I know that and I didn't take it as one. I think I am more like you guys than you think. Just a few issues where we disagree. Its why I come here to tell the truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
|
I know that and I didn't take it as one. I think I am more like you guys than you think. Just a few issues where we disagree. Its why I come here to tell the truth!Quote:
Originally Posted by magprob
What I find pure sh1theadedness is accepting that there is an epidemic of gun violence involving children that nothing is wrong. But as we have sorted out that's just me and my culture. Im happy being a sh1thead. Beats being shotinthehead!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Anything beats being shot in the head Skell. That's why you got to practice your fast draw!
And yet, here you are with no facts whatsoever to back up your assertion that gun control lowers gun violence. You can't even fine BIASED data that makes thatassertion... because it simply isn't true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
And just so you know, I don't get my data from pro-gun websites. I get them from crime statistics and gun ownership statistis put out by governments. The raw data, unfiltered by any organizations with a bias, speaks pretty clearly on its own. I don't need to spin it.
How many? How often? Where? What are the gun cotrol laws like in the places where these events occur? Are the number of deaths from gun violence in locations with strict gun control laws lower or higher than those with more liberal gun policies? Without that data, you are speaking based on annecdotal information, not based on a true knowledge of the issue.Quote:
You have children being killed every day because of gun violence. Surely you don't need me to provide facts of that?
Nobody has denied that there is an issue. Gun violence is a huge issue. There is simply no proof that banning guns will or has ever stopped gun violence. And there is quite a bit of proof to the contrary. We aren't disagreeing on the nature of the problem. It's the solution that you are proposing that I disagree with.Quote:
Yet still you think that there is no issue. You all do!
Interesting. But not entirely accurate.Quote:
We may be a much smaller country in population but in my memory we have never had a child gunned down at school. NEVER!! We had the Port Arthur massacre which subsequently lead to change in gun laws in this country. Since then we have had a decrease in gun violence!
In 2002, at Monash University, a foreign student killed two other students. Despite the strict gun control laws established in 1996. There was a huge uproar about how a foreigner was able to get his hands on a gun in the first place. The stricter gun laws don't seem to have been effective there, do they.
Additionally, according to Don Weatherburn, head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, gun ownership in Australia (specifically in NSW) is up since 1996. So much for getting the guns out of the hands of civillians.
And finally, in 2006, the British Journal of Criminology printed a peer-reviewed article that showed that there has been no significant change in crime statistics in Australia during the 10-year period since the gun laws in Australia were changed.
Then there's the fact that 85% of gun-crimes in Australia were committed with unregistered guns. How do the gun laws keep unregistered weapons out of the hands of criminals? The answer is that they don't. They only keep guns out of the hands of the people who obey the laws in the first place.
And as a side note, did you know that the rate of adult male gun suicides in Australia increased in the years following the 1996 crackdown in gun laws? I'm not sure what to make of that fact, but it's clear that stricter gun control hasn't prevented gun suicides.
That's because you're a sheeple and you follow the herd, even when you are in disagreement with it.Quote:
And we citizens aren't so paranoid that we feel violated because we don't have the opportunity to overthrow Bush's little lap dog Howard and his government.
So am I.Quote:
I'm glad my kids will go to school in my country. Even gladder they won't ever set foot in one in yours!
True to a point. But I tend to be a small-government conservative. I see guns as a protection from government authority as much as from evil deviants.Quote:
As Kahan said "Americans see guns not through a lens of 20/20 facts but through an elaborate stained-glass window. Are you a big proponent of authority? If so, you probably see guns as a way to make the world safer — as a form of protection against evil deviants. Same goes for people whose identity is rooted in self-sufficiency. You see guns as a form of independence. So gun-control laws will not fix the problem, as far as you're concerned."
You aren't wrong because you disagree with me or see things differently than I do. You are wrong because you're wrong. You are wrong because the historical and statistical evidence shows that you are wrong... even in your own country, which you hold out as an example of how gun control works.Quote:
Simply, I and many many millions of other in the world don't see it like you do. But of course we are wrong!
I look forward to your next piece of diatribe!
Elliot
Because it would be pointless as the biased arguments you make. As I've said. Ive based my mind up by watching your kids being slaughtered each night on the news! That's enough for me!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
The small business start-ups is one I totally agree with.
I would have never thought of this. But yes, that's a good one too.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Actually, what helped Nazi Germany was some American businesses and banks. The government should have stepped in more and stopped this. An example is IBM. I'm making this point because you are being extreme here. I'm going to show you the flipside of the coin that you brushed under the rug.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Vive le Canada: Before There Was A Hitler, There Were Nazis In America
However, I don't agree with total government control (obviously)... yet I also do not agree that we should take that control and hand it to elite businessmen. There has to be a balance.
Maybe we should ask how the Canadians, Brits, and French do this? They all have free healthcare and maintain being amonst the richest countries in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Free? What's so good about free? Have you read elsewhere in this site when many have to wait anywhere from several days to several weeks to be seen by a real doctor or critical needs specialist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckling
Granted, much of our system is jaundiced by pharmaceutical companies
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
If your news is playing the images over and over again in your news media, it's because that media wants to distort your perception of the reality here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
There aren't people being murdered every day, as you claim. It your source's tell you that, I'll label that as yellow journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainRich
Hey, it's better than how some Americans never see the doctor.
Got you there Captain :)
What would I do if I had the control of the billions, as President? I would scrap the reservations and quit paying for Custer's sins. There are better ways to help a nation than keep feeding it. Revise Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. People who are criminals in their country would not be allowed in this country, strengthen our borders, help those who sincerely need that boost to get them to self sufficiency (endorse education and work programs that teach people to provide for themselves).
People talk about gun control - it is not the gun that is at fault. It is the access to these weapons and the weapons themselves. There are laws on the books - another law is not going to change much. I could go out and buy a weapon without going through the right channels. Would I? No, but I could. Why is it that young people, at the first indication of anger, run home, get a gun and come back shooting? The gun gives them the control they lack in their life. Identify that root problem and then concentrate on honestly fixing it. The family in crisis. The school in crisis.
Nice cut and paste from Wiki Elliot. However you did seem to edit / leave out a few good arguments against what you wrote. Once again you only produced those arguments that suited you and not the entire article which also dealt with the arguments for.
"In 2007, researchers at the Australian National University reported "There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected," There was a reduction in both murders and suicides."
Even Don Weahterburn who you cited in your post was quoted as saying that the reports against gun control are inconclusive. Did you miss that bit Elliot??
"Prominent Australian criminologist Don Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[20] Weatherburn noted the importance of policing illegal firearm possession and argued that it should not be necessarily concluded that relaxing restrictions would not affect the homicide rate."
"A study co-authored by Professor Simon Chapman argued that the laws have prevented mass shootings, pointing out in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been none."
This proves what I say Elliot about how you twist so called reports, statistics, facts etc. to suit your argument, while completely discounting the other point of view. You imply that your statistics and reports are to be taken as gospel while I have no evidence and am wrong. I have demonstrated above that you copied and pasted from a wiki article but failed to leave in the parts of that article that argued against your opinion. Is that what you call solid evidence??
Some more reading;
Has anything changed in Australia since the new laws went into effect? Homicides committed with firearms have been declining – from 21 percent of all homicides in 1997 to 16 percent in 2002-2003.
Along with the declining use of firearms in homicide, Australia saw a 44% decline in the use of firearms in armed robberies from 1993 to 2003.[6] From 1997 to 2003, the proportion of robberies committed with a firearm dropped from 10 to 6 percent.
Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 1998."
Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004.”
"Overall certainly the states with the loosest gun laws have high rates of gun deaths," says Rebecca Peters of the Open Society Institute, which conducted the study.
A foundation that promotes gun violence prevention surveyed state gun laws and found Massachusetts has the strictest. And, according to the federal government, Massachusetts also has the nation's lowest gun death rate.
