If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Any chance you can actually answer this guys? Or doesn't the answer fit with your argument?
Im confused, why do you want to see those stats? Surely they prove that more guns = less crime?
The argument being put forward is that since Oz introduced gun laws the rate of violent crime has increased. Yet in the US there is STILL a high level of violent crime INSPITE of lax gun laws. Argument nullified.
Um yes they do..Violent crime has been decreasing in the states for years now. Nowhere moreso than in the states who have very lax gun control laws. Ill dig up some figures for you tonight.
Interesting to note that the cities with the highest crime rate are also the cities with the more severe gun control laws..Washington, NYC and LA.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Only thing nullified is your view of reality.
There is a DIFFERENCE in culture between the United States and other countries... SHOCKING, isn't it? In countries with low homicide rates, look at their suicide rates. Add the two together, and they compare very closely. In many European countries, anger and frustration are focused inwardly, and people off themselves. In the US, the focus becomes the cause of the problem, and the problem is eliminated.
Not saying that I agree with violence, but acknowledging that people resort to it, whether inwardly, or outwardly.
I have carried a weapon, concealed, 24/7, 365, for more than thirty years. I have NOT attacked anyone in a civilian setting, although I have used weapons to defend my life, and the lives of others. Carrying a weapon does NOT mean that you will resort to mind-numbing violence at the slightest provocation. It means that you avoid the situation which COULD lead to violence, because you wish not to stand in front of a court, no matter how just your moment, because of the complications it brings to your life. However, it IS "better judged by twelve than carried by six"...
BTW ~ stricter gun controls would have spared Nicole Simpson's life, right?
The Bill of Rights did NOT establish the rights of free men, but rather AFFIRMED them. Men who are TRULY free comprehend this, those who subjugate themselves to anyone else cannot.
If you want comparisons in crime rate, compare similar areas within this country with and without illegal gun laws in statute, and the areas WITH the restrictive gun laws have a much higher incidence of violence. Areas which affirm an individual's right to defense of self are MUCH safer.
Some interesting reading for you RE American gun crime.
Gun Facts Version 3.0 - Most comprehensive document on America and guns ive ever read. PDF format
Uniform Crime Report
Bureau Of Justice Statistics - Take a lookie, violent crime at lowest level since 1973(when they started these documents)
[This message has been edited by Balddog (edited 10-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Balddog (edited 10-09-2001).]
to recap:
laws can be wrong
society and government are for the benefit, not detriment, of the people
i feel plenty secure enough unarmed
and i can't be arsed to argue any longer, as i can see that neither of us will capitulate
bezerker/thanatos: fuck you. dont call me junior - that's ageist. i could just as well call you 'oldie', but i wont, coz thats ageist too. as i have said before, i do not think that my age invalidates my opinion, therefore you should refrain from using it as an excuse for derogatory/condescending remarks.
gimme a few days and i'll lighten up again! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Feeling brave and full of ourselves now, are we, junior? Bringing out the profanity to exclaim your emergence into adulthood?
How about I call you a nutless infintile little lamb being willingly led to his demise? How about if I point out that your head is stuck so far up your ass that you cannot see the light of day, and in your ignorance REFUSE to acknowledge reality. How about I call you delusional? How about I simply point out that when I was a child I thought things similar to you, and when I grew OUT of my childhood, and faced the realities of the world, I gave up my childish delusions?
That you CHOOSE to NOT arm yourself, and become a WILLING VICTIM, is another example of Darwinism at work... The weak of mind and body do NOT survive, they eventually die out, just like your "empire".
(The above does NOT apply to you, Balddog... you have demonstrated that you HAVE A PAIR!)
It is not your chronological age which leads me to address you as "junior" (lower case), it is your pathetic naivite! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/rotfl.gif">
[This message has been edited by berzerker (edited 10-09-2001).]
Berzerker, I'm not saying that your criticisms are baseless, just that... just cut the younger lot some slack, ok? Are they that horrifically different to the way you and your contemporaries were? They're young, give 'em a chance. Insulting them only reinforces their sense of anti-everything.
<IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
I agree that culture is a relevant part of the equation, unfortunately this WASN'T what Mr P was suggesting.
Anyway, thanks for the stats Balddog, I have downloaded the pdf file and will read it over the next couple of days.
I did look at the FBI site too and the last year for which there was full information highlighted one of my point beautifully. This showed that there were just over 12,000 homicides in 1999 of which 8,200 were caused by firearms (6,000 due to handguns) - of those 8,000+ deaths only 700 were gang related. Interesting.
