law.
DJ
Ian Murray
13-12-2008, 10:50 PM
Thanks Dennis for the informed viewpoint.
My understanding of common law re self-defence is that it is legal to pick up a lump of wood and negate an immediate threat, e.g. by whacking an axe-wielding assailant over the scone causing him to stagger backwards in a dazed state.
Although he still holds the axe, it is not legal to hit him again as the immediate threat has been nullified. You must wait until he swings the axe at you again before you can hit him again.
Similarly, if he turns and tries to flee and you hit him over the back of the head causing his death, that technically is murder.
All this layman's knowledge came from my taxi-driver training in days of yore, which included a police briefing on rights and wrongs.
Is rhat still the position in law?
My understanding of common law re self-defence is that it is legal to pick up a lump of wood and negate an immediate threat, e.g. by whacking an axe-wielding assailant over the scone causing him to stagger backwards in a dazed state.
Although he still holds the axe, it is not legal to hit him again as the immediate threat has been nullified. You must wait until he swings the axe at you again before you can hit him again.
That's nonsensical. Why should anyone be forced to wait till someone swings a dangerous weapon again? The scumbag might not miss next time. And what if he goes for wife or kids? Again, to paraphrase O.W. Holmes: "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an man still holding an axe who has already tried to kill you."
Similarly, if he turns and tries to flee and you hit him over the back of the head causing his death, that technically is murder.
Also moronic. Lots of battles have been won by feigning retreat, such as the Battle of Hastings. Until he drops his axe and surrenders, he should be considered fair game.
All this layman's knowledge came from my taxi-driver training in days of yore, which included a police briefing on rights and wrongs.
Is rhat still the position in law?
Probably is in Britain, with their absurd favoritism towards criminals and against their victims. Sensible jury members would refuse to convict someone who killed a would-be axe murderer who attacked first.
Ian Murray
13-12-2008, 11:19 PM
That's nonsensical. Why should anyone be forced to wait till someone swings a dangerous weapon again? The scumbag might not miss next time. And what if he goes for wife or kids? Again, to paraphrase O.W. Holmes: "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an man still holding an axe who has already tried to kill you."
Also moronic. Lots of battles have been won by feigning retreat, such as the Battle of Hastings. Until he drops his axe and surrenders, he should be considered fair game.
Probably is in Britain, with their absurd favoritism towards criminals and against their victims. Sensible jury members would refuse to convict someone who killed a would-be axe murderer who attacked first.
All true under NSW law, as spelt out by a police instructor at the time
All true under NSW law, as spelt out by a police instructor at the time
Moronic in the extreme. Let's see this police instructor against an axe-wielder who already struck him once, or one of these soft-headed criminal-favouring judges. I hope there are some jurors left in that state who'll say, stuff the law, I'm not going to convict a man who refused to risked his life by allowing an axe-wielder to have a second swing.
Ian Murray
14-12-2008, 07:48 AM
Moronic in the extreme. Let's see this police instructor against an axe-wielder who already struck him once, or one of these soft-headed criminal-favouring judges. I hope there are some jurors left in that state who'll say, stuff the law, I'm not going to convict a man who refused to risked his life by allowing an axe-wielder to have a second swing.
It all depends on the circumstances, but in any circumstances the taking of a life is serious business. If you're all for shooting home intruders etc then you need to be prepared for all the pre-trial hassles and expense, hanging on to the hope that a sympathetic jury will let you off.
It all depends on the circumstances, but in any circumstances the taking of a life is serious business.
Apparently not if you're a criminal, according to soft-headed lefties, but only if you're defending your life and home. But criminals are mascots of the Anointed (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n14_v47/ai_17367760/pg_2?tag=artBody;col1), since it's all society's fault.
If you're all for shooting home intruders etc then you need to be prepared for all the pre-trial hassles and expense,
That's my point—the current law is an ass. It's the home-intruders who should be more worried about being shot, not home owners who should be worried about court costs as he debates whether to seriously hurt an invader or wait for him to strike again and hope that he's unsuccessful. Florida has the right idea, and it's the home invaders who are afraid, not innocent home owners as in Britain and apparently NSW.
Lefties might talk all this crap, but if you were faced with a knife or axe wielding assailant in your home you'd be singing a different tune, not waiting for the axe they still hold to be swung against you or family members.
hanging on to the hope that a sympathetic jury will let you off.
Better than hoping that a would-be axe murderer might miss the second time he swings as well.
Scott Colliver
14-12-2008, 02:36 PM
I am not for gun control, I am for gun elimination. There should be no guns in the world, they should all be destroyed.
Scott
I am not for gun control, I am for gun elimination. There should be no guns in the world, they should all be destroyed.
Scott
That might be nice, but how do you propose to achieve this? The laws that aim for this merely disarm the law-abiding. It's worse when soft-headed lefties want to punish victims of crime for "excessive" force when defending themselves from armed assailants.
Ian Murray
14-12-2008, 03:04 PM
...That's my point—the current law is an ass. ...
Lefties might talk all this crap...
The law was current long before there were any lefties or neocons. You might not agree with the speed limit either, but that won't save you from a speeding ticket.
The law was current long before there were any lefties or neocons.
Most unlikely. The obsession with mollycoddling criminals (and "root causes of crime" crap) and punishing their victims for daring to defend themselves is 1960s nonsense. For centuries, Britain allowed home owners to be armed, and it worked fine.
You might not agree with the speed limit either, but that won't save you from a speeding ticket.
Another crass rule from the revenue-raising nanny state, in many cases. I don't object in built-up areas or accident black spots, but on uncongested, dry, 8-lane highways they are just ways to scab money from safe-driving motorists. It has wider ramifications, in inducing disrespect for officers of the law and the law itself. QLD Police were talking recently about publicising speed camera locations. I hope they succeed—this will show that they really do care about slowing motorists for safety reasons not as a cash cow.
When it comes to an axe-wielder, if it's a choice between risking prison or a blow by an axe, I'll pick prison any time, and of course hope for a sensible jury who will acquit because of the crassness of the law.
Scott Colliver
14-12-2008, 03:48 PM
That might be nice, but how do you propose to achieve this? The laws that aim for this merely disarm the law-abiding. It's worse when soft-headed lefties want to punish victims of crime for "excessive" force when defending themselves from armed assailants.
Jono, Am I not allowed to dream? I know it is rather unrealistic
Scott
Jono, Am I not allowed to dream? I know it is rather unrealistic
Scott
Scott, of course you're allowed to dream. But for the real world, we need policies that cope with people as they actually are, not as the Anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php)wish them to be. In Eden and Heaven, no guns would be necessary, but we live between them.
Scott Colliver
14-12-2008, 07:24 PM
Scott, of course you're allowed to dream. But for the real world, we need policies that cope with people as they actually are, not as the Anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php)wish them to be. In Eden and Heaven, no guns would be necessary, but we live between them.
I will make a non dreaming answer then.
It seems to me that a gun makes it easier, less physically demanding and quicker, to kill someone than using another weapon like a knife or bare hands. There are people who can kill people using guns who could not do it many of other ways ie wives their husbands. Therefore having a gun around when someone loses control and wishes to kill someone in passion is probably not a good idea. Gun control might reduce this kind of killing.
People who commit more planned crimes might find the thought that their victims have a gun a reason not to commit a crime, but I think it also might just lead them to be more armed.
Having any guns in the world is a bad idea and as soon as well go away from the only good solution, we have to choose the least worse solution. Having more people prepared to use a deadly weapon, by reducing gun control doesn't appeal to me, but maybe it is the least bad solution
Scott
VICTORIA’S front-line police are being assaulted (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24799811-661,00.html) at a rate of almost 50 a week, with paramedics also suffering regular attacks. Attacks have soared by more than 25 per cent in eight years but the true number may be even higher.
This is very bad. It is surely not helped if laws are widely perceived to be unjust and police are regarded as caring more about criminals than their victims, and more about revenue raising than road safety. A politically correct commissar commissioner ordering them to retreat from criminals feeds contempt by the criminals (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_our_cops_go_girly/).
Boris
16-12-2008, 02:21 PM
Boy Allegedly Shot Parents Who Took Halo 3 Away (http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2008/12/boy_allegedly_shot_parents_who_took_halo_3_away-2.html)
AN ENGLISHMAN'S HOME... (http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1586/30/)
Mark Steyn
28 December 2008 / 4 Jan 2004
When it comes to property crime, Britain seems an increasingly grim place to me — not so much because of the high levels of burglary, cellphone muggings, etc, but because of the woeful passivity the state demands of the citizenry in the face of outrageous provocations. Many Britons — including Ann Widung, cited below — misunderstand American enthusiasm for the Second Amendment. The point of gun ownership isn't that you're itching for a showdown with every ne'er-do-well in the county; it's to lessen the odds of such a showdown ever occurring. Like they say, an armed society is a polite society, if only in comparison to Ms Widung's "culture of peace and solidarity":
"Mark Steyn may prefer American hillbilly culture to that of the Swedish nanny state," wrote Ann Widung of Eastbourne on our Letters page last September. She was dissenting from my observations on the remarkable passivity of bystanders at the murder of Anna Lindh. "You may criticise the Swedish police," continued Ms Widung, "for being inefficient in solving murders, but I prefer to live in a culture of peace and solidarity to one of fear and gung-ho mentality. Better a nanny-state baby than Mark Steyn's 'citizen'."
Well, it's true I subscribe to a gung-ho mentality, but I don't live in a culture of fear. In fact, British friends visiting me in this corner of northern New England from their crime-ridden leafy shires always remark on my blithe unconcern about "home security". I don't have laser alarms, or window locks, or, indeed, a front-door key. Like most of my neighbours, I leave my home unlocked and, when I park the car, I leave the key in the ignition because then you always know where to find it.
I'm able to do this because — and this is where the gung-ho bit comes in — I live in a state with very high rates of gun ownership. In other words, if you're some teen punk and you want to steal my $70 television set, they're likely to be picking bits of your skull out of my wainscoting. But the beauty of this system is that I'm highly unlikely ever to have to blow your head off. The fact that most homeowners are believed to be armed reduces crime, in my neighbourhood, to statistically insignificant levels. Hence, my languid approach to home security.
...
The Independent's Joan Smith recalled that, when she spied a burglar on her porch, she had no desire to "blow him away". Nor do I, if I'm honest.
But I do want to have the right to make the judgment call. You can call 999, get the answering machine rerouting you to the 24-Hour Action Hotline three counties away, leave a message, and wait for the Community Liaison Officer to get back next week if he's returned from his emotional trauma leave by then.
But that's the point: you're there, the police aren't. And, even in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene.
And, once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it. Take Miss Smith's situation: she's at home, but the burglar still comes a-knocking. Thanks to burglar alarms, British criminals have figured out that it's easier to wait till you come home, ring the door bell, and punch you in the kisser.
In my part of the world, that's virtually unknown. In America as a whole, 12.7 per cent of burglaries are of "occupied homes"; in Britain, it's 59 per cent. Installing a laser system may make your property more secure, but it makes you less so. As for Ann Widung's "culture of fear", it's not American therapists but English ones who've made a lucrative speciality out of treating children traumatised by such burglaries.
As (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/981609/posts)I wrote in September, to expect the state to protect you is to be a bystander in your own fate.
...
I will make a non dreaming answer then.
It seems to me that a gun makes it easier, less physically demanding and quicker, to kill someone than using another weapon like a knife or bare hands. There are people who can kill people using guns who could not do it many of other ways ie wives their husbands. Therefore having a gun around when someone loses control and wishes to kill someone in passion is probably not a good idea. Gun control might reduce this kind of killing.
Yet this killing is extremely rare now, unlike the chance of being a victim of crime because you're unarmed.
