so you think I am RC?
pretty funny, actually...
easy enough to check
ask the admin to check my IP and verify that I am not RC or in Aus
i don't use an anonymizer.
& I don't live in Australia.
You, however...?
p.s. sometimes i forget to capitalize. i have large fingers. call it a personal quirk and deal with it
Your attempt to project onto others is noted. While I may live in Australia, it does not mean that I am Undefined.
It is not a matter that you forget to capitalise. It is that you react to things exactly as he does and you both have a tendency to capitalise certain words to try to prove your point. Your sentence structures are virtually identical and then there is the issue that you just can't stop bringing him up. It is exactly the pattern that he has and has followed here and on other forums where he is also a known pest.
Ok. I see what happened there now.
I made a mistake. I apologize for that.
I still stand by the comments about living in cali, etc however.
and I do think that the graph is not accurate, but until I can find proof of that, all I can say is that it does not seem right to me - especially based upon personal experience.
If I can verify that, I will
Until then, apologies for the misread. That is my mistake
I pays to read the links provided instead of dismissing them and then trying to declare that they are wrong when you haven't even read them properly.
As for California, that is debatable.
Gun restrictions there saw a drop in gun violence, a greater drop than across the country.
I found them to be exactly about what you were talking about.
you said
and the studies that I linked found no correlation in the US between the restrictive Brady Bill laws and the drop in crime or firearm deaths
Seems VERY relevant to your claims.
You claim states with gun restrictions have fewer gun related deaths, and the study said that the restrictions that were implemented and designed in the law to do exatly that were not found to affect the overall rate of killing except suicide for persons 55 or older.
Wasn't the Brady Law survey about withholding guns while gun checks were completed on new gun purchases? There is also the fact that the study it self is flawed and they note this on the first page, because as they say:
However, the pattern of implementation of the Brady Act does not permit a reliable analysis of a potential effect of reductions in the flow of guns from treatment-state gun dealers into secondary markets
If you want an example of just how effective
gun control can be:
In the renewed debate over gun control sparked by the mass shooting in Newtown, CT, one of the most widely discussed data points has been the case study in Australia — where, following the worst mass shooting in the nation’s history, gun control policy may have effectively suppressed gun-related suicides.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman shot and killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania. In response, Australian Prime Minister John Howard — a close alley of President George W. Bush — oversaw the passage of sweeping new gun control legislation. Semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns were banned, and a mandatory government buyback program was enacted to collect those weapons. The results, rounded up by the Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews and Slate’s Will Oremus, were striking:
[H]omicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.
Since there was no corresponding rise in homicides or suicides not involving firearms, individuals weren’t simply shifting to other methods to harm themselves or others. They were actually deciding against committing acts of violence in the absence of easy access to guns. Researchers found that a buyback of 3,500 guns per 100,000 people reduced the firearm suicide rate by as much as 74 percent:
So your attempts to dismiss it is laughable.
Now, the 'Brady Law' is in no way comparable to what we have here in Australia. At all. An
over the phone check and a possible 3 day waiting period compared to:
Gun ownership requires a license, and every sale is subject to a 28-day waiting period. The licensing process considers not only the applicant's age and criminal convictions, but also a range of other factors relevant to possession of a product that is (a) designed for killing and (b) highly coveted by people who should not have it. Relevant factors include the applicant's living circumstances, mental and physical health, restraining orders or other encounters with the law, type of gun desired and for what purpose, safety training, storage arrangements, and the public interest.
Police make whatever inquiries they think necessary to inform the decision on whether (or under what conditions) the license should be granted. This can include checking with neighbourhood police, the family doctor and especially spouses or partners. There are many red flags that do not appear in an automated computer record of criminal convictions: substance abuse, mental instability, conflict at home or at work, to name a few. Another risk factor is whether granting the license might make guns accessible to another household member whose own circumstances would disqualify them from a license – for example, a depressed teenager or a person with criminal convictions.
The screening process serves to block dangerous or irresponsible candidates, but also underscores for applicants and their families that bringing home a gun is a serious decision which affects the entire household, and indeed the entire community. Many applicants abandon their request during the waiting period – dissuaded by family members, or simply because the momentary enthusiasm for gun ownership passes.
The difference and the result of those differences speak for themselves.
Ok. let me re-state for clarity
Yes, I will argue that you need to be able to defend yourself from criminals when there are no police.
this is not a rubbish argument, it is one of personal safety out of necessity and one that has been needed in the past
so the part where you state
is itself absurd in its inference that somehow my life or my families safety/life is not worth protecting
When I defend myself, I defend as needed based upon my training
I am not trying to be the Punnisher (c), I am trying to insure that I have the opportunity to do what I want with life.
A criminal who wishes to violate my rights will have to contend with that.
Although I do feel that everyone should have their day in court, I also am very practical in that: If a person is blatantly violating the law and is attempting to take my life, then I have every right to defend myself.
