Australian Politics Forum

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 41839	Re: Self Defence, Reply #105 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 10:25am
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #106 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:22am

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 11:17pm:

Data from Australian Institute of Criminology

Under our proprtional self defence laws perhaps you need to grab a knife of similar size if attacked by someone with a knife.
None of Paul Hogan that's not a knife and grabbing something bigger will be allowed for self defence.

Where is this so called rapid decrease in firearm homicides after 1996 laws ?

As per the graph: from c. 25% to c. 15%?

Back to top

IP Logged

philperth2010

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20359
Perth
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #107 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:27am

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 5:19pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 4:43pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 2:52pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 4^th, 2024 at 10:32pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 4^th, 2024 at 10:31pm:

Hi Baron,
I can only say that the Aussie laws must have ensured that
only responsible people have guns.

That's bullshit Bobby.

Criminals don't have any trouble getting guns lots of Meth addicts running around with guns

Gun deaths have declined since Port Arthur!!!

Quote:

Gun deaths

The annual rate of total gun deaths in Australia fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to just 0.88 per 100,000 in 2018.

Our gun death rate is 12 times less than the US of about 10.6 per 100,000 people.

https://www.gunsafetyalliance.org.au/the-stats/

We don't want to end up like America!!!

In 1980 our gun death rate was 4.9 per 100K
in 1995 our gun death rate was 2.6 per 100K

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/productsbyCatalogue/9C85BD1298C075EACA2...

What caused the reduction in gun deaths from 1980-1995 when semi auto rifles and pump action shotguns could be used for self defence?

Our gun death rate has always been around 10-12x lower than the US even when we allowed guns for self defence, we were never like America ya bedwetting dickhead.

Your bullshit stats only go to 1995 dickhead....Our gun death rate has declined since Port Arthur and gun reforms were introduced not just one punative measure....There has been very few home invasions were someone was killed by a gun and the reduction must take into consideration every measure used to reduce gun violence....Cherry picking bullshit proves nothing!!!

Quote:

By the numbers | Stark contrast in Australian, US gun deaths

Gun-related deaths are a fixture in American life and there were 12.09 deaths per 100,000 people, according to 2019 data from gunpolicy.org. For Australia, the rate was 0.90 per 100,000 people showing the significant contrast between the two countries.

In a disturbing US trend, firearms killed more children and adolescents in 2020 than car accidents, the previous leading cause of death for young people, according to the Washington Post.[/url]

What caused the pre existing decline in firearm deaths before our 1996 gun laws ya dopey dickhead?

Australian Bureau of Statistics aren't bullshit this is for the 15 years before our 1996 laws.

As usual you deflect to the US.

In 1995 when semi auto rifles and pump action shotguns were allowed for self defence our firearm homicide rate was 0.3 per 100k.
What was this rate in the US 1995?
Quote:

There were 11,101 firearm homicides in 2011, down by 39% from a high of 18,253 in 1993 (figure 1). The majority of the decline in firearm-related homicides occurred between 1993 and 1998. Since 1999, the number of firearm homicides increased from 10,828 to 12,791 in 2006 before declining to 11,101 in 2011.

In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for males was 6.2 per
100,000, compared to 1.1 for females (figure 3). Firearm
homicide for males declined by 49% (from 12.0 per 100,000
males in 1993 to 6.2 in 2010), compared to a 51% decline
for females (from 2.3 per 100,000 females in 1993 to 1.1
in 2010). The majority of the decline for both males and
females occurred in the first part of the period (1993 to
2000).

Race/Hispanic origin
In 2010, the rate of firearm homicide for blacks was 14.6
per 100,000, compared to 1.9 for whites, 2.7 for American
Indians and Alaska Natives, and 1.0 for Asians and Pacific
Islanders (figure 5). From 1993 to 2010, the rate of firearm
homicides for blacks declined by 51%, down from 30.1 per
100,000 blacks, compared to a 48% decline for whites and a
43% decline for American Indians and Alaska Natives

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

We have never been like America so comparing us to them is bedwetter bullshit. Roll Eyes

What caused our pre existing decline or do you prefer to cherry pick data to justify gun grabbing? Roll Eyes

Are your crappy sources linked to Simon Chapman?

