Page 2 of 161 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 2409
  1. #16
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    ] John Lott has also documented that many crimes have been stopped by guns (and here, often the threat is stronger than its execution too), but the Leftmedia usually ignore this.
    There is an enormous and complex statistical debate back and forth about the accuracy or otherwise of Lott's studies. Without getting into that in too much detail (simply for lack of time) the usual issues come up for me: corellation is not causation, and post hoc corellation is unreliable until subsequently tested over a long time. Also, didn't Lott use multiple simultaneous tests with their attendant risk of spurious corellations?

    I don't mind admitting that my own view on the issue is biased by my own experience. Being non-wealthy but forthright and somewhat publicly prominent, I'm far more concerned about nutters (of whom I have attracted a fair collection) than about rationally-calculating international crime syndicates.

    Even worse, the Left have such control that a home-owner is just as likely to find himself arrested as a home-invader if the former uses "excessive force" to defend his home. We've seen it here when home-owners have been prosecuted for defending their homes from scumbags.
    I'm not sure how complete his account of UK home invasion cases is; after all he gives no evidence. However, assuming he's accurate, in my view the burglar should pretty much forfeit all rights, except that gratuitously shooting a burglar who is leaving the property isn't on. As far as I'm concerned if someone breaks into my house trying to steal my stuff (not that it's really worth the effort unless they really need to complete their collection of obscure mid-90s goth CDs) then they've voluntarily made themselves my property and I should be permitted, if I want to, to lock them up and keep them as a pet. Alas the law does not quite allow for this level of deterrence.

    Since I've opposed pro-gun attitudes elsewhere but only stated that I am moderately pro-gun control I suppose I should state my position.

    I have no problem with people of sound mind, no prior convictions and appropriate training owning a limited number of guns that are securely stored when not in use on private premises.

    Should they at any point cease to be of sound mind, or acquire any conviction they should immediately and permanently forfeit the right to own or use a gun. They should also temporarily forfeit it while charged with an offence, and there should ideally be some system in which a person can file for the suspension of a gun licence of another citing any significant risk that that person is not a fit and proper gun-owner. For example, if it is highly probable based on IP evidence that a specific person has made a violence threat on the internet, they should be banned from gun ownership or use for life, even if it cannot be proven it was them.

    I do not support people, except the police, military, security etc, carrying guns in public for self-defence. Perhaps I would accept a system in which specific individuals could do so if they proved they were in serious danger which temporary gun carrying rights would help them to protect themselves from. However there would probably be practical arguments against such a system.

    I do not support people owning functioning guns with rapid-fire multiple-shot capacities. My view on the arguments advanced for the right to own such guns is best summed up by a brilliant cartoon by my former schoolmate Jon Kudelka, sometime cartoonist for The Australian, the caption of which read something like "As Elmer struggled to reload, the enraged rabbit charged!"

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    It's pretty obvious that if in a life threatening situation, you do not defend yourself, you will die.. Therefore you are responsible for your own life. The same applies to liberty and property. You cannot sue the government for compensation if they fail to protect you.
    That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true. If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.

  3. #18
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The Swiss understand this too, since they have a high rate of gun ownership and low gun crime.
    True? Is this bog-standard gun-in-home ownership or gun elsewhere or yet another type of gun ownership I haven't considered?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Conversely, you can be sure that no matter how deranged Cho was, he wasn't going to try to shoot up the NRA.
    I don't think this was worth the time posting Jon. I don't believe anyone on either side of the lobby thought that Virginia Tech was any safer on account.

    However that does beg the question what the rationale was behind the gun-free zoning.
    Last edited by Basil; 20-10-2007 at 10:42 PM.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  4. #19
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470
    Virginia Tech also would have been a much less severe situation with an appropriate instead of blase security response, whatever the gun control regime.

  5. #20
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    I don't think this was worth the time posting Jon. I don't believe anyone on either side of the lobby thought that Virginia Tech was any safer on account.
    You think not? Wasn't that the whole idea of the gun ban, to make the campus safer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunner Duggan
    However that does beg the question what the rationale was behind the gun-free zoning.
    That's easy: just think about what motivates all leftists: making themselves feel morally superior. Rightists are more interested in incentives and consequences than the ostensible goals. And of course, abolishing guns on campus makes the leftists feel good because they have eliminated deadly weapons. Rightists always pointed out that someone who is prepared to break the law against murder is hardly likely to respect a law against guns. They have also predicted that a criminal is more likely to commit a crime if there is less likelihood of nasty consequences.

    From the Federalist Patriot:

    An Alabama family returned home after a week on vacation to find that thieves had nearly emptied the place. “Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home,” the wife and mother said. Then the tables turned. “My husband... caught the thief red-handed in our home,” she said, and he proceeded to hold the thief at gunpoint, making him clean up the mess. But wait, it gets better. When police arrived, the thief had the gall to complain about having been made to clean house. According to the Mrs., “The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead.” We guess next time the thief will choose the house with the “Gun Free Household” sticker on the door.

    In loony-left–controlled Britain, the husband would have been arrested!
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true. If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.
    How does that work?

    More likely, a crim less likely to invade a home where the inhabitants might shoot him. And it's most unlikely that he could turn the tables on a home ownder who had the drop on him, unless the home-owner was more worried about a loony left police force more likely to arrest him for defending his castle.

    Frankly, gun control advocates are the local equivalents of Neville Chamberlain. I.e. don't use force against a scumbag, because it might make him angry and violent. Yet if the west had followed Churchill instead of Chamberlain, Hitler would not have been able to start WW2. E.g. if the Frogs hadn't done their usual great military tactic of retreating when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, Hitler's generals would have withdrawn. Similarly, certain people here think that we shouldn't defend ourselves against home-invaders in case they become even more violent. Yet it's the craven weakness that encourages them.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  7. #22
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That's easy: just think about what motivates all leftists: making themselves feel morally superior.
    Am I a leftist?

    Actually it doesn't matter whether I am one or not. The generalisation above is crude, unsubstantiated, useless, trite and empirically false.

    It is no better than someone writing "all Christians are morons with no clue about any scientific issue", which I'm sure you wouldn't take kindly to at all.

    One of the hallmarks of political maturity, in my view, is an ability to realise that the other side of the broader political spectrum have a complex and varied range of motives, and furthermore, not all of them are idiots.

    The comment above falls into the unperceptive and inane our-side-is-right-your-side-is-wrong basket.

    Rightists are more interested in incentives and consequences than the ostensible goals.
    And this one is just as sweeping a generalisation. Plenty of "rightists" on moral issues are completely obsessed with the desire to prevent certain acts on the grounds that they are "wrong", irrespective of the consequences of such actions, with the motive for doing so quite often being a perception of moral superiority of much the same kind as you accuse the leftists of.

    They are the ones who most give the Right a bad name and stop many intelligent leftists taking it all that seriously. I frequently respect those who place themselves on the Right but who are not moralists, warmongers or racists. There should be some on the Left who do not conform to whatever you have against the Left and who you would therefore respect, but your comments above suggest otherwise.

  8. #23
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    There is an enormous and complex statistical debate back and forth about the accuracy or otherwise of Lott's studies. Without getting into that in too much detail (simply for lack of time) the usual issues come up for me: corellation is not causation, and post hoc corellation is unreliable until subsequently tested over a long time.
    Sure, but it's still better than an inverse correlation of gun control with gun-related crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Also, didn't Lott use multiple simultaneous tests with their attendant risk of spurious corellations?
    Lott has responded to his critics.

    BTW, Lott changed my mind on gun control. Before examining his stats and the reasoning of Jefferson, Sowell and others, I supported Howard's gun confiscation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I'm not sure how complete his account of UK home invasion cases is; after all he gives no evidence. However, assuming he's accurate, in my view the burglar should pretty much forfeit all rights, except that gratuitously shooting a burglar who is leaving the property isn't on. As far as I'm concerned if someone breaks into my house trying to steal my stuff (not that it's really worth the effort unless they really need to complete their collection of obscure mid-90s goth CDs) then they've voluntarily made themselves my property and I should be permitted, if I want to, to lock them up and keep them as a pet. Alas the law does not quite allow for this level of deterrence.
    That's all reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I have no problem with people of sound mind, no prior convictions and appropriate training owning a limited number of guns that are securely stored when not in use on private premises.
    However, Lott pointed out cases where a home owner saved his life precisely because his gun was accessible.

    Also, the PLO's favorite method of mass murder used to be machine guns, but they abandoned that precisely because many Israelis were packing heat. Here's another country where widespread gun ownership has not led to lots of gun-related crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Should they at any point cease to be of sound mind, or acquire any conviction they should immediately and permanently forfeit the right to own or use a gun. They should also temporarily forfeit it while charged with an offence, and there should ideally be some system in which a person can file for the suspension of a gun licence of another citing any significant risk that that person is not a fit and proper gun-owner.
    That's reasonable.

    I do not support people owning functioning guns with rapid-fire multiple-shot capacities. [/QUOTE]
    Also reasonable.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  9. #24
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,470
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Lott has responded to his critics.
    I have seen that he has, although the abstract I could find of his response seemed to be more in the nature of an attempt to refute their counter-suggestions than an attempt to rehabilitate his own work from their criticisms. Not that that is necessarily bad, since a reasonable response to an accusation of spurious correlations through overtesting is more data showing the same correlations again. But I suspect the debate goes on ...

    However, Lott pointed out cases where a home owner saved his life precisely because his gun was accessible.
    I'm sure there are such cases. However, a gun that is not secured has a greater potential to be stolen and subsequently misused, not to mention the potential for accidents involving children, so I suspect the requirements to secure a weapon are well-motivated. I have noted above that they may not be especially enforceable in most contexts, so someone who has good reason to fear an attack could have a weapon at the ready without the state being any the wiser.

    Also, the PLO's favorite method of mass murder used to be machine guns, but they abandoned that precisely because many Israelis were packing heat. Here's another country where widespread gun ownership has not led to lots of gun-related crime.
    I wonder if that is because of a higher level of social solidarity owing to that country's unusual ethnic/political situation? Given that the reasons for widespread gun ownership in Israel differ significantly from what they are in the USA I doubt the two cases are all that comparable.

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    You think not? Wasn't that the whole idea of the gun ban, to make the campus safer?
    As I said, it begs the question. As to your question, I shudder to think that someone, anyone could suggest that that is the case. I suspect you're correct in that was exactly the idea

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That's easy: just think about what motivates all leftists: - making themselves feel morally superior.
    I don't think that's their motivation. Discarding the clowns on either side of politics ('Daddy gave me a Porsche *snort*' and 'I distrust all rich people on principle'), I simply believe Lefties are misguided. I'm not sure how the linear aspect of politics got in here - however my comment is largely based on my having not contemplated the parallel between gun control and left/ right politics. At a brief pinch, I'm starting to get the idea the two are linked

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    And of course, abolishing guns on campus makes the leftists feel good because they have eliminated deadly weapons. Rightists always pointed out that someone who is prepared to break the law against murder is hardly likely to respect a law against guns. They have also predicted that a criminal is more likely to commit a crime if there is less likelihood of nasty consequences.
    No argument with this sort of talk (broadly). I've witnessed more soft, naive hippy bollocks of this persuasion than I care to recall; the majority of which tends to be allied with the left side of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    From the Federalist Patriot:
    An Alabama family returned home after a week on vacation to find that thieves had nearly emptied the place. “Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home,” the wife and mother said. Then the tables turned. “My husband... caught the thief red-handed in our home,” she said, and he proceeded to hold the thief at gunpoint, making him clean up the mess. But wait, it gets better. When police arrived, the thief had the gall to complain about having been made to clean house. According to the Mrs., “The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead.” We guess next time the thief will choose the house with the “Gun Free Household” sticker on the door.
    Groan. True story? I wasn't prepared for an image of a snivel libertarian at this time of night. I try and limit my exposure to sound bytes from them on midday ABC radio (and of course, Chess Chat).
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  11. #26
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    KB in case you think ive forgotten you, both posts in response to yours refused to connect through, leaving me with an invalid thread notice, and when i went back, my response posts diappeared . Last night i repeated my first post to you, but when it happened again today, i admit my frustration got the better of me( it was a damn good reposte too !) and let it go. I know its probably the bilderberg group behind this, but thought you should know !
    I will respond again soon .

  12. #27
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true. If you start brandishing weapons when someone is trying to make off with your DVD player you are highly likely to make yourself a gun crime statistic.
    It's not obvious that not defending yourself in a life threatening situation will end in you dying?
    All Blacks for the Rugby World Cup 2011!

