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

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

Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
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: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

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: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

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 horses**t.


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
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

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: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
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 ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

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: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

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: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

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: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

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: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

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.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

18 Jun 2012, 12:23 am

aghogday wrote:
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.


I also infer this to mean the gun lobby supporting Republicans practice a form of double standards when it comes to the conduct of their own party members and the standards they expect minority groups and Democrats to uphold!



Last edited by cyberdad on 18 Jun 2012, 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,150

18 Jun 2012, 12:33 am

John_Browning wrote:
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 there are plenty of psychometric tests that can test for impulsiveness.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jun 2012, 12:35 am

@ DC

I wrote this some pages back in this thread, and have gone into much greater depth on the subject in other WP threads of the past:

Dox47 wrote:
People often lose the egalitarian aspect of firearms, they don't realize that no other tool so completely levels the physical playing field when it comes to physical conflict, as the gun is the current apex of personal weapons design. My favorite example is why Japan banned the gun for as long as it did, which is because it upset their civil order by allowing the rudest of peasants to defeat a highly trained samurai, something they simply could not allow to occur.

Back then, only the aristocracy could afford to pay men to do nothing but train at arms and become proficient with the weapons of the day, weapons that demanded huge commitments of time and effort to master. The common man had to work for a living, he didn't have time to train at all, let alone to the point where he could defend himself against the depredations of trained assailants, especially those out of work sorts who had no other marketable skills and turned to banditry in order to support themselves.

The gun changed all that, anyone can use one and they don't take years of training and a muscular physique to use effectively. They provide the common man with a way of resisting attacks upon his person and those persons around him, without his having to devote his life to their mastery.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Jun 2012, 12:39 am

cyberdad wrote:
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 horses**t.


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.
...Still not directly addressing my post huh? I still don't see any evidence that the presence of guns alone create a "culture of violence", though you did prove that the presence of guns create a "culture of fear" among the gun control folks. Anyways I'm done with you. Looks like you're more interested in resorting to petty insults and self-righteousness than you are in making any real arguments. It's real pathetic for a 44 year old like you to act so juvenile.

I just wanted to address one more thing though since this is so laughably stupid:

cyberdad wrote:
Does it ever occur to you why you never hear never hear about the heroic dad who saves his family from armed intruders with a gun? The reason is because it's a myth.
No s**t sherlock, if it bleeds it leads. In 92% of cases where a legal gun owner brandishes a gun, either no shot is fired or a warning shot is. Not so sensational for the headlines is it? Yeah, I'm sure a a story of a man pointing a gun at an intruder until the cops arrive is going to get so much more ratings than a cracked out intruder who kills the man's whole family :roll:

Quote:
Fact: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.1 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they “almost certainly” saved their lives by doing so.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

Fact: In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense.

Fact: Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.

Fact: Less than 8% of the time does a citizen wound his or her attacker, and in less than one in a thousand instances is the attacker killed.2

Fact: For every accidental death, suicide, or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Fact: When using guns in self-defense3:

83% of robbery victims were not injured.

88% of assault victims were not hurt.

76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot.

Fact: After the implementation of Canada’s 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.4
http://www.gunmyths.com/2008/12/23/myth-private-ownership-of-guns-is-not-effective-in-preventing-crime/

This alone s**ts on every argument you've brought to the table. But that's okay, you don't have to accept that. I've given up already so nobody's stopping you from cherry picking my arguments and dodging my points. But at least I can actually call myself civilized with a straight face since I actually do things to deserve the label, such as conducting myself respectfully and not being a self-righteous bigot.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Jun 2012, 1:21 am

cyberdad wrote:
aghogday wrote:
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.


I also infer this to mean the gun lobby supporting Republicans practice a form of double standards when it comes to the conduct of their own party members and the standards they expect minority groups and Democrats to uphold!
I love how you edited out the part about Americans having a bullying, racist shooter as president if Barack Obama loses the next election. I'll see what the mods think about that...



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jun 2012, 1:26 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
I'll see what the mods think about that...


No need for that, I don't know that they could do any worse to him than he's already done to himself.

Also, have I said yet how funny it is to watch a nannying Aussie get batted about by an angry Canadian? So many stereotypes crumbling before my eyes... :D


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson