|
Post by Californian on Feb 19, 2013 10:14:53 GMT -6
Yeah but you only turned up after you were dragged into the war. Previously to that you were stubbornly neutral. (We are not saying the world didn't appreciate your efforts). Reluctance to enter into a war that cost us 400,000 of our young men is not a bad thing. And in truth, as those among us who read history understand, we were in the war before that. We provided your nation (probably in violation of the laws of neutrality at the time) with both funds and materiel (ships, planes, etc.). Google "lend/lease" for further info. As to our formal entry into the war on 12/11/41, the day after Hitler declared war on the U.S., a large part of that reluctance came due to the fact that the UK declared war on Germany to start the war, not vice versa. It was courageous, I think, but foolish, as the UK was certainly unprepared, as debacles like Dunkirk quickly demonstrated. It might also be instructive to your viewpoint to point out that even though the U.S. was attacked by the Japanese, our leadership in the person of FDR (an extreme Anglophile and friend of Winnie) and the military decided that our strategy would be the European war first. As Sir Winston said the night he learned of the Pearl Harbor and learned the U.S. was coming in, "Now we will win." And of course we did. It's certainly among the reasons I so greatly admire those of the GI generation: they really did save the world.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 19, 2013 13:07:58 GMT -6
How can you have a more realistic view than I do, I live in this country and am the parent of a United States Marine! Your "more realistic view" is simply biased by your prejudices. Maybe you grew up in a culture where you were taught that American is the most best and free nation in the world. Maybe you haven't realised that this is probably no longer true. As I previously stated, it all comes down to your dislike of America doesn't it Cyclone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 23:02:06 GMT -6
Yeah but you only turned up after you were dragged into the war. Previously to that you were stubbornly neutral. (We are not saying the world didn't appreciate your efforts). Reluctance to enter into a war that cost us 400,000 of our young men is not a bad thing. And in truth, as those among us who read history understand, we were in the war before that. We provided your nation (probably in violation of the laws of neutrality at the time) with both funds and materiel (ships, planes, etc.). Google "lend/lease" for further info. As to our formal entry into the war on 12/11/41, the day after Hitler declared war on the U.S., a large part of that reluctance came due to the fact that the UK declared war on Germany to start the war, not vice versa. It was courageous, I think, but foolish, as the UK was certainly unprepared, as debacles like Dunkirk quickly demonstrated. It might also be instructive to your viewpoint to point out that even though the U.S. was attacked by the Japanese, our leadership in the person of FDR (an extreme Anglophile and friend of Winnie) and the military decided that our strategy would be the European war first. As Sir Winston said the night he learned of the Pearl Harbor and learned the U.S. was coming in, "Now we will win." And of course we did. It's certainly among the reasons I so greatly admire those of the GI generation: they really did save the world. If I remember correctly, the British Declaration of War was triggered by the German Invasion into Poland. So it wasn't they began the war mongering in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 23:23:09 GMT -6
Maybe you grew up in a culture where you were taught that American is the most best and free nation in the world. Maybe you haven't realised that this is probably no longer true. As I previously stated, it all comes down to your dislike of America doesn't it Cyclone. Its your ignorance is the problem. Its the fact you only fling insults instead of making arguments.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 21, 2013 0:01:09 GMT -6
As I previously stated, it all comes down to your dislike of America doesn't it Cyclone. Its your ignorance is the problem. Its the fact you only fling insults instead of making arguments. I'm curious to know why you would wish to infringe on the rights of an American to own a fire arm, when you don't even live in this country?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 21, 2013 0:34:38 GMT -6
If I remember correctly, the British Declaration of War was triggered by the German Invasion into Poland. So it wasn't they began the war mongering in the first place. Personally, I’ve always believed the real reason the British declared war on Germany was to eliminate a potential economic rival. After all, the Russians also invaded Poland in September 1939 and war was not declared on them. In fact, when World War II was over, and Germany in ruins, the British suddenly became quite unconcerned with the fate of Poland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 0:49:35 GMT -6
If I remember correctly, the British Declaration of War was triggered by the German Invasion into Poland. So it wasn't they began the war mongering in the first place. Personally, I’ve always believed the real reason the British declared war on Germany was to eliminate a potential economic rival. After all, the Russians also invaded Poland in September 1939 and war was not declared on them. In fact, when World War II was over, and Germany in ruins, the British suddenly became quite unconcerned with the fate of Poland. Maybe they thought Germany was more of a threat then Russia at the time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 1:14:42 GMT -6
Its your ignorance is the problem. Its the fact you only fling insults instead of making arguments. I'm curious to know why you would wish to infringe on the rights of an American to own a fire arm, when you don't even live in this country? Most foreigners wonder why American so enthusiastically defend their right to own a gun, when their rate of gun related violence is the worst amongst the developed world? The idea that you are needed a gun to defend yourself against an oppressive government comes across as paranoid. We have never had a right to own a firearm, there is no right to carry a weapon (unless you have a good reason) but we also live in a relatively free nation. As far as foreigners commenting, when Australia banned semi automatic assault weapons after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre guess who was outraged. The American Pro Gun lobby complained bitterly about our laws, saying it was a violation of our rights. The other bizarre thing is; Why do Americans think that the right to carry a weapon is something to be proud of. No one here feels it is necessary to own a gun, so they don't feel they need the right. Feeling the need to own a gun represents something that isn't right in your nation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2013 3:16:56 GMT -6
I'm curious to know why you would wish to infringe on the rights of an American to own a fire arm, when you don't even live in this country? Most foreigners wonder why American so enthusiastically defend their right to own a gun, when their rate of gun related violence is the worst amongst the developed world? The idea that you are needed a gun to defend yourself against an oppressive government comes across as paranoid. We have never had a right to own a firearm, there is no right to carry a weapon (unless you have a good reason) but we also live in a relatively free nation. As far as foreigners commenting, when Australia banned semi automatic assault weapons after the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre guess who was outraged. The American Pro Gun lobby complained bitterly about our laws, saying it was a violation of our rights. The other bizarre thing is; Why do Americans think that the right to carry a weapon is something to be proud of. No one here feels it is necessary to own a gun, so they don't feel they need the right. Feeling the need to own a gun represents something that isn't right in your nation And another thing is this... Its the "I have a right to..." which is seen as bizarre. Americans are famous for many things but one of the most puzzling is this need to assert their rights. For example, we think it is absurd for a criminal to go free simply because someone forgot to read them his rights. We think a more balanced approach would be more useful.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 21, 2013 7:52:35 GMT -6
If I remember correctly, the British Declaration of War was triggered by the German Invasion into Poland. So it wasn't they began the war mongering in the first place. Yes, true. Yet my assertion that the UK declared war on Germany is also true. In other words, you started a war for which you were not ready. As to our "late" entry, perhaps our leaders felt that since you started the war, you should be able ti finish it. This turned out to be less than accurate.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 21, 2013 8:06:56 GMT -6
And another thing is this... Its the "I have a right to..." which is seen as bizarre. Americans are famous for many things but one of the most puzzling is this need to assert their rights. For example, we think it is absurd for a criminal to go free simply because someone forgot to read them his rights. We think a more balanced approach would be more useful. Of course you're puzzled. You've lived your life as a subject, not a citizen. Our Founders enacted the first ten amendments to our Constitution, the "Bill of Rights," as direct answers to the attempted subjugation of our citizenry by the British. And the UK doesn't have a Constitution, does it?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 21, 2013 12:08:29 GMT -6
Maybe they thought Germany was more of a threat then Russia at the time So you admit that it's quite possible that Britain's declaration of war on Germany was for self-serving reasons that really had nothing to do with the well-being of Poland. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 21, 2013 17:26:06 GMT -6
Most foreigners wonder why American so enthusiastically defend their right to own a gun, when their rate of gun related violence is the worst amongst the developed world? On the contrary, given the fact that there were far more innocent people murdered in Europe in the last century than there were or ever will be in the United States, most Americans wonder why so many foreigners refuse to insist on having a right to bear arms. The idea that you are needed a gun to defend yourself against an oppressive government comes across as paranoid. Au Contraire, the idea that you don’t need firearms to protect yourself against an oppressive government comes across as extremely naïve. We have never had a right to own a firearm, there is no right to carry a weapon (unless you have a good reason) but we also live in a relatively free nation. That’s interesting! As I understand it, Australia has seen a 42% increase in violent crime since implementing its gun ban. Why do Americans think that the right to carry a weapon is something to be proud of. Because it shows us and the rest of the world that, unlike you Australians, we refuse to allow our government to treat us as subjects and thus deny us the means to resist any possible tyranny in the future. No one here feels it is necessary to own a gun You have absolutely no way of knowing that!
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 21, 2013 18:50:59 GMT -6
No one here feels it is necessary to own a gun You mean "no one you know," right? That's because leftist ninnies tend to hand around together. Stay the hell Down Under and mind your own business, subject.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 21, 2013 18:55:30 GMT -6
You mean "no one you know," right? subject. That makes me feel pretty open-minded. I have friends on both sides of just about everything we discuss here. Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 2:51:12 GMT -6
Most foreigners wonder why American so enthusiastically defend their right to own a gun, when their rate of gun related violence is the worst amongst the developed world? On the contrary, given the fact that there were far more innocent people murdered in Europe in the last century than there were or ever will be in the United States, most Americans wonder why so many foreigners refuse to insist on having a right to bear arms. The idea that you are needed a gun to defend yourself against an oppressive government comes across as paranoid. Au Contraire, the idea that you don’t need firearms to protect yourself against an oppressive government comes across as extremely naïve. We have never had a right to own a firearm, there is no right to carry a weapon (unless you have a good reason) but we also live in a relatively free nation. That’s interesting! As I understand it, Australia has seen a 42% increase in violent crime since implementing its gun ban. Why do Americans think that the right to carry a weapon is something to be proud of. Because it shows us and the rest of the world that, unlike you Australians, we refuse to allow our government to treat us as subjects and thus deny us the means to resist any possible tyranny in the future. No one here feels it is necessary to own a gun You have absolutely no way of knowing that! Hitler used propaganda to convince the German people that the Jews needed to be exterminated. Just like the NRA tells lies about other nations crime rates. 42% increase in gun crime. You know what a 42% increase in gun crime in Australia is, its some crook shooting 3 other crooks. Our rate of gun violence is very low, and generally when gun violence happens it occurs in the context of organised crime. In the late 1990's we had a 60% increase over 6 months at one point. Then the police broke up the crime gang responsible and gun crime went back to its baseline rate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 3:58:23 GMT -6
You mean "no one you know," right? That's because leftist ninnies tend to hand around together. Stay the hell Down Under and mind your own business, subject. Thats rich coming from a citizen of a nation who sticks their nose in every other country's business. One would suspect the reason Americans would have involved themselves in the War was that if either the Japanese was successful in taking Australia, or the Germans taking UK then it wasn't much of a stretch of the imagination for them to successfully invade mainland the USA, and it would be more prudent for them to join the war before their citizens were put in danger. You calling me a leftist ninnie? You have got to be kidding. I just don't think unless you have a good reason to own a gun you should have any business owning one. If are own a gun, you are more likely to shoot yourself with it, rather then be murdered by an intruder. As for our government, if they tried being a bunch of despots no one would take them seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 22, 2013 8:15:44 GMT -6
You idiot. Google "Battle of the Coral Sea" and read which country's Navy prevented Australia from being invaded by the Japanese.
We can't help it if America answers when any country in the world dials 911. That to include yours. You're welcome.
While a person unschooled in history and geography might "suspect" that, he or shes would be wrong.
Look at the globe, paying special attention to those large blue areas between Europe and Australia and the U.S.
Those are called "Oceans." Given the fact that the D-Day amphibious invasion on June 6th, 1944 was a pretty dicey proposition across a mere 40 miles of the English Channel, please explain how you think such an invasion across thousands of miles of open sea might conceivably be a success.
You might also want to ask yourself why Hitler called off the invasion of England in 1940. Hint: His general staff told him it was impossible.
Happily, no one in the U.S. cares what you think, and you can't vote here, so your opinion is as irrelevant as the rest of your anti-American rants.
Well, April of this year is my 50th Anniversary of gun ownership, and I haven't shot myself yet. I own about a dozen guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. And I can't think of any of my shooting buddies who have managed to shoot themselves.
And home protection is really a collateral advantage of ownership to me. While I have a specific home protection weapon, a shotgun, I don't really expect to have to use it-but I would if my life or family was threatened. You have a telephone, and as someone once said, "When seconds court, the police are only minutes away."
Seriously, now. Aren't you tired of getting kicked around in this thread? Even sweet Kay, who wouldn't say "crap" if she had a mouthful, is lambasting you.
This is easily the saddest remark in your post. Your naivete is startling.
|
|
|
Post by Eminey1 on Feb 22, 2013 8:57:19 GMT -6
Hippocratic Oath. Euthanasia,intentionally ending life. For dignity Abortion, intentionally ending life. DP, intentionally ending life. A liberal/progressive society. Why is the DP the only ending of life a Doctor cannot perform agains't the Oath? Or by Oath not to give instructions on how to take life? Abortion takes life of the most innocent beings by brutal methods millions of" on demand for not being wanted or hardship affordable. Abortion was part of the topic of this thread, DP and guns. Well said! I totally see euthanasia as dignity for a sufferer. I see abortion in MOST cases as a secondary emergency contraception. I see the death penalty as justice and also as a prevention of further murders. Why do we only focus on the death penalty as wrong, why are the avid antis here not marching outside abortion clinics and protesting to terminal patients not to end their own suffering? I truly believe that the death penalty is ending potential suffering. Just want to say if anyone jumps on the pro life band wagon and starts creating about pro life for terminal patients then come ask me about the last month of my mums life with terminal lung cancer. My eyes have seen things I can never un see, my ears have heard things I can never un hear and I can still smell 'that' smell.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 22, 2013 11:13:12 GMT -6
You idiot. Google "Battle of the Coral Sea" and read which country's Navy prevented Australia from being invaded by the Japanese. We can't help it if America answers when any country in the world dials 911. That to include yours. You're welcome. While a person unschooled in history and geography might "suspect" that, he or shes would be wrong. Look at the globe, paying special attention to those large blue areas between Europe and Australia and the U.S. Those are called "Oceans." Given the fact that the D-Day amphibious invasion on June 6th, 1944 was a pretty dicey proposition across a mere 40 miles of the English Channel, please explain how you think such an invasion across thousands of miles of open sea might conceivably be a success. You might also want to ask yourself why Hitler called off the invasion of England in 1940. Hint: His general staff told him it was impossible. Happily, no one in the U.S. cares what you think, and you can't vote here, so your opinion is as irrelevant as the rest of your anti-American rants. Well, April of this year is my 50th Anniversary of gun ownership, and I haven't shot myself yet. I own about a dozen guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. And I can't think of any of my shooting buddies who have managed to shoot themselves. And home protection is really a collateral advantage of ownership to me. While I have a specific home protection weapon, a shotgun, I don't really expect to have to use it-but I would if my life or family was threatened. You have a telephone, and as someone once said, "When seconds court, the police are only minutes away." Seriously, now. Aren't you tired of getting kicked around in this thread? Even sweet Kay, who wouldn't say "crap" if she had a mouthful, is lambasting you. This is easily the saddest remark in your post. Your naivete is startling. It is all a catch 22, first cyclone said" what took us so long in one battle, now the switch up " we stick our nose's in every countries business.. .
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 22, 2013 16:55:39 GMT -6
It is all a catch 22, first cyclone said" what took us so long in one battle, now the switch up " we stick our nose's in every countries business.. . Those unschooled in history can often be dangerously ignorant, as Cyclone's posts repeatedly demonstrate. "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.~ Ronaldus Magnus [/b][/size]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2013 22:13:41 GMT -6
You idiot. Google "Battle of the Coral Sea" and read which country's Navy prevented Australia from being invaded by the Japanese. We can't help it if America answers when any country in the world dials 911. That to include yours. You're welcome. While a person unschooled in history and geography might "suspect" that, he or shes would be wrong. Look at the globe, paying special attention to those large blue areas between Europe and Australia and the U.S. Those are called "Oceans." Given the fact that the D-Day amphibious invasion on June 6th, 1944 was a pretty dicey proposition across a mere 40 miles of the English Channel, please explain how you think such an invasion across thousands of miles of open sea might conceivably be a success. You might also want to ask yourself why Hitler called off the invasion of England in 1940. Hint: His general staff told him it was impossible. Happily, no one in the U.S. cares what you think, and you can't vote here, so your opinion is as irrelevant as the rest of your anti-American rants. Well, April of this year is my 50th Anniversary of gun ownership, and I haven't shot myself yet. I own about a dozen guns, rifles, shotguns, and pistols. And I can't think of any of my shooting buddies who have managed to shoot themselves. And home protection is really a collateral advantage of ownership to me. While I have a specific home protection weapon, a shotgun, I don't really expect to have to use it-but I would if my life or family was threatened. You have a telephone, and as someone once said, "When seconds court, the police are only minutes away." Seriously, now. Aren't you tired of getting kicked around in this thread? Even sweet Kay, who wouldn't say "crap" if she had a mouthful, is lambasting you. This is easily the saddest remark in your post. Your naivete is startling. Kay's comments on this thread generally had no worth. It just re inforced the stereotype that all Americans care about are their own personal freedoms. This is something that is reflected in all parts of your nation, that reflects in your school and health care But it comes down to this. You have more legally own weapons in your nation. and therefore you have more gun deaths per capita then Europe or other comparable rights of the world. Also, constitutionally our Federal government has a lot less power in comparison to what you allow your Federal government. This is one reason why we are not in recession but you are As far as the war goes. If Germany had consolidated its position then it would have been very dangerous and the UK would have eventually fallen. It didn't, but it nearly did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2013 1:47:38 GMT -6
One can easily conjecture that if the USA had nothing to gain from involving itself in the War in the Pacific then it would have not become involved. If I remember correctly the USA had plenty of reasons other then Pearl Harbour not to like the Japanese and one of the major advantages Australia gave them was a base closer to attack one of their enemies.
Also, since WWII Australia has always supported the USA around the world. We were there in Korea, and Vietnam, and Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places. We were also willing to offer Aid for Katrina victims, and also assist
But coming back to the original point...
The USA has a higher rate of gun related crime then comparable places in the world (and I mean Western Europe and Australia)....comparing yourself to Africa, Eastern Europe and Middle East is cheating
One reason for this is the proliferation of guns in your society. The 2nd Amendment was written for circumstances that are no longer relevant. Far too many of your citizens are willing to use a firearm to settle an argument simply because they have one
Now I am not arguing that people should not be able to own a gun.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Feb 23, 2013 2:00:29 GMT -6
Pro Death Penalty - Obviously because you can't rehabilitate a murderer and for all we know, someone who is feigning finding God could be faking to get more sympathy.
Pro Gun Control - Because there should be a strict policy on who should be able to own guns and why they can own gun so we don't see more senseless violence.
Pro Choice - Because its a woman's body and she should be able to do whatever she wants with it.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 23, 2013 6:02:09 GMT -6
One can easily conjecture that if the USA had nothing to gain from involving itself in the War in the Pacific then it would have not become involved. If I remember correctly the USA had plenty of reasons other then Pearl Harbour not to like the Japanese and one of the major advantages Australia gave them was a base closer to attack one of their enemies. That first sentence really baffles me. Nothing to gain - not involved. That is a completely senseless statement. Additionally, you elude that the US basically "stuck it's nose" into the war in Europe. An equally baffling statement. Then you qualify those ideas with a statement about Australia being a good ally. Correct, but completely out of context with the previous comments. You really don't like us very much do you? Your opinions and commentary seem to be based more on that than actual fact. First, "it is easy to conjecture" - the US had vast interests, troops and allies on the Pacific. Japan's expansion and aggressive action (prior to Pearl Harbor - China) led Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Provocative and unexpected. They attacked throughout the Pacific - Guam, Philippines, Dutch Harbor, the list goes on and on. The US was vulnerable. It is a recognized fact that the Japanese withdrew the attack too soon. The US reactions was based on safety first and second removing an invader from illegally seized territory. War in Europe - the US people and the Congress did not want to get involved in Europe again. Roosevelt recognized the significance and danger and supported the UK through the Lend Lease Act prior to Dec. 7. Germany's alliance with Japan allowed for the US to enter the war. Aggressive and belligerent invaders were not only threatening but accomplishing invasion and take over of legitimate governments of allies. Who but the US should have helped? Not protecting our territories and our friends would have had disastrous results. This core value of defense, self-defense, and defense of friends has it's roots in our 2nd Amendment and our Declaration of Independence. Can you cite similar reference or historical basis? Sent from my LS670 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 23, 2013 8:10:25 GMT -6
Not protecting our territories and our friends would have had disastrous results. This core value of defense, self-defense, and defense of friends has it's roots in our 2nd Amendment and our Declaration of Independence. From the Kennedy inaugural long after the war, but a pretty fair statement of our principles: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty." I'm afraid your memory has failed you. It's about 4200 miles from Australia to Japan, and about 3800 from our giant naval base at Pearl Harbor. Having bases all around the Pacific rim was no doubt an advantage, that to include Australia, but it was also greatly to Australia's advantage to have a big mean dog, the U.S. Navy, in their front yard. Have you googled "Battle of the Coral Sea" yet?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 23, 2013 11:20:55 GMT -6
But it comes down to this. You have more legally own weapons in your nation. and therefore you have more gun deaths per capita then Europe or other comparable rights of the world. No, it comes down to this, we are a well-armed society that has never allowed our great nation to become a spawning ground for genocidal dictators-----unlike those folks in Europe. As for your contention that more guns equals more gun death per capita-----it’s sheer bunk! Hitler used propaganda to convince the German people that the Jews needed to be exterminated. Just like the NRA tells lies about other nations crime rates. 42% increase in gun crime. AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN April 13, 2009 It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: • In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. • Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. • Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: • Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. • During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. • Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. • Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. • At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. • Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner. Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2013 23:15:57 GMT -6
But it comes down to this. You have more legally own weapons in your nation. and therefore you have more gun deaths per capita then Europe or other comparable rights of the world. No, it comes down to this, we are a well-armed society that has never allowed our great nation to become a spawning ground for genocidal dictators-----unlike those folks in Europe. As for your contention that more guns equals more gun death per capita-----it’s sheer bunk! Hitler used propaganda to convince the German people that the Jews needed to be exterminated. Just like the NRA tells lies about other nations crime rates. 42% increase in gun crime. AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN April 13, 2009 It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner. Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime: • In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. • Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. • Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: • Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. • During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. • Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. • Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. • At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. • Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner. Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2225517/posts www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1784Questions: Q. If our assault rate has risen over time then why has our homicide rate gone down. A. As there are less guns in our community those committing the assault will have less likely to have one available, therefore the intended assault is less likely to turn into a homicide. Q. How does a ban on semi automatic rifles cause the sexual assault rate to increase. A. It doesn't, there has never been a "right to carry" in Australia, those rates have gone up for many reasons, including the increased in incident reporting, and the poor sentencing for many offenders. (And remember the gun bans have had only one stated aim, reduce the incidence of shooting sprees in Australia) Q. If the proliferation of guns is an aide to personal safety then why doesn't the USA have the same per capita rate homicide or a lower rate then Western Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. A. Because guns are a more efficient way of killing people. An argument is more likely to turn into a murder with a gun around, and there are more guns in America.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 24, 2013 7:52:55 GMT -6
. If our assault rate has risen over time then why has our homicide rate gone down. A. As there are less guns in our community those committing the assault will have less likely to have one available, therefore the intended assault is less likely to turn into a homicide. Q. How does a ban on semi automatic rifles cause the sexual assault rate to increase. A. It doesn't, there has never been a "right to carry" in Australia, those rates have gone up for many reasons, including the increased in incident reporting, and the poor sentencing for many offenders. (And remember the gun bans have had only one stated aim, reduce the incidence of shooting sprees in Australia) Q. If the proliferation of guns is an aide to personal safety then why doesn't the USA have the same per capita rate homicide or a lower rate then Western Europe, Canada, Australia or New Zealand. A. Because guns are a more efficient way of killing people. An argument is more likely to turn into a murder with a gun around, and there are more guns in America. Well, I'll say this. You're quite the glutton for punishment. As to the questions posed above, how could we know? It's your country. Do your own homework.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 24, 2013 8:27:10 GMT -6
It seems to me by reading all this, some countrys like Australia see the gun issue as a public health issue, not a criminal issue ?
Yet the ownership of guns & criminal use of does not go hand and hand. Look at Switzerland, where most households it is required by law to have a gun, as part of their National defense ??
|
|