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

Aussiegunneragain Buzzard and Warpig 4/26/2009 12:41:24 PM

Of course you must dismiss the statistical trends that resulted with the Australian and UK gun bans. In order to carry your argument you must not look to measurable facts and data. Instead you must create a "religion" of reason. If we restrict the debate to factual before and after effects of these policies we see a consistent sociological reaction. Disarming honest, law abiding citizens creates an environment where criminals can easily prey upon their victims. This is universally supported by the observed crime rates in Australia, UK, and the USA. Your policy has been tried and its sociological effects are known.

John Lott: I have posted for you research and peer reviewed materials. His research stands the test of time and although many people subscribe to the "religion" of gun control, they have had no success in refuting his data analysis. In fact one major paper actually ended up finding errors in his assumptions that made the effect of his conclusions even more dramatic. It is easy to simply post on a blog that "others have been critical" and not be able to document specific cases where he is wrong. In order to do it with credibility is a completely different thing.

To summarize, we know what happened when Australia and UK banned guns. We know what happened when the US liberalized the ownership and possession of guns. We also can compare jurisdictions within the USA where guns effectively remain banned today. All of that data points US inescapably to the conclusion that gun control does not work.

Check Six

Rocky

LOL!!!! You haven't even addressed any of the points that I have made, you just keep repeating yourself and lamely attempting to insult me in the hope of drowning out the opposition!! Keep droning on goofball, there are a few dopes on here that will be convinced but anybody with a brain will see otherwise.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Incidentally Rocky 4/26/2009 12:59:34 PM

Have you heard of the Monash University mass shooting? It took place in October 2002, with a handgun owner shooting 7 people of whom two died. Heres it link about it en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_U.... From your graph which I have posted above you will note that this occurred in a year where Australia's murder rate peaked. In 2003 the murder rate dropped to below trend and additional restrictions were placed on handgun ownership and a gun buyback was initiated (see wiki article for details). What happenned in 2004? The murder rate dropped again, as it did in 2005!!!! So where does that leave your argument about gun controls increasing crime? Well and truely down the toilet me thinks.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Additional sourced analysis of Australian Crime 4/26/2009 1:08:13 PM

h**ttp://gunowners.org/op040809hn.htm

Australia Experiencing More Violent Crime Despite Gun Ban

Written by Howard Nemerov

Wednesday, 08 April 2009 00:00

In a previous article..., we examined the revisionist history of anti-rights proponents who claim that since Australia instituted their gun ban, there have been no mass murders, despite the recent ?gun-free? massacre of 135 Australians.

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. Peace Movement Aotearoa..., based in New Zealand, calls itself a ?national networking organization?interested in peace and social justice.? A fact sheet ...on their site is entitled Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws. It?s very revealing that gun ban organizations validate gun control by focusing on gun-involved violence while avoiding any mention of overall violent crime trends.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic..., there was a slight drop in the percent of murders committed with a firearm between 2001 and 2007 (16.0% and 13.4%, respectively). However, the percentage was highest in 2006 (16.3%) and remains higher than the low of 8.9% in 2005. There is no difference in the use of a firearm in robbery: Guns were used in 6.4% of all robberies in both 2001 and 2007.

In 2002?five years after enacting its gun ban?the Australian Bureau of Criminolo...acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime: ?The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued its declining trend since 1969.?

Even the head of Australia?s Bureau of Crime Statistics and..., Don Weatherburn, acknowledged that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

There has been a drop in firearm-related crime, particularly in homicide, but it began long before the new laws and has continued on afterwards. I don't think anyone really understands why. A lot of people assume that the tougher laws did it, but I would need more specific, convincing evidence ?

There has been a more specific ? problem with handguns, which rose up quite rapidly and then declined. The decline appears to have more to do with the arrest of those responsible than the new laws. As soon as the heroin shortage hit, the armed robbery rate came down. I don't think it was anything to do with the tougher firearm laws.

Weatherburn also acknowledged that the best crime measure consists of ?the arrest of those responsible.?

Moreover, Australia and America both experienced similar decreases in murder rates: Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9% decrease; without a gun ban, America?s rate dropped 31.7%.

Now for the rest of the story

During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2% and robbery 6.2%. Sexual assault?Australia?s equivalent term for rape?increased 29.9%. Overall, Australia?s violent crime rate rose 42.2%. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8%: rape dropped 19.2%; robbery decreased 33.2%; aggravated assault dropped 32.2%. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women (whom ABC reports are arming themselves at record rates because of safety concerns):

More women, from soccer moms to professionals like the ones at the Blue Ridge Arsenal gun range in Chantilly, Va., are packing heat for sport, self-empowerment and protection.

While this doesn?t prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Moreover, for groups like Peace Movement Aotearoa,

Quote Reply

buzzard 4/26/2009 1:09:14 PM

Try pulling your head out of the sand on the NRA. I've dealt with lobbiests from various industries over the years and many undertake services other than lobbying, but at the end of the day they are there to protect their paycheck by protecting that of their members. This mob are no different and if you look at their list of sponsors below you will see whose interests they are representing.