People who commit more planned crimes might find the thought that their victims have a gun a reason not to commit a crime, but I think it also might just lead them to be more armed.
Right, the "smile and let them rape, beat, kill and rob you" strategy since any resistance might produce worse. As stated, laws against guns don't stop the law-breakers from having guns anyway, but make law-abiders defenceless. Ian Murray and his ilk have the even more moronic notion that a home-owner should not be too violent against an axe-wielder in his home, i.e. he would second guess the home-owner in justified fear of his life or the lives of his loved ones. But at least a home-owner with an axe in his head from the second swing will have a clear concience that he's followed the "rule of law". A few years ago in America, when two heroic laborers rescued a co-worker from death in a situation where prompt action saved the co-worker's life, the Ian-Murray–like powers-that-be in the realm of safety regulation attempted to enforce the absolute letter of the law, and imposed fines on the rescuers for not putting on safety gear before coming to aid! The public outrage that followed was no surprise: The man on the street recognizes the law for what it is. Similarly when it comes to home-owners in fear of their lives.
Having any guns in the world is a bad idea and as soon as well go away from the only good solution, we have to choose the least worse solution. Having more people prepared to use a deadly weapon, by reducing gun control doesn't appeal to me, but maybe it is the least bad solution
Yes, often the best way to reduce power is to equalize it. Guns are especially important for women, the elderly and disabled who often would not have the physical strength to defend themselves. Ian Murray's hypothetical axe-wielder might not miss the next time.
Rincewind
28-12-2008, 10:58 PM
More headlines from the land of constitutionally protected gun ownership...
Eight killed in Santa-suit assault on in-laws (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/eight-killed-in-santasuit-assault-on-inlaws/2008/12/26/1229998738132.html)
More headlines from the land of constitutionally protected gun ownership...
Which would probably have been prevented if the home-owners had guns so were not defenceless.
Rincewind
29-12-2008, 12:40 AM
Which would probably have been prevented if the home-owners had guns so were not defenceless.
Jono's idea of utopia: a place where everyone at a christmas party is armed with a loaded firearm.
They were legally allowed to bear arms and there may have been fire arms in the house for all we know. However, when a guy in a Santa suit turns up with multiple firearms and starts shooting and then sets fire to the house, unless you have the firearm loaded and are a quicker/better shot than the perp. it does you no good and may even lead to shortening your life.
Scott Colliver
29-12-2008, 05:30 AM
Right, the "smile and let them rape, beat, kill and rob you" strategy since any resistance might produce worse. As stated, laws against guns don't stop the law-breakers from having guns anyway, but make law-abiders defenceless. Ian Murray and his ilk have the even more moronic notion that a home-owner should not be too violent against an axe-wielder in his home, i.e. he would second guess the home-owner in justified fear of his life or the lives of his loved ones. But at least a home-owner with an axe in his head from the second swing will have a clear concience that he's followed the "rule of law". A few years ago in America, when two heroic laborers rescued a co-worker from death in a situation where prompt action saved the co-worker's life, the Ian-Murray–like powers-that-be in the realm of safety regulation attempted to enforce the absolute letter of the law, and imposed fines on the rescuers for not putting on safety gear before coming to aid! The public outrage that followed was no surprise: The man on the street recognizes the law for what it is. Similarly when it comes to home-owners in fear of their lives.
Jono, you keep mentioning that gun control laws only take guns from the law abiding. Would you support gun control that takes gun away from both law breakers and the law abiding?
Scott
Jono, you keep mentioning that gun control laws only take guns from the law abiding.
It's not original to me. Thomas Jefferson said it most memorably.
Would you support gun control that takes gun away from both law breakers and the law abiding?
Maybe, but could such a thing be done? Someone who is happy to break a law against murder would hardly have qualms about breaking a law against carrying a gun.
Another reason the American Founders opposed gun control was to remind a potential tyrant that the people had the means to bring him down.
Jono's idea of utopia:
The whole point of the Tragic Vision is that utopia is impossible, so we should have means to cope with the fact that we are not in one. I.e. there are dangerous criminals around, so sound public policy should allow citizens a means of defence, and not prosecute them (as Ian Murray and other leftists advocate) when they do.
a place where everyone at a christmas party is armed with a loaded firearm.
Concealed carry laws have NOT led to an increase in gun deaths.
They were legally allowed to bear arms and there may have been fire arms in the house for all we know.
Not likely.
However, when a guy in a Santa suit turns up with multiple firearms and starts shooting and then sets fire to the house, unless you have the firearm loaded and are a quicker/better shot than the perp. it does you no good and may even lead to shortening your life.
Ah yes, the Chamberlain/Carter Principle so beloved by gun control advocates: let's make ourselves weak in the face of strong despots and maybe they will no hurt us too much. Not firing back really helped the people in this house, and in the "gun-free" (aka victim disarmament) zone of Virginia Tech, while there have been many instances where a shooting rampage has been stopped by an armed citizen.
Rincewind
29-12-2008, 02:28 PM
The whole point of the Tragic Vision is that utopia is impossible, so we should have means to cope with the fact that we are not in one. I.e. there are dangerous criminals around, so sound public policy should allow citizens a means of defence, and not prosecute them (as Ian Murray and other leftists advocate) when they do.
Exactly, I'd prefer no one to have a firearm except those who are in the business of law enforcement. You, on the other hard want to reinstate the nineteenth century California.
Concealed carry laws have NOT led to an increase in gun deaths.
Says you but is a moot point anyway. Concealed or not not it is still a firearm.
Not likely.
It's academic. I have not seen a statement either way but you are not one to let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Ah yes, the Chamberlain/Carter Principle so beloved by gun control advocates: let's make ourselves weak in the face of strong despots and maybe they will no hurt us too much.
No, let's limit everyone's access to firearms as much as necessary to make everyone safer.
Not firing back really helped the people in this house,
And being in a country where you have a constitutionally protected ready access to firearms did help them?
and in the "gun-free" (aka victim disarmament) zone of Virginia Tech,
Only a real religious zealot of gun ownership would bring up Virginia Tech as a case for gun ownership.
while there have been many instances where a shooting rampage has been stopped by an armed citizen.
The same is true of nineteenth century California. Your problem is you were born 150 years too late. You might see yourself as a gun-totting, trigger-happy preacher from the wild west. But the rest of the world has moved on. Meanwhile we note with sadness the endless stream of mass shootings which make the news out of the States.
Exactly, I'd prefer no one to have a firearm except those who are in the business of law enforcement.
Stalin and Hitler thought so too.
You, on the other hard want to reinstate the nineteenth century California.
No, I want to keep what the American Founders realized: that an armed populace was a strong defence against both tyranny and crime.
It's academic. I have not seen a statement either way but you are not one to let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
My beliefs are factual.
No, let's limit everyone's access to firearms as much as necessary to make everyone safer.
Except that such limitations won't work on those who don't obey the law anyway.
And being in a country where you have a constitutionally protected ready access to firearms did help them?
It's helped many.
Only a real religious zealot of gun ownership would bring up Virginia Tech as a case for gun ownership.
Of course: it shows that "gun free" zones make life easier for murderers. I've contrasted it with the would be mass-murderer at a Colorado church who was stopped by an armed heroine.
The same is true of nineteenth century California. Your problem is you were born 150 years too late. You might see yourself as a gun-totting, trigger-happy preacher from the wild west.
Not at all. Britain also had widespread gun ownership, with a tiny number of casualties. Now that Britain has disarmed its population, there is much more crime, including home-invasion.
Switzerland and Israel are other countries with very high rates of gun ownership and little gun crime.
But the rest of the world has moved on.
Or moved backwards to a time where people are not even safe in their own homes because the government has disarmed them.
Meanwhile we note with sadness the endless stream of mass shootings which make the news out of the States.
Except that it's a tiny fraction of a percent of all guns owned legally. But the Leftmedia hide the number of crimes stopped by an armed citizen, usually without even having to shoot.
Scott Colliver
29-12-2008, 04:28 PM
It's not original to me. Thomas Jefferson said it most memorably.
Maybe, but could such a thing be done?
I don't know. Any attempt though would need a trial, and this would risk it not doing what it supposed to do. Pretty hard to prove it would work otherwise
Someone who is happy to break a law against murder would hardly have qualms about breaking a law against carrying a gun.
True, but the idea is not to just say it is illegal to carry a gun but to stop criminals having access to guns. I am sure this is the idea behind most gun control is to do this, they just largely fail.
Another reason the American Founders opposed gun control was to remind a potential tyrant that the people had the means to bring him down.
It might work, although I have my doubts. You also might replace one tyrant with another then another.
Scott
When it comes to property crime, Britain seems an increasingly grim place to me — not so much because of the high levels of burglary, cellphone muggings, etc, but because of the woeful passivity the state demands of the citizenry in the face of outrageous provocations. Many Britons — including Ann Widung, cited below — misunderstand American enthusiasm for the Second Amendment. The point of gun ownership isn't that you're itching for a showdown with every ne'er-do-well in the county; it's to lessen the odds of such a showdown ever occurring. Like they say, an armed society is a polite society, if only in comparison to Ms Widung's "culture of peace and solidarity":
What kind of fantasy land is this guy living in? Perhaps he would like to compare UK homicide rates with the US?
What kind of fantasy land is this guy living in? Perhaps he would like to compare UK homicide rates with the US?
That's what he has done, and other sorts of crime. Home invasion is much more common in the UK precisely because crooks know that the home owner is not armed, and doesn't even dare to fight back in case he is prosecuted instead of the crook.
That's what he has done, and other sorts of crime. Home invasion is much more common in the UK precisely because crooks know that the home owner is not armed, and doesn't even dare to fight back in case he is prosecuted instead of the crook.
The article contains this rather disturbing anecdote:
I'm able to do this because - and this is where the gung-ho bit comes in - I live in a state with very high rates of gun ownership. In other words, if you're some teen punk and you want to steal my $70 television set, they're likely to be picking bits of your skull out of my wainscoting.
A rather charming insight into Mark Steyn right there.
As for statistics, the linked article contains none. I have seen posts from right-wing bloggers claiming that UK crime statistics dwarf that of the US. But these are usually the result of extremely crude errors (deliberate or not), such as comparing the results of the British Crime Survey with reported crimes or conviction rates in the US.
My own extremely shallow research comes up with the following:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/recordedcrime1.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_16.html
Using base populations of 300 million for the US and 60 million for the USA and the 2007 figures, this looks like a murder rate of 5.3 (per 100k population) in the USA versus 1.6 for the UK (noting that this number includes manslaughter). Rape is 27 in the US and 21 in the UK (including all categories). Burglary is 972 in the UK and 660 in the US. Violent crime is approx 436 in the US and 183 in the UK if you include all sex offences.
Now perhaps this comparison is not completely valid, as I did in about ten minutes, however I suspect it is at least as valid as Mr Steyn's comparison.
Boris
29-12-2008, 10:01 PM
Which would probably have been prevented if the home-owners had guns so were not defenceless.Just think how much safer they would be if they brought tanks to the Christmas table. Ho ho howitzer
Ian Murray
05-01-2009, 07:55 PM
There is vociferous opposition to plans in New Jersey to limit residents to not more than one hand-gun purchase per month (13 per year) - http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20090104_N_J__fight_on__quot_straw_quot__gun_buys_ heats_up_1.html
And rightly so! The constitutional right to bear arms obviously includes the right to purchase at bulk discount rates.
At an average new price of around USD300 for a .22 cal up to $1000+ for a .44 or .45, the current economic crisis doesn't seem to be affecting demand for essential items like personal artillery, and lots of it.
Ian Murray
08-01-2009, 10:45 PM
18% decline in British gun deaths - www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html
To keep and bear arms
A 70-year-old South Bend, Indiana, woman was hauling firewood from her garage into her home recently when a man came running at her from the street, chasing her inside. She grabbed her gun and dialed 911. After the assailant burst through her living room window, she held him at gunpoint until police arrived, advising him that he was at the wrong end of the muzzle to make any moves. She has become an instant star, having been contacted by Good Morning America and Fox and Friends about appearing on both shows. She even did a re-enactment for Inside Edition, but she had to wait until she was released from the hospital after suffering a heart attack due to the stress of the event. "I'm hoping it will be inspiring to others," she said of the reason she agreed to film the segment, "to let them know that they can do this, that they can protect their homes. And if it comes to it, they can take extreme action."
Once again, we have an elderly woman who was able to defend themselves with a gun. Had this 70 year old woman not had a gun, it is quite unlikely that she would have been able to defend herself against a 28 year old man. In the five minutes it took the police to arrive, that home invader could have raped or killed the woman, had she not been armed. But luckily for this woman and her family, she was armed, and did not suffer at the hands of a criminal. And luckily for society, this home invader will be behind bars, unable to attack victims who are less prepared to defend themselves.
...
As Fox News reports (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,406185,00.html), an 85 year old woman from Point Mariod, PA was at home when a burglar broke in to her home at about 3pm. Leda Smith went to her bedroom, got her handgun, and held the 17 year old male intruder at gunpoint. She then made him pick up the phone and call the police, who arrived and arrested him.
This is just one of the approximately 2.5 million times each year that Americans defend themselves with guns. Here, an elderly lady was able to hold a home invader at bay while making him call the police on himself. Guns truly are the great equalizer, allowing the elderly to stop a 17 year old male home invader. I shudder to think what might have happened to this woman had she been defenseless, having seen the burglar’s face and being able to identify him.
Ian Murray
18-01-2009, 02:46 PM
...This is just one of the approximately 2.5 million times each year that Americans defend themselves with guns. Here, an elderly lady was able to hold a home invader at bay while making him call the police on himself. Guns truly are the great equalizer, allowing the elderly to stop a 17 year old male home invader. I shudder to think what might have happened to this woman had she been defenseless, having seen the burglar’s face and being able to identify him.
2.5 million? That statistic supplied by the NRA? And it wasn't a home invasion, it was a burglary
Meanwhile household guns continue to claim the lives of children
3yo boy killed by 6yo sister
www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=47144
6yo girl killed by uncle unloading handgun
www.blueridgenow.com/article/20090116/NEWS/901160275/1042/NEWS?Title=Upstate_girl__6__accidentally_shot_to_d eath
2yo killed playing with gun
www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9010999
6yo girl killed by 7yo brother
www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/37579509.htm
12yo kills 2yo with 'toy gun'
www.ktvu.com/video/18448561/index.html
And at a gun show, an 8yo boy is killed after being allowed to handle a loaded machine pistol!
www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/122585/
2.5 million? That statistic supplied by the NRA?
With ample justification.
conservative reactionaryAnd it wasn't a home invasion, it was a burglary
She was in the home. This gun probable saved her life, without even having to be fired. I know you, like the British Polizei, would have preferred her to submit to home invasion rather than point a gun, but I take the side of the law-abiding and have no sympathy for crooks hurt during commission of a crime.
Meanwhile household guns continue to claim the lives of children
3yo boy killed by 6yo sister
www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=47144
6yo girl killed by uncle unloading handgun
www.blueridgenow.com/article/20090116/NEWS/901160275/1042/NEWS?Title=Upstate_girl__6__accidentally_shot_to_d eath
2yo killed playing with gun
www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9010999
6yo girl killed by 7yo brother
www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/37579509.htm
12yo kills 2yo with 'toy gun'
www.ktvu.com/video/18448561/index.html
And at a gun show, an 8yo boy is killed after being allowed to handle a loaded machine pistol!
www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/122585/
Far more are killed on the road, in swimming pools, and by bee-stings. The trouble with the Anointed is that they demand a perfect world, rather than the real world of trade-offs. In the above cases, the laws were being broken anyway by allowing children access to the guns. This doesn't justify depriving those old ladies of the means of protection.
Ian Murray
18-01-2009, 10:44 PM
She was in the home. This gun probable saved her life, without even having to be fired. I know you, like the British Polizei, would have preferred her to submit to home invasion rather than point a gun, but I take the side of the law-abiding and have no sympathy for crooks hurt during commission of a crime.
You can't make up your own definition of home invasion then use it as scare-mongering. According to the news article you quote, the primary charge against the offender is attempted burglary - a far cry from the violent home invasion you attempt to portray
Definitions vary, but include some measre of forced entry and violence, e.g.
A more specific defmition is that suggested by South Australia Police. For certain operational purposes they define home invasion as an incident where:
"A person .... enters a house for the purpose of committing an offence and deliberately seeks out the occupant".
These criteria specifically exclude circumstances where the offender unintentionally confronts the occupant.
In practice, according to SAPOL personnel, this type of offending is characterised by;
forced entry into a premises;
the use, or threat of, violence to the occupant;
the demand for property; and
the removal of property.
SAPOL considers the most appropriate offence category for these circumstances is Robbery with Violence under Section 158 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.
Police definition — Heads of Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence
In 1997 the Heads of Australian Criminal Intelligence Agencies agreed to the following definition of `home invasion':
"Entry by force or coercion to occupied premises by one or more persons using violence or threat of violence to commit or attempt to commit an offence."
The ABCI definition is less specific than that suggested by SAPOL. It does not require knowledge by an offender that premises are occupied at the time of entry but does require the use of or threat of violence in committing an offence consequent on entry. This definition also includes incidents where a confrontation between offender and victim was unintentional.
www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB11.pdf
Far more are killed on the road, in swimming pools, and by bee-stings. The trouble with the Anointed is that they demand a perfect world, rather than the real world of trade-offs. In the above cases, the laws were being broken anyway by allowing children access to the guns. This doesn't justify depriving those old ladies of the means of protection.
I'd hate to ever reach the stage where I regard preventable kids' deaths as trade-offs. However there is probably no solution in the most heavily armed country in the world (www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL2834893820070828) - it is no wonder USA has the world's highest number of gun deaths per capita
(www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166)
Thankfully we have sane gun laws here, restricting gun ownership to legitimate users only. It is also noteworthy that, when not in use, guns in Queensland are required to be stored unloaded in a locked container with the bolt removed or the action broken. For concealable firearms (e.g. hand guns, the container must be a rigid structure made of solid steel and be bolted to the frame or floor of a permanent building. The container must also have a sturdy combination lock, keyed lock or keyed padlock; and always be locked. For non-concealable guns, the container must be a rigid structure made of solid steel or solid timber and if the container weighs less than 150kg it must be securely fixed to the frame or floor of a permanent building (www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/storage/howStoreYrWeaponFirearms.htm)
Such storage is legally childsafe and thankfully prevents the regular child-death tragedies seen is the US. It also thankfully prevents the type of vigilantism espoused by Jono, with a loaded gun readily at hand to repel imminent home invasions, the number of which is negligible in Australia.
You can't make up your own definition of home invasion then use it as scare-mongering. According to the news article you quote, the primary charge against the offender is attempted burglary — a far cry from the violent home invasion you attempt to portray
Who's to say it wouldn't have become one if you had your way and disarmed home-owners? See what happened in Britain, where violent home invasion skyrocketed after home-owners were disarmed, and the Polizei started prosecuting those who defended themselves against the little darlings, with your apparent approval.
I'd hate to ever reach the stage where I regard preventable kids' deaths as trade-offs.
For far more preventable deaths of home-owners, churchgoers, uni students who are disarmed and helpless against scumbags. In any case:
Myth 1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706)
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn't know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes "children" up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.
However there is probably no solution in the most heavily armed country in the world (www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL2834893820070828) - it is no wonder USA has the world's highest number of gun deaths per capita
(www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166)
But try to correlate guns deaths with gun ownership, and it doesn't work. Israel and Switzerland have higher rates of gun ownership; Switzerland has a very low rate of violent crime (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2147581/posts):
What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.
6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706)
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
Israel's high rate of gun ownership saved many lives, because armed citizens were able to shoot machine-gun–wielding terrorists.
Thankfully we have sane gun laws here, restricting gun ownership to legitimate users only.
Howard's worst blunder.
It is also noteworthy that, when not in use, guns in Queensland are required to be stored unloaded in a locked container with the bolt removed or the action broken.
That would be right. Gun control freaks are only happy when home-owners are rendered defenceles.
It also thankfully prevents the type of vigilantism espoused by Jono, with a loaded gun readily at hand to repel imminent home invasions, the number of which is negligible in Australia.
As Walter Williams, himself black, points out about the crime-ridden black neighbourhoods in the US (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5012):
So here's the question: Should black people accept government's dereliction of its first basic function, that of providing protection? My answer is no. One of our basic rights is the right to defend oneself against predators. If the government can't or won't protect people, people have a right to protect themselves.
You say, "Hey, Williams, you're not talking about vigilantism, are you?" Yes, I am. Webster's Dictionary defines vigilantism as: a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate.
Example: A number of years ago, Black Muslims began to patrol Mayfair, a drug-infested, gang-ridden Washington, D.C., housing project. The gangs and drug lords left, probably because the Black Muslims didn't feel obliged to issue Miranda warnings. Black men should set up neighborhood patrols, armed if necessary, and if politicians and police don't like it, they should do their jobs. No one should have to live in daily fear for their lives and safety.
Ian Murray
19-01-2009, 11:24 AM
...See what happened in Britain, where violent home invasion skyrocketed after home-owners were disarmed
Not true - see www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf
But try to correlate guns deaths with gun ownership, and it doesn't work. Israel and Switzerland have higher rates of gun ownership; Switzerland has a very low rate of violent crime (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2147581/posts):
....In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations.
No other country compares with the Swiss and Israeli reliance on civilian reservists to bolster its standing army when required. All Swiss males are called up for conscription (optional for females) as are all Israeli adults (male and female). To allow same-day mobilisation, all Swiss servicemen keep their assault rifles and ammunition (pistols for officers) at home. Israel works on 72-hour mobilisation.
The result is that virtually all citizens have military weapons training and share a community sense of national security. Their low crime rates are not coincidental
Howard's worst blunder.
You'd rather see more of the likes of Hoddle St, Strathfield, Monash and Port Arthur?
That would be right. Gun control freaks are only happy when home-owners are rendered defenceles.
Right - nothing worse than a firearm safe from accidental discharge or theft
Walter Williams, himself black, points out about the crime-ridden black neighbourhoods in the US
Crime-ridden black neighbourhoods pose little threat in Australia
Not true — see www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf
If you believe a self-serving government report, then you'll believe anything. For remedial treatment, watch the entire Yes Minister series!
Far better to read reports of people like Dr Theodore Dalrymple, a doctor who has worked in slums and prisons, e.g. It’s This Bad (http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html) and Policeman in Wonderland (http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_2_oh_to_be.html), about the lenience towards horrific violent crime and harshness towards "crimes" against political correctness.
No other country compares with the Swiss and Israeli reliance on civilian reservists to bolster its standing army when required. All Swiss males are called up for conscription (optional for females) as are all Israeli adults (male and female). To allow same-day mobilisation, all Swiss servicemen keep their assault rifles and ammunition (pistols for officers) at home. Israel works on 72-hour mobilisation.
The result is that virtually all citizens have military weapons training and share a community sense of national security. Their low crime rates are not coincidental
As well as the fact that any would-be home-invader knows that the home-owner is likely to be armed, and know how to use it.
You'd rather see more of the likes of Hoddle St, Strathfield, Monash and Port Arthur?
No, and they would have been prevented if someone had been armed, as per Jeanne Assam shooting a would-be mass-murderer in a Colorado church (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html), as opposed to the shooting massacre in the lovely [s]victim disarmament[s] gun free zone of Virginia Tech (http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/dozens-massacred-in-gun-free-zone-again.html).
Right - nothing worse than a firearm safe from accidental discharge or theft
A few things are, like a defenceless elderly woman facing a vicious home-owner.
Crime-ridden black neighbourhoods pose little threat in Australia
Except in Aboriginal communities.
Ian Murray
21-01-2009, 10:44 PM
If you believe a self-serving government report, then you'll believe anything
Unbelievable! Crime statistics sourced from Police and the British Crime Survey independently confirm a steady decline in all crime since 1995 (summary at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708summ.pdf). That makes your 'skyrocketing home invasions' claim look silly, so you try to discredit the two sources. Note the footnote on page 1: These statistics on crime in England and Wales are prepared by staff of the Government Statistical Service under the National Statistics Code of Practice. They are produced free from political interference
To counter the British Government's crime statistics, you offer selective anecdotal articles from the Rightmedia City Journal, no less! Published by? Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (http://www.nndb.com/org/658/000051505), an ultra-right thinktank in USA. The bios of its principals place them somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
As well as the fact that any would-be home-invader knows that the home-owner is likely to be armed, and know how to use it..
You are obsessive about your perceived home invasion epidemic. Apart from the tabloids, try to demonstrate some statistical evidence of any such huge increase.
No, and they would have been prevented if someone had been armed .
Really? So how come the Swiss are unable to prevent mass gun slayings, althouigh the population is armed to the teeth? (See Swiss massacre spurs calls for gun law reform (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/1358067/Swiss-massacre-spurs-calls-for-gun-law-reform.html))
A few things are, like a defenceless elderly woman facing a vicious home-owner..
Assuming you mean home-invader, how many such incidents have occurred in Australia? I'm prepared to concede that vicious home-owners are legion :)
Boris
28-01-2009, 08:22 AM
Why bother tooting the horn or giving someone the finger if you have a leathal weapon in the glovebox?
Road rage blamed for fatal Gold Coast shooting (http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2009/01/27/Road_rage_blamed_for_fatal_Gold_Coast_shooting)
Police believe a Gold Coast father shot dead beside a busy motorway on Australia Day was the victim of a road rage attack.
The 32-year-old was shot in the abdomen at close range about 10.40pm (AEST) on Monday as he stood by his stationary ute, decorated with Australian flags, on the Gold Coast Highway at Burleigh Heads.
Detective Inspector Marc Hogan said he believed the unnamed victim had stopped to confront people in a second vehicle after an altercation while travelling south along the highway.
"One of the vehicles may have crossed in the path of another, it's as simple as that," he said.
Police believe a person in the second car, which did not stop, fired at the driver a number of times before driving away. ...
Why bother tooting the horn or giving someone the finger if you have a leathal weapon in the glovebox?
Note, a weapon that was already illegal. Americans have heaps of guns yet an infinitesimal amount of shooting in road rage, likely because they know the other guy might have a gun too.
To counter the British Government's crime statistics, you offer selective anecdotal articles from the Rightmedia City Journal, no less!
Yes, anecdotes from people who work in slums and with criminals, and see the reality, rather than sanitized self-serving government stats.
Published by? Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (http://www.nndb.com/org/658/000051505), an ultra-right thinktank in USA. The bios of its principals place them somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.
Oh, but leftist bureaucrats working for a leftist government are the epitome of objectivity? Genghis Khan was also a lefty: he practised large-scale government interference!
You are obsessive about your perceived home invasion epidemic.
Of course. Leaving home-owners defenceless has indeed led to increases, as has your crass idea of punishing home-owners who dare to fight back and hurt the little darlings who are the fault of "society".
Really? So how come the Swiss are unable to prevent mass gun slayings, althouigh the population is armed to the teeth? (See Swiss massacre spurs calls for gun law reform (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/switzerland/1358067/Swiss-massacre-spurs-calls-for-gun-law-reform.html))
Try reading the article — this was a gun acquired in defiance of the gun laws already in place:
Commentators expressed amazement that Friedrich Leibacher, 57, who had never served in the army because he failed a medical test, had been able to acquire a licence for three guns, two pistols and a revolver.
He had a criminal record dating back to 1970 and was under investigation after he threatened a bus driver with another gun.
Leibacher was armed with an assault rifle, a handgun and explosives as he stormed into the cantonal parliament building wearing a mock police uniform and killed 14 local ministers and councillors before committing suicide. He had earlier complained of supposed injustices at the hands of the justice and transport departments.
Hansruedi Sollberger, of a pro-weapons lobby group, Pro Tell, said that the Leibacher case should not be used to introduce a ban on guns.
He said: "These few criminal cases with army weapons are just a tiny part of all the weapons in circulation. Only dictatorships forbid people to possess weapons."
Similarly, the American massacres occurred in places where guns were illegal.
Assuming you mean home-invader, how many such incidents have occurred in Australia? I'm prepared to concede that vicious home-owners are legion :)
Heheh, yeah ;)
Boris
28-01-2009, 11:53 AM
Note, a weapon that was already illegal. What makes you say that? Americans have heaps of guns yet an infinitesimal amount of shooting in road rage, likely because they know the other guy might have a gun too.Argument from silence. :P
Boris
05-02-2009, 02:21 PM
Why bother tooting the horn or giving someone the finger if you have a leathal weapon in the glovebox?
Compare:
http://www.livenews.com.au/articles/2009/02/05/Terrifying_Melbourne_road_rage_attack_caught_on_vi deo
No guns present, and nobody dies.
Note, a weapon that was already illegal. Americans have heaps of guns yet an infinitesimal amount of shooting in road rage, likely because they know the other guy might have a gun too.
Care to back up this fanciful notion with comparative statistics on road rage deaths betwen USA and Australia (or the UK)?
http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext
Weapons Used by Aggressive Drivers
In approximately 4,400 of the 10,037 known aggressive driving incidents, the perpetrator used a firearm, knife, club, fist, feet or other standard weapon for the attack. In approximately 2,300 cases the aggressive driver used an even more powerful weapon -- his or her own vehicle. And in approximately 1,250 cases the aggressive driver used his or her own vehicle and a standard weapon like a gun, knife, or club. No information was available for 1,087 of the cases reviewed.
Without question the most popular weapons used by aggressive drivers are firearms and motor vehicles. In 37 percent of the cases a firearm was used; in 35 percent the weapon was the vehicle itself.
Care to back up this fanciful notion with comparative statistics on road rage deaths betwen USA and Australia (or the UK)?
Why don't you provide actual figures of shootings in road rage?
A homeowner in Juliette, Georgia, had just left his wife in the den after watching "American Idol" one night when he "heard that door crash open for some reason, and I knew someone was in the house." The intruder was armed with a shotgun and had quickly gone from the kitchen to the dining room and was nearing the den. That's when the homeowner opened fire with his .22 Magnum revolver. "I tried to do my best to protect my family," he said. "This weapon was in my pocket. I tote a weapon every day of my life. It's never away from me at any point. It's some mean folks out there." The intruder was not injured, but fell to the floor before getting back up and running from the home. The homeowner did not give chase or keep firing, though he said he might have been more accurate with one of his three other firearms. "I'm just glad me and my wife are alive," he said.
antichrist
07-02-2009, 02:29 PM
Jono, what does the Good Book saying about possessing arms?
Jono, what does the Good Book saying about possessing arms?
AC, I answered on this thread here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=176860), and elsewhere on this site here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8759&page=130)and here (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=222976)
Bruce Oates
09-02-2009, 05:14 PM
Australia has a fairly good gun control system, no military or auto shotguns
& rifles & no handguns unless you are a member of a pistol club.
It's easier in the country to own firearms for vermin control, criminals would
be less likely to invade them because they are more likely to have dogs
& a shotgun.
In the US colleges willing staff members should be trained & licenced to
carry & also seniour resposible students.
From footage on school attacks, police are afraid to enter until the gunfire has ceased.
Handguns there should be limited to .22 calibre except for law enforcement.
Common sense can't be taught, people wandering the streets drunk at
night are inviting trouble in cities.
Heavy alcahol & drug users or anti-social young brats carrying handguns & knives want heavier penalties...testicles
removed first offence & both arms for the second.
Pro with stringent restrictions.
Why don't you provide actual figures of shootings in road rage?
Why don't you, since you brought it up?
"This weapon was in my pocket. I tote a weapon every day of my life. It's never away from me at any point. It's some mean folks out there."
Frankly, I don't want to live in a society where some people think it is necessary to carry a loaded weapon around with them every moment of the day or night.
Frankly, I don't want to live in a society where some people think it is necessary to carry a loaded weapon around with them every moment of the day or night.
Yet the only danger is from the scumbags, and thanks to law-abiders carrying guns, they are less dangerous since they don't know which potential victims might be armed.
Yet the only danger is from the scumbags, and thanks to law-abiders carrying guns, they are less dangerous since they don't know which potential victims might be armed.
You seem to be missing the point, which is that we don't have a problem with gun crime in Australia. Yet you seem to be hell bent on creating one by deregulating the sale of guns.
Saragossa
11-02-2009, 04:18 PM
yeah I'm all for gun control. there is freedom to have a gun but the question is to do what?
Bruce Oates
12-02-2009, 08:59 AM
yeah I'm all for gun control. there is freedom to have a gun but the question is to do what?
Help with fox eradication :P
Saragossa
13-02-2009, 03:17 PM
If they really wanted to hammer the fox population a bunch of gun wielding loonies isn't the way to do it. If the government got serious about the problem I'm sure they could find some kind of solution.
The wrong gunmen (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_wrong_gunmen/)
Andrew Bolt
Herald Sun, 9 March 09
So much for the gun buy-back, which seems to have removed guns only from the lawful:
GUNS now outnumber people in some areas of NSW (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25157413-5001021,00.html)as the latest Firearms Registry figures show alarming local spikes in weapon numbers, including in Sydney’s crime hotspot suburbs.
A car dealer named Mark Mueller is giving away an AK-47 voucher with every new truck he sells, and this CNN reporter throws every liberal cliche at him in her interview. Doesn't faze him for an instant! If you're for gun rights, you'll enjoy this video.
FNmi-bBhWG8
Captain Underpants
18-08-2009, 09:31 AM
Well I'm staying out of the argument (it's been going on for a while you know!?), but I'm happy to declare the scoreline at the final siren:
CNN Woman 0 - 5 Country Car Guy
Another shooting tragedy in a disarmed-victims "gun-free" zone
Nidal Hasan's murderous rampage at Fort Hood stopped only when two armed civilian police officers put four rounds into him. One of those officers was shot in the leg herself. But this raises the question: Why weren't American soldiers able to defend themselves?
Because in 1993, upon taking office, President Bill Clinton imposed regulations that forbid military personnel from carrying personal firearms on base and make it nearly impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers. Generally, only military police carry firearms on base.
In other words, as absurd as it may seem, Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed 1st Cavalry Division, is practically a "gun free" zone. The base now joins an infamous list of such "gun free" zones in which murderers were left alone with their guns, free to do their worst — including Columbine High School, Virginia Tech University and Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska, among others. According to The Washington Times, "All the public shootings in the United States in which more than three people have been killed have occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned."
trailer park lovers
01-12-2009, 09:26 AM
we have advertisements running on the radio for a certain land developer who offers a free shotgun with every block sold. I'm pretty sure the blocks are in ravensthorpe which is near esperance on the south coast of w.a.
b.h.p. billiton have a failed nickel mine there so maybe the shotgun comes in handy if you want to go to the nickel mine and shoot at trout in their tailings dam (breeding fish is probably the most profitable thing left to do).....
or use the gun to hunt emus (because theyre stroppy buggers).
its true that gun doesn't rhyme with fun for nothing...........
