Vigilante

[Blind groper]

Interesting that Arizona gun laws permit the firing of blanks within a municipal area while prohibiting the firing of live rounds. I wonder how many false alarm call outs happen as a result?

[FBM]

Dunno. It's never in the news. My guess is that someone thinking of firing blanks would be deterred by the high probability of live rounds being returned.

[Blind groper]

It happens here. We have an elite group of police called the Armed Offenders Squad, who come at the double when gunshots are heard. They arrived dressed in black, with body armour, and all sorts of lethal weaponry. Fortunately, they are trained not to shoot unless absolutely necessary. They are awesome enough to give a hell of a fright to whoever created the noises that sounded like gunshots.

[Seth]

Such people put an enormous emphasis on 'self defense' rather than relying upon police.

Pinker describes the vigilante approach in the old American wild west. This happened mainly due to the limited influence of authority, which drove people to take matters into their own hands. Personal justice and revenge drove the murder rate in the wild west to astoundingly high levels.

The one thing I can guarantee you is that when lethal danger is only seconds away, the police are only minutes away...

[Blind groper]

Seth

The only time I have been in danger "several seconds away" is when driving a car, and an idiot coming the other way does something stupid. Fast reactions on my part saved the day. Not a hand gun.

[Seth]

Seth

The only time I have been in danger "several seconds away" is when driving a car, and an idiot coming the other way does something stupid. Fast reactions on my part saved the day. Not a hand gun.

Lucky you. Do you really think that your experience can be globalized? That's just plain stupidity.

[Blind groper]

That experience can be 'globalised' by the simple expedient of increasing the severity of gun control laws, as was done so successfully in Australia.

[Seth]

That experience can be 'globalised' by the simple expedient of increasing the severity of gun control laws, as was done so successfully in Australia.

Horseshit. Violent crime went up after the gun ban in Australia, some 42%.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

I have just been browsing a number of web sites on that subject, and the reputable researchers are not willing to quote an effect on overall violent crime. Sadly, you seem to love to browse non reputable websites. Let me say again, if you read material from organisations supported by the NRA, American gun manufacturers, or the Koch brothers, you will get distorted and false material. A 42% rise in violent crime is not supported by the data.

What can be measured is a major drop in both firearm murders and firearm suicides.

More importantly is the impact on mass shootings. The gun control measures were instituted to stop mass shootings, after the Port Arthur massacre. In the years leading up to that event, mass shootings had been seriously on the rise, with 13 in 18 years. I suspect that the reason for that rise is publicity. We know that a lot of mass shootings are "copycat" where some unhinged individual reads about a mass shooting, and thinks that doing one himself will make him 'famous'. So, the increasing levels of publicity, especially on TV, feeds more shootings.

However, after the new gun control laws were implemented, not one mass shooting happened in Australia. That has to be seen as a major success.

[Tero]

Pinker linky?

[Seth]

To Seth

I have just been browsing a number of web sites on that subject, and the reputable researchers are not willing to quote an effect on overall violent crime. Sadly, you seem to love to browse non reputable websites. Let me say again, if you read material from organisations supported by the NRA, American gun manufacturers, or the Koch brothers, you will get distorted and false material. A 42% rise in violent crime is not supported by the data.

Sez you.

What can be measured is a major drop in both firearm murders and firearm suicides.

Cherry picking.

More importantly is the impact on mass shootings. The gun control measures were instituted to stop mass shootings, after the Port Arthur massacre. In the years leading up to that event, mass shootings had been seriously on the rise, with 13 in 18 years. I suspect that the reason for that rise is publicity. We know that a lot of mass shootings are "copycat" where some unhinged individual reads about a mass shooting, and thinks that doing one himself will make him 'famous'. So, the increasing levels of publicity, especially on TV, feeds more shootings.

However, after the new gun control laws were implemented, not one mass shooting happened in Australia. That has to be seen as a major success.

Whoopee for Australia. Substituting a 42 percent increase in violent crime overall and a three-times-US-averages in rape for the very rare "mass shooting" phenomenon looks like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Blind groper]

https://theconversation.com/faking-wave ... tats-11678

Seth

There is no 42% rise in violent crime. I do not know where you got that figure, but it is not true.

The reference above shows how corrupt pro-gun organisations come up with fake data which is exactly opposite to reality. Read it!!!!

[Hermit]

https://theconversation.com/faking-wave ... tats-11678
There is no 42% rise in violent crime. I do not know where you got that figure, but it is not true.

The reference above shows how corrupt pro-gun organisations come up with fake data which is exactly opposite to reality. Read it!!!!

The page you linked to is a good example of brazen cherry picking. It focuses on the "large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia" which, while true, totally ignores the fact that trends in total homicide and suicide rates remained unaffected in the years after the gun buy-back scheme in comparison to the years before them. I've pointed that out here, here, here and here, but you dismiss those facts with a wave of the hand, or ignore them altogether.

Also, when all violent crimes are taken into account, which includes all assaults and especially sexual assault, there has been a significant increase over the years. From the Australian Institute of Criminology, which I trust you don't consider to be a mouthpiece for the NRA or the Koch brothers:



Notable points: "Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996."
"The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year."

Those are data up to 2007. I believe the situation has deteriorated even more in subsequent years, but can't find the relevant link right now.

And, yes, as with suicides, when firearms become more difficult to obtain, other weapons are used instead. From the Australian Institute of Criminology again:



"There has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989-90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006-07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims."

[Blind groper]

Hermit

I am not disputing your source, which as you said, appears reputable. However, statistics on violent crime are not terribly credible, no matter what their source. One problem for example, is that there has been a big trend over recent decades, in western nations, for more reporting of such crimes, and most especially sex crimes. Many authorities do not believe that there is any increase in such crimes. Just an increase in victims coming forward. For that reason it is necessary to treat any claims of increases in sex or violent crimes with great skepticism.

On the other hand, murders are unambiguous. You have a dead body or you don't.

[Seth]

Hermit

I am not disputing your source, which as you said, appears reputable. However, statistics on violent crime are not terribly credible, no matter what their source. One problem for example, is that there has been a big trend over recent decades, in western nations, for more reporting of such crimes, and most especially sex crimes. Many authorities do not believe that there is any increase in such crimes. Just an increase in victims coming forward. For that reason it is necessary to treat any claims of increases in sex or violent crimes with great skepticism.

On the other hand, murders are unambiguous. You have a dead body or you don't.

This is the worst example of pettifogging mendacious bloviating I've seen recently. What Hermit provided were charts directly from the Australian government comparing apples to apples over time that disproves your claim. Now you're trying to convince us that this increase is due to increased reporting and not an increase in crime.

Now YOU are going to have to prove that assertion with some seriously credible evidence showing that the Australian government didn't take that into account, if it's even true at all.

Talk about trying to weasel out of the cleft stick you've found yourself in...