Post by BigOl64 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:16am
Pho Huc wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:21pm:
|
forest_whitaker_eye_003.jpg (26 KB | 8
)| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> General Board >> Guns http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1441846404 Message started by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 10:53am |
|
|
Title: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 10:53am "Woman dead after being shot in head at Gold Coast McDonald's, gunman taken to hospital" http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/two-people-shot-in-mcdonalds-helensvale-gold-coast/6764214 |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:18am The man allegedly shot the woman in the head and she died at the scene. Her body remains inside the fast-food restaurant. He is then believed to have shot himself and has been taken to Gold Coast University Hospital in a serious condition. http://www.news.com.au/national/two-people-shot-at-helensvale-mcdonalds/story-e6frfkp9-1227520604342 |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:19am
I read that one... the war between men and women gets worse every day.... soon they'll be machine-gunning one another and dropping napalm..
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:51am
I found yesterdays incident more disturbing ... also on the Gold Coast
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-10/ex-bandido-lionel-patea-to-face-murder-after-tara-brown-bashing/6763694 forced her off the road , then while she was trapped in her car, he beat her across the head with a metal plate and killed her ... such a pretty girl too. tell me again why we shouldn't have the death penalty? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:52am
ohh, and Greg, you'll see there is no gun involved.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:04pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:51am:
Because it simply does not work in reducing crime especially murder. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:05pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:51am:
Because we're better than that. There's no place in civilised society for the state-sanctioned premeditated killing of prisoners. That would just lower ourselves to their level. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:31pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:04pm:
but it does reduce the chances of the same person murdering again |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:33pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:05pm:
that's sanctimonious feel good crap ... I don't need to abolish the death penalty to know that I'm better than that murdering scum. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:37pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:33pm:
No, it's a civilised, rational response. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:40pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:31pm:
Nobody has ever disputed that fact, ever. So, I'm not sure why people feel the need to keep bringing it up - you're just arguing with yourself. Yes: a dead criminal can no longer commit crimes. And, being imprisoned also reduces the chances of the same person murdering again. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:40pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:31pm:
It has a good chance of executing the innocent as well. That's a bit of a problem, don't you think? Life without parole has the same effect. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:41pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:40pm:
No, not if it is done properly. I don't call for the death penalty for every case ... just those where there is ZERO doubt. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:42pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 11:51am:
This one looks like an open and shut case - he should get life without.... probably drug user again... WTS do people do that kind of stuff for? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:46pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:41pm:
No such thing as 'zero doubt'. In fact, the idea of executing people when there is no doubt has still turned up spectacular failures of executing the innocent. For instance, you dont know if a person is guilty or not, only what you are told and you have to assume that no one lies or is incompetent or simply mistaken. Zero doubt is impossible. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:48pm Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:42pm:
We could always ask Aussie, the self-proclaimed lawyer, to show us a case for the defence saying that he was innocent. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:55pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:41pm:
There is nothing proper about the state-sanctioned premeditated killing of prisoners. Ever. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:57pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
I'm not a fan of judicial execution. There is too much error, too much bias and end of the day, it doesn't deter anyone so why do it? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:00pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:40pm:
Right up until some POS left wing douche-bag judge lets the filth out on the street. Same applies to every scumbag the enters our revolving door prisons. When dying in prison becomes the norm for these filth, then and only then should the DP be taken off the table. Build more prisons, lock scum up for much, much longer and in cases of true scum baggery, let them out in a body bag and no sooner. F...,,k the left wing soft c0ck judges, they should have zero say in sentencing until they can prove they will sentence in the interest of society. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:02pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:46pm:
impossible for an idiot maybe, Martyn Briant - ZERO doubt, Milat - ZERO DOUBT, the guy in the article I posted, ZERO doubt. They got him on camera doing it for farks sake |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:03pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:55pm:
sure there is ... two shots with a 9mm, back of the head. Job done properly. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:09pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:03pm:
Nothing proper about that. Quite the opposite, in fact. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:10pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:03pm:
Hollow points will makes sure the brain stem has been shredded, don't want them surviving and suing the executioner now do we. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:11pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:10pm:
Now you're even "thinking" like a criminal. That's capital punishment for you - you become no better than the criminals. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:01pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:00pm:
What about the innocent sent to prison. Do you have an opinion on them? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by lee on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:08pm
DNA evidence can remove all doubt.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:11pm lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:08pm:
next they'll site an example from 1920 :D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:11pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:02pm:
Milat zero doubt? the evidence was forensic. There is ALWAYS doubt. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:11pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 1:11pm:
Just stating a fact, I know how much you like you like facts. If you are going to double tap a scumbag, best to use hollow points to ensure the brain stem has been shredded and there is no chance of survival. I am better than these criminals, without even trying I am better than them, which is why it is so easy to have them put down. Much like you would a savage dog. But me, I prefer to have them live for many decades in a tiny cell with no chance of ever being released. 23 hrs a day with no human contact and only their thoughts to keep them company, much, much worse than the DP. :) There are things much worse than death and that is what I want for these scumbags. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:14pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:01pm:
Other than they shouldn't be there. So lets just stick with the guilty pieces of sh1t, or are they all innocent and we should just give up all prosecution and incarceration, because of all the innocence out there in prison land? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:14pm lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:08pm:
Really? That is actually not true. Firstly, it assumes that DNA is collected and processed properly and that there is no error or corruption, both of which have happened multiple times. Then there is the question of whether or not the correct DNA sample has been collected eg a rape case that also had prior consensual sex. You have bone marrow transplants which give a person TWO DNA profiles. Then there are twins... DNA is good. DNA is not perfect. Even the one in ten billion chance of being wrong is still not zero chance. There is a one in ten trillion chance of winning two lottery first divisions, but it has happened. There is no such thing as zero doubt or zero error. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:15pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:11pm:
Your last few posts have shown otherwise. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:15pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:11pm:
No doubt ... with DNA testing today there is no more doubt |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:16pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:14pm:
So in essence you really aren't that concerned about the state executing innocent people? Why is that? Surely the justice system exists to protect all us - especially innocent people. Care to explain? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:17pm lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:08pm:
Er, no. It can't. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:20pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:17pm:
All DNA does is prove that two samples come from the same person or sets of identical twins. It does not and cannot assume that this does in fact prove anything. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:23pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:15pm:
Actually, there is. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:23pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:15pm:
So people who commit actual horrendous crimes are about the same as someone who wants them locked up for life or terminated, yeah, that's a sane argument. ;D ;D ;D ;D Remember the reason we have such high recidivism with bash artists, child rapists, and all-round criminals scumbags, is because of people like you normalising their behaviour. Having them permanently removed is not a bad thing, and you're going to do it do it properly. So in gaol for life mean you die there if you are going to bring in the DP, double tap with hollow points so the die. Stop being a pussy, you are sounding more like a little b1tch every day |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:23pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:20pm:
Exactly. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:24pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:23pm:
yeah .... I'm willing to live with the .00001% chance that it's wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:25pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:23pm:
No. I'm talking about capital punishment. Try to remain focused. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:26pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:24pm:
Read Longy's post: "All DNA does is prove that two samples come from the same person or sets of identical twins. It does not and cannot assume that this does in fact prove anything." He's right. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:26pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:23pm:
You still seem to have no problem with killing and no concern whatsoever for innocence. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by lee on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:29pm
DNA evidence may not always remove all doubt, but it can.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:30pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:16pm:
Hey Im all for locking them up for every, they only way a guilty (like that do you) person get out is in a body bag, When the DP was mentioned by someone else, I only recommended hollow point so as to ensure the brain stem was shredded and there was no chance of survival. It's you fags that get you panties in a bunch about everyone being innocent and therefore the DP should never be used. If you want these scumbags out of gaol, fine makes sure they move in next door to you and not anyone else, you should be fine with that you know since their innocent. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:30pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:26pm:
yes, I read it ... and if the dna found in skin under a victims nail, or semen up her arse that matches milats, we can be pretty 99.9999 % sure of his guilt. That's close enough for my liking. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:34pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:26pm:
Having the guilty die in prison from old age is not killing you cretin. Is english not your first language? If you cannot read at least a 5th grade level please stop trying to reply to my posts, your inability to comprehend even the most basic sentence is frustrating as hell. >:( |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:41pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:30pm:
No, we can't. You're not thinking it through. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:41pm lee wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:29pm:
No, it can't. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:55pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:30pm:
Nice Rant. Brings to mind the image of a guy driving a pickup with a gun rack complete with a Eureka Stockade flag and two front teeth. But as expected, you complete ignore the issue of the innocent. It is fairly obvious why. A tooth for every IQ point? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:00pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:30pm:
I understand the following argument will probably elude you, but the point is that you still have to prove that the skin under the finger nails or the semen belong to 'the attacker'. Normally that is not particularly difficult, but it still needs to be done. As in the case of rape, what about prior consensual sex and the dna sample picks up only one sample? The point is that DNA is a tool, not a all-in-one solution. And as happened in victoria, mistakes are made. A guy was jailed for rape on the basis of DNA evidence despite witnesses to the contrary. A year later it was discovered that the DNA samples were misfiled and for a year, DNA evidence was inadmissible due to the unreliability of the system. You watch too much CSI. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:01pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:34pm:
Stop acting like a redneck and try acting as if you had an education. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:34pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 3:55pm:
I answered that about 10 posts back and I will only answer each question once (or in this case twice) as the answer will NOT change each time you ask. Innocent people in gaol is bad ........ Mkay |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:38pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:01pm:
For someone with you serious comprehension issues should not be questioning my education. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Comprehend what has be written, not what you need to be written so your pre-prepared response make sense to you. PS, calling your opponent a redneck doesn't make you less stupid, just more desperate. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:53pm
You spend post after post promoting the death penalty and even your own preferred option. You have little regard for innocence other than a postscript that it might be 'bad'. But you still maintain your stance on the death penalty.
I still call redneck. This is not my first dance around the low-IQ latitudes. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:05pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:00pm:
Now i know common sense usually eludes, so you'll probably fail to grasp the significance of the following statement, but not all of Milats victims died. you seriously want to pretend there is any doubt over Milats guilt? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:06pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:53pm:
no said it was your first time, you seem to have spent a life time of suffering from that condition |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:17pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:05pm:
We are actually discussing ZERO DOUBT rather than very little doubt. Collusion among witnesses is not unknown. Corrupt testimony and fake or incorrect evidence is also not unknown. That is why we have REASONABLE DOUBT. Have you ever watched the movie Twelve Angry Men? It is perfectly on topic. If you do (and it is a brilliant classic movie) you will spot some of the types of people you see on here. Bigol is the very last person to change their vote. Watch it. You will enjoy it. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:19pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:06pm:
Imagine how foolish you would feel if you had actually understood that statement. And how refreshingly unprecedented. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:30pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:17pm:
ALL the evidence combined leaves no doubt .... don't just nitpick on collusion among witnesses. First hand witnesses, coupled with DNA, coupled with all the other hundreds of bits of evidence, including recordings of phone taps, victims personal effects in his possession etc presented in court leaves ZERO doubt that Milat is guilty ABSOLUTELY ZERO DOUBT |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:32pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:19pm:
Oh, see, thanks for proving my point.... I understood what you were trying to say, I just don't agree with it. Like I said, imagine if you hadn't lived a lifetime dancing in 'low IQ latitudes' |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:34pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 4:53pm:
No that is not my 'preferred' option it is my second option and if you could read and comprehend at a primary school level you would be able to work that out. MY preferred method is that they get locked up until they die and that is a very long , long time in a very small cell with nothing but their own thoughts to keep them company. I do recommend the use of hollow point if you intend to double tap those subject to the DP. It just makes good sense to do the job properly. Now learn to read genius, it will make you look lot less stupid in the long run, even if you intend to remain a soft c0ck lefty. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:38pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:34pm:
;D ;D ;D ;D ohh bigol, you got it so wrong .... Maria is Abbotts personal cheerleader. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:01pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 10:53am:
Hang em and hang em high. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by issuevoter on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:03pm
There is no death penalty in Australia. You can argue the toss ad infinitum, but it makes no difference whether you think it is a good idea or a bad idea. It will not be re-introduced in Australia short of a rejection of our legislative history.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:04pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:38pm:
Jeez how does that work, a soft c0ck lefty neo-fascist; friggen sub-standard intellect no matter what the political persuasion. :) |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:07pm issuevoter wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:03pm:
What a pity as only the rope can save our society. We need the rope now more than ever - crime is out of control especially with hordes of violent ice addicts everywhere. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Jovial Monk on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:11pm
Drugs should be treated as a medical problem, not a police matter. Hanging addicts will achieve what? Especially if they have not committed a capital crime?
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:12pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 5:30pm:
You have no idea what zero means, do you. And while you parade around a single case, you miss the point as you seem to do in pretty much every thread. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:13pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
No silly - I meant ice addicts who murder people should be hanged in public - as a deterrent to others. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:19pm Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:11pm:
And from that we can infer that your senseless contradictory inanity on here is the result of that same 'medical problem'? At least this way you might get some sympathy. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:26pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:12pm:
Who's parading a single case? I'm using one case as an example. There are many other cases where the death penalty should apply. You do realise that you claiming I miss the point with every reply isn't an actual rebuff of my argument? right? :D :D :D :D talk about missing the point. ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:31pm Johnsmith wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:26pm:
The discussion is about ZERO DOUBT - a concept you fail to understand. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:34pm Bobby. wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:07pm:
How will the rope help? As you know, it doesn't deter would-be criminals. Many states in the US have 'the rope', and they still experience high rates of serious crime and murder. The rope doesn't eliminate crime, Booby. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:35pm Bobby. wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:13pm:
Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, Booby. You know that. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:44pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:35pm:
You have no evidence of that peccahead,stop telling lies. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:45pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:44pm:
Substantiate your claim, please. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:56pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:44pm:
There are multiple studies that prove exactly that. the Death Penalty has been shown in many, many studies to be at worse ineffective and in some cases paradoxically lead to an increase in murders. You don't do your viewpoint any good by stating something you know to be false. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:01pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:45pm:
The law deters the law abiding, you provide evidence for your claim peccahead |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:05pm
How about getting rid of jails and instituting the death penalty?
I've yet to hear one good argument in favour of jails, It appears to me that the only reason we have them is because of vestigial sense of obligatory vengeance. In my mind, there are two types of criminal. People who are fundamentally damaged(eg Martin Bryant) with deep psychological issues and limited prospect of benefiting society. The other types are those who commit crimes of greed, passion or stupidity. These people do not benefit from incarceration. I would love to see a system that is geared to give the greatest benefit to society at the lowest cost. For me this would mean execution of the former type, and rehabilitation of the second type. Its much cheaper to send a criminal to university than jail, and much better for them and society, both before and after. I think it is kinder to execute someone than keep them locked up for 50 years, and much cheaper. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:08pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:01pm:
I don't know if you realise it yet and I'm guessing not, but you own statement makes the opposite case to what you think it does. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:10pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:05pm:
Well there have been some dumb statements on this thread, but you've topped them all. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:21pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:56pm:
I did read a study that showed an increase in the murder rate after capital punishment was introduced. Basically because the punishment for crime was so bad people were careful not to leave witnesses alive. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:22pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:10pm:
It would be much more productive if you explained why you think its stupid. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:30pm
repost
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 10th, 2015 at 8:22pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:30pm:
I highlighted the silliest ones for you. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Sir Bobby on Sep 10th, 2015 at 8:52pm greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:35pm:
Just ask George Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:04pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 8:22pm:
"I've yet to hear one good argument in favour of jails" Why, do you have a good argument for them that you've been keeping secret? I know jails are traditional, but that doesn't make them implicitly necessary. From a behaviouristic point of view punishment is a very inefficient way of motivating behavior. If Prison is not the best way of motivating the desired behavior, why are we using them? "In my mind, there are two types of criminal" Ok, you got me here. This is a massive oversimplification but I was trying to keep my post concise. The point I was attempting to make is that there are two types of criminal. One can be rehabilitated and will not commit more crime. One can not be rehabilitated and commit crime if given the opportunity. "Its much cheaper to send a criminal to university than jail" Average cost per day of a prisoner in Australia $292.00 per day or $106 K a year. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/02/how-much-does-it-cost-keep-people-australian-jails Cost of doing a non-government subsidized degree in clinical medicine(there most expensive course) at Melbourne uni(most expensive in Australia) 80 K per year. http://futurestudents.unimelb.edu.au/admissions/fees/ug-intl/subject-fees So its 25 thousand dollars a year more expensive to send someone to jail than the most expensive course, of the most expensive university in Australia. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Johnsmith on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:15pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 6:31pm:
you really are retarded aren't you? When you look at all the evidence TOGETHER, there is ZERO doubt. your argument was that DNA wasn't without fault because it didn't mean the sample taken was supplied whilst killing them, I showed other evidence that showed him at the crime scene, so you then argue that witnesses aren't reliable ... true, on it's own, but when you look at the witnesses, and the DNA, and the hundreds of other bits of evidence they found, they back each other up and there is no doubt as to the conclusion that they draw. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:16am Pho Huc wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 7:21pm:
forest_whitaker_eye_003.jpg (26 KB | 8
) |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:02am
Evidence?
There is NO evidence to support the death penalty reducing homicide rates either... Funny ol' thing that. Here is an interesting read though on studies about the effects of capital punishment on murder rates... https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/JLpaper.pdf |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:08am |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:09am
Whilst opinions are ok, it might be beneficial if a few posters read more and posted either less or the same volume....
Read more though is essential... |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:19am |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Gnads on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:57am greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 12:40pm:
Really? ... try telling Jill Meaghers family that. That may work if there was truth in sentencing .... but people who should not be on the streets to commit these murders are constantly being bailed or early released/paroled way too soon. So in effect the inadequacies of the system& therefore the state are responsible for killing people ....... but the wrong ones are being killed. Isn't that by default worse than proven beyond doubt capital punishment? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 11th, 2015 at 9:07am Pho Huc wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 9:04pm:
The two greatest sets of organised crime gangs in this country are the police and the legal fraternity. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 11th, 2015 at 9:19am Gnads wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:57am:
Yes, really. Jill's killer wasn't in prison, so not sure why you mentioned that case. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 9:45am Bobby. wrote on Sep 10th, 2015 at 8:52pm:
Do you have any sources of information other than a silly old man - George Carlin? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Gnads on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:05am greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 9:19am:
If you had taken in the whole post you would see .... no he wasn't in prison .... but he should have been. I'm sure if that young Gold Coast Mum's ex boyfriend had been in jail ... for his involvement in the Broadbeach bikie brawl ... she would still be alive today. The Cops obviously couldn't get the court evidence right even though they had new anti-bikie legislation/powers at their disposal. Another failure of the system. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:28am Gnads wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:05am:
Indeed, he should have. Because being imprisoned also reduces the chances of the same person murdering again. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 12:53pm Gnads wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 11:05am:
That is a presumptous statement. Apart from the fact that you cannot predict the future, no matter if he was in jail then or not, he was going to get out at some stage. Why do you think a violent man like him wasnt simply going to do it later rather than sooner? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:16am:
I really wish i could track down the study I referenced, I think I read it new scientist about 5 years ago, but no luck finding it on the web. Just so many associated studies clogging up my search. Still waiting to hear from Maria about the reason we have jails........ |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mothra on Sep 11th, 2015 at 2:07pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm:
It's a well known consequence of the DP. The risk of homicide being the end result of violent crime is markedly higher. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 2:08pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 1:57pm:
I will answer that when you explain why we have rain. if you want to ask a truly dumb question don't expect a polite response. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 11th, 2015 at 3:09pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 2:08pm:
There are no stupid question, only stupid people. Do I really have to explain how atmospheric precipitation forms to get you to justify your opinion? that seems both irrelevant and irrational! I have stated my opinion(jails are pointless) and my reasons(because they don't prevent crime, the don't improve the inmates and they cost lots of money). Do you have the intellectual capacity to explain why prisons are essential to society? If so, prove it by demonstrating it. If not, that's fine too, just please be quiet while the adults are talking. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 11th, 2015 at 3:23pm
Albeit they are poorly administered in many ways, Gaols actually do serve an important purpose. They keep the society we live in just a tad safer than otherwise. Given I have acknowledged poor administration and, will also acknowledge our very flawed society, neither of those issues diminish the intrinsic underlying purpose of a prison, separate those who try mostly to get along from those who try mostly to not get along, often in particularly hazardous ways...
