What would you do?

gallivant_fellow

How about a car that runs on compressed air. Not necessarily oxygen or hydrogen or anything that needs to be isolated, but just the air around us. And an air compressor in the car would be charged by the alternator so it could keep compressing air for the car, equaling infinite fuel. The car would be totally self sufficient and keep in mind that the only thing being done to the air is that it's being compressed, which will have zero effect on the environment.

If you haven't heard about this car or seen it on T.V. then here is a link The MDI Air Car - The World´s Cleanest Car.
There is still more research to be done before it's as perfect as I made it sound AND it's practical. But still, what a leap past squirting dead dinosaur/plant cocktail into my car so it can use a select amount of it to burn, making me go forward, while poisoning my air. It's almost funny how we power our cars, but it's real.

Skell

For the record Australia wasn't the only case i pointed out Elliot. You must not have read my post.
We are talking about guns and gun deaths Elliot. It is clear in the Statistics that GUN control reduces GUN crime. It is plain as day!!!!! Did you miss that part???

Did you miss the part that explained to you why statistics relating gun ownership has gone up. Legal ownership numbers have risen but number of guns decreased dramatically.

I'm not wrong all the time Elliot. However i am not so ignorant as to think i am right all the time.

From what you have shown me i dont see how your argument is stronger that mine.

I still find it perplexing to understand how you can say that gun laws have failed in Australia when it is clear that gun crime, gun deaths, mass murders etc etc. have all decreased dramatically.....

NUMBER OF DEATHS

During the reference period, 1980-95, a total of 10,150 deaths were registered as firearm-related, accounting for 0.5% of all deaths reported. However in terms of premature mortality, firearm deaths are more significant, accounting for about 2.4% of total years of potential life lost before age 76 (see Technical Note). Of total deaths from external causes, which include accidents of all types, and all suicides and homicides, firearm deaths contributed 8.9%. Although the relative magnitude of deaths from the use of firearms as a cause of death is small, such deaths still have public health and social significance. Analysis of ABS mortality data indicates that firearms are involved in approximately one-quarter of all suicides and one-fifth of all homicides.
The majority (78%) of firearm deaths during the reference period were suicides, 15% were homicides while deaths resulting from the accidental discharge of firearms contributed 5%. The remaining 2% were made up of a small number of deaths resulting from legal intervention (deaths by law enforcement agents in the performance of legal duties) and deaths where the intent was undetermined.

OVERALL TRENDS

The crude firearms death rate declined from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population in 1980 to 2.6 in 1995 (see table 9). This represented a decline of 46% over a period of 16 years. The rate of decline observed remains about the same when firearm death rates are standardised for age to minimise the effect of variations in the age structure of the population over the years. (For details on standardisation see paragraph 9 of the Explanatory Notes.) The 1995 standardised rate of 2.6 was the lowest death rate from firearm use recorded during the reference period.

4397.0 - Firearms Deaths, Australia, 1980 to 1995

In 2000, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) conducted an International Crime Victims Survey that included comparative data on firearm ownership in Australia, the USA, Canada and the UK. From this survey the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) estimated that in 2000 about 10 per cent of Australian households owned a gun, reflecting a decline of 45 per cent in gun ownership since 1989. In Australia, the majority of households which owned a firearm did so for hunting or sport-related purposes. Details of the findings were published in the firearm ownership section of Australian Crime – Facts and Figures 2001.

After the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms was introduced in 1996, the AIC was asked to establish the National Firearms Monitoring Program which regularly produces publications on firearm offences and related issues in Australia.

According to recent firearms data from the AIC, there are currently about 2.5 million registered firearms in Australia belonging to 731 567 individual licence holders.

You see Elliot i will find just as much information to refute your claims that gun ownership makes the world a safer place. Put simply You are less likely to be killed by a gun in this country now than you were 20 years ago prior to gun control laws. And the same goes for the UK and Canada.

ETWolverine

I read your post very well. The only other example you gave was Massachusets, and I disproved that example as being factually untrue.


But what of overall crime? What's the difference between getting shot to death and getting stabbed to death. If the same number of people are getting killed in crimes, then your gun laws haven't really changed anything, have they. Sure, there fewer gun deaths... so what? They have been replaced by knife-deaths. It's a distinction without a difference. Crime rates and violent crime rates, and murder rates are the same as before.


So there are more people owning guns but fewer guns exist? How does that work? Does that make sense? Not to me.

Sounds like someone is trying to justify something by twisting logic.


Still waiting for proof of that.


I am assuming that you mean "arrogant". And it's only arrogance when you're wrong.


