When that statement was made overall crime in the US was at an all time high. Ownership and the number of available firearms have increased markedly in the last 20 years, yet overall crime rates in the US have gone down.
Ah. So, one person’s personal feelings in a thread is an accurate portrayal of 280 million people as long as that person starts a thread? Fascinating logic. Is this some sort of new method of statistical analysis I’ve not heard of? Have you invented a new kind of math? Are you Stephen Hawking?
Oooooh. A quote.
Hey everyone! He has a quote! That’s it, I’m convinced. I mean, it’s provided without any evidence or context. So it must be true.
Man. A quote. Wow, wish I had thought of that. Can’t argue with a quote. I mean, I already pointed out that the numbers of people in the US carrying around a gun are around 1%. But, The Great Unwashed has some guy on a message board and quote from Berger. Unassailable that guy is. A towering intellect.
Geez. A quote and a guy on a message board. You should publish your findings. You might get a Nobel for brilliant sociological work like that.
Hey, guy argues with sarcasm ain’t fucking ground breaking analysis either.
Firstly, quoting a polemical OP seems to me fair game, if not statistically sound, quoting a former Chief of Justice seems to me a reasonable tactic, if not wholly scientific. Secondly, this is the fucking pit, right? So forgive me for playing a little fast and loose with my rhetoric, or go fuck yourself, I don’t care.
The “many Americans…” referred to the numbers fearing crime, not the numbers carrying concealed weapons – whatever, maybe it’s a cultural thing but, “2.4 million Americans carry concealed weapons for protection,” sounds to me like a shocking statistic, YMOV.
First, note your thread title. And as you say in your OP,
Given that your source says they aren’t going to consider banning machetes because of their many practical uses, one might - just might - infer that it makes no sense to suggest they might ban rocks or water, even if you’re playing the game of taking their logic to absurd extremes for effect’s sake. A line’s clearly being drawn, by the Aussies in your cited article, between weapon-like things with necessary and practical uses, on the one hand, and weapon-like things whose sole legitimate use is artistic or recreational, on the other.
You can argue that that’s still a dumb place to draw the line, but pretending that their logic equates stuff on opposite sides of the line is flying in the face of your own cite.
No, I don’t, not when the post I’m responding to is:
What’s your beef, wring? This very much seems to me to be a case of you kicking and screaming just to hear your own noise.
???
I thought your question was loaded. still do. The post you were responding to was short on data, long on rhetoric, too, IMHO.
but yours was absolutely IMHO a ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ sort of thing and I responded.
that’s “kicking and screaming just to hear your own noise”?
That’s pretty rude response to me IMHO, why do you feel it’s justified?
Because I feel you’ve been pretty rude to me, accusing me of posting things just to be inflammatory. Such behavior is perilously close to the “t” word. The original post I was responding to WAS short on data and long on rhetoric, that’s why I was asking for clarification and for someone to expand on the topic!
You asked a question, when I gave the answer, you said “you knew that” . GIven your wording, what other option existed? you said “you were curious about the answer” but admitted that you knew it (that some people value human life over property).
Noting that IANAL (and indeed IANA Ozzie – living across the “ditch”).
Many knives have completely everyday and legitimate purposes, so limiting sales of them could be difficult. One doesn’t need a commando knife, a steak knife can be used (and are used) in the commision of a robbery or a murder.
As for the “Samurai Slaughter”… virtually none. There was one high-profile case in NZ a while back where some nutter attacked two people with a sword, but when it comes to “sword” attacks, the machete (which is explicitly mentioned as excluded from the regs) is fair more commonly used in an assault than a samurai sword or replica 16th C rapier.
That said, I understand that the general thrust of the Victoria legislation is intended to get in synch with the laws of several other states in Oz (Tasmania being a specific exception), and prohibit certain weapons that are not considered to have legitimate purposes.
Back in 2001 the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Chris Ellison, announced that the country would be pursuing a “national approach to prohibited weapons”, and that “all Governments, except Tasmania, had agreed to ban a range of dangerous weapons on a national basis. Among those weapons that will be banned are sheath and trench knives, throwing axes, hand and foot claws, weighed gloves, shark darts and dart projectors, mace (club with spiked head), flail, anti-personnel sprays and extendable telescopic batons”.
(my bolding – some knives are/will be covered by the ban… “sheath knives” would be the same knives that we SCAers like to call daggers and are often used to complete outfits… and for eating with).
In Victoria, (state of the OP), swords and crossbows are already controlled weapons (you have to have a legitimate reason for wandering around with one), this legislation makes them prohibited weapons.
(see Control of Weapons Regulations 2000, schedules 2 & 3).
You can still own prohibitied weapons, but must have a license (A$135 for 3 years, from memory), and they have to be locked away in a cabinet (a gun case) when not in use.
The SCA people are concerned as to what this will mean for them (and other recreation groups, such as the WWI Light Horsemen); licenses and gun cases are additional overhead, and then there’s the whole question of whether prohibited items could even be worn in public, to and from events.
Well I could say that Mr Mullet is one of the reason we are banning sharp things in Australia. But that would be a cheap shot:D
In all seriousness I think he has an axe to grind and is behaving like a dick. For future reference I think it would be better if we classed him as - “US hating Lunatic Fringe”
The most effective (and probably most common) tool for home defense is a common 12 gauge pump action shotguns. As those are long arms, I wouldn’t discard all long-arm-only homes as ones which don’t own a gun for self defense.
Well, a crossbow saved my husband from being stabbed by a would-be truck theif earlier this year…
Really - surprised a guy trying to steal our truck, said felon then pulled an 8 inch kitchen knife on the husband. Husband shot him with our crossbow - a little job we use for target practice and amusement.
Yes, there was a bit of a bother with calling the police, explaining what happened, etc. But we still have our truck and my husband was entirely unhurt.
I should also clarify for those who do not live in the US that weapon laws vary not only from state to state but even from county to county or city to city. In Indiana (where I live) crossbows can be used for hunting ONLY by those who lack the use of one arm - if you have two good arms you have to use a more standard bow. The laws on crossbow use, in fact, are stricter than those on guns in many ways in this state.
However, the law here also recognizes legitimate self-defense, including using of weapons you have about the house or improvise from what’s available.
Well, I believe the same will apply in Oz as it does in the UK… if someone points a knife at you (within striking distance, not if they’re across the street) or a gun (even if they’re across the street) and you shoot them or stab them or bludgeon them or drop a piano on their head, the only thing you’ll be asked to account for is possession of whatever weapon(s) you had – if they are legally held and carried, no problemo, if they’re not, you’d still only be charged with illegal possession/carrying.
You mean you debate with riddles? Part of debating you is figuring out whether you agree, disagree, or stand somewhere in between what you quote? Oy.
I don’t think you’re a shitbag, I just figured you guys knew each other from some other thread. That not being the case, I’ll just assume JM is a wandering psychopath with no ability to have a rational discussion. I like you, remember? 
Have you got a licence for that piano, sir?
Hey, don’t knock it, if you’d seen Chaz and Dave you’d be lobbying with me to have them banned altogether.
Caught in possession of a honky-tonk piano with intent to commit uncalled-for, rambunctious and wayward musical crimes should carry the death sentence, at the very least.
Yet again, you’ve created a strawman argument to support your position.
No-one in this thread has in any way argued that the use of a piano for cockney, knees up japery should be anything but illegal.
The vast majority of piano owners are responsible adults, who use their pianos for sporting or entertainment purposes. They would no more think of launching into a quick rendition of “Rabbit Rabbit” then you or any of your anti piano gang.
The stupidity of this position is obvious. Cockney musicians are as likely to rattle out a cheery little tune on two spoons - are you going to ban them too?
It’s a fair cop, but you’ll never take me alive, guv’nor, or something.
can i just say that i do not own a cross bow, samurai sword or gun and i am perfectly happy, my life goes on, i don’t regret not owning any of the above so what the hell is the big deal about