Swords outlawed?

[Beka]

I will hold you to your word Beka.

 

Well then I didn't mean it . I just find the whole red scare a little bit humorous. Not for all those people that were accused of communism (as if that were a crime!?), but for those of us now who are completely removed. For one, the cold war is over, most people know that communism doesn't work, and the whole "oh no! they's gunna takes away baybay jaysus!" mentality cracks me up.

 

I don't care what people believe so long as what they believe doesn't impinge on another's personal freedoms. Everyone has their own definition of what that is. As for me, I'm a definite liberal, but not in the typical sense. I wouldn't call myself a socialist, but I really love and admire the social welfare state in the Scandinavian countries. They have it great over there. Sweden doesn't have homeless people!! Can you stop for a second and imagine a place like that!?!?! Ah, I love it.

 

As for my non-liberalness, I think responsible adults should be allowed to own registered and highly regulated firearms. The only problem is that I wouldn't trust most people I've met in my life with a gun. As a martial artist, I think that the katana ban in Australia is a bad idea. I heard abotu this a long time ago, and some liberal pals of mine didn't like my take on the issue. The thing is, people will fight. I hate to admit it, but that's what animals do. If people want to kill each other, I can't really stop them, so I'd rather they duked it out with a knife fight, rather than a shootout. At least one of them will be seriously injured or dead no matter what weapon is used, but if they're sword fighting, Little Suzy Six Year Old who goes riding by on her tricycle most likely won't catch a stray bullet (or a stray blade, those things just don't fly as far as bullets).

 

I really want to learn kenjutsu, so I would be very upset if my access to learning was cut off.

 

Also, I'm not theoretically against the death penalty. I don't like the idea of state-sanctioned capital punishment, because for one, they are often wrong, people are often wrongly accused and convicted (just one wrongly convicted man on death row is enough for me), there is a strong reason to believe that certain sentences are racially motivated, and also, I don't think the state has the right.

 

My love of Scandinavia comes through again, as I am very interested in the idea of blood feud. I don't like the way it actually worked out in Iceland (but it was pretty functional for a while), but I think people should be allowed to avenge the crimes against themselves and their loved ones. Preferably through empty-handed or non-firearm techniques (bullets, ya know). I know revenge doesn't equal justice, but in certain cases, i think it should be allowed and understood that a certain person had it coming. Of course, there will have to be rules to the whole thing (even the Icelanders knew that burning one's house down was wrong--you could be outlawed for just *talking* about doing it)

 

Those are really the only places where I stray from being liberal. And I still don't agree with free gun ownership or the current system of capital punishment. So, there you go.

[kchenault]

For one, the cold war is over, most people know that communism doesn't work, and the whole "oh no! they's gunna takes away baybay jaysus!" mentality cracks me up.

 

That's a little condescending, don't ya think? Do you even remember much of the mid to late 80's? It was a very scary time to be alive. I remember as a teenager, the fear of being blown to atoms by nuclear weapons. And not all Christians are backwoods Southerners. Religious freedom is a right given by the Constitution. The same can't be said for other things being shoved down believers throats in this day and age. But I veer far away from the subject I started.

 

Criminals don't play by the rules, and America's law enforcement doesn't do, or is not allowed to do, it's job most times. Too bad for the Australians, but we don't have to let it happen to us here.

[Vito]

yea, australia goes pretty far... they even banned grand theft auto 3 because of the games content. cencorship going too far, perhaps? and while im at it, * the aclu... what good do they do? they help a robber sue someone for shooting them in the very house he was breaking in to? * off with that *.

[Beka]

Crime escalated in Australia when they made citizens turn in thrir guns, because the criminals didn't turn in theirs.

 

Something worth noting: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

[delta1]

the old adage says that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure,

 

OK, I've avoided this here so far. But what th' heck- let's play "Who's the Liar", shall we!?

In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so.

 

What's not so is this argument. The piece made no such claim, nor did it lead anyone to believe this. Read it yourself, then you decide. I think the author of this 'rebuttal' is the liar.

the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

 

Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback.

 

Two problems here:

 

The author is so big on the other guy stating his stats, numbers and sources. But note that he breezes right on by this point without any- accurate or otherwise. Liar!

 

What is suspect is the re( ! )or, ( ( ! ) for short). We've already established that this claim was not made. Niether did the ( ! ) tell us how many or what percentage of firearms were left in private hands- perhaps it would have not been to his advantage??? This one is a push, and pushes go to the dealer (original author). We'll just say 'looser' instead of liar here. (I'm a magnanimous ( ! ) ).

But beyond that, most of the statistics offered here are misleading and present only "first year results" where long-term trends need to be considered in order to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions.

 

*! You/we can draw conclusions after a year. Long term trends may be more telling. But they also give the politicians and other liars time to skew the stats, so watch out. After all, they are liars!

For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.)

 

The demographics in Australia probably did not change that much in one year. If he's going to make that kind of claim, he's going to have to come up with some good stats to back it up. His general claims that it could happen don't hold water. Lieing sod!

 

 

Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%).

 

Well, only 171%? That's a real improvement! I'm sure the 12 extra victims would be thrilled to know that.

Moreover, the opening paragraph mixes two very different types of statistics — number of homicides vs. percentage of homicides committed with firearms. In the latter case, it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years.

 

Horse dung! The ( ! ) knows the point was that homicides are up because the criminal element knows they have less to fear from an (un)armed citizenry. This argument is misleading- in other words, a lie.

 

 

Other claims offered here, such as the statement that "While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months" and "There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly" are even more difficult to evaluate, because they don't offer any figures or standards of measurement at all.

 

Or because you just don't want to believe it. (Liar.)

The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here.

 

By all means, let's make this as difficult as possible! That way it will be harder to spotthe lies!

 

So, are all 'liberals' liars? No! Only the pseudo intellectual types that believe their own hype about 'conservatives' being a bunch of idiots and offer up this kind of drivel for our perusal.

 

Also, if you read this article and believed it, are you a liar? No! You're just dumber than a box of rocks... !!!!!

Edited July 15, 2004 by delta1

[delta1]

For one, the cold war is over, most people know that communism doesn't work, and the whole "oh no! they's gunna takes away baybay jaysus!" mentality cracks me up.

 

That's a little condescending, don't ya think? Do you even remember much of the mid to late 80's? It was a very scary time to be alive.

 

Well, thanks to Bill Clinton the cold war is not over. Last I checked, the Chinese were still Communists, and still want to bury us. And WJBC gave them the technology to accurately deliver their warheads anywhere in the world, as well as the codes we use to communicate with our satelites. But, hey, that's a small price for us to pay so Billy could get a campaign contribution from the ChiComms.

 

Thanks to Reagan, we won the cold war. Thanks to Clinton, my children will have to fight it again, in all probability. Just makes me proud to be an American!

[steveb]

Actually it's not Chinese communism you have to worry about, it's Chinese capitalism. The Chinese economy is growing hand over fist since they started implementing free-market reforms in certain sectors. This has moved China to the number 2 consumer of fossil fuels in the world, just behind the USA. With the Chinese thirst for oil and other scarce natural resources growing rapidly and our own consumption certainly not decreasing we are on a collision couse.

 

Anyone remember the reason Japan attacked the US in WW2? We cut off their access to oil and other resources.

[torris]

Uhm. As far as swords go....

 

In the United States, I believe it is ALREADY illegal in most states to carry a sword in public, isn't it?

[47MartialMan]

The pen is mightier than the sword