1
   

HAVE U LESS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE IF U R STUDYING ?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2007 10:21 pm
I am not " after international comparisons. "
I do not deem them to be relevant, nor of interest ( with all respect ).

Self defense is a very, very local matter; as local as the threat.

I can 't imagine Y anyone wud care about what is occurring
in other nations when one is confronted with predatory violence.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2007 10:34 pm
vikorr wrote:


Quote:
Here's an analysis from the Australian Bureau of Statistics regarding Australian firearm deaths 1991-2001

It makes for interesting reading

Tighter gun control was introduced in 1997
(after the rampage of one Martin Bryant, who shot and killed 35 people (if I remember right) in Tasmania)

It wud be fun to have the power
to change history.
If I had that power, I 'd go back in time
and arm the victims BETTER than the mentally unhealthy misanthrope that attacked them.
Maybe give each of them an H & K MP5 ( that 's my favorite submachinegun ).


Quote:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html

Just a couple of excerpts :
-In 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001.

Vik:
can u tell me how well armed the victims were ?


Quote:
- The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period.

Y r we interested in suicides with firearms ??
Do u prefer that suicides jump off the tops of hi buildings ?
or drive their cars fast into opposing traffic ?
Du u require suicides to use knives ?

Everyone has the right to end his life,
whenever he dam pleases; that is a PERSONAL DECISION.

By what right do u seek to interfere ?

David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2007 11:12 pm
David, your perspective appears to be that anyone who disagrees with firearms for all is wrong.

The international comparisons have a couple of purposes :
-only an international comparison can show the correlation between an increase in guns per capita leading to an increase in firearms deaths per capita (and therefore the greater the perceived need to carry a firearm)
-some people posting here (myself at least, and perhaps others), come from international communities, and as you have attacked my/their(ie international) stance, international statistics have validity.

As I've said in posts before…what is right for you in the States may not be right for other countries (or other people in the States, but that is up to them to discuss if they exist).

Quote:
Vik:
can u tell me how well armed the victims were ?

The question shows you didn't read the link. Of the (333) 2001 fatalities, 18 were accidents, 261 were suicides, 47 were homicides, and 7 undetermined/other. Those stats don't break the 47 homicides down into the two major classes of homicide - Domestic Homicide (in which case the victim spouse/child rarely has a gun on them), and Criminal v Criminal Homicide (over drug debts and the likes). Homicide between strangers is the rarest form of homicide in Australia.

Quote:
Y r we interested in suicides with firearms ??


That should be self evident - firearms is perhaps of the easiest forms of suicide, and it is also possible to commit murder/suicide, and suicide by cop with a firearm.

Quote:
Everyone has the right to end his life,
whenever he dam pleases; that is a PERSONAL DECISION.


I've no problem with that, just so long as they decide to do it in a way that doesn't mean others are traumatised by the mess (that would be suicide by train, cop etc, or anything where there is body parts and unnecessary blood left laying around).

Quote:
By what right do u seek to interfere ?


Would you care to clarify whether you mean interfere in gun related suicides, or interfere in ownership of guns?

If the latter, which I am guessing you mean, then it is simple, by the right of the community to be safer as a whole (remember, this statement applies to my opinion in and of Australia, not necessarily to the US).
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2007 11:15 pm
vikorr wrote:


Vikorr wrote :
Quote:
The difference between our stances David,
is that you live in a theoretical world that ignores human nature.

I deny that.
The facts do not support u.


Quote:
If you give guns to everyone, there will be a percentage of people that will have any of the following problems
(or a combination thereof) :

-have mental illness
-are suicidal
-are criminals
-are drug addicts /do drugs (socially etc)
-are irresponsible
-are unwilling to be trained (or unable to pay the money to be trained)
-have bad jealousy episodes / anger management issues
-commit domestic violence
-are stupid / have poor judgement /lack common sense
-have poor communication skills
-are overly fearful
-don't value life
-feel the need for respect (and think a gun will get it for them)
-want to look cool

I do not wish to give free guns to ANYONE.
Let them get their own guns, as I did.
Choice of guns is a matter of very personal taste.

Regarding the conditions that u have set forth above:
If thay wish to arm themselves,
thay WILL DO IT.
If thay violate the rights of any person,
THEN u can justifyably intervene; not before.
If those people arm themselves and then CAUSE NO TROUBLE,
then it is none of your dam business.





Quote:
Considering it's impossible to easily tell who are psychopaths
(psychologist put them at about 2-3 percent of the population)

Judge them by their CONDUCT.
IF thay r psychopaths and cause no trouble,
then leave them alone. U don 't need to tell who r psychopaths.
Just mind your own business.


Quote:
, who is suicidal,

That is none of your business.
By what right do u seek to interfere in suicide ??




Quote:
who has angermanagement/domestic violence issues etc etc etc...
I would choose a way that doesn't put guns in the hands of all these people...

THAY will put guns in their OWN hands, as I did.
What is it with this socialist free gun giveaway business ?




Quote:
Now in the US, you have a much bigger gun ownership than here in
Australia, so it may well be too late to stop the gun laws in the US.
You see, you make assumptions about what I believe.

There is no need to make assumptions:
u r telling me, quite fully.



Quote:
What may work in my country, may not work in your country,
so I don't advocate anything for your country, as I don't live there, and don't know it's dangers.

So u r saying that Americans may have the right
to defend their lives and other property from predatory violence,
but Austrailians do not ?





Quote:
It's sad that you've had to pull out a gun in defense of your life,
and that you know others who've had to do the same.

Well, I lost a driver 's side window to a bullethole,
but other than that, no harm came of it.
I found some degree of humor in it at the time;
I got a chuckle out of it.
Winston Churchill wud understand.



Quote:
I've never known anyone who's had to do that...nor anyone who's known anyone else who's had to do that.

If I remember right, Australia has about 1 million guns in the country (so about 1 in 20 people). They have to be stored in a locked safe that is bolted to the floor of the owners house (or at an armoury). So here, even if someone invades your home, you can't easily get to the gun.

The criminals must LOVE that:
an on-the-job safety program for violent criminals,
to protect them from the defenses of their victims.

I hope innocent Austrailian citizens don 't obey THAT law;
a suicide law.


Quote:
Yet still, excepting two things (1. Arguments between criminals,
and 2. Domestic situations), gun related deaths in Australia are rare in the extreme.

Were I to advocate that we (in Australia) put guns (esp handguns)
in the hands of all those loony people I mentioned above, gun related deaths would soar...and
why would I advocate more deaths?

Let them get their OWN guns, or make them, if thay choose.




Quote:

You are entitled to hold your own opinion on what is right and wrong from
your perspective - but it is only your opinion / perspective.
That it is your opinion/perspective does not make it right (whatever you think),
just as it does not make it wrong (whatever others think)....
it is just that - an opinion/perspective of a person.
Same with my opinion / perspective.

Even an animal has a natural right to defend himself.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Aug, 2007 11:41 pm
vikorr wrote:


Quote:
David, your perspective appears to be that anyone who disagrees with firearms for all is wrong.

Not exactly.
I have said many times by now
that I do not favor government distributing guns, as a socialist giveaway program.
Let everyone get HIS OWN GUN,
as I did; just DON 'T INTERFERE with it; adopt a l'assez faire
libertarian attitude toward it.



Quote:
Vik:
can u tell me how well armed the victims were ?

Quote:
The question shows you didn't read the link.

True.


Quote:
Of the (333) 2001 fatalities, 18 were accidents, 261 were suicides, 47 were homicides, and 7 undetermined/other. Those stats don't break the 47 homicides down into the two major classes of homicide - Domestic Homicide (in which case the victim spouse/child rarely has a gun on them), and Criminal v Criminal Homicide (over drug debts and the likes). Homicide between strangers is the rarest form of homicide in Australia.

That means that almost all of them ( over 78% )
were SUICIDES. Those people were perfectly within their rights
to end their lives; that is none of your business.
It was a personal matter.




Quote:
Y r we interested in suicides with firearms ??


Quote:
That should be self evident - firearms is perhaps of the easiest forms of suicide,

Is suicide supposed to be DIFFICULT ? troublesome ?



Quote:
Everyone has the right to end his life,
whenever he dam pleases; that is a PERSONAL DECISION.


Quote:
I've no problem with that,
just so long as they decide to do it in a way that doesn't mean others
are traumatised by the mess (that would be suicide by train, cop etc,
or anything where there is body parts and unnecessary blood left laying around).

Do u wish to abolish the Railroads and police ?



Quote:
By what right do u seek to interfere ?


Quote:
Would you care to clarify whether you mean interfere in gun related suicides,
or interfere in ownership of guns?
I meant suicides,
but it applies to gun possession too.
Self defense is an individual right; a natural right.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 12:03 am
Quote:
I do not wish to give free guns to ANYONE.
Let them get their own guns, as I did.


You're playing avoidance and semantics David...if anyone can obtain a gun (for a fee), then it is free - from the perspective there are no government restrictions on the obtaining of a weapon.

Quote:
That means that almost all of them ( over 78% )
were SUICIDES. Those people were perfectly within their rights
to end their lives; that is none of your business.
It was a personal matter.


Considering you have been talking about being threatened with death, it's surprising you focus on the suicide stat…did you notice how many Australians die from firearms murders each year? It's miniscule, but you would have me advocate a policy that would increase the number of firearms murders…while trying to tell me that it would make people in Australia safer.

That is pure nonsense. More deaths = safer ?
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 12:25 am
Information only. Earlier it was stated by a poster that there hadn't been a shooting at an Australian university. This is incorrect.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 12:30 am
Thanks msgola. That was me. I missed that one.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 12:39 am
vikorr wrote:
Thanks msgola. That was me. I missed that one.


I'm not surprised you missed it, vikorr. An extremely upsetting & completely out of the ordinary event in this country. We Melbournians couldn't quite believe it had actually happened. Awful.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 12:47 am
I know around 2002 I was in the States for 3 weeks. And sometimes I don't read the paper (and I never watch the news), so maybe it was during one of those times.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 03:03 am
Could well have been. As I live in Melbourne there's no way I could have missed it.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 01:53 pm
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
I do not wish to give free guns to ANYONE.
Let them get their own guns, as I did.


Quote:
You're playing avoidance and semantics David...
if anyone can obtain a gun (for a fee), then it is free -
from the perspective there are no government restrictions on the obtaining of a weapon.

Consider the FUTILITY of what u r saying:
if predatory criminals cannot be dissuaded from murder:
if venal misanthropes cannot be deterred from robbery,
then HOW can u get them to obey government restrictions ?


Quote:
That means that almost all of them ( over 78% )
were SUICIDES. Those people were perfectly within their rights
to end their lives; that is none of your business.
It was a personal matter.


Quote:
Considering you have been talking about being threatened with death,
it's surprising you focus on the suicide stat…
did you notice how many Australians die from firearms murders each year?

I know that the English police cooked the books * on statistics
to make gun prohibition look not as bad when it made crime WORSE
in England ( particularly in home invasions, wherein the homeowners
are known to be at home, since the criminals have faith that thay have
DISARMED themselves, in obedience to English law against self defense ).
I do not have data handy regarding Austrailian,
but I am skeptical, since human nature tends to be similar
from England to Austrailia.

* For instance,
newly retired police officers of higher rank ( having become immune from being fired or demoted )
told of having been ordered to secretly change methods of counting felonies,
so that several crimes committed against several people
( e.g., burglary, robbery, murder ) at the same time n place
be counted as ONE crime only, for record keeping purposes.


Quote:
It's miniscule, but you would have me advocate a policy that
would increase the number of firearms murders…while trying to tell me
that it would make people in Australia safer.

Let the Austrailians do whatever they want with their own country.
I suppose that those of u who want freedom
can emigrate and go to a free country.
I care about MY OWN country.

When WE threw out discriminatory licensure of the right to self defense
( called " gun control " ) crime dropped in each state, from the time
that gun control was rejected; no state in America has ever changed its mind and reverted.

Disarming victims gives violent criminals an incentive
to commit more predatory crime, in that the criminals are SAFER
on the job, than thay were when their victims cud not fight back
.

As a thought experiment, Vikorr,
put yourself into the mind of a burglar in the middle of the night:
one house, on the left, u know to be the abode of fanatically pacifistic Amish,
who posted signs saying:
" There are no guns in this house. "

On your right is a home that u know to be filled with rightwingers ARMED TO THE TEETH,
who devotedly believe in aggressive SELF DEFENSE, and make no secret of it.

If YOU were a burglar in the middle of the night,
which house wud U rather break into ?

Tell me that ??


David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 03:25 pm
Ah David, practicing avoidance again I see.

Just why would I advocate increased deaths here in my own country. Please...do attempt to explain to me how your policy which is proven to lead to increased deaths, would make people in my country safer?

(Btw, I told you what I thought of the Aust. firearm murder rate beforeI went looking for the stats, and I was correct. Just like anyone in Australia can tell you that the stats provided sound right. So if you don't believe me, nor the govt, go post in the Australia forum, or on any Australian forum and see what they think.)

Back to your own country now...one of your scenarios....there are 290 million guns in america, around 300 milllion people. That means perhaps 85% of houses have guns. Tell me, are break & enters non existant in the US? (I wonder how many crims in the US carry guns into houses they break into, to protect themselves from the owners who have guns)

Don't forget to answer the first question :wink:
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 08:11 am
David, you need to look up the legal requirements for criminally neg. homicide. There's no case for that here.

I do not think that guns should be allowed on campus for the above mentioned reason. In cases like this, confusion abounds and more innocent people would probably be shot by accident via bad aim or bullets going through-and-through.

VT was a tragedy for sure, but allowing more guns won't solve the problem.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 11:16 am
if you are studying omsigdavid, the first thing to remember is to protect yourself.

Proactive defence is best.

That means killing your professors or classmates before they even think about killing you whilst you're head's stuck in a book and you're vulnerable.

[I really do worry about people who go about a largely peaceful country, its not like Iraq for allahs sake, and assume everyone is out to get them. Relax, put the ****ing guns down]
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 03:37 pm
first let me say this.

i am a gun owner.
i have a cc permit.
i have taken a responsibility to defend myself.
i will open fire only as a last resort, and have no other option.

i am glad to live in the US, where the government trusts the common citizen to own/carry a firearm.

owning a firearm is a large reponsibility, carrying a gun is an even bigger responsibility. not all people can handle it.

for those people that have the responsibility, DO IT, IS YOUR RIGHT.

what david is saying is that NOBODY should tell a person how/when to defend themselves. especially a college where there is low security.

i am tired of "feel good" legislation that only hurts the common man.
not being able to carry a firearm only gives the aggressor the advantage.

in this case the advantage of killing 32.

steve 41oo you are a hoplophobe.
to carry a firearm is beyond your understanding, i feel sorry for you.
you are psychologically ill and need to seek help.

vikorr hypothesis cannot happen due to the fact that their would not have been more than 2 or 3 people legally carrying concealed in the classroom.

vikorr, i just cant see how 3 shooters firing in the same direction will hurt more students than a maniac that fired over 100 rounds into 3-5 classrooms.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 04:22 pm
Hello CZJAY

I made the hypothesis up on the spot because David was advocating that every student (be allowed to) carry a gun.

Still, it is only a hypothesis, and in the end it isn't necessarily applicable/comparable to any single situation, but rather as a generalised scenario of human interaction...you can look pull it apart and treat each interaction as individual if you like, or you can combine the interactions (as so often happens in human nature, interactions are linked, sometimes in chain reaction).
0 Replies
 
fallison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 04:57 pm
David,
I am with you on this. Those that argue with you do so with no regard for facts. They just use emotionally charged imaginitve stories to make arguments the facts do not support. For all the attention spent on Australia's firearms death rate, notice they do not look at the incredible increase in the number of forcible felonies such as rape, assault, attempted murder, home invasions, etc. committed by criminals with firearms since their sweeping gun ban was enacted. This is the same result that was experienced in Great Britian and Canada. Not all crimes end in death, some end with victims disfigured or maimed. But since it is not convienent to their argument they just ignore it.

The fact is the firearm is the only weapon that equalizes the power of the young and the old, the male and the female, the healthy and the infirm. By banning firearms, you sentence the older, weaker, more infirm to be victims of the younger, stronger, and healthier.

Also to point out the falacy of the Somalia strawman, take into consideration Switzerland where every household is required to possess a true assault rifle (selective fire, capable of fully automatic fire) and is in fact issued one by their government. Yet their gun crime rate is the lowest in Europe. Would those who call for disarming law abiding citizens please explain how this is possible?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 06:33 pm
Fallison,

Quote:
Those that argue with you do so with no regard for facts.

Some stats etc for you to look at, instead of posting just what you 'believe' has happened in Australia since tighter gun control (1996).

Quote:
In the 6 years since Port Arthur there have been no incidents in Australia where four or more people were shot. Between 1987 and 1996, 100 people were shot dead in Australia in mass shootings including those at Strathfield, Hoddle and Queen streets in Melbourne, and Port Arthur.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308630233.html

Murder has gone down
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html

Attempted murder rose for a little period, but overall has gone down
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/kidnapping.html

Armed robberies rose, then fell, and are now barely above the 1995 totals
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/robbery.html

Less robberies occur with guns
http://www.australianreview.net/journal/v1/n2/peters_browne.pdf

Weapon of choice in armed robberies (mostly knives)
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi127.html

Sexual Assaults against women dropped in the first two years after tighter gun control was introduced, before once more starting to climb.
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/sexual_assault.html

Assaults have been steadily increasing
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/sexual_assault.html

Break & Enter has gone down
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/uewi.html

If you want to have a look through other crime stats in Australia, this is the page
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/

Also, as those stats aren't per capita, it's important to note that Australia's population has risen by about 13% between 1995-2005 (from 18m to about 20.4m). If you need the facts, just look up the Australian Bureau of Statistics, or typing into google 'popluation australia + year'

As a side note, since the 80's (earlier really, but more noticeable from the 80's onward) Australia has been undergoing a large demographic shift from towns to the large cities, the culture has been changing dramatically in that time, as has the sense of community and indivduality, and individuals knowledge of their legal rights.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 09:35 pm
Now of the two stats posted above that have increased since tighter gun control (that is - assault & sexual assault):

Historical data shows :
1. Reported assaults had been increasing for twenty years prior to tighter gun control
2. Reported rapes had been increasing for twenty years prior to tighter gun control
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi61.html

………………………………………………………………………………..
Further, in relation to recent stats (in the last 10 years) :

Quote:
Given the efforts of police to encourage more reporting of sexual assault offences, it appears that an increasing proportion of incidents is being reported and recorded by police.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C41F8B2864D42333CA256F070079CBD4/$File/45230_2004.pdf

In relation to assaults, surveys show that women are more likely to report assaults today, than they were 10 years ago (unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a similar comparison available for men).

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi140.html
.......................................................................
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 06:31:57