Report Fails to Link Gun Laws to Violent Crime

[Richard G]

Well, duh...

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=3549572

[Shinytop]

Well, the CDC and HHS will not give up in their crusade to find that guns are evil.

The findings were based on 51 studies, some partly funded by the CDC, of gun laws enacted in the mid-1970s and later.

Dr. Jonathan Fielding, director of the Los Angeles County Health Department and head of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, said the studies were marked by unreliable data, inappropriate analysis and inconsistent findings, making it impossible to determine the true effectiveness of gun laws.

"WE DON'T KNOW"

"This means that we don't know what effects, if any, a law has on the outcome," Fielding said in a conference call. "We don't mean it has no effect, and that's why it's important to do more studies."



Translation: We were quite surprised to find that 51 studies did not prove our point so we will keep studying until we can find enough biased studies to back our ideas.


People, criminals do not obey laws, doh.

[Richard G]

They conveniantly ignore the mass of data and studies that prove gun ownership reduces crime. The facts don't quite fit their agenda. (READ: Disarmament)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Richard G
They conveniantly ignore the mass of data and studies that prove gun ownership reduces crime. The facts don't quite fit their agenda. (READ: Disarmament)

No doubt your plan is to repeat this line as often as possible on this forum....or you could show us the "proof"..... You can't prove anything Richard, If you could you would be an important person in this debate rather than just another propaganda/anecdote spammer.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Well, the CDC and HHS will not give up in their crusade to find that guns are evil.



Translation: We were quite surprised to find that 51 studies did not prove our point so we will keep studying until we can find enough biased studies to back our ideas.


People, criminals do not obey laws, doh.

In Australia they do. The laws of economics. An illegal handgun is very expensive, so those who are most likely to kill, the desperate and stupid, find them very hard to come by, because they are also too poor to buy one. A decent handgun, IIRC, costs about $4,000 on the blackmarket, if you can find one.

Someone who is desperate to hold someone up to buy drugs can't get their hands on one in the first place.

[peptoabysmal]

From what I was able to dig up on the subject a while back, Australia imposed draconian gun laws on it's citizens in 1997, and then beat out the US for volume of violent crime by 2001.

An intersting link on the same topic: here (http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/guns.html)

[Zep]

PA, you can't have looked very hard. The "draconian" Australian gun laws re ownership of handguns by private citizens have been in place for decades. In 1997 the government implemented a buy-back scheme ahead of a crackdown on illicit weapons, and also banned assault rifles from sale.

And are you REALLY sure you want to put forward the pages you referenced as supportive of your position? It's written by a person in Queensland who is having a problem with reality a bit and is raving nonsense. Not only does the page have no, repeat, NO useful evidence at all, let me assure you up front, it's full to the brim with slanted hearsay, rant, and your basic bovine doodoo...

For example, the section headed "BRYANT - PATSY FOR DISARMAMENT?" is a complete and utter fairy story. The person who did the "investigation," an American out of California who seems to have never visited Australia, certainly didn't let any facts of the matter cause him to stray from his chosen path.

I got the feeling both he and the page's author sympathised with Martin Bryant, the world's 13th worst mass gun-killer. So is THAT what you would like us to sympathise with, PA? Hope not...

[Mr Manifesto]

Great website, pep. Three miles of op-ed and rant. And, apparently, an Alan Jones listener- the 2nd rate Aussie version of Rush Limbaugh. It even quoted John Lott. :roll:

What I didn't find among the rant was compartive statistics between Australia and the US. Why do you think that is? (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)

[xouper]

http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/danger.jpg

Take guns out of the home and you guarantee that the crooks won't have to worry about being shot by the homeowner. I hope that never happens here in America. I WANT the crooks to be afraid of getting shot if they invade a home.

[a_unique_person]

I don't get it. How many crooks actually want to invade a home? There are no guarantees you will get anything, it takes a long time to steal from there, and even if you don't get shot, you stand a good chance of being caught. Most people who rob homes only want to rob the empty ones, as, strangely enough, they don't actually want to hurt anyone.

If you want to just go out and shoot someone, there are plenty of people on the street, without going to the trouble of robbing a home.

And what do you get from it? A TV, a DVD player, some CDs? They are all effectively worthless these days. Only the desperate druggies will be doing that sort of burglary, or kids. Neither of these people will be able to afford a blackmarket gun. If you want to get rid of much of modern crime, de-criminalise drugs and treat addiction like a medical condition.

[xouper]

a_unique_person: I don't get it.Agreed.

If you want to get rid of much of modern crime, de-criminalise drugs and treat addiction like a medical condition.Agreed.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you want to get rid of much of modern crime, de-criminalise drugs and treat addiction like a medical condition.

AUP I didn't know that you have such progressive ideas.

I agree of course.

Guns are useful in case of a home invasion only if the owner can use them properly. That means that a gun is useful only if its owner knows that he must use the gun to shoot immediately the invader and not just to scare him.

Of course that way you risk to take your child that returns home late for an invader and kill your child But it's ok. The right to carry guns is Uber Alles.

[reprise]

If you want to get rid of much of modern crime, de-criminalise drugs and treat addiction like a medical condition.

When you say "treat addiction like a medical condition", what - specifically - do you mean and how does it differ from our current harm-minimisation policies?

Although we have a significant number of heroin addicts in my area (many of whom are on methadone maintenance and sell their methadone in order to score hammer), we also have a large number of people who are injecting speed on a daily basis and are committing crimes against people and property in order to purchase their drug of choice.

I guess I don't really see what services we could offer to those who are dependent on drugs which are not already available and I do question the wisdom of putting chronic drug use under the umbrella of "lifestyle choices", especially at a time when our governments are looking to minimise the damage done by the already legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco.

[a_unique_person]

They take the drugs anyway, the laws do nothing to stop them.

Just about the whole Victorian drug squad has been found guilty recently of being corrupt. The harm is done not just to those how take the drugs, but to the law enforcement system itself.

Despite the fact that everyone knows they could get illegal drugs if they wanted, they don't.

I would have heroin and tobacco sold at the chemists, at a reasonable price and purity, on a doctors prescription.

As for speed, it is an evil drug that sends people crazy, I agree, but it is very easy to make and sell. Much better to have the whole stupid business handled in a medical manner. Then at least you can help people when they ask for it, and handle the medical problems that inevitably occur. Eg, when someone does go loopy from speed, you can lock them up.

Look at Keith Richards. He is still alive, even though he has been addicted to heroin for years now. He tours the world, but is never busted for using.

[reprise]

So are there any drugs you would exclude from your legalisation proposals AUP?

Making recreational drugs available on prescription would create some interesting liability issues which simple decriminalisation would not, but decriminalisation alone does nothing to drive down the cost of those drugs to the consumer (and so doesn't really address the issue of crimes committed to finance a drug dependency).

Should drug dependence - in and of itself - be classified as a "disability" for the purposes of social security, insurance, and anti-discrimination law?

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/danger.jpg

Take guns out of the home and you guarantee that the crooks won't have to worry about being shot by the homeowner. I hope that never happens here in America. I WANT the crooks to be afraid of getting shot if they invade a home. You got that picture from the raving loonie pro-gun site from Queensland, didn't you! Do you know what the general opinion of them is here?

:wink8: :lol2:

BTW, the guns ARE out of the homes here generally, so the homes that DO get broken into are almost invariably the ones with no-one home. As mentioned above, even an idiot burglar finds it's a lot better to have the time to find and heist something valuable without someone seeing you do it. And what do we do if we see someone breaking in? Call the police...

Incidentally, since there are far more plain old burglar alarms in use these days, home break-in rates here have actually fallen recently... Gosh, and without guns available too!

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Great website, pep. Three miles of op-ed and rant. And, apparently, an Alan Jones listener- the 2nd rate Aussie version of Rush Limbaugh. It even quoted John Lott. :roll:

What I didn't find among the rant was compartive statistics between Australia and the US. Why do you think that is? (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)

Well, the link was kind of a joke. I hope yours was too, and you don't actually belive what's posted on GunCite.com or whatever:p

The stats I refer to date from 1997 to 2001. I have no idea where to find them, and I'm too lazy to google for more at the moment. Feel free to find stats which contradict this (but not from GunCite LOL)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Well, the link was kind of a joke. I hope yours was too, and you don't actually belive what's posted on GunCite.com or whatever:p

The stats I refer to date from 1997 to 2001. I have no idea where to find them, and I'm too lazy to google for more at the moment. Feel free to find stats which contradict this (but not from GunCite LOL)

What exactly is the problem with the site?

And you can refer airily to stats from whatever years you want, but unless you front up with them, you're just another gun-nut crap talker.

[Tricky]

It is incredibly hard to get reliable gun and crime statistics on the internet. It seems like every site has some axe to grind, either pro or anti. Here's one of the most even-handed opinion pieces I found. (http://members.aol.com/adinas/opinions/page3.html) Unfortunately, a number of the links are non-functional. One thing that struck me in relationship to this discussion was this though.
I found some really wacked stats on BOTH sides of the debate (although my personal prize for most inflated statistics would be some I found about Australia's new gun control laws effects: "Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%, assaults are up 8.6%, and armed robberies are up 44%. In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%." I found a rather different story at http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/facts99/sec3.html#homicide -- it looked to me like 1999 was a twenty year record low for homicide, Australia wide. Total 330! . There was a downward trend there over the last 20 years. (Don't bother trying the link.)

Another thing that is pointed out is that many folks want to assume there is a single variable in the gun crime/death statistics, when we all should realize that many factors contribute to this.

[Zep]

Another thing that is pointed out is that many folks want to assume there is a single variable in the gun crime/death statistics, when we all should realize that many factors contribute to this. Exactly, Mr Tricky, EXACTLY. I couldn't agree more.

And bearing that in mind, I would suggest it makes a modicum of sense to reduce at least one of the potential factors involved, such as the free access to dangerous firearms by people who do not need them.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep

And bearing that in mind, I would suggest it makes a modicum of sense to reduce at least one of the potential factors involved, such as the free access to dangerous firearms by people who do not need them.

Who are you to say someone doesnt need a gun?

Ohh yeah I forgot, all socio-fascists know whats best for everyone.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by xouper
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/danger.jpg

Take guns out of the home and you guarantee that the crooks won't have to worry about being shot by the homeowner. I hope that never happens here in America. I WANT the crooks to be afraid of getting shot if they invade a home.

I am curious; how many times has someone broken into your home prepared to kill you for your things, while you were home, and your gun came in handy?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/danger.jpg

Take guns out of the home and you guarantee that the crooks won't have to worry about being shot by the homeowner. I hope that never happens here in America. I WANT the crooks to be afraid of getting shot if they invade a home.

I'd agree that burgulars as a rule try to hit houses where nobody is home.

The statistic I'd want to see is how many guns are stolen from homes by these burgulars. I guess this would differ between rural and urban type areas, and there would be other reporting problems, but virtually every house burglary I saw in the rural county I worked in had the burgular stealing guns and selling them to buy drugs. Sometimes they picked up a TV or DVD player, but those were (as I was told) harder to sell.

According to the cops I often spoke with around the courthouse, there was an active guns/crack trade between our area and several larger cities, due to differences in the relative values of the items.

The point is, in some areas the sign above might actually make your home less likely to be broken into.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by tamiO


I am curious; how many times has someone broken into your home prepared to kill you for your things, while you were home, and your gun came in handy?

A very small percentage of the population has been in a situation where having a firearm and knowing how to use it....has saved their lives.

How do you suppose they'd respond to this question and the general suggestion that since it's unlikely anything would happen....they don't really NEED a gun.......????

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


A very small percentage of the population has been in a situation where having a firearm and knowing how to use it....has saved their lives.

How do you suppose they'd respond to this question and the general suggestion that since it's unlikely anything would happen....they don't really NEED a gun.......????

Well, so what?

I've been in a few violent situations where I'm glad the other guy (for it is usually a guy) didn't have a gun. How do you think I'd respond to the general suggestion that since it's unlikely anything would happen....they don't really NEED a gun.......????

The problem is, most people aren't as smart as me. They only see the rare occasion where the only thing that could save the day was the almighty gun. But they don't see the much more frequent occasions where a gun would have only made things worse, if not tragic.

The petrol store up the road from me got robbed by three junkies. They used a knife. They were hanging for a fix. The girl behind the counter was terrified enough as it was. Imagine if the weapon had been a gun, where too much pressure on the trigger could have killed her? As it was, only emotional damage was done.

I witnessed the junkies getting into and driving off in the getaway car. They saw me watching them and taking down the license plate. What if they had a gun? Could they not have fired a few shots my way for being a 'nosy citizen'?

But I don't have to worry about things like this. Guns aren't very common in Australia- they are usually owned by organised crime types who'd prefer to use them on each other and aren't in the habit of robbing petrol stations. Your country's different. Good luck to you.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The statistic I'd want to see is how many guns are stolen from homes by these burgulars. I guess this would differ between rural and urban type areas, and there would be other reporting problems, but virtually every house burglary I saw in the rural county I worked in had the burgular stealing guns and selling them to buy drugs. Sometimes they picked up a TV or DVD player, but those were (as I was told) harder to sell.

According to the cops I often spoke with around the courthouse, there was an active guns/crack trade between our area and several larger cities, due to differences in the relative values of the items.

The point is, in some areas the sign above might actually make your home less likely to be broken into. What a pity that signs like that don't REALLY exist!

And regarding theft of firearms, we might consider these facts (http://www.cnsnews.com/Facts/2003/facts20030421.asp) as well: "According to the FY 2000 accountability report, the ATF’s Stolen Firearms Program staff received 2,562 reports of theft/loss of firearms from Federal firearm licensees with 16,265 firearms reported lost/stolen. It also received 862 reports of firearms missing/stolen from interstate shipments with 1,747 firearms reported lost or stolen." And that's just Federal licensees - what about all the rest of the population that loses guns in burglaries???

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Well, so what?

I've been in a few violent situations where I'm glad the other guy (for it is usually a guy) didn't have a gun. How do you think I'd respond to the general suggestion that since it's unlikely anything would happen....they don't really NEED a gun.......????

The problem is, most people aren't as smart as me. They only see the rare occasion where the only thing that could save the day was the almighty gun. But they don't see the much more frequent occasions where a gun would have only made things worse, if not tragic.

The petrol store up the road from me got robbed by three junkies. They used a knife. They were hanging for a fix. The girl behind the counter was terrified enough as it was. Imagine if the weapon had been a gun, where too much pressure on the trigger could have killed her? As it was, only emotional damage was done.

I witnessed the junkies getting into and driving off in the getaway car. They saw me watching them and taking down the license plate. What if they had a gun? Could they not have fired a few shots my way for being a 'nosy citizen'?

But I don't have to worry about things like this. Guns aren't very common in Australia- they are usually owned by organised crime types who'd prefer to use them on each other and aren't in the habit of robbing petrol stations. Your country's different. Good luck to you.

Perhaps if the store clerk had a firearm & proper training....she could have avoided the "only emotional damage" too.

You'd be surprised...a lot of people are as smart as you are. They've taken extensive training courses so if the worst happens--they're better able to excercise good judgement and possibly save their lives.

A lot of people are arguing against carrying firearms based on the fact that it's unlikely you'd find yourself in a situation where they'd make a difference.

Here's another even more unlikely situation. That you would be armed by an armed LAW-ABIDING citizen.

You're right--you have nothing to worry about. At least not from people who obey the law......

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Ralph


A very small percentage of the population has been in a situation where having a firearm and knowing how to use it....has saved their lives.

How do you suppose they'd respond to this question and the general suggestion that since it's unlikely anything would happen....they don't really NEED a gun.......????

I apologize if that was the general suggestion you took. I have more questions than answers on this issue. I just watched "Bowling for Columbine" last week. It made me re-think many things.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


Perhaps if the store clerk had a firearm & proper training....she could have avoided the "only emotional damage" too.

You'd be surprised...a lot of people are as smart as you are. They've taken extensive training courses so if the worst happens--they're better able to excercise good judgement and possibly save their lives.

A lot of people are arguing against carrying firearms based on the fact that it's unlikely you'd find yourself in a situation where they'd make a difference.

Here's another even more unlikely situation. That you would be armed by an armed LAW-ABIDING citizen.

You're right--you have nothing to worry about. At least not from people who obey the law......

So- instead of dealing with the world as it actually is, you want to alter reality so it dovetails with your views?

Oooo-kay...

[DavidJames]

"You're right--you have nothing to worry about. At least not from people who obey the law...... "

I realize this is just one incident, and may not be worth much to you, but I would like to put a couple of faces on the absurdity of that comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/09/28/children.shot.ap/

It's true, that 4 year old child broke the law, so technically you are correct. But your position has consequencies that need to be considered and not brushed aside with a smug comment. Yes, it's also true the gun shouldn't have been left around, it was though, like in to many other cases.

