Another idiot with a gun

[Heracles 417]

don't you know it!! car windscreens just aren't as effective at killing bugs as a 9mm pistol

Keep up the bullcrap bud.

[natty bumppo 289]

don't you know it!! car windscreens just aren't as effective at killing bugs as a 9mm pistol

Keep up the bullcrap bud.

you're the one pointing out the "living organism" comparison ... just sayin'

[SuperDuper! 230]

I don't think there is a distinction for driving a car as either driving somewhere innocently or guilty. Guns have a single purpose: to penetrate flesh and either maim or kill. If that isn't obvious then there really isn't a purpose of discussing morality and legality.

Guns are used as a deterrent too, my point being is deal with the gunman not the gun. A madman has a lot of options and its pointless to think if we take the gun out of the equation its all good.

I gotta go

Well as I've said before... we're not talking about an across the board 'taking guns out of the equation' deal here. For every extreme case and crazy out there we can find a weapon down to a carpet fiber if you want. The very clear difference is obvious, like I said- and its in the design of the weapon. I'm sure if you were to do an actual statistical analysis to show frequency of use and result in depriving humans of their lives in a non-bellicose fashion that the intentional use of cars, tractors, RVs, knives, chalk, fingernails, rope, arsenic, flowers, ghecko tails, beer bottles, farts, frying pans, pizza cutters, street signs, cement blocks, pirañas, sharks, etc all added up have NOT been utilized to kill as many people as firearms.

And in those details is where we should be rationalizing our thinking... not in equating things on slippery slopes as if they were all equal.

You forgot bicycles.

You forgot 30" Pizzas.

[Heracles 417]

you're the one pointing out the "living organism" comparison ... just sayin'

Well you guys do seem to use them to kill anything and everything.

[HAL 9000 96]

This thread is getting really weird.

[Heracles 417]

This thread is getting really weird.

It only gets weird when people want to beat around the bush and deliberately divert it. The figures I stated earlier speak for themselves. They are a living proof of the success of gun control.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[mawilson 2,133]

This thread is getting really weird.

It only gets weird when people want to beat around the bush and deliberately divert it. The figures I stated earlier speak for themselves. They are a living proof of the success of gun control.

If by success you mean success at taking away people's freedoms in the name of the "greater good"

to usher in a fascist, totalitarian police state where once there was privacy, democracy and liberty, then

yes, you're in good hands - Australia and the UK are some of the best examples of modern police states

where the police closely watch all citizens, yet crime still happens.

[HAL 9000 96]

Why bother with gun control though when we have had thought control at play in this country for a long time now?

On the lighter side of things I'll watch out for out of control windshields.

[Heracles 417]

If by success you mean success at taking away people's freedoms in the name of the "greater good"

to usher in a fascist, totalitarian police state where once there was privacy, democracy and liberty, then

yes, you're in good hands - Australia and the UK are some of the best examples of modern police states

where the police closely watch all citizens, yet crime still happens.

I agree with crime but at least people are not murdered. NYC has fixed up the rough parts of the city thanks to Giuliani and 9/11. Come to various parts of DC or Chicago and then come tell me whether you prefer a police state or not. Heck, I'd rather have military rule than live in fear of being shot dead every day or even night. I doubt you will find many if any Aussie or Brits or Canadian who prefer the 2nd amendment over lower murder rates. As a matter of fact, I heard a marine say that he felt safer in Baghdad than various parts of east DC.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Booyah!

[justashooter 430]

If the guy had a history of mental illness, or had a breakdown of some kind since he purchased his weapon, should his family (or we as a society) have a right to remove those weapons from him once a report has been filed?

there is this little principle of American law called "ex post facto" you should study up on before your naturalisation test. i know you don't have it in england, but we have it here. if we didn't, "we as a society" could remove your keyboard for posting idiotic questions like this one.

[Marilyn. 340]

If the guy had a history of mental illness, or had a breakdown of some kind since he purchased his weapon, should his family (or we as a society) have a right to remove those weapons from him once a report has been filed?

there is this little principle of American law called "ex post facto" you should study up on before your naturalisation test. i know you don't have it in england, but we have it here. if we didn't, "we as a society" could remove your keyboard for posting idiotic questions like this one.

she is the US citizen

[ready4ONE 5,400]

In shooters world if you aren't rabid pro-gun, you just ain't a good Amorican...

