Question for those that would ban all guns...
Peter Franks
that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
For the purposes of this discussion, assume:
(1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and illegally
violate the rights of another.
(2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
(e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
Trevor Wilson
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
**If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for the
assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I heard,
local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant, who was
badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was
unarmed.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Lookout
wrote:
Who wants to ban all guns? I've never seen any post from anyone in
here who has said that.
pyotr filipivich
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> on or about Wed, 11 Nov 2009
12:52:41 +1100 did write/type or cause to appear in talk.politics.guns
the following:
LOL - ROFLMAO.
Yeah right She was "unarmed". Okay, Trevor, if you want to lug a
unarmed combat specialist around all the time to protect you, have at
it.
Must be nice to be so rich you can afford to hire personal
protection like that, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Do
they get holidays off, or what?
-
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Trevor Wilson
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:kbfkf51upr46af66h...@4ax.com...
**You failed to answer the questions and respond to my (very valid point).
Here it is again:
If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dpbkf55at7nsnu777...@4ax.com...
**Peter Franks. It seems that Mr Franks enjoys engaging in hyperbole. He
would not want facts to get in the way of his rhetoric.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Peter Franks
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
> the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
> the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
Probably not much.
But what about the other 10,000 means of attack? After all, not
everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend against that?
> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
> female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for the
> assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I heard,
> local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant, who was
> badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was
> unarmed.
So, is that the answer?
Peter Franks
So what? Does what you have "never seen" constitute all aspects of this
forum and those that frequent it?
If you have something to contribute, do it; otherwise, go away.
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
>>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>
>> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>
> Probably not much.
**Thanks for your honesty.
>
> But what about the other 10,000 means of attack?
**Surprise is always the province of the assailant. In VERY RARE, VERY
EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, a weapon may be of help. For the most part, a
weapon will be of no use.
After all, not
> everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend against
> that?
**A whack in the noggin? You cannot.
>
>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
>> female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for
>> the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I
>> heard, local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant,
>> who was badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She
>> was unarmed.
>
> So, is that the answer?
**The answer is to attmept to build a fair, just, polite society, where such
attacks are unheard of. Weapons are, fundamentally, not much use. Now bullet
proof armour may be of far greater assistance. Why do we not see the NRA
promoting that cause? Bullet proof vests have been shown to be of some use
against assailants with guns. Chain-mail vests are helpful against
assailants with knives.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
pyotr filipivich
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> on or about Wed, 11 Nov 2009
What benefit would a lifetime application of oneself to the
martial arts be in such a situation?
Why is it that anti-gun nuts seemly feel that if something is not
effective 100% of the time, it must be useless?
Sheesh.
pyotr
Trevor Wilson
**It seems you have failed (again) to answer my questions. I will repeat
them once more for you:
If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>
> Why is it that anti-gun nuts seemly feel that if something is not
> effective 100% of the time, it must be useless?
Here they are again:
If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
Let's see if you can manage an answer this time.
I have one further question:
What is an "anti-gun nut"? Please be very precise in your answer.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Klaus Schadenfreude
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
>the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
>the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
To answer your question, a gun would be useless in this situation. And
your German tourist, the martial arts expert, would be just laying
there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>> Why is it that anti-gun nuts seemly feel that if something is not
>> effective 100% of the time, it must be useless?
Now it's YOUR turn to answer the question.
Jim Yanik
> Let the Record show that "Trevor Wilson"
><tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> on or about Wed, 11 Nov 2009
> 12:52:41 +1100 did write/type or cause to appear in talk.politics.guns
> the following:
>>
>>"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>
>>**If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>>over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>>al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
>>dead.
>>
>>Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>
>>OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts
>>student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being checked out
>>for the assailant, who was badly injured in the attack. The German
>>tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
Quite the RARE occurrence.
More often,the unarmed attacked gets the worst of it.
Insanity to mandate unarmed defense for everyone;
not everybody has the skills or physical abilities to do that.
MOST people don't.
>
> LOL - ROFLMAO.
>
> Yeah right She was "unarmed". Okay, Trevor, if you want to lug
> a
> unarmed combat specialist around all the time to protect you, have at
> it.
> Must be nice to be so rich you can afford to hire personal
> protection like that, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Do
> they get holidays off, or what?
> -
> pyotr filipivich
> "Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
> Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
> (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
>
several years ago,in the Orlando-area Heathrow development,a 50 yr old lady
had a stalker smash thru her patio door,armed with a handgun and carrying a
piece of rope.She was shot twice,but still managed to get to her gun,and
killed the attacker.
Seminole County Sheriffs had recommended she buy a handgun when she applied
for her restraining order against the stalker(that was ineffectual as
usual),and she only had 20 minutes of training from a County Sheriff.
ask any honest martial arts expert,and they'll tell you unless you have
many years of martial arts experience,you're much better off defending with
a handgun.
The FBI agrees.
People of almost any physical ability can use a handgun for defense with
the least risk to themselves and the best chances of success.
Only fools expect a 90 lb woman to fight unarmed against a much
heavier,stronger male attacker.
Criminal prefer unarmed victims.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Klaus Schadenfreude
Especially when the first example he gives invalidates the second
example he gives.
Bama Brian
>>OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
>>female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for the
>>assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I heard,
>>local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant, who was
>>badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was
>>unarmed.
>
> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
> the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
> the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
Read the three paragraphs above.
Are you dull normal, Trevor? Your Straw Man argument is internally
contradictory.
So if the German lady martial arts expert had the assailant whack her
over the back of the noggin, what good would her martial arts do her?
Therefore, by your logic, martial arts are as useless as guns. Yet your
own anecdote disproves your point since the lady put the assailant into
the hospital.
Ginko biloba is reputed to improve the aeration of one's brain, Trevor.
You may want to try it.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Lookout
wrote:
You are implying a scenario that doesn't exist. You're trying to start
a problem. Why?
Lookout
wrote:
>Trevor Wilson wrote:
You're an idiot?
Bill Smith
wrote:
None that I can remember, but there are plenty who would ban anything
actually useful for self defense.
Bill Smith
Lookout
wrote:
Who? I've never seen anyone say that in here.
Peter Franks
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hddgnr$ntf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
>>>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>>> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>>> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>
>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>> Probably not much.
>
> **Thanks for your honesty.
>
>> But what about the other 10,000 means of attack?
>
> **Surprise is always the province of the assailant. In VERY RARE, VERY
> EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, a weapon may be of help. For the most part, a
> weapon will be of no use.
Hmm, that doesn't sound quite right to me. A lot of generalizations
that don't seem to correspond to reality, but ok.
> After all, not
>> everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend against
>> that?
>
> **A whack in the noggin? You cannot.
>
>>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
>>> female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for
>>> the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I
>>> heard, local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant,
>>> who was badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She
>>> was unarmed.
>> So, is that the answer?
>
> **The answer is to attmept to build a fair, just, polite society, where such
> attacks are unheard of.
So, how do you do that, and what do you do in the meantime?
> Weapons are, fundamentally, not much use. Now bullet
> proof armour may be of far greater assistance. Why do we not see the NRA
> promoting that cause? Bullet proof vests have been shown to be of some use
> against assailants with guns. Chain-mail vests are helpful against
> assailants with knives.
And also impractical. A defensive weapon is a lot lighter, easier to
manage, etc. than chain mail and vests. Any other suggestions?
Trevor Wilson
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:hddgnr$ntf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>>>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>>>> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>>>> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
>>>> dead.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>> Probably not much.
>>
>> **Thanks for your honesty.
>>
>>> But what about the other 10,000 means of attack?
>>
>> **Surprise is always the province of the assailant. In VERY RARE, VERY
>> EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, a weapon may be of help. For the most part, a
>> weapon will be of no use.
>
> Hmm, that doesn't sound quite right to me. A lot of generalizations that
> don't seem to correspond to reality, but ok.
**The reality is that DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) are extremely rare events.
>
>> After all, not
>>> everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend against
>>> that?
>>
>> **A whack in the noggin? You cannot.
>>
>>>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>>> German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>>> Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts
>>>> student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being checked out
>>>> for the assailant, who was badly injured in the attack. The German
>>>> tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
>>> So, is that the answer?
>>
>> **The answer is to attmept to build a fair, just, polite society, where
>> such attacks are unheard of.
>
> So, how do you do that, and what do you do in the meantime?
**A good start might be to ensure that everyone is paid a fair and
reasonable wage. That would include the lowest paid waiters to the execs of
Exxon. There is, for instance, no sane reason to pay the CEOs of large
companies millions of Dollars for working as hard (or less hard, as the case
may be) as an inner city high school teacher. In fact, a good case can be
made to pay school teachers a lot more, to encourage high quality teachers
into the profession, so that real changes can be made to children in the
formative years of their lives.
ALL forms of corruption need to be rooted out and prosecuted (and, in the
interests of fairness, the US is a leader in thos area, compared to
Australia). As shown by the experience in NYC, rigorous prosecution of all
laws can reduce all forms of crime.
Mandatory visits to gaols for all school children.
Elminate tipping and pay people who survive on tips a livable wage (we,
Australians, are particularly mystified at the (il)logic of tipping for
everything).
Raise taxation to levels similar to most other Western, developed nations,
so more police can be employed.
Stop invading other nations, so that tax money can be better spent on
Americans.
Cut back defence spending so Americans can enjoy the benefits of their own
hard work.
Install a decent, fair and rational public health system.
There's a few things that would help. There's probably a bunch more.
>
>> Weapons are, fundamentally, not much use. Now bullet proof armour may be
>> of far greater assistance. Why do we not see the NRA promoting that
>> cause? Bullet proof vests have been shown to be of some use against
>> assailants with guns. Chain-mail vests are helpful against assailants
>> with knives.
>
> And also impractical. A defensive weapon is a lot lighter, easier to
> manage, etc. than chain mail and vests. Any other suggestions?
**Make handguns VERY difficult to obtain. Employ very tough prison
sentencing for anyone caught carrying such weapons in public.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Goober
Actually, I think a .357 magnum would work much better at aerating his
brain. We could only hope he would try that self medication promptly.
Trevor Wilson
"Goober" <rom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f93986b6-faeb-459d...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
**And therein lies your problem. You imagine that the only sensible approach
is for those who dissagree with you, is for them to be killed (by their own
hands or someone elses). Your attitude is repugnent, but not surprising. You
see violence as the only possible solution to a problem. Rational discussion
is beyond your capabilities.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdengv$i4k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>
>>>OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
>>>female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for
>>>the
>>>assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I heard,
>>>local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant, who
>>>was
>>>badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was
>>>unarmed.
>>
>> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
>> the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al),
>> then
>> the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>
> Read the three paragraphs above.
>
> Are you dull normal, Trevor? Your Straw Man argument is internally
> contradictory.
>
> So if the German lady martial arts expert had the assailant whack her over
> the back of the noggin, what good would her martial arts do her?
**None at all.
>
> Therefore, by your logic, martial arts are as useless as guns.
**Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend themselves with
more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who needs to pull a gun from
a holster, switch off the safety, aim and fire.
Yet your
> own anecdote disproves your point since the lady put the assailant into
> the hospital.
**It proves nothing, except that the assailant chose his target poorly. If
the assailant had suspected that his target was so trained, then he would
had likely done one of two things:
1) Chosen another target.
2) Whacked her over the noggin with a large lump of wood, or some other
object from behind.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Klaus Schadenfreude
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>**Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend themselves with
>more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who needs to pull a gun from
>a holster, switch off the safety, aim and fire.
ROFLMAO.
Cite.
Scout
Yep, I would like to see that as well, particularly in those cases where the
threat occurs beyond arm's reach.
Of course, I suspect Trevor will tell us about his friend who can break a
brick from across the room with his Ki Strike.
Trevor Wilson
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:88qmf5h5c41orr9r7...@4ax.com...
**I note that you are unaware of the '21 foot rule' then?
I suggest you apprise yourself of basic self defence sometime.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Jim Alder
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote...
>
>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
> the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
> the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
A better question would be, why do you choose an isolated example where a
gun would not be of use, and pretend that is an answer to the question?
> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
> female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for the
> assailant, the tourist was a trained martial arts student. Last I heard,
> local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant, who was
> badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was
> unarmed.
How did her martial arts help her to endure being whacked over the back of
the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat etc?
Or are you so dishonest that you want anyone to believe that these two
examples prove anything?
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
Jim Alder
september.org:
I don't think Trevor has any lack of air in his head.
Jim Alder
> "Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
>>>>female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for
>>>>the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I
>>>>heard, local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant,
>>>>who was badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She
>>>>was unarmed.
>>>
>>> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen over
>>> the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al),
>>> then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>
>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>
>> Read the three paragraphs above.
>>
>> Are you dull normal, Trevor? Your Straw Man argument is internally
>> contradictory.
>>
>> So if the German lady martial arts expert had the assailant whack her over
>> the back of the noggin, what good would her martial arts do her?
>
> **None at all.
>
>>
>> Therefore, by your logic, martial arts are as useless as guns.
>
> **Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend themselves with
> more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who needs to pull a gun from
> a holster, switch off the safety, aim and fire.
Horse crap. It takes considerably more time to beat someone senseless than
it does to shoot them.
>> Yet your own anecdote disproves your point since
>> the lady put the assailant into the hospital.
>
> **It proves nothing,
Exactly. Neither did your 'element of surprise' example. So why did you
bother us with your useless twaddle?
> except that the assailant chose his target poorly. If
> the assailant had suspected that his target was so trained, then he would
> had likely done one of two things:
>
> 1) Chosen another target.
> 2) Whacked her over the noggin with a large lump of wood, or some other
> object from behind.
3) Not assaulted anyone.
Bama Brian
Violence worked for the German tourist lady when set upon by an Australian.
Phil Smythe
> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
>
> (1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and illegally
> violate the rights of another.
>
> (2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
> (e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
> weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
Your question, unfortunately, is rather poorly framed.
For starters the overwhelming majority of those termed anti-gunners in
TPG are not calling for guns to be banned, so your subject header is
highly pejorative.
Secondly you appear comfortable allocating weapons to the attacker, eg
baseball bat, but do not extend this courtesy to the person being
attacked. No mention of any measures that could assist a person under
attack, even something as simple as a locked door.
I think a study of US v Australian murder statistics gives a few
clues. In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
1 in 8 Australian murders. Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
5 times the Australian rate so it seems those law abiding citizens in
Oz are being killed less and also guns are used much less to kill.
That would seem to give the nod to strict laws that help minimise gun
use in crime.
Bama Brian
You'd best drop this anecdote out of your anti-gun repertoire. You're
just digging your logic hole deeper.
So if one is a martial arts expert, or policeman, or armed citizen, it
matters not. Just sneak up behind them with a large lump of wood and
whack them over the noggin.
Therefore guns, martial arts, knives, cops, and even large lumps of wood
are useless and all Australians must surrender meekly to being whacked
over the head - and should then join the sheep herds in New Zealand.
I'm looking forward to the day when all possible artifacts which could
be criminally misused are banned by your government, and all you Crown
subjects in Oz are reduced to squatting in mud huts - which is where you
lot belong.
Bama Brian
Seen the ads for the new movie, "Men Who Stare At Goats"? Soon Trevor
will find a way to incorporate these fictional psychic powers into his
personal history and start telling us anecdotes where such powers are
used by his friends.
Klaus Schadenfreude
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:88qmf5h5c41orr9r7...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>**Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend themselves with
>>>more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who needs to pull a gun
>>>from
>>>a holster, switch off the safety, aim and fire.
>>
>> ROFLMAO.
>>
>> Cite.
>
>**I note that you are unaware of the '21 foot rule' then?
>
>I suggest you apprise yourself of basic self defence sometime.
I suggest you try standing 21' from me and see how fast I can get it
out of the holster and turn your head into a pink cloud.
John-Melb
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
> > that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
> the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al), then
> the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>
> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
> female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for the
> assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I heard,
> local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant, who was
> badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was
> unarmed.
>
> Trevor Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au
I find it interesting that someone would ask a question of those who
seek to ban all guns and the first response is from Trevor Tosspot.
John-Melb
> Who wants to ban all guns? I've never seen any post from anyone in
> here who has said that.
Well, Trevor WIlson has previously stated that a person who
a. Has never been charged of a criminal offence
b. Has legally owned guns for many years, without ever having
committed any offence with them
c. Is licenced to own and colect firearms;
d. Has never been judged mentally incompetent or a threat to
themselves or anybody else by those actually qualified to make such a
diagnoses;
e. has previously worked in occupations which required them to carry a
gun
Should never be allowed access to any firearm, so I guess you're
wrong, there are people who post here who would like to see all gun
ownership banned.
N.B. that person is me.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Note that Trevor does not explain what happens if you sneak up on a
martial arts expert and hit them with "a large lump of wood or a
baseball bat."
Klaus Schadenfreude
Then explain the difference between Australian, Canadian, and UK
murder rate.
John-Melb
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
> **And therein lies your problem. You imagine that the only sensible approach
> is for those who dissagree with you, is for them to be killed (by their own
> hands or someone elses). Your attitude is repugnent, but not surprising. You
> see violence as the only possible solution to a problem. Rational discussion
> is beyond your capabilities.
Pot-Kettle-Black
============================================================
On Jun 18, 7:49 am, "Trevor Wilson"
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
**I have a mate with a "VARMIT thing". You can stand
(oh-say) 60 Metres away and I betcha he can put a bullet into your
skull,
right between your eyes. I'll bet you won't survive either.
==========================================================
It appears Trevor that you are guilty of exactly the same thing you
are critical of other for.
As for rational discussion WTF would you know about rational
discussion?
Tell us again about your friend who can STOP his heart?
John-Melb
wrote:
> **I note that you are unaware of the '21 foot rule' then?
I note that Trevor is unaware of gun retention techniques as taught to
most LEO's
Bama Brian
Just as soon as the US can disband the National Education Association
and the federal Department of Education, fire all the incompetent union
employees, and return the schools to the control of the local school boards.
>
> ALL forms of corruption need to be rooted out and prosecuted (and, in the
> interests of fairness, the US is a leader in thos area, compared to
> Australia). As shown by the experience in NYC, rigorous prosecution of all
> laws can reduce all forms of crime.
>
> Mandatory visits to gaols for all school children.
Mandatory teaching that actions have consequences would be better than a
soon-forgotten field trip that all students would not have to attend, if
their parents - or the students themselves - object.
> Elminate tipping and pay people who survive on tips a livable wage (we,
> Australians, are particularly mystified at the (il)logic of tipping for
> everything).
Why should we pay a waiter the same amount as a neurosurgeon? Now you
get to define the term "livable wage". Ever hear of the US' federal
minimum wage laws? These laws do nothing but increase inflation.
In any case, I'm sure you'll agree with this: "From each according to
his abilities, to each according to his needs."
(Karl Marx)
Which, quite predictably, led to the Soviet Union spectacle of the
workers being housed in dormitories while the nomenklatura had
limousines, dachas in the country, and young mistresses.
>
> Raise taxation to levels similar to most other Western, developed nations,
> so more police can be employed.
With 42 percent of all American dollars feeding federal, state, county,
and city governments. We have all the government we need - and the best
politicians that money can buy. (Will Rogers)
We also have far too many bully-boys in blue now.
>
> Stop invading other nations, so that tax money can be better spent on
> Americans.
Don't be such a killjoy. I understand that Oz is on the list of
countries where the US Army must teach Dim-o-crassy.
>
> Cut back defence spending so Americans can enjoy the benefits of their own
> hard work.
>
> Install a decent, fair and rational public health system.
Like what? The rationed health care in Canaduh? Where my stepson in
Montreal recently had to wait ten days for a series of lithotripsy
sessions for severe kidney stones, that instead could have been resolved
the day he went in for help in the US? *And damn near was, since he was
in the US when he first went for help.*
But silly him, he wanted to go back to Canaduh and have it treated there.
So there he was in a Montreal hospital 24 hours later, literally bent
double with the pain, being told to go home, take an aspirin, and wait
his turn.
Funny how that rationed care works. Here in the US, where there's still
a profit motive, there are mobile lithotripsy treatment vans. You show
up with a kidney stone, the doctor calls for one, and you're on your way
home in a few hours. But in Canada, all the facilities are permanent
installations in hospitals, and ONLY in use during the day when the
union employees actually work.
>
> There's a few things that would help. There's probably a bunch more.
The US is far from perfect. But a descent into communism helps no one.
>
>>> Weapons are, fundamentally, not much use. Now bullet proof armour may be
>>> of far greater assistance. Why do we not see the NRA promoting that
>>> cause? Bullet proof vests have been shown to be of some use against
>>> assailants with guns. Chain-mail vests are helpful against assailants
>>> with knives.
>> And also impractical. A defensive weapon is a lot lighter, easier to
>> manage, etc. than chain mail and vests. Any other suggestions?
>
> **Make handguns VERY difficult to obtain. Employ very tough prison
> sentencing for anyone caught carrying such weapons in public.
They ARE. And there ARE.
Klaus Schadenfreude
<tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>**And therein lies your problem. You imagine that the only sensible approach
>is for those who dissagree with you, is for them to be killed (by their own
>hands or someone elses).
And therein lies your problem. We're not talking about dealing with
"people who disagree with you." We're talking about people who are
attacking or robbing you.
Big difference, even in Australia.
>Your attitude is repugnent, but not surprising. You
>see violence as the only possible solution to a problem. Rational discussion
>is beyond your capabilities.
LOL
"Rational discussion." You fucking moron.
Lookout
Why would you do that? What did he do to you?
Oh.that's right. Klaus isn't talking to me. I made him look stupid
again.
Lookout
I have the idiot banned so I never saw that.
But the statements are not logical and I doubt he worded it that way.
It looks more like you are interpreting it that way.
RD (The Sandman)
news:7lujorF...@mid.individual.net:
>
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
> dead.
Because unless the citizen did, in fact, end up unconscious or dead
(there is no guarantee of either) the bad guy may still end up shot.
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
Because folks like you wish to remove the most efficient method of self
defense from fellow citizens.
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
If he ended up like you describe (and wish) then none. If, however, the
bad guy was not 100% successful, he may well end up dead saving all the
cost of a trial.
> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
> German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
> Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts
> student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being checked out
> for the assailant, who was badly injured in the attack. The German
> tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
Hey, stupid. I am 70 years old. In the old days, I could flat take
you apart, but those days are gone. Hence I carry a firearm.
Intelligent folks know that use of tools makes one's work easier.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:kbfkf51upr46af66h...@4ax.com...
>> Let the Record show that "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> on or about Wed, 11 Nov 2009
>> 12:52:41 +1100 did write/type or cause to appear in
>> talk.politics.guns the following:
>>>
>>>"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>
>>>**If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the
>>>citizen over
>>>the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>>>al), then
>>>the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>
>>>Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>>What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>>
>>>OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>>German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>>Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial
>>>arts student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being
>>>checked out for the assailant, who was badly injured in the attack.
>>>The German tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
>>
>> LOL - ROFLMAO.
>>
>> Yeah right She was "unarmed". Okay, Trevor, if you want to lug a
>> unarmed combat specialist around all the time to protect you, have at
>> it.
>> Must be nice to be so rich you can afford to hire personal
>> protection like that, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
>> Do they get holidays off, or what?
>
> **You failed to answer the questions and respond to my (very valid
> point).
Actually, he responded very well to your point. Not everyone is a
trained martial artist. Not everyone can have one just hanging around in
case. Besides, how on earth would you conceal her?
Here it is again:
>
> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
> dead.
>
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
For the same reason that you did.
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
See, here you go again. Setting up your own strawman and then attacking
him is not the correct way to debate.....however, it does seem to be your
style, lately.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:5akkf5d02us2cofcq...@4ax.com...
>> Let the Record show that "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> on or about Wed, 11 Nov 2009
>> 15:34:47 +1100 did write/type or cause to appear in
>>>point). Here it is again:
>>>
>>>If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>>>over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat,
>>>et al), then
>>>the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>
>>>Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>>What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>
>> What benefit would a lifetime application of oneself to the
>> martial arts be in such a situation?
>
> **It seems you have failed (again) to answer my questions. I will
> repeat them once more for you:
>
> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
> dead.
>
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>
>
>>
>> Why is it that anti-gun nuts seemly feel that if something is not
>> effective 100% of the time, it must be useless?
>
> Here they are again:
>
> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
> dead.
>
> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>
>
> Let's see if you can manage an answer this time.
>
> I have one further question:
>
> What is an "anti-gun nut"?
Trevor Wilson.
> Please be very precise in your answer.
I was although I did leave out your middle initial.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Bama Brian" <claypo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hdengv$i4k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>>OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>>>German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>>>Unfortunately for the
>>>>assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I
>>>>heard, local medical facilities were being checked out for the
>>>>assailant, who was
>>>>badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She
>>>>was unarmed.
>>>
>>> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>>> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat,
>>> et al), then
>>> the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>
>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>
>> Read the three paragraphs above.
>>
>> Are you dull normal, Trevor? Your Straw Man argument is internally
>> contradictory.
>>
>> So if the German lady martial arts expert had the assailant whack her
>> over the back of the noggin, what good would her martial arts do her?
>
> **None at all.
>
>>
>> Therefore, by your logic, martial arts are as useless as guns.
>
> **Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend themselves
> with more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who needs to pull
> a gun from a holster, switch off the safety, aim and fire.
Trevor.....I use a revolver....no safety...at that distance, aiming is
instinctive. Care to try me? Remember if you attack me and lose, the
end result is death.
> Yet your
>> own anecdote disproves your point since the lady put the assailant
>> into the hospital.
>
> **It proves nothing, except that the assailant chose his target
> poorly.
Seems to me he chose it well. She had her back turned (in your example
for us), he eliminated her from the contest at the get go.
If the assailant had suspected that his target was so trained,
> then he would had likely done one of two things:
>
> 1) Chosen another target.
Damn, same thing they do if they think that their target is armed.
> 2) Whacked her over the noggin with a large lump of wood, or some
> other object from behind.
Perhaps, or, most likely, simply picked another target.
RD (The Sandman)
> Scout wrote:
>> Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend
>>>> themselves with more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who
>>>> needs to pull a gun from a holster, switch off the safety, aim and
>>>> fire.
>>> ROFLMAO.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>
>> Yep, I would like to see that as well, particularly in those cases
>> where the threat occurs beyond arm's reach.
>>
>> Of course, I suspect Trevor will tell us about his friend who can
>> break a brick from across the room with his Ki Strike.
>
> Seen the ads for the new movie, "Men Who Stare At Goats"? Soon Trevor
> will find a way to incorporate these fictional psychic powers into his
> personal history and start telling us anecdotes where such powers are
> used by his friends.
>
I would assume that his friends were the goats.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:88qmf5h5c41orr9r7...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Trevor Wilson"
>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>**Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend themselves
>>>with more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who needs to pull
>>>a gun from
>>>a holster, switch off the safety, aim and fire.
>>
>> ROFLMAO.
>>
>> Cite.
>
> **I note that you are unaware of the '21 foot rule' then?
Not at all, I am very much aware of it. What makes you think that a
person, I don't know, on the street will ever get that close to me with a
baseball bat?
> I suggest you apprise yourself of basic self defence sometime.
I suggest you apprise yourself of basic situational awareness.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hddgnr$ntf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>
>>> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the
>>> citizen over the back of the noggin with a large lump of
>>> wood/baseball bat, et al), then the citizen will just lie there,
>>> unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>
>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>
>> Probably not much.
>
> **Thanks for your honesty.
>
>>
>> But what about the other 10,000 means of attack?
>
> **Surprise is always the province of the assailant. In VERY RARE, VERY
> EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, a weapon may be of help. For the most part,
> a weapon will be of no use.
Trevor, care to put up your training against mine? You speak from a lack
of knowledge from just about anywhere but a news article.
> After all, not
>> everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend
>> against that?
>
> **A whack in the noggin? You cannot.
That is correct, but you will have a problem getting around me to where
you can do that with your bat.
>>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>> German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>> Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial
>>> arts student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being
>>> checked out for the assailant, who was badly injured in the attack.
>>> The German tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
>>
>> So, is that the answer?
>
> **The answer is to attmept to build a fair, just, polite society,
> where such attacks are unheard of.
That's true, but not many of them exist.
Weapons are, fundamentally, not
> much use.
Interesting. I will continue just as I have for over 50 years. I have
made it 70 in a (according to you) very violent society. I have had guns
pointed at me and have had guns shot at me. I am still here. Have you
reached 70 yet?
> Now bullet proof armour may be of far greater assistance.
Yeah, but the city gets all up tight when I drive a Sherman tank down the
local 7-11. It tends to tear up those blacktopped streets.
> Why do we not see the NRA promoting that cause? Bullet proof vests
> have been shown to be of some use against assailants with guns.
Because guns have been proven better as a means of self defense.
> Chain-mail vests are helpful against assailants with knives.
Do I also get the horse and lance?
Jim Alder
news:lg8of553t4108hvie...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:34:27 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
>>>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>
>>> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
over
>>> the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et al),
then
>>> the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>
>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>
>> A better question would be, why do you choose an isolated example where
a
>>gun would not be of use, and pretend that is an answer to the question?
>>
>>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a German,
>>> female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately for the
>>> assailant, the tourist was a trained martial arts student. Last I heard,
>>> local medical facilities were being checked out for the assailant, who was
>>> badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was
>>> unarmed.
>>
>> How did her martial arts help her to endure being whacked over the back
of
>>the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat etc?
