Does gun control work?

[PigFish]

sadly, our softcock president has 'strongly requested' that i make no further posts in relation to this issue and therefore i am unable to express my views in respect of, what i view as, some of the imbecilic drivel posted. perhaps we should have a thread on the tyranny of censorship!!

I am sorry to hear that Ken. I may still remark to your comments; if so you are welcome to PM your comments to me. Perhaps you should consider more relevant data in your posts and less insults. I know you consider me a moron, but it is just a suggestion!

If I choose to challenge your position further it will largely be with regards to your request; tyranny. -Ray

[Ken Gargett]

I am sorry to hear that Ken. I may still remark to your comments; if so you are welcome to PM your comments to me. Perhaps you should consider more relevant data in your posts and less insults. I know you consider me a moron, but it is just a suggestion!

If I choose to challenge your position further it will largely be with regards to your request; tyranny. -Ray

ray, i assure you nothing personal and as i mentioned, i know a number of people, some great mates, for whom i have great respect with whom i differ on this issue. it certainly doesn't mean i think of them as morons or anything of the kind - well, perhaps purely in respect of those specific views, but certainly not beyond. actually, quite a lot of people, if i think about it. my thoughts relate only to the issue and nothing else (i can think of a number of similar situations and my disagreement with those people extends only to that specific issue). i am resigned to accepting their views on this, and other issues, and i know that i will not be able to convince them to change and have no problem with that. no doubt they are similarly frustrated in not changing my mind but beyond that, there is no problem at all and that applies, as far as i am concerned to everyone on the forum.

[Colt45]

sadly, our softcock president has 'strongly requested' that i make no further posts in relation to this issue and therefore i am unable to express my views in respect of, what i view as, some of the imbecilic drivel posted. perhaps we should have a thread on the tyranny of censorship!!

The adventures of Lefty and Limpy - I love it!

[El Presidente]

sadly, our softcock president has 'strongly requested' that i make no further posts in relation to this issue and therefore i am unable to express my views in respect of, what i view as, some of the imbecilic drivel posted. perhaps we should have a thread on the tyranny of censorship!!

I asked for intelligent contribution. Given you are currently working from "my desk" and drinking "my coffee" prepared by "my staff" you may have time to add something enlightening to the debate as opposed to references to "imbecilic drivel"

Ray....the problem with sats is that they do not show the full story. Ever.

"Violent Crime" increases in Australia have come about due to the following:

1. The better recording of offenses and cultural change.

eg. The bashing of a wife is no longer "hidden" or tolerated. Support groups, legilsative obligations of doctors and hospitals to report suspected cases, cultural change to how these offenses are viewed (public issue ...not private) have fed into the "crime" statistics to a much larger extent.

The same goes for child abuse, drunken disobedience etc. What was once to an etent "hidden" is no longer. Better policing, the digital age of information collection, cultural change have all led to a massive spike in "violent crime" stats that have no relevance to a community defenseless through the asence of guns.

2. The increase in availability of Alcohol.

Over the last 20 years we have seen here a preponderance of bars and nightclubs open until 3-5 am. Alcohol violence (early morning) is a huge headache for the police and our society. Our legal drinking age is 18. The problems we are experiencing have agan fuelled "Violent Crime" stats.

3. Our indigenous Population.

2.2% of our population and 19% of our jails. Predominantly rural based communities they have the highest rate of unemployment (50%), as well as the highest rate of domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse and general illness. Their lifespan is 20% less than the average non Aboriginal Australian. It really is a tragedy with apparently no solution albeit hundreds of millions has been spent over the decades trying to resolve it. In our countries "Stats" they represent 20% of our "violent crime"

Once again, not too long ago a wive bashed on a remote community would not have been reported in "violent crime" stats. Today they are.

What I am trying to say is that anyone quoting "increases" in "Violence Stats " without seeking to understand why....is pure folly.

In light of the current debate on this thread you have to look at "Gun crime" in Australia and "Gun Crime" has certainly dropped significantly since the 1996 changes.

[Ken Gargett]

I asked for intelligent contribution.

actually you banned me! some may see this as the same thing. i meant imbecilic drivel in a nice way.

[Ken Gargett]

actually you banned me! some may see this as the same thing. i meant imbecilic drivel in a nice way.

ps - your desk and staff are much appreciated but the coffee needs work. any chance of another?

