The Daily Wire: More guns, more crime? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 19 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »

More guns, more crime?

#21 User is offline   Frogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 31-October 11
  • LocationPerth

Posted 25 May 2012 - 03:53 PM

View PostRoderick, on 25 May 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

America is almost always cited as the example of 'More guns means more crime' and as gun ownership has gone up there and crime has fallen then, on the same terms one can say that 'More guns means less crime.
citation needed.

Quote

Self defence is a Right therefore as a gun is often the only means of defence it is also a Right.

citation needed.

You can say all the things you want. That doesnt make them true. You need to prove what you are saying beyond simply "I said it, so it must be right"
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#22 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 25 May 2012 - 05:20 PM

View PostFrogman, on 25 May 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:


Quote

Roderick, on 25 May 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:
America is almost always cited as the example of 'More guns means more crime' and as gun ownership has gone up there and crime has fallen then, on the same terms one can say that 'More guns means less crime.

citation needed.

Quote

Quote
Self defence is a Right therefore as a gun is often the only means of defence it is also a Right

citation needed.

You can say all the things you want. That doesnt make them true. You need to prove what you are saying beyond simply "I said it, so it must be right"


Crime rates across the USA have been falling since 1980; the table at:
Table, crime stats USA My link
clearly shows a downward trend from 1980 to 2009.

During this period there was a large increase in gun ownership and concealed and open carrying of pistols.
The table is from the United States Census Bureau.

Self defence is a right that is so obvious that it needs no citation, as is the right to life or do you need a citation for that also?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#23 User is offline   Frogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 683
  • Joined: 31-October 11
  • LocationPerth

Posted 31 May 2012 - 10:51 AM

I wanted a citation on "a gun is often the only means of defense" You also need to prove the link between gun ownership and crime rates.

Case in point.

Posted Image

That graph clearly shows a link between the quality of rock songs and levels of oil production in the US, which clearly arent linked in anyway whatsoever.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#24 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:33 PM

View PostFrogman, on 31 May 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

That graph clearly shows a link between the quality of rock songs and levels of oil production in the US, which clearly arent linked in anyway whatsoever.


Come on Frogman, if you're going to paste a frivolous contrived graph, at least give us a link.

Your point remains valid of course.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#25 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 31 May 2012 - 02:37 PM

The Daily Caller Gun Giveaway

Posted Image

Quote

The Daily Caller will be giving away one gun per week until Election Day: November 6, 2012.

Got to be in it to win it.

Despite the sadly limited number of eligible potential winners, a competition like this in Australia would prompt some subdued conversation
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#26 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 31 May 2012 - 04:34 PM

View PostFrogman, on 31 May 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

I wanted a citation on "a gun is often the only means of defense" You also need to prove the link between gun ownership and crime rates.
. . . . .
That graph clearly shows a link between the quality of rock songs and levels of oil production in the US, which clearly arent linked in anyway whatsoever.


I don't need to prove anything, I don't think that there is any connection between crime rates and gun ownership, that's the mantra of the various Gun Control 'groups' and, of course, our resident anti-gun Green brigade.

A gun is often the only means of effective defence, that's one of the reasons that policemen have them. That's why the Courts have ruled that the use of a firearm was justified in some cases.

Nice graph. :P
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#27 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 August 2012 - 01:35 PM

Further to this, and the absolute ban on possessing anything with the intention of defending oneself, anywhere.
Victorian Police Poster

Quote

LAWFUL EXCUSE DOES NOT INCLUDE SELF DEFENCE
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#28 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:29 PM

View PostRoderick, on 25 May 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

America is almost always cited as the example of 'More guns means more crime' and as gun ownership has gone up there and crime has fallen then, on the same terms one can say that 'More guns means less crime.

Self defence is a Right therefore as a gun is often the only means of defence it is also a Right.

I didn't cite the US in this way at all.

There has been plenty of debate about this 'rights' issue elsewhere, has there not?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#29 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 August 2012 - 04:46 PM

View Postscotto, on 20 August 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

I didn't cite the US in this way at all.

There has been plenty of debate about this 'rights' issue elsewhere, has there not?

Perhaps not, but plenty of others have; it's a mantra of the Greens and Gun Control,
There has indeed and self defence is a right, a right moreover upheld by the Courts.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#30 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 August 2012 - 07:02 PM

Seems that now the PM is being accused of being pro-shooter by Gun Control Australia, which now apparently has five members.

Quote

Gillard only has ears for us
20 Aug 2012
Mick Matheson
Howard and Hawke saved thousands of Australian lives, but Julia Gillard only takes advice from ‘ruthless’ shooters, according to wild claims by Gun Control Australia.
GCA, which has previously demanded the government ban shooters from giving any advice to government, is now implying no one but shooters are being given that privilege.
The comments about former prime ministers John Howard and Bob Hawke, and current PM Julia Gillard, were made in a statement on the GCA website introducing a re-published version of Howard’s recent anti-gun opinion piece.
“Both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are happy to be advised by panels consisting of shooters only – shooters who, for the most part, are dedicated to destroying the Hawke and Howard gun controls that have saved thousands of Australian lives,” GCA says.
“Australia is fortunate to have had such leaders who stood up to our ruthlessly selfish gun lobby,” it says. “How tragic, then, that our present PM will not represent the needs of the Australian people today and do the same.”
GCA uses over-simplified calculations and generalisations to tally the lives saved, saying it estimates “over 400 fewer gun suicides now take place each year because of the success of stricter gun laws.”
However, Australia’s suicide rate among men over the 20 years to 2008 has remained relatively stable, ranging from 20 per 100,000 population to a peak of about 24 per 100,000 in 1997 and a low of around 14 in 2006, since when it has climbed again.
Among females, the rate has stayed close to 5 suicides per 100,000 during that period.
The nation’s murder rate has declined steadily through that time, from roughly 6 per 100,000 to just under 2 per 100,000, with no significant change when Howard’s gun laws were introduced after 2006.
GCA quotes a 2010 study that claimed “the [gun] buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates.”
However, that study contrasted strongly with the results of work by Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedron, authors of 2008 research that concluded the non-firearm suicide rate had not fallen as quickly as other forms of suicide. This study suggested prominent suicide prevention programs had been beneficial.
The authors of both studies had previously engaged in heated debate about statistics and research methods, in many ways pointing to the difficulty of coming up with hard conclusions about gun laws.
The figures on suicide may be even less reliable than thought, with claims that suicides in Australia are grossly under-reported and, rather than being at a low in the mid- to late-2000s, may have been as high as they were in the 1990s.
Using different methods again, University of Melbourne research published in 2008 concluded the National Firearms Agreement – part of the Howard anti-gun agenda – “did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.”
None of this has slowed Gun Control Australia’s selective and usually sensationalised use of information when it attacks what it calls “our ruthlessly selfish gun lobby”.
Its statement about the PM listening only to shooters presumably refers to the recent formation of the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council, a body established to represent shooters and the shooting industry.
It includes representatives of the police, customs and the attorney-general, and is one of many groups advising the government on firearm issues and laws, alongside state ministers, Australian and NZ police, customs, the Australian Institute of Criminology and others.


Here's a link to the misinformation of GCA,

Guns
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#31 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:15 PM

View PostRoderick, on 20 August 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Perhaps not, but plenty of others have; it's a mantra of the Greens and Gun Control,
There has indeed and self defence is a right, a right moreover upheld by the Courts.

Okay.... Talk to those others about this, in that case.

So there should be no problem, if the courts are upholding our rights. Why ask for guns?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#32 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 20 August 2012 - 09:49 PM

View Postscotto, on 20 August 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Okay.... Talk to those others about this, in that case.

So there should be no problem, if the courts are upholding our rights. Why ask for guns?

Only the right to self defence not the right to be able to have anything for the purpose, not even a walking stick.

There is one law for the rich and one for the rest of us.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#33 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 21 August 2012 - 06:06 AM

View PostRoderick, on 20 August 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Only the right to self defence not the rightto be able to have anything for the purpose, not even a walking stick.

There is one law for the rich and one for the rest of us.

Theoretical rights aside, there really isn't a statistical basis for supposing we need to carry around any kind of implement for self defense.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#34 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 21 August 2012 - 08:06 AM

View Postscotto, on 21 August 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

Theoretical rights aside, there really isn't a statistical basis for supposing we need to carry around any kind of implement for self defense.


There is a need for a walking stick, or similar, or do you suggest calling '000' as the fangs sink in?

Quote

Seventy five per cent of the dogs involved in attacks were uncontrolled and the attacks took place in public places.

The report showed in NSW there were 5140 reported attacks on humans and other animals in 2010-11, up 17 per cent on the previous year.

In Newcastle in same period there were 171 attacks, an increase of 11 per cent.

Newcastle Herald

See also :Report

Remember it is an offence to possess anything for the purpose of self defence; just put up with it if you get attacked, by anything.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#35 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 21 August 2012 - 10:23 PM

View PostRoderick, on 20 August 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Here's a link to the misinformation of GCA, Guns

Please don't repost a wall of text (which may be in breach of copyright) and wave your hands at it. It's not likely to lead to a productive discussion, nor is it a convincing rebuttal.

Demonstrate which points you find contentious, with citations to reliable neutral sources. You would then have the upper hand because the text you posted does not appear to include inline citations.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#36 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 21 August 2012 - 10:34 PM

View PostRoderick, on 21 August 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Remember it is an offence to possess anything for the purpose of self defence; just put up with it if you get attacked, by anything.

Learn martial arts. It's easier to conceal and is unlikely to fall into the wrong hands. It's not difficult to deal with an armed assailant (who will usually be armed with a melée weapon like a knife) even with basic unarmed self-defence techniques.

There's no need to resort to such drastic measures as to kill the alleged assailant with a gun. That is a path that is likely to lead to people going to jail for manslaughter for using excessive force. This also would happen with unarmed self defence but a knife makes such a mistake more difficult to avoid.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#37 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 22 August 2012 - 07:13 AM

View PostBam, on 21 August 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Please don't repost a wall of text (which may be in breach of copyright) and wave your hands at it. It's not likely to lead to a productive discussion, nor is it a convincing rebuttal.

Demonstrate which points you find contentious, with citations to reliable neutral sources. You would then have the upper hand because the text you posted does not appear to include inline citations.

Sorry about that, I only intended to post part, however it's a Press Release and not subject to copyright.
What the SSAA have to say can be taken as gospel, ever notice the Greens or Gun Control Australia saying that the SSAA have lied?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#38 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 22 August 2012 - 07:32 AM

View PostBam, on 21 August 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

Learn martial arts. It's easier to conceal and is unlikely to fall into the wrong hands. It's not difficult to deal with an armed assailant (who will usually be armed with a melée weapon like a knife) even with basic unarmed self-defence techniques.

There's no need to resort to such drastic measures as to kill the alleged assailant with a gun. That is a path that is likely to lead to people going to jail for manslaughter for using excessive force. This also would happen with unarmed self defence but a knife makes such a mistake more difficult to avoid.


I am an expert at unarmed combat, having been trained, at the expense of the Australian taxpayer, by a few of the most efficient killers that the Commandos produced in WW II.
Martial arts may be a distinct liability because if I, with my level of training, were to be attacked and my attacker sustained serious injury as a result, then it would be easy to contend that I used excessive force. Just as a professional boxer cannot hit someone, in defence, harder than necessary to deter the attack. Trained fighters are held to much stricter accountability than the ordinary citizen.

Besides which, in the real world, unarmed combat training is not much use against an attacking dog, I'd much rather have a walking stick.

I have never been anywhere near drunk since I was a 19 year old, because our Chief Instructor said to us at the completion of our Basic Course, "Gentlemen, with the level of skill and knowledge that you now have, just remember that you can never get drunk again with a clear conscience".

Words of wisdom that I've always remembered.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#39 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 22 August 2012 - 08:31 AM

Yes, look, it's always possible to be unlucky. For example, even if you're the best driver in the world someone else can wipe you out with a stupid move or and accident. So if you've got a gun an dog can still sneak up on you and bite you, no problem. And if you're an 'expert' martial artist you can still get stabbed, no problem, if you take on someone with a knife.

If there's some sense that carrying all kinds of weapons, including guns, can gaurantee one's safety, then this is some kind of superficial fantasy. Resorting to horror stories abot dog attacks, home invasions and so doesn't really change this.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#40 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 22 August 2012 - 10:18 AM

View Postscotto, on 22 August 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

Yes, look, it's always possible to be unlucky. For example, even if you're the best driver in the world someone else can wipe you out with a stupid move or and accident. So if you've got a gun an dog can still sneak up on you and bite you, no problem. And if you're an 'expert' martial artist you can still get stabbed, no problem, if you take on someone with a knife.

If there's some sense that carrying all kinds of weapons, including guns, can gaurantee one's safety, then this is some kind of superficial fantasy. Resorting to horror stories abot dog attacks, home invasions and so doesn't really change this.

You asked for a reference to a statistical basis for carrying anything for self defence.
I gave you one on the good reason for carrying a walking stick to protect oneself against the real possibility of a dog attack.

How would you protect yourself against a savage dog?

Now in theory, if unarmed, one defence is to get down onto the dogs level, that is drop to a hands and knees position, advance on the dog with deep growls, tuck your chin well down into your neck and grab the dog's front legs and pull them sideways with all the force that you can muster, this will rupture the dog's rib cage and render the front legs useless.
Then dial '000' at your leisure as you try to stem the blood flow from the bites to your scalp.

There are other methods, but let's hear your's now.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

Share this topic:


  • 19 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »


Fast Reply