Here is a link to some more kids who didn't "obey the law....."
http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/inthenews.asp

[Mr Manifesto]

The family was negligent for not training the 4 year old in firearms handling.

Or! The family should have kept the guns safely locked up. So that when the insane, evil Communist home-invader breaks into the house with slavering jaws, we could be treated to this comical scene:

"Erm... Hold on a tick while I unlock my guns from the cabinet that I use for home security..."

[xouper]

Zep: You got that picture from the raving loonie pro-gun site from Queensland, didn't you! Do you know what the general opinion of them is here?I'm not all that concerned about your opinion of that website. The cartoon stands on its own.

BTW, the guns ARE out of the homes here generally, so the homes that DO get broken into are almost invariably the ones with no-one home.Lucky you. There are enough home invasions in occupied homes here to justify having a gun for self defense.

As mentioned above, even an idiot burglar finds it's a lot better to have the time to find and heist something valuable without someone seeing you do it.And even more idiotic, some crooks invade a home for the specific purpose of doing harm to the occupants.

Ralph: A very small percentage of the population has been in a situation where having a firearm and knowing how to use it....has saved their lives. How do you suppose they'd respond to this question and the general suggestion that since it's unlikely anything would happen....they don't really NEED a gun.......????

Mr Manifesto: Well, so what?You ask so what if a gun has saved a person's life? You're kidding, right?? Is that what you are really asking? If so, we obviously have a deep philosophical difference of opinion about what freedom means.

Tami: I am curious; how many times has someone broken into your home prepared to kill you for your things, while you were home, and your gun came in handy?Me personally? Not once. The way I see it, a gun in this situation is perhaps like a reserve parachute, I would rather have one and not ever use it, than need one and not have it.

[DavidJames]

"The family was negligent for not training the 4 year old in firearms handling"

I think you were being facetious :), but I agree, these tragedies could be prevented by "proper" storage of the guns, but my point is simply to call out the nonsensical statement that we only need to worry about the law breakers.

I think it's pretty safe to say the parents of the kids at the links shown were probably not thinking their kids were off playing with criminals.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by xouper
You ask so what if a gun has saved a person's life? You're kidding, right?? Is that what you are really asking? If so, we obviously have a deep philosophical difference of opinion about what freedom means.


Oh, very good xouper! You've learned to selectively quote! Thanks so much for joining the debate.

[xouper]

Is this thread going to be a repeat of all the same old pro and con arguments that have been a recurring feature of this forum? I don't accept any of the reasons that have been offered for disarming honest citizens. Solve the problems of gun ownership another way, but the right to own arms is paramount in my opinion. You can argue all you want about that, but I still favor the argument in favor of guns, simply on principle. If someone has a different set of core principles, then fine, we can disagree on that. But unless anyone has something totally new that hasn't already been beat to death on this forum, I am out of here. All you anti-gun people can preach amongst yourselves for all I care. Nothing ever gets resolved about the issue on this forum anyway.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


So- instead of dealing with the world as it actually is, you want to alter reality so it dovetails with your views?

Oooo-kay... And how am I altering reality???

I mention situations where firearms have saved lives and your response is "So What".

I think you're the one who has a problem with how the world actually is.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by xouper
Is this thread going to be a repeat of all the same old pro and con arguments that have been a recurring feature of this forum? I don't accept any of the reasons that have been offered for disarming honest citizens. Solve the problems of gun ownership another way, but the right to own arms is paramount in my opinion. You can argue all you want about that, but I still favor the argument in favor of guns, simply on principle. If someone has a different set of core principles, then fine, we can disagree on that. But unless anyone has something totally new that hasn't already been beat to death on this forum, I am out of here. All you anti-gun people can preach amongst yourselves for all I care. Nothing ever gets resolved about the issue on this forum anyway.

Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.

[xouper]

Mr Manifesto: Oh, very good xouper! You've learned to selectively quote!I stand by my point. If you actually think it isn't relevant that guns have saved people's lives, then there is nothing left to discuss. I choose to let it go as a disagreement. If you want to make a mudfight out of it (instead of clarifying why you think I misundertood your point), I decline.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by xouper
I stand by my point. If you actually think it isn't relevant that guns have saved people's lives, then there is nothing left to discuss. I choose to let it go as a disagreement. If you want to make a mudfight out of it (instead of clarifying why you think I misundertood your point), I decline.

Decline away. I don't live or die by what you think.

[xouper]

Mr Manifesto: Don't let the door hit your @$$ on the way out.Your lack of civility is duly noted. Good-bye, sir.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by xouper


Me personally? Not once. The way I see it, a gun in this situation is perhaps like a reserve parachute, I would rather have one and not ever use it, than need one and not have it.

This makes sense.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by tamiO


This makes sense.

Just don't get drunk or have children in the house. Or argue with your spouse. Or get an undiagnosed mental illness...

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by tamiO


This makes sense.

Except that it isn't free.

The argument that maybe it will be useful someday is as valid for owning a gun as it is for buying lottery tickets.

You can't shoot a psychotic intruder without a gun, and you can't win 26 million without buying a Powerball (or whatever) ticket.

The question isn't their likelyhood as to each other, rather their likelyhood as to cost. The cost of playing the lottery is a couple bucks a week. The cost of gun ownership is an elevated chance of a negative outcome. Unfortunately, some of the negative outcomes of the gun hurt innocent third parties.

This doesn't mean guns should be banned, as sometimes the probability of a good outcome outweighs the bad, but I think the public interest in preventing the bad outcomes justifies reasonable regulations aimed at regulating and restricting guns to those situations where the odds (when anything happens - bit of bayes theorem at work) favor a good outcome. Some would draw a much more restrictive line than others.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by The Fool


No doubt your plan is to repeat this line as often as possible on this forum....or you could show us the "proof"..... You can't prove anything Richard, If you could you would be an important person in this debate rather than just another propaganda/anecdote spammer.

http://www.qff.org.au/oldwww/pdf/10sheep.pdf

"Food & Fibre Trail
53
Australia's Sheep Industry
Australia is the leading sheep producing country in the world, with approximately 120
million sheep. This means that for every person living in Australia, there are
approximately six sheep - that's a lot of sheep!! Sheep are raised throughout southern
Australia in moderate to high rainfall areas and in the drier areas of NSW and
Queensland."

Somewhere there's a goat in this story.

:roll:

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Supercharts


http://www.qff.org.au/oldwww/pdf/10sheep.pdf

"Food & Fibre Trail
53
Australia's Sheep Industry
Australia is the leading sheep producing country in the world, with approximately 120
million sheep. This means that for every person living in Australia, there are
approximately six sheep - that's a lot of sheep!! Sheep are raised throughout southern
Australia in moderate to high rainfall areas and in the drier areas of NSW and
Queensland."

Somewhere there's a goat in this story.

:roll:
And (drum roll) your point is?

[Zep]

Originally posted by xouper
I'm not all that concerned about your opinion of that website. The cartoon stands on its own.Thought as much. It's a support site for a certain radical-right loony politician who has just recently been jailed for election fraud. If you read further down you will discover that the whole "world problems" are caused by a secret cabal of Jews, that there is a secret society of Jews that is trying to take over the world (the old One World Government schtick), and that all Asians in Australia should be deported or shot if they refuse to go, and more of that ilk.

Some references YOU use, huh!

The cartoon is not only pointless, it's also completely incorrect in it's facts. Now you know that for sure, OK?
Originally posted by xouper
Lucky you. There are enough home invasions in occupied homes here to justify having a gun for self defense.

Indeed! Lucky us. We call ourselves "the lucky country" too. So you do agree we have a much safer country than yours? One where guns are controlled? Where people are not allowed own handguns on a whim, let alone "carry concealed"? Where "carry concealed" is actually an offence?
Originally posted by xouper
And even more idiotic, some crooks invade a home for the specific purpose of doing harm to the occupants.It happens here too. Although we can count the number of such incidents involving guns on the fingers of one foot. Same for drive-by shootings, mass-killings, children killed by gun accidents, etc, etc.
Originally posted by xouper
You ask so what if a gun has saved a person's life? You're kidding, right?? Is that what you are really asking? If so, we obviously have a deep philosophical difference of opinion about what freedom means.Not really. I may travel where I please, say what I feel, do what I wish, vote for my governments, etc, as long as it doesn't harm my neighbours. I feel secure almost all the time, and I take reasonable precautions to secure my stuff. Just like the USA. Do I need a gun on my person or in my house to enforce that? Here, no. But apparently in the USA you do. So who has the greater freedom?

[Mr Manifesto]

The Fool
And (drum roll) your point is?

I think he had two windows open and he really wanted De_Bunk's thread.

[Mr Manifesto]

Here's a pic xouper overlooked:

http://www.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/terrorist2.jpg

What's wrong with this picture?






































A: If people were allowed to carry guns on planes, THE TERRORISTS WOULD HAVE HAD THEM TOO, STOOPID!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
What I didn't find among the rant was compartive statistics between Australia and the US. Why do you think that is? (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html)

Probably because they know cross-cultural comparisons are practically worthless.

You'll want same-culture statistics before and after a change in the gun laws. Otherwise, it's just cherry-picking.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I'd agree that burgulars as a rule try to hit houses where nobody is home.

As I've shown in other threads, that's not so much the case in Britain anymore. Not since the the government not only banned gun ownership but also mandated the installation of alarm systems. The criminals know they have a better chance of getting away with it when unarmed people are home and no alarm is on.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Probably because they know cross-cultural comparisons are practically worthless.

You'll want same-culture statistics before and after a change in the gun laws. Otherwise, it's just cherry-picking.

Yes, because Australia is so RADICALLY different to the US. I mean, we call Ketchup 'tomato sauce' for Pete's sake!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yes, because Australia is so RADICALLY different to the US. I mean, we call Ketchup 'tomato sauce' for Pete's sake!

Mainly, like I said before, the big difference is that you guys have to suffer from some kind of ill effects from being upside down all the time. I can't stand it for more than 5 minutes without a pounding in my head. Not to mention the dizzyness. You guys shouldn't have guns.

[xouper]

Zep: Some references YOU use, huh! Excuse me, but I did not cite that site as a reference, nor have I endorsed it (in fact I have made no public comment either way). I used a cartoon from that site, yes, but it is not logical to infer my opinion of that site from my use of a single cartoon, especially since I did not mention where I got it. Please have some honor and do not put words in my mouth. It is dishonest to criticize me for a claim I have not made.

The cartoon is not only pointless, it's also completely incorrect in it's facts. Now you know that for sure, OK?Are you saying that you can have guns in your house to defend yourself? If so, then yes, the cartoon is factually incorrect. In that case, then take it as a hypothetical, an obvious extrapolation of the anti-gun agenda. My point with the cartoon was to emphasize that I do not wish that to happen in America.

So you do agree we have a much safer country than yours?I do not know either way. But I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. Sorry. :)

Also, I do not concede that guns are the primary factor.

I may travel where I please, say what I feel, do what I wish, vote for my governments, etc, as long as it doesn't harm my neighbours.So may I.

I feel secure almost all the time, and I take reasonable precautions to secure my stuff. Just like the USA.Agreed, I can say the same.

Do I need a gun on my person or in my house to enforce that? Here, no. But apparently in the USA you do. So who has the greater freedom?You noted that you do not have the freedom to carry concealed. Apparently you have traded that freedom for safety. Please do not confuse safety with freedom.

[xouper]

Suddenly: The argument that maybe it will be useful someday is as valid for owning a gun as it is for buying lottery tickets.The analogy I made was with a reserve parachute. If you are going to claim that a reserve parachute is as pointless as a lottery ticket, then pardon me if I dismiss your opinion on the matter.

... The cost of gun ownership is an elevated chance of a negative outcome. Unfortunately, some of the negative outcomes of the gun hurt innocent third parties.That's a valid point. The same can be said about automobiles. But because the advantages outweigh the costs, few people advocate outlawing cars. I feel the same way about guns.

This doesn't mean guns should be banned, as sometimes the probability of a good outcome outweighs the bad,Which leads me to observe that part of the quibble is because not everyone agrees on how to assess the probabilities.

but I think the public interest in preventing the bad outcomes justifies reasonable regulations aimed at regulating and restricting guns to those situations where the odds (when anything happens - bit of bayes theorem at work) favor a good outcome.I don't agree with this, or at least as it applies to gun ownership. Who decides the probabilities? I don't want anyone to have that kind of political power with regard to such a fundamental right as gun ownership. The Second Amendment was put there precisely to limit that kind of abuse.

[Zep]

Xouper: Excuse me, but I did not cite that site as a reference, nor have I endorsed it (in fact I have made no public comment either way). I used a cartoon from that site, yes, but it is not logical to infer my opinion of that site from my use of a single cartoon, especially since I did not mention where I got it. Please have some honor and do not put words in my mouth. It is dishonest to criticize me for a claim I have not made. OK, I will withdraw that commentary. I used the website that you referred your carton post to on the understanding that you had browsed there voluntarily, read that site, and had selected the cartoon from there for our viewing as your point of view.
Xouper: Are you saying that you can have guns in your house to defend yourself? If so, then yes, the cartoon is factually incorrect. In that case, then take it as a hypothetical, an obvious extrapolation of the anti-gun agenda. My point with the cartoon was to emphasize that I do not wish that to happen in America. You may be surprised to learn that we CAN have guns in our houses, and some people do (I have a friend who is a world-class target shooter, actually). But there are strict laws about this to protect our safety, as AUP has expounded on eloquently before.

And PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do not tie in anti-gun with gun-control. They are not the same. I AM in favour of gun control, and I am NOT in favour of banning them. And I agree - the level of gun control IS contentious.
Xouper: Also, I do not concede that guns are the primary factor. I fully agree - here, they aren't. They aren't because they make up a fraction of the problem set. They are a fraction of the problem set because they are CONTROLLED and so are not a major problem.
Xouper: You noted that you do not have the freedom to carry concealed. Apparently you have traded that freedom for safety. Please do not confuse safety with freedom. We haven't in the slightest. We are free to be safe. So what "freedoms" have you got that we do not have, besides the right to walk about armed to the teeth?

[reprise]

I don't know about my fellow Aussies, but I seriously suspect that any government which tried to introduce legislation allowing all citizens to be armed for the purpose of self-defence would be voted out of office quick smart. We don't want to carry weaons for that purpose and we don't want our fellow citizens carrying them for that purpose (concealed or openly displayed) without exceptional reason. Hell, I haven't even gotten used to seeing police walk around with guns - in my childhood they didn't carry guns on routine duty.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by reprise
I don't know about my fellow Aussies, but I seriously suspect that any government which tried to introduce legislation allowing all citizens to be armed for the purpose of self-defence would be voted out of office quick smart. We don't want to carry weaons for that purpose and we don't want our fellow citizens carrying them for that purpose (concealed or openly displayed) without exceptional reason.
Indeed, I think it's the same in all contries that aren't infested with guns.

[Zep]

Pretty much my thoughts too, reprise.

When I was out walking in the crowd at North Sydney this lunchtime, I noted no (that's ZERO) people with guns. Millions of mobile phones and pairs of sunglasses, but no guns. Not even a policemen as a token contributor. As it has been for decades, probably even for a century or more. By some people's standards, we should have been scared out of our wits about someone attacking us with lethal force. But I think we were WAY more worried about our work, our families, our lunch, to be honest.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper
The analogy I made was with a reserve parachute. If you are going to claim that a reserve parachute is as pointless as a lottery ticket, then pardon me if I dismiss your opinion on the matter. You could read further to see that isn't what I mean, but then you would miss a chance to take a cheap shot.

That's a valid point. The same can be said about automobiles. But because the advantages outweigh the costs, few people advocate outlawing cars. I feel the same way about guns. Not outlawing, but regulating in a significant manner. Cars are regulated quite significantly.

Which leads me to observe that part of the quibble is because not everyone agrees on how to assess the probabilities. My point. Statistics would be nice, but I doubt anyone has a comprehensive view. There is that old saw about you are X times more likely to kill a family member rather than an invader....

I don't agree with this, or at least as it applies to gun ownership. Who decides the probabilities? I don't want anyone to have that kind of political power with regard to such a fundamental right as gun ownership. The Second Amendment was put there precisely to limit that kind of abuse.

The second amendment really isn't that great a "gun right" amendment. The caselaw has been pretty clear for it to apply the "arms" must be related to defense of state (that whole militia thing). The debate now is more or less whether that the gun is one of a type used by the militia is enough (view in some circuits, AKA the individual rights view), or whether the possession must relate to actual militia ownership (collective rights view). Compare this to the West Virginia equivilent that specifically states a right to arms for the defense of state, person, and home as well as for sporting purposes.

As far as regulating this right, that already happens. You can't own a nuke or SAM battery. All rights are subject to reasonable regulation "fundamental" or no. The question isn't whether congress should have the power to regulate the right (within their grant of legislative power), as it is clear that they do, the question comes down to whether a compelling state interest allows a restriction. That's the argument you need to make, that there is not a compelling state interest in taking action X, because the numbers or probabilities to support X are false or haven't been proven. That or formulate a way to say that there is no compelling interest in safety (I'm sure there is a better way to put that).

Of course, the constitutionality only comes into play once the legislative body acts. Up to then it is a political question, but framing an opposition to a federal gun law on the bare assertion that Congress has no power to regulate 2nd amendment rights really has no basis in law.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


As I've shown in other threads, that's not so much the case in Britain anymore. Not since the the government not only banned gun ownership but also mandated the installation of alarm systems. The criminals know they have a better chance of getting away with it when unarmed people are home and no alarm is on.

So, suddenly we are allowed a worthless cross-cultural comparison when it supports your view? You can be amazingly two-faced sometimes. You remind me of a Chinese acrobat, the way you deftly twist and turn.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by xouper
The same can be said about automobiles. But because the advantages outweigh the costs, few people advocate outlawing cars. I feel the same way about guns.


Xoup.
I really must ask, why the constant suggestion that anyone wants to ban guns? Its something i often have to read...Its a strawman as far as I can see, I don't advocate banning guns and I cannot remember anyone else on this forum stating that guns should be banned....

What I do advocate is controls on gun ownership. I have often asked people who critisize the concept of gun control if they themselves are advocates of any form of gun control. I never seem to get an answer. Its as if they think that the 2nd ammendment is a holy object and any deviation from absolutely no gun control will smash it like a crystal vase.They realise the problems of absolutely no control but still can't choke out the words "I advocate gun control"

So, do you believe there should be any controls at all on gun ownership? for example.

1.Should quickie marts be able to sell handguns 24 hours a day no questions asked, cash down, loaded gun into pocket, walk out.

2. Should people convicted of violent crimes be restricted from owning guns.

3. should the Insane own guns? How about children?

If you agree with any form of control at all then are you not just another gun control advocate like me? The only difference being at what level of control we think the constitution will catch fire?

Be very careful about saying you advocate any form of gun control, people will call you a gun grabber and tell you that you want to ban guns:D

[xouper]

Suddenly: You could read further to see that isn't what I mean, but then you would miss a chance to take a cheap shot.I accept your assertion that I misunderstood your point. I didn't intend for my comment to be a cheap shot, but since you felt it was, I apologize.

The second amendment really isn't that great a "gun right" amendment.Was it not intended to be just as strong as the First Amendment? Seems to me, Congress could never get away with regulating first amendment rights the way they have done with second amendment rights.

The caselaw has been pretty clear for it to apply the "arms" must be related to defense of state (that whole militia thing).If you are referring to SCOTUS and Miller, I feel that was bad caselaw. Miller died and no one showed up to argue his case and the court ruled against him because, well, what else could they do?

Also, as I understand it, the Miller ruling (and others) do not say that the Second Amendment is not an individual right, but only that the kind of arms that are protected by the Second Amendment are the kinds normally used by a militia. You addressed this point with your next comment.

The debate now is more or less whether that the gun is one of a type used by the militia is enough (view in some circuits, AKA the individual rights view), or whether the possession must relate to actual militia ownership (collective rights view). Compare this to the West Virginia equivilent that specifically states a right to arms for the defense of state, person, and home as well as for sporting purposes. Michigan has a similar provision in their Constitution which makes no mention of militia as a justification for arms. It is an individual right. Michigan Constitution, Article 1, section 6: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

As far as regulating this right, that already happens. You can't own a nuke or SAM battery. All rights are subject to reasonable regulation "fundamental" or no. The question isn't whether congress should have the power to regulate the right (within their grant of legislative power), as it is clear that they do, the question comes down to whether a compelling state interest allows a restriction.Isn't the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent such restrictions regardless of state interest? Isn't that the whole point?

That's the argument you need to make, that there is not a compelling state interest in taking action X, because the numbers or probabilities to support X are false or haven't been proven.Is this how First Amendment issues are argued? Or Fourth or Fifth Amendment, etc?

... framing an opposition to a federal gun law on the bare assertion that Congress has no power to regulate 2nd amendment rights really has no basis in law.I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. If the Constitution says the federal government can't do something, then why does it matter if there is no basis in law for arguing they can't do it?

[xouper]

The Fool: Xoup. I really must ask, why the constant suggestion that anyone wants to ban guns? Its something i often have to read...Its a strawman as far as I can see, I don't advocate banning guns and I cannot remember anyone else on this forum stating that guns should be banned....I guess you missed those posts on this forum where people have indeed advocated banning guns, or have pointed to existing gun bans in certain countries as being a model for other countries to follow. Not to mention that certain kinds of personal firearms have been banned in this country.

What I do advocate is controls on gun ownership.Thank you for reminding me of your position. Sometimes I forget. :)

I have often asked people who critisize the concept of gun control if they themselves are advocates of any form of gun control. I never seem to get an answer. Its as if they think that the 2nd ammendment is a holy object and any deviation from absolutely no gun control will smash it like a crystal vase.They realise the problems of absolutely no control but still can't choke out the words "I advocate gun control" I agree that there are problems with absolutely no gun control, but I feel those problems can be solved without resorting to controls on guns.

So, do you believe there should be any controls at all on gun ownership?No.

1.Should quickie marts be able to sell handguns 24 hours a day no questions asked, cash down, loaded gun into pocket, walk out.Yes.

2. Should people convicted of violent crimes be restricted from owning guns.I have mixed feelings about that. Nonetheless, this is not a gun control issue, per se. It is a control upon certain individuals who have placed themselves into a special class whose rights are different than ordinary citizens.

3. should the Insane own guns? How about children?Similar comment as #2.

If you agree with any form of control at all then are you not just another gun control advocate like me? The only difference being at what level of control we think the constitution will catch fire?That's an interesting way to put it.

Be very careful about saying you advocate any form of gun control, people will call you a gun grabber and tell you that you want to ban guns:D Despite our differences of opinion on certain matters, I have always enjoyed your keen sense of humor. :)

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by xouper

Isn't the Bill of Rights is supposed to prevent such restrictions regardless of state interest? Isn't that the whole point? It is less a "state" interest than a management of rights and intersts of the people. Consider an argument from a defendant in a criminal matter that prosecution violates his 1st amendment right to freedom of religion in that his religion requires him to rape and torture children. I'm sure, even if this belief is genuine, that his right to religion does not outweigh the rights of the child. A radical example, but it illustrates the point. The issue is where to draw the line w/r/t each right. Plus, the second amendment does have that pesky first clause that SCOTUS has long held does inform the right, the present question being by how much.

Is this how First Amendment issues are argued? Or Fourth or Fifth Amendment, etc? In a very, very general sense, yes.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. If the Constitution says the federal government can't do something, then why does it matter if there is no basis in law for arguing they can't do it? I'm saying under certain circumstances the legislature, etc. does have the power to do something. Thus, an argument that the circumstances do not exist is better than one that says the congress lacks power, even though they have the same conclusion.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So, suddenly we are allowed a worthless cross-cultural comparison when it supports your view?

That's not a cross-cultural comparison. That's comparing the rate of hot burglaries before and after the passage of said regulations. What culture do you even think I was comparing it to?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


That's not a cross-cultural comparison. That's comparing the rate of hot burglaries before and after the passage of said regulations. What culture do you even think I was comparing it to?

You're trying to say that if something is the case in Britain, then it would be the case in the US as well. Using your theory of cross-cultural comparisons being worthless (which I don't subscribe to), you would have to find a 'same culture' place, like a county in the US, that had stricter gun regulations, and compare the rate of hot burglaries there.

So, you don't even realise when you're being a hypocrite? Interesting.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
You're trying to say that if something is the case in Britain, then it would be the case in the US as well.

Now you're just going crazy.

First of all, all I'm saying is that it is the case in Britain.

Second, observing a phenomenon in Britain and speculating on the likelihood of that happening in the US is not a cross-cultural comparison. If I had said, "Britain has more hot burglaries per household than the US" then that would be a cross-cultural comparison. There are just too many other factors to pin down that consequence to any one cause. But saying "Britain had fewer hot burglaries before these particular regulations" is a same-culture comparison. And you can conclude that, all other things being equal, regulations forbidding handguns in homes plus regulations requiring alarm systems will result in a rise in hot burglaries.

Feel free to refute that if you wish, but don't call it a cross-cultural comparison just to win cheap points.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by shanek


Now you're just going crazy.

First of all, all I'm saying is that it is the case in Britain.

Second, observing a phenomenon in Britain and speculating on the likelihood of that happening in the US is not a cross-cultural comparison. If I had said, "Britain has more hot burglaries per household than the US" then that would be a cross-cultural comparison. There are just too many other factors to pin down that consequence to any one cause. But saying "Britain had fewer hot burglaries before these particular regulations" is a same-culture comparison. And you can conclude that, all other things being equal, regulations forbidding handguns in homes plus regulations requiring alarm systems will result in a rise in hot burglaries.

Feel free to refute that if you wish, but don't call it a cross-cultural comparison just to win cheap points.

More Chinese acrobatics brought to you by shanek- the man who never says he's wrong.

[Shinytop]

Frankly it did not look like he was wrong.

[Zep]

This is priceless.

Fool: Should quickie marts be able to sell handguns 24 hours a day no questions asked, cash down, loaded gun into pocket, walk out.
Shanek: Yes.

I can just imagine the scene:

Shopper: Can I have that nice snub-nosed .38 and a box of bullets, please.

Assistant: Of course, sir! A good choice of gun, sir, if I may say so!

Shopper: Can you load it for me too, please. I'm a bit clumsy.

Assistant: Of course, sir! [hands gun over] There you are! How does that feel?

Shopper: Very good! And could you now give me all your cash out of the till and then lie on the floor with your hands on your head...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
This is priceless.

quote:Fool: Should quickie marts be able to sell handguns 24 hours a day no questions asked, cash down, loaded gun into pocket, walk out.


quote:Shanek: Yes.

That was Xouper, not me.

I can just imagine the scene:

Shopper: Can I have that nice snub-nosed .38 and a box of bullets, please.

Assistant: Of course, sir! A good choice of gun, sir, if I may say so!

Shopper: Can you load it for me too, please. I'm a bit clumsy.

Assistant: Of course, sir! [hands gun over] There you are! How does that feel?

Shopper: Very good! And could you now give me all your cash out of the till and then lie on the floor with your hands on your head...

Assistant: Considering that you have two guns trained on you right now, are you really sure you want to do that?

Haven't you ever wondered why people don't hold up a gun store?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek

Haven't you ever wondered why people don't hold up a gun store?

It happens periodically ...

link (http://www.lvmpd.com/newsrelease/2002/1028740977.htm)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


It happens periodically ...

link (http://www.lvmpd.com/newsrelease/2002/1028740977.htm)

Never forget Scalzi's Libertarian Law:

Libertarianism is just great as long as it doesn't actually involve real live humans.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


It happens periodically ...

link (http://www.lvmpd.com/newsrelease/2002/1028740977.htm)

Usually only when they have the guy outnumbered and there's no one else in the store.