Ian Murray
01-12-2009, 12:07 PM
Why weren't American soldiers able to defend themselves? ...regulations that forbid military personnel from carrying personal firearms on base. Generally, only military police carry firearms on base...
A kneejerk reaction to be expected from the redneck gun lobby. The reality, despite the Fort Hood killings, is that on-post is the serviceman's home and safe haven among brothers-in-arms and their families. Fostering a climate of suspicion of those neighbours would only add to the sense of isolation and depression all too prevalent in the over-stretched US army.
Adding concealed weapons to the mix at Fort Hood would only exacerbate its existing problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10post.html?_r=2&sudsredirect=true) with suicide and domestic violence
Igor_Goldenberg
01-12-2009, 12:44 PM
A kneejerk reaction to be expected from the redneck gun lobby. The reality, despite the Fort Hood killings, is that on-post is the serviceman's home and safe haven among brothers-in-arms and their families. Fostering a climate of suspicion of those neighbours would only add to the sense of isolation and depression all too prevalent in the over-stretched US army.
Adding concealed weapons to the mix at Fort Hood would only exacerbate its existing problems (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10post.html?_r=2&sudsredirect=true) with suicide and domestic violence
Violence in the Army is something I have a first hand experience with. It was (and still is) a huge issue in Soviet (now Russian) Army. The level of violence between enlisted men in Soviet army was much higher then in US, scales are not even comparable. Day wouldn't pass between a fight or threat of violence in any barrack.
However, there was an exception: Units that carried their weapons all he times (especially in combat zones like Afghanistan) or some special elite forces (SAS like units) had much lower level of violence.
Violence in the Army is something I have a first hand experience with. It was (and still is) a huge issue in Soviet (now Russian) Army. The level of violence between enlisted men in Soviet army was much higher then in US, scales are not even comparable. Day wouldn't pass between a fight or threat of violence in any barrack.
However, there was an exception: Units that carried their weapons all he times (especially in combat zones like Afghanistan) or some special elite forces (SAS like units) had much lower level of violence.
Don't expect lefties to understand the role of deterrence. Before Wilhelm Klinton's gun ban, there were no such massacres on army bases. It's the lefties who have the kneejerk reaction of blaming guns rather than making people defenceless with gun bans.
Ian Murray
02-12-2009, 07:29 AM
Violence in the Army is something I have a first hand experience with. It was (and still is) a huge issue in Soviet (now Russian) Army. The level of violence between enlisted men in Soviet army was much higher then in US, scales are not even comparable. Day wouldn't pass between a fight or threat of violence in any barrack.
However, there was an exception: Units that carried their weapons all he times (especially in combat zones like Afghanistan) or some special elite forces (SAS like units) had much lower level of violence.
Correlation does not imply causation. I think you'll find that the discipline and esprit de corps of special forces derives from their exhaustive physical and psychological selection screening rather than the fact that they carry live ammunition during training.
In combat zones, where everyone is armed, there is an external enemy on which to vent one's spleen, although internal violence does not necessarily stop (e.g. at least 600 and maybe up to 2000 US officers were fragged by subordinates during the Vietnam war - http://home.mweb.co.za/re/redcap/vietcrim.htm)
Don't expect lefties to understand the role of deterrence. Before Wilhelm Klinton's gun ban, there were no such massacres on army bases.
And there has been one in the following 16 years. You can't seriously regard one incident as a trend
Igor_Goldenberg
02-12-2009, 08:03 AM
Correlation does not imply causation. I think you'll find that the discipline and esprit de corps of special forces derives from their exhaustive physical and psychological selection screening rather than the fact that they carry live ammunition during training.
In combat zones, where everyone is armed, there is an external enemy on which to vent one's spleen, although internal violence does not necessarily stop (e.g. at least 600 and maybe up to 2000 US officers were fragged by subordinates during the Vietnam war - http://home.mweb.co.za/re/redcap/vietcrim.htm)
It's a good hypothesis, but contradicted by data.
I heard about many cases when attempts of picking on other soldiers and humiliation led to a bloody (and fatal) retaliation. I knew a guy who was so fed up by commanding officer mockery and humiliation that he killed that officer during the training. Soviet military tribunals aren't known for their lenience, but the humiliation was so blatant (and witnessed by so many) that the guy got a minimal possible sentence.
And "the discipline and esprit de corps of special forces" was not as high as you might think (at least in former USSR) to stop violence. But the risk of catching a bullet was enough to damp ardour.
Officers maintained much better discipline among privates because their careers were severely damaged when shooting occurred (another factor).
And there has been one in the following 16 years. You can't seriously regard one incident as a trend
One is worse than none. Yet where were the incidents when there were guns to act as deterrent? So why was there any need for Klinton to change the status quo?
Fact: the worst gun massacres occur not when there are lots of guns, but where only one person has a gun and the rest are unarmed.
TheJoker
02-12-2009, 02:51 PM
Fact: the worst gun massacres occur not when there are lots of guns, but where only one person has a gun and the rest are unarmed.
Fact:Gun massacres occur when perpetrators have access to firearms.
Even without gun control laws,the majoirty of citizens are unlikely to be armed when carrying out their daily business. So unless you are proposing laws that require people to carry firearms at all times (like when taking a aerobics class) relaxing gun control laws will only serve to increase the access to firearms to potential perps.
Fact:Gun massacres occur when perpetrators have access to firearms.
But not only that; where their victims are unarmed. There were no gun massacres on army bases before the guns were confiscated, nor are there any at NRA conventions, nor in Israel where many carry guns.
Even without gun control laws,the majoirty of citizens are unlikely to be armed when carrying out their daily business. So unless you are proposing laws that require people to carry firearms at all times (like when taking a aerobics class) relaxing gun control laws will only serve to increase the access to firearms to potential perps.
Yet concealed carry laws and home gun ownership laws work well: perps are deterred because their would-be victim or others might be packing heat. As Nimzovich said, the threat is stronger than its execution; many guns prevent crime without having to be fired.
TheJoker
02-12-2009, 04:35 PM
There were no gun massacres on army bases before the guns were confiscated, nor are there any at NRA conventions, nor in Israel where many carry guns.
There have been no massacres in my office, my street, my local Westfields or millions of other places where no-one is carrying guns. Using your "logic" we can come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
Yet concealed carry laws and home gun ownership laws work well.
Really.... a quick comparison of firearm owernship rates and firearm death rates for countries around the world seem to point to a strong correlation between the two.
Ian Murray
03-12-2009, 01:28 PM
But not only that; where their victims are unarmed. There were no gun massacres on army bases before the guns were confiscated, nor are there any at NRA conventions, nor in Israel where many carry guns.
Yet concealed carry laws and home gun ownership laws work well: perps are deterred because their would-be victim or others might be packing heat. As Nimzovich said, the threat is stronger than its execution; many guns prevent crime without having to be fired.
112 Australians died in mass shootings between 1980 and 1996, i.e. before national gun control. There have been none since.
In USA, where gun control laws are lax or nonexistent, there are over 100,000 gun deaths or injuries per year.
I know where I would feel safer.
112 Australians died in mass shootings between 1980 and 1996, i.e. before national gun control. There have been none since.
In USA, where gun control laws are lax or nonexistent, there are over 100,000 gun deaths or injuries per year.
Source for figures?
Yet many of these are with illegal guns, in areas where everyone else is unarmed, as per all the massacres. Also, in 1976, Washington D.C. imposed one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the America. Since then, its murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
I know where I would feel safer.
Washington DC with its strong gun ban, right?
Israel and Switzerland have "lax" gun controls and few gun deaths. Brazil and Russia have higher murder rates than than the US although they have strong gun control laws. After Canada imposed gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline, but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.
Britain has strict gun control and a huge problem with home invasion, because scumbags know the home owners will be defenceless. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College showed, "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen." Dr Thomas Sowell comments:
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.
While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons — and have begun locking up more criminals.
In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.
In America, many home invasions have been stopped by guns, often without having to be fired, and likely many more were deterred.
pappubahry
03-12-2009, 03:29 PM
Homicide statistics for Australia are here (http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx). You'll do well to work out from the graphs when the gun laws were introduced.
Ian Murray
03-12-2009, 04:14 PM
Source for figures?
http://news.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news-3/Massive-gun-buyback-doubled-fall-in-Australian-gun-deaths-2145-1/
http://www.bradycenter.org/
Yet many of these are with illegal guns, in areas where everyone else is unarmed, as per all the massacres.
Australian massacres were with firearms bought legally at the time, e.g.
1987 was a horror year for Australians; it was the year when six gun massacres took place. You might remember the gun killings because for the most part they were done by licensed shooters using legally held guns. 32 died in the six gun massacres: here are some details of them:
1. At the Sydney suburb of Pymble on 3 January 1987 a young man with a licensed six-shot pump-action shotgun murdered four innocent young women. The man received a life sentence.
2. During June 1987 at Timber Creek in the NT and at Kununurra in WA, five people were murdered by a migrant who had been a member of a gun club in Germany. The man had been a licensed shooter in South Australia so was able to easily buy a military style rifle in Queensland because the reigning National Party supported the gun lobby’s wish for a right to own guns. Police shot the man dead.
3. In August 1987 a young licensed shooter with a military background murdered seven people on Hoddle Street Melbourne. He had a bad record in the army, became dejected and used his beloved guns, it seems, to take revenge against innocent people. He received a life sentence.
4. At the Sydney suburb of Canley Vale in October 1987 a young licensed gun owner murdered five members of one family. The man was aggravated that his would-be girlfriend did not return his affections and took revenge by murdering five members of her family and then killing himself.
5. In December 1987 at Queen Street in central Melbourne a young man with a Shooters Licence murdered eight young people in the Australia Post building. He held a registered ex-military rifle, but had shortened it. He died when he jumped from an 11th floor window.
http://guncontrol.org.au
The record was set at Port Arthur in 1996, with 35 people killed by Martin Bryant with two military rifles he bought from a Hobart gun dealer, although he had a history of mental illness
Israel and Switzerland have "lax" gun controls and few gun deaths. Brazil and Russia have higher murder rates than than the US although they have strong gun control laws. After Canada imposed gun control law in 1977, the murder rate failed to decline, but armed robbery and burglary, crimes frequently deterred by gun ownership, increased.
Britain has strict gun control and a huge problem with home invasion, because scumbags know the home owners will be defenceless. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College showed, "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen." Dr Thomas Sowell comments:
USA is also seeing a rise in home invasions in line with the increasing number of wealthy households - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119508694182293480.html - while gun ownsership by homeowners has led to more gun suicides and murders:
Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.
Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/30/suicides-half-of-gun-deat_n_110043.html
The record was set at Port Arthur in 1996, with 35 people killed by Martin Bryant with two military rifles he bought from a Hobart gun dealer, although he had a history of mental illness.
So the question should be, why was it sold to a guy with a mental illness. And note that he killed so many because no one else was armed.
Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.
You mean:
Two that have been widely cited are an article (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120202.asp) in the New England Journal of Medicine back in 1993 and a book published in 2000 titled "Arming America" on the history of gun ownership in this country.
The medical journal article claimed that guns in the home increase the risk of violence and death. This was based on comparing people who were killed in their homes with a sample of similar people in the general population. Those who were killed at home owned guns more often than the others.
What makes this reasoning especially strange in a medical journal is that it closely parallels the reasoning used by those who commit the fallacy of judging hospitals by their death rates. People who go into hospitals are more likely to die than people who don't. Does that make hospitals dangerous? Or does it show that people who go into a hospital already have health risks?
Indeed, death rates may be higher in a world-class medical facility than in the local county hospital, because it is people with more dire medical problems who are more likely to go into hospitals with top specialists and state-of-the-art equipment.
Just as it would be fallacious to assume that people who go to different kinds of hospitals have the same levels of risk to begin with, so it is fallacious to assume that people who decided to keep a gun in the house were in no more danger initially than those who didn't. Some were criminals and were killed by the police. Comparisons of apples and oranges don't prove anything.
Further, gun control has frequently been imposed where there was no murder crisis (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell112602.asp):
“Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides — an average of one a year.”
In fact, by far the worst massacres were by armed governments—262 million (Death by Government (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM) by R.J. Rummel).
Ian Murray
03-12-2009, 08:14 PM
So the question should be, why was it sold to a guy with a mental illness.
Because at the time it was perfectly legal in Tasmania to sell guns to anyone, much the same as in some US states. That has now changed, and no more massacres in Australia
Because at the time it was perfectly legal in Tasmania to sell guns to anyone, much the same as in some US states. That has now changed, and no more massacres in Australia
Now that is a reasonable change. What is unreasonable is denying sane law-abiders the right to defend themselves and their homes.
Goughfather
03-12-2009, 11:04 PM
Now that is a reasonable change. What is unreasonable is denying sane law-abiders the right to defend themselves and their homes.
What you seem to forget is that the Port Arthur massacre didn't happen at a private residence, so unless you're advocating the right to carry weapons around in public, the victims would have been unarmed in that circumstance regardless of gun legislation.
TheJoker
03-12-2009, 11:29 PM
Israel and Switzerland have "lax" gun controls and few gun deaths..
Both Switzerland and Israel have higher firearm death rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) than Australia.:hmm:
Goughfather
03-12-2009, 11:40 PM
Both Switzerland and Israel have higher firearm death rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate) than Australia.:hmm:
Oh, don't confuse poor Jono. If he saw it on Fox or read it on a right-wing blog it *must* be true.
Oh, don't confuse poor Jono. If he saw it on Fox or read it on a right-wing blog it *must* be true.
GF is bound to trust Wiki despite fraud at high levels (http://www.itworld.com/nlsblog070306) and the fact that anyone can edit and insert hoax material that has been gullibly repeated (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html). Probably some lefty Uniting church prat told him that; the same one who gave him his Greek information :lol:
Of course, GF is so spiteful that he never bothered to check the year in that Wiki article—1994. I.e. Australia had the lower death rate before the gun ban (aka Howard's biggest blunder)!
What you seem to forget is that the Port Arthur massacre didn't happen at a private residence, so unless you're advocating the right to carry weapons around in public, the victims would have been unarmed in that circumstance regardless of gun legislation.
Many American states have concealed carry laws.
Mephistopheles
04-12-2009, 08:33 AM
The medical journal article claimed that guns in the home increase the risk of violence and death. This was based on comparing people who were killed in their homes with a sample of similar people in the general population. Those who were killed at home owned guns more often than the others.
What makes this reasoning especially strange in a medical journal is that it closely parallels the reasoning used by those who commit the fallacy of judging hospitals by their death rates. People who go into hospitals are more likely to die than people who don't. Does that make hospitals dangerous? Or does it show that people who go into a hospital already have health risks?
The above is quite the most bizarre piece of wriggling that I've seen in the gun control debate. To slightly re-jig the final questions:
Does that make gun-owning households dangerous? Or does it show that people who live in gun-owning household are already high-risk candidates for violence?
Actually, we don't (and can't) know. There could be quite a few reasons for increased rates of violence and death in such households but, intuitively, the most likely seems to be that access to firearms in the house increases the chance of accidents or their use on a spur-of-the-moment basis. That being said, there is also the possibility that households with guns kept for self defence are usually situated in areas that are otherwise subject to violence from external entities.
I have no particular dog in this race as I have never seen convincing evidence that there is any correlation whatsoever between the strength of gun control and the number of gun deaths.
What I do believe, though, is that gun owners in this country should be able to demonstrate the ability to correctly and legally use their firearms. A simple aptitude and knowledge/safety test should suffice and would be similar to (if simpler than) the testing currently undertaken by those who elect to drive motor vehicles. We don't have Second Amendment rights in Australia and I'm quite happy to call gun ownership a privilege, just as the possession of a driver's licence is a privilege. If you want to own and operate a manifestly lethal piece of machinery then you ought to be able to demonstrate that you can do so safely and within the law.
TheJoker
04-12-2009, 10:37 AM
the year in that Wiki article—1994. I.e. Australia had the lower death rate before the gun ban (aka Howard's biggest blunder)
Ahh... Sorry wrong again.
Here is an official report (http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/B/7/F/{B7F97201-1FCA-4183-8997-DAAB2B87EA62}tandi269.pdf) on firearm relsted deaths in Australia by the Australian Institute of Criminology.
It cleary shows a decline in the firearm related death rate since the enactment of the gun control laws.
Sorry to rain on your parade again
Ian Murray
04-12-2009, 10:57 AM
It's not really rocket science. Remove the guns from those without demonstrable need and gun deaths are reduced. This obvious conclusion is supported by research, e.g. http://www.iansa.org/regions/asiapacific/documents/AusGunLawReforms.pdf
Jono's obsession with armed response to home invasions is irrelevant in this country. Legal gun owners are obliged to store their weapons dismantled in a gunsafe-standard locked container, with ammunition locked away separately.
We are fortunate to have a secure border, small population and limited gun ownership, making gun control laws relatively easy to implement and enforce. Comparably, the US position is out of control.
Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 11:57 AM
Ahh... Sorry wrong again.
Here is an official report (http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/B/7/F/{B7F97201-1FCA-4183-8997-DAAB2B87EA62}tandi269.pdf) on firearm relsted deaths in Australia by the Australian Institute of Criminology.
It cleary shows a decline in the firearm related death rate since the enactment of the gun control laws.
Sorry to rain on your parade again
That particular report shows that handgun related death increased and non-handgun firearm related death decreased. By itself it does not prove or disprove anything.
Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 11:58 AM
It's not really rocket science. Remove the guns from those without demonstrable need and gun deaths are reduced.
True. But who determines what is "demonstrable need"?
Ian Murray
04-12-2009, 01:09 PM
True. But who determines what is "demonstrable need"?
State Police when evaluating permit applications
TheJoker
04-12-2009, 01:11 PM
That particular report shows that handgun related death increased and non-handgun firearm related death decreased. By itself it does not prove or disprove anything.
It shows more that that it show's an overall decrease in firearm related deaths. Which directly refutes the idea that firearm related deaths had increased since the new legislation came into effect, which is exactly what Jono implied
However firearm related deaths were already on a downward trend before the legislation was enacted. So it certainly doesn't establish cause and effect. I suspect the firearm death rate fell due higher urbanisation rates and resulting lower gun ownership rates, however I dont have evidence to substaintiate that. Note increased urbanisation might also explain the increase in handgun related deaths.
Ian Murray
04-12-2009, 01:39 PM
But not only that; where their victims are unarmed. There were no gun massacres ...in Israel where many carry guns.
Not quite true
http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N13/israel.13w.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/driveby-gun-massacre-raises-fears-of-israeli-terror-gang-678404.html
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/two-killed-at-gay-club-in-tel-aviv-20090802-e5gm.html
Ian Murray
04-12-2009, 02:02 PM
It shows more that that it show's an overall decrease in firearm related deaths. Which directly refutes the idea that firearm related deaths had increased since the new legislation came into effect, which is exactly what Jono implied
However firearm related deaths were already on a downward trend before the legislation was enacted. So it certainly doesn't establish cause and effect. I suspect the firearm death rate fell due higher urbanisation rates and resulting lower gun ownership rates, however I dont have evidence to substaintiate that. Note increased urbanisation might also explain the increase in handgun related deaths.
There was not a consistent downward trend before 1996 - see Aust Institute of Health and Welfare statistics from 1979-2002 at http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/briefs/firearm_deaths_2005.pdf
There was a marginal increase in handgun deaths up to 2002, the year hand guns were totally banned from shooting clubs and other non-essential users after the Monash deaths
Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 02:02 PM
State Police when evaluating permit applications
We all know (those that leaved in socialist/communist countries by first hand experience) what happens when state determines the "need".
I like Mephistopheles' comparison with driving license (cars can be much more deadly then a gun and kill more people, at least in Australia):
What I do believe, though, is that gun owners in this country should be able to demonstrate the ability to correctly and legally use their firearms. A simple aptitude and knowledge/safety test should suffice and would be similar to (if simpler than) the testing currently undertaken by those who elect to drive motor vehicles. We don't have Second Amendment rights in Australia and I'm quite happy to call gun ownership a privilege, just as the possession of a driver's licence is a privilege. If you want to own and operate a manifestly lethal piece of machinery then you ought to be able to demonstrate that you can do so safely and within the law.
Ahh... Sorry wrong again.
Rubbish. Your link was to Wiki, and that specifically states the year as 1994. Now you're bringing in new information.
Ian Murray
04-12-2009, 02:29 PM
We all know (those that leaved in socialist/communist countries by first hand experience) what happens when state determines the "need".
Settle down, Igor, There is no risk of Australia becoming a police state.
Who else other than State Police is better equipped and qualified to enforce firearms legislation?
TheJoker
04-12-2009, 02:46 PM
Rubbish. Your link was to Wiki, and that specifically states the year as 1994. Now you're bringing in new information.
Let's review your response to the Wiki page
check the year in that Wiki article—1994. I.e. Australia had the lower death rate before the gun ban (aka Howard's biggest blunder)!
The response implies that subsequent to the gun ban Australian firearm death rate has increased.
With the "new" information do you agree that the firearm death rate has been declining since the 1997 gun control laws (without admitting any cause and effect)?
If you like feel free to go ahead and provide a more recent comparison of Israel and Swtizerland's firearm death rates against Australia. I seriously doubt it will result in different outcome.
Goughfather
04-12-2009, 05:11 PM
Rubbish. Your link was to Wiki, and that specifically states the year as 1994. Now you're bringing in new information.
Bringing in "new information"? Are you complaining because you've simply made unsubstantiated assertions about the gun-related deaths since the buy back scheme and that someone has had the audacity to bring some actual statistics to bear on the situation, exposing the fact that you have your pants lying down near your ankles once again?
Bringing in "new information"? Are you complaining because you've simply made unsubstantiated assertions about the gun-related deaths since the buy back scheme and that someone has had the audacity to bring some actual statistics to bear on the situation, exposing the fact that you have your pants lying down near your ankles once again?
In your dreams (which would really worry me if taken literally :P). Joke's source that he and you gloated over specifically said it was the year 1994, before Howard's gun ban. Only after that did he bring in new information.
Goughfather
04-12-2009, 05:45 PM
In your dreams (which would really worry me if taken literally :P). Joke's source that he and you gloated over specifically said it was the year 1994, before Howard's gun ban. Only after that did he bring in new information.
That's hardly the point. You suggested that there was a lower death rate before the gun ban:
Of course, GF is so spiteful that he never bothered to check the year in that Wiki article—1994. I.e. Australia had the lower death rate before the gun ban (aka Howard's biggest blunder)!
This was false. It was based on nothing more than your vivid imagination. It's not Joke's fault that he has subsequently found a source that shows your baseless assertion for what it is and shows you with your pants around your ankles.
Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 08:45 PM
Settle down, Igor, There is no risk of Australia becoming a police state.
I hope so. But I don't like small incremental steps in that direction
Who else other than State Police is better equipped and qualified to enforce firearms legislation?
But you were talking about determining "the need"..
I don't mind them testing and checking applicants before issuing a license/permit. But I don't want them arbitarely deciding whether you need it or not.
Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 08:47 PM
The response implies that subsequent to the gun ban Australian firearm death rate has increased.
The response implied that Australia had lower firearm death rate then Israel and Switzerland in 1994. To me it looked quite clear from that and previous posts.