So of the 40,000 GSW I spoke about earlier, at least 8,200 of them were acts of violence resulting in death...
#############################################
berzerker (after the group?) - you arguments do lose their validity when you resort to petty insults. I really do look forward to reading you comments (usually) but you gain nothing by being patronising.
California gun laws are almost as restrictive as ours.
Well regulated is taken to mean well run rather than controlled.
Serious question/point of clarification:
Were those deaths broken down as to deaths due to lawful interdiction of police? Did they break it down to show deaths within lawful defense? The last figure I saw stated that there were FIVE times as many criminals killed by citizens in the act of lawful defense than there were by police.
If you separate into categories of lawful defense vs. lawless attacks, it takes a different perspective.
Many of the statistics on the "gun facts version 3.0" are straight from the FBI web site.
"I'd rather have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."
As we are imparting stories from our youth, let me tell one of mine.
When I was younger (approx 16) I worked on a delivery round (I was a milkman) which meant that I had to start at 4am. I was walking to work one morning when a man jumped out on me and pointed a gun at my head. Unfortunately for him he was standing a little too close and as an automatic reaction I lifted my foot into his groin area - I guess he was too busy looking at my eyes to be watching my feet. I can laugh about it now - the police suggested that they should look for a glassy-eyed man with a strange walk - but it has natuarally influenced my views on guns (believe me I'm not too immpressed with knives either). He was caught and I happily gave evidence as he got sent down for a couple of years.
Now I know that he could have had a knife, but he didn't. He had a gun.
I've been on this site for several months now and this is the first time I have mentioned it - it's not something I particularly like to think about too much, partly because I still have nightmares about it. But I figured that it may go some way to explaining my position.
We disagree to the fundementals... You believe that the government is all powerful, and grants you permission to live, by their grace. We believe that our Creator is supreme, and we grant the government the permission to serve us. THAT is why we refer to you as sheep, and why we laugh at your notion that you are "free".
Seems that the US has fought a few wars, and has EARNED the privilege to live as we see fit. WE FOUGHT FOR IT! It is a matter of PRIDE, rather than arrogance. And we have the wherewithall to backup our beliefs. That you subjugate yourselves to an ARROGANCE of aristocracy - and NOT just the "royals" - substantiates that perspective. Seems we threw you off of our shores to earn the right, and have backed it up continuously, and MOST CERTAINLY, will back it up again, considering the events of today...
Oh please... Good. You kicked the guy in the nutsack. The fact that you still have nightmares shows that even you realize that if you hadn't had a good short distance bet. you and him, you might have been dead. You'd certainly have been safer if you had had a gun in back up, just in case your nut busting technique was unsuccessful.
<I think you'll find that the bullet caused the death, not the intention. I can intend to kill everyone in the world but without the weaponry...>
Without the Weaponry you can kill them with your bare hands. The intention in the mind of the attacker, followed by action is the CAUSE of the violence. The Gun is simply one path the violence can take.
The Arab assholes who hi-jacked the fucking Airliner used a GOD DAMN UTILITY KNIFE TO PUT THE CREW UNDER DURESS AND TAKE OVER THE AIRPLANE. IF EVEN ONE PERSON WHO WAS NOT A TERRORIST HAD HAD A GUN, PERHAPS NEITHER PLANE WOULD HAVE MADE IT TO NEW YORK.
WAS IT BETTER THAT NO GUNS WERE ALLOWED ON BOARD...OR WORSE? AT THE VERY LEAST, IT WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE CREW AND PASSENGERS A CHANCE.
<These were listed as homicides. 'Lawful killings' weren't mentioned - these were crime stats afterall.>
ACTUALLY, THEY DO NOT MAKE IT CLEAR, BUT IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT IT IS ALL DEATHS WHICH ARE "CRIME RELATED", WHICH WOULD INCLUDE JUSTIFIED HOMICIDE, AND LAWFUL INTERDICTION.
< >
These differences make the U.S. superior to the U.K. in it's understanding of Freedom and Responsibility.
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 12-09-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 12-09-2001).]
It certainly seems like on of the planes was hijacked using knives, though you had thought that with more than 50 people on board they could overpower a knifeman. Oh except apparently bombs were mentioned too - you don't suppose that this had something to do with it, do you?
Sorry can't get onto FBI website at the mo, but I am 99% certain that the figures I quoted were listed as 'Total Homicides'.
Yep, absolutely right. In fact proof in a court of law, that someone had been in possession, WOULD be guilt.
Wether a violent act had been commited or not is irrelevant. In this country it is ILLEGAL to be in possession of a handgun.
Yep and I disagree with them. But, if I was part of their culture I would probably accept it and consider it right. It IS right for them.
I suspect that the fanatics who commited the heinous crimes in the US yesterday have a different opinion too. They are not US citizens with a US view of the world or US morals. If it was muslims who carried out this attack, as a jihad, they see the loss of life as perfectly acceptable. Do you?
In your opinion, based on your culture and your assumption of 'rights'.
Like I said arrogance. You BELIEVE you are right, doesn't mean you actually are.
No I don't think that at all. You assume that it what I think. I have no faith in the government at all, just as I have no faith in yours. We all know that they couldn't give a shit about us.
What I said was that rights are bestowed by SOCIETY, not government. We grant the government permission to govern - it's called an election!
I think that you have just learned what it REALLY means to be free. Part of being free means that you can be subject of a terrorist attack because your freedoms allow the terror gangs to infiltrate your society. We have lived with that for years now, and the US learned a very hard lesson yesterday.
As you say, you fought for that right to be free and you should have pride in that fact. However, the arrogance I mention shows in the projected attitude that as a nation you are better than everyone else.
Most of the major advances of the industrial age happened in THIS country. As a tiny island nation we once had an empire that encircled the globe. Not a bad set of achievements and I am proud of them, but I don't not believe that this means that my country is better than yours. It's called humility and it comes with the recognition that ALL major powers come to an end eventually (Egypt, Roman, Ours etc...).
Did I read this right?
it IS right for them? Youre saying its ok because its part of their culture? Or am I misunderstanding you?
you're a fine one to criticise about profanity, thanatos! <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
thought this was supposed to be a civilised and sensible discussion, not 'throw insults at anyone younger who disagrees with you'! i am no more guilty of delusion than you are, and certainly no more intrinsically self-absorbed.
idealism is what founded democracy, and the great nations that uphold it. if i am an idealist, who tries to see the best in people, then does that make me irredeemably foolish? perhaps when i am older i will change my ideas, but that does not mean that at the moment i do not accept reality. rather, it means that i merely analyse the world around me in a less cynical way.
well, i'm not dead yet. in fact, what you suggest defeats itself, as if i was weak of body yet owned a gun, i would be upsetting the evolutionary balance. but who cares. 'social darwinism' is one of the most misapplied arguments in the 20th century. Hitler managed to use it as an argument against judaism. nice to see you're in favourable company! (personally, i am more a believer in the Hegelian Dialectic/synthesis theory).
everybody and everything eventually dies out, be it by natural causes or violence. at the moment, i am not given to vast contemplations of my own doom, just to not being hit by a bus on my way to college.
!?!?!?!?!?!? so, treat me as a 65 year old, and stop talking about my youth as a limiting factor on my opinions!!
I am perfectly prepared to accept that your more advanced age does not detract from the validity of your arguments, but at the same time it does not make them either more moral, just, correct or valuable. it is not your place to lecture the youth of today on the flaws of their beliefs - perhaps that happened to your generation, which is why you become more cynical.
as for the personal insults, i'm not acting like a 10-year-old. maybe you should be the one to grow up.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
If you were 65 years old, and had already witnessed the folly of your "idealism", then you would be CONSIDERABLY more pathetic, and I would have MUCH less tolerance for you. I make concessions for the ignorance of your youth...
I mourn the fact that my generation, which came of age in the 1960's, is responsible for MUCH of the degeneration of this world. My generation pushed much of its idealistic ideology upon the world, and the world suffered the consequences, and it has only gotten worse each decade. You want me to sit back and observe in silence as your professions of ignorance further destroy the world?
Time to change your diaper... the fecal matter overfloweth.
No, I'm not saying it IS right. It is right for THEM. I vehmently diagree with them.
The BNP think that repatriation is right, the ANL believe that the BNP should be banned, the IRA think it is right to kill children as do those who comitted those crimes in the US on Tuesday. For THEM it was right.
Differing beliefs bring a different idea of what is right and we should all be open to the idea that we may actually be wrong about something. Circimstance and information can change peoples views.
The US once believed in supplying arms to both Iraq and Afghanistan - do they still believe in this approach?