…Continued

Clearly you didn’t even read it given this next claim...

<<All you are doing is destroying your own credibility with any readers who pick up a newspaper or watch the TV news every day.>>

Oh, and such a reliable medium the media is, too, with its over-reporting on (specifically) violent crime, for the purpose of attracting readers/viewers, to the detriment of any other crime reporting.

<<Now, we were discussing kidnapping, and that term usually denotes the forcible abduction of a person for the purpose of forcing a relative to pay a ransom.>>

Not according to the ABS: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/cfi/101-120/cfi103.html

So your points with regards to kidnapping are irrelevant.

<<Ummm, no. That is the first time I have ever seen you admit that.>>

Ummm, no. The two discussions in the links I referred to were specifically in regards to the reasons for the higher crime rates observed among some immigrant groups. Why would I try to explain something that I denied?

<<AJ's premise that ethnicity and crime are not linked…>>

That depends on what you mean by “linked”. They would be linked to the extent that the higher crime rates amongst some groups would be slowing down the decline in crime by an exceptionally small extent.

<<...the idea of widespread ethnic crime is just a manifestation of media sensationalism, is more worthy of hilarity than serious consideration.>>

No, not just media sensationalism. If you’d stop repeating yourself, we might actually get to the other reasons for such perceptions sometime this year.

<<It is a scientific fact that violent media and real life violence are linked.>>

I like how you say “real life violence” instead of “crime” now. You’ve been doing your homework there, at least.

<<Lastly, we have the breakdown in societies most important socialising agent.>>

Well it’s pretty impressive that the overall crime rate has managed to decline despite this then, wouldn’t you say? Or perhaps forcing expecting young people to marry when they fall pregnant, and making it near impossible for them to divorce when they’re unhappy together, is more damaging?

But that’s a whole other story.

I did hope that someone would attempt to refute my conclusion that the Lyndt Cafe siege was proof that the gun laws had failed, but no such luck.

Well, to all of you that cling to the pious and erroneous belief that the gun laws are a success because there have been no more massacres; the attempt by Monis failed because men with guns killed him and for no other reason.

But not 'civilians' with guns Is Mise.

Is Mise, if you regard anything less than 100% success as failure, you're going to be very disappointed.

Do you also oppose our seatbelt laws because people are still injured in car accidents?

Aidan,

There was proof that seat belts saved lives.

There is no such proof that the 'Gun Control'(sic) inspired regulations could ever do anything but implement bans based on emotional over-reaction, hysteria and of course trample on the rights of ordinary citizens who have already been proved to be of good character and crime free.

To say again, there is no comparison between 'Gun Control'(sic) and the reasonable, proven alternative, which is effective, risk-based, regulation and management of firearms that results in evidence-based laws that are effective, efficient and robust.

Good laws enjoy the full support of the public. Good laws do not need to be sold through shameful tactics of fudging numbers and facts. Fear mongering, wedge politics and secret squirrel political deals behind closed doors are not required where laws are based on evidence and fair.

'Gun Control' is the euphemism for the complete disarming of the citizens of the Western democracies. It is about confiscations from ordinary law-abiding citizens by the State under force of arms by the State. 'Gun Control' is totalitarianism.

It is most unfortunate that the debate is framed by secretive 'Gun Control' activists Activists who are cozied up with extremely secretive wealthy individuals and political interests who interfere in the domestic politics of other countries and manipulate behind the scenes, when there are perfectly reasonable, tried and tested OPEN ways of discussing the subject. Quite obviously 'Gun Control' is not the goal so what should be? Why not take the proved risk-assessment route for starters?

How many weapons did Mad Monis have?

How many fully automatic or semi-automatic rifles?
How many handguns?