Then perhaps the problem lies with YOU, not me. If every case that BOTH of us point out show that strict gun laws do not result in lower crime rates and the vast majority of cases point to the fact more linient gun lawes and higher gun ownership levels do result in lower crime rates, it seems to me that my argument is pretty damn strong.



Not once do these statistics talk about overall crime rates, deaths due to violence other than gun violence, etc. What's the difference if there are fewer gun deaths if the same number of people are dying as a result of crime? How does that indicate efficacy of gun laws? The same number of deaths are occuring!!! The same number of crimes are occuring!!!


Only if you ignore overall data and focus ONLY on guns and not knives and other murders. Australia isn't safer... the same number of people are getting murdered.


Sure. But you are twice (three times, according to some accounts) as likely to be stabbed to death in Australia. The number of gun deaths is down but they have been replaced by knife deaths on a 1:1 ratio. You've gained nothing except a change in the way people are murdered in your country. That's not much of a gain in my book. But perhaps knife murders are more acceptable to you because guns aren't involved.

So what do you intend to do about the "epidemic" of knife deaths? Planning on making stricter knife laws? Gonna get the knives off the streets?

And you have not proven such a trend to be true in either the UK or Canada. UK's gun murder rate has been increasing steadily over the past decade, along with their overall crime rates. I haven't really looked at Canada's crime statistics recently so I can't comment without additional research. ut the last time I looked (several years ago) their crime statistics did not differ significantly from the USA's in terms of gun-law/crime trends.

Bottom line: crime is going to happen. People are going to kill each other for various reasons including greed, lust and hatred. Trying to eliminate guns won't change that basic fact of human nature. All that strict gun laws do is leave law-abiding people with no way to defend themselves against criminals who manage to get their hands on guns anyway despite government's best efforts to keep them out of criminals' hands. Even in cases where the government can decrease the number of guns, people find other ways to kill each other and commit crimes against each other. So stopping guns changes nothing. However, when gun ownership is more prevalent, crime rates decrease because potential criminals know that they are likely to face a person equally armed rather than a helpless individual, and they instead go to places where their potential victims are more likely to be weak and helpless.

Elliot

Skell

AMERICAN CRIME STATS:

Drug offences 560.1 per 100,000 people [4th of 34]
Murders 12,658 [6th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.042802 per 1,000 people [24th of 62]
Murders with firearms 8,259 [4th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.0279271 per 1,000 people [8th of 32]

SOURCES: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention); UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin

AUSTRALIA CRIME STATS

Murders 302 [32nd of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.0150324 per 1,000 people [43rd of 62]
Murders with firearms 59 [21st of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00293678 per 1,000 people [27th of 32]
Prisoners 22,894 prisoners [42nd of 164]

SOURCES: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention); UNODC

CANADA CRIME STATS

Murders 489 [26th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.0149063 per 1,000 people [44th of 62]
Murders with firearms 165 [12th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00502972 per 1,000 people [20th of 32]

UNITED KINGDOM CRIME STATS

Murders 850 [18th of 62]
Murders (per capita) 0.0140633 per 1,000 people [46th of 62]
Murders with firearms 62 [20th of 32]
Murders with firearms (per capita) 0.00102579 per 1,000 people [32nd of 32]

The stats tell me Elliot that our murders per capita are way down on yours. Not just GUN murders but murders which includes knives.

The fact is Elliot that in a country where you assert it should be safer because ordinary citizens are able to carry guns you are actually worse off. You are more likely to be murdered in any manner in the US than countries like mine who have gun laws. So your argument that people carrying guns makes it safer just doesn't make sense.

Bottom line: Crime is going to happen. People are going to kill each other. Living in a country where carrying a gun is legal doesn't make you any safer. It does however make you more likely to be shot. It doenst even make you less likely to be murdered with a knife. Your still more likely to be killed.

Or are you just going to tell me that your country is more violent than mine. If so then perhaps it is justifiable for you to carry a gun. But it doesnt mean the rest of the world needs to. Im safer here in Australia without a weapon than you are in the US even with your assault rifle. Im sorry you live in such a dangerous climate that guns make you feel safe. As ive said all i along i sense that this is in issue of culture more than anything.

Skell

Gun ownership numbers have gone up because people are now forced to legally register fire arms where as previously the laws did not require this or were not as stringently enforced.

Thats how it works. I wouldnt expect that to make sense to you Elliot.

ETWolverine

Yep. Australia has lower crime rates than the USA. But how has stricter gun laws contributed to that statistic? Australia had lower crime rates than the USA prior to 1996 as well. The stricter gun laws established in 1996 didn't change that. In fact, they have had NO EFFECT at all on Australian crime rates.


That's because in most of the USA, guns are strictly regulated. However in cases where guns are not strictly regulated, the crime rates are lower in the places with more linient regulations.

For instance, in New Hampshire, where gun control is minimal, the murder rate is 1 for every 100,000 population, or .001 per 1000. That is 1/10th of the number of murders per capita that take place in Australia. Maine's murder rate is 0.0017 per 1,000, or 1/5th of that of Australia. North Dakota's murder rate is 0.0013 per 1,000, also roughly 1/10th of the Australian murder rate. Clearly in states where gun control is minimal, crime rates are lower than in places where gun control is strict, including Australia. The overall US crime rate does not prove anything since MOST states regulate guns strictly.


Yes it does. Again, since MOST states have strict gun laws, the fact is that most people do not own guns. Criminals, however, do own them, and so crime is high in those states. In states where gun ownership is legal and not restricted, crime rates and murder rates are 1/10th of those in Australia.


Using Maine, New Hampshire and North Dakota as examples, your statement seems to be untrue and not based on statistical evidence.


First, I have never made any statements about what other countries should do. I have only spoken about what I think the USA should do. Second, I don't believe that we are more violent than other countries. But I do believe that in states where gun ownership is restricted, people are more helpless and the criminals are more brazen. And the statistical data bears that out.


Apparently not. I'll repeat, North Dakota, Maine and New Hampshire have murder rates that are 1/10th to 1/5th of those in Australia, due to their liberal gun laws.


I sense ignorance of the state of US gun control laws, lack of statistical information, and a denial of what is evident to anyone who researches this issue... gun laws do not improve safety fom crime. Legal gun ownership does.

Elliot

gallivant_fellow

An old quote from you Skell, but I have to comment on it. In cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, they have handguns. In the rest of the US, like where I live, they have rifles comparable to sniper rifles and they are trained to use them with accuracy and stealth from hunting. Of course the military is more powerful, but if it was civilians vs. our troops (for some crazy reason) our troops would have a damn hard time beating an entire nation of snipers (and yes, I would consider sitting in a hunting blind for days sniping, not sharpshooting).

michealb

I honestly don't care how many gun deaths there are. Taking away my rights is not an option.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

inthebox

From ET's

last post it can be pointed out that Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota
are less densely populated, there population is more homogenous and less diverse, and perhaps drugs and gangs are not as prevalent and that is why gun homicide is much less than in the US in general and compared with Australia.

I would also venture to hazard a politically incorrect guess that certain ethnic minorities have higher rates of gun violence and murder than the general population and that "stricter" gun controls have less of an effect than race in the risk for gun violence.


I don't have the statistical expertise or the time to crunch the figures on this, but if any of these factors proves true , then the effectiveness of "stricter" gun control laws is moot.



ET :

What do you think of a NATIONAL gun registration?
The argument I hear from [ Rudy ] is that strict gun control in NY does not help reduce crime because of less strict laws in places like VA?

Oh, NSG, sorry to continue the hijack of this thread

Grace and Peace

ETWolverine

Possibly. But in truth snipers also MOVE stealthily. In the Israeli military they call it "shesh b'shishim". I'm not sure what it is called here. But the technique, which I was taught years ago in basic training, includes moving inches over a multiple hour period (30 meters over a 2 day period is not unheard of) to slowly and unnoticeably move closer to your target. I was decent at it. Special forces and snipers are friggin' experts. I suspect that Kindj, who was a SEAL knows much more about the technique than I do. But that is the difference between a sniper and a sharpshooter.

Nevertheless, despite the semantic differences between sniper and sharpshooter, your point is well-made. When roughly 5% (15 million people) of the nation is armed with high-powered hunting rifles and large calibur sport-shooting rifles, as well as untold numbers of handguns, the ability to make home-made explosives and weapons out of kitchen chemicles (I can put together a crude form of mustard gas in a few minutes with the right household cleansers), the use of industrial machinery that can be converted to act as weapons in a pinch, heavy construction equipment that is as durable and agile as many tanks, and acess industrial explosives and chemicals and equipment, the chances of taking on the US military successfully are much more realistic than many people might think. In a civil war against our own military, with 15-1 numerical superiority on the side of the civilians, along with intimate knowledge of the territory that most soldiers do not have of areas outside their own home towns, and the equipment and abilities that I spoke of, the chances aren't that bad, actually. In fact, at that point, the military's soles tactical advantages become discipline and combat experience. And that much can be available to former soldiers who are now retired who fight on the side of the civilians. The odds are actually in favor of the civilians in most ways.

So the argument that "my little handgun can't really make a difference" is not true.

Great point, GF.

Elliot