Ian Murray
04-12-2009, 09:48 PM
But you were talking about determining "the need"..
I don't mind them testing and checking applicants before issuing a license/permit. But I don't want them arbitarely deciding whether you need it or not.
Under our national firearm laws, permits can only be issued to those with a demonstrable need to acquire firearms. Someone has to verify the claim, that someone being State Police. I ask again, if not police, then who?
Igor_Goldenberg
04-12-2009, 10:20 PM
Under our national firearm laws, permits can only be issued to those with a demonstrable need to acquire firearms. Someone has to verify the claim, that someone being State Police. I ask again, if not police, then who?
What is "demonstratable need"?
Ian Murray
04-12-2009, 11:33 PM
What is "demonstratable need"?
Part 3 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/apmc/#RTFToC3
Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2009, 02:36 PM
Part 3 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/apmc/#RTFToC3
Which starts:
"(a) that personal protection not be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."
Also, I wasn't aware that decision of "AUSTRALASIAN POLICE MINISTERS' COUNCIL" substitutes Australian law.
Ian Murray
05-12-2009, 04:48 PM
Which starts:
"(a) that personal protection not be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm."
Precisely
Also, I wasn't aware that decision of "AUSTRALASIAN POLICE MINISTERS' COUNCIL" substitutes Australian law.
Of course not. The federal government does not have the power to impose firearms laws on states (as we agreed earlier, Australia is not a police state), so that inter-government council was necessary to agree on uniform gun laws in all states. Those uniform laws were duly enacted; in Queensland (my home state) the Weapons Act 1990 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/wa1990107/) was amended accordingly.
Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2009, 05:18 PM
Of course not. The federal government does not have the power to impose firearms laws on states (as we agreed earlier, Australia is not a police state), so that inter-government council was necessary to agree on uniform gun laws in all states. Those uniform laws were duly enacted; in Queensland (my home state) the Weapons Act 1990 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/wa1990107/) was amended accordingly.
Looks contradictory. If it's prerogative of the states, then inter-government council, as well as uniform laws, is unnecessary. Or was it a convenient way to bypass state-federal balance of power?
Ian Murray
05-12-2009, 05:35 PM
Looks contradictory. If it's prerogative of the states, then inter-government council, as well as uniform laws, is unnecessary. Or was it a convenient way to bypass state-federal balance of power?
Sheesh! Prior to adoption of the uniform gun laws, there were no uniform gun laws - they varied between states (notably lax in Queensland and Tasmania). It took Port Arthur to galvanise state and federal governments to tighten up the laws nationwide to stop more killing. Now the same standards apply in all states and territories.
Igor_Goldenberg
05-12-2009, 05:37 PM
Sheesh! Prior to adoption of the uniform gun laws, there were no uniform gun laws - they varied between states (notably lax in Queensland and Tasmania). It took Port Arthur to galvanise state and federal governments to tighten up the laws nationwide to stop more killing. Now the same standards apply in all states and territories.
Which effectively gave federal government "the power to impose firearms laws on states" which you said it doesn't have. Hence the contradiction.
Ian Murray
05-12-2009, 05:49 PM
Which effectively gave federal government "the power to impose firearms laws on states" which you said it doesn't have. Hence the contradiction.
Don't be silly. The states chose to agree and enact uniform laws; they were not imposed by the federal government
Precisely
Right, we should docilely wait for the police to come in an hour (when they get off speed camera duty) and write up a report over our dead bodies; rather than, gasp, let us have the means to defend ourselves. There are many American home-owners who would be dead if they had relied on the Polizei to protect them rather than their own guns.
Ian Murray
05-12-2009, 11:00 PM
Right, we should docilely wait for the police to come in an hour (when they get off speed camera duty) and write up a report over our dead bodies; rather than, gasp, let us have the means to defend ourselves. There are many American home-owners who would be dead if they had relied on the Polizei to protect them rather than their own guns.
There are many more who would not be dead had there not been loaded guns at hand
There are many more who would not be dead had there not been loaded guns at hand
Actually, guns have saved many more home-owners, even without being fired. But we all know your wimpy attitude towards self-defence; you'd rather have more victims of crime than dead scumbags.
Ian Murray
06-12-2009, 06:52 AM
Actually, guns have saved many more home-owners, even without being fired.
Statistics/sources? Otherwise unfounded speculation
But we all know your wimpy attitude towards self-defence; you'd rather have more victims of crime than dead scumbags.
Fortunately our lawmakers understand better than you that removing guns from homes saves lives, as confirmed by the success of Australia's gun reforms (see http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html).
The US Department of Justice statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm) are compelling. Consistently over the last four years of data (1998-2001) 57% of firearm deaths were suicides, 39% homicides, 3% accidents and 1% other causes. Your home invasion self-defence deaths, if any, would be included in that 1% Other, i.e. statistically insignificant.
The latest data (2006) from the Centres for Disease Control (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html) are:
2006, United States
Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
Number of
Deaths Population Crude Rate
30,896 298,362,973 10.36
2006, United States
Suicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Number of
Deaths Population Crude Rate
16,883 298,362,973 5.66 54.6%
2006, United States
Homicide Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Number of
Deaths Population Crude Rate
12,791 298,362,973 4.29 41.4%
2006, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
Number of
Deaths Population Crude Rate
642 298,362,973 0.22 2.1%
Other causes 1.9%
pappubahry
06-12-2009, 09:13 AM
Focusing on firearm death rates is wrong (apart from accidental deaths), since people who want to commit suicide or murder are able to substitute methods/weapons.
Ian Murray
06-12-2009, 10:16 AM
Focusing on firearm death rates is wrong (apart from accidental deaths), since people who want to commit suicide or murder are able to substitute methods/weapons.
Hypothetically one would think so, but in fact as the numbers of firearm suicides and homicides have fallen so have the overall numbers. Some possible reasons:
- other means of suicide take longer between decision and execution, allowing more time for a change of heart
- other weapons are generally less deadly - higher injury rates, lower mortality rates
pappubahry
06-12-2009, 10:37 AM
Hypothetically one would think so, but in fact as the numbers of firearm suicides and homicides have fallen so have the overall numbers.
Australian homicide rates only fell clearly below pre-gun-law levels in 2003 though.
If you want to argue that criminals held onto their weapons for a while and it was only after the better part of a decade that they started struggling to buy new ones, then I suppose that is a reasonable position. But I really don't see strong evidence either way for the effectiveness of the gun laws.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find with a quick Google statistics on suicides by type from before and after the gun laws. But post-gun-law trends can be found in this PDF (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/inj/injcat-121-10754/injcat-121-10754.pdf) (page 8 of the document proper; page 16 of the PDF). Firearm suicides have indeed fallen by roughly 50% since 1997, but so have (roughly) suicides by all other methods except hanging (which has remained constant).
The US Department of Justice statistics are compelling. Consistently over the last four years of data (1998-2001) 57% of firearm deaths were suicides, 39% homicides, 3% accidents and 1% other causes. Your home invasion self-defence deaths, if any, would be included in that 1% Other, i.e. statistically insignificant.
Not to those invaded and which you would leave defenseless. In fact, one reason for low home invasion deaths in the US is precisely that scumbags know that the home-owner might be armed (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html):
But the public health argument is also bankrupt, according to Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D., editor of the Medical Sentinel, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Dr. Faria lays out his reasoning in the Spring 2001 issue.
...
Dr. Kellerman claimed in a 1986 New England Journal of Medicine study that having a firearm in the home is counter-productive. He reported "a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder."
Dr. Faria points out that Dr. Kellerman's analysis ignored the vast majority of benefits from defensive uses of guns. Since only 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of defensive uses of guns involve the death of the criminal, Dr. Kellerman's study underestimated the protective benefits of firearms — in terms of lives saved, injuries prevented and related medical costs — by a factor of as much as 1,000.
...
In his books Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns, Kleck reports that firearms are used defensively 2.5 millions times per year, dwarfing offensive uses by criminals. Kleck says that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun. The medical costs saved by the defensive use of guns are 15 times greater than the costs caused by criminal use of firearms, according to Kleck.
Focusing on firearm death rates is wrong (apart from accidental deaths), since people who want to commit suicide or murder are able to substitute methods/weapons.
Indeed this has happened (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html):
Backing this up is the observation that countries with strict gun control laws and low rates of firearm availability — such as Japan, Germany and the Scandinavian countries — have suicide rates that are 2 time to 3 times higher than for the U.S. In these countries, people simply substitute for guns other suicide methods such as Hara-Kiri, carbon monoxide suffocation, hanging, or chemical poisoning.
Goughfather
06-12-2009, 04:10 PM
In his books Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America and Targeting Guns, Kleck reports that firearms are used defensively 2.5 millions times per year, dwarfing offensive uses by criminals. Kleck says that 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost by a gun. The medical costs saved by the defensive use of guns are 15 times greater than the costs caused by criminal use of firearms, according to Kleck.[/INDENT]
I wonder if this presumes that each "defensive" use of a gun has saved a life, or a number of lives? I guess that's one way to distort your statistics.
Ian Murray
06-12-2009, 10:55 PM
Australian homicide rates only fell clearly below pre-gun-law levels in 2003 though.
If you want to argue that criminals held onto their weapons for a while and it was only after the better part of a decade that they started struggling to buy new ones, then I suppose that is a reasonable position. But I really don't see strong evidence either way for the effectiveness of the gun laws.
You need to first factor in that in 80% of homicides in Australia the victim was killed by a relation or acquaintance, not a criminal in the sense you mean:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/victim-offender.aspx
Of the remaining 20%, fewer an fewer offenders now have access to guns - most armed holdups are now with knives/sharp objects
The number of firearm-related homicides is declining significantly:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/victim-offender.aspx
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find with a quick Google statistics on suicides by type from before and after the gun laws. But post-gun-law trends can be found in this PDF (http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/inj/injcat-121-10754/injcat-121-10754.pdf) (page 8 of the document proper; page 16 of the PDF). Firearm suicides have indeed fallen by roughly 50% since 1997, but so have (roughly) suicides by all other methods except hanging (which has remained constant).
Quite so - a dramatic decrease in firearm suicides but no compensating increase in other methods.
pappubahry
06-12-2009, 11:22 PM
You need to first factor in that in 80% of homicides in Australia the victim was killed by a relation or acquaintance, not a criminal in the sense you mean:
This is a fair point, but it means that I find it more puzzling that it took so long for homicides to decrease after the introduction of the gun laws. They just look to me like entirely separate events. I just don't see why you'd conclude that a trend that started in 2002 has something to do with the laws of 1996.
The percentage of homicides that involve firearms has been trending down since the mid-1980's, as shown in the last graph here (http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx).
Quite so - a dramatic decrease in firearm suicides but no compensating increase in other methods.
But there are large decreases in lots of other suicide methods as well, which suggests there's something else going on - better counselling, recognition of depression, etc. - and this would be the dominant factor.
Ian Murray
07-12-2009, 08:21 AM
This is a fair point, but it means that I find it more puzzling that it took so long for homicides to decrease after the introduction of the gun laws. They just look to me like entirely separate events. I just don't see why you'd conclude that a trend that started in 2002 has something to do with the laws of 1996.
The percentage of homicides that involve firearms has been trending down since the mid-1980's, as shown in the last graph here (http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide.aspx).
I'm inclined to agree with you. It looks like guns have been declining in popularity as a homicide weapon in Australia for over 40 years. The tilt in 2002 may be due to the total ban on handguns in that year, after the Monash shootings
But there are large decreases in lots of other suicide methods as well, which suggests there's something else going on - better counselling, recognition of depression, etc. - and this would be the dominant factor.
Harking back to your original position
Focusing on firearm death rates is wrong (apart from accidental deaths), since people who want to commit suicide or murder are able to substitute methods/weapons
it is clear that potential suicides are not seeking firearm substitutes. I am not suggesting that gun control is the only factor in the declining suicide rate - better public health measures are obviously having an effect.
Bradley Harvell was at home when he was shocked by a stun gun used by an intruder dressed like a ninja. The suspect, dressed in black with a blue bandana covering his face, repeatedly shocked Harvell after demanding money to no avail. After collapsing onto his bed, the military veteran remembers thinking "I'm 82 years old. I've made it this far, and I want to keep on living." He then used all the strength he could gather to get his Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver that was under his bed, shooting and killing the suspect. Police later arrested three other people who were allegedly connected to the crime.
Ian Murray
14-12-2009, 02:19 PM
Bradley Harvell was at home when he was shocked by a stun gun used by an intruder.... to get his Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver that was under his bed, shooting and killing the suspect.
Only in America!
Stun guns are only available for law enforcement here. .357 magnum handguns are totally banned.
Only in America!
Stun guns are only available for law enforcement here. .357 magnum handguns are totally banned.
Good thing for Bradley Harvell that they were not. You evidently would have preferred to have the police write a report over his dead body than that he killed the scumbag who attacked him.
TheJoker
14-12-2009, 05:02 PM
Bradley Harvell was at home when he was shocked by a stun gun used by an intruder dressed like a ninja. The suspect, dressed in black with a blue bandana covering his face, repeatedly shocked Harvell after demanding money to no avail. After collapsing onto his bed, the military veteran remembers thinking "I'm 82 years old. I've made it this far, and I want to keep on living." He then used all the strength he could gather to get his Smith & Wesson .357 magnum revolver that was under his bed, shooting and killing the suspect. Police later arrested three other people who were allegedly connected to the crime.
4-year-old Dylan Jackson shot himself to death after finding a loaded gun at a friend's home during a birthday party.
A 3-year-old Southeast Washington boy shot himself in the foot and grazed his hand while playing with his father's gun -- which he found lying on the floor.
A 2-year-old Tampa boy shot himself in the chest with a loaded 9 mm he found in his parent's couch while playing.
A 13-year-old boy shot himself with a semiautomatic handgun in the home of his guardian, a Maryland police officer.
The 10-year-old son of a New York City police officer died after shooting himself in the face with his father's loaded revolver. The boy found the weapon on a shelf in the basement while looking for a ball his mom had hidden.
:wall:
Ian Murray
14-12-2009, 06:18 PM
4-year-old Dylan Jackson shot himself to death after finding a loaded gun at a friend's home during a birthday party.
A 3-year-old Southeast Washington boy shot himself in the foot and grazed his hand while playing with his father's gun -- which he found lying on the floor.
A 2-year-old Tampa boy shot himself in the chest with a loaded 9 mm he found in his parent's couch while playing.
A 13-year-old boy shot himself with a semiautomatic handgun in the home of his guardian, a Maryland police officer.
The 10-year-old son of a New York City police officer died after shooting himself in the face with his father's loaded revolver. The boy found the weapon on a shelf in the basement while looking for a ball his mom had hidden.
:wall:
Only in America!
Thank God, and John Howard, that it can't happen here
No one doubts that there are tragic accidents, as there are with swimming pools and cars. But these all have advantages too. Guns have the demonstrable advantage of protecting against thugs and tyrants.
Ian Murray
14-12-2009, 10:09 PM
No one doubts that there are tragic accidents, as there are with swimming pools and cars. But these all have advantages too. Guns have the demonstrable advantage of protecting against thugs and tyrants.
Unlike guns, swimming pools and cars are not specifically designed to kill
Boris
14-12-2009, 10:30 PM
Unlike guns, swimming pools and cars are not specifically designed to kill
And swimming pools are kept behind gates, out of reach of children, so would the gun be if it were unloaded in a safe.
antichrist
14-12-2009, 11:09 PM
Ian, you should know about 5 years ago that facts don't have anything to do with what Jono preaches about. I act the idiot but he is the idiot.
TheJoker
15-12-2009, 08:07 AM
And swimming pools are kept behind gates, out of reach of children, so would the gun be if it were unloaded in a safe.
But then it wouldn't provide much protection against home invasion.
Only in America!
One study noted:
The United States experienced an extraordinary increase in violent crime in the 1960s and 1970s and a remarkable drop in violent crime in the 1990s. The number of firearms, especially handguns, in private hands increased by several million every year during that period. the relentless growth in the privately held stock of firearms cannot explain both the crime wave of the first perios and the crime drop of the second period. [James Jacobs, Can Gun Control Work? Oxford Uni Press, 2002]
Gun control zealots also point out that London has a much lower murder rate than NY. But this was always true, for over 200 years, when neither place had strict gun control laws. Gunless murders have also been much higher in NY too. But gun control zealots, like warm-mongers, exhibit extreme confirmation bias. But now murder and armed robbery rates are much higher in England after guns were banned than in the 1950s when there were no laws against shotgun ownership and many licenced pistol owners. Britain's murder rate rose by 34% after the guns were confiscated at a time when the USA's murder rate dropped by 39%, and murder rates in Canada, France and Italy were also decreasing considerably.
Only in England! — just as leftist criminal appeasers / victim disarmament types like Ian Murray and The Joke would love:
Merely threatening to defend oneself can also prove illegal, as an elderly lady discovered. She succeeded in frightening off a gang of thugs by firing a blank from a toy gun, only to be arrested for the crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm. Use of a toy gun for self-defence during a housebreak is also unacceptable, as a householder found who had detained with an imitation gun two men who were burgling his home. He called the police, but when they arrived they arrested him for a firearm offence. [Joyce Lee Malcolm, Guns and Violence: the English Expeience, p. 184, Harvard Uni Press, 2002]
Also, a scholarly 2001 study found that "the use of handguns in crime rose 40% in the two years after such weapons were banned in the U (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm)K." An earlier study found: "In homicide involving organized crime and drugs no legally-owned firearms were used at all, but 43 illegal guns were." [cited in Peter Hitchens, A Brief History of Crime: the decline of order, justice and liberty in England, Atlantic Books, London, 2003]. Who'd have thought: criminals not obeying gun laws!
Ideology to Die For (http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2010/02/23/ideology_to_die_for)
by Mike Adams (criminology professor)
23 Feb 2010
It is a truism to say that there are many anti-gun ideologues among our educational elites. But few are as honest as Doug Van Gorder—a math teacher at Brockton High School. He admits that he would rather lose a child than exercise his right to defend himself with a gun. In the wake of a recent school shooting, he wrote this in a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe:
Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment.
But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
...
Fortunately, we know the answer when it comes to concealed carry laws. Sixteen peer-reviewed studies show that allowing citizens to lawfully carry reduces violent crime rates. Ten peer-reviewed studies are inconclusive. But there are, to date, no peer-reviewed studies reaching the opposite conclusion; namely that allowing citizens to lawfully carry increases violent crime rates.
Nonetheless, the Brady bunch continues to fight for laws that will cause themselves and others to remain helpless in the face of criminal assault. They would sooner lay your child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
The anti-gun lobby must realize that law abiding citizens need guns in a society that cannot ensure that criminals will not have them. But even if guns could be kept from criminals they would find other means to kill. After all, passengers without guns have flown airplanes into buildings.
...
Chicago's Pointless Handgun Ban (http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2010/03/04/chicagos_pointless_handgun_ban)
by Steve Chapman
4 March 2010
...
In the years following its ban, Washington did not generate a decline in gun murders. In fact, the number of killings rose by 156 percent -- at a time when murders nationally increased by just 32 percent. For a while, the city vied regularly for the title of murder capital of America.
Chicago followed a similar course. In the decade after it outlawed handguns, murders jumped by 41 percent, compared to an 18 percent rise in the entire United States.
One problem is that the bans didn't actually have any discernible effect on the availability of guns to people with felonious intent. As with drugs and hookers, when there is a demand for guns, there will always be a supply.
Who places the highest value on owning a firearm? Criminals. Who is least likely to fear being prosecuted for violating the law? Criminals. Who is most likely to have access to illicit dealers? You guessed it.
...
“The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent. The high court should keep that in mind ... as it hears oral arguments about a Chicago handgun ban. Gun controllers screamed to high heaven that impending disaster would follow the court's decision to junk some of the district's gun controls. One of those screaming the loudest was Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who incorrectly predicted more gun freedom would lead to more death and Wild West shootouts. Instead, in Washington, murder rates rose when the handgun ban was in effect and fell once the regulations were removed. Chicago's 1982 ban faired no better. The forthcoming third edition of 'More Guns, Less Crime' shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982. The Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward. ... That increase in murder rates isn't surprising. Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans. In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens — not criminals who don't care about the law. The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand.” — The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/learning-from-the-dc-handgun-ban/)
Ian Murray
09-03-2010, 10:44 PM
“...Every time gun bans have been tried anywhere, murder rates have risen. Whether one looks at Ireland, Jamaica or England and Wales, the experience has been the same. Not only did murder rates fail to decline as promised, but the rates actually increased following gun bans. In general, gun-control laws disarm law-abiding citizens — not criminals who don't care about the law. The lesson is that freedom and safety go hand in hand.” — The Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/learning-from-the-dc-handgun-ban/)
Anywhere? How about Australia, where the murder rate has declined significantly - now at the lowest rate ever recorded.
"# The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
# The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded."
Aust Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/facts/1-20/2008/2 selected crime profiles.aspx#homicide)
"# The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344;
Right, three years after Howard's gun ban.
the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
Guess what? In 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered! As I've pointed out before, gun control laws disarm only the law-abiding.
# The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded."
Aust Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current series/facts/1-20/2008/2 selected crime profiles.aspx#homicide)
Hard to believe. In the 1950s, murders were rare enough to be front page news. And this was a time of wider gun ownerhip. Australia had a low level violent crime through much of the 20th century.
Ian Murray
10-03-2010, 05:01 AM
Right, three years after Howard's gun ban.
That was long guns. The hand gun ban came after the Monash massacre in 2002
Guess what? In 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered! As I've pointed out before, gun control laws disarm only the law-abiding.
In 2006/07, after full gun control, firearms were used in only 10% of homicides
arosar
12-03-2010, 12:18 AM
How about this whole business of 'open carry' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/03/armed_and_ready_to_shop.html)?
AR
How about this whole business of 'open carry' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/03/armed_and_ready_to_shop.html)?
Good stuff. Scumbags would think twice about making a nuisance of themselves.
Does that BBC reporter prefer the situation in Britain where not only are law-abiders disarmed, but the Polizei will arrest them if they threaten a home-invader with a replica.
Igor_Goldenberg
12-03-2010, 08:38 AM
I think concealed guns are more appropriate.
One problem with open carry gun allowed and concealed banned - would be criminal knows exactly whether you are armed or not.
That is true. Concealed carry is better for society as a whole. So is allowing home-owners to carry guns. Even weenies who don't carrry or have arms in homes benefit from the deterrent. Quite different from Britain, where burglars often don't even bother to case the joint, since the Polizei are more likely to arrest the home owners if they hurt or threaten the scumbags.
arosar
12-03-2010, 01:02 PM
... the Polizei ...
The what? Polizei?
What world are you living in mate? The Germans lost the war!
AR
The what? Polizei?
What world are you living in mate? The Germans lost the war!
That's what I thought too. But now the British Polizei have turned from crime-fighters to crime-enablers and agents of the Nanny State. See for example:
Devious, dissembling, dodgy. And that's just the police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article1292967.ece)
Theodore Dalrymple gets a parking ticket — and ponders how a state can remain adept at revenue extraction when it is so incompetent at everything else (http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/001983.php)
And see a few posts above for documentation of where the UK Polizei arrested home-owners for defending themselves against home-invaders.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.