|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
fair point. just dont go accusing me of wanting to be a slave coz i disagree with you regarding the ways in which legal systems work or should work. ie not every nation has to conform with what the US views as the best way forward in terms of how a liberal democracy functions. australia doesnt have a bill of rights, nor a constitution that guarantees us natural or civil rights, and we get along ok  |
Based on your statments prior, I had to pinpoint what you wanted to do and be as opposed to whom you think I am. Quite the difference.
| quote: | | quite possibly, though its also likely id see them as one and the same. |
No, they are not.
Civil Rights Are rights held by individuals and groups derived from the social contract - the common consent of society at large to the rules under which its members live. The term relates in particular to the ideas outlined by Rousseau in The Social Contract. Under this conception, civil rights derive from society rather than God or nature [see Human Rights, and Natural Rights] and can be changed. On the one hand this gives the state the power to deprive people of liberties they once had (e.g. the ability to drugs, or to drink alcohol), but also enables "progressive" political groups to argue for new "rights", for instance the "right to vote" or the "right to healthcare".Rights such as these cannot be derived from nature as they depend on particular (and not commonly achieved) degrees of social organization and wealth.
Natural Rights Are rights possessed by all human beings derived from nature. These are thus distinct from the rights derived from membership in society derived from a changeable social contract. The "right" to a free education, for example, cannot be a natural right since it depends on contingent factors such as the wealth of a given society. But the right to be treated fairly in a court case could be connected to a fundamental right to justice. In practice, the rights that have been understood as "natural rights" have varied from society to society.
The idea of intrinsic rights ultimately depends on the belief that value is inherent in the structure of the universe, and is thus connected to theories of Natural Law. In the modern world the American Declaration of Independence makes the connection clear - deriving the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", from "nature and nature's God". The genealogy of these ideas goes back to the English philosopher John Locke, who was influenced by the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker. Hooker in term reflected common medieval ideas about natural law, found for instance in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. But neither Aquinas nor any other Christian originated "natural law", which has roots in the Hellenistic philosophy called Stoicism..
Brooklyn College Glossary
| quote: | | yes, when compared to any random walking down the street, absolutely. the fewer guns in a society, the harder they are to access by those who would misuse them. and again, id like to point out that i dont believe guns cause crime!!! |
So the government being the sole owner of guns is ok by you? Tell that to anyone that has seen their family die at the hand of their own governments. Just because there might a utopia now in Australia doesn't mean a dystopia is not possible.
And I am sure there are those that have seen violent regimes in their lives that have said to themselves: "If we only had guns.."
| quote: | no, but i see quoting sun tzu to be about as useful as lucas to be honest.
|
Sun Tzu's writing of the Art of War has been seen as a guide for everyday life for some.
Whereas, Mr. Lucas's claim to fame was a bunch of fictional movies set in a galaxy far, far away. A far cry from realistic ideals and strategies. Sun Tzu benefits a minds' strategies, whereas Mr. Lucas benefits from the box office.
| quote: | Weapons used against victims of crime
A weapon was most likely to have been used in attempted murder (76%) and murder (58%), and least likely in sexual assault (1%) in 2003. The proportion of murders involving a weapon peaked in 1996 at 78% and has since declined to 58% in 2003; similarly for attempted murders weapon use peaked in 1997 at 87% and decreased to 76% in 2003 (graph 11.11). The proportion of assault offences involving a weapon increased from 10% in 1995 to 13% in 2003. The proportion of robberies in which a weapon was used increased each year from 36% in 1994 to 46% in 1998, and has since gradually declined to 36% in 2003 (table 11.12).
oz bureau of stats |
Flawed assumption where the use of the word weapon is misleading.
What types of weapons where used?
What is the ratio of weapons and crime?
To equate guns as being the only source of crime in those stats is just wrong. You'd have to get more detailed than that.
| quote: | for those too lazy, we had 38 firearm murders, & 71 firearm attempted murders for 2003. now, whether you believe stats or not, the difference from 8000 to 38 is remarkable. even 380 (US is roughly 10x Australia's population) doesnt even come close.
overall trend:
link
i dont see any trend between our introduction of stricter gun legislation and an overall increase in crime.
quote:
Firearm use in murders peaked at 32% in 1996, but has since declined steadily to 13% in 2003 which is the lowest level on record. For attempted murders in 2003, a firearm was used in 20% of offences, marginally above its low of 19% in 1998 and well below its high of 32% in 1999 (graph 11.13). |
Great you did some research. But by their own account:
| quote: | Incidents of crime reported to police
Many factors influence whether or not a victim will report an incident they perceive as a crime to police, and these factors change for different offences. The victim's desire for further action, and their perception of police willingness and ability to deal with the incident, can impact on the victim reporting the incident to police. Reporting of property offences will also be influenced by external factors such as insurance company requirements for police reports prior to processing claims. Victims of personal crimes are much less likely to report the offence to police than victims of property crimes. |
| quote: | | very true. but i would argue that a person invading my house in australia is a lot less likely to have a firearm than if i were living in the US. if it came down to a choice between both of us armed, and neither, id choose neither every time. |
You left out a knife as a weapon. Albeit if guns used in the commission of a home invasion is lower than that of a knife, I wouldn't want to recite stats in my mind before any attempt was made on my life or someone elses'.
| quote: | so now i have some stats to disagree with you donny, what you gonna do now? you have your stats, i have mine. is why i dont trust stats!  |
Are you admitting that stats are flawed? If so then your argument is flawed being that you used these and others as your prime motivation.
| quote: | | i totally agree mate. its much much deeper than gun laws. but i am still of the opinion that a greater number of guns in a society makes their abuse more likely. look at ogvh5150's chart above that states the majority of guns in criminal's hands are stolen. in australia, its comparitely more difficult to steal a firearm than it is in the US. |
Although the majority of guns were stolen for the use of a crime they were not necessarily stolen by the aggressor.
___________________
|
