LEGO,

So now I'm just a heckler? Convenient, isn't it? You avoid quoting others at all costs (and when you do, you re-word it), so that you can misconstrue what they say and respond to that instead. And that's when you bother to respond to an argument at all. Then you repeat your old discredited claims as if nothing was said or asked in response to them. Then, when someone uses humour to convey the absurdity of the situation, you accuse them of heckling or using “sneery on-liners”.

It’s thoroughly dishonest, but I don’t think you even realise you do it.

No-one like discussion with you, LEGO. So much so that when you come across someone with a bit more patience, like myself, you have no idea what's going on and therefore assume that they must be using "tricks".

<<The premise which you are implying, ... is that rising crime in Australia is a figment of the public's imagination.>>

Implying? No, I thought I'd stated that clearly enough.

<<It was, however, a premise you did not support with an argument.>>

Yes, I did. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310193, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310247, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17534#310318)

<<...and I have Lucy Sullivan's book full of statistics and graphs with which I can quote.>>

Yes, and you still haven’t negated any of my points highlighting the problems in her data.

<<Similarly, the older generation know that what you are saying is complete BS.>>

Yes, and I’m sure they were all there busy accounting for the dark figure of crime and acts that were not yet considered crimes.

There was still a heap of shooting massacres in America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States), you just didn’t hear about them all. In Australia, there was the Hope Forest massacre and the Whiskey Au Go Go arson in the early seventies in Australia.

As for your list of scary facts, you’re taking a very narrow view of what constitutes crime (and assaults are up, after all). Have you bothered to factor in white collar crime? Here’s some US stats for you http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-25/news/ct-oped-1225-chapman-20111225_1_golden-age-crime-and-property-crime-homicide-rate.

Also, I’ve only claimed a decrease since the ‘70s. However, the world is still less violent overall.

AJ Philips, "As for my opinion on the gun control issue. Intuitively, I’d say it’s a good thing."

More correctly you should be calling that psychological bias in decision-making. There is already an abundance of fundamental attribution error and confirmation bias already apparent in the OP (article) without adding to it.

The goal of 'Gun control'(sic) is the complete confiscation and banning of the possession and use of firearms for all but the State. That is totalitarianism. It is most often promoted by leftists, who believe in State control, a Big State and are always flirting with bans and unnecessary or over-regulation. They always presume to know what is best for others and it is their way or the highway.

'Gun control' activists deliberately conflate the good guys, the many thousands of responsible licensed firearms owners (many of whom have had licences for longer than most here have been alive) with the small proportion of nasty types and their unlawful activities - criminals, almost invariably drug-dealing organised criminal gangs.

That is to negatively stereotype good responsible citizens as 'red necks' and worse, to poison the well against them and deny them their freedom and rights as citizens. That is also to pretend that those fine upright citizens have no interest in crime prevention, which is laughable.

Who better to advise government on the risk-assessment, risk management and evidence-based regulation affecting firearms than the responsible, law-abiding citizens who have held licences for years?

Who worse to take advice from than the highly secretive 'gun control' activists who refuse to even give the basic details that any reputable association would give as a usual course, eg., sources of their support and money and political and other links domestically and overseas?

Australians would rightly have reservations about secret-squirrel political lobbyists who are alleged to receive sponsorship from by a shady overseas billionaire currency dealer and have similarly undisclosed political links in Australia.

Hi there LEGO...

Let me share something with you, about our pompous, hauteur and affected little friend, A J PHILLIPS. He's admitted to me, ad nauseam, '...I speak from well-established theories...' ? There lies his trouble. Everything that emanates from the lads mouth is theory. To be hoped he matures sufficiently, to offer up, an original thought of his own ?

Something you can take to the bank LEGO - whenever you're dealing with a human being, you learn their responses, under stress, are unique and distinctive. No individual, will react exactly the same as another, and in no way could any one person be described as conceptually 'theory based'? Sure you can cumulate 'genres'. However police generally work in the singular.

A simple example; a routine NFA (Next of kin fatal advisory) - Some people react quite predictably when you first tell them, they often cry, they sob, often disbelieve you ? Many claim we've made a mistake ? While others say very little, just offer a cup of coffee and a simply thank you, and close the front door. You just don't known nor can you pick it. While it's true, when you join the job, they teach you some basic strategies, in reality you just learn to 'wing it' as it were ?

Bottom line LEGO, whenever you deal with a human being you quickly learn they're can be the unpredictable, uncertain, and erratic, whenever they're confronted by something unexpected ? The presence of police at their private dwelling or place if work, is still a serious affront to most people's sensibilities and more often, unwelcome.

Theory alone, can't equip you to safely and effectively deal with people with differing levels of agitation and tenseness. A sound theory base, can be an elementary template in some circumstances.

For this reason, I believe our little friend A J PHILLIPS gets his 'knickers all twisted' because he wants to be taken seriously, and NOT suffer a rebuff or a dismissal from others who find much of what he says as patent nonsense.

onthebeach,

Relax. o sung wu simply asked me for an opinion not based on any reasoning, so I gave him one. It was not meant to be a reasoned stance.

o sung wu,

Clearly you are a highly unstable person with some serious emotional issues. Probably the result of a lifetime on the job.

You take a step back from the offensive to ask two reasonably polite questions, then, after receiving a polite answer, you launch another personal attack. Only this time, you are too cowardly to address it to me. You also show signs of paranoia with an unfounded description of me and talk of ‘people like me’.

<<He's admitted to me, ad nauseam, '...I speak from well-established theories...' ?>>

“Ad nausem”? When have I said that before, let alone repetitively?

And “admitted”? You make it sound like it’s something shameful that needs to be dragged out of me. The ignorance you display next reveals why…

<<There lies his trouble. Everything that emanates from the lads mouth is theory.>>

In science, a theory is well-establish and confirmed explanation for something (so to that extent, my “well-established theories” was a pleonasm), not just some dreamt-up musing as it is in the more colloquial sense.

<<…our little friend A J PHILLIPS gets his 'knickers all twisted' because he wants to be taken seriously...>>

Hey, I’ve been perfectly calm here. The only signs of stress have come from LEGO and his referring to my “Muslim friends”. But you ignore that. The only reason I mentioned my qualifications earlier is because LEGO’s display of confidence was unusual given that I wasn’t even an expert on the last topic we discussed and he still failed.

I’m sorry this is difficult for you to watch, o sung wu. If interpreting my discussion with LEGO as a desire on my behalf to big-note myself or have others take me seriously - or if interpreting my tone as showing signs of stress - works as a coping mechanism, then you go for it. But you have no right to come here and abuse others.

You need help.

Thank you A J PHILLIPS, indeed I do need help, as with nearly hundred retired (mainly) detectives who've had to take their previous vocation well into their precious retirement time ? Because there's been a hitherto, unholy collaboration, between DPP and Defence Counsel, having Court (Trials) being listed (intrudingly), almost sixteen months into some members retirement ? The first near sensible thing you've unwittingly uttered A J PHILLIPS ?

A J Philips,

Thank you for your reply.

o sung wu, "The presence of police at their private dwelling or place if work, is still a serious affront to most people's sensibilities and more often, unwelcome"

Yes and every single one of the good, reputable citizens with firearms licences must accept regular, random inspections and interrogations in their place of residence.

You would not be surprised that the police with firearms licences and there are many, dislike it as an affront as well. After all, criminals don't have to put up with that cr@p without good cause being shown why the interest. Yet it is the criminals who have the illegal guns and for unlawful purposes of course.

Imagine Tom (or his wife), a pillar of society who has been duly licensed, owned and used firearms for forty plus years being asked by neighbours why the fully marked police car and long police visit. Later that day a caring neighbour, Wendy, appears to provide womanly support while enquiring diplomatically, "Hey Linda, don't like to ask but we are worried about you and the family. To be honest, Anne across the street saw the police too. Is there anything wrong? Are things OK between Tom and you, because you can always come over to us for a while".

So, what is the right reply that assuages concern and maintains privacy?

Police I know are very annoyed that they are required to add useless, annoying inspections at the homes of ordinary law-abiding people who have done nothing wrong and likely never would and it is all on the top of the paperwork and police 'service' obligations. They do NOT have that time to waste and they are rightly concerned that they are being made to interview and inspect at the homes of people they know to be respectable and law-abiding.