AG,

 

The people objecting to this practice are mostly PETA, ALF et. al., and to say they are regarded largely as the lunatic fringe would be an understatement.

 

Unfortuantely, they are well funded.

You know what you are right. I have been a bit slack in coming up with data, mainly because I've been running a large number of conversations at once and haven't done the digging that I should have. I've done so now though and here are the results.

 

A while back you posted about the pro-gunner's pin up state of Vermont where they have open carry but one of the lowest rates of murder in the US. I decided to look into this a little bit more and compare Vermont to Australia and here are the results.

 

The average murder rate per 100,000 popn between 1989 and 2006 is 2.03. I took an average rate over as long a period of time as I could given the data that I had for both jurisdictions to smooth out any atypical results. The rate in Australia over that period was 1.74. That means that the murder rate in Vermont was on average 17% higher than it was in Australia over that period. However, by itself doesn't prove anything so I decided to look at some of the other factors that affect the murder rate. I'll list them for you.

 

1. Average income because generally the higher it is the lower the murder rate - In Vermont in 2002 it was $45,000 per annum US. This compares to about $40,000 pa Australian (probably about $30,000 US at that time) in 2001.

 

2. The presence of large cities because at least in the US they tend to increase the murder rate. Vermont's biggest city is Burlington whihc has 40,000 peple and a 200,000 person metropolitan area. Australia's biggest city is Sydney at over 3 million people, Melbourne is over 2 million and there are 3 others over a million.

 

3. Racial makeup because higher murder rates are in particular associated with African American and Hispanic populations in the US (though other evidence that I have presented previously shows that with Hispanics its more to do with poverty than race), and Aboriginal populations in Australia  - Vermont is 98.12% with mainly asian, native american and black minorities, while Australia is about 90% European, about 2.5% aboriginal, about 8% asians (who have no higher an association with murder)  and a lot of other racial groups but they either don't have any increased association with murder or the are so few of them that it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

 

So Australians are on average poorer than than Vermont residents and they have more big cities, though the racial mix is pretty similar. That tells me that it is Australia that should have the higher murder rate than Vermont, especially if legal gun ownership for self defence makes the difference you reckon it does. But Vermont has the higher crime rate ... why is that?

 

The only variable left isVermonts much looser gun laws. This strongly supports my previous arguments that having loose gun laws increase the rate of murder. It could just be that the presence of guns increases the would be murderer's chance of succeeding or it might also be that in a gun culture people are more willing to sort out their problems with a gun. Either way it appears that even before you factor out the other two variables that should be increasing homocide rates in Australia has compared to Vermont, one extra person is dying every 4 years there because of murder resulting from loose gun laws.

 

That doesn't sound like many but if you extrapolate that over the entire US population that is at least 750 people a year. To put that into perspective that is more dead civilians than you have lost soldiers in Iraq each year over the last 6 years. Think about how big a deal it would be if the US lost 750 people in a terrorist attack. I don't think anybody would be saying "but there are more people killed in car accidents, so lets not worry about it".

 

Whats more thats even before you take into account accidents with guns, suicides etc and before taking into account that in places that have a higher number

Every nation's going to have their fair share of idiots.

 

(Sadly, not only do I seem destined to meet every one of them, we tend to elect ours to Congress.)

Aga,

My posts were peer reviewed research from the likes of the Stanford Law Review and Journal of Economics (links attached). The best argument you can make is to pull a post of mine from another thread and take it out of context? Why don't we stick to this thread and try to stay on topic?

 

Vermont is a good example though since it has no requirement for licensing. Citizens can carry a gun anywhere any time. What has that done to Vermont's murder rates as the compare the the US rates in general? Vermont's murder rate is 1.9, not 2.03. Note however the overall murder rate in the US is 5.6 and Vermont's is one of the lowest. Gun ownership seems to be a good idea. Other Shall Issue states such as Maine 1.6 per 100k pop, and NewHampshire, 1.1 per 100k pop, beat Australia quite handily without banning guns.

ht***tp://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ctcrime.htm

 

Question: what happens to US cities when you ban gun ownership like they did in Europe and Australia?

Answer: New York City 6 per 100k pop, Washington DC31 per 100k pop.

 

Now that we have established that my premise is valid, that banning guns causes crime. Would you like to look at the Australian Statistics? The UK statistics? before and after gun bans were instituted?

 

Did you want to post them or should I?

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

Let me get this straight, Necro.  You're in favor of gun control, yet you are a gun owner yourself?

 

If you believe guns are so terrible, why do you own them?

 

 

Wow - I didn't realize this would degenerate into another long-drawn out (and ultimately fruitless) discussion on the 2nd Amendment.

My response to buzzard and Wicked Chinchilla back on Page 2 of this thread: I realize that ANY kind of legislation on a Constitutionally protected right is essentially a slippery slope. What if we started restricting the right of worship? However, how would you, as gun owners (and presumably law abiding citizens) go about restricting access to guns from those who are 1)criminals 2)mentally unfit 3)unwilling to learn proper gun handling 4)basically irresponsible? It's something that I, as a gun owner, have problems contemplating, because there is no easy solution. I also realize that the proposal I made, that there be regular "competency" evaluations, are in the same vein as Poll taxes and poll tests as far as preventing certain groups of people from exercising their Constitutional Rights.

 

However, where do we draw the line as far as "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" Should all military-grade weaponry that is nominally man-portable be allowed to be owned by average citizens? Obviously ownerhsip of an Abrams tank or a F-15 fighter is ridiculous, as those are crew-served weapons which require a great deal of support apparatus to function effectively, but infantry soldiers of today carry fully auto SAWs, assault rifles of many makes and models, grenades, LAWs, mortars, etc. While I disagree with AG regarding the idea that an average citizen does not "need" a military-pattern AR-15 or AK clone, I would readily agree that I wouldn't care to see some of the yahoos I see at some of my local ranges handling anything resembling a fully-auto SAW or M-60, or certainly a mortar or a bagful of grenades.

 

 

To be honest, I don't mind the level of screening involved in full auto ownership as it stands. It is fairly onerous, but doable. It also has never yielded a full auto being used illegally. I would, however, prefer if the bad laws from 68 and 86 be repealed such that full autos would once again be legal for manufacture and be able to be registered. This would correct the insane economic distortions involved in the full auto market.

 

As to my objections to the competency tests, it is based on two things as I said. First, you are right. It's a slippery slope/ poll tax kind of situation. Fundamental rights shouldn't be infringed, especially when the constitution is clear about them not being infringed. 

 

Secondly, it's a solution in search of a problem.

 

Here's the rate for accidental firearm deaths for 1999-2005 (from CDC) (columns are year, deaths, total population, crude rate, age adjusted rate)

1999	824	279,040,181	0.30	0.29
2000	776	281,421,906	0.28	0.27
2001	802	285,112,030	0.28	0.28
2002	762	287,888,021	0.26	0.26
2003	730	290,447,644	0.25	0.25
2004	Quote    Reply