Warning!
Don’t insult other posters outside the Pit.
Since he refuses to answer, I will. It’s because everything he said was quoted from WorldNetDaily, the place that is currently exhorting its readers to stock up on guns’n’ammo and canned food because the End of Days is upon us. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a great description of that illustrious site:
As editor and publisher of WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah pushes theories from beyond the lunatic fringe. His online publication has offered a six-part series on how soybeans cause homosexuality and insisted that President Barack Obama is intent on provoking armed rebellion so the UN can implement a one-world government. Farah’s “news” site is also an unrepentant and prolific promoter of “birther” theories about Barack Obama …
It would be difficult to find a better selection of wingnuts, birthers, conspiracy theorists, end-time prophets and Muslim-bashers than in the pages of WND. Prominent columnists include arch-conservative Alan Keyes; white nationalist writer Pat Buchanan; actor and mud-slinger Chuck Norris; former 2012 Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum; arch-birther conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi; and radio hothead Rush Limbaugh.
I clicked on the WND link and now I feel like I need a shower and should hose down my computer. 
And when I see a guy walking through WalMart who’s 6’5" and a bodybuilder, I know he could break my neck at any time. Is safety dependent on making everyone else as helpless as possible?
You’ve been asked three times to respond to the accusation that you are propagating lies about Australian crime statistics. You have been given the actual statistics twice with direct links to the relevant official figures. Your response has been silence and then an attempt to deflect by making a childish insult. Is that the best you can do? If it is and you have capacity for self reflection you might like to think about why you need to shy away from reality on this subject.
To engage in worthwhile discussion it helps to be able to hold in your head the course of the debate. Otherwise you come across like the proverbial goldfish. Or perhaps like a man trying to hoist himself up by his own shoelaces.
I’ll give this one more quick try, bringing the two points we have already discussed together to make it easier for you to keep up.
We agree that we should all bring our children up to be decent rational beings. We agree that isn’t happening. You propose the criminal justice system and incarceration. I point out there is high gun violence in the U.S. despite high incarceration rates. You appear to accept this.
I say again, what now?
I already did post the information you are asking for yet again. Get a grownup to read it to you and teach you how to use the search feature on your computer. Unfortunately no one can teach you common sense.
"Actually, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed, Americans would be insane to concern themselves with what non-Americans think about American gun rights.
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
So, if the USA follows Australia’s lead in banning guns, it should expect a 42 percent increase in violent crime, a higher percentage of murders committed with a gun, and three times more rape. One wonders if Freddy even bothered to look up the relative crime statistics.
The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Above link here:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/23/do-gun-bans-reduce-violent-crime-ask-the-aussies-and-brits/
If you try to post statistics from the cooked books of the very same criminal regime that outlawed honest peoples’ right to the most basic freedom of self defense it will have and much validity as posting something out of the mouth of Soetoro and her tranny “wife”. They’ve trained these effeminate so-called males to go, " Eek guns!". They don’t have the common sense or life experience to realize that if you take away honest peoples’ means of sel defense evil people will take advantage of it. Someday they’ll probably learn the hard way.
When I worked in a convenience store back in West Texas, I was robbed at gunpoint three times, and I did not even work in the bad part of town. I wonder how many times I would have been held up if guns had been harder to get.
It’s hard to see through the gibberish and needless offensive potshots (I think he’s suggesting that Michelle Obama is a “tranny”), but I believe he is suggesting that the Australian government “cooked the books” on their crime statistics while also claiming to have Australian crime stats. I wonder where they are from.
In any event, thank you werewolf for representing the gun advocacy side of the debate.
(1), A fire extinguisher is heavy and bulky, and (2), a fire is not going to pursue you if you try to run.
She can’t out-fight the guy; she can’t out-run him; what else is there? Should an elderly person meekly submit to whatever a criminal wants to do, simply because she’s old?
Any person who has illegal designs on my person or property, or on anybody else that I can reasonably defend.
Liberals often show a bizarre and astonishing willingness to depend on the good graces of criminals. They say, “If I give him what he wants, he won’t hurt me” or “I wouldn’t want to make a bad situation worse.”
To continue with your examples, what if somebody steals your car, and then kills you so that you can’t identify him? Or maybe he’s on drugs and decides to kill you simply because it seems like a nice idea? Having a gun is no guarantee of survival, but it sure evens the odds.
Bloggers are God’s gift to confirmation bias.
Read the whole article …
I’d be very interested in hearing how guns prevent carjackings - it seems to me that far more are facilitated by guns than stopped.
I’d also be curious - if someone already has a gun out and aimed in a carjacking situation, just what is someone who has a gun in the car going to do? Who “wins” in that situation?
I need to repeat this - because I don’t think enough people were paying attention.
This represents where I think America has it wrong.
I don’t mind guns, I’m not afraid of carrying or shooting, or of being armed.
If I am being threatened I sure want the option of carrying a gun.
Problem is - the easier it is for ME to get a gun, the easier it is for a criminal to get a gun.
And he is
a) far more likely to use it
b) in every situation that I can imagine I would have to “defend” - the criminal will have the jump on me, If I need a gun to defend myself, the other guy is already going to have his out and aimed.
Car jacking? Sure - a gun will scare the car jacker off - but only if he’s not already pointing his gun at me.
Rape - sure, a lady carrying a gun can chase away a rapist pretty effectively - unless when he approaches her he’s already threatening her with a gun.
The harder guns are to get, the less common it is for people to have guns around the house, then the less likely it is for a criminal to be carrying - which is what needs to be achieved.
Far far more crimes are facilitated by a gun than are prevented by “good guys with guns”
You’ve been given a link to the primary source for Australian violent crime research a couple of times.
The cites you’ve given are to American gun advocacy sites who make assertions about Australia’s crime rate with no sources given. Where do they get their information from? We don’t know. They are at best a secondary source with no reference to a primary source.
We do know that what they say is directly contradictory to that from a primary source.
I don’t think it’s me who needs a better understanding of basic research principles.
Yet pretty much every time I’ve ever heard law enforcement officers discussing optimal behaviour when being mugged or robbed they say just hand over the cash, people who try to be heroes usually just die or get seriously hurt.
Last I checked, law enforcement officers tended not to be liberal.
Interesting article containing professional opinionson armed civilians defending themselves.
I am not entirely sure why you are adressing this to me, because it seems we are in agreement here. I do not believe that guns prevent carjackings. I believe that trying to defend your car with a gun against an armed carjacker is likely to escalate the situation, and I see no good reason to assume that at the end of such an escalation the attacker is the one most likely to end up killed. From the article you cited:
If someone is aiming a gun at you, you depend on their “good graces”. If you believe that carrying a gun yourself will change that, you are entertaining an illusion. Scenes where the hero quickly draws and incapacitates the offender before he can react are from movies, not reality.
The examples you want to continue with are not mine, they were submitted by **Orwell **for the purpose of supporting the hypothesis that guns save lives. The examples fail to do that.
I do not think the argument gets any better by replacing examples from real life with “What if …” hypotheticals. But sure, if an obviously unarmed criminal is clearly intent on killing you and is still far enough away from you so you have time to pull out your weapon, aim it at him and shoot him, and if you are well-trained enough to actually hit him under pressure (and not hit some bystander) then you are certainly better off carrying a gun. It just seems to me that a lot of things need to come together for that to work out.