[justashooter 430]

Hmm let me see, which approach is working. This one is going to be tough.

http://gunowners.org/op040809hn.htm

In 2002–five years after enacting its gun ban–the Australian Bureau of Criminology 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 Research, 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%.

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):

continued

from a web page that suggests that guns are evil and should be banned, the charts say otherwise:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

IMPACT ON CRIME RATES

Supporters of the right to private possession of firearms have pointed at increases of some crime rates, since the buyback began, as evidence that it has increased the rates of those crimes. The Australian government and other gun controllers have cried "foul" and argued back in terms only of "firearm" deaths—which is not a valid basis for evaluating a policy.

Let's examine what has happened to rates of some types of Australian crime since the buyback, and some other changes that went into effect at the same time, but also for a few years before it began. First, it has been reported that the rate of assault has increased dramatically since the buyback.

Looking at the graph of the Australian assault rates from 1991 through 2004, it appears that something bad was at work in Australia until near the end of that period. The assault rate increased every year at a high rate. (And, in fact, for many years preceding.) Note, too, that the rates do not vary much from the basic trend. This means that the data are not affected by chance as much as it is by underlying causes. The relationship seen is a reliable one.

It is true, as claimed by gun possession advocates, that the assault rate has increased a lot since the ban/buyback. But the ban/buyback cannot be blamed for this since the rate was increasing at essentially the same rate before the ban/buyback (and the other changes) began. The rate did not rise as fast for '99 and 2000, but then rose even faster than before for '01 and '02. The ban/buyback did not have a definite effect of any kind on the assault rate—neither improving it nor making it worse. It is possible that the small declines for '99 and 2000 were caused by the ban/buyback and other changes made at the same time. But, if so, something must have completely counteracted that in '01 and '02.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/homihisty.gif

The top line represents homicide victim rate history, but with some modifications. First, the rate shown is a 3-year moving average. Specifically, the average is of the current year plus the 2 preceding years. Another modification is that what is shown is the rate minus 1.

The moving average is shown in order to smooth out some of the random wild swings alluded to earlier (caused by dealing with small numbers). The average is for current and past time only so that any change that appears abruptly as time increases could be correlated with the time at which the rate is plotted. The "1" is subtracted to reduce the height of the graph. (Just add "1" to a value from the curve to get the actual value.)

The homicide rate had peaked about '90, then dropped to a low about '94. The rate increased slightly after the Port Arthur incident, but it was also increasing by about the same rate for a couple of years before. So it is not reasonable to blame the increase in homicide on the ban/buyback.

The lower line represents firearm homicide victim rates. We had too few years of data for firearm homicide incident rates to bother plotting this, although such data would be better to use.

The firearm homicide rate appears to have dropped a bit erratically after Port Arthur and the ban/buyback. However, it also appears to have been dropping at about the same rate since '86. The reduction in gun homicide after the ban/buyback should therefore not be attributed to the ban/buyback.

MURDER

The murder rate had no definite trend from '93 through 2000. All the rates lie within a range that is about the same size as the changes from one point to another. That is, the random variations are too large to draw any conclusion about some small trend that might exist. The gun murder plot seems to be slightly less random, rising a little for '96 and '97. However, the pattern is not very conclusive since the rate for '99 went back up a bit after the drop in '98 (i.e., no consecutive years heading the same direction). So the murder and gun murder rates do not support the idea that anything about murder rates was caused by the ban/buyback. Note that the murder rate actually dropped a little in '96 in spite of the Port Arthur massacre and another mass killing in that year. The reason for this is that the usual peak in murders/homicides during the Australian spring didn't occur that year.

she is the US citizen

then it's true. the average american is dumber than a rock.

[Marilyn. 340]

not sure how her question makes her dumb...

Edited September 8, 2009 by Marilyn.

[Heracles 417]

....

Nice article from a pro gun group. Maybe they should check out they facts regarding guns and murders. Assaults have gone up, as have robberies but at least are not dead.

I supported guns all the way myself until I realized, week after week, it's an absolute joke here. The fact still remains that while the US has 14 times Australia's population, it has 160 times the death rate by means of firearm. No matter how anyone tries to twist, spin, etc. The fact speaks for itself. As do similar results in pretty much every other developed country.

At least I know my family over there has little chance of being murdered by means of a firearm. By means of some wacko shooting up. Statistically speaking, by means of domestic dispute; which covers one of the largest percentages of homicides.