What did this girl have that she needed?

[hackenslash]

But... you are slaves.

This is in my signature for a reason: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Trust me, the irony of you having this in your signature is only lost on those who fail to realise that guns ARE the chains that keep you slaves. The illusion of freedom Goethe was talking about is entirely yours.

I see it the other way. I see it as you sticking your nose into other people's lives and imposing on them, keeping them from defending themselves appropriately because it interferes with your so-called "freedom from being murdered."

You prohibiting people from protecting themselves, making it that much easier for criminals, makes you just as guilty as the criminals. You are an accessory to the crime.

And the other moron says we're the paranoid ones.

[Hermit]

Is Australia 100% crime free? If not, then it does make sense to carry a firearm for protection.

It would make sense if crime was reduced in Australia if its citizens carried a firearm for protection, or conversely, if their failure to carry a firearm for protection increased it. The statistics for either scenario are non-existent.

[Seth]

Freedom to life is inclusive of the freedom not to be murdered. If you can't have the latter under Collector's twisted logic, then you can't have the former.

There is no such thing as "freedom from being murdered." It doesn't exist. There is nothing twisted about my logic.

Yes there is. You claim such a freedom can't exist because you can be murdered. That's totally misunderstanding what rights are. Rights aren't a guarantee of anything. They are an expectation of something. Using your logic, there can't be a 'freedom to life' as you can be killed. There can't be a 'freedom of movement' as you can be imprisoned. It's faulty logic.

Your are correct that a right is an expectation. It is an expectation of being able to act freely and without interference by others. You have a right not to be murdered. But in the end it's up to you to vindicate and enforce that right. Merely invoking it won't necessarily get you the freedom you wish to have to continue living. You have a freedom of action (defending your life against murder) that can be infringed by another. Vindication of the right is something completely separate from the existence of the right itself. There are more complex ways of vindicating a right and there are less complex ways of doing so, the least complex being the use of naked force in self-defense, the more complex being subcontracting that defense out to a professional or creating a justice system that punishes criminals harshly enough to dissuade them from committing crimes in the first place.

However, in the present context merely asserting that your right to life is being infringed by others possessing firearms isn't enough to cause your invocation of the right to life to overcome the equal right of others to protect their right to life by being armed for self defense so long as they do not actually attempt to infringe on your right to life personally. An abstract fear that a fellow citizen might unlawfully use his gun, or that his gun might be stolen and unlawfully used by a criminal does not supersede the other person's right to use a firearm to protect their right to life.

You cannot infringe on my right to life merely because you are afraid of an armed citizenry.

[Seth]

Seth's assessment of risk I've found to be perfectly rational.

Really? You find answering the fact that you are a very low probability to be a victim of terrorism, with the statement "Yeah, but 100% of dead people are dead" to be rational?!?

Strawman. Terrorism is just one of many threats that exist that justify the carrying of a concealed handgun. And my response is factually and logically correct. If you are the victim of a fatal attack, regardless of whether it's a terrorist attack or just a meth-head who wants your wallet and watch, you are 100% dead. In order to give myself the maximum possible chance of surviving any sort of attack I choose to carry a handgun because it's the most effective self-defense weapon ever invented and can be used with varying degrees of force projection from zero force (threat) to lethal force and can be switched from one mode to the other in the blink of an eye. No need to waste time shouting out "set phasers to stun."

Because it is impossible for you or I to predict when or where such an attack might occur, if one chooses to asses the risks and prepare against them the only logical course of action is to be supplied with the requisite tools of defense at all times. Here in my home area, carrying a single handgun concealed is appropriate.

When I drive in Denver I carry two: my H&K .45 USP Compact in a strong-side holster and my Ruger LCR with laser grip in my left leg cargo pocket. The reason for this is that it is preferable to use the strong-side H&K in a gunfight, but when sitting in the driver's seat, seat-belted in place, it is difficult and slow to try to draw the gun, particularly if the threat is sitting in the back seat or passenger seat. Thus the Ruger on the left, where it can be easily retrieved with the left hand and fired cross-body or over the shoulder should the need arise.

If I were in areas of Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, New York or East LA, I might add Level IIIA concealed body armor to the mix.

If I were in other areas of Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, New York, East LA or Mosul I might add my Level IV combat rig and a rifle to the required load-out.

It's all about risk assessment and preparation, but the real point is that only I get to make that assessment, and I get to carry whatever defensive tools I deem suitable and desirable. Neither you nor anyone else gets to interfere with that decision.

He's quite obviously pre-occupied with Marxists and Islamist boogey men,

No, I'm just well-informed and cognizant of the risks that both groups pose to civilization. My preoccupation, if I have one, is refuting the drivel you and others like you spout incessantly denying that risk exists.

let alone random criminals, and it interferes with his normal life (he has a bunker and has to be armed and have a bugout pack everywhere he goes; he's commented before he won't travel to certain states without reciprocal CC laws unless it is absolutely necessary).

How does any of that interfere with my "normal life?" It is my normal life and because I've thought about, prepared for, trained to respond to and maintain situational awareness of very real threats to my (and everybody else's) safety, it doesn't preoccupy me at all. It's all as natural as putting on my pants. I don't have to think about it because I've already done so and formulated response plans to many different scenarios and trained to implement them without having to dither. That preparedness frees me from fear and uncertainty because I know my skills and limitations and therefore I'm perfectly comfortable with my ability to respond to a crisis, from an auto accident to a deadly race-riot, so I go about my life free of fear of the unknown and prepared to face the known.

If I want to walk around my town wearing Level IV combat armor carrying a semi-automatic battle rifle and a full load-out of ammunition I have the right to do so as long as I don't violate the law. Since Colorado is an open-carry state, I would not be doing so. I would fully expect the local police to address me politely to make sure I am not involved in, about to be involved in, or have just been involved in the commission of a crime and I'd cooperate fully in that investigation, but when they have done their job, I expect them to go about their business as I go about mine.

That's the difference between a free man and a slave. You couldn't do that and avoid going to jail merely for possessing such a rifle or, I suspect, Level IV body armor and high-capacity magazines.

I'm a free man.
You are a slave.

The possibility of being victimized is quite possible. Carrying a firearm is a rational precaution to take to minimize that risk.

In America, it might very well be. You've got gun inertia there (the crims already all have guns). In Australia, it's not a rational precaution on it's own, as there isn't the need for it here as there is there, and the more guns in society will mean more guns in criminal hands. So it's not rational in our society at all. Unless you only look at it from an individual's perspective, which is what you guys do.

That's because the right to life and self defense is an intensely personal and individual thing not suitable for collective interference.

You say not to catastrophize, but then talk as if citizens' firearm ownership would be anarchy in the streets and you would no longer have your "freedom from being murdered." Do you see the flaw in this line of thinking?

Not at all. Do you seriously think that gun crime would drop in Australia with widespread introduction of guns? THAT is flawed reasoning. The more guns there are in society, the more will be in criminal hands.

If this were true, then you would expect that the removal of millions of guns would have the opposite effect on crime, but according to your own experts, the gun ban and confiscation has had zero effect on crime, including gun crime, which seems to be going up at the moment.

Sad, isn't it, when facts get in the way of your ideological screed?

[Seth]

You're just a redneck on the internet until proven otherwise. Your misuse of logic and bad reading comprehension certainly point to that possibility...

More bigoted terms.

Give it a rest. You are perfectly happy to denigrate other people. Don't be a baby.

I'm from Minnesota. I can't be a redneck.

Interesting logic there. Redneck is a culture, not a place.

How would you know?

You seem to have a bit of the culture in you. Although, I do tend to get my Seths and his apparent clones mixed up. Maybe you're mild mannered. I really couldn't give a fuck either way. I judge you on the quality (or lack thereof) of your 'arguments'.

As do we yours. You lose.

Really? You find answering the fact that you are a very low probability to be a victim of terrorism, with the statement "Yeah, but 100% of dead people are dead" to be rational?!? He's quite obviously pre-occupied with Marxists and Islamist boogey men, let alone random criminals, and it interferes with his normal life (he has a bunker and has to be armed and have a bugout pack everywhere he goes; he's commented before he won't travel to certain states without reciprocal CC laws unless it is absolutely necessary).

Why are we talking about terrorism now? That's not what we're talking about.

Regarding Seth, it is. I form my opinion of his paranoia based on all the interactions I have with him. You are apparently making a diagnosis without the full dataset. Tsk tsk. That's not good practice...

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Well, he is right. 100% of dead people are dead.

No shit, Sherlock. But it's an irrational response to statistical probabilities. 100% of people who get hit by meteorites die too. Should we all live underground? Of course not. Risk analysis involves both the probability of an event happening and the severity of the probably outcome. Focusing on only the outcome is irrational.

Indeed. Absolutely correct. The point is that it's not up to you (or anybody else) to assess my (or anyone else's) risks, much less interfere with our training, preparation or equipping for that response. So long as I don't infringe on anyone else's rights, how many guns, bunkers or bullets I own is nobody's business but my own.

You seem pre-occupied with Seth.

Well he's the only one to debate around here. And I've been debating him for 10 years. We're like those two Grumpy Old Men.

Well, that is absolutely true. If it weren't for me this place would be as dead as RDF.

How does having a bunker interfere with his life? So what if he doesn't want to go to states without CC? That's his choice.

Yeah, just as it's an anxious person's choice not to go to public gatherings. The "choice" isn't the relevant bit. Don't play dumb. You know that the classification of mental illnesses relies heavily on whether it impedes your daily functioning. Let's be clear... I've got no idea whether Seth is clinically paranoid, and I couldn't give a fuck. But I do know that he is irrationally scared of a lot of things.

Such as? And do you know the difference between "awareness of risk" and "scared?" I don't think so, much less do you know the definition of "irrational", although you epitomize the condition.

Sure, but without the societal context you will be making poor decisions. If increasing gun numbers in Australia led to increasing gun crime, then it would be self-defeating. That's the point I am trying to make.

And the point we're trying to make is that the facts disprove your fears. Fewer guns in Australia has not resulted in less crime, according to your own experts. In fact gun crime is rising at the moment, as shown by the article I posted earlier. And in the US, there are tens of millions more guns in society and yet our crime rate, including our gun crime rate, continues to go down.

Not at all. Do you seriously think that gun crime would drop in Australia with widespread introduction of guns? THAT is flawed reasoning.

Not really, given the fact that removing guns in Australia has not resulted in a drop in gun crimes and in fact there has been an increase in gun crimes.

The more guns there are in society, the more will be in criminal hands.

Strange isn't it that the "bikies" and other criminals shooting up the joint right now don't seem to have any problem getting handguns...or machine guns.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that while more guns might be available to criminals, it is also true that more citizens will own guns with which to defend against gangs of outlaw bikers having gun battles in the streets, and there are ALWAYS more law-abiding citizens around than there are outlaw bikers. Right now the only thing that gives the Mad Maxers power is that they are better armed than the community is. You should change that.

Just look at Port Arthur, where ONE man armed with a high-capacity rifle and handguns was able to terrorize an entire community and kill dozens of people, all because NOBODY except him had a gun with which to take him out. Well, not true, there was a service station attendant who had a hunting rifle that could have ended the massacre, but because of Australia's asinine gun-storage laws, by the time he got his rifle, assembled it, found his ammo, which was separately locked up from his rifle, got it loaded and got to the scene, the gunman was gone. There is not a better example of the idiocy of Australian gun laws than that.

Just imagine the result if such a battle broke out and everybody in the neighborhood came out of their houses armed with a semi-automatic (or fully-automatic for that matter) battle rifle and 200 rounds of ammunition and assembled in a pre-determined manner according to their community training to put an end to the warring gangs.

It's happened before right here in the US.

And that, my friend, is what a "militia" is for.

Remember, Australia isn't like the US. We share no land borders with anyone, particularly a mafia and drug centric continent to your south. Sure, stuff would come in on shipping containers, but it's much harder to organise and easier to police than a massive open border. And ultimately, there isn't the market for guns here.

And you think that makes you immune? Unbelievable. You have tens of thousands of miles of unguarded coastline where an entire army could land before you even know it is happening. Sheesh.

[Blind groper]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... and-death/

Seth

You are not a free man. You are enslaved by your fear and paranoia.

I am free, though. If I want to go to town, I just go. I do not have to load up with firearms. I just go. And the odds against me being attacked are massive. Unlike you. In your sick society, you are so afraid of life and living, you have to carry guns.

Sure, criminals can obtain and carry illegal guns. Not for long, though. As soon as the police realise what they are doing, they cease to become criminals, and suddenly find that they are jailbirds.

In Britain, a survey of jailbirds found that only 8% had ever owned an illegal firearm. In Britain, gun murders per capita run at not much more than 1% of gun murders per capita in the USA.

That shows clearly that removing guns will reduce gun murders. When I did my survey of 20 wealthy advanced western countries, the correlation coefficient between gun ownership and murders was 0.6, which shows a very strong link. But the link with gun murders was even stronger, at 0.8. Harvard University did a similar survey of homicides across many countries (though their number was 26 nations) and found exactly the same thing (see reference above). Murder rates are strongly linked to gun ownership.

In addition, Boston University studied various states of the USA, and determined an estimate of gun ownership state by state. They also found that homicide rates are strongly linked with gun ownership. Harvard University also carried out a survey of gun ownership state by state, and found that states with more guns had a higher murder rate.

More guns means more murders.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

My hammer is find everything look like lawyer.

[piscator]

But... you are slaves.

This is in my signature for a reason: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Trust me, the irony of you having this in your signature is only lost on those who fail to realise that guns ARE the chains that keep you slaves. The illusion of freedom Goethe was talking about is entirely yours.

Didn't realize we could trust you to wibble like that, hack. Say it ain't so!

[JimC]

Is the answer to the thread title big tits?

[pErvinalia]

Sure, but without the societal context you will be making poor decisions. If increasing gun numbers in Australia led to increasing gun crime, then it would be self-defeating. That's the point I am trying to make.

And the point we're trying to make is that the facts disprove your fears. Fewer guns in Australia has not resulted in less crime, according to your own experts.

You still can't read. I said 'increasing gun numbers" not decreasing. What in the fuck does decreasing numbers of guns have to do with the premise that increasing the amount of guns in society would lead to more guns crime??

Remember, Australia isn't like the US. We share no land borders with anyone, particularly a mafia and drug centric continent to your south. Sure, stuff would come in on shipping containers, but it's much harder to organise and easier to police than a massive open border. And ultimately, there isn't the market for guns here.

And you think that makes you immune? Unbelievable. You have tens of thousands of miles of unguarded coastline where an entire army could land before you even know it is happening. Sheesh.

Actually, thanks to our obsession with terrorising refugees on boats, virtually nothing can get in our territorial waters any more. They monitor with satellite, and IR camera equipped planes, 24 hours a day now.

[Brian Peacock]

"BEWARE THE OTHER!"

[Seth]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firea ... and-death/

Seth

You are not a free man. You are enslaved by your fear and paranoia.

Nah.

I am free, though. If I want to go to town, I just go. I do not have to load up with firearms. I just go. And the odds against me being attacked are massive.

Same here. Very little crime at all where I live, and the last homicide we had was 3 years ago and consisted of a couple of parents killing their kid and burying her in the crawl space. That was the first homicide in 50 years.

Unlike you. In your sick society, you are so afraid of life and living, you have to carry guns.

No, I'm not afraid because I CAN carry a gun.

Sure, criminals can obtain and carry illegal guns. Not for long, though. As soon as the police realise what they are doing, they cease to become criminals, and suddenly find that they are jailbirds.

Well that's just a giant load of horseshit.

In Britain, a survey of jailbirds found that only 8% had ever owned an illegal firearm. In Britain, gun murders per capita run at not much more than 1% of gun murders per capita in the USA.

Violent crime in the UK is higher than it is here. Cherry picking "gun murders" is deceptive and mendacious, as you know.

That shows clearly that removing guns will reduce gun murders.

No it doesn't.

Murder rates are strongly linked to gun ownership.

So are un-murder rates, by ten to one to 300 to one.

More guns means more murders.

Except it doesn't. More guns, less crime. Fact.

[Seth]

A 67-year-old man was taking a stroll on a park trail outside Philadelphia when he was approached by a masked man who stuck a metallic pistol in his face and demanded money.

But the 67-year-old didn’t shrink back — instead he battled the assailant for the weapon, WCAU-TV reported.

Then the victim — who has concealed weapons permit, police said — pulled out a .38 caliber handgun and fatally shot his assailant in the head, police said.
Tyler Williams (Image source: KYW-TV)


Declared dead in Cobbs Creek Park in Upper Darby was Tyler Williams, 18, of West Philadelphia, police told KYW-TV. He had no previous criminal record.

More than that, Williams’ gun — which looked like a semiautomatic pistol — turned out to be a pellet gun, police added to KYW.

Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood told KYW that police thought the pellet gun looked like a real weapon until they got a closer look at it.

Chitwood told KYW he spoke to the 67-year-old who feels sad about Wednesday’s incident.

“He was very remorseful and wish it hadn’t happened and I and other detectives told him ‘you did nothing wrong,’” Chitwood told KYW.

“If I was the older guy I probably would have done the same thing, straight up,” Fred Williams of Upper Darby told KYW.

“People are getting fed up so you have to protect yourself these days,” neighbor Kathryn Cooper told KYW in an earlier story.

The victim initially told police second assailant got away, KYW noted, but he later stated it could have been a person standing nearby. Police believe Williams acted alone.

The 67-year-old was released from a hospital Thursday, KYW said; he was taken there after the incident complaining of chest pains. No charges against him are expected since he was acting in self-defense, Chitwood said.

“It’s a shame somebody had to die,” Chitwood told KYW, “but at the end of the day the bad guy pulled a stickup and lost.”

[Blind groper]

You realise, Seth, that I do not even read your anecdotes. Hopefully, none of the smart people on this forum bother, either. I certainly recommend they do not bother.

An anecdote is not evidence. Whether true or not, it is just a story and has no impact on the wider truth of what is happening in society. If I told you a story of a deviant buggering a horse, does that mean we live in a society of horse buggerers? Of course not. Anything you can imagine happening, someone will do. That does not lead to correct generalities.

As I pointed out, there are 8,000 hand gun murders in the USA each year. If I were to go to some unbelievable effort and post each one as an anecdote, you would be submerged in an average of more than 40 anecdotes each day, all showing that having hand guns leads to murder.

Your pathetic few anecdotes of people using guns to defend themselves fade into utter insignificance by comparison.

I pay far more attention to reputable researchers, such as those at Harvard, who do detailed statistically meaningful studies that have shown that more guns means more murders.

And one other point.
Criminals commit crimes. If criminals do not have guns, they will still commit crimes. I have never suggested that fewer guns lead to fewer crimes. Fewer criminals will lead to fewer crimes, not fewer guns.

Nor do more guns lead to fewer crimes as the report put out by the Social Sciences Research Network clearly shows.

However, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes, and that is vital. A mugging on the street in which a mugger stabs someone with a knife gives (according to British statistics) a chance of the victim dying of 1 in 400. However, if a mugger has a hand gun and shoots his victim, then the odds of the victim dying are 1 in 7 approximately. In other words, a shooting is 50 to 60 times more likely to kill than a stabbing.

More guns mean more gun crime, and that means more murders.

[Seth]

You realise, Seth, that I do not even read your anecdotes.

Of course you don't, because if you did you'd realize that you're simply wrong.

Hopefully, none of the smart people on this forum bother, either. I certainly recommend they do not bother.

Ah, the wannabe censor. How inconvenient for you that I produce examples of people whose lives are saved by their guns.

An anecdote is not evidence.

A crime report is not an anecdote, it's evidence.

Whether true or not, it is just a story and has no impact on the wider truth of what is happening in society.

Wrong. It's a fact with enormous impact on the citizens who do not get killed or robbed because they had a gun with which to defend themselves, which they do 10 to 300 times as often as a criminal uses one to commit a crime.

If I told you a story of a deviant buggering a horse, does that mean we live in a society of horse buggerers?

I do not care to hear about your sex life, BG.

Of course not. Anything you can imagine happening, someone will do. That does not lead to correct generalities.

Self-defense is, by its very nature, not a "generality." It's extremely specific to the person who needs to be able to perform it effectively.

As I pointed out, there are 8,000 hand gun murders in the USA each year.

And there are 80,000 to 2.5 million non-murders and non-crimes that are not committed each year because people use their guns to prevent them.

If I were to go to some unbelievable effort and post each one as an anecdote, you would be submerged in an average of more than 40 anecdotes each day, all showing that having hand guns leads to murder.

Yes, when criminals have handguns, murders occur. But when civilians have handguns, fewer criminals commit fewer murders and fewer other crimes of all types and the murder and crime rates go down.

Your pathetic few anecdotes of people using guns to defend themselves fade into utter insignificance by comparison.

Except that the examples I post are merely that, examples of the 80,000 to 2.5 million other people who do the same thing every year, all of whom you studiously ignore.

I pay far more attention to reputable researchers, such as those at Harvard, who do detailed statistically meaningful studies that have shown that more guns means more murders.

Except they don't. Inconveniently true is the fact that more guns in the US has coincided with less crime. That is an irrefutable fact that you consistently ignore.

I notice you've given up on your "DGUs claimed are not necessary." Your penchant for simply ignoring the evidence presented of legitimate DGUs or trying to dismiss them as "unnecessary" based on your gross ignorance of anything to do with the issue of self defense has been quite tiresome in the past. Good to see that you've recognized that you are not qualified to examine any of the reported DGUs and render judgment on whether or not it was necessary to use the degree of force used in each individual case.

"A man's got to know his limitations." "Dirty Harry" Callahan

You're about a third of the way there. Keep trying.

And one other point.
Criminals commit crimes. If criminals do not have guns, they will still commit crimes. I have never suggested that fewer guns lead to fewer crimes. Fewer criminals will lead to fewer crimes, not fewer guns.

Wow! Moved those goalposts right out of the stadium that time....Whew!

Nor do more guns lead to fewer crimes as the report put out by the Social Sciences Research Network clearly shows.

In the US, more guns, less crime. Period.

However, fewer guns means fewer gun crimes, and that is vital.

Except it doesn't, as is proven by the "fewer guns" jurisdictions like Chicago and Detroit, where the gun crime rates are astronomical and not going down.

A mugging on the street in which a mugger stabs someone with a knife gives (according to British statistics) a chance of the victim dying of 1 in 400. However, if a mugger has a hand gun and shoots his victim, then the odds of the victim dying are 1 in 7 approximately. In other words, a shooting is 50 to 60 times more likely to kill than a stabbing.

Actually, you're wrong. Knife attacks are far deadlier than firearms attacks. Criminals rarely hit their targets more than 15% of the time, and of that 15% less than 15% of the wounds are fatal. One of the important differences between a gun attack and a knife attack is that gun attacks usually take place at 3 to 7 yards whereas knife attacks require physical contact. Therefore, when someone wants to kill you with a knife (as opposed to simply threatening you with it or making a minor wound) you are much more likely to die from a knife attack because of the mechanics of such attacks, whereas with a handgun you actually have to be quite skilled to hit a moving target even at 3 to 7 yards, I know because I train hard to do exactly that, and it's not easy, and you have to be even more skilled to make a fatal shot.

You don't know what your talking about, still.

But even if what you say is true, that only militates for victims being armed with hand guns so that they will be 50 to 60 times more likely to kill their attacker, who may be armed with a knife.

More guns mean more gun crime, and that means more murders.

Cherry picking mendacity that fails in the face of the simple fact that in the US, more guns, less crime. Can't refute those statistics bud.