Your bullshit stats only go to 1995 dickhead....20 years of missing data were the gun death rate has plumeted....Cherry picking bullshit stats that still show a decline in gun deaths....Dickhead!!!

Quote:

Following these gun reforms, no mass shootings occurred in the next 22 years until a tragic domestic murder-suicide in May 2018.

It is estimated that without the intervention of our gun reforms, approximately 16 mass shootings would have been expected between then and February 2018.

Quote:

Gun deaths

The annual rate of total gun deaths in Australia fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to just 0.88 per 100,000 in 2018.

https://www.gunsafetyalliance.org.au/the-stats/

Back to top

If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84583
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #108 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:32am

Every single one of those shootings in Bankistan was by a legal weapon.... wait a minute - a lethal weapon.... they're all illegal firearms in the hands of criminal gangs.

Jesus - down from 25% to 15% .... I rest my case - well In would, but you carefully pick up your brass after a Kennedy job...

Side-note:- Clearly SEEN two gunpersons - ergo - the change in route was planned into it... the first shooter was far lower than the sixth floor - otherwise his neck shot on JFK would have at least hit the car or someone else somewhere instead of vanishing in the haze and being conflated with the next shot that hit Connally while HE was turned almost completely around checking to see WTF JFK was gurgling about back there - hell of a Magic Bullet, that one.. hits JFK passes out of front of his trachea, pauses until Connally turns around and literally (lip read) says WTF? ... then bang - that MB turns 90-odd degrees in mid-air after waiting three seconds or more, and strikes Connally through and through and then takes a breather on his knee. Meanwhile Connally falls back out of the way, opening the line for the fatal head shot from the Grassy Knoll... it's as clear as a Zapruder film for those who care to see. Even the presence of TWO gunmen - indisputable and on film - plus the change of route - proves conspiracy.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed nobody ..... and those three guys plus spotters were real pros.... I'd guess where from.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:40am by Grappler Truth Teller Feller »

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #109 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:36am

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 9:13pm:

‘’ So the 2nd permits you to use military grade weapons for 'self-defence'. See the problem?’’

No, because military grade weapons are generally inferior and much less powerful than civilian firearms.

Ok got it

But I see you have abandoned defending the notion of "rights".

eg, re the "right" to self-defence:

You said someone who (unlawfully) theatens your life, forfeits his "right to life".

Fair enough, but a jury will want to consider WHY someone sought to threaten your life.

Was his action a crimimal act, as defined in law, or were there extenuating circumstances?

So we get back to man-made law as the basis of "rights". Hopefully, that law is based on 'morality, justice and fairness'....

What causes individuals to commit crime?

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #110 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:57am

And why has the ICC - the court of international law - issued arrest warrants against Netanhayu and Putin for alleged genocide which needs to be examined in court, both leaders claiming they are acting in national "self-defence", as permitted under the doctrine of "legal" war....

And against Hamas who see themselves as resisting the occupation of Palestine by Israel.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #111 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 12:14pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:32am:

Every single one of those shootings in Bankistan was by a legal weapon.... wait a minute - a lethal weapon.... they're all illegal firearms in the hands of criminal gangs.

Jesus - down from 25% to 15% .... I rest my case - well In would, but you carefully pick up your brass after a Kennedy job...

graps, I have to admit to not being able to parse your 'narratives' sometimes.

As to matters 'legal', and 'non legal', see my most recent post.

Quote:

Side-note:- Clearly SEEN two gunpersons ...(etc)

...in relation to Kennedy's assassination.

Kennedy's assassin(s) had their reasons, nothing to do with (the "right" to) self-defence, and Kennedy (also with a "right" to self-defence) couldn't defend himself BECAUSE his assassin(s) used high powered rifle(s) in a hidden location(s), instead of fronting the victim with his (their) fists...

Quote:

Lee Harvey Oswald killed nobody ..... and those three guys plus spotters were real pros.... I'd guess where from.

ok, but Kennedy was murdered using a hidden gun(s); your point in relation to self-defence?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 6^th, 2024 at 12:20pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46223
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #112 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 2:36pm

tallowood wrote on Nov 28^th, 2024 at 12:08pm:

Apr 11, 2024
https://www.9news.com.au/national/queensland-news-man-killed-one-injured-after-alleged-axe-attack-south-of-the-gold-coast/486b6c2d-37b1-4ec9-9014-845b276bb3e3

Quote:

Two masked men armed with an axe allegedly stormed an Oxford Street home in Kingscliff, south of Queensland's Gold Coast, about 8pm on Tuesday.
The home invaders confronted 66-year-old Alan Kerr and struck him with the axe multiple times, partially severing his hand, police said.

Quote:

"We have been informed that the occupant, in self defence and in an attempt to protect himself, has armed himself with a knife and struck the deceased to the chest," he said.
"We will be examining the circumstances surrounding the incident, in particular the conduct of the occupant if the conduct was necessary and proportionate to his safety."

Machete-wielding aboriginal home invader dies in hospital after alleged clash with homeowner

Police said Tyron Smith, 20, was attempting to break into the house in Boulder, Kalgoorlie, at 10.15am on Friday when he was confronted by a man who was home with his wife and child and an altercation ensued.

Smith, who was armed with a machete while wearing a balaclava and had been released from prison just 26 days earlier, was seriously injured and rushed to Kalgoorlie Regional Hospital before being flown to Royal Perth Hospital.

The homeowner suffered an arm injury and cuts to his hands that also required hospital treatment, The West Australian reported.

Western Australia Police detectives are investigating the incident, and the homeowner has not been charged. Police said he is helping with the investigation and that Smith’s cause of death is yet to be determined.

A nearby resident said the young couple have since fled their home in fear of retribution from the indigenous community, and that other neighbours were also frightened of reprisal attacks.
https://www.noticer.news/kalgoorlie-boulder-aboriginal-home-invader-dies/

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 41839	Re: Self Defence, Reply #113 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 3:00pm
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2236 New England, NSW Gender:	Re: Self Defence, Reply #114 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 3:58pm Nicke one,Brian; are you bored by the home invasion or the death? Perhaps the WA Government should consider the regulation and registration of machetes?
Back to top	Self defence is a right. IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #115 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 4:07pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 9:13pm:

‘’ So the 2nd permits you to use military grade weapons for 'self-defence'. See the problem?’’

No, because military grade weapons are generally inferior and much less powerful than civilian firearms.

Ok got it

But I see you have abandoned defending the notion of "rights".

eg, re the "right" to self-defence:

You said someone who (unlawfully) theatens your life, forfeits his "right to life".

Fair enough, but a jury will want to consider WHY someone sought to threaten your life.

Was his action a crimimal act, as defined in law, or were there extenuating circumstances?

So we get back to man-made law as the basis of "rights". Hopefully, that law is based on 'morality, justice and fairness'....

What causes individuals to commit crime?

Why would ajury h/ave any; problems when the attack was not lawful?

On military grade weapons; I presume that you mean current ones?

Back to top

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12940
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #116 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 4:27pm

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 4:07pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 9:13pm:

‘’ So the 2nd permits you to use military grade weapons for 'self-defence'. See the problem?’’

No, because military grade weapons are generally inferior and much less powerful than civilian firearms.

Ok got it

But I see you have abandoned defending the notion of "rights".

eg, re the "right" to self-defence:

You said someone who (unlawfully) theatens your life, forfeits his "right to life".

Fair enough, but a jury will want to consider WHY someone sought to threaten your life.

Was his action a crimimal act, as defined in law, or were there extenuating circumstances?

So we get back to man-made law as the basis of "rights". Hopefully, that law is based on 'morality, justice and fairness'....

What causes individuals to commit crime?

Why would a jury h/ave any problems when the attack was not lawful?

Because of the concept of reasonable force, in law:

"the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent harm or crime, protect oneself or property, or conduct a lawful arrest or prevent an escape".

A jury will of course become involved if there is a dead body....

Quote:

On military grade weapons; I presume that you mean current ones?

Yes, that's why the 18th century 2nd A is obsolete, apart from the fact frontier citizens don't need to protect themselves from marauding Indians, or the army of the British King, in our time with professional standing armies.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 6^th, 2024 at 4:33pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #117 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 4:46pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 4:27pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 4:07pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 11:36am:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 5^th, 2024 at 9:13pm:

‘’ So the 2nd permits you to use military grade weapons for 'self-defence'. See the problem?’’

No, because military grade weapons are generally inferior and much less powerful than civilian firearms.

Ok got it

But I see you have abandoned defending the notion of "rights".

eg, re the "right" to self-defence:

You said someone who (unlawfully) theatens your life, forfeits his "right to life".

Fair enough, but a jury will want to consider WHY someone sought to threaten your life.

Was his action a crimimal act, as defined in law, or were there extenuating circumstances?

So we get back to man-made law as the basis of "rights". Hopefully, that law is based on 'morality, justice and fairness'....

What causes individuals to commit crime?

Why would a jury h/ave any problems when the attack was not lawful?

Because of the concept of reasonable force, in law:

"the minimum amount of force necessary to prevent harm or crime, protect oneself or property, or conduct a lawful arrest or prevent an escape".

A jury will of course become involved if there is a dead body....

Quote:

On military grade weapons; I presume that you mean current ones?

Yes, that's why the 18th century 2nd A is obsolete, apart from the fact frontier citizens don't need to protect themselves from marauding Indians, or the army of the British King, in our time with professional standing armies.

Ok, so it’d be alright to have the out of date military weapons of bygone days?
What;’s the cut off datee?

Locally, if in fear of one’s life using lethal force iis justified.
If you believe that an attacker plans to kill you then stopping him by any means is justified.
Even to using a firearm, even though the bright brains of the Government, in the National Firearms Agreement said that a firearm must never be used for self defence.
Had they no knowledge of Court decisions?

Bye the way, the Second Amendment does not say anything about firearms in particular it refers to ‘arms’ which may be firearms, swords knives and as the Founding Fathers had knowledge of machine guns, fully automatic.guns and rifles multi shot pistols.
They also knew of and some of them had seen breech loading firearms and cartridges, but be that as it may, the Second Amendment merely sets up the Militia and secures for it a source of arms based on the existing right of the people to possess them.

This ‘’. . .right of the people. . .’’ Was given the force of law by being included in the Bill of Rights.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 6^th, 2024 at 5:24pm by Sir Eoin O Fada »

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 41839	Re: Self Defence, Reply #118 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 5:09pm
Back to top	Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour. Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe? Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

Sir Eoin O Fada

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2236
New England, NSW
Gender: male

Re: Self Defence,
Reply #119 - Dec 6^th, 2024 at 5:40pm

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 5:09pm:

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

.Good to see you, Brian, I seem to remember that when you were asked to define and explain the Second Amendment.you ran and hid and we never had the help of your vast knowledge and experience.

Perhaps you or your acolyte will refute this

‘’ Statistics and gun laws It may come as a surprise to Simon to Chapman (Letters, October 31) but, like him, I too strongly supported
the introduction of tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre. The fact is, however, that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because
no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I
thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice.
Dr Don Weatherburn NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney
Source: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/news/letters/the-terrorism-debate-balance-v-the-
bogyman/2005/10/31/1130720479201.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap[/url]
After all, what would he know?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 6^th, 2024 at 5:54pm by Sir Eoin O Fada »

Self defence is a right.

IP Logged