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/DanielBell
    Challenge me to a game at Chess.com!

    http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
    LibertariaNZ

    http://www.theadvocates.org/
    Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education


  13. #28
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Obviously, anyone who you wish to assist in that defence has the power to do so. So paying taxes to support a government that restricts gun use hence reducing the risk of the armed intruder getting in in the first place is one way. Not having such government control but having a gun under your bed is another. Neither is necessarily superior.
    Statistically, between 1995 and 2001 break and enters rose at a steady rate, and since then they've dropped at a fast rate. Gun laws have had no impact on your risk at having your home invaded. However, statistically, violent crime has continued to rise (even before gun control). If you actually look at the specific armed robbery statistics they are decreasing until 1995 then shoot right up after 1996.. Unarmed robbery doesn't start to drop until 2001. There seems to be an overall decrease in crime in 2001, anyone know what happened in 2001 some of these decreases are huge!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    If that is the case and state control of guns turns out to be the best way to reduce the risks of such life-threatening situations claiming your life, then your argument becomes an argument for state control of guns.
    I can't find anything that shows gun control reduces the chance of life threatening situations.

    I definitely do not feel safe checking out the yard if there's a strange noise or something without some kind of weapon (knife, bat, anything..) I might just be a wuss but it's the truth, in this area people will attack you with used syringes and all sorts of junk. My girlfriend definitely does not feel safe while I'm at work at night and people are being idiots outside.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    In a trivial sense what you say about "responsibility" is true - there are many ways you can act to further your own protection and if you take none of them then there are risks involved that you may not be able to stop. But this doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to protect yourself to the max and to be armed at all times. Life would be very tedious if minimising risk in that manner was the paramount goal of all activities.
    We all accept a little bit of risk in order to live our lives. We use the road even though there is a risk that someone might t-bone you and possibly kill you.. It's not like I want to walk around with a protective bubble that ensures I can not be negatively effected in any way by anything. Owning a weapon for personal protection is just an easy means of self defense. I would still lock my house up at night etc, even if I had a gun in my home, because I don't WANT to shoot anyone, and my hope would be that just letting an intruder see the weapon would be enough to deter them (which has been the case with a couple yanks I used to speak with on another forum).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Are you saying that as a statement about the law or as a statement about morals? Because if it's a statement about the law, you're incorrect, at least in my state where there is compensation available for victims of violent crime.
    Apparently there is a victims of crime compensation program in NSW however it does not cover property nor any injury that does not receive a medical bill higher than $7,500. I actually spoke to a friend who recieved a pretty bad beating about 6 months ago by a group of guys who must have been bored, and asked if he made a claim but he couldn't due to the threshold.

    So really, you can't sue the government for failing to protect you. It shouldn't matter if you are injured or not, if you pay your taxes so the government will keep you safe, then they should do that. I pay taxes (and would even contribute to a voluntary system) that support the police and military to assist in my self defense, but I do so knowing that I am solely responsible for my own life. The police are only useful for apprehending criminals after they have committed a crime, most of the time they do not stop a crime from taking place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    Given the choice between owning 97 dogs and having to permanently carry a gun and live in fear of being shot by nutters or obsessives in a nation with no gun control, I would find owning 97 dogs far more sensible, even if they were all chihauhas. And I don't even like dogs much, my avatar notwithstanding!
    I just think you place too much emphasis on this idea that all these nutters would own guns.. To some of my friends when I talk about this stuff they think I'm some nut job that is just aching to shoot someone but I really am not. I do understand your concern with some people owning guns, of course I have this concern too, and I do not see why even without gun control you could not seek assistance from the police if someone is threatening the safety of another individual with their firearm -- abusing their rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I should add that I once had an obsessive pet stalker who would physically attack me (never doing any real harm) every time he saw me, unless there were witnesses who weren't his mates. This individual had drug problems that meant he could not control his propensity to attack me, except where he knew he would get caught. If he had had ready access to guns there is a substantial chance I would be dead by now. That my having a gun as well would have created a high chance that he would be dead instead isn't really much consolation.
    You're assuming that he would have 1) wanted to own a gun, and 2) wanted you dead. You say that he never did any real harm.. A man can do alot of harm with his hands (or a knife).. if he wanted you dead, I'm sure you'd know about it. Regardless, you should have contacted the police.. You don't have to put up with aggression.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    All this is true but in none of these situations were you shot dead. I too have been harassed and been defenseless (as described above) but rather than wishing I had had a gun to ward off the attacker, I am instead glad he did not have a gun with which to kill me.
    With my point above, if someone wants you dead that bad you'd know about it. My aggressors did not want me dead, they just wanted me to feel inferior to them, or, they wanted my property. Neither of which I am prepared to accept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    That may be true, yet home invasion situations where the defender holds a gun may be more likely to end in the death of the defender, simply because most home invaders actually don't want to kill, but will do so to prevent the defender from killing them.
    I wouldn't pull a gun on someone and start yelling that I am going to kill them, I'd make sure they understand if they simply leave I would not hurt them. People I have talked to who have pulled weapons on an intruder say that they ALWAYS have complied and just left, of course there would be times that someone is prepared to fight it out, but someone willing to attack someone armed with a gun is someone I don't think would kindly leave if you asked (without a gun). If you run at an intruder with a gun or a knife then of course they will attempt to defend themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    My flatmate was required to keep his guns in a secure locked container, but so what? Secured locked containers can be unlocked if needed. I believe this is still the legal situation - if you keep a firearm in secure locked storage you can have it in the home. Who is going to check if it is in that storage all the time or not?
    The point is the law says I cannot own a gun for self defense. It's quite explicit about that. I know that I could buy a gun if I want and just tell the registrar that I am a hunter or a target shooter.. And keep the gun under my bed and not tell anyone, the point is I'd be a criminal for doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    I had very little choice in the matter for financial reasons. I was living in a student shared housing scheme which the individual moved into. I could not afford to move out. Of course, I could have decided to get work and quit university so that I could move out (assuming I could find any) but no-one should have to go to such lengths to get away from a potential nutter.
    Everyone's a potential nutter