[El Presidente]

actually you banned me! some may see this as the same thing. i meant imbecilic drivel in a nice way.

The ban is obviously working

....get your own coffee

[Chaki]

+1 Ken

Since Ken has been censored…

The debate about the effectiveness of gun control has not been settled. Comparing Australia and the US is not really conclusive. What about a more controlled experiment within the US? NY and MA states do control gun ownership somewhat. Is there a difference in the crime rates between these states and, say, Texas or Florida, that do not restrict gun possession too much?

Even if the legality issue was decided, what about the morality aspect?

Is it morally acceptable to kill someone to protect a TV, a watch or a wallet? What does it say about the value of human life? Even if legally allowed to do so, personally, I would not kill to defend material goods. But that’s just me.

Scientific research showed that the brain is made of several parts. One of which (I will spare you the scientific name) controls the survival instinct, aggressiveness and territoriality senses. It was very useful when our ancestors had to survive in the African savanna. It was better to throw that spear accurately or run very fast when faced with a threat than talk and persuade. Thousands of years later, evolution and progress led to the development of other parts of the brain where language, sense of community and reason are located. Is it not more desirable to appeal to these functions rather than to the more reptilian side of ourselves? What kind of world do we want to live in?

There will always be bigger guns, or better trained people than you. How does it end? Will we feel safe only living in bunkers, surrounded by machine guns, and going shopping in armored vehicles? I suspect that spending more on education, literacy and schools could be more useful than spending on guns and ammunition.

The poster of May 6th at 8:27am told a funny (or not so funny, depending) story. I could imagine two possible dialogues for that kind of situation.

No.1: “See, Son, I blew this guy’s head off! Nobody touches my wallet!

- Way to go, Dad. I’ll do my best to become as good a shot as you.”

No.2: “See, Son, he got only my watch and my wallet. I am not going to risk your life by shooting. Well your Mum is gonna be mad, but, hey, I can always cancel my visa card. This guy must be really desperate to risk his life for a few bucks.

- Whoa, Dad, I understand now why you tell me to work hard and find a good job.”

I would choose No.2. Call me naïve, but I believe more in cooperation, empathy and forgiveness. What kind of values do we want to instill in our children? That a TV or a watch are more valuable than a human life? What kind of environment do we want our kids to grow in? Do we want them to go back to the savanna?

I believe we are all in this together. We are on this little small blue planet, in the middle of an infinitely cold universe, until proven otherwise, all alone. Nobody will come and help mankind if we mess up. We have to start cooperating, talking and sharing. It’s true that shooting at problems seems easier. (OK, I’d shoot to protect my cigars ).

[Colt45]

What kind of values do we want to instill in our children?

That it's not morally acceptable to rob and steal. That it's OK for you to stand up for yourself, to protect yourself.

I'm sure there are creatures who would read this and be happy to accept empathy and forgiveness while they looted your home.

But it is about people. Rather than denounce law abiding citizens for protecting themselves and their property, I denounce the criminal

for crossing the lines of decency and humanity, and committing the crimes.

[SmokinLightning]

That it's not morally acceptable to rob and steal. That it's OK for you to stand up for yourself, to protect yourself.

I'm sure there are creatures who would read this and be happy to accept empathy and forgiveness while they looted your home.

But it is about people. Rather than denounce law abiding citizens for protecting themselves and their property, I denounce the criminal

for crossing the lines of decency and humanity, and committing the crimes.

Colt nailed it...

[Chaki]

OK, I admit that most people, even desperate, will not rob or kill.

But defending material property by taking someone's life? For me it's not worth it. I accept there are other point of views.

Are there not ways to stand up without killing?

[Colt45]

But defending material property by taking someone's life?

You can be sure I'm not advocating or making light of the taking of a human life, for any reason.

We all have our own principles in these matters.

I will say that to me, my possessions represent more than what they seem on the surface.

I had to work for them, to earn the money for them. Nobody has the right to walk in and

take them from me.

Once again, I put the onus on criminals, not victims.

[PigFish]

Every scenario has numerous solutions. I have never touted, "step foot in my house and I will kill you." BUT a further examination of criminal behavior is due. In a scenario where I am asked for my wallet, I will refuse! When my "life is threatened" as a part of that request all bets are off. What the criminal has indicated to you when he threaten your life over your possessions is that your life is in fact worth less than zero. Why zero, because at that point he has only speculated as to what he has to gain by threatening you. He has no actual knowledge of what he has to gain, which could me nothing, yet he has demonstrated that he is willing to risk your life and his in the process. This is not a 'like minded person.' I ask then why do you treat him as such? You have no idea where he will stop making requests because you don't think like him. After noting your willing response to his request he could certainly leave. He could also be a predatory pedophile! YOU DON'T KNOW!

