Guncrazy USA

So you have another gun.

My theory is that for many Americans guns are seen as a way of dealing with and therefore ignoring the socio-economic problems within their society.

How does this new gun help you to think about such problems, how does that gun find solutions to those problems?

It doesn't. I didn't buy the damn thing to remind me of the problems that need fixing. I bought it because I wanted a single-stack 1911, and the price was good (really good on this one, since it included the extra magazine.) I bought it for the same reason I bought all these bottles of scotch I have stacked next to me; I wanted it, and I could afford it. No other reason, no other motive.

LOL Seems like a perfect definition of materialism if not selfish hedonism, which in Pitt view were two of the reasons for the problems within US society.

Anyway, you seem to be implying that to you a weapon is just another consumable, but you’ve also expressed the idea that these guns protect you from harm from outside forces such as criminals and the government.

So although you buy it for the thrill of purchase and of ownership you also seem to see beyond that to a purpose for the ‘tool’ that goes further than plain entertainment.

I might buy the computer game half Life 2 because I wanted it and enjoy shooting aliens but I’m not also getting it because I think it would improve my marksmanship in case my home is invaded by brain sucking creatures from another planet.

**

You missed this out -

You claimed I “muzzle dissent (and you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that anything less has happened here.)”

And i asked - But what is Pitts argument, what views am I supposedly muzzling, because that’s my problem, he was refusing to answer questions or give explanations, was making claims that he could not seem to back up and was making accusation for which he had no proof.

It was getting difficult to work out what he was arguing for or why he was arguing against something since he often wouldn’t say and often didn’t seem to know himself.

Thing is you often seem convinced of things for little reason that you can explain.

Just as you seemed convinced that your right to own a gun, with few if any restrictions, is more important than the brutal murder of a million American children a year, month, even day, to you their deaths would be a worthwhile sacrifice.

Why you think that, is still unclear, all you’ve said is that you would rather these millions dead than be slaves, although you don’t explain why the proposals I’ve championed would cause their enslavement or why gun ownership would necessarily protect them from it?

**

To be frank, I honestly don't give a tinker's damn about "socio-economic problems". About as close as I come is worrying about my own finances, and my own little circle of people. If they're both good, I don't care. Tell me a heart-wrenching story about the kid down the street who's dying of cancer, and probably won't see his tenth birthday because his family can't afford chemo, and I'll probably be moved. For about fifteen seconds, until something else catches my attention. And if next week, that kid happens to someone I actually care about, then I have a problem. Not society, me. Maybe I'm a selfish prick, or maybe I'm just pragmatic. Mostly, I just want to be left the hell alone. And, I suspect if the rest of the world world subscribe to that as well, a lot of our socio-economic problems would disappear.

Well to also be frank, this is the reason why my theories seem to be backed up, why my ideas seem to be right.

You seemingly don’t care about your fellow citizens you don’t care about your community you don’t care about your society.

So let’s say your viewpoint at the moment is of not giving a tinker's damn about your country’s social, economic, cultural or political problems.

Yet you do seem to see guns as a way of dealing with the symptoms that might arise from such problems.

My theory is that many Americans I’ve read or talked to on this subject seem to see guns as a way of dealing with the symptoms of their society’s problems and therefore ignore looking at ways of dealing with them.

Again in what way does you attitudes not back up my theories?

**

 

We need defense against all the other different weapons. Knives, bats, hell... Anything that can be used as a weapon. I guess that means you as well. I could easily cut off your arm and beat somebody to death with it. Anything can be made a weapon, pretty much.

So, if guns are outlawed, people will just use different weapons.
Look at your crime in the U.K., and look at your culture. Total gun ban will not work in the U.S. The U.K. has less population, less area, less major cities, etc. The culture is way different as well. I respect my brothers across the pond, even you, but trust me... It wouldn't work here.

When you can see some gangsta ass fool buying a beat up AK-47 out of the back of a decked out Caddy for $50 in a back alley, you know that gun control won't work there. That's a beat up but still functional Russian Kalashnikov. Not a replica, not a toy, the real thing, fully automatic.
Imported from the Bloc, and if they can get those that cheap, gun control doesn't matter to the criminals.

It just won't work, the culture, population, topograpy... It's all different... Everything doesn't work for everyone in every society everywhere. Sorry.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say that, it's a bit defeatist. Gangs will always have illegal weaponry. But with proper controlls on guns then people can't randomly go psycho.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4371403.stm
-that's a list of recent shootings at high schools in the US

We had the Dunblaine massacre, what did we do? We got made gun laws stricter, had any since? Nope. Gangsters will have contacts, will insane violent recluses have contacts? It's quite unlikely.

The guns as defence idea seems a bit too much like the pro-nuke idea of mutually assured destruction. If everyone has guns, then no one will use them. Well, yes they will.

 

Almost one mounth that nobody shoot in school... Looong time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

USA now will ship more guns and armour to Poland. Poland will be armoured for their tooth! Hurray!!! New toys!!! But who we will fight with?

So as a Pole I have one ask for guys from USA. Guys, you give as so many shiny guns, aircrafts, weapons, rockets, shields. But we have no enemy. Only few poor Irakians that cries after uncle Saddam and few poor Afghan students (Talibans) who weren't allowed to plant Gajdża freely - that are no enemies - that are just poor 'terrorists' - children I would say, not worth to spit even!

GUYS find REAL enemies please! How would that be? Aliens maybe? Russians? Why we should hate them? They are our Slavian brothers! We understand their language!

So who?

Pinguins?

Or .....

Oh yes Iranians!!! Ok I forgot. Let it be. We will be killing Iranian people right now. Let them learn who has the power and contacts!

America has no money for new war so - let the Poland 'fight for ....' what?

 

Penny

We need defense against all the other different weapons. Knives, bats, hell... Anything that can be used as a weapon. I guess that means you as well. I could easily cut off your arm and beat somebody to death with it. Anything can be made a weapon, pretty much.

A perfect example of the attitudes I’ve talked of – the paranoia of being attacked and the threat/suppression response.

*

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoidic outlook were everything and everyone is seen a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

For example many feel they need guns to ‘protect’ them from the government, but how realistic is that belief and what in essence does it mean?

If anyone looked at the history of the US they’d see clearly that gun ownership has never been a tried and tested method of escaping the actions of the government. From the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion to Ruby Ridge and Waco, in fact the use of weapons against authority has been seen as justification by many or most Americans for tough action (repression as a means of problem solving).

But have the armed citizens of America been a bulwark against injustice or have they more often than not helped perpetrate it? If people actually thought about the classic cases of injustice in US history they would see a pattern. More often than not guns in the hands of ‘decent people’ have been used as a means of suppression. From the subjugation of the ‘savage Indians’, the repression of ‘bestial negroes’ to the defence against ‘insidious pinkos’ the use or threat of force has been obvious and the gun the symbol of that power.

But it doesn’t have to be a gun, this attitude is about having ‘equalizing’ power, the ability to threaten and this is why the argument runs that if there were no guns then there would be swords and knives and in that case they would want also to have swords and knives.

It seems to me that when threat, intimidation and suppression come to be seen as the most important (or only) means of dealing with domestic social problems and the outside world, the mindset becomes blind to alternatives.

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality is dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone that does has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3438947&postcount=9


**

 

Penny again

I’ve not being pushing for a gun ban just regulation aimed at reducing harm.

I was wondering about your own position, regulation or no regulation?

**

So, if guns are outlawed, people will just use different weapons.

As I’ve explain before this is not exactly an argument but more of a slogan, one of many pro-gunners seem to present as if it trumps anything their opponents might say.

The thing is that it is true but not the ‘truth’ they’re trying to project.

It comes down to effectiveness; guns are very efficient and effective weapons much more so than other ‘street’ weapons. It is possible to run away from a knife or club and they both have limited range and not as much hitting power as a gun.
USA - 17,034 persons murdered in 2006 up 1.8% from the previous year.

67.9% gun related
12.2% knife/cutting instrument

England and Wales - 757 persons murdered in 05/06 down 2% from the previous year

34% knife/cutting instrument
8% gun related

So knives are used a lot more in the UK but still don’t match US levels of gun use.

*

But the interesting thing is the levels of murder –

60 million people in England and Wales = 760 murders

double population to - 120 million people = so double the murders - 1520

240 million people would then be = 3040

480 million people would then be = 6080

So 300 million Americans seems to equal 17,000 murders

While 480 million Brits seems to equal only 6080.

So even if you inflate the population of Britain to way over that of the present US’s it would seem to still have far fewer murders?