You don't even vaguely know what you are talking about. Follow the money. The NRA uses maybe 10% of it's funding on lobbying. Also you might want to note that those are "friends of the NRA", which means companies which donate some amount of sales proceeds to the NRA because they feel it helps promote the sport they provide equipment for. If you think your arguments hold water, try again.

...

As for the rest of your arguments I could argue them point by point but the most important thing to note is that virtually all of the domestically produced guns that the criminals are getting originated from a legal source. This means that they can be stopped at that source or in transit from it by appropriate and well-enforced regulation. The article that I posted suggests that registration of firearms is effective in reducing firearms ownership by criminals, but if you have a better idea then by all means feel free to share it. I'd note that just saying existing laws will do clearly doesn't cut it though because crooks don't seem to have any trouble getting guns in the US at the moment.

Not that it will be worth pointing it out, but you are already talking about illegal circumstances. Selling a gun to a felon is illegal. Do I need to try phonetics or something here?

You are citing statistics in a vacuum. Sure, you say 33% is the rate from local gun stores in places with licensing and registration. Did you every think of what the guns costs in places like that, and how difficult it is for ANYONE to get one there? This is law abiding or not. If your goal is to restrict all guns (not just illegal ones, which I doubt you will admit), then you can have your licensing and registration, but I doubt it will have any impact on crime.

Say we talk NYC. To buy a gun there is a real pain. Lots of hoops to jump through, and you have to suck up to the cops real hard (or grease some palms which is probably normal). Your average household in NYC won't have a gun in it because getting one is arduous. As such, firearms stolen from domiciles will be rarer. Thus, criminals will have a harder time getting ahold of a gun. As for other sources, yes people sell guns to criminals thereby acting as middlemen. This is already illegal. It is already something the BATF watches pretty closely contrary to any delusions you might have to the contrary.

Look at Hawaii. They have some of the strictest gun control in the U.S., including even your holy licensing and registration. Did their crime rate go down since they introduced all this? Umm, no. Can you import the guns from adjacent states? Umm, not so much.Want to explain all of that?

You say the article claims that the rules are effective in reducing firearm ownership by criminals. It doesn't state any such thing, and don't start making things up. It merely makes claims about where guns come from. It doesn't talk about the rate of ownership of firearms by criminals, nor does it say anything whatsoever about the crime rates.

The article you cite is pretty much meaningless twaddle. It doesn't point out anything useful at all.

Now I don't expect you to try and actually rebut anything I've said since I've seen your par on this so far, and it usually involves obfuscation and dodging because you don't have a valid case to make. The facts simply don't bear it out. Prove my Hawaii case first, and then maybe you will have some vestige of a point.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Aga, NRA 4/26/2009 1:14:25 PM

It is often the tactic of those who believe in the "religion" of gun control that they assail the NRA. As if attacking that organization in itself is reason for justification of gun control. It isn't. There is no argument that says because the NRA exists there are crimes. The connection appears to be when gun control is instituted, crimes go up. Again, refer to your own country's crime trends.

Free yourself from your baseless cult.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

warpig 4/26/2009 1:14:42 PM

This means that they can be stopped at that source or in transit from it by appropriate and well-enforced regulation. The article that I posted suggests that registration of firearms is effective in reducing firearms ownership by criminals, but if you have a better idea then by all means feel free to share it. I'd note that just saying existing laws will do clearly doesn't cut it though because crooks don't seem to have any trouble getting guns in the US at the moment.

Agreed: Appropriate and well-enforced legislation. Exactly what all the many tens of millions of pro-gun Americans want. No, it does not suggest that to me, instead it suggests that those criminals hampered by it instead turned to other means to obtain their firearms anyway in spite of it. Yes, my better idea(s) has/have already been shared, as well as my reasons why the ideas you mentioned are not better ideas, and are shared by those same tens of millions of Americans I mentioned above. Existing laws (when enforced) certainly can cut it just as well as your proposed new ones (when enforced), and with the added benefit of being less undesirably intrusive into the lives of 99% of gun owners who have not and never will commit a crime with their guns, as well as the 100% of Americans who will have their whole Constitutional system and heritage further eroded by them. This issue is not merely about crime statistics, even though they are sufficiently on the side of liberalizing gun ownership, because murder rates by instrument used are not the only thing that is important in life. If it was, then as has been pointed out before, all sorts of objects would "need" to be banned.

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber Aga, 4/26/2009 1:27:24 PM

Aga. I appreciate you trying your best to ignore the data. I understand you must do this to keep your belief system alive. For the rest of US, let's look at the data; Australia's homicide rate went from below 300 in early 1997 (pre-ban) to a high above 360/year by 2001. This clearly is not one data point event! We see that it takes until late 2003 (7 years) to return to the pre-ban trend line. Clearly your analysis is wishful thinking and a unsupported attempt to justify your "belief" system.

Try to view the data and not seek ways to justify your opinion.

Nor is this a one trick pony, as has been posted and documented here, UK and US trends are identical.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

buzzard 4/26/2009 1:38:52 PM

Let's examine my quote taken from an article.

"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." h**p://www.smh.com.au/news/wor... The first sentence does not give an age range. The reporter does not quote an age range, but from the website you quoted, h**p://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/n... , the age range used by him seems to be 0 to 18 years. Homicide with firearm from the CDC website is 1291, and accidents come out to 121. The CDC website gives a proviso that it's figures might not correspond to figures used by other authorities, and that it's figures are adjusted yearly. "During 1989-1995, annual counts of deaths prepared by some States differ from those of NCHS. Differences between State and NCHS counts are generally concentrated among selected causes of death, principally Symptoms, signs, and ill-defined conditions (ICD-9 Nos. 780-799) and external causes (homicides, suicides and unintentional injuries). These differences occurred mainly because NCHS did not receive changes resulting from amended records. Affected States are as follows: Alaska, 1989-1995; Alabama, 1991-1992; Hawaii, 1991; New Jersey, 1991-1993." h**p://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/osp/a... On the same page , "Updates to the data presented on these pages will occur annually". (The CDC website uses data tapes provided by the NHCS)

The author may have been using an earlier version of statistics from the same website, or from another authority, but the differences in the figures are neither here nor there.

Yes, what they typically do is expand the definition of 'children' to include 18 year old and below. Thus you capture the statistics for the majority of gang bangers who are a huge chunk of the firearm related deaths in this country as they fight over drug dealing turf. This is simply deceptive and dishonest. Hell, they could include death rates for 18 old soldiers as well if they really wanted to inflate things I suppose and it would be equally honest.

As you have said, "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." This seems to support the argument in the second sentence from the artice I mentioned. "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" . This is cited from h**p://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr... page 11, (page 13 of 24 on pdf reader).

Ok. So? We knew that there is a higher rate of homicide in this country than in others. I can cite other nations which have strong gun control and higher rates of homicide than we do. I can cite areas in the U.S. with strict gun laws and high crime rates. You better find an actual case where passing a gun law reduced crime or you are just blowing smoke. You will have a fun time doing it because it doesn't exist.

I have looked at the paper from the John Hopkins University h**p://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy... which was cited in the above link. It deals with firearms and intimate partner violence. It has nothing to do with the committing of felonies.

Wow, intimate partner violence is not a felony? That's news. I guess someone better tell the legislature.

In this paper, "Compared to homes without guns, the prescence of guns in the home is associated with a 3-fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain 4/26/2009 9:57:55 PM

Yeah screw them, they aren't real children whose deaths we care about because they aren't nice white, middle class all American kids. Never mind that many of them have never met their fathers, that their mothers are crack whores and that they have never had any example set beyond that which the gangs provide. That makes no difference because we are libertarian's and we just "got it" when it comes to how to live a wholesome life. Our environment and upbringing had nothing to do with it so we don't even need to be grateful that we grew up under decent circumstances.

Since these nigger and spic kids are so useless we'll just keep letting them have cheap guns to kill each other off because we don't really give a shit about them. We definately don't care enough to consider measures which might make it harder for them to get guns in the first place. That might make it a little bit harder and expensive for for us to get a guns too and God Dammit, we might only have enough money left over to get a 50 inch plasma TV rather than that 63 inch one that we really wanted or God forbid we might only be able to afford a 6 cylinder vehicle rather than 8! We can't have good folk sitting their fat arses in front of a substandard telly or in an under-powered pussymobile that for the sake of a 16 year old "Gangbanger's" life now can we!

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Warpig 4/26/2009 10:37:18 PM

The problem with your argument is that while it might be illegal to sell a weapon to a convicted felon, a minor or somebody with a mental illness and while that will probably stop gun owners from doing so, without registration and tracking of the weapon there is nothing stopping somebody without a record buying one and onselling it to crooks. I suspect that this is why the study that I provided shows the result that it did.

Sure, registraton and tracking make purchasing a gun a bit more onerous and expensive but based on our experience not prohibitively so for honest citizens. People in the US are generally reasonably well off so I doubt that having to spend a bit to get a gun registered is going to prevent somebody who really wants one for self defence or sporting purposes from getting one, especially with the number of cheap second-hand ones floating around. I don't know why you wouldn't want to do this, it isn't going to stop you keeping a gun and it might weight the odds for you against a criminal who can now only own a knife.

I would also note that in DC versus Heller the Supreme Court clearly articulated that you have a right to bear arms in self defence, that this is not unlimited and that Governments have the right to regulate gun ownership. As such you can't argue that licencing and registration is an erosion of your Constitutional rights. In any case I think the whole "erosion of rights" argument is eronenous as I am sure that there are plenty of people in the US who believe that people should be able to own guns but that reasonable restrictions should be enforced. They aren't going to let the gun control zealots take them away completely. I know that if further restrictions were imposed here I would oppose them because I think that the current ones are adequate for our purposes.

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

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy