Large Scale Central

They're after our firearms, again

General Discussion
#201

David,
many societies have grown out of the wild west mentality. It actually takes more trust in your society to make the decision not to arm yourself, than the decision to arm yourself as a means of supposed self protection. This shows that you distrust both your society and the people you elect to provide protection. If you arm yourself then you are outside of society protocol. Sir Robert Peel, regarded as the founder of the London (England) police force, made a decision that his officers would not be armed. His thinking was that if officers were not armed, then criminals would not arm themselves. For the most part this philosophy has worked and in general, police officers still do not carry a handgun. There are armed tactical response squads should the use of arms be anticipated.

     By arming yourself you take man back to the caves as a hunter.  By carrying a weapon you have a sense of immortality that no one is going to get me because I carry a weapon.  By carrying a weapon you are the aggressor and no better than the street hood who may be on the prowl.  You see yourself as normal.   People today are mugged and killed for mobile phones, designer shoewear or simply to get a packet of cigarettes.  Surely the prospect of a free handgun is going to make you an attractive target.
#202

Criminals are by nature cowards. Numerous interviews (do your own research on this one) with incarcerated thugs will say almost to a man, they do not fear the police, but do fear armed citizens. FWIW.

#203

David,
you make a statement and then tell me to support your statement by my own research. I would think that all American police officers are armed, therefore why would a criminal be more fearful of an armed civilian than an armed officer? Simply does not make sense and sounds more bravado than actual fact. Mouse thinks he is a roaring lion syndrome.

#204

It may have to do with the element of surprise. Criminals do not know if their intended victim is armed, but are certain police in the USA have guns.

Yes if you doubt my assertion, I stand innocent until proven guilty of error.

#205

David,
your logic is flawed. With most likely, considerably less than 1% of the population armed and on the street at any given time, then the odds are in the favour of the criminal. The perceived fear would only come about when the criminal was made aware that the citizen was armed. The onus is then on the criminal to defend himself and he is more than likely to shoot first. Forget the movies and the cop shows on television. The criminal is already predisposed to assaulting his victim and most likely has his weapon drawn. How is the citizen going to produce his weapon and take him down before becoming a victim himself? You have seen too many westerns on TV. Your logic is based on the armed criminal having no intention of shooting his intended victim, if he is confronted.

#206

The bizarre thing is that some criminals, though armed and pointing guns at their victims, are surprisingly reluctant to actually pull the trigger. I’ve seen some crazy surveillance video of store clerks beating the daylights out of would-be armed robbers with any manner of object, from store displays to potted plants. (Not the pot, mind you, but the plant.) I can’t say it’s a path of action I’d take, but (thankfully) never having been in that situation, who knows what adrenaline would cause me to do. When push comes to shove, anything’s a weapon, I guess. Gives a whole new meaning to the term “Twinkie defense.”

Later,

K

#207

Kevin,
I have seen many examples of that which you portray, but that does not rule out the fact that many do die as a result of armed encounters. The shopkeeper fending off an armed assailant is a human interest story, but video of a human being killed is highly sensitive and censored by the media for morality reasons.

     In the mid- to late 1970's,  I had the friendship of a San Diego resident who joined the U.S. Air Force as a teenager and was stationed initially,  in Okinawa and then in several air bases in South Vietnam,  in the late 1960's.  The guy met an Australian girl on R&R and returned after his service to marry her and reside in Australia.  A poignant comment he made has stuck in my mind to the present.  We all know how dolphins are renowned for their 'sense of duty' when they rescue drowning sailors and shepherd them to shore,  thus saving their lives.  We know this because of first hand reports of the survival.    What we do not hear are the reports of sailors who are not taken to shore,  but conversely taken further out to sea and thus drown.  Because we have no knowlege of it does not imply that it does not happen.  

    It is highly likely that armed encounters in which an assailant is driven off by an unarmed shopassistant,  are more numerous than attacks resulting in death,  but one needs to look at other factors in the robbery attempt.   I believe that armed assailants driven off,  would be most likely first offenders.  Would they react differently second time around?  Would they react differently if acting in a gang in an assault?
#208

How many times are robbery victims shot and killed after handing over the money?
A friend of mine was recently robbed in Myrtle Beach,SC. Three juveniles armed with a sawed off shotgun.
They left after receiving the money and taking some beer. It could have just as easily gone the other way.
Myself, I do not let others decide whether I live or die.
Twice I have had to disarm people when I was not armed. Several other times robberies were attempted with the threat of bodily harm.
Not once did I allow the thieves to decide my fate. I thank God that I was not armed during the two armed robbery attempts…as I would be responsible for two deaths.
At the same time…who knows what the two thieves have done further along in their careers.
I prefer to be prepared and have the best tool available for the job. When I don’t have the tool available…I make do with what I have.
The only way to rob me…is to kill me. Criminals are not allowed to decide my fate unchallenged.
Ralph

#209
Tim Brien said:
David, your logic is flawed. With most likely, considerably less than 1% of the population armed and on the street at any given time, then the odds are in the favour of the criminal. The perceived fear would only come about when the criminal was made aware that the citizen was armed. The onus is then on the criminal to defend himself and he is more than likely to shoot first. Forget the movies and the cop shows on television. The criminal is already predisposed to assaulting his victim and most likely has his weapon drawn. How is the citizen going to produce his weapon and take him down before becoming a victim himself? You have seen too many westerns on TV. Your logic is based on the armed criminal having no intention of shooting his intended victim, if he is confronted.
You are wrong Tim. I attend no less than two training courses a year on self-defense, and practice not as frequently as I should.

All the instructors are experienced “sheepdogs” on the streets and they themselves attend training from other “sheepdogs” on a regular basis. My stats are from them, the anecdotal evidence presented by these experts is valid. Read any of John Lott’s books which will point out many of the flaws in the arguments you have made.

How can you argue that “A woman raped and strangled with her pantyhose is morally superior to one standing over her intended rapist with a smoking handgun.”

FACT: An estimated two-million violent crimes are prevented each year in the USA by armed citizens.

#210

David,
what is your source for the statement? -

“FACT: An estimated two-million violent crimes are prevented each year in the USA by armed citizens”

We dealt previously with your innane reference to sheep and sheepdogs. If you likje the analogy then fine for you. I am a human being and responsible for my own actions. Of cause the old saying, if you look like a dog and walk like a dog and smell like a dog then no doubt it must be a dog.

You say that you and your close personal buddies are all trained in self-defence and yet you still feel the need to carry a sidearm. I’d say that you have successfully wiped America off the to-do visit list for a long time to come. When you enter the 20th century, I may reconsider, but not until you enter the 21st century will I ever contemplate a further visit to your country. Last time I visitted was not long after the early 1990’s freeway shootings in L.A. where every little crackpot was taking potshots at their neighbouring drivers on the roads. Sort of sums up the patriot psyche, if it moves shoot it, if it doesn’t move still shoot it because one day it might move.

#211

David,
refer to statistics from Bureau of Justice. Your quoted statement is simple rubbish and typical of your exaggerations.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Further food for thought -

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

A breakdown, State by State. Look up your state and see if you are doing your share keeping the statistics up -

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_05.html

#212
Tim Brien said:
I'd say that you have successfully wiped America off the to-do visit list for a long time to come.
You have not inspired any trips "Down Under". So, everybody is happy where they are :) Ralph
#213

Deleted

#214

Ralph,
I dare say that any trip outrside your utopia would be unacceptable, as guess what - you would have to leave your gun at home as carrying a weapon onboard a plane is forbidden in all civilised countries. Even carrying a gun onboard your own domestic carriers is forbidden. See you do not have to visit Tony to be ‘under someone’s control’, you just need to go to your local airport. Are you allowed to carry a weapon inside a police station, inside a courthouse, inside a government building? The answer is no, because the government simply does not trust its citizens to carry weapons in the ‘halls of justice or government administration.’ That sums up the stupidity of a law that a government has to legislate to protect itself from its armed population.

#215
Tim Brien said:
Ralph, I dare say that any trip outrside your utopia would be unacceptable, as guess what - you would have to leave your gun at home as carrying a weapon onboard a plane is forbidden in all civilised countries. Even carrying a gun onboard your own domestic carriers is forbidden. See you do not have to visit Tony to be 'under someone's control', you just need to go to your local airport. Are you allowed to carry a weapon inside a police station, inside a courthouse, inside a government building? The answer is no, because the government simply does not trust its citizens to carry weapons in the 'halls of justice or government administration.' That sums up the stupidity of a law that a government has to legislate to protect itself from its armed population.
Well Tim, I have said several times I don't regularly carry a gun. I fail to understand your need to impose your beliefs on my homeland. Seems to be the same thing you have accused the United States of doing many, many times. The word hypocrite comes to mind. Ralph
#216

Ralph,
a hypocrite is someone who preaches one thing but does not follow his own preachings. I, like the majority of citizens of my country, have no need for arms, nor a desire to own them. Weapons are limited to the police force, armed services, country folk, sports shooters and target shooters. We see no need to arm ourselves for personal protection. To be a hypocrite, I would firstly, have to ‘preach’ non-gun ownership and then actually own a gun myself. I was raised in a family that prohibited weapons and am glad of it. Or, conversely, I would have a personal dislike for arms and yet preach that all should own weapons. I cannot be a hypocrite when I follow my own beliefs, I do not own a gun and never have and I ‘preach’ non-gun ownership. How is that being a hypocrite?

#217
Tim Brien said:
Ralph, a hypocrite is someone who preaches one thing but does not follow his own preachings. I, like the majority of citizens of my country, have no need for arms, nor a desire to own them. Weapons are limited to the police force, armed services, country folk, sports shooters and target shooters. We see no need to arm ourselves for personal protection. To be a hypocrite, I would firstly, have to 'preach' non-gun ownership and then actually own a gun myself. I was raised in a family that prohibited weapons and am glad of it. Or, conversely, I would have a personal dislike for arms and yet preach that all should own weapons. I cannot be a hypocrite when I follow my own beliefs, I do not own a gun and never have and I 'preach' non-gun ownership. How is that being a hypocrite?
Because, just as you have blasted the previous administration for trying to "export" our ways to other countries, you are trying to do the same. Our gun control laws are a local issue and none of your business. I have no problem with your comments on our foreign or economic policy. It has a global impact. Our gun laws do not impact your life in Austrailia. Ralph
#218
Quote:
... Kevin, I have seen many examples of that which you portray, but that does not rule out the fact that many do die as a result of armed encounters. The shopkeeper fending off an armed assailant is a human interest story, but video of a human being killed is highly sensitive and censored by the media for morality reasons.
No argument there. Recall what I do for a living--I've seen it firsthand, talked to the surviving family members. Even if the victim "had it coming"--and some do--it doesn't lessen the pain--and it's a pain I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Legal or illegal, registered or unregistered, it doesn't make a darn bit of difference to them. They just want their loved ones back, and no amount of legislation is going to do that. But almost to a person, they believe that if a little extra paperwork can save even just one life down the road, it makes it all worth it.

Later,

K

#219

Registration & Licensing
Australia`s Gun Ban, Crime & Video Tape

Between 1980-1995, Australia`s firearm-related death rate was cut nearly in half and its firearm-related homicide rate nearly by two-thirds. (The former decreased 46%, from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population to 2.6; the latter decreased 63%, from eight per 100,000 to three). In 1995, the annual number of firearm-related deaths fell to its lowest point in the 16-year period.

Despite this real progress over a decade and a half, the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 were used to launch a massive campaign against law-abiding Australian gun owners. Rather than acknowledging one mans insanity, opportunistic gun control activists and scared politicians rushed to blame "loose gun laws." It didnt matter that those laws required any Tasmanian who wanted to own a firearm or even an air rifle to pass a gun handling course and carry a photo-bearing gun license that had to be produced prior to the purchase of any firearm or ammunition. The end result for all Australians was a government turn-in scheme and the follow-on destruction of more than 640,000 hunting rifles and shotguns.

Ban supporters, including gun prohibitionists in the U.S., are actively promoting the legislation`s alleged crime-fighting benefits. Crime statistics, however, contradict them. For example, from 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime, with the exception of murder, increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27, 2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND

Murder 321 284 -11.5%

Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%

Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%

Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%

Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%

Kidnaping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%

Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%

Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%

TOTAL 161,398 172,690 +7.0%

In a March 22, 2000, letter, Australias Attorney General Daryl Williams raised objections to an NRA video which asserts that after the Australian governments confiscation of hunting rifles and shotguns, armed robberies rose, assaults with guns rose, murders with guns rose and home invasions rose. Williams said NRA was using “misleading” statistics to make its case against gun control. He also claimed “the national firearms agreement has succeeded in removing more than 640,000 dangerous weapons from circulation in the community.” Would he call it “misleading” to say instead that “the national ban has led to the destruction of 640,000 commonplace semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns?”

If the Attorney General has a real problem with NRA`s video, his problem is much closer to home than NRA headquarters. The video shows real people protesting their loss of liberty and loss of the right to self-defense. Those people are Australians. And the statistics presented in the NRA video were reported in real newspapers–Australian newspapers. Here are several examples:

* "The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
  --Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

* "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
  --"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.

* "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
  --"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

* "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
  --"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

* "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
  --Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

* "The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
  --South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

Attorney General Williams should look closer to home if he truly objects to “misleading” the public policy debate. In fact, he should look directly at the anti-gun group Gun Control Australia (GCA). When the Sporting Shooters Assn of Australia (SSAA) recently ran a TV campaign that promoted the shooting sports as activities for the whole family, GCA spokesman Randy Marshall said: "People should not be fooled by pretty images of family life enjoying shooting--shooting is about practising to kill--thats why guns are manufactured. Every person who joins SSAA helps destroy the gun laws which protect Australians."

Posted: 3/28/2000 12:00:00 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I

#220

Deleted