    Look I get your point with the whole nutter thing, however a nutter is a nutter, if they own guns or not. So long as he doesn't threaten the life of another individual he has not committed a crime.
    All Blacks for the Rugby World Cup 2011!

    http://www.chess.com/echess/profile/DanielBell
    Challenge me to a game at Chess.com!

    http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/
    LibertariaNZ

    http://www.theadvocates.org/
    Advocates for Self-Government - Libertarian Education


  14. #29
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    How does that work?

    More likely, a crim less likely to invade a home where the inhabitants might shoot him.
    How naive are you? What, you think criminals are going to give up on crime because home owners have guns? More likely they will make damn sure they are carrying their own gun and shoot first.

    And it's most unlikely that he could turn the tables on a home ownder who had the drop on him, unless the home-owner was more worried about a loony left police force more likely to arrest him for defending his castle.
    The thing is that the home-invader will always have the element of surprise, so it's pretty unlikely that the home owner will ever "have the drop on him" unless he is so paranoid that he is always alert and with one hand on his gun.

    I wonder what the statistics are on home-invasion related murders in Australia vs the US? I would wager that the US is at least 100 times higher per capita.

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,356
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    How naive are you? What, you think criminals are going to give up on crime because home owners have guns? More likely they will make damn sure they are carrying their own gun and shoot first.
    First, I don't support laws allowing crims to have guns, just law-abiding citizens. Second, while the crim is busy stealing the jewels, the home owner can get the drop on him. So how naive are you, thinking that weakness in the face of evil is the answer. Chamberlain thought that weakness was the answer to Hitler too.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    The thing is that the home-invader will always have the element of surprise, so it's pretty unlikely that the home owner will ever "have the drop on him" unless he is so paranoid that he is always alert and with one hand on his gun.
    Rubbish. The invader will always make a noise, and will be concentrating on stealing. The only problem lies if the gun controllers make laws that ensure that a home owner has no time to obtain his gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    I wonder what the statistics are on home-invasion related murders in Australia vs the US? I would wager that the US is at least 100 times higher per capita.
    Why don't you tell us then? The fact remains that crims are less likely to invade homes where they are defended. You on the other hand want law-abiding citizens to be defenceless against scumbag. Not surprising really—one of the mascot groups of the Anointed is criminals. It's all society's fault.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Melbourne Chess Club Calendar 2007
    By Bereaved in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-01-2007, 05:08 PM
  2. Melbourne Chess Club Calendar for 2006
    By Bereaved in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 30-07-2006, 10:08 PM
  3. Minimum time control for standard rating
    By Rincewind in forum Australian Chess
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 24-04-2004, 10:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •