I know that I should not give my opponents debating tips AJ, but simply cutting and pasting quotes from me, and dismissing them with sneery one liners, is hardly a reasoned argument. You would be better off submitting paragraphs consisting of two or more sentences, because it would make you seem knowledgeable. Your tactics at the moment, mark you indelibly to the audience as a spoiler, who resorts to poor sarcasm as a way to mask the fact that he can not align his scattered thoughts together into a cohesive argument.

And if you wish to continue claiming that crime is not rising, please go right ahead. The older generation will know straight away that you are a moron, while the younger generation, who have been boiled in rising crime like frogs, will at least suspect that your premise is nonsense. Once your credibility is shot, you have lost the debate.

My premise is, that the tide of rising crime throughout the western world is caused primarily by three factors. The first is, the importation of people from very violent ethnic and religious groups, who I think are genetically, or at very least culturally, disproportionately prone to violent behaviour. That certain ethnicities and cultures are disproportionately represented in serious crime, is hardly deniable. But I hope that you are stupid enough to deny it.

The next two reasons are related. That is, that the entertainment industry is glamourising violence, criminal behaviour, and drug abuse to our most vulnerable demographics. If you think that the media can not influence behaviour, then you must think it should be OK for alcohol producers and cigarette manufacturers to advertise in children's magazines. Oddly enough, although we have strict controls on the promotion of these legal wares in the media, we have no controls on pop stars and role model movie stars promoting criminal behaviour and drug abuse on screen.

The strange exemption that the movie industry has when promoting anti social values, has been recognised by advertisers. Movie stars now routinely smoke in "incidental" smoking scenes, much to the fury of anti smoking campaigners.

A J PHILLIPS...

What exactly do you know about F/A crimes ? Those matters which are specifically enjoined to this Topic ? Not some vague data, that you've teased from some dusty tome inadvertently filed on the wrong shelf amongst 'fiduciary duties of criminologists' ?

Your own opinion and views please, your own suggestion(s) - not an extract from some long forgotten academic who's never seen a gun, let alone observed the damage or the benefit from discharging a gun ? Show this bigoted, intolerant and partisan old copper his wrong ? Show us all, your stuff there A J PHILLIPS ?

"Ice bullets, centrifugal guns, coilguns?

Mate, I'm done. You're too much"

Can't help keeping myself up to date!

3D printed guns are already making the gun control freaks quake in their fancy footware.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printed_firearms
for a bit on the latest technology.

Fifty years ago I saw a petrol driven machine gun fired on the Holdsworthy Military Range (NSW). It was a linear accelerator using a chain saw as the accelerator; estimated muzzle velocity was 1,500 ft/sec. The steel projectiles were spitzer point approx, 1 inch in length.

LEGO,

You’ve used the “sneery one-liners” argument before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856&page=0) and it didn’t work then, so what makes you think it will work this time? I’ll tell ya what. How about you give me an example of where I don’t respond to what you’ve actually said, and I’ll walk away now with my tail between my legs. Of course, we know you won’t, because you can’t. You’ve never been able to.

<<You would be better off submitting paragraphs consisting of two or more sentences, because it would make you seem knowledgeable.>>

I do. The first time. There’s no need to the second, third, fourth, or fifth time when I can refer back to an old response you've ignored.

<<…if you wish to continue claiming that crime is not rising, please go right ahead. The older generation will know straight away that you are a moron…>>

Only those who are not aware of the changes in media reporting and the additional coverage that technology enables, along with the factors I mentioned earlier, of course.

<<My premise is, that the tide of rising crime throughout the western world is caused primarily by…>>

Yeah, I already addressed those here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310194, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310115, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310290, and, to a lesser extent, here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310247. That you choose to ignore me and press on regardless is not my problem.

There’s your idea of a “sneery one-liner”. You need some new material.

o sung wu,

That’s a pretty broad question. What about firearm crimes do you want to know? From a psychological and sociological perspective their causes are near identical. From a crime theory perspective (particularly a routine activities theory perspective) firearms make confrontation and fatalities more likely because the perpetrator doesn’t need to consider their physical strength.

By the way, I speak from well-established theories. If you have anything to suggest otherwise, beyond your own creative descriptions and uninformed opinions of them, then I’d love to hear it.

As for my opinion on the gun control issue. Intuitively, I’d say it’s a good thing. I’m not sure how that’s supposed to expose you as an intolerant bigot though.

I am an experienced debater AJ, and I know how to handle hecklers like you. I once thought that people with opposing views could be swayed by reasoned argument. All I had to do was keep talking sense and sooner or later, cracks would start to appear in my opponents logic, which even they could not ignore. But then I realised that some people desperately do not want to change their opinion. They are prepared to do anything to avoid seeing that which they most definitely do not want to see. So, we are both now playing to our audience. You are persisting with you heckling style, which is OK with me. I know that submitting reasoned arguments is more effective.

The premise which you are implying, because you are too frightened to state plainly state a premise you will have to defend, is that rising crime in Australia is a figment of the public's imagination. It is caused by increased media publicity. It was, however, a premise you did not support with an argument. My premise is that crime in Australia is rising, and I have Lucy Sullivan's book full of statistics and graphs with which I can quote. Similarly, the older generation know that what you are saying is complete BS.

We know that when we were young, firearms were sold everywhere and they were easy to obtain. But there were no massacres. No housing estates like "the Bronx" in Fairfield, where ambulance officers and fire crews refused to enter, for fear of being pelted with rocks and bottles by teenaged hooligans. Schools did not have permanent security guards to protect teachers. Mobile security patrols did not follow buses in certain parts of Sydney to prevent attacks by hooligans. In one attack, a female driver was raped. Police stations and churches were not being shot up. There were no nightly shootings in the area between Auburn and Punchbowl. Taxi drivers were not protected by plexiglass screens. Off duty police like Constable McCarty were not ambushed and murdered by ethnic gangs armed with machetes. Kids did not kill kids

John Howard is the father of the Australian Gun Lobby, were it not for him the Shooter's and Fisher's Party and other groups would not exist.
He also has the distinction of being the only Australian politician to have a round of ammunition named in his honour, the .38JWH.
This round replaces the venerable .45 Colt semi-automatic pistol round which was banned when legal pistol calibres were reduced to .38.
This was a prime example of a stupid and useless law; in my own case I had to sell my .45 calibre revolver and I then bought one of the same make and model in .357 Magnum, a much more powerful pistol.

The aim of the legislation was to limit the power of available pistols, in this it failed miserably, yet it is still on the books.
The .38JWH is a prime example as it that it replaced.

John Howard was also only the second PM to lose his seat whilst still in office, the number of votes by which he lost was smaller than the number of voters in his electorate who said that they intended to change their vote because of the gun laws.

Funny that.