Nowhere is it said that I should stand there and allow any criminal to take advantage of me. This is also only reinforcing their illegal behavior.
IF a criminal makes a decision to commit a crime, it is not usually a matter of a well thought out plan. It is more likely to be spontaneous or decided through a percieved weakness in the victim. If it gets violent, it is usually because the offender has a history of violence. If it gets deadly it is usually because the offender has a history of escalation to and or deadly attempts.
Based upon this it is the right of anyone to defend themselves with the requisite force needed to subdue or stop the crime/criminal. My training is the use of equal force for reprisal (you don't call in an airstrike for a kid throwing rocks at your tank)
This is a logical deduction, IMHO, based upon my experience in the various places I have lived as well as the various situations I have been in as well as the law I have read.
It is not a matter of taking the law into my own hands, because I know full well that my actions will result in an investigation and that I will have to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that I felt the force used was required.
You are anticipating killing someone. In other words, you own firearms with the specific intent of killing someone based off the belief or anticipation that you will or may be attacked. Australians don't really think that way. Americans do.
A significant legal and cultural difference between our two countries: Australia doesn't accept anticipation of killing another person (self-defence) as a reason for owning a gun. To qualify for a handgun license, you must belong to and regularly attend a target shooting club.
An important feature of a licence is that it must be renewed every few years, and it can be cancelled or suspended if the bearer no longer meets the standard required – for example, due to domestic violence or a dangerous mental condition.
Australia didn't ban guns. Hunting and shooting are still thriving. But by adopting laws that give priority to public safety, we have saved thousands of lives.
I guess the difference is that we value public safety more and as a result, to be allowed to own a gun is a privilege.
this is a matter of
LAW.
Even a self defense case requires a detailed investigation, and if the person defending themselves is highly trained, then the investigation is actually much more involved. it is a matter of law and order, and it is detailed in federal, state and local statutes in the united states.
supported by the following case law
http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/united-states-v-peterson-483-f-2d-1222-dc-circuit-1973/
you can see the above quotes spelled out on WIKI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
this is readily available, and though you may not appreciate Wiki, it also provides links to studies and case law in the article for your perusal
(Perhaps you can tell everyone how accurate the wiki link for Aus is? make corrections as needed)
so it is not an absurd assumption, nor is it an absurd argument, because
the right to self protection and self preservation is a fundamental right and is hard wired by nature.
Oh I don't mind Wiki. But I will take proper studies over it. It's a good and easy reference point, but it isn't always correct.
And you are mistaken. While the preservation of one's life is hard wired in nature in that our survival is often paramount (and I say often because most of us would willingly give our life to protect our loved ones), the use of firearms for self preservation or self protection is not a fundamental right, nor is it hardwired by nature. Your right to own a gun by your Constitution is not for self defense as you see it.
As for shooting in self defense, the Zimmerman case is a prime example of just how wrong it often is, when you consider that Zimmerman's case was initially dismissed until the public outcry at shooting an unarmed teenager could be so easily dismissed resulted in a deeper investigation and prosecution. In fact, as the Zimmerman case showed, even though the police believed he should be prosecuted, the Prosecutor determined it wasn't worth the State's time and initially did not prosecute. So no, your claim that the investigation is very much involved and is a matter of law is easily defeated. The law often does not bother with such investigations or prosecutions and most of the time,
they are able to just get their guns back with little to no investigation.
Courts have granted immunity to a man who went back to his car to get a gun, and another who shot an acquaintance for threatening to beat him up. The Stand Your Ground law has now been infused into the self-defense jurisprudence in Florida and elsewhere, and comes into play in countless trials. But those who avail themselves of the law’s most expansive protection may be granted immunity by a judge before trial even begins, or may not even be charged at all. Just last week, officers in Arizona opted not to charge a man who shot dead a fellow patron at a Wal-Mart after an argument he said he was losing. In the past few months alone, Florida judges granted immunity to a man who shot dead two 24-year-olds after he went back to his car to get his gun, and another who shot dead a mentally ill acquaintance who he says threatened to beat him up. Even when cases go before a jury, both the defense lawyer and jury instructions frequently advise jurors to consider the law, as was the case when a panel deadlocked on the charge of first degree murder for Michael Dunn.
In Florida alone, 26 children and teens were killed in Stand Your Ground cases. Martin and Jordan Davis were two of 26 children and teens killed in Florida Stand Your Ground cases, according to a Tampa Bay Times breakdown by age and race. The law was unsuccessfully invoked in the shooting of a child as young as 9 years old. It has played a role in at least 134 fatal cases, affecting the calculus of law enforcement on an arrest, factoring in jury decisions, or granting defendants immunity from trial. And these figures are likely an understatement of its impact; even when it is not directly cited in a legal defense, it promotes vigilantism because a person who could reasonably retreat to safety has no duty to under the law.
Florida and Georgia are considering an expansion of Stand Your Ground laws. At least 24 states have Stand Your Ground-like laws. Despite their notoriety, Ohio advanced a bill to pass its own law, and Alaska joined the list when Gov. Sean Parnell (R) signed the bill into law at a shooting range. Now, Florida and Georgia are now considering expansions of their existing statutes. After a Florida repeal effort failed last year, the legislature instead began considering an NRA-backed bill expands immunity to those who point a gun at an attacker or fire a gun as a self-defense threat or warning. The sweeping bill removes all legal liability for anyone who successfully use the defense, and is vague on the circumstances in which it can be applied. While the Georgia Senate has also pushed a repeal of Stand Your Ground, the House considered its own expansion of its existing law that would allow individuals to invoke the defense for shootings on public transportation. Despite efforts in several states, none has successfully repealed a Stand Your Ground law.
White-on-black homicides are 354 percent more likely to be ruled justified than white-on-white. A field of research confirms the racial bias that comes into play when juries and judges consider Stand Your Ground defenses. According to the Urban Institute, in Stand Your Ground states, white-on-black homicides are 354 percent more likely to be ruled justified than white-on-white homicides. In cases with black or Hispanic victims, the killings were found justified by the Stand Your Ground law 78 percent of the time, compared to 56 percent in cases with white victims. Without looking specifically at Stand Your Ground, another report from the Congressional Research Service on inter-racial shootings nationwide found disparity at work in which inter-racial shootings were ruled justified. In its first major investigation in decades, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission is now assessing the role race plays in Stand Your Ground laws.
Shooters who successfully invoke Stand Your Ground get their guns back. This week, a man who gained immunity after he fatally shot a friend had his guns returned as required by Florida law, even though the judge who granted his request thought it was a bad idea. This principle has also allowed Zimmerman to hold onto his guns, even after several run-ins of the law. Since his trial, Zimmerman has been accused of multiple standoffs involving his gun, twice facing brief charges of threatening his ex-wife and former girlfriend with a weapon. But once the charges were dropped, he could reclaim his small arsenal of assault rifles and handguns.
... re: excellent gun laws: as well as mostly ignored and unsupported
Which clearly shows how absurd your argument is. To disregard gun laws that have, clearly, reduced gun violence by such a large proportion, shows that you are clearly not interested in reducing gun violence. Only interested in keeping your own guns.
i have also said that we have excellent laws if we were able to put enforcement into them.
Is that what you call it?
As I noted above and previously, your gun laws are a non-event. The gun lobby in your country is so strong that it bans scientists from studying the true numbers or effects of gun violence in your country. Worse still, the gun lobby in your country has repeatedly and constantly even argued against a gun registry or register, for safety checks.
My state has had more than 13 repeat offenders with violent criminal pasts and felonies arrested for violent crimes, including a shooting this year. (I am sticking to cases that I personally know of right now. there are obviously more and this can be verified by DOJ stats:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=31 )
those criminals are back on the street today - some after only being incarcerated for less than 9 months
One threatened an entire family with death, burning them out, tried to shoot one member of the family and tried to attack another with a machete. He is out after only 3 days in county jail because he flipped on a pot smoker who had ten plants.
This man lives near enough for a European to walk to my house and I have escorted him off my property before. He is mentally unstable and is on anti-psychotic medication which he regularly abuses then stops. He also owns firearms (illegal as he is a felon). The police know this but cannot do anything about it because he is protected as a narc by the prosecuting atty's.
Sounds absolutely implausible.. But I'll take your word for it.
The NRA supports his ability to obtain and keep a gun because it has consistently argued against background checks against such individuals.
Must bring you comfort. Remember that next time you vote for your gun rights.
now THIS is a travesty of justice. and this is something worth fighting about.
This is something that addresses the core problem as well.
it is something that I fight against continually around here.
like I said. we DO have excellent laws. and a lot of times those laws are not enforced like they should be. and sometimes we have idiots protected by higher ups who want something from them so they get a free pass.
THAT is the core problem that I see here in the US
not THAT we have guns
but that we have people who cannot, or will not enforce the laws that we already have in order to protect the public
And again with the capitalisation of words...
Do you think this makes your argument stronger?
If you are against such "travesty of justice", perhaps next time you won't vote for your gun rights. The gun lobby in the US fully disagrees with any laws that could have kept such individuals being able to obtain a firearm.
you got your panties in a wad because I corrected you and now you are out for long-winded revenge.
i showed you where I felt people were coming from when you asked
you obviously don't like it because you actually said
but they were about exactly what we were talking about.
Beg yours? I admitted my mistake and corrected myself. You spent how long misrepresenting what I posted because you have comprehension issues when it comes to printed text?
I don't hate him. I just don't like his BS
I've actually been using quite a lot of his posts on a project I am working on.
and I DON'T know Fraggle
and he has never chosen to share anything with me
You are doing a study on how badly some crazy people understand or interpret science?
I would suggest you stop bringing him up or going on about him. Might help your cause a bit better. Because right now, you're just coming off as being as much of a loon as he is because your manner of posting is virtually identical, so much so that few could pick the two of you apart.