In the scenario above (the poster of the scenario) has treated a situation rationally with an opponent who is altogether not rational or on the same level. Your typical rational person does not threaten the lives of others for their possessions... am I right? You missed that fact in your analysis. A crime, any crime where force of injury or death is involved by the intended to commit the crime is in itself indicting of the character and mindset of the person committing the crime, at least in my view. They are in fact guilty of unstable behavior by default as the results of their acts.

Once a weapon has been produced, your life, the life of your child and so on is now in the hands of a person that you cannot trust. There is no life guarantee once someone has demonstrated the fact that your life is without value. With that information at hand, and the ability to defend yourself with equal or greater force, which then is the better choice; submit or defend? The mere act of defending yourself is at least an option. Why? Because clearly there is one thing in the scenario that the criminal understands; strength and weakness.

Just my 2 cents on the scenario! -Piggy

[Shelby07]

...Are there not ways to stand up without killing?

Yes, put two rounds in the floor, or chamber a 12 gauge and in no uncertain terms let your attacker know that the odds are not necessarily stacked in their favor. They will more often than not leave.

This is the same silly nonsense that I continually hear from gun control advocates. A gun is more often than not used as a defensive tool to ward off the possibility of an event escalating to the point where someone might die. It is an equalizer, a DETERRENT, and it can in no way logically be presented that because I have a gun that I will kill someone in an altercation. If your argument is that gun owners will kill as a first resort, then it is terribly flawed.

If you are going to make a defense for gun control, please don't site one of your reasons as someone will die in an altercation. It's overly dramatic with no basis in fact. Actually, the chances of a CRIMINAL harming or killing their victim is much greater if the victim is defenseless.

[Shelby07]

My apologies if this has been presented here before, but if you haven't seen it yet, it's worth seeing.

[Chaki]

You can be sure I'm not advocating or making light of the taking of a human life, for any reason.

We all have our own principles in these matters.

I will say that to me, my possessions represent more than what they seem on the surface.

I had to work for them, to earn the money for them. Nobody has the right to walk in and

take them from me.

Once again, I put the onus on criminals, not victims.

And I am not saying you are advocating that. For sure, I would defend my family for instance. Property right is sacred to me as well. However, my life and that of my those I love are more important. I would not risk it for a wallet, a TV or a few bucks. Some time ago, I was studying in the US. The campus police told us that when confronted with a thug, better give your wallet and walk away rather than fight. They did not recommend walking around with a gun either. Sensible advice I think.

[Chaki]

Every scenario has numerous solutions. I have never touted, "step foot in my house and I will kill you." BUT a further examination of criminal behavior is due. In a scenario where I am asked for my wallet, I will refuse! When my "life is threatened" as a part of that request all bets are off. What the criminal has indicated to you when he threaten your life over your possessions is that your life is in fact worth less than zero. Why zero, because at that point he has only speculated as to what he has to gain by threatening you. He has no actual knowledge of what he has to gain, which could me nothing, yet he has demonstrated that he is willing to risk your life and his in the process. This is not a 'like minded person.' I ask then why do you treat him as such? You have no idea where he will stop making requests because you don't think like him. After noting your willing response to his request he could certainly leave. He could also be a predatory pedophile! YOU DON'T KNOW!

In the scenario above (the poster of the scenario) has treated a situation rationally with an opponent who is altogether not rational or on the same level. Your typical rational person does not threaten the lives of others for their possessions... am I right? You missed that fact in your analysis. A crime, any crime where force of injury or death is involved by the intended to commit the crime is in itself indicting of the character and mindset of the person committing the crime, at least in my view. They are in fact guilty of unstable behavior by default as the results of their acts.

Once a weapon has been produced, your life, the life of your child and so on is now in the hands of a person that you cannot trust. There is no life guarantee once someone has demonstrated the fact that your life is without value. With that information at hand, and the ability to defend yourself with equal or greater force, which then is the better choice; submit or defend? The mere act of defending yourself is at least an option. Why? Because clearly there is one thing in the scenario that the criminal understands; strength and weakness.

Just my 2 cents on the scenario! -Piggy

Piggy, maybe you are right, but just maybe, the guy who walks in your house is just demonstrating he is desperate enough. People are losing jobs, houses, have sick children but no insurance etc... although most people would not, there can be situation when some people would do that kind of thing.

Pedophiles: in the vast majority of cases victims were molested by someone they knew, family, friends, neighbors, not someone walking in a house at night. Finally, what if the guy pulls a bigger gun? What would you need to feel safe? Is it that bad wherever you live?

[El Presidente]

The question which comes to mind is "How does a mad man get access to a gun?"

So after 60 odd posts and one of the most viewed threads in FOH history we end up with two sides of the same coin.

From that video it could be argued that if everyone was armed the "Mad man" would have been gunned down by everyone in the coffee shop. Alternatively it could be argued that if no one had weapons at all (including the mad man) far less threat would have been posed to all.

In this country we took the second option. On balance it has worked for us here but again I stress that our situation was very different to the USA. We never had the level of gun ownership or gun culture the USA had and so a change of policy was easier to plan and enforce.

I can still shoot at the range and go hunting. I have to be licensed and have a home locker with ammunition stored separately. My choice of weapon is limited.

Personally, I can live with that. I didn't think I could. Yet, having seen pre 96 here and lived post 96 I (and I think most Aussies would agree) the change has been quite marked in terms of what we don't see happening any more. It is exceptionally rare to pick up a paper and read of a father blowing away a family in a drunken rampage or teen suicide by firearm. We still have Bikie shootings and occasional armed robbery. Perfect...no. Better.....much.

[Chaki]

Yes, put two rounds in the floor, or chamber a 12 gauge and in no uncertain terms let your attacker know that the odds are not necessarily stacked in their favor. They will more often than not leave.

This is the same silly nonsense that I continually hear from gun control advocates. A gun is more often than not used as a defensive tool to ward off the possibility of an event escalating to the point where someone might die. It is an equalizer, a DETERRENT, and it can in no way logically be presented that because I have a gun that I will kill someone in an altercation. If your argument is that gun owners will kill as a first resort, then it is terribly flawed.

If you are going to make a defense for gun control, please don't site one of your reasons as someone will die in an altercation. It's overly dramatic with no basis in fact. Actually, the chances of a CRIMINAL harming or killing their victim is much greater if the victim is defenseless.

I am not making a defense of gun control. I said even if legal, from a moral standpoint, I would not resort to shooting. At least, in some cases.

Apologies for my nonsense.

[El Presidente]

I am not making a defense of gun control. I said even if legal, from a moral standpoint, I would not resort to shooting. At least, in some cases.

Apologies for my nonsense.

Hold your ground Chaki. Moral conscience is for no one to judge but yourself and your maker

[PigFish]

This is why I hardly ever partake in this debate using these talking points. Analogy is almost always misunderstood as a tangental and irrelevant point, statistics are used and misused... this argument is circular!

I have a completely different view than most of you. The fact is, my view has not even been discussed here. I was somwhat hoping that another would bring it up but it has been missed by one and all. I have yet again been lured (by my own weakness) into the circular argument of gun control and crime.

I am current writing a 'paper' for those of you interested in a different perspective. If I finish it I will post it. I hope the thread remains warm until I consolidate and document my thoughts. -Piggy

[El Presidente]

Look forward to it Piggy. Once posted I will unleash Ken for an intelligent response

Unless I missed it your initial core argument was about the issue of systematic Govt control as being the underlying premise/smokescreen for "Gun control".

Look forward to your paper.

[Chaki]

+1 Piggy

I also believe dialogue and reason are the best way to deal with differences of opinion.

[Colt45]

However, my life and that of my those I love are more important. I would not risk it for a wallet, a TV or a few bucks.

I can't disagree with you. But I think that's a bit different than your initial thoughts on empathy and forgiveness. Regardless, I think we've left

weapons control behind, and are now delving into human nature. Regrettably, my opinion of humans as a species is not all that high - but that's

a topic for another time.

And as RA has alluded to, your opinion is not nonsense. Save for one member who shall remain nameless (Lefty Gargett) blowing a gasket

and posting with unbridled fury, lashing out at his fellow man, the discussion has remained fairly civil.

[Guest rob]

(Lefty Gargett)