I agree that the societies are different, the American one seems to be much more prone to violence and much more likely to see arms as a way of solving problems than is the norm in the UK at the moment.

The thing is that what I’ve been saying is that it seems to me that many Americans don’t seem interested in confronting their society’s problems but instead seem to see guns as a way of tackling or suppressing the symptoms of the problems.

**

Which leads me to your seeming attitude to the problem -

Look at your crime in the U.K., and look at your culture.

What point are you making what are we meant to be looking at? It’s meaningless without an explanation.

Total gun ban will not work in the U.S. The U.K. has less population, less area, less major cities, etc. The culture is way different as well. I respect my brothers across the pond, even you, but trust me... It wouldn't work here.

And this isn’t an explanation, what have population levels, size or number of urban areas, got to do with it?

When you can see some gangsta ass fool buying a beat up AK-47 out of the back of a decked out Caddy for $50 in a back alley, you know that gun control won't work there. That's a beat up but still functional Russian Kalashnikov. Not a replica, not a toy, the real thing, fully automatic.
Imported from the Bloc, and if they can get those that cheap, gun control doesn't matter to the criminals.

What do you mean by ‘gangsta ass fool’, who or what are you refereeing to?

Why does the person want or feel they need an AK-47?

*

It just won't work, the culture, population, topograpy... It's all different... Everything doesn't work for everyone in every society everywhere. Sorry.

Again you say it wouldn’t but you don’t give much in the way of explaining why it wouldn’t, you seem to be shrugging your shoulders at the problem and giving up before even giving it much thought and then falling back on guns as a way of dealing with the symptoms of your society’s problems.

My question is why don’t you seem to be even thinking of ways to make your society better?

**

 

I don't know man...it seems to me that he spent months worth of time making hundreds of pages worth of posts where he would debate back and forth with you on a point-by-point basis.

I think the least you can do is not make it look like he was rambling incoherently.

 

Michael

I’m not saying he rambled incoherently. I’m saying that increasingly, he was refusing to answer questions or give explanations, was making claims that he could not seem to back up and was making accusation for which he had no proof.

That’s not rambling, it’s more like calculated dishonesty, e.g. trolling.

**

So, mike are you ever going to address the things I’ve raised with you on the gun issue or haven’t you got any answers?

**

 

Proud

On selfish hedonism- Maybe my purchase and reasons for it might be considered selfish hedonism, I don't think it was what Pitt was talking about.

That’s my own problem I’m not sure what Pitt meant either, even when I’d asked him to explain several times he wouldn’t, as with many other things.

If I'd have gone to the gun shop here in town and shot the owner, I could have had the weapon two weeks earlier and $400 cheaper. But then I'd also be a criminal.

What is your point?

While the purchase was intended primarily to be a "fun gun" (I'd like to get a .22 caliber conversion kit for it. .45 ACP is around 35 cents a round,) I wouldn't hesitate to use it for defense. Of course, I wouldn't hesitate to use a rolled-up newspaper for defense, either. This gun is third in line, after the shotgun and the other handgun.

And in what way does this refute my theories?

**

 

On muzzling dissent-It doesn't particularly matter if Pitt wasn't answering and explaining to your satisfaction. Unless he was spamming for a penis extension company or posting scat pictures, or otherwise breaking the rules (and he wasn't, as far as I can see,) there was no just cause for a ban. If you felt he was exercising poor debating skills, you could have just pointed it out to the peanut gallery, the same as anybody else. But you don't have to live with such difficulties, what with your shiny red destructo-button.


This doesn’t answer the questions I posed about freedom of speech
What is free speech? Is it the right to say anything, anytime, without censor or consequences or has it got limits?

In time of war can someone give out information that helps the enemy? Is it ok to lie, can someone lie for example in court?

What is the goal of free speech in an online forum? Has it got the same validity if used to seek some type of truth as it would if used to disseminate lies or biased propaganda?

Does freedom of expression come with a responsibility to use it wisely?

I believe it does.

If someone is coming voluntarily to an online forum where obviously debate is going to take place, in which questions are going to be asked and explanations sort then that person has a certain duty to give answers, honestly and promptly or leave. Because if they are not why have they come to such a forum?

I mean people can easily have their own webpage to say virtually anything they want without ever being questioned, so why go to a place where they will be asked questions if they are not willing to answer them?

So if they openly refuse to answer questions and/or lie, claiming things that are untrue, then they are actively going against the whole spirit and function of the forum.

That isn’t poor debating skills, that’s trolling.

I pointed out this to Pitt twice and he continued refusing to answer questions and seemed to be claiming things or making accusations for which he couldn’t produce any evidence.

*

 

Quote:
Just as you seemed convinced that your right to own a gun, with few if any restrictions, is more important than the brutal murder of a million American children a year, month, even day, to you their deaths would be a worthwhile sacrifice.

Why you think that, is still unclear, all you’ve said is that you would rather these millions dead than be slaves, although you don’t explain why the proposals I’ve championed would cause their enslavement or why gun ownership would necessarily protect them from it?


Obviously, gun control will never save that many children. However, even if it could, I'd still be against it. Why? When you start playing that game, it takes an absolute right and turns it into something to be bought and sold (the "price" here being hypothetical lives saved.) When you start that, it will always be distilled down into the classic emotionally charged "if it saves just one child," argument.

Let me know if I missed anything. I'm tired and wonked on cold meds.

You missed a lot Proud but you often do.

Thing is why not worked toward having a better society where the murders and injuries didn’t take place, a more contented, comfortable and secure society?

A society where people didn’t feel they needed to turn to the threat or use of violence to get what they wanted (security, fame, money, revenge, suicide etc) then people could have the guns if they wanted them and not have the same levels of death and injury (physical and emotional).

That for me is a worthy and rational aim.

The problem seems to be that many Americans don’t seem to care about having a better society they just want the guns.

For example you’ve said you don’t care about your society and you seem to be saying here that you would care how bad it got, or how many died because of your society’s failings.

For me this is the craziness many Americans seem to have fallen into – rather than working toward making a better society they prefer instead to ignore the societal problems and put their faith in threat (of which guns are a part) to suppress the symptoms of the problems.

**

 

Explain to me what is rational about expecting all murders to cease? Something that people (as well as animals) have been doing to each other every single day since the beginning of their existence?

It's a cute thought, but it's also naive.






And what did you want me to address...

 

[size=+2]Crime up Down Under[/size]
[size=+1]Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%[/size]
[size=-1] [/size]





Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
• There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons, "a safe society by any standards," said Tidswell. But such low rates of crime and rare shootings did not deter then-Prime Minister John Howard from calling for and supporting the weapons ban. Since the ban has been in effect, membership in the Australian Sporting Shooters Association has climbed to about 112,000 -- a 200 percent increase.

Australian press accounts report that the half a million-plus figure of weapons turned in to authorities so far only represents a tiny fraction of the guns believed to be in the country.

According to one report, in March 1997 the number of privately-held firearms in Australia numbered around 10 million. "In the State of Queensland," for example, the report said only "80,000 guns have been seized out of a total of approximately 3 million, a tiny fraction."

And, said the report, 15 percent of the more than half a million guns collected came from licensed gun dealers.

Moreover, a black market allegedly has developed in the country. The report said about 1 million Chinese-made semi-automatics, "one type of gun specifically targeted by the new law," have been imported and sold throughout the country.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said the situation in Australia reminds him of Great Britain, where English lawmakers have passed similar restrictive gun control laws.

"In fact, when you brought up the subject of this interview, I didn't hear you clearly -- I thought you were talking about England, not Australia," Pratt told WorldNetDaily. "It's hard to tell the difference between them."

Pratt said officials in both countries can "no longer control what the criminals do," because an armed society used to serve as a check on the power and influence of the criminal element.

Worse, Pratt said he was "offended by people who say, basically, that I don't have a right to defend myself or my family." Specifically, during debates with gun control advocates like members of Handgun Control, Inc. or similar organizations, Pratt said he routinely asks them if they're "against self defense."

Most often, he said, "they don't say anything -- they just don't answer me. But occasionally I'll get one of them to admit it and say 'yes.'"

Pratt said, based on the examples of democracies that have enacted near-total bans on private firearm ownership, that the same thing could happen to Americans. His organization routinely researches and reports incidents that happen all over the country when private armed citizens successfully defend themselves against armed robbers or intruders, but "liberals completely ignore this reality."

Pratt, who said was scheduled to appear in a televised discussion later in the day about a shooting incident between two first graders in Michigan on Tuesday, said he was in favor of allowing teachers to carry weapons to protect themselves and their students on campus.

Pratt pointed to the example of a Pearl, Mississippi teacher who, in 1997, armed with his own handgun, was able to blunt the killing spree of Luke Woodham.

"By making schools and even entire communities 'gun free zones,' you're basically telling the criminal element that you're unarmed and extremely vulnerable," Pratt said.

Pratt also warned against falling into the gun registration trap.

"Governments will ask you to trust them to allow gun registration, then use those registration lists to later confiscate the firearms," he said. "It's happened countless times throughout history."

Sarah Brady, head of Handgun Control, Inc., issued a statement calling on lawmakers in Michigan and in Washington to pass more restrictive gun access laws.

"This horrible tragedy should send a clear message to lawmakers in Michigan and around the country: they should quickly pass child access prevention or 'safe storage' laws that make it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children," Brady said.

Brady also blamed gun makers for the Michigan shooting.

"The responsibility for shootings like these do not stop at the hands of the gun owner," Brady said. "Why are ... gun makers manufacturing weapons that a six-year old child can fire? This makes no rational sense. When will gun makers realize that they bear a responsibility to make sure that their products do not mete out preventable deaths, and that they do not warrant nor deserve special protection from the law to avoid that burden? Instead of safeguarding the gun makers, we should be childproofing the guns."

In contrast to near-complete bans in Australia and Great Britain, many U.S. states have passed liberal concealed carry laws that allow private citizens to obtain a permit to carry a loaded gun at all times in most public places. According to Yale University researcher John R. Lott, formerly of the University of Chicago and a gun control analyst who has conducted the most extensive study on the impact of concealed carry laws in the nation's history, the more liberal the right to carry, the less violent crime occurs.

Lott, who examined a mass of crime data spanning decades in all 3,200-plus counties in the United States, concluded that the most important factor in the deterrence of violent crimes were increased police presence and longer jail sentences. However, his research also demonstrated that liberal concealed carry laws were at the top of the list of reasons violent crime has dropped steadily since those laws began to be enacted by state legislatures a decade ago.

The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a division of Handgun Control, Inc., disagreed with Lott's findings, as well as the overall assumption that a reduction in the availability of guns in society reduces violent crime.

"Using violent crime data provided by the FBI, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence determined that, on average over a five-year period, violent crime dropped almost 25 percent in states that limit or prohibit carrying concealed weapons," the Center said. "This compares with only a 11 percent drop in states with lax concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws. Moreover, states with some of the strongest laws against concealed weapons experienced the largest drops."

Without naming its source, the Center also claimed "a prominent criminologist from Johns Hopkins University has stated that Lott's study was so flawed that 'nothing can be learned of it,' and that it should not be used as the basis for policy-making."

In his most recent research, Lott noted a few examples of mass shootings in schools when teachers who were armed, albeit illegally, were able to prevent further loss of life among students indiscriminately targeted by other students with guns.

Ironically, both Lott and Handgun Control acknowledge that the reams of gun control laws on the books in Washington and in all 50 states have been ineffective in eradicating mass shootings or preventing children from bringing weapons to school. However, Lott's research indicates the criminal element has been successful in obtaining weapons despite widespread bans and gun control laws, while HCI continues to push for more laws that further restrict, license or eliminate handguns and long guns.

 

Originally Posted by Balbus
Thing is why not worked toward having a better society where the murders and injuries didn’t take place, a more contented, comfortable and secure society?

A society where people didn’t feel they needed to turn to the threat or use of violence to get what they wanted (security, fame, money, revenge, suicide etc) then people could have the guns if they wanted them and not have the same levels of death and injury (physical and emotional).

That for me is a worthy and rational aim.

Explain to me what is rational about expecting all murders to cease? Something that people (as well as animals) have been doing to each other every single day since the beginning of their existence?

But Michael I haven’t said I think all murders will cease, this really is the problem here, some people only seem to see or hear what they want to see or hear they don’t listen to or read what’s actually been said. I explained at length many times that what I’m aiming at is the reduction of harm.

Micheal read it again and this time concentrate – “not have the same levels of death and injury (physical and emotional)”

What do you think that means?

1) Not the same level?

2) Completely cease?

*

It's a cute thought, but it's also naive.

Maybe you should read more carefully and think before you make silly remarks?

*

And what did you want me to address...

try
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4145076&postcount=1691

Or

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4113808&postcount=1645

I could go on if you wish?

**

 

Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

This is from the far right, pro-gun, website WorldNetDaily, a place that makes FOXnews seem positively liberal.

Anyway did you just cut and paste or did you look into this piece?

The author Jon Dougherty says statistics tell a story, have you ever heard the quote attributed to Disraeli, “lies, damned lies and statistics”.

The problem with most statistics is that they are very open to interpretation and therefore bias, also as any statistician will tell you they don’t give the definitive answers because there are so many other factors and variables involved as I’ve explained at length before (did you read it?)

*

As I’ve explained the most reliable data is homicides – the article asserts

• Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

“Over the past 17 years, the rate of homicide has fluctuated by 0.7 per 100,000 persons, ranging from a low of 1.3 to a high of 2.0. In the most recent review year (2005-06), Australia experienced a homicide victimisation rate of 1.5 per 100,000 population. Since 2001-02, there has been a declining trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia, but this downward trend has not continued for the 2005-06 year.

It does on to say “There has been a statistically significant downward trend in the incidence of homicide in Australia over the 17 year period, 1990-2006”
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/homicide.html

*

Now according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#2000s

homicide rates per 100,000 of population are

US 5.9
UK 2.03
AU 1,28

The FBI put the US rate for 2005 at 5.6

In other words nearly 5 times the rate of Australia?

Jon says “At the time of the ban, which followed an April 29, 1996 shooting at a Port Arthur tourist spot by lone gunman Martin Bryant, the continent had an annual murder-by-firearm rate of about 1.8 per 100,000 persons”

Which according to the statistics has gone down (either to 1.5 or 1.3) but the thing is that even at 1.8 it would have been small in comparison to the US.


**

• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

The has been an increase in the number of assaults reported but this could be down to a push my the police for people to report such incidences as this report indicated people where not
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article192006?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2006&num=&view=

**

• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

Actually armed robberies seem to be down.
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/robbery.html

So this statement (which he uses as a subtitle) seems to be wrong.

**

• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

I don’t seem to be able to find what this is based on, I found it on a number of pro-gun websites but they just seem to be repeating it without saying where it comes from. Do you know?

Anyway, you could try this British Medical Association, journal, which published this paper by the some academics from Monash University, Victoria, Australia
Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/10/5/280
“Results: In Victoria, two periods of legislative reform related to firearms followed mass shooting events in 1988 and 1996. A national firearm amnesty and buyback scheme followed the latter. Victorian and Australian rates of firearm related deaths before reforms (1979–86) were steady. After initial Victorian reforms, a significant downward trend was seen for numbers of all firearm related deaths between 1988 and 1995 (17.3% in Victoria compared with the rest of Australia, p<0.0001).”
Conclusion: Dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform.
**

• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

Again I’m not sure where this comes from, and again it appears on a number of pro-gun websites without saying what is supposedly based on. Now according to the Australian statistics “The overall trend in the number of recorded crimes in Australia has been decreasing steadily since 2002”

**

• There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

Is has been reported? By who?

“Older people are relatively safe compared with other age groups. Young people are more likely to be victims of crime than other members of the community, and older people are the least likely to be victimised.”
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/faqs/older_people.html

Property crime seems to have gone down.
http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/property.html

**

Don’t you see that the way you argue is backing up what I’ve been saying?

I mean look at the murder rates above.

Look at the prison population

US – 714 per 100,000
AU – 117 per 100,000

The fact that Australia doesn’t have the death penalty, where as the US thinks executions are needed to deter crime.

Who do you think has a worse societal problem the US or Australia?

Now are you arguing for these problems to be looked at, so that solution may be found or are you arguing that you need a gun to protect you from American society’s obvious problems?

You don’t seem to care about your society or how it can be made better all your efforts seem to be aimed at defending or promoting gun ownership.

How does this not back up what I’ve been saying?

**

 

OK I may have found the origin of the claims in Jon Dougherty’s article.

Snopes’ Urban Legend Reference page

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

The figures given by Jon seems to be based on a old and very likely bogus email ‘From Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia’

Its even categorised as a chain letter by -
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html

It seems like Jon was had.

Michael it would have been so easy to have done a little research, rather than just accept things.

**

 

Right to bear arms is codified in the Constitution.
It's also regulated by existing laws
If those laws aren't sufficient to the task...then reforming those laws would be cheaper and easier than creating new laws which would likely be as effective or less so than existing laws.

Prohibition of anything rarely works.
See: Drug Prohibition

 

People use drugs recreationally, people don't use guns recreationally. You can see that gun prohibition works. Places with gun control have markedly lower rates of violent crime, especially gun crime. The only exception to the rule is Switzerland, but the swiss are quite a peculiar lot of people, extremely peaceful and also weed use is very common. Legalize all drugs, ban all guns. World would be a much safer place.

 

I'm in awe of these statements...Is today opposite day and no one told me?

People don't use guns recreationally??? Places with gun control have markedly lower rates of gun crime???

I feel stupider for even acknowledging this slanderous BS. ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE in the U.S. you can see that the more strictly guns are controlled, the higher the instances of gun crime in that area. In each of the 48 states that allow some form of concealed carry, they immediately saw MARKED DECREASES in violent and gun crimes...

Come on dude, even the (honest) anti-gun people will tell you this. Try again.





http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4145076&postcount=1691


Your interpretation is different from mine. You think that the changes in reporting/recording policy are the main (or perhaps only?) reason for the rise in crime stats. I on the other hand think that although the policy changes probably played some role in the increase, they didn't do nearly as much to balloon the crime stats as the actual increases in crime did.

Neither of us can prove our interpretations as fact on this forum, so I'm done talking about this.



http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4113808&postcount=1645


The question is: What do I think is wrong about your theory?

My answer is: Every last bit of it, especially since it comes from someone who doesn't live in the U.S. And if you want my reasons as to why I think this, just look over every single post that I've made in this thread as each and every one was designed to show the fallacy of the statements you keep repeating.







Now, back to the Australia issue...



I love how you point to an article on an "Urban Legends" website to try and make it seem like there's ANYTHING at all false about those stats. Those stats are ACCURATE. I read that entire page, and all Snopes does is pull out that old tired argument that "stats can be interpreted many ways". Sure they can. You have your interpretation, and I have mine.

So nobody was "had" as you say.


Now Balbus, look at the following chart and tell me in which year do we see THE SINGLE GREATEST INCREASE IN INSTANCES OF ARMED ROBBERY?







Give up? Well in case you missed it (which I don't see how anybody could), it was 1997. Which is....?


THAT'S RIGHT!! The very next year after the gun ban was enacted!!


And from that point on it looks like the instances of ARMED ROBBERY are MUCH higher than they were before the ban, until 2004 where judging by this chart they finally managed to get a handle on things. And by "get a handle on things" I mean GET ARMED ROBBERIES BACK DOWN TO THE SAME EXACT LEVELS THEY WERE BEFORE THEY TOOK AWAY OVER 600,000 LEGALLY OWNED WEAPONS.


Random Australian - "CRIKEY MATE, WHAT A HULLABALOO OF A POINTLESS LAW! IT COSTED US OVER A HALF A BILLION DOLLARS, AND HAD NO NOTICABLE EFFECT ON GUN CRIME (except that it immediately got much worse for 5 years)! AND NOW I CAN'T FEND AWAY THOSE KILLER CROCS AND DINGOS! BLOODY HELL, ONE'S GOT MY BABY!!!"

 

Think of it this way, armed ROBBERY will always stay fairly similar with or without gun control. Because it's criminals carrying it out, they're always going to find some way of obtaining guns aren't they?

Look at the gun HOMICIDES per 100,000 people in Australia. Homicides are carried out by criminals, they are also carried out by ordinary people who lose it and do something stupid. Or by people who are just quite twisted. Those people, funnily enough, don't have contacts with anyone who can get them guns.

]

Oh look, sharp drop just after gun control brought in.

Aaaaand your point on gun crime increasing in places in the US with stricter gun control:


Where did that happen? Hmmm?

Also, the general point being made that guns are a defence against political tyranny. That's essentially bollocks. There was little gun control pre-Hitler, and he weakened it (for non-jews anyway, and before someone mentions it, they WEREN'T the only group he opposed)

Saddam's Iraq allowed guns, and firearms were in most houses. Any uprising there? Nope.

No matter what guns you the person has, the tyrannical government will always have better. You have a rifle, they have an assault rifle. You have a handgun, they'll have a sniper rifle. The anti-gun control lot seem to use the same tactics as the anti-cannabis lot. Shout big scary statistics such has percentage rises of 80%, without actually pointing out the general trends, or the actual facts.