 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
 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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Skell
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
|
||||
|
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Skell
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.
Sounds like someone is trying to justify something by twisting logic.
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. 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!!
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.
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. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
That's how it works. I wouldn't expect that to make sense to you Elliot. |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Skell
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.
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.
Elliot |
||||
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Skell
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
||||
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Boyfriend is spending the weekend with his ex.
[ 7 Answers ]
Hello all, I haven't been on recently. I hope you all are doing well. Anyway, I have a bit of a problem. My boyfriend of 9 months is spending the weekend with his ex girlfriend. The problem is I had no idea. He told me he was going to a car show. At first I wasn't concerned. I mean, he's...
About how much am I looking at spending ?
[ 3 Answers ]
I have a Capecod abou 1200sqft. I have central forced heat and I want to ad central air using the existing duct work. I just wanted an opinon on what range I should be looking to spend to do this. Thanks
Spending a year in the us
[ 1 Answers ]
Can anyone tell me where the best skateboarding communities are in the US? We may have a chance of spending a year there and as our son is a keen skateboarder we would like to choose somewhere that would suit him as well as us.
Federal Govt. Discretionary outlays ($billions)
[ 1 Answers ]
Defense: 270.2 (1998) 454.1(2004) Non-Defense : 281.9 (1998) 441.4(2004) Composite outlay deflator(2000=1.00) Defense: .9499(1998) 1.1264(2004) Nondefense: ...
Average holiday spending $ ?
[ 2 Answers ]
Just read an article (actually 2) this morning that said the average amount spent on holiday gifts is $1,000. Fyi - both articles were referring to the 20 & 30 something age group. I don't think I spend nearly that much, but I'm going to review last year's spending to be sure that I didn't just...
View more questions Search
|
