FYI- did u know 28 Americans die daily due to gun violence

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT

buzzard 4/24/2009 8:25:08 AM

I knew you weren't in the sticks chasing roos. I thought you were in the sticks chasing wombats.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Australia v. US 4/24/2009 11:54:29 AM

Australia and the United States are very different countries with different demographics, and very different histories. A direct comparison of their crime rates would be very difficult. Having conceded that, it should be noted that even within the US there are broad demographic and sociological differences when comparing crime and murder rates. In fact many sub-set jurisdictions within the US have lower murder/crime rates than Australia and the rest of the US.

Let me ask this question: what effect has gun control had upon these various demographic sets. Australia? United Kingdom? and the various states of the USA. We do have a very well documented track record of before and after crime rates when gun control laws are instituted (both types of laws, those restricting and those liberalizing ownership and possesion). As we have seen from earlier posts here, without exception, when guns are banned crimes go up, they go up dramatically. Further, those jurisdictions in the US that have the most draconian gun control laws have the highest crime rates. Washington DC's gun laws effectively prohibit gun ownership and possesion, it has a higher crime rate than Baghdad!

The notion that restricting guns in the hands of private citizens will prevent crimes is proven wrong, statistically, many times over.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 4/25/2009 3:58:04 AM

OMG, you're right, my Aussie friends! Nobody died violently until the invention of the firearm. What the hell was I thinking?!

Seriously, though--why do you care? You don't live here, so it's none of your frigging business. When the US starts dictating to Australia its domestic policy, then you can start complaining. Until then, if you don't like it, don't come live here. It's really that simple.

Geez. It's like I'm reading a script from Azumanga Daioh.

Quote Reply

enter_space_disco 4/25/2009 1:00:32 PM

Rocky

In Australia we also have broad differences between states and varying regions have different crime rates.

We have jurisdictions in Australia that have as low or lower crime rates than your lowest crime rate regions in the US.

The effect of gun control has been to markedly reduce the rate of homicide and homicide due to gun deaths. http://www.smh.com.au/news/nat...

Total murders for years 1998 to 2007 in Australia can be seen at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)website page http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au... Pages 8 and 9 contain the summaries, listing all the offence categories as raw totals, rates per 100,000, and as an index, base of 100, for the years 1998 to 2007.

From the abovementioned document, declines can be seen not only in homicides, but also in kidnapping/abduction, robbery (both armed and unarmed), unlawful entry with intent, motor vehicle theft and other theft. So the idea that somehow guns prevent criminals from committing crimes is false. Please note willbill 4/2/2009 12:44:38 AM that your quote, "It is also important to note that U.S. citizens use firearms to defend themselves from criminals over 400,000 times according to the Department of Justice?s Bureau of Justice Statistics." is false. If you look at the actual BoJ webpage, it says that the number of gun crimes COMMITTED is 400,000 in one year. See chart http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/g... Click on the chart for even more detailed info.

In Australia, we have mostly uniform gun legislation. In the US, while some states might have strict gun laws, it is easy for criminals and others to obtain them in states with lax gun laws. Washington DC is a case in point. What I have heard about Washington DC is that there is alot of gun related homicide due to gang turf wars. I don't think these gangsters would respect gun laws and would probably bring guns into Washington DC from other states with lax gun laws. Freeing up guns in Wasihington DC would make the situation worse.

In any case, gang related violence makes up a small proportion of gun deaths, making up 955 of the 16,000 homicides in the US every year. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/h... In this link you will also see that arguments make up a large proportion of homicides in the US, about 28%. Of these 4787 homicides due to arguments, 63% involved a gun. From this link, " Arguments include brawls due to the influence of narcotics or alcohol, disagreements about money or property and other arguments." I think it's easy to conclude that without guns, alot of these arguments would not result in homicides. Guns make it so much easier for an argument to escalate into homicide rather than just a punch up.

On the abovementioned link, homicides relating to felony offences, which include "homicides committed during a rape, robbery, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and violations of prostitution and commercial vice laws, other sex offenses, narcotic drug laws, and gambling laws" make up about 2500 murders a year. Of these, about 76% involve a gun. Again, guns are prevalent in homicides resulting from the 400,000 felonies committed a year with guns.

Sentinel

People have always been dying violently, but guns make death from criminality, mental imbalances from drugs and alcohol, accidents, human differences (arguing, disagreeing) that much more possible, easier and final.

Furthermore, you can do what you want in your country. It is a little sad though that "In 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, guns were used in the murders of 1285 children and another 120 were killed in firearm accidents. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says the rate of firearm deaths of children under 15 is almost 12 times greater in the US than in 25 other industrialised nations." http://www.smh.com.au/news/wor... It's just sad when kids have to suffer and have their lives cut short.

Quote Reply

buzzard 4/25/2009 2:05:07 PM

Furthermore, you can do what you want in your country. It is a little sad though that "In 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, guns were used in the murders of 1285 children and another 120 were killed in firearm accidents. The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention says the rate of firearm deaths of children under 15 is almost 12 times greater in the US than in 25 other industrialised nations." link... It's just sad when kids have to suffer and have their lives cut short. It doesn't matter where they're from.

You know, you better verify and understand your statistics before you make claims because the above is a load of hogwash.

If you go here:

h--p://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

You can get the actual statistics from the horse's mouth, and oddly (/sarcasm) they don't agree with you.

For the U.S. in 2004, the total number of firearm related deaths of children ages 0-15 is 565. Of these, there were 73 accidental deaths.