>>
>> Or are you so dishonest that you want anyone to believe that these two
>>examples prove anything?
>>
> If the German tourist was "unharmed" wouldn't that mean she was the
> attacker? The alleged assailant many have attempted or threatened,
> but she attacked.
Well, no. You can attack someone and get your ass kicked. That's what
martial arts are for. They are, in fact, designed to turn an attackers force
against him.
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
> news:hdfj2m$7ul$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hddgnr$ntf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>>>>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>>> **If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the
>>>>> citizen over the back of the noggin with a large lump of
>>>>> wood/baseball bat, et al), then the citizen will just lie there,
>>>>> unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>>> Probably not much.
>>>
>>> **Thanks for your honesty.
>>>
>>>> But what about the other 10,000 means of attack?
>>>
>>> **Surprise is always the province of the assailant. In VERY RARE,
>>> VERY EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, a weapon may be of help. For the
>>> most part, a weapon will be of no use.
>>
>> Hmm, that doesn't sound quite right to me. A lot of generalizations
>> that don't seem to correspond to reality, but ok.
>
> **The reality is that DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) are extremely rare
> events.
Care to prove that, Trevor. You have made that claim often and have
failed to prove it each and every time.
>>> After all, not
>>>> everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend
>>>> against that?
>>>
>>> **A whack in the noggin? You cannot.
>>>
>>>>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>>>> German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>>>> Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial
>>>>> arts student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being
>>>>> checked out for the assailant, who was badly injured in the
>>>>> attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
>>>> So, is that the answer?
>>>
>>> **The answer is to attmept to build a fair, just, polite society,
>>> where such attacks are unheard of.
>>
>> So, how do you do that, and what do you do in the meantime?
>
> **A good start might be to ensure that everyone is paid a fair and
> reasonable wage. That would include the lowest paid waiters to the
> execs of Exxon.
That is a good idea.....where does the money come from?
> There is, for instance, no sane reason to pay the CEOs
> of large companies millions of Dollars for working as hard (or less
> hard, as the case may be) as an inner city high school teacher.
There is if he is correctly steering a corporation into a profitable and
growing business. Not if the corporation is failing.
> In
> fact, a good case can be made to pay school teachers a lot more, to
> encourage high quality teachers into the profession, so that real
> changes can be made to children in the formative years of their lives.
I agree that teachers should be paid more than they are, but to pay them
like CEOs when they have nowhere the responsility is rather ludicrous.
Of course, so were your ideas about chain mail and everyone being trained
in a lifetime of martial arts.
> ALL forms of corruption need to be rooted out and prosecuted (and, in
> the interests of fairness, the US is a leader in thos area, compared
> to Australia). As shown by the experience in NYC, rigorous prosecution
> of all laws can reduce all forms of crime.
Which is what we have been saying for years. We don't need any new laws,
we need strong enforcement of existing ones. That, BTW, was also shown
in Project Exile (supported and funded originally by the NRA) in
Virginia.
> Mandatory visits to gaols for all school children.
>
> Elminate tipping and pay people who survive on tips a livable wage
> (we, Australians, are particularly mystified at the (il)logic of
> tipping for everything).
Who tips for everything?
> Raise taxation to levels similar to most other Western, developed
> nations, so more police can be employed.
Or we can pay for that abortion called the Pelosi Healthcare plan.
> Stop invading other nations, so that tax money can be better spent on
> Americans.
Not bad. We have a strong Air Force. If some nation harbors terrorists
who like to blow up our buildings or fly airplanes into them, we can
simple reduce the entire nation to rubble.
> Cut back defence spending so Americans can enjoy the benefits of their
> own hard work.
Why would you wish to cut back defense spending? We are a target....you
are an island not many people really care about.
> Install a decent, fair and rational public health system.
And how do you suggest we pay for it? You do realize that of the folks
with health insurance, 84% of them are happy with it.
> There's a few things that would help. There's probably a bunch more.
>
>>
>>> Weapons are, fundamentally, not much use. Now bullet proof armour
>>> may be of far greater assistance. Why do we not see the NRA
>>> promoting that cause? Bullet proof vests have been shown to be of
>>> some use against assailants with guns. Chain-mail vests are helpful
>>> against assailants with knives.
>>
>> And also impractical. A defensive weapon is a lot lighter, easier to
>> manage, etc. than chain mail and vests. Any other suggestions?
>
> **Make handguns VERY difficult to obtain.
Why? They have been proven to be the most effective defensive weapons of
all. It isn't the legal possessor who is the problem. It is the illegal
one. Strong enforcement of current laws will whittle away at that
problem.
> Employ very tough prison
> sentencing for anyone caught carrying such weapons in public.
See above.
RD (The Sandman)
news:6bb1dfb2-1c85-460c...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
No, it kinda figures that he would jump in at that point. After all, to
Trevor that is the Holy Grail.
RD (The Sandman)
a79744...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 9:44�am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant
(1)
>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>
>> For the purposes of this discussion, assume:
>>
>> (1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and
illegally
>> violate the rights of another.
>>
>> (2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
>> (e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
>> weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
>
> Your question, unfortunately, is rather poorly framed.
>
> For starters the overwhelming majority of those termed anti-gunners in
> TPG are not calling for guns to be banned, so your subject header is
> highly pejorative.
Who said he was addressing the overwhelming majority other than you?
> Secondly you appear comfortable allocating weapons to the attacker, eg
> baseball bat, but do not extend this courtesy to the person being
> attacked. No mention of any measures that could assist a person under
> attack, even something as simple as a locked door.
True, but is rather difficult to go and get a sixpack from the local stop
and rob if one remains behind that damn door.
> I think a study of US v Australian murder statistics gives a few
> clues. In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> 1 in 8 Australian murders. Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
> 5 times the Australian rate so it seems those law abiding citizens in
> Oz are being killed less and also guns are used much less to kill.
> That would seem to give the nod to strict laws that help minimise gun
> use in crime.
It would also seem to give the nod to a different culture, demographic
and opportunity picture for those in urban areas.
RD (The Sandman)
>
> "Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dpbkf55at7nsnu777...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:44:33 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant
(1)
>>>that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>
>>>
>>>For the purposes of this discussion, assume:
>>>
>>>(1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and
illegally
>>>violate the rights of another.
>>>
>>>(2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
>>>(e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
>>>weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
>>
>> Who wants to ban all guns? I've never seen any post from anyone in
>> here who has said that.
>
> **Peter Franks. It seems that Mr Franks enjoys engaging in hyperbole.
He
> would not want facts to get in the way of his rhetoric.
>
>
Mirror, mirror on the wall......
Bert Hyman
Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
> In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> 1 in 8 Australian murders.
So, what are you doing to control the implements of death used in the 7
out of 8 murders in Australia?
Or do you simply not care?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Berry Oakley
Martial arts work both ways, you moron.
And he made you look like an idiot, again!
Berry Oakley
> "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in
> news:7lujorF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>>"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>>assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>
>>**If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>>over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>>al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
>>dead.
>
>
> Because unless the citizen did, in fact, end up unconscious or dead
> (there is no guarantee of either) the bad guy may still end up shot.
>
>
>>Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>
>
> Because folks like you wish to remove the most efficient method of self
> defense from fellow citizens.
>
>
>>What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>
>
> If he ended up like you describe (and wish) then none. If, however, the
> bad guy was not 100% successful, he may well end up dead saving all the
> cost of a trial.
And Firearms are NOT just for self defence, Trevor.
Just like Baseball bats are NOT just for hitting baseballs.
Jim Yanik
news:nn8of59059c8udnrj...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:13:10 -0800 (PST), Phil Smythe
><smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 11, 9:44 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>
>>> For the purposes of this discussion, assume:
>>>
>>> (1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and
>>> illegally violate the rights of another.
>>>
>>> (2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
>>> (e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
>>> weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
>>
>>Your question, unfortunately, is rather poorly framed.
>>
>>For starters the overwhelming majority of those termed anti-gunners in
>>TPG are not calling for guns to be banned, so your subject header is
>>highly pejorative.
Not really,as that IS their true intent; To ban guns except for
police,government,AND their chosen "elite".
(as if police/gov't guns would not get stolen and make their way into
criminal hands...)
I suspect most of the "strict gun control" people are also anti-hunting and
"sporting". "there's no -need- for it".
>>
> Really, so exactly what are the looking for? There are over 20,000
> various laws, regulations, ordinances on the books and nothing at all
> has ever worked so exactly what are they calling for? More bans based
> on appearance, the use of 18th century weapons only, what?
since they know they can't get a total ban,they want extreme restrictions
on private persons owning or carrying firearms for self-defense.
Making the unfounded and incorrect assumptions that legally armed citizens
are somehow a greater danger than the criminals,and that disarming lawful
citizens somehow makes them "safer".
Also the wrong belief that it's better to surrender and comply with a
criminal's demands,than to fight back with a weapon.
we've all seen this crap posted here many times,shot it all down many
times,but they persist in clinging to their unfounded beliefs.
>>
>>Secondly you appear comfortable allocating weapons to the attacker, eg
>>baseball bat, but do not extend this courtesy to the person being
>>attacked. No mention of any measures that could assist a person under
>>attack, even something as simple as a locked door.
>>
> A "simple" locked door can very, very easily be defeated in a manner
> of seconds, especially if you are talking about the "normal" American
> House door.
generally,the first indication is AFTER the criminal is in the house.
>
> Hell I'll see your locked door,and raise you one telephone call, AND
> the average U.S. Police response time. Now tell me you are going to
> do to stop the average everyday run-of-the-mill whack-a-doodle?
>>
>>I think a study of US v Australian murder statistics gives a few
>>clues. In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
>>1 in 8 Australian murders. Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
>>5 times the Australian rate so it seems those law abiding citizens in
>>Oz are being killed less and also guns are used much less to kill.
>>That would seem to give the nod to strict laws that help minimise gun
>>use in crime.
what's the comparison in NON-gun murder rates?
that might show that the Aussies are simply more peaceable than Americans.
>>
> Perhaps you simply kill less and the weapon of use simply doesn't
> matter. Comparing any two countries without taking into accord its
> culture, history, society, and so forth makes said comparison null &
> void. Perhaps you fail to note that the majority of U.S. murders are
> criminal on criminal crime, mass shootings by whack jobs not
> withstanding.
Wack jobs AND terrorists.
>
> Perhaps extremely strict laws will reduce guns used in crime, but will
> it have any impact on crime? Every study on the subject says no.
> Britain's current knife violence problem says no. Even your own
> Australian violence statistics say no as well.
Also,both "strict gun control" countries STILL have gun violence.
same with Japan.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9CC177FA3A5...@216.250.184.7:
> In news:b2d3131b-a81b-41cc...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com
> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
>> In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
>> 1 in 8 Australian murders.
>
> So, what are you doing to control the implements of death used in the 7
> out of 8 murders in Australia?
>
> Or do you simply not care?
>
they also IGNORE the many times guns are used for GOOD.
for legitimate self-defense and protection of property.
(to them,there's no such thing...)
THAT is the major failing of their viewpoint.
if guns were not so useful for good purposes,people would be supportive of
stricter controls.
there's really no such thing as a "ban",as police and gov'ts would still
have guns,thus still available to criminals,and guns can always be smuggled
or homemade.
UK has already discovered that,thus their ban on replicas and blank-firing
pistols.
John-Melb
>
> - Show quoted text -
The description is of me, and my experiences with life, and firearms,
and Wilson has said I should never be allowed to own firearms.
Therefore, if I shouldn't own firearms, people with the same
experiences, skills etc also clearly, in Trevor's mind, shouldn't own
firearms. How else would you have me interpret it?
Lookout
Uh...huh?
Lookout
I'm simply saying HE makes no sense IF those are his words. I doubt
they are.
Berry Oakley
The expected responce from you.
Trevor Wilson
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC16C2AE...@216.196.97.130...
**I prove it the same way that I can prove that there is no God. No evidence
= no God. Little evidence of DGUs = very few DGUs.
You have made that claim often and have
> failed to prove it each and every time.
**It's not up to me to prove the existence of DGUs. The lack of evidence
surrounding the claims of DGUs is adequate proof that very few DGUs occur in
the US. NB: I NEVER suggested that there are zero DGUs. There are a handful
each year.
>
>>>> After all, not
>>>>> everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend
>>>>> against that?
>>>>
>>>> **A whack in the noggin? You cannot.
>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>>>>> German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>>>>> Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial
>>>>>> arts student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being
>>>>>> checked out for the assailant, who was badly injured in the
>>>>>> attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
>>>>> So, is that the answer?
>>>>
>>>> **The answer is to attmept to build a fair, just, polite society,
>>>> where such attacks are unheard of.
>>>
>>> So, how do you do that, and what do you do in the meantime?
>>
>> **A good start might be to ensure that everyone is paid a fair and
>> reasonable wage. That would include the lowest paid waiters to the
>> execs of Exxon.
>
> That is a good idea.....where does the money come from?
>
The Exxon execs, for a start. They ear millions of Dollars every year. Where
do you think their money comes from? Thin air? Your pocket?
Choose one.
A good start might be to (say) limit the maximum pay for any person in a
company to (say) 10 times the pay of the lowest paid person in that company.
Such an idea would serve two purposes:
1) Company execs would ensure that reasonable pay and conditions are applied
to all people in a company.
2) Company execs would limit their own pay.
And yes, such a system is already in place in various parts of the world. If
you can explain how any person can justify an annual salary of (say) $20
million, then I would be all ears.
[ASIDE] I argued this point last year (just before the meltdown) with an
Australian financial journalist, after one exec was paid AUS$33 million for
one years' work. I maintained that I could do his job better than the exec
could do mine. He laughed at me. Within a couple of months, the company's
share price dropped from A$100.00 to less than $30.00. It is STILL less than
$40.00. The exec's decisions have cost the shareholders billions of Dollars,
yet he is still raking in millions of Dollars in income. If I make a
mistake, it costs me money.
>> There is, for instance, no sane reason to pay the CEOs
>> of large companies millions of Dollars for working as hard (or less
>> hard, as the case may be) as an inner city high school teacher.
>
> There is if he is correctly steering a corporation into a profitable and
> growing business. Not if the corporation is failing.
**There's four problems with that:
1) Execs still take home bundles of cash, regardless of the financial state
of the business.
2) Execs often make the bottom line LOOK better, by cutting staff numbers.
They leave the company and the company shows terrible figures the very next
year. The execs keep their money.
3) I don't care how good a CEO is, no one is worth (say) $30 million a year.
The only exception to that would be a person who has set their business up
and who owns a significant chunk of that business. Bill Gates, for instance.
The CEO of Exxon is, essentially, an employee. He is not worth the money he
is paid.
4) Taking the example of the Exxon CEO, for a moment. Exxon caused massive
and permanent damage to a pristine wilderness area a bunch of years ago.
Hundreds of people have lost their livelihood. People have committed
suicide. The Exxon CEO has fought against paying fair and reasonable
compensation to the people of Alaska. By being a corporate bully, he has
enhanced his own bottom line.
>
>> In
>> fact, a good case can be made to pay school teachers a lot more, to
>> encourage high quality teachers into the profession, so that real
>> changes can be made to children in the formative years of their lives.
>
> I agree that teachers should be paid more than they are, but to pay them
> like CEOs when they have nowhere the responsility is rather ludicrous.
**Points:
* I did not suggest that they should be paid like CEOs.
* It could be argued that teachers have a greater responsibility that CEOs.
The Exxon CEO has certainly ignored his responsibilities to the people of
Alaska.
> Of course, so were your ideas about chain mail and everyone being trained
> in a lifetime of martial arts.
**Strawman. I never suggested anything of the sort.
>
>> ALL forms of corruption need to be rooted out and prosecuted (and, in
>> the interests of fairness, the US is a leader in thos area, compared
>> to Australia). As shown by the experience in NYC, rigorous prosecution
>> of all laws can reduce all forms of crime.
>
> Which is what we have been saying for years. We don't need any new laws,
> we need strong enforcement of existing ones. That, BTW, was also shown
> in Project Exile (supported and funded originally by the NRA) in
> Virginia.
**What you need are HOMOGENEOUS laws. Half a dozen properly policed laws,
homogeneously applied accross the nation are better than 20,000 badly
enforced, haphazardly applied ones.
>
>> Mandatory visits to gaols for all school children.
>>
>> Elminate tipping and pay people who survive on tips a livable wage
>> (we, Australians, are particularly mystified at the (il)logic of
>> tipping for everything).
>
> Who tips for everything?
**Certainly not Australians. We don't tip restaurant workers, taxi drivers,
porters or anyone else. No need. We are despised the world over, since we
don't tip.
>
>> Raise taxation to levels similar to most other Western, developed
>> nations, so more police can be employed.
>
> Or we can pay for that abortion called the Pelosi Healthcare plan.
**I know nothing about the "Pelosi Helthcare plan".
>
>> Stop invading other nations, so that tax money can be better spent on
>> Americans.
>
> Not bad. We have a strong Air Force. If some nation harbors terrorists
> who like to blow up our buildings or fly airplanes into them, we can
> simple reduce the entire nation to rubble.
**Ask yourself: What were the reasons given by Osama for the decision to
attack the US? Did it have anything to do with the millions of US Dollars
used to prop up a corrupt regime in Saudi Arabia?
Or, asked another way:
If the US did not spend billions of Dollars keeping US military forces in
Saudi Arabia, propping up a corrupt regime, would Osama have attacked the
US?
NB: I am NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM condoning the cowardly attacks on US
civilians. If Bin Laden was pissed off with the US military in Sadia Arabia,
then he should have attacked the US military, not US civilians.
>
>> Cut back defence spending so Americans can enjoy the benefits of their
>> own hard work.
>
> Why would you wish to cut back defense spending? We are a target....you
> are an island not many people really care about.
**Thanks to Cheney, the waste present in the US military is huge.
>
>> Install a decent, fair and rational public health system.
>
> And how do you suggest we pay for it? You do realize that of the folks
> with health insurance, 84% of them are happy with it.
**I have private medical insurance. I also have access to the public health
system. As is my right as an Australian citizen. I pay Around
AUS$75.00/month for private health insurance. How much do you pay? The
reason why I pay so little, is because the private health care system is
kept 'honest' by the existence of the public system. The massive waste and
rip-offs in the US private health care system do not (for the most part)
exist over here.
>
>> There's a few things that would help. There's probably a bunch more.
>>
>>>
>>>> Weapons are, fundamentally, not much use. Now bullet proof armour
>>>> may be of far greater assistance. Why do we not see the NRA
>>>> promoting that cause? Bullet proof vests have been shown to be of
>>>> some use against assailants with guns. Chain-mail vests are helpful
>>>> against assailants with knives.
>>>
>>> And also impractical. A defensive weapon is a lot lighter, easier to
>>> manage, etc. than chain mail and vests. Any other suggestions?
>>
>> **Make handguns VERY difficult to obtain.
>
> Why?
**Because they serve very little purpose except to be used to kill people.
They have been proven to be the most effective defensive weapons of
> all.
**I've never seen any proof of such a thing.
> It isn't the legal possessor who is the problem.
**Is it your contention that no legal handgun owner has ever murdered
another person? That's a bit of a stretch, even for you.
It is the illegal
> one. Strong enforcement of current laws will whittle away at that
> problem.
>
>> Employ very tough prison
>> sentencing for anyone caught carrying such weapons in public.
>
> See above.
>
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Scout
> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:88qmf5h5c41orr9r7...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **Not so. A person proficient in unarmed combat can defend
>>>> themselves with more speed, accuracy and efficacy than someone who
>>>> needs to pull a gun from
>>>> a holster, switch off the safety, aim and fire.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO.
>>>
>>> Cite.
>>
>> **I note that you are unaware of the '21 foot rule' then?
Please show me any martial artist that can throw a punch 21 feet.
Lookout
<AllmanB...@bass.gov> wrote:
Hey..not much I can do with a stupid response.
Klaus Schadenfreude
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
Hey, let me ask you this. Let's say we have two identical attackers
with sharp knives, 'A' and 'B,' exactly 21' away.
We have two potential victims, also 'A' ad 'B'.
'A' is your typical, gun-grabbing Australian tosspot.
'B' is your typical armed American.
Everyone is perfectly versed in the famous "21' Rule"
A whistle blows, and Attackers A & B lunge at their targets.
Assuming Attacker A is going after Potential Victim A and Attacker B
is going after Potential Victim B, which attacker is more likely to be
carried out by EMT's?
Scout
That's easy, Attacker B followed by Attacker A as Potential Victim B takes
them both out while Potential Victim A is wetting himself in a corner while
whimpering for "knife control".
Klaus Schadenfreude
Now, the second part of the question.
Suppose, instead of just hoping his attacker would slip and injure
himself in the growing puddle of urine, Potential Victim 'A' tried to
"reason" with his attacker.
How would this change the outcome?
Scout
He would get covered with the blood and brain splatter as Potential Victim B
gave Attacker A two to center mass and one to the head.
Bama Brian
>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>
>>
>> (1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and illegally
>> violate the rights of another.
>>
>> (2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
>> (e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
>> weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
>
> Your question, unfortunately, is rather poorly framed.
>
> For starters the overwhelming majority of those termed anti-gunners in
> TPG are not calling for guns to be banned, so your subject header is
> highly pejorative.
>
> baseball bat, but do not extend this courtesy to the person being
> attacked. No mention of any measures that could assist a person under
> attack, even something as simple as a locked door.
>
> clues. In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> 1 in 8 Australian murders. Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
> 5 times the Australian rate so it seems those law abiding citizens in
> Oz are being killed less and also guns are used much less to kill.
> That would seem to give the nod to strict laws that help minimise gun
> use in crime.
You just keep pulling those numbers out of your ass, don't you, Phil the
man? You like lying in public, apparently.
I quoted the stats for you recently - and you ran away.
But here they are again, just for you.
The US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand all have similar
statistics in overall assaults per 1,000.
Australia: 7.0
UK: 7.4
Canada: 7.1
New Zealand: 7.4
US: 7.5
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
Which shows that anger and violence is pretty much similar throughout
all the English speaking countries. So it's a good thing you lot are
disarmed - especially since Australians learned their manners from baboons.
Murders per 100K
Australia: 1.5
Canada: 1.5
UK: 1.4
New Zealand: 1.1
US: 4.2
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
Read those stats, Phil. *The murder rate from the US compared to
Australia is 2.8x, NOT the 5x you so fatuously claim.*
Also, the US reports non-negligent manslaughters as murders, which Oz
does not. If it had, your murder stats would be some ten percent
higher. There is a move in Oz to report the NNM's in with the murders,
but AFAIK, it is not done yet, or even planned for countrywide.
With or without guns, it is likely that the US overall could have as low
a murder rate as does Australia - provided one caveat of ignoring the
statistics of the "ethnically challenged". However, I can make that
case with some US states today, even including the "ethnically
challenged" statistics.
Murders and non-negligent manslaughter from selected US States, per 100K
Hawaii: 1.7
Maine: 1.6
Iowa: 1.2
Montana: 1.5
North Dakota: 1.9
New Hampshire: 1.1
Oregon: 1.9
Rhode Island: 1.8
Vermont: 1.9
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html
The averaged rate for these nine US states is 1.6 - almost exactly where
Australia's rate is, especially if Australia were to include the
non-negligent manslaughters.
These states represent some 15.5 million US citizens. Not quite your
teeming millions of 20.1,but close enough to make the point that it is
not the guns that drive the rate, since all of these states have
relatively easy access to guns.
Time for your bluster and jerk-off dance, Phil. Get to it.
Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Scout
You should know by now that Phil will NEVER admit to mistake, error or even
outright lies.
pyotr filipivich
Let the Record show that "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> on or about Thu, 12 Nov 2009
11:14:30 -0600 did write/type or cause to appear in talk.politics.guns
the following:
>"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote: in
>> "pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote :
>>> Let the Record show that "Trevor Wilson" did type:
>>>>"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> Let the Record show that "Trevor Wilson" did type:
>>>>>>"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote :
>>>>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>>>>>> assailant(1)
>>>>>>> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>**If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the
>>>>>>citizen over the back of the noggin with a large lump of
>>>>>>wood/baseball bat, et al),
>>>>>>then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>>>>>What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>>>>>German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male. Unfortunately
>>>>>>for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial arts student. Last I
>>>>>>heard, local medical facilities were being checked out for the
>>>>>>assailant, who was badly injured in the attack. The German tourist was unharmed. She
>>>>>>was unarmed.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL - ROFLMAO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah right She was "unarmed". Okay, Trevor, if you want to lug a
>>>>> unarmed combat specialist around all the time to protect you, have at it.
>>>>> Must be nice to be so rich you can afford to hire personal
>>>>> protection like that, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.
>>>>> Do they get holidays off, or what?
>>>>
>>>>**You failed to answer the questions and respond to my (very valid
>>>>point). Here it is again:
>>>>
>>>>If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>>>>over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat,
>>>>et al), then
>>>>the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>>>What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>>
>>> What benefit would a lifetime application of oneself to the
>>> martial arts be in such a situation?
>>
>> **It seems you have failed (again) to answer my questions. I will
>> repeat them once more for you:
>>
>> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
>> dead.
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>>> Why is it that anti-gun nuts seemly feel that if something is not
>>> effective 100% of the time, it must be useless?
>>
>> Here they are again:
>>
>> If the assailant has the element of surprise (ie: Whacks the citizen
>> over the back of the noggin with a large lump of wood/baseball bat, et
>> al), then the citizen will just lie there, unconscious. Maybe even
>> dead.
Yes... and
>>
>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
The same as ... oh having a smoke detector in your house when a
787 full of nuns and Orphans crashes into it.
The same as having a full up trauma kit handy when that undetected
aneurysm ruptures and you bleed out in seconds.
the Same as my trying to answer your silly question, seeing as how
your reading comprehension are as lacking as your analytical skills.
>> Let's see if you can manage an answer this time.
>>
>> I have one further question:
>>
>> What is an "anti-gun nut"?
The "Gun Nut" is the sort of person who for whatever reasons,
"goes nuts" when the subject is guns. They believe firearms have
magical powers, either to cloud men's minds, or to ward off evil.
Amulets of Damnation or Talismans of Protection - either magical
perspective is, to say the least, "nutty"
The Anti-Gun Nuts, as a group are convinced that the mere
presence of a firearm will cause them to go off their nut and forget
all they ever were taught about "being nice" and "don't hitting", and
"thou shalt do no murder" and the like, and immediately begin to shoot
at their neighbors.
The other extreme is the person who claims that a gun is the
solution to all that could ever possibly go wrong. Their attitude
seems to be that merely having a gun will ward off all evil, restore
your virility, and waxes the car, all in one simple little talisman.
Both are nuts when the subject is guns.
So which sort of "gun nut" are you?
-
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)
Phil Smythe
<klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In talk.politics.guns Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 11, 9:44 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
> >> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
>
> >> (1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and illegally
> >> violate the rights of another.
>
> >> (2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
> >> (e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
> >> weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
>
> >Your question, unfortunately, is rather poorly framed.
>
> >For starters the overwhelming majority of those termed anti-gunners in
> >TPG are not calling for guns to be banned, so your subject header is
> >highly pejorative.
>
> >Secondly you appear comfortable allocating weapons to the attacker, eg
> >baseball bat, but do not extend this courtesy to the person being
> >attacked. No mention of any measures that could assist a person under
> >attack, even something as simple as a locked door.
>
> >I think a study of US v Australian murder statistics gives a few
> >clues. In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> >1 in 8 Australian murders. Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
> >5 times the Australian rate so it seems those law abiding citizens in
> >Oz are being killed less and also guns are used much less to kill.
> >That would seem to give the nod to strict laws that help minimise gun
> >use in crime.
>
> murder rate.
Good question Klaus, for me anyway. According to the nationmaster site
the rates are;
Aus - 1.5
Canada - 1.5
UK - 1.4
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
In other words, effectively there is no difference, therefore nothing
explain except why you asked the question.
A free hint Klaus: if you ask someone to explain why there is a
difference between 3 things, make sure beforehand there is a
difference, otherwise you'll look like a total fool.
Any other questions that bolster my case gladly accepted.
Jim Yanik
news:nsspf5httieq8ejk2...@4ax.com:
Trevor's basic wrong assumption is that criminals begin their robberies by
braining their victim with a baseball bat.First,carrying a baseball bat is
rather blatant and easily observed. Second,they are out to ROB,not murder.
They know police put more effort into investigating murders,murders are bad
for a robber's business,and the penalties are much worse.
Generally,criminals confront victims and demand they submit and turn over
their money,credit cards,access numbers,and they want to do it QUIETLY,so
it doesn't attract attention.They use the threat of guns or easily
concealable knives,or by simply being bigger,stronger,or more numerous.
Now,having a gun gives a person much better -chances- of a succcessful
self-defense,with the LEAST harm to themselves,and can be used by the
widest range of physical types.
However,**as with any defense method**,the person MUST be -aware- of their
surroundings and be prepared to act. There's no guarantee.
The rational among us realize this.
Phil Smythe
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:13:10 -0800 (PST), Phil Smythe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 11, 9:44 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant(1)
> >> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
>
> >> (1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and illegally
> >> violate the rights of another.
>
> >> (2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
> >> (e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
> >> weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
>
> >Your question, unfortunately, is rather poorly framed.
>
> >For starters the overwhelming majority of those termed anti-gunners in
> >TPG are not calling for guns to be banned, so your subject header is
> >highly pejorative.
>
> various laws, regulations, ordinances on the books and nothing at all
> has ever worked so exactly what are they calling for? More bans based
> on appearance, the use of 18th century weapons only, what?
Do you have vision issues? If you reread what I wrote you'll see I
said there isn't a call for a ban, so why are you blathering on about
"more bans"?
>
> >Secondly you appear comfortable allocating weapons to the attacker, eg
> >baseball bat, but do not extend this courtesy to the person being
> >attacked. No mention of any measures that could assist a person under
> >attack, even something as simple as a locked door.
>
> A "simple" locked door can very, very easily be defeated in a manner
> of seconds, especially if you are talking about the "normal" American
> House door.
To defeat a locked door requires some real intent and will probably
discourage a lot of attackers. Of course Frank's intent was to portray
victims as totally defenceless which is why I correctly called his
question poorly framed.
Those victims that are generally totally defenceless are most likely
intimate acquaintances of the attacker who never get any chance to
defend themselves whether they be gun owners or not.
>
> Hell I'll see your locked door,and raise you one telephone call, AND
> the average U.S. Police response time. Now tell me you are going to
> do to stop the average everyday run-of-the-mill whack-a-doodle?
You have a lot of those do you? My feeling is that there are precious
few of the out of control whack jobs you seem to be suggesting. More
likely an attacker known to the victim which official stats support.
>
> >I think a study of US v Australian murder statistics gives a few
> >clues. In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> >1 in 8 Australian murders. Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
> >5 times the Australian rate so it seems those law abiding citizens in
> >Oz are being killed less and also guns are used much less to kill.
> >That would seem to give the nod to strict laws that help minimise gun
> >use in crime.
>
> Perhaps you simply kill less and the weapon of use simply doesn't
> matter. Comparing any two countries without taking into accord its
> culture, history, society, and so forth makes said comparison null &
> void. Perhaps you fail to note that the majority of U.S. murders are
> criminal on criminal crime, mass shootings by whack jobs not
> withstanding.
And Australia is different? Well, we don't have the mass shootings I
admit.
>
> Perhaps extremely strict laws will reduce guns used in crime, but will
> it have any impact on crime? Every study on the subject says no.
> Britain's current knife violence problem says no. Even your own
> Australian violence statistics say no as well.
Well, that is definitive indeed. Gun laws can only affect crimes that
involve guns either offensively or defensively. In Australia there is
virtually no history of gun defence but there is a decline in crimes
such as murder, attempted and armed robbery, the 3 crimes most likely
to involve guns. Yes, maybe embezzlement is up, perhaps the gun laws
have failed there.
Phil Smythe
> Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote innews:nn8of59059c8udnrj...@4ax.com:
>
> >>use in crime.
>
> what's the comparison in NON-gun murder rates?
> that might show that the Aussies are simply more peaceable than Americans.
Good question. From memory they are about the same. Perhaps this
indicates the difference is the gun availability. What's your thought
on this?
>
>
>
> > Perhaps you simply kill less and the weapon of use simply doesn't
> > matter. Comparing any two countries without taking into accord its
> > culture, history, society, and so forth makes said comparison null &
> > void. Perhaps you fail to note that the majority of U.S. murders are
> > criminal on criminal crime, mass shootings by whack jobs not
> > withstanding.
>
> Wack jobs AND terrorists.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps extremely strict laws will reduce guns used in crime, but will
> > it have any impact on crime? Every study on the subject says no.
> > Britain's current knife violence problem says no. Even your own
> > Australian violence statistics say no as well.
>
> Also,both "strict gun control" countries STILL have gun violence.
> same with Japan.
Wow, strict laws that do not completely eradicate a problem! Who would
have thunk it?
Klaus Schadenfreude
There is. Try again.
>Any other questions that bolster my case gladly accepted.
UK 1.37
Canada 1.83
Australia 1.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Phil Smythe
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote in news:b2d3131b-a81b-41cc-ac2f-
> a797446ed...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 9:44 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an assailant
> (1)
> >> that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>
> >> For the purposes of this discussion, assume:
>
> >> (1) Someone that is deliberately attempting to forcefully and
> illegally
> >> violate the rights of another.
>
> >> (2) Either a tool or device that was primarily designed as a weapon
> >> (e.g. gun), or a tool or device that was NOT primarily designed as a
> >> weapon (e.g. baseball bat).
>
> > Your question, unfortunately, is rather poorly framed.
>
> > For starters the overwhelming majority of those termed anti-gunners in
> > TPG are not calling for guns to be banned, so your subject header is
> > highly pejorative.
>
That was my point, by addressing it to "those who would ban all guns"
he appeared to be addressing it to nobody.
>
> > Secondly you appear comfortable allocating weapons to the attacker, eg
> > baseball bat, but do not extend this courtesy to the person being
> > attacked. No mention of any measures that could assist a person under
> > attack, even something as simple as a locked door.
>
> True, but is rather difficult to go and get a sixpack from the local stop
> and rob if one remains behind that damn door.
HOW is someone potentially under attack contorted to someone robbing a
"local stop"? Visit an optometrist soon.
>
> > I think a study of US v Australian murder statistics gives a few
> > clues. In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> > 1 in 8 Australian murders. Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
> > 5 times the Australian rate so it seems those law abiding citizens in
> > Oz are being killed less and also guns are used much less to kill.
> > That would seem to give the nod to strict laws that help minimise gun
> > use in crime.
>
> It would also seem to give the nod to a different culture, demographic
> and opportunity picture for those in urban areas.
Australia is more urbanised than the US so perhaps our rates should be
higher? Was that your point?
Australia has a much higher % of foreign born, was that your point?
Australia is an English speaking democracy with a legal system based
on English common law, like the US, was that your point?
Australians drive on the left in right-hand drive cars and Americans
on the right in left-hand drive cars, was that your point?
Phil Smythe
> Innews:b2d3131b-a81b-41cc...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com
>
> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
> > In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> > 1 in 8 Australian murders.
>
> So, what are you doing to control the implements of death used in the 7
> out of 8 murders in Australia?
>
> Or do you simply not care?
I care that our murder is about 1/4 of yours. Question is do you care
about your abnormally high rate? And outlawing hands could be a bit
tough.
Phil Smythe
> Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote innews:Xns9CC177FA3A5...@216.250.184.7:
>
> > Innews:b2d3131b-a81b-41cc...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com
> > Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>
> >> In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
> >> 1 in 8 Australian murders.
>
> > So, what are you doing to control the implements of death used in the 7
> > out of 8 murders in Australia?
>
> > Or do you simply not care?
>
> they also IGNORE the many times guns are used for GOOD.
> for legitimate self-defense and protection of property.
> (to them,there's no such thing...)
>
> THAT is the major failing of their viewpoint.
What I don't ignore is that our murder rate is about 1/4 of yours and
that non-gun rate is about the same. I don't consider that a failing,
unless we're talking about the US rate.
>
> if guns were not so useful for good purposes,people would be supportive of
> stricter controls.
>
> there's really no such thing as a "ban",as police and gov'ts would still
> have guns,thus still available to criminals,and guns can always be smuggled
> or homemade.
> UK has already discovered that,thus their ban on replicas and blank-firing
> pistols.
Thanks for supporting my point, that it's not a ban people are calling
for.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Phil Smythe
Care to show what lies I'm supposed to have told? No, I didn't think
so, you're much better at accusations than proof.
>
> I quoted the stats for you recently - and you ran away.
>
> But here they are again, just for you.
>
> The US, Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand all have similar
> statistics in overall assaults per 1,000.
> Australia: 7.0
> UK: 7.4
> Canada: 7.1
> New Zealand: 7.4
> US: 7.5
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-c...
>
> Which shows that anger and violence is pretty much similar throughout
> all the English speaking countries.
Good point, well made, I agree with you.
The only true difference is when we shift into the world of fatal
assaults, ie murder. With your enhanced firepower you're much better
us, the Brits, Canucks or Kiwis. Better at killing each other that is.
So it's a good thing you lot are
> disarmed - especially since Australians learned their manners from baboons.
>
> Murders per 100K
> Australia: 1.5
> Canada: 1.5
> UK: 1.4
> New Zealand: 1.1
> US: 4.2
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-ca...
>
> Read those stats, Phil. *The murder rate from the US compared to
> Australia is 2.8x, NOT the 5x you so fatuously claim.*
WHERE did I claim 5 times? Come on big boy, your easy with the
accusations, SHOW where I claimed 5 times!
>
> Also, the US reports non-negligent manslaughters as murders, which Oz
> does not. If it had, your murder stats would be some ten percent
> higher.
What unmitigated BULLSHIT!
According to the FBI the latest US Murder and nonnegligent
manslaughter rate for 2008 was 5.4. According to the Australian Bureau
of Statistics the rate for murder plus manslaughter (both negligent
and non-negligent) for 2008 would be 1.4, that's almost 4 times
including a category not covered by the US rate!.
There is a move in Oz to report the NNM's in with the murders,
> but AFAIK, it is not done yet, or even planned for countrywide.
As there were only only 30 cases of manslaughter in 2008 (both
negligent and non-negligent) whether it's in or out will barely move
the rate.
>
> With or without guns, it is likely that the US overall could have as low
> a murder rate as does Australia - provided one caveat of ignoring the
> statistics of the "ethnically challenged". However, I can make that
> case with some US states today, even including the "ethnically
> challenged" statistics.
You CANNOT! The US and Australian rates are about even if you remove
the gun component.
>
> Murders and non-negligent manslaughter from selected US States, per 100K
> Hawaii: 1.7
> Maine: 1.6
> Iowa: 1.2
> Montana: 1.5
> North Dakota: 1.9
> New Hampshire: 1.1
> Oregon: 1.9
> Rhode Island: 1.8
> Vermont: 1.9
>
> http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_05.html
>
> The averaged rate for these nine US states is 1.6 - almost exactly where
> Australia's rate is, especially if Australia were to include the
> non-negligent manslaughters.
>
> These states represent some 15.5 million US citizens. Not quite your
> teeming millions of 20.1,but close enough to make the point that it is
> not the guns that drive the rate, since all of these states have
> relatively easy access to guns.
>
> Time for your bluster and jerk-off dance, Phil. Get to it.
How about I do my own cherry picking? I'll choose the the states
alphabetically till I get to around Australia's population.
Alabama - 7.6
Alaska - 4.1
Arizona - 6.3
Colorado - 3.2
Connecticut - 3.5
Delaware - 6.5
Hawaii - 1.9
Idaho - 1.5
Total population = 19.7 million.(source FBI UCR 2008)
You don't need your calculator to see the average of these states will
be well above the Australian figure.
Crawl back into your hole Brain, you're embarrassing yourself here.
Phil Smythe
>
> > Which shows that anger and violence is pretty much similar throughout
> > all the English speaking countries. So it's a good thing you lot are
> > disarmed - especially since Australians learned their manners from
> > baboons.
> > Murders per 100K
> > Australia: 1.5
> > Canada: 1.5
> > UK: 1.4
> > New Zealand: 1.1
> > US: 4.2
>
Pity Brian NEVER detailed any mistakes, errors or lies, just an
uncited claim I'd reckoned the US murder rate was 5 times the US rate.
That is so typical, and so pathetic.
Phil Smythe
>
> >In other words, effectively there is no difference, therefore nothing
> >explain except why you asked the question.
>
> >A free hint Klaus: if you ask someone to explain why there is a
> >difference between 3 things, make sure beforehand there is a
> >difference, otherwise you'll look like a total fool.
>
> There is. Try again.
>
> >Any other questions that bolster my case gladly accepted.
>
> UK 1.37
> Canada 1.83
So, a different source, slightly different numbers. What makes yours
better than mine, especially as other pro-gunners are using
nationmaster in this thread in attempts (failing) to make their case.
If we use the Wikipedia figures the UK's rate is 24% of the US rate,
Australia is 21% and Canada is 32%, a range of 11%, pretty close in my
opinion.
Come back when you have something substantive to offer.
Phil Smythe
No, dumbass, there were 2 questions, and the second one negated the
first by beginning with "or". Simply put it was answer one or the
other, I answered the other.
Bert Hyman
Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
> Simply put it was answer one or the other, I answered the other.
What are you doing to control the implements of death used in the 7
out of 8 murders in Australia?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Bert Hyman
Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2:47�am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>> Innews:b2d3131b-a81b-41cc...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.co
>> m
>>
>> Phil Smythe <smy...@upnaway.com> wrote:
>> > In the US guns are involved in about 2/3 of murders compared to
>> > 1 in 8 Australian murders.
>>
>> So, what are you doing to control the implements of death used in the
>> 7 out of 8 murders in Australia?
>>
>> Or do you simply not care?
>
> I care that our murder is about 1/4 of yours.
So you don't care about 7 out of 8 murders in Australia.
Actually, judging from the way you carefully phrased your answer, you
don't care about any of the murders in Australia.
Thanks for that stunning revelation.
Bama Brian
Hypocrite. You've taken all the rest of us to task for an "uncited
claim", but when you get caught out, you respond with misdirection and
Ad Hominem. This is just a part of your typical bluster and dance.
It is obvious that someone so emotionally involved in the politics of
gun control, as you appear to be, has no trouble lying when it suits
him. So you admit that the US does not have a murder rate that is five
times Australia's murder rate? Do you also now admit that Australia
does not include the non-negligent manslaughters in its murder statistics?
My post proves you are not so infallible as you claim.
BTW, Phil, just which country do you reckon is "our" country? Australia
or the US?
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
From your post, above: "Allied to this the US murder rate is almost
5 times the Australian rate...".
Is your short term memory failing, Phil? If so, it's a clear sign of
the medical condition called Dementia. But then, your abrasive
personality is also a symptom of Dementia.
>> Also, the US reports non-negligent manslaughters as murders, which Oz
>> does not. If it had, your murder stats would be some ten percent
>> higher.
>
>
> What unmitigated BULLSHIT!
>
> According to the FBI the latest US Murder and nonnegligent
> manslaughter rate for 2008 was 5.4. According to the Australian Bureau
> of Statistics the rate for murder plus manslaughter (both negligent
> and non-negligent) for 2008 would be 1.4, that's almost 4 times
> including a category not covered by the US rate!.
Where are your cites, Phil? You, of all people, want to see those
citations. So post your cites or shove your uncited assertions up your ass.
BTW, I cited nationmaster.com. Your argument is with them.
>
> There is a move in Oz to report the NNM's in with the murders,
>> but AFAIK, it is not done yet, or even planned for countrywide.
>
> As there were only only 30 cases of manslaughter in 2008 (both
> negligent and non-negligent) whether it's in or out will barely move
> the rate.
Barely? It's ten percent, so it would move the rate from 1.5 to 1.65.
Note this is the average of the nine US states which I cited.
>
>> With or without guns, it is likely that the US overall could have as low
>> a murder rate as does Australia - provided one caveat of ignoring the
>> statistics of the "ethnically challenged". However, I can make that
>> case with some US states today, even including the "ethnically
>> challenged" statistics.
>
> You CANNOT! The US and Australian rates are about even if you remove
> the gun component.
I did. Unless you believe that the nine states I listed are not a part
of the US.
So what have you proven, Phil? Idaho, a state which you and I both
picked, has a TOTAL murder rate as low as Australia's. Was that your
point? Hawaii, which has a much tougher set of gun laws than Idaho, has
a rate that is 0.4 higher. Maybe it's not the guns, hmm?
As I pointed out, ALL of the states I cited, plus ALL of the other 41,
have our outrageous "ethnically challenged" murder rates included in them.
Now if your Aboriginal population was the same 13 percent of Australian
population as our "ethnically challenged" US population, rather than the
ONE percent it is, then the Aboriginal FIFTEEN TIMES crime rate would
seriously impact the overall Australian statistics.
Why is the Abo crime rate so high, Phil? Why is their murder rate so high?
Why is it that those nine US states I cited have such a low average
murder rate? They all have E-Z availability of guns, just as the other
41 do. Yet it seems that it is not the guns that drive the rate.
>
> You don't need your calculator to see the average of these states will
> be well above the Australian figure.
>
> Crawl back into your hole Brain, you're embarrassing yourself here.
Sorry, Phil the man, you have definitively soiled your breeks with this
thread. Especially when you cannot and will not respond to my points,
but instead go off on misdirection tangents and Ad Hominems.
BTW, Phil, just which country do you refer to as "ours"? The US or Oz?
Oh, my. It's time again for the trademarked "Phil's Bluster and Dance
Show" again.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
So why are the Aboriginal crime rates so high? From five to fifteen
times the rate of the white settlers, IIRC, and if the ABS is truthful.
Are they not Australians also, with all the benefits that your modern
civilization has brought to them?
Bama Brian
>
>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>> news:hddgnr$ntf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:hdd1dj$kvu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> How does a law abiding citizen defend themselves against an
>>>>> assailant(1) that has a weapon(2) or against multiple assailants?
>>>> citizen over the back of the noggin with a large lump of
>>>> wood/baseball bat, et al), then the citizen will just lie there,
>>>> unconscious. Maybe even dead.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you feel the need to ask such silly questions?
>>>> What benefit would a gun serve, for the above-mentioned citizen?
>> **Thanks for your honesty.
>>
>>> But what about the other 10,000 means of attack?
>> **Surprise is always the province of the assailant. In VERY RARE, VERY
>> EXCEPTIONAL circumstances, a weapon may be of help. For the most part,
>> a weapon will be of no use.
>
> Trevor, care to put up your training against mine? You speak from a lack
> of knowledge from just about anywhere but a news article.
>
>> After all, not
>>> everything is a surprise whack in the head. How do you defend
>>> against that?
>> **A whack in the noggin? You cannot.
>
> That is correct, but you will have a problem getting around me to where
> you can do that with your bat.
>
>>>> OTOH, we had, here in Australia, just last week, the example of a
>>>> German, female tourist, who was attacked by an unknown male.
>>>> Unfortunately for the assailant, the tourist was a trained matial
>>>> arts student. Last I heard, local medical facilities were being
>>>> checked out for the assailant, who was badly injured in the attack.
>>>> The German tourist was unharmed. She was unarmed.
>> **The answer is to attmept to build a fair, just, polite society,
>> where such attacks are unheard of.
>
> That's true, but not many of them exist.
>
> Weapons are, fundamentally, not
>> much use.
>
> Interesting. I will continue just as I have for over 50 years. I have
> made it 70 in a (according to you) very violent society. I have had guns
> pointed at me and have had guns shot at me. I am still here. Have you
> reached 70 yet?
>
>> Now bullet proof armour may be of far greater assistance.
>
> Yeah, but the city gets all up tight when I drive a Sherman tank down the
> local 7-11. It tends to tear up those blacktopped streets.
>
>> Why do we not see the NRA promoting that cause? Bullet proof vests
>> have been shown to be of some use against assailants with guns.
>
> Because guns have been proven better as a means of self defense.
>
>> Chain-mail vests are helpful against assailants with knives.
>
> Do I also get the horse and lance?
Only if you're knighted by the king, or in Aussie-speak, nighted with a
queen. :p
Bama Brian
Phil's on a mission from God, to bring the US back into the realm under
the monarchy. AFAICT, his fear is that Indonesia - or China, or N.
Korea - may decide that Australia is a plum worth picking, since it
cannot defend itself. So if the US is a Commonwealth country, it would
be duty-bound to defend them.
Of course, Phil knows that the average Aussie, being all bluster behind
a beer, would not have the stones for self-defense and would have no
chance in a real war.
Berry Oakley
> Phil Smythe wrote:(snip)
>
> So what have you proven, Phil? (snip)
All Phil has proven is that he can't be trusted with inherent rights,
and WANTS to be controled by his governmens MAJORITY RULE, no matter
what they tell him.