Damuri Ajashi thinks there was at some point “a confiscation of almost all guns in Australia.”. This stupid fuck is ignorant about even the most basic facts.
When shown the actual data on a plummeting suicide rate, such that in less than a decade the suicide rate in Australia fell below levels not seen in longer than 40 years, this lying fucker continues to call it a stable rate.
Zeriel, any thoughts?
DumbAss, I will by the way happily respond to your questions on dfg and on risk of harm due to guns in the home. I’m just keeping focused since you do like to distract. I don’t blame you. I hear that microphallus is a very embarrassing condition.
It wouldn’t matter to them anyway. Experience anywhere else has absolutely nothing to do with the US. We’re special, different, superior in some extraordinary, divinely-guided way, a way that, oddly, nobody can actually define.
To be honest, I thought he had a valid question about the suicide rate discussion needing more year data–your data set (that I saw, anyway) didn’t have a lot of data prior to the gun ban, so it’s not possible to tell whether or not there was a pre-existing trend (correlation not being causation etc.). It’s been my opinion that he provides decent food for thought, but the data from all sides has been pretty thin on the ground.
I do have to chalk at least part of that up to the constant idiot noises from Elvis. It’s hard to not lash out or dash something off when half the active participants on the other side are going to outright ignore what you’ve said anyway.
In some fairness to both of you, there are studies available that indicate it’s too close to call but they’re from 2003ish–later studies seem to indicate that a reduction in availability of high-lethality methods is effective. The prevailing sense I get from the research side is “there’s definitely SOME substitution going on, but we’re pretty sure it’s not enough to make up the difference, and suicide rates are declining in most cohorts regardless”.
The decision speaks to my personal MORAL belief–no one has the duty to defend me, and it’s my right as a living creature to effective defense.
I AM working on the murder problem in a much more effective way–I’m advocating for higher minimum wages, decriminalization of most drugs, reduction of prison populations, and reduction of systemic racism and poverty. It’s my considered opinion, based on decades of social research, that all of those factors are MUCH higher contributors to the rate of violent crime than mere gun ownership.
We’re special, different, and INFERIOR in three major areas that are very easy to define:
Those three things add up to a propensity for people to believe they have nothing to lose, and they have to take care of themselves because Johnny Law is too likely to be a shitheel.
In this case, he’s definitely confused about his statistics–Australia has a dropping suicide rate (but it’s only partially potentially explained by the gun issue according to what I’ve read) and there WAS a mass increase in suicides in 97-98 (according to wikipedia, but I’m looking for a real cite) after the buyback that was an anomaly in an otherwise clear trend.
Regarding confiscation, no, that did not meaningfully happen. Gun ownership per 100 in Australian in 1996 was around 17-18, now it’s around 14-15. The composition of the types of firearms available has changed, but their number hasn’t actually dropped all that much.
Disabled woman uses her bedroom Glock to drive off an intruder:
*“I seen a shadow and then I went to look to see what it was and there she was,” Fletcher told Cincinnati.com. “She pushed me up and started throwing things at me and it went from there and I shot.”
The shot missed and the intruder ran into the back of the house, according to Cincinnati.com. She threw an ironing board at Fletcher, who fired again.
This time, the woman pretended to be hit and lay motionless on the floor. When Fletcher bent to check on her, the woman lunged.
Fletcher fired a third time – missing again – and the woman fled out a window."*
Moral of the story: Never take an ironing board to a gunfight.
Systemic racism is hardly unique to us, and neither is systemic economic inequality. A “culture of incarceration as you call it”, “getting the criminals off the street” as others call it, has hardly reduced murder rates, has it? Perhaps there are other factors in play, hmm?
Your argument that it’s all the scary criminals’ fault for forcing “law abiding citizens” to carry is more of **Damuri’**s approach of blaming the victims for being so scary to you. You’re still oblivious to the possibility that the “bad guys”, in your cowboy-movie worldview, might be you, aren’t you?
It was a real-world-situation question, in response to a case you brought up as being somehow supportive of your cause. Please cut the ideological bluster and address it in real-world terms. Who should have been armed there, and what good would it have done? :dubious: What would really have happened in this case you yourself bring up as your best example of something or other, if your own prescription had been followed?
You’re working to *reduce *prison populations? *That *will reduce crime? :dubious:
How about something more direct and more effective than hoping for a major change in human nature? How about getting the damn weapons off the street?
I once posted a link to a first-hand account of how “effective” a total ban on guns once was in making the streets safe. But you dismissed it as “propaganda”.
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jamaica.htm
[quote=“ElvisL1ves, post:2889, topic:648729”]
Systemic racism is hardly unique to us, and neither is systemic economic inequality. A “culture of incarceration as you call it”, “getting the criminals off the street” as others call it, has hardly reduced murder rates, has it? Perhaps there are other factors in play, hmm?
[quote]
There’s not a single first world nation in the world that has ANY of those indicators at the level we do.
You’re oblivious to literally everything I’ve said in the thread, so I don’ think you have much of a leg to stand on.
I’m sorry, no, it’s not “ideological bluster”. The case ruling specifically states that the State, embodied in the Police, has no duty of any kind to protect me from anything. That is entirely reason enough to believe I therefore have the duty to protect myself, and thus I ought have the right to do so.
That said, I quote the CBS News article on the case:
Perhaps if Ms. Gonzalez had iced the clearly dangerous man breaking into her house and frightening her kids, her kids would be alive. This is not in any way accusing her of complicity for NOT doing so, mind you.
Yes. It’s pretty obvious that we have a serious crowding problem because we lock people up for paltry offenses and don’t KEEP people locked up for violent ones as a result.
And this quote next to the intro one looks an awful lot like you think either A) our prisons are great or B) you’re accusing me of both supporting a culture of incarceration AND decriminalizing violent crime.
If you’d read it yourself, you’d know that. Or maybe you can’t even identify it when you see it, if you happen to agree with it.
The question was about what makes us so uniquely different that completely invalidates all experience elsewhere. You haven’t answered that.
The fact that it’s being shown to you to be largely to totally unresponsive bullshit is not my problem.
The question was about what would have happened in the real-world situation you yourself brought up as being evidence of something. This is the second time you’ve come back with unresponsive bullshit. Again, not my problem.
Perhaps. Or perhaps it would have gotten her killed. On what basis do you think the former is more likely?
Come on now, if you don’t know better than this, you’ve already surrendered.
Evidence that the “bad guys” get paroled early because the “good guys” stay locked up, and that this is a driving factor in gun murder rates, being what? :dubious:
Nope, the evidence points to your complete inability to connect cause and effect, driven by your desire to rationalize a position you hold as a matter of belief rather than reason.
Are you claiming that the account is untrue, omits facts supporting a contrary conclusion, or is otherwise deceitful and deceptive? It’s a first-person “this happened to me” account, witnessing first hand the awful things that happened when Jamaica tried to ban guns. Show she’s being untruthful or shut up. Or do you merely mean that it supports a particular conclusion which you vehemently disagree with? Well maybe the facts support that conclusion- that it’s the TRUTH.
(OK folks, now watch ElvisL1ves resort to sarcasm, name calling, or insisting that his point’s already proven and that nothing we’ve said addresses it. Shall we start a pool?)
I’m not why I should be responding to an assertion that I haven’t made, and in fact have made the opposite assertion to.
Really, this is the sum total of the argument–I’m not bothering to address your points about “belief” vs. “reason” until you can explain to me how me thinking we should emulate gun laws from elsewhere is an assertion that other experiences are completely invalid.
You can’t, really, handwave the basic fact away that you’re insisting I argue in defense of a position** I have not taken**.
This, though?
If we had the gun rules I would prefer, she’d have to have shown she was trained and qualified to operate that firearm. I’ve asserted elsewhere on the board that it’s my personal position that if you want a handgun for defense you must pass training that is, in terms of total yearly rounds fired, MORE stringent than the average police officer. As such, I have no qualms whatsoever about the ability of a person who passes MY idea of a proper handgun licensing regimen being able to out-shoot and out-think some random homicidal asshole.
I do not personally at this time pass my own criteria for responsible use of handguns in self-defense, therefore, I do not at the present time own a handgun–but I’m sure I’m going to get accused (again) of having a personal power fantasy anyway.
You’re missing the point and engaging in pettifoggery. The point still remains that the gun confiscation occurred over a limted period of time and then stopped. You would think that any reduction in gun suicides would be immediate rather than taking place gradually over a decade. Why wasn’t there an immediate effect? Why did the suicide rate stay relatively flat for the 2 or three years immediately following the gun confiscation?
Hentor, how embarassing.:eek:
I await your insightful rebuttal relying almost exclusively on references to my penis size.
thats all I’m talking about. If there was no subsittuion effect then why wasn’t there a sudden and immediate drop in overall suicides immediately following the confiscation. Is there some sort of incubation period that you need for gun suicides to drop after you take away a gun?
Do you have a cite for that. Not that I don’t believe you but I can’t find anything on the subject.
I should have done what others did and just ignored the issue after we not only won the issue but spiked the ball in the end zone with the death of background checks at gun shows. I think I’m done with this, I might continue to participate a little bit but its getting tiring arguing against “your dick is small” arguments. If you want to talk about this some more, link to a thread in great debates.
I’m still waiting for some estimate from the gun grabber side on defensive gun use and whether having a gun in your home causes you to be three times more likely to be shot to death.
You said that Australia provided evidence for substitution of methods. You never provided evidence of that.
You said that Australia confiscated all weapons. This is demonstrably false.
In fact, there was no confiscation. There was a gun buyback. Did everyone sell back their weapons? No.
Also, the rate did not stay relatively flat. That’s simply a lie.
Nothing you say has any bearing with reality. This is reflected in your repeated, inevitable inability to provide any evidence to support essentially any claim you make.
Rebuttal of what? Again, you have no ability to judge evidence. Zeriel to his discredit, has simply offered opinions. “I think there are some studies” is not fucking evidence. You’re really struggling with this idea.
Just because someone says something you think is true, it is not evidence.
[/quote]
thats all I’m talking about. If there was no subsittuion effect then why wasn’t there a sudden and immediate drop in overall suicides immediately following the confiscation. Is there some sort of incubation period that you need for gun suicides to drop after you take away a gun?
[/quote]
First, not all weapons were taken away. Do you get that yet? Secondly, there was as close to an immediate drop as you’re ever going to see in population data. It’s a profound drop.
I’ve quit waiting for you to be able to support any of your claims or to understand any simple stats. I’ve quit waiting for you to understand that zeriel asserting something has the same value as Bill Bennett claiming something as you claiming something as me claiming something.
You have to be able to point to something objective for it to help support or refute a point. Damn, you are stupid.