While there are exceptions, there appears to be a pattern. Louisiana -- which researchers found to have virtually no gun laws -- has the highest gun death rate.
"The gun lobby is running a line at the moment that says there are thousands of gun laws out there not being enforced. This study really debunks that notion in terms of preventative gun laws, there are very few gun laws out there," says Peters.
All states must follow federal gun control laws, but 35 don't require licensing or registration of any firearm, including assault weapons. And only four states limit gun purchases to one a month. The National Rifle Association told CBS News, "This isn't a study. This is a piece of anti-gun propaganda," and declined to comment further on the report.
The director of the study does have anti-gun credentials. She led the charge against the gun lobby in Australia after a massacre there left 35 people dead. As a result, semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are now banned.
"I can tell you it was entirely too easy to purchase the guns. And I honestly believe something should be done," says Robyn Anderson, who bought guns for her friends Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. The two then killed 13 people plus themselves at Columbine High School.
She says a state law requiring background checks at gun shows would have stopped her from buying three guns used by the Columbine killers.
"If I had to fill out paperwork with a private dealer I would not have done it," says Anderson.
Forty-four states have this so-called gun show loophole. In Colorado, legislators refused to close the loophole and voted down virtually every other gun control measure introduced since the Columbine massacre.
CBS News - Breaking News Headlines and Video from CBSNews.com
I like what this guy has to say. You won't Elliot!
Paul Helmke: Gun Violence: What Are We Going To Do About It? - Politics on The Huffington Post
I hope you bother to read the above Elliot. And I hope you see the benefit of taking into regard both side of the argument. I constantly hear Americans acknowledge that yes there is a problem with Gun violence but it isn't the guns fault. Maybe, maybe not, but whatever it is that you are doing at the moment to try and stem this epidemic isn't working. Not even close. As you'll see in my post above, you can argue all day that it hasn't worked in Australia and I can argue back with evidence that it does. Even a scholar that you quoted in your arguments admitted that the evidence suggesting that it hasn't worked is not solid. It doesn't hold completely true. If he isn't confident in his own finding how can anyone else be expected to??
So the fact is Elliot, I'm not wrong. Not even close. My historical and statistical data is as strong if not stronger than yours. Notice my links to Australian Institute of Criminology, “Facts and Figures: 2004". Fairly credible source there Elliot wouldn't you agree.
You present your arguments well and demean others with your defensive attitude Elliot but the facts are you're words are no more poignant or educated than mine. Im no fool, don't treat me like one! I will find holes in your arguments all day if you like just like you will with mine. Its never ending. You acknowlege a problem but offer no solution. Unless your solution is mandatory gun carrying by all. Is that it Elliot?
You want to tell me I'm wrong because I'm wrong and not because I simply disagree with you? I don't believe you!
Got what there? I have great insurance but I still don't like doctors... Needles! Run away!Quote:
Originally Posted by Duckling
Okay get ready to flame me...
Immigration:
1.) Depot every non US citizen in prison right away. We should not be holding other countries prisoners exceptions made for certain prisoners of course but all regular Joe Blow prisoners back to your country of origin.
2.) Secure the border doesn't matter how but we will know if any non us citizen crosses our border.
3.) Address farmers issues with increased work permits only given out in to people that are not already in the US so if you want to work and you're here illegally you need to move back and get your work permit.
The war in Iraq
1.) Give the government of Iraq a d-day that if they are not ready to take over their country by a certain date maybe a year or so out. Iraq is going to be broken down in to smaller pieces and given to local countries that are friendly to the US in that Middle East.
The war on drugs
The current method that the US is under taking is failing; we are trying to put a square peg through a round hole.
1.) Decimalize the small amounts of all drugs.
2.) Decriminalize all hemp
3.) Start using alternate treatment methods for criminal drug users (such as the cocaine vaccine)
4.) Increase school funding so kids are taught that although legal not a good idea
Gun control
1.) Bill of right is very clear we have the right to own guns. This is the right that allows the people to enforce the government giving us the other rights.
Health insurance
1.) Make sure the health insurance companies operate in a free market.
2.) Have the government work on things that have low too little profit like vaccines
Prisons
1.) Prisons need to be run more like being on the outside.
2.) Prisoners get a basic meal and shelter for free. Have various jobs and education classes that pay them in services and a small income for when they get out. 1 hour in a class room gets you enough credits to buy a dessert for dinner and maybe $1 to be put into a savings account so you have money when you get out. So you don't have to go rob someone the day you get out in order to eat.
Taxes
1.) Move to a consumer tax system such as the fair tax system
Foreign Policy
1.) The majority of world feels that the US uses it's military to often. So only use the US military when other nations put forth more than 51% of the troops. Unless there is going to be direct harm to the US otherwise.
2.) Scale back the majority of the US bases on foreign territory.
Energy
1.) Dramatically increase funding to alternate energy sources this money is not available to any company that makes more than 30% of its profit from oil or oil companies.
2.) Create solar cell mortgages starting in the southwest and increase if feasible. A solar cell mortgage would give people money to buy a solar power system for their house and be paid back at the rate that the system produces electricity. So if it makes $150 of electricity you pay $150 on the loan until it's paid off then you get the electricity free.
I have more but I already have a long post so I'll stop.
I find it hard to accept that you think a document that was written in the 1700's is still necessarily applicable today! Don't you think that we have come a long way since then and perhaps the Second Amendment may be a little outdated. We are not talking about farmers owning a shotgun to defend themselves against some cattle rustlers. Guns are being used for much more than that today but you think that because it is in the Constitution it can't be tampered with. Please...
The documents written way back, were long thought out. But even still, they can and are applied to today. Modified. I don't think we're talking about cattle rustling. Or keeping the neighbor's dog off my lawn. But I'd like to think that I can remain proficient with firearms, either for hunting or protection, real or imagined, and not have some entity tell me I'm irresponsible or delusioned.
Many documents have been modified and changed, interpretively, across time.
The U.S. Constitution is considered a living document.
If your local broadcast regurgitate ( you like that word ) the same crap to fill their airtime, I have no control over that.Quote:
Skell agrees: American news feeds reporting gun slaying are innacurate are they? Do I need to witness them first hand?
So stick your head in the sand then captain and deny there is a problem (you like to do that).
I would use a portion of it to better education and programs to lower the drop out rates. I would analyze Medicaid and make changes where people would pay according to their income rather that just rewarding those who don't work or get pregnant. Basically I would try to spend it to save for the future. Lastly I would pay myself less money.
The reason the second amendment exists is because the founding fathers had just beat the best trained best equipped military in the world with a volunteer army with no training.
It has been proven time and time again that no matter how good the army is, a military force can not defeat a determined populace (example: Iraq, Vietnam)
There have been many studies that show that when you allow law abiding citizens to have guns, crime goes down.
Crime Plunges in Pro-gun Town
Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Michael- I do agree, however would like to point out, from my view, Vietnam was lost due to the rules of engagement. Iraq is a slow process because of the civil factions. Also complicated is the fact they they are re-supplied with weaponry and rebels sourced from outside of their own country as well. However originally in Iraq had the people only been on the same page to overturn their murdering dictator it would had been a great example of the populace vs. existing government. I would like to underline what I'm hearing from your point of view, Elliot's and few others here that I agree with: "We the people" and "right to bear arms" in essence means the public (and we are a republic) has the power to balance any threat, even that of our own government if need be.
Bobby
Skell,
Okay you don't agree that guns lower crime, fine. I'll make my point a different way.
Swimming pools kill more people in United States than guns do. Swimming pools have no use except for recreation. A swimming pool often take the youngest most innocent of our society. So given this information should we ban swimming pools? They clearly present more of a danger to the public than guns do. What about cars? They are kill more people that swimming pools and gun combined. Cars are very often used to avoid police and commit murder. Where does it end? Once cars, swimming pools and guns are gone. Do we get rid of pointy objects just how far do we take this train of thought?
Skell,
First, what makes you think I cut and pasted from Wikipedia or anywhere else?
Second, Weatherburn clearly states that gun ownership in Australia is up. So whatever other conclusions that may or may not be drawn from that fact, the one conclusion that may be drawn is that more Australians own guns today than before the gun control laws in 1996 were initiated. Ergo, gun control laws have not had the effect of decreasing the number of guns owned by the population. Do you deny this basic fact? True, no other conclusions can be drawn from the studies... including the fact that gun control laws decrease gun crimes. Which only strengthens my point. There is no proff one way or the other that strict gun laws have any effect on gun crimes or gun-related deaths. Period. I haven't tried to draw any othe conclusion from Weatherburn's statement except that there are more guns on Australia today than there were in 1996.
As for Chapman's argument that there have been "no mass shootings" since the stricter gun control laws were put into place, that simply isn't true. As I mentioned, there is the Monash University shooting. So his conclusion that there have been "none" is already untrue. But more important is the question of WHY there have been no mass shootings. Is it because of stricter gun laws, or because of the fact that (as Weatherburn reported) there are more Australians with guns who are able to fight back against a potential mass-shooter?
Now, for murder and violent cime statistics in the USA by state for 2006:
-------------- per 100,000 pop.
State --------Murders-------- Violent Cimes
USA----------- 5.7------------- 473.5
Alaska ---------5.4------------- 688.0
Alabama -------8.3 -------------425.2
Arkansas -------7.3 -------------551.6
Arizona --------7.5 --------------501.4
California -------6.8 -------------532.5
Colorado -------3.3--------------391.6
Connecticut---- 3.1------------- 280.8
Delaware -------4.9 -------------681.6
Florida ---------6.2 --------------712.1
Georgia --------6.4 --------------471.0
Hawaii ---------1.6 --------------281.2
Iowa ----------1.8 --------------283.5
Idaho ----------2.5-------------- 247.2
Illinois---------- 6.1 --------------541.6
Indiana ---------5.8 --------------314.8
Kansas ---------4.6 --------------425.0
Kentucky -------4.0-------------- 263.0
Louisiana -------9.9 --------------594.4
Massachusets ---2.9 --------------447.0
Maryland -------9.7 ---------------678.6
Maine ----------1.7 ---------------115.5
Michigan -------7.1 ---------------562.4
Minnesota ------2.4 ---------------312.0
Missouri --------6.3 ---------------545.6
Mississippi ------7.7 ---------------298.6
Montana --------1.8 ---------------253.7
North Carolina ---6.1 ---------------475.6
North Dakota ----1.3 ---------------127.9
Nebraska --------2.8 ---------------281.8
New Hampshire ---1.0 --------------138.7
New Jersey ------4.9 ---------------351.6
New Mexico -----6.8 ----------------643.2
Nevada ---------9.0 ----------------606.8
New York -------4.8 ----------------434.9
Ohio ------------4.7 ----------------350.3
Oklahoma -------5.8 ----------------497.4
Oregon ---------2.2 ----------------286.8
Pennsylvania ----5.9 ----------------434.9
Rhode Island ----2.6 ----------------227.5
South Carolina ---8.3 ----------------765.5
South Dakota ----1.2 ---------------171.4
Tennessee -------6.8 ---------------760.2
Texas -----------5.9 ----------------516.3
Utah ------------1.8 ----------------224.4
Virginia ----------5.2 ----------------282.2
Vermont ---------1.9 ----------------136.6
D.C. -------------29.1 --------------1508.4
Washington ------3.0 ----------------345.9
Wisconsin --------3.0 ----------------284.0
West Virginia -----4.1 ----------------279.7
Wyoming ---------1.7 ----------------239.6
(Statistical data from national crime statistics at Disastercenter.com)
The locations with the highest murder rates and violent crime rates is DC. Not so coincidentally, DC also has the STRONGEST gun control laws in the entire nation. No gun ownership by civillians is permitted in DC at all.
The state with the lowest murder rate is New Hampshire. Again, not so coincidentally, New Hampshire has some of the most liberal gun laws, not requiring liscensing for any weapon, and only requiring a permit for the carry of handguns. There are no child access prevention laws or child possession laws in New Hampshire.
Maine, which has the lowest violent crime rates in the nation, also has some of the most liberal gun laws in tha nation, not even requiring a license for carrying a handgun, and only requiring a permit if the weapon is concealed. (Open carry does not require a permit.) Again, they have no juvenile access or juvenile possession laws on the books.
North Dakota, which has the second lowest murder rate and the second lowest violent crime rate also has very liberal gun laws, requiring a licence only for concealed carry of a handgun. (Open carry does not require a license.)
Are you getting the point yet? The states with the lowest crime rates have the most liberal gun laws.
Massachusets, which has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books, ranks only 10th lowest in murder rate and 29th lowest in violent crime rate. Massachusets requires permits for purchase of rifles, licensing for ownership of rifles, requires permits to purchase handguns and licenses for ownership and carry of handguns. They also have very strict juvenile possession, access and transfer laws. Yet they are NOT among the states with the lowest crime rates.
(Gun control law information from CNN.)
The point is that strict gun laws aren't preventing crime. And there is strong evidence that gun ownership does prevent crime.
And I agree with you that what we are doing right now isn't working to prevent gun violence. But what we are doing right now... the national and global trend... is to make stricter gun laws. THAT is what isn't working. THAT is what we need to change.
Unfortunately, I can't read the citations you posted. The firewall on my computer prevents access to them. Can you cut & paste them to word and send them to me in a private message, or C&P them here? I am interested in reading them.
Elliot
Your previous post on the matter contained text directly taken from here. That's what makes me think, in fact know is a better word, you cut and pasted from Wikipedia. Or am I to assumt that you wrote your spiel in your own words and it just so happened to read word for word what was on the Wiki page.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Face it. You copied and pasted part of an argument from a web page that suited you. You failed to ignore important facts on the same page that noted;
Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%.
If you consider a double murder a mass shooting then OK. The article should read that in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been one instead of none as it claims.. Still an improvement by anyone's measure Elliot!
Put simply Elliot you put a spin on the facts to make it read good in your post. It is clear you cut and pasted your post from Wiki (or somewhere with the same text) but failed ot leave out many facts indicating that the gun control laws have made a difference.
It is a pointless exercise trying to point out to you that the arguments for gun control are as strong as the arguments against it. Your pig headed and it is clearly ingrained in to your psychi that whatever Elliot thinks must be right. It must be hard being right all the time. Or at least it must be hard to never be ables to consider that perhaps what you are doing may need a change in direction as it isn't working. Doesn't leave much room for improvement if you are already perfect!
Just a quick one. So what do you attribute this sharp decline in gun related deaths in Australia immediately after the introduction of gun control laws? Better policing? A change in attitude by criminals? What do you put it down to?
There are many arguments to point to the fact that gun ownership is down. It is pointless posting the links because you can't read them and won't accept them anyway!
You want to know why gun ownership has gone up? Because all those previously illegal and unregistered fire arms have now been registered and are legal. They are legally stored at rifle ranges. Previously, just like in the US no one bothered to legally register there gun. Since tough gun laws have come in people have been forced to register their firearm which indicates an increase in gun ownership. Its inaccurate.
In addition, all remaining guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners, private firearm sales are no longer permitted and each gun purchase through a licensed arms dealer is scrutinised by police to establish a "genuine reason" for ownership. Possession of guns for self-defence is specifically prohibited, and very few civilians are permitted to own a handgun. All the nation's governments, police forces and police unions support the current gun laws.
In the 1996-97 Australian gun buy-back, two-thirds of a million semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns were sold to the government at market value. Thousands more gun owners volunteered their firearms for free, and nearly 700,000 guns were destroyed.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
In Canada, where new gun laws were introduced in 1991 and 1995, the number of gun deaths has reached a 30-year low.
In the United Kingdom, civilian handguns were banned, bought back from their owners and destroyed. In the year following the law change, Scotland recorded a 17% drop in all firearm-related offences. The British Home Office reports that in the nine months following the handgun ban, firearm-related offences in England and Wales dropped by 13%.
A British citizen is still 50 times less likely to be a victim of gun homicide than an American.
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
These statistics make it pretty clear there is a direct relationship between gun laws and firearm related crime.
The reason it doesn't necessarily hold up in the US (and that is still debatable) is because the states that you claim have strict gun control laws don't actively police them. Until strict laws are put in place and actively policed then of course it won't change.
What about the total murder rates? As I understand it, knife-crimes and knife-murders are way up, and the overall crime rate hasn't changed in the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Again, true, and I acknowledged that in my response above. However, what is the cause for that improvement? Is it because of stricter gun laws or because MORE AUSTRALIANS HAVE GUNS NOW THAN IN THE YEARS PRIOR TO THE 1996 GUN LEGISLATION? Unless you can prove that there is a direct correlation between gun laws and crime rates, there is no proof. If the number of guns in Australia had gone down instead of up, you might be able to argue that crime statistics are a function of the strictness of gun laws. Since that is not the case, there is no proof of that. Ergo, my argument that gun ownership prevents crime and gun laws do not continues to have a basis. And considering that in most cases where gun ownership is high crime is low (and vice versa), and considering that Australia bears out that pattern, I'd say that I have a pretty strong argument.Quote:
If you consider a double murder a mass shooting then OK. The article should read that in the 18 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre there were 13 mass shootings and in the decade since 1996 there have been one instead of none as it claims.. Still an improvement by anyone's measure Elliot!
EVERYBODY does that. That's what debate is about. People give arguments for their point of view. It just so happens that my arguments are better than yours. But why would I undermine my own position by giving an opposing argument? Is that how you debate? You must not have been on your school debating team.Quote:
Put simply Elliot you put a spin on the facts to make it read good in your post.
I did not cut and paste. I did use wikipedia, but I went to the sources cited by wikipedia to get the information in raw form. If it looks like I cut and pasted from wikipedia, perhaps it is because the author of the wikipedia article cut and pasted from the same primary sources I used... which makes sense since I used his bibliography for my research.Quote:
It is clear you cut and pasted your post from Wiki (or somewhere with the same text) but failed ot leave out many facts indicating that the gun control laws have made a difference.
I stated the arguments that support my view, yes. I also pointed out the weaknesses in the arguments that oppose my view. So what? Is it my job to make your argument for you? Especially when I disagree with your argument?
But they aren't. There is a clear pattern in case after case that proves otherwise, and the sole case that you have pointed out in favor of your argument, Australia, actually proves MY pattern and my argument, as I pointed out.Quote:
It is a pointless exercise trying to point out to you that the arguments for gun control are as strong as the arguments against it.
And you are any different? I haven't met too many people outside of a psych ward who go around thinking that they are wrong all the time. Are you such a person? It must be depressing to go around thinking you are wrong.Quote:
Your pig headed and it is clearly ingrained in to your psychi that whatever Elliot thinks must be right.
The fact that I have the stastical data to back up my position just makes that belief that I am right stronger. And to date, you have not been able to question a single one of my arguments... the best you have been able to do is bring up one case where you believe that the pattern differs. And I have shown how there is no proof of that. But my statistical evidence remains unassailed. You haven't even been able to question it.
Nah... it's pretty easy. Being WRONG all the time... that must be hard to deal with.Quote:
It must be hard being right all the time.
As I mentioned at the end of my last post, I am trying to change what we are doing because it isn't working. But the thing that ain't working is stricter gun laws. I'm trying very hard to change that, because after 50 years of making striter and stricter gun laws in the USA, it has been demonstrated that those gun laws have not had any noticeable positive effect on lowering violent crime, murder or manslaughter. Stricter guns laws ain't working. So I'm trying to change it.Quote:
Or at least it must be hard to never be ables to consider that perhaps what you are doing may need a change in direction as it isn't working.
Yeah, well, we all have our crosses to bear. Being perfect is mine. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.Quote:
Doesn't leave much room for improvement if you are already perfect!
Elliot
Sounds like we need to have gun control thread.
One more thing I thought of that I would do. I'd get rid of the death penalty. The government makes too many mistakes to do something so final.
I am writing this down... that's so awesome!Quote:
Being perfect is mine. It's a tough job, but someone has to do it.
Elliot your response is excellent.:)
This person shares the same view I do, I will need a running mate
Everything said by ETWolverine I support also, ETWolverine lets change America
YouTube - CNN / Lou Dobbs - Gov.Spitzer is spolied rich kid brat
YouTube - Border Security and Illegal Immigration - Odom 2008
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Primary item focus on America and Americans. Improve the quality of life .Education,Security and Heath care.
No Excuses,No Politics Because I am not politician, just a common everyday American who believes it's time for real change. And is willing take a stand for a better future.
1) Put aside the concept of red vs blue. I ask for your help in doing this, to a find common ground, so can work together to find long term solutions for a better future.
2)Radically revamp education. Education is the infrastructure of any great nation, regardless of social status and provide the same opportunities to all. This will solve so many of today's problems and this will provide equal opportunities for all. And not to mention this policy will make the United States the best of yet again. Secure all schools with technology. My edacation plan we be unlike any before
It, focus on learning not social status.
3)Illegal immigration. Secure the borders with sense of urgency, and deport those here illegally within 30 days. If you want to be a part of the American society, learn English and come here legally, we welcome you.
4)Stop policing the world and focus on American problems and not other countries, spend our money here and not over there. Focus on Security and winning the War on Terror. We can't fix the worlds problems until we fix our own. Then we will be better suited to address problems on the world stage
5)Make English the official language of the United States.
6)Revamp American infrastructure based on technology for a better future, therefore improving the everyday life of Americans.
7)Stop the outsourcing of American jobs; bring the manufacturing back to America through the use of technology.
8)Modernize the military for the future and protect our soldier with better life saving gear
"I would push for progress in the "Future Warrior" weapons programs in order to get our soldiers in the field the best and most effective equipment available to the US arsenal"
This is excalty the point
9)Fusion Power, which is not nuclear and has no radiation, would power national power grids. Private / Mass Transit would be powered by electricity from Fusion Reactors. Fusion Reactors would be used to crack sea water into Hydrogen/Oxygen, to be used as fuel for cars, aircraft. Homes and Cities will be a 100% electrified or will be using hydrogen fuel, which has nearly zero harmful effects and has no pollution or green house gases
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by odom2008dotcom
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.
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 don't 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.
I read your post very well. The only other example you gave was Massachusets, and I disproved that example as being factually untrue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
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.Quote:
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??
So there are more people owning guns but fewer guns exist? How does that work? Does that make sense? Not to me.Quote:
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.
Sounds like someone is trying to justify something by twisting logic.
Still waiting for proof of that.Quote:
I'm not wrong all the time Elliot.
I am assuming that you mean "arrogant". And it's only arrogance when you're wrong.Quote:
However I am not so ignorant as to think I am right all the time.
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.Quote:
From what you have shown me I don't see how your argument is stronger that mine.
Quote:
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.
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 occurring!! The same number of crimes are occurring!!
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.Quote:
You see Elliot I will find just as much information to refute your claims that gun ownership makes the world a safer place.
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.Quote:
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.
So what do you intend to do about the "epidemic" of knife deaths? Planning on making stricter knife laws? Going to 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
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 doesn't 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 I've said all I along I sense that this is in issue of culture more than anything.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That's how it works. I wouldn't expect that to make sense to you Elliot.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Using Maine, New Hampshire and North Dakota as examples, your statement seems to be untrue and not based on statistical evidence.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to.
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.Quote:
Im safer here in Australia without a weapon than you are in the US even with your assault rifle.
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.Quote:
Im sorry you live in such a dangerous climate that guns make you feel safe. As I've said all I along I sense that this is in issue of culture more than anything.
Elliot
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
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
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:o
Grace and Peace
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 PM. |