Pho Huc wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 3:09pm:
No they don't prevent crime, however, they do reduce it. Further, you cannot say they don't "improve" inmates as a blanket statement. There are some whose entire life is turned around for the better, just like there are some who will never change whilst they draw breath. Whatever your argument with another poster is, the reality is OUR system is what is flawed i.e. how we use, abuse and fail to reform the Gaol, legal and justice systems is the real issue. Therefore, acknowledging what works is just as important as highlighting the flaws. It is rather narrow thinking to make such broad scatter gun statements about changes or lack thereof to inmates lives. It does nothing to enhance your argument. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 11th, 2015 at 3:24pm
As to studies, one of the ones I linked up refers to the potential also for people to commit suicide by State sanctioned execution i.e. that is one angle argued for an actual increase in capital crimes associated with Death Penalty.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:39pm Phemanderac wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 3:23pm:
Good post. I agree that I am making sweeping statements, but in my defense sweeping statements are required in a forum such as this when talking about the overview of a complex subject, otherwise the posts would be epically long winded. When I state they do not improve inmates lives, I accept that a portion of people incarcerated will benefit from education/rehabilitation programs while they are inside. These people are not in the majority though. This is demonstrated by the high levels of recidivism in most countries with conventional prison systems. In Australia once you go to prison, you have a 60% chance of re-offending once released. A system that fails more than half of people who go through it obviously should be re-engineered. The countries which have reduced recidivism the most are Norway/Sweden, who have attempted to give the shortest possible prison sentences, paired with a focus on education rehabilitation. Its almost like less prison creates better outcomes for society as a whole. I accept that segregation of criminals will probably always be required, but its the way we structure the segregation that is most important. Locking people in a box doesn't make them a better person. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/01/why-sweden-closing-prisons http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:42pm
And you are all idiots...Guns do NOT cause any problems....the people who 'own' guns may cause issues...but that has NOTHING to do with the actual gun itself...
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:58pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 3:09pm:
Jails exist to rehabilitate and to protect society from criminals. It also serves to punish and to act as a deterrent. Now, anyone in year 8 could have come up with that and many, a lot younger. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mothra on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:59pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:42pm:
By that argument, there is nothing wrong with ice. People taking ice on the other hand may be a problem but the ice itself is inanimate. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:00pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:42pm:
Technically true, but it is also true that the presence and existence of a gun makes violent death more likely. The gun is not an innocent factor is all of this. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:44pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:58pm:
Thanks for the reply Maria, Its a shame you could only provide a year 8's answer but that alright, Ill reward the effort if not the result :) So they provide rehabilitation, isolation, punishment and deterrence. Of these four functions, only the Isolation part is best served by incarceration. The rest of the functions that a jail is designed to fulfill could be served by other methods, possibly with greater effectiveness, definitely at lower cost. Prior to jails the justice system used a combination of corporal punishment and execution. The ultimate deterrent-It didn't stop crime, so we changed to jails, with more of a focus on rehabilitation, and less on punishment. I'm asking why we cant extend this philosophy to its maximum and replace the punitive aspects of our justice system with more effective positive measures. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:59pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:00pm:
It is the presence of a violent lunatic that is the problem, not the gun. Of the two women killed by violent lunatics this week, one was with a gun and the other was with a brick, the only consistency was the violent POS. And in at least one case the woman was turned away by police who couldn't be f...ked helping her. Guns are nothing more than a bullsh1t excuse by a cowardly little fascist peice of sh1t john howard to use as a distraction. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by BigOl64 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:02pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:44pm:
Like instead of gaoling child rapists, we could give them a name change and train them to be early education child care workers. How about punish first rehabilitation if possible, if not. A closed door policy would be best. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:22pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:00pm:
Actually..YES, the 'gun' IS 'innocent' in the whole gun/death idea..It really is the 'concept' that 'guns don't kill people'... a gun is simply a tool...a gun has zero morality, a gun cannot actually commit ANY 'crime' or any violent act.. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:26pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:44pm:
You do a lot of talking but very little in the area of practical alternatives. Why should we remove punitive measures? If crime is not going to be punished, why would people obey the law? More detail please. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:27pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:59pm:
He had an AVO in force against him which means he did not have a licence for his unregistered pistol. Like Bryant this guy did not have a firearm licence. The law failed to protect this woman with an AVO along with gun laws. Guns were not the only thing taken from people,mace,pepper srays and stun guns are illegal. Our laws have disarmed the weaker members of society from having lethal or non lethal self defence weapons. A woman was slashed with a machete,another was run off the road and bashed to death, we had a shooting with an unlicensed person with an unregistered gun. There are seriously disturbed people who prey on women, this is not something new it has been happening throughout human history, the government taking self defence weapons from women was despicable |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:35pm BigOl64 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 5:59pm:
And we are back in Redneck Wonderland. To pretend that guns are not relevant to gun deaths is foolish, albeit quite common from groups like the NRA. The argument is too easy to debunk and yet, the redneck element never fails to miss it. If a lunatic goes into a school to kill kids what is the difference if he is armed with a brick or a gun? Since I can't trust you with coming up with the answer on your own I will provide it. With the gun we are talking perhaps as many as 50. With a brick, probably one, maybe two, possibly none. Intent is the same - murderous rage. That we cannot easily stop. But we can stop them having weapons to increase the body count. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:38pm mothra wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 4:59pm:
Yes, that is 'almost' correct. The drug 'ice' is not a problem..the use of Ice is a problem..And 'guns; aren't a problem...misusing guns is, however a however a problem..As with any thing else, the use of guns/knives etc IS something to worry about. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:43pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:22pm:
That is naive. The gun isnt a tool. It is a weapon with only one purpose: to kill people. Surprisingly, that is what they do with it. A man's fists has zero morality either if he punches someone. The blame lies in his brain, right? Why don't we allow people to own rocket launchers? Why do we try and stop nation-states from having nuclear weapons? Are they not also just tools? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:55pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:35pm:
The rednecks are not the probem, the black firearm homicide is 7 times higher than white people, blacks are 13% of he population and account for over 50% of all homcides. Gangsta rap is a bigger problem than rednecks. Schools have been gun free zones since the 1980's,all the mass shooting tend to happen in gun free zones they never happen at NRA conventions or gun shows where people walk around armed. The worst mass murderers in NSW,QLD and VIC lit fires to kill their innocent victims, they have a higher bodycounts than our second worst mass shooting. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:55pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:38pm:
That is still chronically naive. If everybody were perfectly able to control impulses or were never likely to misuse something then you would be correct, but that obviously is not the world we live in. Ice and Guns alike give people to power to cause a great deal of harm. Yes, they are responsible, but that is not much of a comfort to the lives destroyed by that failure to control impulse or criminal intent. Given that just about everybody is capable of great evil in the right circumstances, why would we empower them to create more destruction? I am not anti-gun. I am anti-ignorance and people saying they want guns for no purpose, remember that guns have only ONE purpose - to kill. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:00pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:27pm:
What makes you think these weapons (your words) cannot be used offensively? If they can be used offensively then they are just weapons. Why do you think body armour is banned? Surely that is the ultimate defensive protection? Answer: because it can allow criminals to be better protected from law enforcement. The issue is not one of guns or pepper spray but of violence itself. More weapons is never a solution to... weapons. It only starts an escalation. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by gizmo_2655 on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:03pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:55pm:
The 'argument' is NOT, in any way 'naive'. A gun is simply a tool...it (a gun) has NO moral position...IF the gun user wants to shoot people, then the 'gun' shoots people..if the gun user does NOT shot people, then the gun doesn't shot any person... Guns are in fact, neutral...they only do what the user decides to do.... And yes, you do actually seem to be 'anti-gun'. Guns have many purposes...One of which is to kill...and one of the reasons to 'kill' is for food..Killing a meat animal is an acceptable use of a firearm... |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:04pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:55pm:
That is supremely illogical. Mass shootings in schools do not occur because schools are gun-free zones. They occur because everywhere else IS a gun zone. This whole debate occurs because a woman was shot. There are many cities in the USA (gun central) where a single night without a gun death is considered a rarity and in some has not happened in decades. The oddest thing is the notion that somehow, gun deaths are not related to guns, a bit like how car deaths are not in any way related to cars. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:10pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:03pm:
That is surpremely silly. A gun has only one purpose: to kill. It is not a spade or a screwdriver with multi purposes. It has only one purpose: to kill. It has no intrinsic value as protection as that is predicated on the persons willingness to shoot (ie kill). So if you have a gun you have it for the purpose of killing even if that is not your intent. So why is it surprising that people get killed by guns? Let's extend the argument since you appear to be one of the few able to debate a contentious subject with any decorum... I want a nuclear bomb. Assuming I can afford it, why can I not have it? It is only a tool and I can be trusted to use it responsibly. So why cant I but a nuke and put it in my house and naturally, carry the triggering device with me at all times... just for protection. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:12pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:03pm:
Please be serious. We all know guns can be used for killing animals. How many american suburban families hunt animals for food? We are talking about urban people owning guns for the express purpose of killing other urban people while hoping they dont have to, but having one because everyone else has one. And you are wrong: guns have only one purpose. To kill. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:17pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:00pm:
If you have been reading the news crims have used machetes,lumps of steel after running people off the road and illegal guns. If a crim has a machete or gun do you think they will bother carrying mace,pepper sprays or stun guns. Body armour is a bit of a strawman,nobody is asking for body armour to be legalised yet nothing stops the idiocy from hoplophobes like you. Body armour doesn't work against most hunting rifles, if you look at the specs it stops .22's ,shotguns and most pistols,it does not stop low powered centrefire rifles let alone high powered ones. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:21pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:12pm:
They make rubber bullets which don't kill, they have tranquilizer guns that don't kill, nobody had died from a paintball or bb gun. A few high profile crims like Fahdi Ibrahim and Zervas were shot more than 6 times and lived, guns only kill when they hit something vital. A friend asked me what category a Net Gun would be in Australia, single shot powered by C02, I reckon Category A with air rifles which have never killed anyone. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:27pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:17pm:
VERY few criminals ever employ a machete or gun. But if you legalised mace, pepper spray or stun guns, most of them would. And why not? It is legal and gives them an advantage! And so then the public goes to get mace and stun guns to equalise against the criminals. And what happens then? An altercation at coles between two crazy shoppers (and some are truly crazy!) escalates into using the mace and stun guns that both are carrying to protect them from the criminals who now always carry them as well. So the criminals now realise they need to carry guns to protect themselves from those with mace etc whereas before they didnt have any weapons at all. And so naturally the crazy shoppers get guns and instead of a push and shove in the specials aisle, you have two dead shoppers and a few unlucky spectators. Meanwhile the NRA or its like tells everyone how weapons are not the problem. If guns are not the problem, then why are people not allowed to carry military grade large caliber weaponry around with them? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:28pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:04pm:
The movie theatre mass shootings were done in gun free zones, nutjobs prefer gun free zones because nobody can shoot back, the majority of these nutjobs shoot themselves when a good guy with a gun turns up. There are many cities in the USA which have lower homicide rates than Australia despite the fact everyone is armed to the hilt with AR15's and pistols,like Plano Texas. This guy tells all the facts hoplophobes ignore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:29pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:21pm:
Please be serious. How many americans would go to Kmart to buy a gun and only want one that shoots rubber bullets. That would give them the surpreme disadvantage of turning up to a gunfight armed with something that looks like a gun, but which isnt. They'd be better off unarmed where at least they are not a perceived threat. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:31pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:28pm:
And yet 50,000 people die annually from guns. Is that not the stat which essentially debunks your point of how 'safe' guns are? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:32pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:27pm:
2 women were attacked with machetes and gun in the last week,not the first and will not be the last. Perhaps if the USA enforced it's laws better on felons not being allowed to have guns crime would drop, no point bringing in new laws when old ones aren't being enforced. People are allowed to carry around semi auto 50BMG in the USA, there has never been a crime done with a 50BMG. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:36pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:31pm:
16,000 homicides in the USA with 11,000 of them done with guns. Suicide is a separate issue, Phil Bolger was a friend of mine who lived in the USA, he was in his 80's when he shot himself because he didn't want to end up like previous generations of his family who had dementia. The funny thing is most hoplophobes like you support assisted suicide as long as they don't use a gun |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:44pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:32pm:
Where did you get that 'fact' from? the NRA website where apparently only a few hundred gun deaths occur every year? Even if it were true (and it isnt) it is irrelevant. Were you aware that almost NONE of the mass shootings have been committed by felons? They largely had no record at all. And if a felon were planning a mass shooting why do you think that ANY LAW would be an impediment? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:49pm
Where is my post?
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:52pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:36pm:
Stop using stupid terms like 'hoplophobe'. It makes you look foolish and you would do well to keep your comments on suicide based on thigs I've actually said rather than making them up like a troll. Your death figures are understated but even if they arent, how is 11,000 gun deaths something to praise or be unconcerned by? It is 10-15 times our rate of gun death. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:55pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 6:26pm:
Assuming I was the big poomba and was able to operate over a sufficiently long term time frame I would focus most policy on early intervention and youth education programs. *I would incentivise people not to commit crimes. I would incentivise responsible parenting, and parental training. I would focus on eliminating on the core causes of anti-social behavior (poverty, substance abuse, mental illness). I would decriminalize drug use. Vote Pho! Lol Seriously though, I accept that the way society is structured now requires prisons. I don't think we should accept that this is the best solution to our social problems though, and should try and look for better ways of achieving the desired outcomes. *this is a whole other complex idea. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:04pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:36pm:
In the whole of the US there are only three cities with murder rates under the Australian Average. All the other cities are much much higher. Its not that we ignore this statistic. Its that we understand this statistic is meaningless because of the small sample size. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:07pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 7:52pm:
You are a hoplophobe your posts prove it. My death figures are not understated yours are typical hoplophobic inflated. Quote:
30,000 people killed from accidental falls is nothing to be proud of. Do you want the link which puts blacks at 12% of the population and they account for 50% of the firearm homicides? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:08pm Quote:
You want to both ELIMINATE drug abuse while legalising drug use. Well that is an interesting if intrinsically inconsistent goal. How do you 'incentivise' people not to commit crime? You oppose punishment so what is your other plan? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:09pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:07pm:
Racism and ignorance combined. A truly wonderful coupling. Goodbye. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:17pm Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:07pm:
Ah, racism. I knew you were more than just a one-trick pony. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:45pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:09pm:
The offending rate for blacks in 7 times higher for homcides than the offending rate for whites, you are the hoplohpobic hypocrite who singled out rednecks then cry racism when facts are pointed out. This link is credible,page 11 www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf Hoplophobes are rather ignorant, how did your gun laws prevent this guy from getting an illegal pistol, how did the AVO protect the poor woman in the OP? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 8:26am
So the solution to one woman being shot is to give everyone a gun? That is beyond dumb.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Baronvonrort on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:01am mariacostel wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 8:26am:
Bit of a strawman there,can you cite where I said that. If a woman like Miss World Australia Tess Alexander passed background checks for mental health and criminal record along with passing the firearm safety course as required before her licence was issued then I have no problem with women like her being allowed to use her pistols for self defence which is currently prohibited. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:15am
You seem to have avoided the topic of why all the mass shootings are committed by people without criminal records or prior history. In our country, they wouldn't have access to guns or certainly not at all easily while in the USA access is trivial.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:24am
Gun bought illegally - the biggest problem with Wee Johnnie's buyback and the draconian measures imposed by State governments through the inflammatory DV 'orders' without any legal requirement of proof - was that countless fireams went underground and there is a burgeoning market for those of unlawful intent in buying them.
None of these killers - with the exception of licensed farmers etc - owned a legal firearm. You cannot stop that market, since it is an illegal market, and will always remain so. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:32am Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:01am:
So one night at a club, she is approached by a guy for a dance and a shag, and figures he is harassing her, which falls under AV legislation - she feels it is thus - so she pulls her pistol and drills him between the eyes? Judging by the aggressive behaviour of many women these days, there is no way I'd free up the licensing requirements for firearms. What I would do is find a better way to allow couples to resolve their issues - via open discussion - rather than permitting the State to intrude with an act of violence and disempowerment and often unreason against one side without proof - a sure recipe for disaster. When will the State learn that you will never control violence by exerting violence at whim and that bullying by police and courts to 'control' a situation where in the vast majority of cases no violence has occurred, will only exacerbate the situation and result in an escalation of violence overall? https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29505969/mcdonalds-shooter-was-on-dv-order-police/ On a larger note :- at what point do the rights of the State to control and intervention into the life of the individual start and cease? When it's 'politically correct' we stay out of people's bedrooms and homes and personal relationships - but when there is an agenda in play such as reducing the personal power of some in our society - it is open slather. Would this have happened had proper counseling and negotiation between two allegedly adult parties have been the case rather than the violence of intervention by the court? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:33am
The US has restrictions on legal access to firearms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:37am
Self defense means keeping yourself safe, harming others is a whole new ball game...
If, for example, a burglar enters my home and I shoot him that of itself is NOT self defense... Now if said burglar is unarmed welcome to a world of trouble for me shooting an unarmed person. The gun debate relying on "self defense" is flawed. People who actually need guns (relatively few per capita) have a good case, others who simply want them need to move on. I think the gun ownership argument has a parallel for the BIG car owners mob - for the main part they are trying to compensate... Very few people actually need to own a gun. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:42am Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:32am:
I am going to be right up front with you mate. You really need to get over your angst and hurt. Issues of domestic violence are genuine, significant and very very real. They are predominantly and statistically skewed that women are the main reported victims. So, rather than undermining the protection our society presently offers them, as is your want, it may behoove you to be more proactive with other males to encourage them to display the courage required to do more reporting... As cleverly as you write, your comments often come across as those of a man who is bitter that the system shafted him, therefore the entire system is against all men. As such, very anti woman. As I say to anti man feminists - all you do is undermine a potential ally base by being anti the other gender. For my part, safety of ALL people is the priority regardless of gender. As to courts, the courts get as much wrong as they do right arguably. Courts as you know are run by people, therefore, they are always going to be flawed. It matters not the issue before the court. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by greggerypeccary on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:53am mariacostel wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:15am:
In Baron's world, once a fine upstanding member of society buys a gun (legally), they remain law-abiding citizens for the rest of their lives. He truly believes that. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:05am Phemanderac wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:37am:
I've lived in the bush mostly for years - had two guns - a semi-auto .22 and a real long gun - never used either. Have no need for them where I am now, in the bush. there are no dangerous animals here and the neighbours are a quiet and civilised lot (now that Mongrel Guts has left, drawing a sigh of relief from all).... |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:08am
You miss my point - the current approach by this society offers NO protection, as clearly shown time and again, and instead makes the whole situation worse.
No need to cater to me, my son - I know - you don't. The whole deal needs a serious revamp and the application of reason and not the total nonsense that currently dictates the course of the whole issue of family disagreement - which is all it is in the majority of cases, until the State ratchets it up with its acts of violence against specified individuals. I mostly respect your views, but on this occasion you are using stereotypes and propaganda instead of sense and reason. Do not be mislead by feminist propaganda and bullshit. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:09am
How does being pro non-violent intervention equate to being 'anti-woman'? Nonsense again.
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:10am
Page Turner - you
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:18am |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:23am
What kind of message for reason and fair discussion of any disagreement does it send when women are told that unless their old man toes their line the State will bash him up?
It sends the clear message that any resolution will only be on the basis of violence - and it is all downhill from there. It's the same as maria's negotiating skills - all discussion will be on the basis that if you do not agree with me - you're sacked. You really have to laugh at the puerile petty Fascist mindset of those who seek to run the show here... the old adage that those who would seek power are those you would least want to hold it - holds terminally true here. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:24am
again you bustard page turner...
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:25am Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:08am:
Well, I disagree. This society affords some protection, but, it is not yet perfect... That is what we need to work on improving. What is clearly shown time and time again is that; a) The system has flaws that let both men and women down. b) The systemic flaws often cater to the criminal, however, closing down said flawed system would only highlight the areas it had been working. The highlights though would be to our detriment. c) The media will ALWAYS promote it's own agenda. Regardless of gender, for example, the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence (and their children) is when they actually decide to leave and act on that. Regardless of our system. I don't disagree with you that the system needs work. I do disagree regarding the application of reason though. For the main part the frame work of the system is designed to priorities those at highest risk... Whilst it still fails at times to do this, this is why those at the not so high risk end feel hard done by... Lots of consideration and reasoning went into this frame work. The problem is, once we had the frame work as a society we decided the job was done. Now after how many decades, the flaws are well and truly on display, yet, there seems no will, or reasoned consideration as to how to address the flaws. It is almost a collective shrug for the main part. Then we have those who are outspoken about the system, however, mostly, they do so from their own experiences alone and a limited perspective, hardly reasoned thinking. The statistics are consistent by the way, that's not propaganda. We need some significant societal change. We need more Men reporting when they are the victims of ALL forms of violence for example - that will shift the statistics which, eventually will have to lead to change. It was the statistics that helped create this lopsided system after all. Our species does not seem to work to well if we can't evidence our reasoning behind doing (A) because of a statistical trend... I don't think we are going to change that anytime soon, so, let's work within the system to prove that change is required... I fail to see how that thinking is influenced by "feminine propaganda and bullshit"... Which, by the way, sounds just a tad anti-female. That was my point I think about how you express your views. Separating the wheat from the chaff, or in other words, the propaganda and bullshit from the evidence available would be a most pressing issue... |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Phemanderac on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:31am Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:23am:
Well when that actually is the case I will get back to you. That is your perspective, which I suspect may have come from experience (either your own or someone close). Of course, ALL law and systems are open to abuse, vexatious claims or manipulation. That is one of the flaws we need to be trying to address. However, the same system has contingencies in place for redress too... You just need to use the system to seek your own justice. I think the money associate with the "system" is a major issue for example. I think a lot of people simply give up because they cannot afford to defend themselves. Regardless of gender. This despite men still having the benefit of (generally) being higher earners...Some absolutely use that to their advantage. Yep, we agree there are flaws. I think we disagree with the extent of said flaws and how the imbalance works. At the end of the day both genders can fall foul of the system. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:35am
Do you really not know what constitutes violence in society? The actions of the legal system are violence in the name of civilisation - be wary that they become not an end in themselves or purely an avenue for oppression.
The exercise of Law must be used sparingly lest it become itself the danger it is trying to prevent. The NAZIs knew that and worked to achieve it... not all laws are legal...... when they themselves abrogate Law. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:54am
Haven't got time now to go into it all - but let me leave you (for now) with this:-
Does anyone really think that the current obvious move to exert greater violence against men as a first port of call is going to reduce the level of violence and lower the endless display of dead women? Banging men up at the first whine will take us one step closer to war - not peace. The current system does not work - it has replaced the possibility of violence under an amazing variety of 'definitions' of violence, with direct violence and has thus created the current situation rather than resolving it. This was done to offer to the Sate the opportunity to steal licenced firearms by regulation, when the electorate had defeated that idea at the previous election. It was NOT to stop violence - it was and remains itself violence - and has created the environment in which these women are now being killed. You cannot back people into a corner and beat them up without retaliation, just to allow women to do whatever they want without consideration for others, and to give the State the unwarranted power to use violence against men. That is a declaration of war and unless a better way is found, including compelling women to behave like responsible adults, that war will expand once the State begins greater violence as its only way of trying to stem what it has created. How you can view that as purely a personal issue with me is beyond me - I seek the better good for all - not just opportunity for the State to bash men at whim to achieve its 'bloodless coup'. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Pho Huc on Sep 12th, 2015 at 1:35pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 11th, 2015 at 8:08pm:
I dispute that decriminalizing drugs would be inconsistent with reducing drug abuse. In Portugal they have seen a decrease in overall drug use since they adopted decriminalization as a base of their drugs policy. Decriminalization is a critical step in connecting drug users to health care services and taking control of the supply chain away from criminal organisations. Regarding ways of incentivising people to be good, I would have thought some kind of rewards system that pays out when you don't get into trouble. I.e every year you receive a $500.00 payment for not being convicted of anything. Every decade you get a a $2000.00 payment. You could also scale it against income so people at the low end of the income scale received a higher reward, which would have the added effect of reducing poverty. I know it sounds absurd, but given the vast majority of people do not commit crime it would effectively function as a universal small income tax break/dole increase. It wouldn't have a huge change on the economy, but it would give people a financial incentive not to commit criminal actions. Would it stop all crime? No Would it be an efficient crime reduction strategy? Id love to find out. Maybe Sweden will try it out one day :) |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:20pm Phemanderac wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 10:31am:
The issue is that these (non) laws provide an illegal finding against a person guilty of no wrong,and are a clear indication to that person that HIS rights are open to violation at any time on any whim. How could any reasonable person not see that this is an absolute precursor to INCREASED violence rather than diminished violence. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:21pm Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 9:24am:
Nonsense. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:23pm
God Damn You To Hell, Page Turner.. you
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:23pm Pho Huc wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 1:35pm:
That is excruciatingly silly and ineffective. Do you really think $500 would motivate anyone older than 12 to avoid crime? $500 cannot motivate a teenager to keep their room clean for a year. But what DOES motivate is the threat of a year in jail. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:29pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:21pm:
Perhaps you could explain to us how a 'feeling' is considered sufficient proof these days... I thought not. "as long as the complainant feels'...... hard to toss that one, eh? Now - where is the legal requirement for PROOF.... "Sentiro Ergo Est' is not sufficient in Law.. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:31pm |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:31pm |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:40pm
Now - I'm off to work soon - I'll leave you to consider the ISSUES raised about what does and does not constitute violence against the individual, and perhaps to consider how best to approach these in a non-violent way so as to not exacerbate them......
Parting shot - the current thrust - and it is exactly such based on changes in 'DV LAW' in the United States - to draconian measures against any man complained of, such as immediate imprisonment etc to 'preserve the peace' .... will inevitably result in a doubling of killings, and will spread this wildfire to others, including police and magistrates, and politicians who support this form of State sponsored violence etc. At that point a true war will have begun - so I say it is time to back down from this game of brinkmanship BEFORE we get to that point, and many more people die. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:00pm Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:29pm:
I've heard you rant on legal matters before. I have zero confidence in your ability to even supply facts never-mind balanced observations about it. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by mariacostel on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:21pm Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:40pm:
Complete garbage. |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 13th, 2015 at 8:41pm
Meh!
|
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 13th, 2015 at 8:42pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:00pm:
When you have no idea whatsoever about what is being discussed - just say so and move on. You have obviously zero concept of rights and legalities, and some amazing ability to consider that a person simply stating that they 'feel' something is sufficient for the intervention of a court and of police (violence writ large). Care to offer an opposing view? Prepared to say that the exercise of law is not itself a violent act, and one only condoned by necessity - a concept which is itself a very slippery slope? Any chance you could argue a point instead of using personal attack as the only weapon you possess? ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 13th, 2015 at 8:43pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:21pm:
Then do your best to explain precisely how it is garbage... I know you can't. Oh - I wish Longie would come back - he could mathematise it for us into something it never was, is or will be.... |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by The Grappler on Sep 13th, 2015 at 8:46pm mariacostel wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 4:21pm:
Please explain how the US move to arbitrarily lock men up in any 'DV' situation - so as to 'keep the peace' - is in any way 'keeping the peace', and then please explain how you think that any individual so violated will not be hostile and even vengeful? Are you wishing to see double the current array of dead women so as to create some environment in which government can declare all men such nasty beasts they should all be locked up? Are you one of those ratbag feminists with a twisted mind and a degree to match? |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Panther on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:02am Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 13th, 2015 at 8:43pm:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 2:40pm:
From what I've been told, in the USA there was a time when calls would go into Police Emergency 911 stating that there was a domestic dispute taking place ........ the cops would be dispatched & upon arriving would first usually question the alleged complaining party. Then they would examine both parties, then all parties. All the while both main parties usually attempted to blame the other for instigating any violence. After all was said & done the police usually come to a conclusion, indicating one of the parties as the obvious aggressor. In most cases, but not all cases, this was the male. It is never a viable defense for physical violence to say "...she/he verbally provoked me with his/her incessant verbal taunts...". The cops will never side with that. So, as I see it, in those days they would usually start dragging off the male, when out of the blue, low & behold, more so than not, the female sobbingly recants & effectively drops all complaints of any violent abuse. The police would have no legal choice but to release the male, now being caressed by the once complaining recanting abused female. Now, unless they had other charges to place on the male, & even though they usually knew he was at fault, & even though they usually knew soon after they were to drive off, the male most probably would be going to bash the lovin' bejisis out of her again, but legally they would have to leave with nothing else to be done because the complaint was withdrawn by the female, & all appeared peaceful. As mentioned above, the male might just proceed to bash her mercilessly sometime after the cops leave, but this time instead of just badly injuring her, maybe this time he ends up killing her. Now, the world comes down on the cops for not doing anything on the original call(s), & the cops throw up their hands, & claim rightfully so, that their hands were tied, the law was emphatic, the complaint was dropped, & by law they had to leave empty handed regardless of what they may have thought might happen. So the legislature passed laws that now specifies that regardless of a recant, regardless of complaints being dropped, when they are called out on a Domestic Violence call, & if they ascertain that there was truly a case of domestic violence, somebody must be taken to jail, they must leave with one or the other....the male or the female....they couldn't leave empty handed as before, regardless of who might have second thoughts, etc... Most of the time they cart off the male, & based on evidence, rightfully so. But, if they determine the female was the aggressor, & maybe she struck the first blows, & maybe she violently incited the male, the female will be carted off to jail just the same, to be held for a hearing by a judge to make an ultimate decision. This, even though it has been proven it can probably save lives, this new law can unfortunately be abused, & it has been. Nothings ever perfect. Who ever has the most convincing story....who ever is the best "actor", can sometimes dupe the cops, & the wrong party is carted off. One thing that the legislation does do is it always provides both parties a sort of cooling off period ...... where the parties are always separated as per the law, & in some cases that alone defuses the situation well enough to stem further violence, but sometimes not. Sometimes, but rarely, this preventive action actually exacerbates underlying problems. ;) |
|
Title: Re: Guns Post by Panther on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:02am
>:( >:( >:(
|
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |
