Australia: land of kangroos, people that need to lighten up



Page 6 of 9 [ 128 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 21, 2011
Posts: 2939

14 Jun 2012, 8:40 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Wouldn't know if anyone can actually "prove" that any one action made a country safer. There may be hundreds of things that need to occur to reduce violent crime including greater police, improved welfare, higher employment, improved mental health services and better education programs. What you are expecting is evidence of a simplistic connection.
So how is all this mutually exclusive from gun rights? You can't have all those things along with gun rights?


Arming people (civilians) with weapons to the point the community is awash with guns has a knock on effect that goes beyond making the community unsafe. It also creates a culture that teaches the next generation that problems can be solved using violent retaliation. Not a healthy environment.

AceOfSpades wrote:
Any sort of system is too big and massive to efficiently cater to individual needs, so it only makes sense that people should have an individual means of protection should the system fail. Fire departments don't eliminate the need for fire extinguishers, so why should the police departments eliminate the need for guns?)


Not picking on you specifically but none of the pro-gun posters here have provided evidence that a mild mannered accountant with a gun is going to magically turn into Chuck Norris if faced with 2-3 armed intruders.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2009
Posts: 4456
Location: The shooting range

14 Jun 2012, 4:13 pm

cyberdad wrote:
On this we can agree then. But background checks will only bring up prior records if the person had a criminal record right? what about mental profile? potential to have a brain snap because of a mental illness (not talking here about autism, rather bipolar, schizophrenia and personality disorder etc).

There is no diagnosis in the US that prohibits someone from owning a gun, and problems from that are rare since substance abuse is by far predisposing factor for non-gang or drug trade related violence. The mentally ill are a favorite whipping boy for gun control even though for reasons unknown to me, hardly any of them have any inclination to ever own a gun even they do not fall into any prohibited category. The violent lunatic stereotype is a product of the media. In real life, the mentally ill are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than to commit one.

Quote:
Not picking on you specifically but none of the pro-gun posters here have provided evidence that a mild mannered accountant with a gun is going to magically turn into Chuck Norris if faced with 2-3 armed intruders.

Having a home turf advantage when defending yourself helps your odds immensely, and most thugs tend to lack proficiency with the guns they have. If they were training to be a "Chuck Norris", that would be held against them too. For the record, Chuck Norris was a fairly average man out of the spotlight. He spent time in the air force, he was an avid kick-boxer, worked in aerospace, became an action star, and eventually became a Christian. He is a mild mannered man that is highly disciplined in the use of force.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 11, 2006
Posts: 3714
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

14 Jun 2012, 6:46 pm

cyberdad wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Wouldn't know if anyone can actually "prove" that any one action made a country safer. There may be hundreds of things that need to occur to reduce violent crime including greater police, improved welfare, higher employment, improved mental health services and better education programs. What you are expecting is evidence of a simplistic connection.
So how is all this mutually exclusive from gun rights? You can't have all those things along with gun rights?


Arming people (civilians) with weapons to the point the community is awash with guns has a knock on effect that goes beyond making the community unsafe. It also creates a culture that teaches the next generation that problems can be solved using violent retaliation. Not a healthy environment.
How do the presence of guns alone create its own culture? This sounds like borderline psychoanalysis. Subcultures promoting violent retaliation exist on their own and have jack s**t to do with whether or not guns are legal. A violent subcultural mindset will cause you to be violent regardless of what means you have for it. Do the presence of condoms in a community create a "culture of sex"? Does the legalization of abortion create a "culture of infanticide" or a "culture of death"? How about Honda Civics, did they create a "culture of ricers"? Nice logic there buddy.

cyberdad wrote:
Not picking on you specifically but none of the pro-gun posters here have provided evidence that a mild mannered accountant with a gun is going to magically turn into Chuck Norris if faced with 2-3 armed intruders.
Can you show me who has said this? This statement is so vague I don't even know where to start and I can't even tell whether or not it's just a figment of your imagination. You do realize that it highly depends on the circumstances right? The topic of guns is very very complex and if you're looking for simple answers you're barking up the wrong tree. If the 3 dudes already have their guns out then who's gonna be stupid enough to pull one out while they already have 3 pointed at him/her? And it highly depends on how aware of the situation the person is. Situational awareness differs from person to person. If let's say, the accountant notices the first intruder has a suspicious looking bulge on his hip or maybe a jacket which has one side hanging lower than the other with an object in it. The accountant could then get prepared to pull a gun out.

And oh yeah, none of the gun control folks have ever shown evidence for this "More guns create a culture of violence" theory of theirs. Then again, your definition of "violent" clearly means "Anyone who owns a gun regardless of whether or not they are responsible with it". I'm convinced that terms like "gun culture" or "culture of violence" are nothing more than obfuscating horseshit.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mar 19, 2011
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

14 Jun 2012, 6:55 pm

Protect the kangroos



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Nov 24, 2011
Posts: 5541

14 Jun 2012, 7:24 pm

Speaking of 3 versus 1:

Back when I did IDPA (competitive shooting), I could put 6 rounds on 3 targets in about a second (Series 70 Government Model, .45). Whilst I probably was better than the average bear that showed up at the range, I was by no means all that spectacular (middle of the road). The only training I had was self-taught via reading and putting in the hard work each weekend.

The best shooter was a baker by trade (which means nothing, as shooting isn't tied to anything other than the skill involved).

We used to compete with the QLD police and security forces too.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 5547
Location: New Orleans

14 Jun 2012, 11:14 pm

My city and state has the most police per person in the country, the highest rate of jailing people, 50% more than Mississippi, and we spend the most. We still have the highest murder rate.

All of the things that were supposed to reduce crime, did not work.

So I have my doubts about social engineering. Arresting all the drug dealers in an area, leaves customers with money, and new oppertunity. As everyone is new they have to settle who owns this corner for retailing, which they do with bodies. Leaving the original gangsters alone, they will form a Chamber of Commerce, and not allow anything to harm their mutual business.

It is always lawyers who call for mass arrests, they make money on it, which they seem to be investing in private prisons. It is a business. I would rather see people making an honest living selling weed on the streets.

Lawyers and bars push the laws.

High risk makes for high reward, so the way to reduce risks is flood the market, four sellers per corner, then they have to compete on quality and service.

90% of our jails are drug related, and often murdering the person who was robbing you, or going to murder you, for the $1,000 a night they could make from that corner.

Twice as many drug dealers is not going to produce twice as many customers, nor will half the sellers only have half the customers. Drugs are customer driven. Only ten times the number of sellers will take the profit out of it.

When bodies are found the guns never are, for they are rentals and have to be returned. Six people killed with the same gun, and none connected, nor are the shooters. We are creating new industries.

The gunfight scene of home defense rarely happens, if someone is opening a window, trying to break down the door, one shot in the floor will put a stop to that. It is a lot quicker than calling 911. It is instant. It will bring a quicker response than "I hear something in my yard."

It would just be a lot simpler if we locked up the people who want to be safe, and the lawyers.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 21, 2011
Posts: 2939

15 Jun 2012, 2:29 am

John_Browning wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The mentally ill are a favorite whipping boy for gun control even though for reasons unknown to me, hardly any of them have any inclination to ever own a gun even they do not fall into any prohibited category. The violent lunatic stereotype is a product of the media. In real life, the mentally ill are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than to commit one.

I was leaning toward ADHD + personality disorders such as narcissism or impulsiveness mixed with substance abuse and guns are a recipe for disaster. The trigger here is the substance abuse.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 21, 2011
Posts: 2939

15 Jun 2012, 2:36 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
And oh yeah, none of the gun control folks have ever shown evidence for this "More guns create a culture of violence" theory of theirs. Then again, your definition of "violent" clearly means "Anyone who owns a gun regardless of whether or not they are responsible with it". I'm convinced that terms like "gun culture" or "culture of violence" are nothing more than obfuscating horseshit.


Isn't this simple outgroup Vs ingroup stuff. Gun owners tend to mix with other gun owners because of common interests (i.e. gun clubs, shooting ducks, game, clay pellets etc). Of course when gun owners mix with their fellow gun "enthusiasts" they feed each other with the usual justification of why they have guns and of course why society "needs" civilians to have guns. The outgroup here are people who "don't" own guns and who may find it objectionable and downright scary that their neighbor has a cache of weapons.



TallyMan
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: Mar 30, 2008
Posts: 41833

15 Jun 2012, 4:44 pm

(Thread moved from News and current events to PPR)


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Mar 22, 2009
Posts: 4456
Location: The shooting range

15 Jun 2012, 8:25 pm

cyberdad wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
The mentally ill are a favorite whipping boy for gun control even though for reasons unknown to me, hardly any of them have any inclination to ever own a gun even they do not fall into any prohibited category. The violent lunatic stereotype is a product of the media. In real life, the mentally ill are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than to commit one.

I was leaning toward ADHD + personality disorders such as narcissism or impulsiveness mixed with substance abuse and guns are a recipe for disaster. The trigger here is the substance abuse.

ADHD not known to be a contributing factor, though certain personality disorders like narcissistic and antisocial are, even if they could be detected it's hard to predict if they will become violent or go into business or politics- partly because narcissists in particular (and some antisocial) so rarely raise flags or seek help before they get into trouble. There's no practical way to test if impulsiveness is a factor but I agree on the substance abuse part. Even NAMI, which has expressed opposition to new gun control laws singling out the mentally ill, has stated that substance abuse with or without another disorder is the big red flag to watch for growing signs of a risk of violence both in the home and in the community.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Apr 26, 2011
Posts: 1205

15 Jun 2012, 8:32 pm

When I first heard about this I said "Who gives a s**t?"

Now I am still saying "Who gives a s**t?"



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Nov 25, 2010
Posts: 6626

16 Jun 2012, 3:13 am

John_Browning wrote:
Image
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/australian-olympic-swimmers-criticized-facebook-gun-photo-154500136.html

Two members of the Australian Olympic swim team are under fire for posing with three guns and posting the photo on Facebook.

Swimming Australia demanded Kenrick Monk take down the picture of him and Nick D'Arcy in a California gun shop. He complied.

In the picture, Monk held pump action shotguns that resemble those used in the Port Arthur massacre of 1996, an incident which still stands as one of Australia's deadliest shootings. D'Arcy held a semi-automatic pistol.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph was among the Aussie newspapers to question the decision of the young men. On its Twitter account, the newspaper asked, "Are you offended by this photograph of Nick D'Arcy and Kenrick Monk in a US gun shop?"

The two young men need no introduction to stupidity. D'Arcy was involved in a brawl on the night the 2008 Australian Olympic team was announced and broke the jaw, nose, eye socket and cheekbone of a teammate. He was kicked off the team but avoided jail for the incident.

The lawyer of the man he punched was surprisingly surprised at D'Arcy's current brush with infamy. "I can't believe it," Sam Macedone told The Age. "Despite all the criticism, he still does things that are stupid."

Monk broke his elbow last September and blamed it on a hit-and-run driver. Four days after filing a police report, he confessed that he had actually fallen off his skateboard. Police didn't charge Monk, calling him a "wannabe B-grade celebrity athlete." (Police in Australia sound sort of awesome.)

"It was all just meant to be a bit of fun, the photos were just a bit of fun," D'Arcy told reporters upon his return to Australia on Friday. "If anyone's been offended I deeply apologize. It was never the intent, it was never supposed to be offensive."

There are reports that the Australian Olympic Committee could keep both swimmers off the team for the "foolish" action that was "clearly inappropriate for members of the 2012 Australian Olympic team."


Something pictured below one won't likely see on face book, depicted per actual members, even with a toy gun.

There is a good reason why automobile insurance rates are higher among young adult males. Both pictures are evidence of that. Neither picture is too far out of the range of normal young male adult behavior, given the appropriate resources. And, Romney also does a fine unwitting job, of providing a picture associated with the result of gun ownership above and beyond the actual harm of anyone in defending their residence.

Guns weren't invented for fun. But, people can become very emotionally attached to them, through the personification of objects, not unlike a car. Part of why it is such an emotional issue, well beyond the real life protection, provided by owning one.

In someways it's like owning a stamp collection; just riskier, but not nearly as risky as owning and driving a car, per personal action or actions of others that one cannot control.

The difference though, is Romney wasn't likely an aspiring public figure in that picture, while the other two guys are representing their country in the Olympics per world-wide attention, and they must meet the standards provided by the Australian Olympic Committee if they want to be part of the team.

Romney gets a pass, because that photo was seen acceptable as a harmless joke in a yearbook photo decades ago, but wouldn't likely get that pass today, in any yearbook. Interesting how politically correct policies change across time and culture.

Facebook gets most of the modern responsibility for the hot water those two guys are currently in. What was once limited to a yearbook, can be broadcast now with a computer, a digital camera, and a perpetual world-wide yearbook that millions have access to.

At some point in time there may be few political candidates left, per skeletons falling out of the closet.

Facebook, in effect can potentially be a riskier weapon than a handgun, considering the statistical rates published for estimates of the number of employers that use it to screen prospective employees; after all employment is a requirement to live, for most.

The real life issues these guys could potentially face, per the photo, in their future lives, are beyond missing out on the chance to participate in an Olympic event. But one is not likely going to convince many young adults of this issue, anymore to effect young adult males by asking them to please drive more carefully.

Automobile Insurance rates aren't going down anytime soon for young adult males, nor is the influence of human nature likely going to disappear. There are just a few more avenues available to express it now, than there was in the recent past.

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.com/2012/05/research-romneys-anti-gay-assault-fits.html

Image



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Nov 25, 2010
Posts: 6626

16 Jun 2012, 4:01 am

John_Browning wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
The mentally ill are a favorite whipping boy for gun control even though for reasons unknown to me, hardly any of them have any inclination to ever own a gun even they do not fall into any prohibited category. The violent lunatic stereotype is a product of the media. In real life, the mentally ill are 3 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than to commit one.

I was leaning toward ADHD + personality disorders such as narcissism or impulsiveness mixed with substance abuse and guns are a recipe for disaster. The trigger here is the substance abuse.

ADHD not known to be a contributing factor, though certain personality disorders like narcissistic and antisocial are, even if they could be detected it's hard to predict if they will become violent or go into business or politics- partly because narcissists in particular (and some antisocial) so rarely raise flags or seek help before they get into trouble. There's no practical way to test if impulsiveness is a factor but I agree on the substance abuse part. Even NAMI, which has expressed opposition to new gun control laws singling out the mentally ill, has stated that substance abuse with or without another disorder is the big red flag to watch for growing signs of a risk of violence both in the home and in the community.


Actually, ADHD is understood as an associative factor in all types of crime, per prison populations where research has been done on the issue.

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/719862

Quote:
Conclusion

ADHD is a significant factor relating to both crime and punishment. The condition increases the risk of committing a crime, and once the individual is incarcerated, the conundrum develops regarding appropriate treatment. Evidence suggests that proper treatment may reduce the risk for criminal behavior and the rate of recidivism among afflicted criminals.

Coherent approaches to treating youth with ADHD both in and out of the criminal justice system need to be developed. Additional study will further enlighten these difficult issues. For the present, it is important for psychiatrists to consider ADHD as a valid factor in crime and the treatment of ADHD as a potentially preventive measure against the commission of violent and nonviolent criminal acts. Resolving or improving ADHD symptoms can bring relief to the individual as well as to society at large.


Additionally, while individuals with autism are bullied more than the general population, per the research that has been done in this area, individuals with autism with co-morbid symptoms of ADHD, are studied as being 2 to 4 times more likely to bully others, depending on which study one looks at, with additional potential associations with being bullied at higher rates, and misunderstanding social circumstances as contributing factors to the overall behavior.

Individuals with autism without co-morbid ADHD symptoms are no more likely than the rest of the population to bully others.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17512887

And finally there are many studies that associate substance abuse with ADHD, another factor associated with crime and violence.

http://jad.sagepub.com/content/14/2/109.abstract

While not specifically addressed in the prison population research, substance abuse per the association of substance abuse and ADHD in the general population, was likely an associated factor among those with ADHD in the prison population, per the war on drugs, and percentage of individuals in prison populations for drug related offenses.

Appropriate medication is studied as reducing the potential for substance abuse among individuals with ADHD, and per the research quoted above, it is suggested that there may be the potential of reduced crime statistics among individuals treated for ADHD, as studied in the prison population. Again though, likely the two associations are strongly linked.

One issue among children with autism is that per the DSMIV, technically, a separate diagnosis of ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorders is not allowed. A concern per the DSM5 and recent research suggests that many individuals with Autism and ADHD symptoms do not receive appropriate medication for their ADHD symptoms because they aren't identified as technically having a diagnosis of ADHD. If that is the case, it may also be an associated factor in the research related to bullying behavior.



DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Aug 15, 2011
Posts: 1477

16 Jun 2012, 6:22 am

Dox47 wrote:
Come back with an example of a violent country that was made non-violent by removing the guns...

I'll wait.


I'm reaching here you raise an interesting point, but I think Japan might just qualify.

When firearms were first introduced to Japan, the samurai feudal system ran into severe problems. The samurai & henchmen would ride into a village to demand their taxes and rents only to find a bunch of upset villagers with firearms made all their mad ninja skills useless.

Because of this problem the Japanese banned all firearms to preserve the feudal system which worked for a while until nasty westerners showed up and slaughtered the samurai.

I suspect the current peacefulness and social cohesion of Japanese society is more to do with their elite being humbled and neutered after WWII and the collective memory of being nuked but gun restrictions do play a pivotal role in Japan's history.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: Feb 21, 2011
Posts: 2939

18 Jun 2012, 12:13 am

DC wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Come back with an example of a violent country that was made non-violent by removing the guns...

I'll wait.


I'm reaching here you raise an interesting point, but I think Japan might just qualify.

When firearms were first introduced to Japan, the samurai feudal system ran into severe problems. The samurai & henchmen would ride into a village to demand their taxes and rents only to find a bunch of upset villagers with firearms made all their mad ninja skills useless.

Because of this problem the Japanese banned all firearms to preserve the feudal system which worked for a while until nasty westerners showed up and slaughtered the samurai.

I suspect the current peacefulness and social cohesion of Japanese society is more to do with their elite being humbled and neutered after WWII and the collective memory of being nuked but gun restrictions do play a pivotal role in Japan's history.


Good post. Although gun control in Japan has been successful at greatly reducing gun violence, such a model would not work in the United States because of the subordination of individual liberty to the power of the Japanese state.

Thus gun control works in collectivist societies but no so good in individualistic societies.



Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Page 6 of 9 [ 128 posts ] Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to: