Australian crime statistics since the gun ban - homicides DOWN

such as it is for the compliant socialist..........always willing to give it all up to government. And yes they have. Cars, house, savings account all without due process of law. It took me 20 years to lean how to get it all back plus interest on those twenty years. They used a number call Social Security and attached everything to that number and took all those things they deemed valuable because of their (*)(*)(*)(*) up. Seems a little person in the IRS didn't like me telling him he was wrong (which he was). He'd been promoted several times during our battles but when I finally got my day in court, he was nowhere to be found and they lost. Had to return the monetary value for what they took without due process plus interest for those twenty years.
Your tone suggests that you love being a subject instead of a free citizen? Those born into slavery are taught to think like slaves, live like slaves, and try to ensnare others into the slave status. Monkeys around the tree, taught they cannot have the banana in the tree by shock, pull new monkeys down who try to go after the bananas. You are Canuck, so you have no Rights, you are a slave to your government. We do things differently here. We fight back, even against the other monkeys who would pull us down to their level. Everything is registered? So you DO need permission to take a crap and use the government's Toilet paper. You don't even have a Right to your own life. Isn't socialism nice.......... you pay taxes on (*)(*)(*)(*) you don't own.

 

See I was just gonna say that LOL

 

If some would- be killer angel cant get a gun, whats to do?

How about.... gasoline bomb at a crowded disco!

How would that assail ya?

 

oh facts schmadacts, you are just being tiresome! You know none of this is about facts, its about feee-lings.

 

Another cowboy interpretation of the second Amendment that completely disregards the reality of hundreds of gun control laws on the books already over the years that have never been challenged on a constitutional basis.

 

I'm an Australian.

1999/2000 were abormally on the high end of the violent crime scale, 2004/2005 were abnormally on the low end. Comparing them as in your second image is misleading.

Additionally, we've had significant increases in assaults and other types of crime. I did a paper on this for my criminology unit, check ABS all the stats are there.

At a stretch all you've shown here is a correlation.


Anyway, I wouldn't give a hoot even if violent crime obviously dropped off significantly, as I want to own a firearm, and I shouldn't have to go through onerous licensing designed to discourage firearm ownership. I'm doing nothing wrong, I enjoy collecting guns. I enjoy shooting. I enjoy having a weapon around for self defense should the need arise. I shouldn't have to explain my intent to the state. If they can prove that I have or I intend to use my firearm coerceively, then we can talk, not before.

The gun debate has always been over the right of the individual. Pointing out statistics that show gun crime drops when you restrict ownership adds nothing. I'm quite ready to acknowledge that less guns = less gun crime, but that doesn't mean squat. I have the right not to be harassed without evidence.


This is partly why I hate politics in this country. For those who don't know, in Australia every single politician and the vast, vast majority of citizens only care about consequences. They take no time to consider the liberties involved. I'm surprised we aren't just throwing the accused into prison without trials.

Sigh.

 

Mate - ever seen a gunshot wound? I have. 20 years in ICU - looked after people shot in the face - noses and eye orbits MISSING just gaping stinking wounds. Please do not tell me that you want what America has

 

Let's see, guns banned and you decry the fact that gun homicides are down in Australia, THEY HAD BETTER BE!!! But other crimes are up;


It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
•In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
•Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
•During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
•Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
•Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
•At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
•Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

 

wow..............what a weak response...complete with insult and slur. You are proud of this reply, aren't you?

 

Gunshot wound with the concomitant pressure wave disruption of adjoining tissue, tissue which often liquifies, becomes gangrenous and sloughy or a nice clean knife wound

Your choice

And the NCPA - been discredited in fact those misleading stats were why I started this thread and even if you take a cursory look at the Australian official statistics you will see what a lot of lying bastards the NCPA really are

 

I assure you there is nothing nice and clean about a knife wound. (Yes I have been stabbed) while I would not choose to be shot. I would not make light of something physically and psychologically painful, and very slow to heal.

