Page 3 of 162 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 2419
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    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.
    Not likely. They are too busy raising revenue for the State Government from harmless drivers going at 120 km/h on an uncongested 8-lane highway than catching real criminals. All the more reason why law-abiding home owners should be allowed to be armed.
    “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.

  2. #32
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    That's not obvious at all. In fact, it is obvious to me that the opposite is true.
    It's obvious to me that the stronger you are, the less appetizing you are as a target.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    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.
    Nonsense. The scumbag can't hold a gun and DVD player together. So if he knows what's good for him, he'll put down the DVD player and put his hands up. And all the home-owner has to hope for is that HE won't be arrested for apprehending the scumbag, as in Britain.

    And what about if a pair of home invaders was after my wife? It is perfectly warranted to use a gun to protect one's family members, even if it is not actually fired.
    “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.

  3. #33
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    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.



    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.
    In the US statistics show areas with gun control are LESS SAFE than areas without it.. In the USA the phrase 'More guns, less crime' is actually true.. However people just claim the 'correlation doesn't equal causation' line to try and dismiss it. Most statistics show that less people are killed in Australia with guns even before gun control, because Australians have never been really into guns like the Americans were.. And even still, Canada has more guns per capita than the US yet has less gun related deaths. Canada has gun control in place however the point still stands that more guns do not equal more 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


  4. #34
    CC Candidate Master DanielBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    174
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It's obvious to me that the stronger you are, the less appetizing you are as a target.
    When in Oklahoma they started advertising gun training courses for women, crime against women such as rape and assault dropped significantly.
    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


  5. #35
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,956
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    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!
    Which country are you talking about? Australia?

    Just looking at rates in one country proves nothing because you don't know whether gun control was the cause of the changes or whether they changed for other reasons.

    I can't find anything that shows gun control reduces the chance of life threatening situations.
    There is a massive debate out there; if you get into it thoroughly you will find people arguing both for and against gun control using statistical arguments that are probably way beyond most people engaging with this debate.

    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.
    I've got no problem at all with someone packing a bat while they're checking out their own yard.

    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 don't think anyone expects paying taxes to keep people absolutely safe. The issue is maintaining a reasonable level of safety. (If anyone's got arguments that this could be done better for all rather than just the rich if it was privatised, I'm willing to hear them ... but extremely sceptical!)

    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.
    In the case of a crime where the criminal has made a decision to commit the crime irrespective of their existence that is no doubt true. However their ability to arrest the criminal post offence is some deterrent.

    I just think you place too much emphasis on this idea that all these nutters would own guns..
    Even if a small proportion of them own guns then it could be fatal. Having lived with one who did (although he was no threat to me at the time) my experience is that a small proportion of them may. I'm not keen on anything that even may make that proportion larger.

    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 don't think most people who would like to own guns are violent at all, most of them have very understandable reasons for wanting to doing so. I'm just concerned about the consequences of there being more guns about.

    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.
    Only useful when you know there is a threat; when the gun-user is threatening someone in an organised fashion.

    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..
    1) fits what I know of his repugnant personality pretty well (this is no reflection on people who want to own guns for valid reasons) and as for 2) his failure to do me serious harm reflected a lack of opportunity and organisation rather than intent. He'd only ever have time for a quick attack before a witness appeared; the most he ever managed was trashing my sunglasses (which I repaired). Anyway, in the case of an individual suffering from very severe drug-related psychosis or similar disorders, what they want is quite irrelevant. The issue is what their disorder causes them to do.

    Regardless, you should have contacted the police..
    I did. But because he only ever attacked me in situations where I had no witnesses (and his friends who were with him at the time of the first attack lied about it, although they were all on drugs while I was completely sober) there was nothing I could do except for getting a restraining order. I didn't have much more trouble from him after that, but that was mainly because he happened to leave the state.

    With my point above, if someone wants you dead that bad you'd know about it.
    We're not dealing with an individual who would want me dead in an organised round-the-clock fashion here. We're dealing with someone who would snap insanely and become aggressive whenever he saw me.

    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,
    People who are in a position to talk about it afterwards are a slightly skewed sample.

    Anyway, I'm not totally against the idea of people being allowed to have a weapon in the home for self-defence provided it is securely stored when not needed for that purpose. I realise the secure storage requirement limits how effective it might be in the case of a sudden break-in, but that has to be balanced against the risks of theft of the weapon and use of the weapon in domestic situations.

    Everyone's a potential nutter
    If that's so, it's all the more reason why guns should not be readily available.

    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.
    And a nutter who doesn't own a gun is a much less serious threat. You can often run away from a thug, but you can't run away from a gun.

  6. #36
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,956
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    In the US statistics show areas with gun control are LESS SAFE than areas without it.. In the USA the phrase 'More guns, less crime' is actually true.. However people just claim the 'correlation doesn't equal causation' line to try and dismiss it.
    That's because correlation really doesn't necessarily equal causation. And that is not something that just applies to arguments against gun control but also to some arguments for them. For instance, Australia has not had a mass gun shooting since Port Arthur, although there were several in the 80s and early 90s. Does this prove gun control has stopped mass shootings in Australia? No it doesn't.

    Crime goes up and down in waves for reasons often completely unrelated to gun availability. If the crime rate is rising, then gun control is introduced because of this, and it continues rising, then that doesn't prove that gun control has caused the rise. It may well have curtailed it. Your claims are very similar to John Lott's. Jono mentioned above that Lott had replied to his critics. His critics have then replied again, and they write:

    "But after seeing this Reply to the original Lott, Plassmann, and Whitley paper [I suspect this is Lott's "reply" which Jono refers to-KB], Lott
    asked the Stanford Law Review to take his name off the work. We hope that
    this indicates that the arguments in our Reply have caused the primary
    proponent of the more guns, less crime hypothesis to at least partially amend
    his views. We note that to this day, legislators are still voting for the adoption of concealed-carry laws while citing Lott’s work."

    Thus Jono's claim that Lott has replied to his critics appears to be incorrect, unless there is another reply. The final version of "Confirming More Guns, Less Crime" was actually written by Plassman and Whiteley without Lott as an author.

    Most statistics show that less people are killed in Australia with guns even before gun control, because Australians have never been really into guns like the Americans were..
    What are these "most statistics" you refer to?

    And even still, Canada has more guns per capita than the US yet has less gun related deaths.
    But are these cases comparable? A gun in a poor urban ghetto is far more likely to kill someone who isn't its owner than a gun owned by a farmer or hunter living in a sparsely populated area. I'd expect Canada to have more of the latter and less of the former per head of population. Even if not, economic inequality would be less severe in Canada and I expect it would correlate strongly with crime.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 21-10-2007 at 09:59 PM.

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielBell
    In the US statistics show areas with gun control are LESS SAFE than areas without it.. In the USA the phrase 'More guns, less crime' is actually true.. However people just claim the 'correlation doesn't equal causation' line to try and dismiss it. Most statistics show that less people are killed in Australia with guns even before gun control, because Australians have never been really into guns like the Americans were.. And even still, Canada has more guns per capita than the US yet has less gun related deaths. Canada has gun control in place however the point still stands that more guns do not equal more crime.
    The problem in the US is that if you live in a state with significant gun control laws, it is trivially easy to cross a border to another state to obtain guns. Illegally obtaining hand guns in Australia however is substantially more difficult.

  8. #38
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    12,628
    Reminds me of a story I heard where a traveller sheltering from the rain under someone's awning got his head blown off for his trouble.

  9. #39
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    Reminds me of a story I heard where a traveller sheltering from the rain under someone's awning got his head blown off for his trouble.
    which reminds me of the story of the guy scratching his bottom getting struck by lightning

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    The problem in the US is that if you live in a state with significant gun control laws, it is trivially easy to cross a border to another state to obtain guns.
    This proves Jefferson's point. Same with Virginia Tech. I.e., gun control laws harm the law-abiding and enable the scum.

    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    Illegally obtaining hand guns in Australia however is substantially more difficult.
    Point. All the same, the infamous gun massacre that led JH to confiscate our guns was possible only because everyone was defenceless. As Lott documented, many times a massacre has been prevented because another citizen had access to a gun.
    “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.

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Jay Leno:

    A new study found that screeners at L.A. International Airport missed 75 percent of the big bombs that were sent through the line as tests. However, they did confiscate 100 percent of people’s water bottles, which forced them to buy new ones at the airport gift shop.

    What else do you expect from government-run things? Overlooking real bombs, but making sure that they confiscate the nail scissors of little old arthritic grandmothers, after making them take bend down in arthritic pain to remove their shoes. Well, can't have Granny telling the pilot, "Take us to Mecca or I'll clip your nails to death!"
    “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.

  12. #42
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383

    The Dangerously Unaware & Uninformed

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Jay Leno:

    A new study found that screeners at L.A. International Airport missed 75 percent of the big bombs that were sent through the line as tests. However, they did confiscate 100 percent of people’s water bottles, which forced them to buy new ones at the airport gift shop.

    What else do you expect from government-run things? Overlooking real bombs, but making sure that they confiscate the nail scissors of little old arthritic grandmothers, after making them take bend down in arthritic pain to remove their shoes. Well, can't have Granny telling the pilot, "Take us to Mecca or I'll clip your nails to death!"
    But people still worship their government,still think their precious government loves them,and never lies to them.
    It matters not how many documented false flags government commits, nor how many frauds like man made GW ,War on drugs or War on terror they propogate. It matters not how monitored or surveilled we are, nor does it matter how grossly ill informed we are by our media. They still will back the government line every time without so much as a whimpering question.

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    But people still worship their government,still think their precious government loves them,and never lies to them.
    It matters not how many documented false flags government commits, nor how many frauds like man made GW ,War on drugs or War on terror they propogate. It matters not how monitored or surveilled we are, nor does it matter how grossly ill informed we are by our media. They still will back the government line every time without so much as a whimpering question.
    Yeah, one wonders whether the crap that airline passengers are subjected to is a test to see how much BS they will put up with from government flunkies. Far too many of them still think that the more annoyed and harrassed they are by the Airport Gestapo, the safer the flight will be.
    “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.

  14. #44
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,956
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    What else do you expect from government-run things? Overlooking real bombs, but making sure that they confiscate the nail scissors of little old arthritic grandmothers, after making them take bend down in arthritic pain to remove their shoes. Well, can't have Granny telling the pilot, "Take us to Mecca or I'll clip your nails to death!"
    Yeah, I almost had the back door key to my house confiscated because it distantly resembles a screwdriver and there was a concern I might dismantle an aeroplane with it. In the end I was allowed to transport it as checked-in baggage in a huge zipup white red and blue plastic bag by its own. Which was nice, because I got to keep the bag.

  15. #45
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,661
    Good grief, more nonsense. Always trying to foil the previous terrorist attack. They must be laughing. Yet another 9-11 would probably need about half the passengers to be terrorists; if they tried again with a handful of terrorists armed with boxcutters, the other passengers would tear them limb from limb (apart from the civil libertarians ).
    “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 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •