Oh, LEGO. You presume too much.

<<Here in Australia...>>

Despite his nom de plume, o sung wu is as Australian as they come and served in the NSW police service for decades.

<<Crime rates have been rising steadily alongside prosperity throughout the western world since the mid sixties.>>

No, since the ‘70s, the overall crime rate has been on the decline (with a temporary increase from the early ‘80s to early ‘90s). Only assaults have been on the rise. (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2013.html)

<<And this despite very significant advances in crime detection … there should be hardly any crime at all.>>

You’re assuming that all crime is rationally thought out. Most isn’t, and the risks involved in the few crimes that are rationally thought out are always underestimated.

<<But prisons in NSW are full and getting fuller.>>

Yes, and there are a variety of reasons for that (many of which can be summed up by the more punitive societies that we live in now), and an even more complex interplay of factors are involved regarding America’s rise in serious juvenile crime.

But because YOU can’t explain any of this, you blame one of your pet peeves - violence in media. The relationship between violent media and aggression in children is complex and not yet fully understood. It varies from child to child and much of it is only a short-term display of increased aggression. However, there is no evidence yet linking violent media to crime - either adolescent-limited, or life-course-persistent.

All your arguments are based on carefully cherry-picked, allowing you to fill in the blanks. Explaining crime is more complex than you understand.

<<But western societies are sick and getting sicker.>>

Actually, by any sociological measure, they’re getting better and better, overall. Why, it was only 70 odd years ago that much of the world was at war because a Western country(!) was ruled by a mad man. And you think prisons are filling now? Britain prisons were once so full that they colonised an entire continent just to ease some of the pressure on them.

Oh, where was it again..?

I would be astounded if the incidence of home burglary was not shown to be on the rise. The police closure figures are heading in the opposite direction. Given that many offenders are committing the crimes to support a drug habit, the risk of harm to the home occupants cannot be discounted.

Crime numbers are also affected by the lack of reporting, because the victims believe that the loss was small or because they don't believe police will be interested or likely to make and arrest. -However the risk of harm to them if they had happened to stumble across a drug-affected offender may have been high. As well, the changing demographics through immigration can increase the likelihood of attack where the offender perceives the victim's life as low value.

Discussion of the rights of the honest, responsible, law-abiding citizens who include (say) air-gun competition at their local club on the weekend as one of their favoured recreations, should not be framed any discussion of crime and violence which has nothing to do with them. That is unless like any other member of the public they are an unfortunate victim of an attack in the street or in their home.

Again it is worth reminding that the illegal possession and use of firearms is very much restricted to criminal gangs, largely ethnic Bikies and for territory, enduring hatreds and always involving the manufacture, trafficking and supply of drugs.

The reason why 'Gun Control' activists must conflate the unlawful, harmful actions of criminals with the lawful, innocent and helpful (eg in feral animal culling) recreational pursuits of the licensed citizens become very plain, doesn't it? It is all shameless lies to frame-up, a stitch-up and negatively stereotype respectable, law-abiding members of the public to disarm them, just because.

There has to be something behind the extreme lengths that 'gun control's' activists and those shadowy figures and political interests behind them go to to avoid disclosure and how they shrink from public scrutiny. Thay have to disarm Australia, why?

To make way for the New World Order of course otb, why else?

Gun owners first, climate change deniers next and Christians after that!

MUHAHAHAHA

Hi (again) LEGO...

I tend to agree with you concerning your assertions that many young people are influenced by violent video games and 'R18' DVD's. Many have even adopted the language spoken by some of these fictitious hero's ?

Furthermore from my own empirical knowledge, some ethnic groups believe the possession, carriage and use of a F/A as a right. I again mount my 'high horse' ? The coppers will lock up these people, and spend hours and hours assembling a good brief. They get to court, and some progressive left leaning magistrate will either cut 'em loose' or if they're unable to do so, sentence them to a hundred strokes with a large feather !

Moreover if the matter is kicked upstairs, some 'jelly judge' will generally opine the accused is remorseful, because he didn't estreat his bail on a capital offence, and sentence him to ten minutes with time served ? You wonder why most detectives experience hypertension !There's your problem LEGO, or to be more precise...? The problem lies with politicians, and an out of touch judiciary.

It's little wonder morale is consistently low at squad level. Detectives have to do their job despite the best endeavours of politicians and a bloated, overtly arrogant judiciary.

How does one find out how many people there are in "Gun Control Australia"?

'Twas said that there were two of them and that they had a Gestetner, rumour has it that there are now four members and that they have a computer and a printer.

We don't really know.

Dear LEGO,

You wrote;

“En guarde, Steelie.”

Which is very much like the retort from a certain Black Knight “It's only a flesh wound!”.

I find it interesting that you keep rolling premises my way. I offered none. All I've done is hold yours up to the cold hard light of facts and found them wanting.

But if you've asked me to clarify a position and I'm happy to do so.

Howard's Gun Laws were primarily aimed at reducing mass shootings and by any measure they have been spectacularly successful in that very endevour. In a very real sense they were about securing a universal freedom, that of being able, with one's family, walk down an inner city thoroughfare like Hoddle Street or visit a tourist attraction like Port Arthur without fearing a crazed lone gunman might take them from you.

You tell us “Switzerland has very low crime rates and every house has an assault rifle.” but they also have mass shootings like this on in 2001;

“He started shooting in the hall where the members of parliament were meeting. He killed three members of the Executive Council ("Regierungsräte") and eleven members of the legislature ("Kantonsräte"), and wounded 18 politicians and journalists, some heavily. He fired 91 rounds.”

Leibacher “was armed with a civilian version of a Stgw 90 (Swiss Army assault rifle), a SIG Sauer pistol, a pump-action shotgun, and a revolver, and he wore a home-made police vest.”
Wikipedia

Cont...