 

My choice is to have the opportunity to shoot them first!!! Why would I want to allow them to have guns and not myself??? I would say that you are in a state of denial when it comes to crime in Australia. Your problem, not mine.

 

Ever seen a terrorist bomb? Let's torture terror suspects.

Ever seen a murderer get off on a technicality then kill a witness? Let's summarily execute murder suspects we're certain about.

Ever seen a criminal shank someone in prison? Let's reenact the death penalty.


My point is that regardless of the dire consequences there are liberties which cannot be transgressed.

 

You follow the American example and you will end with the same problems they have

All for a belief in myths

NRA myths

 

If you think I get my views from the NRA you're mistaken. I'm an NAP libertarian, everything derives from that.

 

You're not referencing these kinds of knife wounds for being clean and good, are you?
CAUTION GRPHIC:




Got a million more of these where knife wounds are so much neater and cleaner...what a load of hooey!

 

Hmmmm - and I do admit that the gun laws were an inconvenience to graziers BUT it was worth a small inconvenience. The pool fencing laws were inconvenient to anyone owning a pool, the seat belt laws are an inconvenience to anyone owning or even riding in a car, jaywalking laws, DUI laws, heck even murder laws are an "inconvenience" to someone!!

Do you have a better argument for relaxing gun laws than it is an "inconvenience" - one that I cannot trace back to the NRA?

PS I live in "Katter country" and yes his IQ is inversely proportional to the hat

 

It's not a matter of being inconvenienced, it's about being coerced. Being forced into something without your consent. I personally find this to be abhorrent, but you don't also have to. You're welcome to go on advocating the destruction of my freedoms all you like. Nothing I can really do about it, so why bother?

Yeah, laws in general are unjust because there was no initial consent. Sounds insane, but read into private law systems and it becomes plausible. We're all living in this reality anyway - the government's laws are no different than those of the mafia - I can't change them, they just are. A protection racket is one restriction on my ability, as is legislation. I learned long ago that it doesn't matter if nature restricts me or other humans do. If I can't change either then there's no point getting frustrated over it.

What an interesting requirement, sort of like a reverse argument from authority.

The non-aggression principle existed long before the NRA did. Precursors go back thousands of years. The fact that the NRA comes along and agrees with one of the positions of the principle (while despising the principle itself) means nothing.

This is a personal creed I live by. I don't initiate force against others. I don't demand that you also live by it - do what you like.

I'd suggest that consequentialism and axiomatic reasoning are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. You can't hold both for different positions. Pick one and stick with it.

You can't simultaneously hold that torturing terrorists is wrong because it violates their rights, and that gun control is desirable because it leads to better consequences. Either the former condenses down to a consequences based argument (and it doesn't), or you're stuck with a contradiction.

Haha, that's cool. I heard him on talk radio a few weeks back going on about how work visas take jobs from Australians. He doesn't get that those jobs aren't owed to Australians.

I've agreed with him on a few things, but he's wrong on too much stuff. More of a "common-sense" conservative, as I like to call them. Like Pauline Hanson, but less racist.

 

You misunderstand me - why I am against torture and pro gun "control" is that I am guided by the ethical principle

"First do no harm"

All the research I have read, and it has been considerable, especially medical literature, suggests a home is safer WITHOUT a gun


As for "freedoms", although you talk as if you are an anarchist, if "freedom" relies on a gun you have already lost. Freedom must be fought with words and actions not guns

 

Alright, but you have to decide if by this you take a consequentialist perspective (do whatever creates the least net harm), or an axiomatic stance (don't harm anyone for any reason, even to help others).

Some of your posts have taken the former, some the latter. By not choosing either you betray both.

Alright, so this is the former, yet the Hippocratic oath would vehemently denounce this sort of reasoning. You're not allowed to, for example - kill a patient if his organs could save the lives of 10 kids.

Pick one.

I guess I am an anarchist, I don't want a state ruling over me. I don't want to smash the state or anything though, as I realize that it's out of my control.

The problem with your reasoning comes in when you ask how you're going to enforce this prohibition on guns. With guns! Well, you don't so much want to get rid of guns, but give a monopoly to a certain bunch of people (the state). You can't just not have guns. It doesn't work like that.

I believe all men are equal under the principle of non-aggression, and hence should have equality of liberty unless they freely consent to that liberty being reduced.



Again, believe what you want, I'm just stating my opinion. I don't make normative statements.

 

Dear gods - sequential strawmen!!

 

I'd appreciate if you pointed out how I've strawmanned your position - I've only talked to you like 5 times on an internet forum, how am I meant to know exactly what your position is? That's the purpose of discussion - to exchange views, rather than proclaiming that I've misrepresented your views and declaring victory with an internet GIF.

 

Another example of reading into my posts

Where did I claim victory?

So, now we have gone past the assumptions we can get down to real basics

No1. I don't like to see people hurt - had to patch up too many and after you have seen your first gunshot would to the face you will NEVER want to see another. I have seen too many one was a teen, parents left him home with a new gun. His face was ruined for life, my first impression Raspberry jam donut with a tube in the middle - and the SMELL!! There is nothing like it. See gunshot cause shockwave in tissue so it is not just the entrance wound but a large area of disrupted tissue

If you want I will post pictures but let me say that most are very gruesome

As for my actual position on guns - apart from a rabid hate of the NRA spawned myths, which I think at least partially drives the high gun death rate in the USA by engendering an unhealthy social view of guns I do believe the restrictions we have put in place have been helpful. Of all of these the requirement to keep guns locked when not in use is one of the most important in reducing gun related deaths

 

You responded to an 8 line post with an funny pic and accusations that I misrepresented your position. I apologize, now can you please explain to me in more detail what that position entails so I don't make the same mistake again? You ignored the clarification I requested.

Thanks

Please, go into a little more depth. I realize that you think gunshot wounds are gruesome, I agree with you. There are more adult issues at hand here. In my previous post I tried to gather what exactly you mean by do no harm. There are two ways to go about this, either you personally do no harm period, regardless of the consequences, or do no net harm to all the individuals involved (but harm may be permitted to individuals so long as it advances the collective). This is a really basic distinction, please get back to me on which side of the fence you fall on, or if you think this is a false dichotomy please explain how and what your alternative is.

I agree, but as stjames1_53 pointed out, knife wounds are also terribly gruesome. Clearly there's something that separates these two. Some reason why guns should be prohibited but knives shouldn't. I realize that this probably seems like an NRA talking point, and to some degree I'd agree with you, but it raises a good point: how come some objects which do terrible harm should be outlawed, but others not?

If you think that it's because guns are much more devastating in the injuries they cause, then fine - say that. If you think it's because it's impractical to outlaw knives, but not guns - fine, say that. If you think knives should be prohibited then fine - say that. Just tell me something. I can't avoid strawmanning your position if you won't tell me what it is.

Now we're getting somewhere! This implies to me that you take the consequentialist route: net harm is the ultimate undesirable.

I have no love for the NRA. I think they're a bunch of ridiculous posers taking advantage of people for political influence. That doesn't change my views, because I couldn't care less what the NRA thinks - my opinions are not based on their doctrine. Even when I was a Progressive I was against gun control. Why? Because I was always a progressive who came from a 'principled' standpoint. I'm not a consequentialist.


If you want gun control feel free to enact it. I can't stop you. What I do know is that a few decades down the line we'll have easy access to 3D printers, and when this happens it's the end for all gun control. Sure, you'll be able to restrict firearm ownership like now, but any crazy who wants to shoot up a school can simply print out an AR-15 which shoots ~250 rounds before breaking. At this point you'll only be restricting legitimate gun use, it will have no effect on criminals at all.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your perspective on all of this.

Thanks

 

again, this is what you think is better .......see post #191