Gun Control

Good quote. The idea of government being in sole ownership of weapons scares me a whole lot more than the thought of every criminal and lunatic in the land being armed. We can ultimately deal with the criminals and lunatics.

You'd like to think that throwning off a tyrany would be easy but history teaches otherwise. The soviet union was never overthrown from the outside, it had to come to a point at which the guys in charge of the system saw that there was no future in it, and that was decades after that had become clear to all parties concerned.

0 Replies

Here is an interesting statistic about the homicide rates in Australia. You can see that the homicide rate is actually remaining stable year over year, and in the most recent year reporting their was a sharp spike in the total number of homicides. The number of homicides committed with a firearm has decresed, but the overall number of homicides has not. You can conclude that a reduction in firearm homicides caused by the regulation of gun ownership does not actually have any effect on the homicide rate. The same number of people are being murdered (or more), but the murderers are using a different method.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi054.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi054.gif

You can also see that ASSULT in Australia has risen 5 times faster than the population in since the reduction in firearms.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/02_selectedCrimeProfiles.html#homicide

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/fig017.gif

Sexual Assult has risen as well
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/02_selectedCrimeProfiles.html#homicide

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/fig021.gif

I own 3 guns. An AR-15 (.223 caliber semi-automatic rifle), Glock 23 (.40 caliber semi-automatic pistol), Mossburg 500 (12 gauge shotgun). The shotgun is for home defense; the pistol for self defense, outside of my home; and the AR-15, mostly for sport/target shooting, but also as a 'just-in-case' plan.

I am also a democrat, and these generalizations are not helpful in this argument. The argument is seperate from political party.

0 Replies

Re: Gun Control

Eorl wrote:

For or against, and why?

...from another thread...

real life wrote:

Quote:
So , if you think 'gunless' societies can protect freedom as well as the US has, maybe you'd better research it and find an example that even comes close.

Hint: You won't find one.

Gun ownership in the home does not automatically mean armed forces are more effective, and even if it did, the cost would not be worth it.

Quote:
"Each day, 10 children and teens are killed by firearms, and that is 10 too many," said HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala. "However, it is significant that the number is down 35 percent from 4 years ago. This indicates that violence prevention efforts are showing results. But we all know how far we still have to go to protect our young people from gun deaths and injuries." The age-adjusted death rate from firearms was 11.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1998

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/00news/finaldeath98.htm

..contrast with..

Quote:
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502

FOR absolute FREEDOM of each individual citizen to keep arms, bear arms
and to defensively USE arms, as per the Bill of Rights;
( THAT is life in a free republic );
criminally violent recidivists shud be BANISHED
and removed from contact with decent society.

After thay r gone,
thay will continue to be free to arm themselves as thay choose.
David

0 Replies

maporsche, nice homework.

Those figures need to be viewed understanding that Australian gun ownership was extremely low (compared to USA) to begin with.

Would you like to compare again the number of gun-related deaths per head between Australia and the USA?

USA is one the highest gun-death countries in the world, Australia is one of the lowest.

(Homicides with or without guns is also very low, regardless of any recent spikes in the data. In fact, our rates are so low, spikes are to be expected.)

0 Replies

You're only talking about a few thousand deaths, which is likely less than the number of people who die falling out of trees every year.

The real number and the real statistic is deaths due to government monopoly on firearms. Take the United States versus Nazi Germany for instance. In the United States, deaths due to government firearm monopoly over the last century has been exactly zero. In Nazi Germany it was about somewhere between 10,000,000 and 25,000,000 according to whose figures you want to cite or believe.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

maporsche, nice homework.

Those figures need to be viewed understanding that Australian gun ownership was extremely low (compared to USA) to begin with.

Would you like to compare again the number of gun-related deaths per head between Australia and the USA?

USA is one the highest gun-death countries in the world, Australia is one of the lowest.

(Homicides with or without guns is also very low, regardless of any recent spikes in the data. In fact, our rates are so low, spikes are to be expected.)

The homicide rate in your country has remained unchanged since the crackdown on firearms. Therefore the crackdown had zero net effect on the nations homicide rate. Gun-related deaths dropping specifically mean very little if the overall number is stable.

I would think that the purpose of cracking down on firearms would be to reduce the homicides in your country. If that was indeed the purpose of the crackdown (you'd know better that I), then it would be hard to claim that the crackdown was anything but a failure (the homicide rate remained stable).

Homicide rates for our two countries are below as reference to a statement in your post.

In the year 2000 the homicide rate for USA was 5.5 per 100,000.
In the year 2000 the homicide rate for AUS was 3.1 per 100,000.

0 Replies

Actually, I think the homicide rate is less important than the death-by-gun rate. (Although I'm a bit suss about those stats anyway).

If the suicide, accidental death, self-defense and all the other NON homicide rates have dropped (which they must have to explain the different stats) then the laws have been successful.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Actually, I think the homicide rate is less important than the death-by-gun rate. (Although I'm a bit suss about those stats anyway).

If the suicide, accidental death, self-defense and all the other NON homicide rates have dropped (which they must have to explain the different stats) then the laws have been successful.

I have no concern with the suicide rates.

Accidental death is another matter. And you're probably right that accidental deaths may have dropped (we need to find some data for this though to make the point).

I'm not sure what you mean by self-defense. I posted some numbers that show that violent crimes are on the rise in Australia since the crackdown (assult and sexual assult anyway).

0 Replies

Here are a whole bunch of stats that look a bit more balanced.

http://press.psprings.co.uk/ip/December/365_ip13714.pdf

Key point: The study finds an accelerated decrease in total firearms deaths from the point of the introduction of the laws.

(by self-defense deaths, I mean, for example, a would-be rapist shot dead.)

0 Replies

You don't really seem to grasp it. Most Americans view such stats as meaningless given what is at stake, i.e. freedom, and the God-given right to citizen self defense which preserves it. Without the second ammendment, the constitution would never have been signed, and the American government would not exist.

0 Replies

You mean only the USA has freedom? Australia, Canada and the UK don't?

I get it gunga. As Wilso pointed out, it all stems from your history of a violent birth. Yet there are people in your country who are sick of being terrified by the mechanism of your guaranteed freedom.

Only Americans seem to equate freedom with instant access to killing.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

You don't really seem to grasp it. Most Americans view such stats as meaningless given what is at stake, i.e. freedom, and the God-given right to citizen self defense which preserves it. Without the second ammendment, the constitution would never have been signed, and the American government would not exist.

Yes.
The 2nd Amendment is all about
WHO is supposed to be on TOP:
the citizens, or their hireling government.
David

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

You mean only the USA has freedom? Australia, Canada and the UK don't?

That in fact is about the way I see it and the way most Americans would view it. When you have people sitting in prisons for trying to defend themselves against armed attackers in their own homes, you can't really claim to be living in a free country or anything like that.

Honest truth, I'd feel safer in Russia right now than I would in England.

0 Replies

Your sense of security comes from walking around the streets capable of responding with extreme deadly force to any extreme deadly force that might come your way.

My sense of security comes from walking around the streets without expecting anyone to have any guns at all.

Given the price you pay for your version of freedom, I'll stick with mine thanks.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Your sense of security comes from walking around the streets capable of responding with extreme deadly force to any extreme deadly force that might come your way.

My sense of security comes from walking around the streets without expecting anyone to have any guns at all.

Given the price you pay for your version of freedom, I'll stick with mine thanks.

I like your scenerio Eorl. I also wish that I lived in a country where there were no guns, or a need for guns. I also wish that I could trust my government to always act in my best interest (this Bush administration has prompted my last 2 firearm purchases at least in a slight degree)

The data you posted is interesting, but it still seems to be specific to firearm related deaths, etc. I think that it's great that less people are being shot to death by a firearm, but if the same number of people are dying by knife wound then I fail to see any improvement at all.

The link you posted actually quotes an INCREASE in accidental deaths with firearms in the years after the 1996 law was passed. So I guess the crackdown wasn't as effective there as we would have hoped.

The other interesting data in your link was in regards to 'mass shootings'. It is great news that there has not been a mass shooting in the last 10.5 years in Australia. I'm curious if other security measures have been put in place that may have helped thwart these shootings (extra guards, more security checkpoints, etc). I'm sure that the firearm laws weren't the ONLY thing that Aussies did to help prevent these mass shootings.

It's great that your violent crime rates are so low in Australia. Great job down there.

0 Replies

Thanks maporsche,

At the risk of sounding boastful to make a point, The Economist's famous list of the World's Most Livable Cities includes Vancouver at number one, and four Australian cities in the top ten. The USA's highest is at number 25.

Yes, I'm sure that we have other measures in place, but only one can account for the sudden increased drops in deaths-by-guns from the day the gun laws were introduced.

Yes, I saw that increase in the accidental gun deaths (hoped you wouldn't notice). Can't explain that one, except that they are probably rare enough that the stats are prone to some unpredictability. (Numbers like 18 deaths one year, 40 the next)

Yes, apparently we had 13 mass shootings in the 18 years before the laws were put in place, and none in the 10 years after. I seriously think that the gun laws we have in place may not keep a pistol from a hardcore drug mafia type guy, but it DOES stop the kind of person who wakes up one day wanting to blow the crap out of the world.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

The data you posted is interesting, but it still seems to be specific to firearm related deaths, etc. I think that it's great that less people are being shot to death by a firearm, but if the same number of people are dying by knife wound then I fail to see any improvement at all.

Actually there is a column on the data strip that show "Total Homicides Including Fire-Arms". That figure has stayed constant (around 260-300 deaths per year)since 1976 despite the growing population. The rate (given in parentheses) is steadily declining.

0 Replies

I'll betcha eorl has never fired a gun. Nor have most who depise them. Stick them in a ****-hotel in a gang infested neighborhood with a broken down vehicle and the next day they'll be packing a Glock.

Such small mindedness comes from the urban pigeonholing they live with daily. The concept of traveling more than a few miles from home each day is completely forieign. Or being more than a few minutes from "help".

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

You mean only the USA has freedom? Australia, Canada and the UK don't?

Not in the sense guaranteed by our second amendment, no. I would call the commoners there "subjects", not "citizens", as in "armed citizens".

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Only Americans seem to equate freedom with instant access to killing.

I am quite capable of killing with my bare hands in a matter of seconds. I'd rather not get that close if I don't have to.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know