I can see why you do not like any sites that check facts. If you are actually aware of and upset by any specific fact-finding articles by PolitiFact or Snopes, can you indicate which they are and how, exactly, you feel they are in error?
Yeah but Crocodile Dundee aside not that many are with large hunting knives, Most domestic arguments that escalate to violence end with one partner attacking the other with whatever is closest to hand - and a breadknife wound causes far less morbidity than a gunshot wound. It STILL does not negate the fact that our homicide rate is around 1/10th of yours regardless BTW - love the "shell game" in that sentence you quoted. If you do not read it carefully it gives the impression that half of the armed robberies ended in death caused by a knife. Nice one - how to lie without actually doing so - we call that a "Clayton's"
Oh! Of all the unmitigated bulltwang!!! A right wing blog pseudo-intellectual think tank spewing out yet more nonsense A) There was no "gun ban" so complete and utter fail right there b) the gun reform was never intended to reduce crime - that is a straw man construct of the BRA c) Sexual assault is NOT the equivalent of rape - it a far far far broader term encompassing everything from rubbing against someone the wrong way on a bus to sticking your tongue in their ear without permission. Just warning you - you touch an Aussie woman the wrong way and you will end in court d) The Assault laws have changed - in particular NSW and a couple of other states made spitting on a public official a major assault crime Do you want me to continue or do you want to continue quoting right wing NRA supporting rubbish sites?? (damn this spellchecker it keeps changing NRA to BRA - suits anyway because it is a structure of indeterminate size expert in giving suckers what they want but contains zero brain cells and the larger it is the more men are attracted to it)
LOL! Did we just not agree that these sites have their own bias? Anyone who uses them is either lazy or biased or both. When these sites go into exhaustive explanations and spins you have to ask why.
Such a pathetic response Yes there are more knife murders but it STILL means we have fewer murders per population than the USA with all your guns
Still on that "there was no gun ban" propaganda I see. Category D weapons were banned. Those are centerfire semi-auto rifles, and pump and semi-auto shotguns that can hold more than 5 rounds. Handguns other than 38 cal, 9mm, and 357 were also banned, and the allowed calibers require special permission. Category B (centerfire rifles that are not semi-auto) are allowed but require demonstration of a "genuine need" which means they are hard if not impossible to get. Essentially, you are at the mercy of the whims of the local authorities. A de facto ban. And as to crime, it went way up in AUS when the gun bans went into effect. You know that, I know you looked it up in the AUS crime reports. The trend in the US has been more guns, less crime. In AUS, fewer guns, more crime. GIve up on your anti-gun bias. You know you are wrong.
No, although we may agree that, in exposing fraudulent statements regardless of party affiliation, it would be very suspicious if a 50/50 balance were scrupulously maintained, wouldn't it? You do not seem capable of maintaining your undocumented bias in the face of the reality of their taking politicians of both parties to task - as in their assigning the President a Pants on fire! rating for claiming that anyone who wanted to keep his old insurance plan could do so. You are upset that PolitiFact outed your propagandistic sites, yet you are unable to support your crying "Bias!" As I had asked, "If you are actually aware of and upset by any specific fact-finding articles by PolitiFact or Snopes, can you indicate which they are and how, exactly, you feel they are in error?"
Why do you declare thusly, and do you believe that my locale discredits my asseveration that the United States has a jurisprudence system that upholds the people's rights, and punishes those who transgress upon them in arrogating rights to themselves to which they are not entitled? How so?
So you think ex-cons, with a history of violence, including the illegal usage of guns, should be allowed to legally have guns?
Dont you love the way those that dislike firearms ie freedom and individual rights phrase thier responses? This is a good example; " No gun - but then I am Australian which automatically makes me left of centre for America and since there is no need for us Aussies to arm ourselves in this way since we are not caught in an armaments industry fuelled arms race against "the bad guys" Damn that was a long sentence. First he uses the word 'need' like its a drug. We have the RIGHT to own etc firearms. A right is something many slaves do not understand. Anyway here is how I would re-word that paragraph so it would relay a bit of truth; No gun - but then I am Australian which automatically means I have diminished freedom and rights. Here the king government tells me how to live my life and what I can and can not own etc. One day they might tell me what color to poop, and thats ok with me! It for my best intrests! This is truth; "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Happy holiday everyone! reva
when they have done their time yes, just like a con artist still gets to use his first amendment rights of free speech... everyone has the right to protect their homes and families.. everyone btw, you know that gun laws only apply to HOSEST people... not real criminals right? what you want is gun ownership to be a privilege that can be taken away.. rather then a constitutional right for all free Americans.... .
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." exactly....
Well, everybody understands (except for you, perhaps), that none of those rights are absolute. Dangerous convicts should not have guns. Neither should certain groups of mentally ill people. You will just have to learn to live with the disappointment. By the way, you do know that gun laws apply to EVERYBODY right, including real criminals. If one chooses to break the law, and is caught, there is a penalty to pay, just like with every other law. Surely nobody is so fired-up stupid as to suggest a law should not be on the books because only the honest people will follow it.
It was a simple statement that the US no longer has the rule of law. The legal and political system do not uphold peoples rights, and do not apply a single set of laws equally and impartially. The govt is not the arbiter keeping the playing field level but the tool of the "ruling" class which they us to amass and keep power, and to enforce their will on the population. .The US is an oligarchy and has been for a long time. Even such bastions of socialism and anti-Americanism as Princeton and NW Univ openly admit it http://www.examiner.com/article/us-...d-by-rich-and-powerful-not-voters-study-shows If you claim tto live in a place with the rule of law, then it isnt the US.
Dangerous convicts should not be released into the public all free Americans have a constitutional right to protect their homes and families with a gun... what you want is gun ownership to be a privilege that can be taken away from people rather then a constitutional right like free speech as long as the constitution supports gun ownership as a right, you will have to live with disappointment that the constitution applies to all free Americans equally... .
No not banned - restricted although you may have difficulty with the difference Crime did not rise by any appreciable amount - certainly not enough to be able to make even a base correlation let alone determine causation We have been through this numerous times and despite being shown you are wrong you persist
are you blind, background checks are not for the criminals... it's for the honest citizen... if they said that was who it was for.. you would never allow it.... background checks get their foot in the door, they can put anyone for any reason on the list... even you and I background checks = a list of people to be denied their legal rights under the constitution... not only that, it provides the government with a means to know everyone that has wanted to buy a gun, once your name goes into the background system check.. it's on a list... ..
Why do American have difficulty with the concept that different countries have different laws??? Sexual assault is a very very broad term encompassing all crimes that may be sexual in nature - and it is one of the best ways of divining if a site is telling the truth about Australian crime statistics - if they equate sexual assault with rape they are lying through their teeth
