[Tuttyd]

let's put it this way ; if the means of intervention by a lawful citizen has been rendered illegal ,then the cases of intervention by a lawful citizen will of course be rare events. That Vice Principal who went to his car to stop a killer was technically breaking the law by doing so .

Well, no let's not put it that way. Lets put it the way you said.

The question I asked was why did you use numerous example of intervention to demonstrate citizen intervention can reduce the amount of killing. Then in a post after this you said that intervention is irrelevant. Is it relevant to your position or not?

It can't be both.

Tut

[tomder55]

Again you are playing high school debate . Take my answer above as my reply.

[Tuttyd]

again you are playing high school debate . take my answer above as my reply.

I have had a lot of practice at getting people to follow my line of questioning so as they paint themselves into a corner. It's not actually a high school technique. It is a very old dialectical method used throughout the centuries.


Tut

[tomder55]

Have fun with it then .I'm sure you are the life of the party as you score points. Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .

[Tuttyd]

have fun with it then .I'm sure you are the life of the party as you score points. Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .

Ok, then I'll play by your rules. I won't worry about consistency.

I have stated by position many times in this thread. The latest one being in relation to the article posted by Steve which mentions Australian gun laws. If I didn't state it clearly then I will state it now in no uncertain terms:

Strict Australian gun laws result in low incidents of mass shootings.

You can post all the right wing think tank studies on Australian gun laws you like, but they won't stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny.

Tut

[tomder55]

Good for Australia . When our law enforcement demonstrates they can get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and predators then perhaps my views will change on them going after the guns of law abiding citizens.

[Tuttyd]

[QUOTE=tomder55;3355245 Why don't you instead state a position on the topic instead of nit picking details .[/QUOTE]


Nit picking? I would have thought that concealed carry was a central part of the discussion Isn't that why you post those think tank studies to show that it is?


Tut

[Tuttyd]

good for Australia . When our law enforcement demonstrates they can get illegal guns out of the hands of criminals and predators then perhaps my views will change on them going after the guns of law abiding citizens.

Well, that's never going to happen, so you are stuck with the paranoia this type of issue generates.



Tut

[tomder55]

OK then ;how's it going with other violent crimes ,assaults ,rapes ,forced entries into homes ?Did the use of firearms in robberies decrease ? All you really did was remove the means of self defense .

The facts (to quote the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia) are as follows:
Between July 1 1997 and 30 June 1999 nine in ten offenders of firearm-related homicide were unlicensed firearm owners.


Raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals that while suicide by firearms is continuing to decrease from a high in the 1980s, suicide by hanging steadily increased throughout the 1990s and increased for three consecutive years after the 1996 buy-back.


In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered. Recent legislation introduced by all states further strengthened controls on access to legitimate handguns by sporting shooters.


The AIC's 'Homicide in Australia: 2006-07 National Homicide Monitoring Program annual report' stated that 93 per cent of firearms involved in homicides had never been registered and were used by unlicensed individuals.

America, don't repeat Australia's gun control mistake | The Daily Caller

Yeah yeah I know... right wing... no validity .

[paraclete]

Tom you may not like our attitude to guns but the facts remain we have a low incidence of death by gun, in fact we have a low incidence of crime generally
In 2010, the Australian victimisation rates recorded by police for selected person offence categories were:
Murder, 1.0 victims per 100,000 persons
Attempted murder, 0.9 victims per 100,000 persons
Manslaughter, 0.1 victims per 100,000 persons
Sexual assault, 79.5 victims per 100,000 persons
Kidnapping/abduction, 2.7 victims per 100,000 persons
Robbery, 56.0 victims per 100,000 persons
The american statistics are more difficult to compare for 2010
violent crime rate 403.6
Murder 4.8
Rape 27.5
Robbery 119.1
Aggrevated assault 252.3

But you can see there is a significantly lower rate in our society

[speechlesstx]

Ok, then I'll play by your rules. I won't worry about consistency.

I have stated by position many times in this thread. The latest one being in relation to the article posted by Steve which mentions Australian gun laws. If I didn't state it clearly then I will state it now in no uncertain terms:

Strict Australian gun laws result in low incidents of mass shootings.

You can post all the right wing think tank studies on Australian gun laws you like, but they won't stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny.

Tut

It also showed gun crime doubled in the UK after making it virtually impossible to own a handgun and had a nominal effect on violent crime in Australia. Oh, and assaults went up 40% and sexual assaults rose 20%.

Conclusion? Disarming law abiding gun owners is not going to solve the problem and may in fact make it worse.

[talaniman]

My conclusion would be there are more criminal acts and I doubt its because of a lack of guns but more likely a lack of money. Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

To pick out ONE factor to draw conclusions leads tofalse conclusions.

[J_9]

Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

You can thank Obama for that!

[NeedKarma]

You can thank Obama for that!

That's a joke, right?

[Tuttyd]

It also showed gun crime doubled in the UK after making it virtually impossible to own a handgun and had a nominal effect on violent crime in Australia. Oh, and assaults went up 40% and sexual assaults rose 20%.

Conclusion? Disarming law abiding gun owners is not going to solve the problem and may in fact make it worse.

Yes, I know. These figures come from the Australian Bureau of Criminology. Tom makes a reference to it in his post. In fact there two figures are quoted in a number of reports I have seen from time to time.

What the reports also says is that homicide has decreased by 9 percent since 1990 and armed robbery by a third since 2001.


These other two figures I just quoted are in the same report. They are not in a different chapter, they are not in a different paragraph. They are in fact IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

What is wrong with these people who do these types of studies? I know the will always be cherry picking of figures- but in the same sentence? And we are expected to take their reports seriously.

Additionally. I would have though that in order to disarm a population a population said population would have needed to be armed in the first place. Therefore the vast majority of Australians don't suffer from paranoia over the issue


Tut

[paraclete]

My conclusion would be there are more criminal acts and I doubt its because of a lack of guns but more likely a lack of money. Lack of money can make even honest people do bad things.

To pick out ONE factor to draw conclusions leads to false conclusions.

Yes Tal, lack of money is a significant factor in the incidence of crime, so is drug addiction, and yet there is a strong move in your country to reduce welfare and make the situation worse. What is difficult to understand is $300 billion dollars is given to charity each year, that is a significant sum of money which should do much to offset the lack of money, but apparently it doesn't, what it does do is fund employment in non profit organisations

[speechlesstx]

Yes, I know. These figures come from the Australian Bureau of Criminology. Tom makes a reference to it in his post. In fact there two figures are quoted in a number of reports I have seen from time to time.

What the reports also says is that homicide has decreased by 9 percent since 1990 and armed robbery by a third since 2001.


These other two figures I just quoted are in the same report. They are not in a different chapter, they are not in a different paragraph. They are in fact IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

What is wrong with these people who do these types of studies? I know the will always be cherry picking of figures- but in the same sentence? And we are expected to take their reports seriously.

Additionally. I would have though that in order to disarm a population a population said population would have needed to be armed in the first place. Therefore the vast majority of Australians don't suffer from paranoia over the issue


Tut

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

[Tuttyd]

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

Sorry, my mistake.

Tut

[paraclete]

We don't suffer from paranoia, we exercise our rights.

Seriously a matter of opinion, fear breeds fear

[Tuttyd]

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.