DrJBHL

That's not that far of a stretch, actually.

On a sort of 'related' issue re 'privacy' ... we in Oz have 'Tap and Go' credit cards which don't require Pins or signatures up to a value of $100 per transaction.

This means they can be skimmed without your knowledge and your bank details can be stolen and the first you know is when your account gets 'spent' without you even aware until it's mostly too late.

An Oz company came up with a solution ...an RFID jammer that you can put in your wallet [it's credit card sized] and it quietly sits there inert until a skim is attempted - and blocks it.

I just got mine today, a better solution than punching holes in the card to attempt to kill the antenna coil.

Of course the Kiwis simply got the option to NOT have tap-and-go on their cards, but here Visa [and others] claim the feature is what people want.  [I didn't].

If you're in the same boat....take a squiz at 'armourcard' [with a 'u' - I said it was Australian] ...

www.armourcard.com.au 

How very, very sad, that you feel the need to arm yourself to the teeth.  Worse still, that you have no compunction about shooting somebody dead.  Oh how I thank my lucky stars that I do't live in duch a society... a country with so much gun violence.... multiple gun deaths every day.  Where I live, there wouldn't be a gun death a month. In fact, I can't remember when there was a gun death in my town, it was that many years ago.

Simply put, I highly value our gun controls here in Oz.... the fact that our lunatics can't easily get their hands on firearms and go on the crazed shootings sprees of the US that populate [even our] news programs most nights.   Yup, I know which country I'm so much safer in... with the absence of too easily obtained firearms that all too often end up in the hands of some nut job who's simply having a bad hair day.

Okay, this rant went off topic and isn't about privacy, but when the law of the land [the Constitution] supposedly protects one's privacy and safey, yet in the same breath it says it's a citizens inalienable 'right' to bear arms, then there is something seriously fucking wrong. Yeah, fight for the right to privacy and free speech, etc, but for fuck sake, how is anyone safer in a society where ther's more than a dozen guns per person. While the majority of peope are good, there's a percentage who are inherrently bad, evil, or who are plain nut jobs with an axe to grind... er, gun to fire, so somebody's bound to get shot, maimed or killed when a trip to the 7 Eleven gets one a gun and all the ammo he/she needs.

Okay, rant off, but seriously, things are pretty fucked up when a nation fights harder for the means to kill and maim than it does for the right to universal medical care.

Anyhow, I'm out of here, it [the Constitution and its so -called rights] is too volatile a discussion for me to remain tight lipped on emotive issues that surely affect our humanity, humility and harmony. 

Well, that's not unique to just the US ... Australia suffers from the same problem too [As do the English].

When it's 'us or them' it's really an issue of choosing the lesser of 2 evils .... and it's therefore never 'we'....

Starkers, Jafo will ban me long before he bans you, don't worry so much.

It's not the difference in gun ownership that makes the murder rate in the US 4 times as high as it is in Australia.  Switzerland has a massive gun ownership rate, with army service being mandatory, and every member keeping their weapons at home, yet they have an even lower murder rate than Oz does.  When your gun ban was enacted in 1996, the only impact it had on the murder rate was a brief spike after it's implementation, no reduction seen.  Other countries all get the same results with their gun bans, and repealed gun bans, dick for crime prevention from reducing gun availability.

The reason the US has a high rate, is because the US is fucked, ethnically, socially, and legally.  We have a massive criminal gang element, that our judiciary refuses to prosecute on minor beefs, despite having the legal tools to do so, financially incentivised by our pointless prostitution, gun, and drug laws.  We have a very large transient population composed primarily of the mentally ill, who were expelled from institutionalization because the courts ruled it was wrong to do so unless they were proven to be a danger before hand.  We have an extremely ethnically diverse population, complete with the racial strife that comes with it.  We also have most of our murders in places where people have been disarmed by the government.  These areas also have the worst schools, particularly in those ethnically diverse areas, and our failing education system leads to poverty, which makes being a gang banger and killing your neighbors for money a lot more attractive than wasting time in school.

I am "armed to the teeth" because I have a loaded 45 for self defense, a loaded shotgun for that damned skunk that keeps crawling under the house, and a collection of rifles my grandfather made.  It's not fear of my government, the fact that I have them is why I have to worry in the first place, antique hunting rifles aren't particularly useful for taking on the government anyway.  That the tards would freak out at the idea of a guy with a few dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition is simply their inability to grasp obvious things, like ammunition being radically cheaper in bulk, and responsibly carrying requiring a great deal of practice for those of us who aren't innately good shots that were simply born with perfect aim.  My father was, he can hit what he's aiming at without practicing, ever.  I have to put a hundred rounds in a target before I'm hitting it most of the time at 50 feet.  To responsibly conceal carry, I will have to go through a few hundred rounds a year to stay in practice, and that costs two to three times as much if you buy your ammo twenty at a time, instead of a thousand at a time.

It's also not my fault if someone makes me kill them.  It's theirs.  If you attack someone else, and they kill you in self defense, it would be a tragedy if it bothered them.  First they've been accosted by some animal, and now they're supposed to feel guilty about surviving the attack?  They should be pissed at the inconvenience you've caused them while they're being harassed by the authorities.  If anything, when someone without compunction or self control gets themselves removed from the living, it should be a joyous occasion, one less animal wearing human skin, preying upon the sheeple.

Just recently it was quoted....40% of Australians were not born in Australia.......it's 12% for the US.

You might want to re-evaluate 'diversity'.

The ONLY stats stating gun crime reduction 'failing' here in Oz were authored by the NRA for obvious agenda.

Neither sidetrack is actually all that relevant to the OP.  Possibly my reference to the Aussie invented RFID jammer is more relevant...

Sorry Jafo, but 90% European is nowhere near as diverse as the US, we're down around 60%.  Now 50 years from now, if your immigration continues to shift away from a European majority, you're going to look a lot more like the US.  We owe our abnormally high rate almost entirely to the high rate at which minorities kill each themselves, blacks in particular.  They're 13% of the population, but they commit nearly 40% of the murders.  Mentioning it makes me a racist, of course.

You're also conflating gun crimes with crimes.  According to your government statistics(you can't blame the NRA for them) 84% of your homicides aren't using a gun, pretending fewer people kill each other because you restricted gun access doesn't really get you anywhere.  The homicide rate, and the rate of gun usage in them, has been declining for decades, long before the gun law in 1996, and their trajectories remain unchanged, with the exception of spikes shortly after, yes, spikes.  I presume they were mostly as a result of the dot com bubble and other negative influences on economic prosperity, which have been shown to be the primary drivers in the rise and fall of crime statistics.  Violent crimes as a whole went up significantly for several years following the immensely successful gun buyback, far more than homicides did, and far longer.

As is the Swiss Company J.G. Neher & Sons.

Incredibly, Aluminum foil and even duct tape (I swear) will turn the trick for jamming the RFID chip scanner/skimmers:

http://lifehacker.com/145519/how-to-make-an-rfid-blocking-duct-tape-wallet

http://lifehacker.com/5896785/foil-electronic-pickpockets-with-aluminum-foil-or-multiple-credit-cards

http://lifehacker.com/5842853/make-your-own-rfid-shielded-wallet-to-foil-id-thieves

Unless you're a 90 pound woman that shoots a 200 pound man, that just isn't the case.  In the last few years, there have been incidents where people had the absolute crap beat out of them before they managed to shoot attackers who were known criminals with a history of violence, and were then put on trial for it anyway.  The most famous being the Trayvon Martin case.  A poor 17 year old kid, a kid that was ripped from playing football and had a history of violence and rage inducing drug use, who just happened to be curb stomping an overweight Hispanic suffering from multiple lacerations to the back of his head and face from where he was being bashed against the pavement, along with witnesses that saw it going down, was "murdered" by this evil white guy that chased him down and shot him.

As an actual white guy, if I move to Florida, and shoot a black guy twice my size that comes at me without having a gun in his hand, I'm probably going to trial even if I'm bleeding all over the ground when I shoot him.  Rarities where someone gets away with murder because of it just aren't that common, and typically don't even apply to the law.  When two people have a shoot out, and the drug dealer or buyer that survives gets off, stand your ground doesn't apply.  You can't run away from bullets in the first place.  Your ability to flee someone who pulls a gun on you is zero unless they just don't feel like shooting you in the back.  I have seen the odd case where it was obvious abuse, but this is why we have jury's, and they're far outweighed by the number of people who have been murdered trying to flee an attacker, which is an act of absolute stupidity if you can actually put them down.  Unless you're running from a obviously unhealthy individual that isn't armed and can't possibly be fast enough, you're guaranteeing you'll lose the fight if they catch you.  For slow people, it amounts to attempted suicide.

Anything other than an examination of the actual facts of the Martin/Zimmerman interaction is useless posturing.

AFAIK it's rifles, no guns, and old, heavy & loud ones. So if you're a criminal you think a lot about *stealth*, such clumsy rifles that actually wake the whole neighbourhood when discharged and can't be concealed under a common dress are rather impractical.

Then, Switzerland people are one of the most rich people in the world, there is simply not much reason for a born-Switz to endulge into criminality in the first place....

and still these people are constantly able to get guns. and when they have one, they feel suddenly overtly confident & do risky stuff.

IMO except police or military NOONE should be allowed to have access to firearms whatsoever. if everybody is de-armed this would make is so easy for police to deal with all those criminals, because they wouldn't have to fear constantly for their life when making a single arrest etc pp

if you want to defend yourself get a big dog or 2. if you train it well it's so much more better & reliable than a household weapon, at least, if the intruder doesn't possess a firearm as well (a knife or bat won't help him...). and I say much better because a gun just lulls you into a feeling of false security, because you've got no guarantee whatsoever you may be able to use it against a careful Night Stalker-type of intruder. Which is a good case to mention - one of his victim was actually alert by him and tried to shoot at him with her rifle under her bed; but it only made click because it wasn't loaded - in her state of mind (half-sleeped/freightened) she forgot that she unloaded it previously. Yeah bad tactic, actually jumping out of a window may have saved her life but she was feeling bold... and these types of mistakes happen when you're unprepared & taken off guard. Or that you mistake your girlfriend for an intruder & shoot her sitting on the toilette...

Really? They say they work...but I guess you're objective.

^ Passive Shields or metallic wallets Only reduce the signal strength, this will not block a high-powered RFID reader  Source: Credit Card Fraud The contactless Generation | Kristin Paget | Chief Hacker, Recursion Ventures. Please note Kristin Paget does not sponsor or officially endorse this website or product, we have only referenced a report that is freely available online to download and read. All credit for the report and its findings go to Kristin Paget. - See more at: http://www.armourcard.com.au/rfid-protective-product-comparison/#sthash.nOvwWYUB.dpuf 

Doc...on some of those links of yours they also claim 2 RFID cards will confuse a scanner and be safe.  They only confuse a POS reader so you have the option to choose which to use.  A Scanner will simply 'get' whichever it locates first.

'working' is relative....