yennus said:
I was unaware you lived in such a dangerous community, why don't you move? It sounds like a real sh#thole wherever you live.
Self defence in Australia (LDP)
- Thread starter yennus
- Start date
I was unaware you lived in such a dangerous community, why don't you move? It sounds like a real sh#thole wherever you live.
Newtosilver said:
The problem isn't me living in a good/bad neighborhood. The problem is people who want to control others.
As stated before: The problem I have is you would allow innocent people to get killed/injured by criminals just so you can have the illusion of safety... but to hell with them right?
Big A.D. said:
I don't read the same message in those stats.
Seems to me that the study finds that if you're around those that consume alcohol, be outdoors, be in an area that is known for drug trafficking, hear someone with an Hispanic accent, and have a job that involves people giving you cash in exchange for services, then you're likely to find yourself in a high risk area where brandishing a gun gives you little advantage when compared to those that don't find themselves in that type of neighbourhood.
Which for the majority of us is our normal daily experience. Those who live a normal daily life and want to possess a firearm are most likely to do so so that they can protect themselves from anyone who ordinarily fits into the first social set but is expanding their area of interest outside their demographic. Something which the stats do not tell us anything about.
Big A.D. said:
That sums it up 100%
Big A.D. said:
When is innocent people being killed or injured by criminals not a significant problem?
yennus said:
And that is what it comes down to "Freedumb" the evil Govt blah, blah, blah. People making decisions for others and imposing their will on others.
Obviously knives could be carried by people for self defence. What age should people be before they can carry a knife for example? 15?, 18?, 21?
Just give me an age? Very easy question for you......
Big A.D. said:
i) Are innocent people being killed or injured by criminals a significant problem at the moment?
Depends how you define significant. More people in Australia are injured and killed through local crime than terrorism.
ii) Or is my "illusion of safety" actually your illusion of danger?
My reality or illusion of danger shouldn't require the approval of others - but your illusion of safety requires the disarming of law-abiding citizens (while the criminals stock up).
mmm....shiney! said:Big A.D. said:
When is innocent people being killed or injured by criminals not a significant problem?
When is innocent people being killed by people "protecting" themselves by accident for example not a significant problem?
Newtosilver said:mmm....shiney! said:Big A.D. said:
When is innocent people being killed or injured by criminals not a significant problem?
When is innocent people being killed by people "protecting" themselves by accident for example not a significant problem?
Rather than retort with a question, I should have said: innocent people being injured or killed by criminals is always a significant problem.
There must be a point in time when the the injuries/deaths of innocents at the hands of criminals becomes significant, but at the moment, we haven't arrived there yet. Well, that's according to you and Big A.D. anyway.
mmm....shiney! said:Newtosilver said:mmm....shiney! said:When is innocent people being killed or injured by criminals not a significant problem?
When is innocent people being killed by people "protecting" themselves by accident for example not a significant problem?
Rather than retort with a question, I should have said: innocent people being injured or killed by criminals is always a significant problem.
There must be a point in time when the the injuries/deaths of innocents at the hands of criminals becomes significant, but at the moment, we haven't arrived there yet. Well, that's according to you and Big A.D. anyway.
If it ever was significant, it's less so now. Violent crime in Australia has been on a downward trend for over 20 years.
If you get murdered in Australia, there's a 9 out of 10 chance you know the killer. There's a 5 out of 10 chance it's your spouse.
Newtosilver said:
Don't want to answer the question because you know where I am going with this?
Silver Pauper
Member
Big A.D. said:
Big A. D.,
The above statement is the worst defence I have heard by someone for not referencing source data, even when it was obvious that the data they were using to substantiate their stance is virtually irrevelant to the ongoing discussion. You have placed yourself in a similar situation as Jim Jefferies who pulled statistics from thin air while performing a comedy act. He can hide behind being a comedian, interested in hearing your defence.
I have read the study that you referenced and will say unequivocally that the data and study has no relevance to the current situation in Australia whatsoever and only to this discussion with major concessions as I personally spent many years on the streets of Philadelphia, PA and there is absolutely no where in Australia that is as dangerous as 6th Street and Gerrad Avenue in North Philly.
I actually expect the results of this study to translate very closely in practice on the streets of those areas of Philadephia from personal experience. This study is very focused - will carrying a firearm increase your risk of being fatally shot in an assault - and describe to me where you are going to be spending your time, if that is those areas of Philadelphia, my instant reply would have been absolutely. What is not detailed in this study is the fate of those involved in an assault that were not carrying a firearm. We know that they were less likely to suffer from a gun shot wound, but my experience tells me that the assault victims not carrying firearms would almost certainly need hospital care and even a high probability of being killed.
I would absolutely not venture onto the streets of Philadelphia that are used for this study without being heavily armed and preferably with a buddy as back-up. There are areas of Philadelphia that I would not expect to walk down the block without being the victim of a violent assault with a high probability that I would not survive.
Back in the early '90's I know of operators who were assigned to 'trash-duty' on streets of some sections of Philadelphia. In simple terms, these were new minted alphabet recruits and officers that went covert and put their gun-fighting skills to practice. Only so much you can learn on the range and in the kill-house, the real test of your skills is on the two-way range. And the streets of Philadelphia, as well as plenty of other major cities in the USA, were perfect practice with the side benefit of upsetting the equilibrium of the status quo between gangs and cartels.
I have read most of this thread with interest and amusement. Sadly the large population centres of the USA are not immune to the extreme violence and prejudice that plagues most large cities around the world. You can discuss and debate self-defence to your hearts content on this forum while safely ensconced in your genteel Australian suburbs, but do not assume that you are entitled to impose your ideals and beliefs on those who live and work in areas of violence and danger.
Australia is the lucky country, sadly most Australians do not realise this.
Thanks,
Silver Pauper said:
Quoting directly from the study...
...and if you were walking around one of those areas you knew to be dodgy, you'd prefer to be carrying a gun?
See, this is why we have the laws we do and why I didn't bother posting the source for the data.
That's certainly what my friends from Philly say.
Big A.D. said:mmm....shiney! said:Newtosilver said:
Rather than retort with a question, I should have said: innocent people being injured or killed by criminals is always a significant problem.
There must be a point in time when the the injuries/deaths of innocents at the hands of criminals becomes significant, but at the moment, we haven't arrived there yet. Well, that's according to you and Big A.D. anyway.
If it ever was significant, it's less so now. Violent crime in Australia has been on a downward trend for over 20 years.
If you get murdered in Australia, there's a 9 out of 10 chance you know the killer. There's a 5 out of 10 chance it's your spouse.
What you are saying is that guns are not the problem after all, rather, it's who you choose to know that is the greatest threat. Therefore your argument that possessing firearms would put innocent people at risk of being killed is moot. Innocence has nothing to do with most murders in Australia, relationships on the other hand do.
Big A.D. said:
BS. The data you cite does not point to the conclusions you attempt to draw.
The data says that if you go into an area known for grief carrying a weapon, then there is a higher probability that you will be met with more grief than if you were not in that place.
The topic of this thread is possessing firearms to protect yourself. It's NOT possessing firearms for the purpose of going into Shitsville.
Newtosilver said:
I have an answer - but i don't want to derail the topic. After all, the argument for self defense using a blade is similar to that of a firearm - if the crooks have access to them, so should law abiding citizens.
If we can't agree on the basic right to self defense - then we aren't going to agree on the implementation and methods of self defense either.
Nunchucks ftw!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzXL-KM2UqU[/youtube]
Nunchucks unfortunately a prohibited weapon.
Silver Pauper
Member
yennus said:
Yennus,
I do not view or consider people and their beliefs or opinions as 'Left' or 'Right', but different. I respect Big A. D.'s opinion and beliefs and ask him to do the same for me. If he believes and chooses to not participate in 'active' self-defence', this is his privilege and right just as it is my right and privilege to participate in 'active' self-defence.
Flipping all this on its head, if I stated that I believe everyone by law should be required to carry a firearm for self-defence, no exceptions, no excuses, is not different from Big A. D. to believe that no one by law should be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defence, no exceptions, no excuses. Both is imposing unwanted legal consequences on the other with no recourse. Big A. D. should have the right to his beliefs and choose to not carry a firearm to defend himself just as I should have the right to my beliefs and choose to carry a firearm to defend myself and others. This is called liberty and equal rights when combined with mutual respect means that if Big A. D. expresses concern about possible negative consequences of my choice to carry a firearm, I listen as he may valid concerns, such as storage, my skills and etc. and make adjustments as needed, just I may have concerns about him choosing to not carry a firearm, such as when working in high risk areas, etc, he listens and make adjustments as needed. But neither of us demand that the other conform to our personal beliefs and choices.
Sadly what I described requires both of us to maintain and use a high degree of personal responsibility and accountability, which is very lacking in today's society. And 7 or 8 pages of this thread as posted by Newtosilver is a very vivid exhibit of people not taking responsibility for their choices and as result themselves and others suffer tragic consequences. I also do not believe in saving people from themselves, so while I take note of all the incidents of accidental firearms deaths, I see as genetic cleansing or winning the Darwin award. If you are stupid enough to leave a loaded firearm unattended and your child shoots you, its siblings, or itself, well, you deserve it. You may well say, the child does not deserve it, well, if the parent is that stupid, then child mostly is a carrier of the stupid gene as well. I make no apology for my lack of empathy for someone not taking personal responsibility. It was not a tragic accident, it was the result of bad choices and actions.
I do not believe that everyone should own a firearm or carry a firearm for self-defence. It is a very personal decision with plenty data and studies to support the numbers that approx. only 10% of population will choose to arm themselves in self-defence and only about 2% will make the choice to deploy that armed defence. And, yes, Big A. D., I know you are going to want sources - On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Crossman - full text is available here - https://archive.org/stream/On_Killing/On_Killing_djvu.txt - references a large number of studies with supporting data. Also my number maybe off slightly as I am going from memory. The point I am making is that self-defence is right and a choice, each person needs to be respected for the choice.
Nothing of the above changes my personal choice to be prepared to defend myself and those in my orbit. I believe it is my civic and moral duty and personal responsibility to protect and defend myself and those around me from harm and danger. Nothing will change my belief and conviction.
Summary - I have met Big A.D. personally, like and respect him. He may not remember me, that is fine. The next we meet I will happily buy him a drink and consider him a friend even though I know we are diametrically opposed on many things politically and socially. And if perchance during that meeting we are put in position where we need to defend ourselves, I will very happily and without thought put myself in harms way to protect and defend him from any threats or dangers.
That is just the kind of person I am.
Thanks,