Given that you use illegitimate sources, I don't see any reason to take anything you say seriously. You honestly need to try a lot harder before you argue with some of us, because we've played this game before with worthier opponents, and you don't measure up. You're wrong, and your claims are unsupported.

Also from this link "Despite claims by the National Rifle Association that guns protect the owners from crime, the Johns Hopkins University's Centre for Gun Policy and Research found that in households with guns, the murder of a family member is three times more likely than in homes without guns. Also, the risk of a suicide of a family member increased by about five times in homes with guns."

You actually should be more careful citing that source. They've been debunked repeatedly in the past for extremely poor methodology. Their approach to analysis is to look at the murder rate for people with firearms in their house without any measure of controls for other circumstances. Why is this important? Well let's think about this. If I live in a crime ridden neighborhood, I will probably be inclined to buy a gun to protect myself. Did the authors of the study correct the analysis on the basis of the crime rates? No. Did they correct on the basis of whether the murder victim was in the process of committing a criminal act (crack house, meth lab, etc)? No.They simply took a sampling of murder victims and checked to see if their had been a gun in the house. They didn't even correct by checking to see what the percentage of gun ownership was in that neighborhood. Say you have a bad neighborhood where everyone owns a gun for self protection. Will it come as a shocker that a murder victim will have a gun in their house? Maybe for you, but not for the rational.

The study you are citing has all the common sense impact of saying that because most people who die of diabetes have insulin in their homes, insulin must be killing people.

Of course the study also ignores the multitude of other studies which demonstrate the rate at which firearm possession both deters and prevents crime. Those facts are simply blithely ignored.

Sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree here, and you sound like a poodle.

Live in the US? I don't think so. I suppose if y

Quote Reply

warpig 4/25/2009 5:30:45 PM

"...if you're rich."

Hmmm, then it must truly perplex the wankers of the world why so many people from around the world, rich *and poor*, are flocking to America's shores, even risking death to get in. Yeah, sucks to live here.

<pop, pop!>

Oops, gotta go, some gun is trying to murder me!

LOL!

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Austalia 4/25/2009 5:58:52 PM

You may not be aware of your own history. Here is your Gov't's homicide statistics from the period before the gun ban through today. You will see that in 1997 when your gun ban took effect your homicides went up drastically. Not a little, drastically. It took more than an decade to return to its normal declining curve. We frequently see these spikes of crimes in the US when gun ownership is restricted. FYI, Australian gun crimes went up too. Clearly, your ban of guns did not prevent crimes, it made them worse! Nor is this a random spike, look at the United Kingdom's Gov't statistics listed below:

truth about Australia's homicide statistics:

ht***tp://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/

Year by year gun crimes, UK. Trend starts by going down like most western nations in the mid 1990's.

1995          13434

1996          13876

1997-98    12805

Gun Ban takes effect*

1998-99    13874

1999-00    16946

2000-01    17697

2001-02    22400

2002-03    24070

2003-04    24094 (data shows a increase of 188% of the pre ban gun crimes)

2004-05    22896

2005-06    21521 (data shows gun crimes are still 168% of pre ban gun crime rates)

ht***tp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

*(also crimes are reported differently, however, refer to the link and find the trend is the same, slope is altered but its direction si not changed, without the reporting change the numbers still goes up! Home Office shows before and after change data graphs.)

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Buzzard 4/25/2009 7:46:27 PM

truth about Australia's homicide statistics:

ht***tp://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/

Of course what Rocky won't tell you is that the fluctations in the Australian data post gun control measures were statistically insignificant. The jump in 1999 in fact amounted to about 18 extra deaths and there is no evidence whatsoever that those people would have even owned guns or have been able to use them to defend themselves. Additionally it is important to note that Australians were not able to carry weapons for self defence prior to the gun ban and that there were already strict restrictions on pistol ownership. All the controls did were to ban semi-automantics and pump actions shotguns (and in the early 2000's some shorter types of pistols), to require the licencing of users and registration of other types of guns, and to put in storage requirements. Basically there is no evidence that being able to own an AR-15 prior to the ban reduced violent crime rates at all, all that it did do was to allow a simpleton like Martin Brynant to kill 35 people wit

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain enter_space_disco 4/25/2009 7:48:15 PM

The last post was meant to be addressed to you.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain John Lott 4/25/2009 8:08:29 PM

I've been doing a bit of thinking around the findings of John Lott, that CC laws have reduced violent crime where they are in place in the US. While they have been critisised on the basis of poor data collection and because the results of his models fluctuate a lot when applied to different time periods, I do actually think that his hypothesis is plausible in the US communities studied (though not necessarily generalisable). If you think about it in a community already flush with illegal guns and where there is a lot of violent crime, allowing honest citizens to carry a weapon for self defence isn't going to increase violent crime rates and it might act as a deterrent to some committing violent crimes.

Therefore as I have said before the trick would be to develop interventions that reduce the number of illegal guns in the community rather than by preventing honest citizens owning a firearm for self defence. My thinking is that the only way to do that in the US is to put in place a national system of controls to ensure that only honest citizens can buy guns and that those guns can't get into the criminal community (licensing and registration mainly, along with limits on bulk purchases which could be onsold to criminals and strong accountability controls on manufacturers and distributors of firearms), while focusing policing and boarder control efforts on getting rid of illegal guns. It would only be worthwhile if it could be done on a national basis as having some states doing it and some not just means that illegal guns come from over borders.

Of course none of this would suit the NRA and its gun manufacturing backers as it would mean lower revenues, but it would allow honest Americans to own guns for sporting and self defence purposes while improving public safetly.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT