Gun Deaths Halved in Australia over past 10 years [Archive]

a_unique_person

2nd January 2004, 04:09 PM

Thats even allowing for the gang wars that are resulting in the deaths of violent criminals.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html

Guns killed more than 5000 people in Australia in the past decade. Nine out of 10 of the victims were male and most of them killed themselves.

The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

A report by the Australian Institute of Criminology released yesterday found that the number of deaths caused by guns each year dropped to 333 in 2001 from 629 in 1991.

The biggest single form of firearm death was suicide, accounting for 3930 fatalities out of a total of 5083 studied. The number fell from 505 in 1991 to 261 in 2001.

Men were the victims of 4586 firearm deaths, women were victims of 497 - 261 of which were recorded as homicide.

Homicides dropped to 47 in 2001 from 84 in 1991, accidental deaths dropped to 18 from 29, while other forms of firearm deaths slipped to seven from 11.

The biggest drop in deaths followed Port Arthur, when Martin Bryant murdered 35 people with a military-style weapon.

After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.

The Fool

2nd January 2004, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Thats even allowing for the gang wars that are resulting in the deaths of violent criminals.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html

Garbage A_U_P and you know it too!!!

Mrs fool and I have had to wear body armour since the gun grabbers disarmed the law abiding citizens of Australia... Only last night I was ambushed taking the bins out. I reached into my pants but nothing was there! Damn the gun grabbers.How am I supposed to give Mrs fool covering fire when she goes out to get the mail???

WildCat

2nd January 2004, 09:50 PM

Or could other factors be at work? (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/26/1032734278474.html)
"It may shed some light on why the homicide rate has not risen in Australia since 1975, but rates of aggravated assault have, and why there is still a perception that society is more violent," Dr Weatherburn said. "I think it is entirely possible that one of the reasons the homicide rate has not risen in Australia is because of improvements to medical services."

Maybe an unarmed populace is why Australia and Britain lead the world in crime rates: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)
"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

And Australia's homicide rate has actually increased 3.2% since the ban, while here in the US the rate has been dropping steadily for over 10 years!

JAR

2nd January 2004, 10:04 PM

Guns killed more than 5000 people in Australia in the past decade. Nine out of 10 of the victims were male and most of them killed themselves.
So the government wants to take away guns so people who seek death will have to find excrutiatingly painful ways of killing themselves, such as hanging themselves or drinking bleach.

Otther

2nd January 2004, 10:16 PM

So the government wants to take away guns so people who seek death will have to find excrutiatingly painful ways of killing themselves, such as hanging themselves or drinking bleach. The goverment can't force you to vote if you've killed yourself. :(

"I think it is entirely possible that one of the reasons the homicide rate has not risen in Australia is because of improvements to medical services." Isn't that conflicting with... In 1996, 521 people died from gun-inflicted wounds, while in 1997 this dropped to 437. ? That makes it seem a less important percentage of the deaths.

WildCat

2nd January 2004, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Otther
Isn't that conflicting with... ? That makes it seem a less important percentage of the deaths.
There was a 35 person massacre in 1996, which skewed the comparison to the following year. Take away those 35 deaths and the curve smooths out nicely.

corplinx

2nd January 2004, 10:26 PM

"The biggest single form of firearm death was suicide, accounting for 3930 fatalities out of a total of 5083 studied. The number fell from 505 in 1991 to 261 in 2001. "

So, how has the gun ban made you tangibly safer from _other people's_ guns?

Troll

2nd January 2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by WildCat

There was a 35 person massacre in 1996, which skewed the comparison to the following year. Take away those 35 deaths and the curve smooths out nicely.

And then a big slam on "military style" rifles followed, yet there have been an additional 7 deaths by that type of weapon since.

Troll

2nd January 2004, 10:30 PM

And another of the well regulated and controlled weapons seems to have had an increase.

"handgun deaths increased from 29 in 1991 to 49 in 2001."

CFLarsen

2nd January 2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
I reached into my pants but nothing was there! Damn the gun grabbers.How am I supposed to give Mrs fool covering fire when she goes out to get the mail???

Ehh........no offense, man, but if you reach into your pants and find "nothing", I'd worry a heck of a lot more about giving Mrs. Fool what she needs, other than a gun.... :)

NullPointerException

2nd January 2004, 11:33 PM

Face it, if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it no one would have the cahones to commit crime.

Earthborn

3rd January 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
Maybe an unarmed populace is why Australia and Britain lead the world in crime rates: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that! Since guns are meant to protect one's live in a violent crime, only murder rates are relevant. And those are not counted in this survey...As any number of articles note (including WND), the survey does not include homicides. (Victim surveys do not -- as one cannot survey the victim of a successful homicide) -- and there the United States is the clear leader.Or are you saying that guns are an appropriate means of protecting yourself from pickpockets, bike or car theft?Apparently, the propagator missed not just the fact that British crime was falling, but that were it lead the world was in auto theft -- and unless he expects the Brits to sleep in their cars with their guns, it's hard to see how their "near-total disarmament" will help.From A Sane Gun Policy (http://www.saneguns.org/commentary/comment002.html)
A less politically motivated source here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1184515.stm).

NullPointerException

3rd January 2004, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that! Since guns are meant to protect one's live in a violent crime, only murder rates are relevant. And those are not counted in this survey...Or are you saying that guns are an appropriate means of protecting yourself from pickpockets, bike or car theft?From A Sane Gun Policy (http://www.saneguns.org/commentary/comment002.html)
A less politically motivated source here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1184515.stm).

So are you for or against gun control? Do you assert that guns enable homicide? Do you assert superiority of one source over another, if so how and why, explain using details and at least two citations. What are the respective homicide ratios for each nation? What is the law enforcement saturation rate and perceived effectiveness? How many homicides go unreported? How many missing persons reports are actually homicides or violent assualts involving guns? Do you have enough information to formulate a clear and concise, enforcable gun control solution to replace the current incarnation? Why ban the sale of guns when you can ban the sale of ammo? What is your political affiliation? How many guns do you own? Have you ever fired or worked with firearms? Do you have any affiliations with the military? Are you female? Have you been the victim of a crime involving a gun? Do you believe that knives should be regulated as well? What about heavy tools? What about cars and other explosive devices that have a greater destructive potential? Why would you support gun controls? Would this reasoning for supporting gun controls extend to other areas such as drivers liscenses and professional liscenses such as Doctors, Teachers, and other individuals in sensitive positions? Would you advocate banning convicts as they have a high chance of being repeat offenders? Are you against alcohol due to the deaths associated with it? Should we ban cars because their use creates millions in damages each month? Should we regulate the number of children the poor can have? Should we create a welfare state?

CFLarsen

3rd January 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Face it, if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it no one would have the cahones to commit crime.
What do you base this assumption on?

Troll

3rd January 2004, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What do you base this assumption on?

Basic, common sense amongst humans? If I can kick your ass I may do so at my own discretion. If I feel we are equal, then my chances are severly reduced and as such, I, as a thinking being, see no need to take that chance. If you feel I may have an increased chance, aka own a gun and know how to use it, you may feel less obligated to test the aforementioned and as such, I am safe and you can live.

Some lack that ability of thought process. It is because of them that the rest of us should not have our rights infringed upon, so that we may own the ability to be equals or betters in the attacks they would try to inflict upon us.

Troll

3rd January 2004, 01:40 AM

CFLarsen

3rd January 2004, 01:50 AM

Earthborn

3rd January 2004, 03:25 AM

NullPointerException:
Are you trying to become Claus 2 with all those questions? :)So are you for or against gun control?Everybody is for gun control. I'm sure there is more than one NRA member who thinks it would be a bad idea if supermarkets were allowed to sell rocketlauncher to anyone. (I'm sure of at least one (http://www.michaelmoore.com)) So it is just a matter of degree.Do you assert that guns enable homicide?I think guns make homicide easier.Do you assert superiority of one source over anotherYes, I think some sources are superior over others. I prefer independent sources, but if sources are not independent, I prefer the sources that point out problems with specific research over those that take it at face value and use it to argue point that cannot be concluded from the research itself., if so how and why, explain using details and at least two citations.Don't have to. You know what I mean.What are the respective homicide ratios for each nation?Look at the figures presented by Troll.What is the law enforcement saturation rate and perceived effectiveness?I don't know.How many homicides go unreported?No one knows, so you cannot use them to argue anything.How many missing persons reports are actually homicides or violent assualts involving guns?No one knows.Do you have enough information to formulate a clear and concise, enforcable gun control solution to replace the current incarnation?No, and I have not claimed I do.Why ban the sale of guns when you can ban the sale of ammo?There is of course the problem that bullits are easier to make yourself than guns. So if you outlaw bullits, only outlaws will have bullits. :)

But it is not a bad idea to regulate those. Suppose bullits will have a taxrate: people will still be able to buy them to protect themselves. You don't need to stack your house with ammo to do that. But people will then have a clear economic incentive not to draw their gun too quickly.
The government could also exempt bullits bought at a shooting club for use at the club which people are not allowed to take home.What is your political affiliation?I don't have any. I don't even have many political opinions.How many guns do you own?Okay let me count... Exactly zero!Have you ever fired or worked with firearms?No.Do you have any affiliations with the military?Hell no!Are you female?Are you asking this because you hope you can dismiss my arguments as emotional ramblings of a woman? :)Have you been the victim of a crime involving a gun?No.Do you believe that knives should be regulated as well?Actually, I do.What about heavy tools?Definitely.What about cars and other explosive devices that have a greater destructive potential?Where I live those things are heavily regulated. Why would you support gun controls?If I think it is reasonable to assume they will succeed in preventing deaths, then I would support them. This is because I think deaths should be prevented as much as possible. I highly value this thing called life.Would this reasoning for supporting gun controls extend to other areas such as drivers liscenses and professional liscenses such as Doctors, Teachers, and other individuals in sensitive positions?I have no idea what you are asking.Would you advocate banning convicts as they have a high chance of being repeat offenders?Do you mean banning them from owning/using guns, or banning them from the country?Are you against alcohol due to the deaths associated with it?Yes, I am. If I believed that making it illegal would cause less suffering I am for making it illegal. However, I don't believe that.Should we ban cars because their use creates millions in damages each month?Cars also have great benefits to society (just think about how fast live would be without traffic jams. It would be awfull! :) ) So banning them is not a good idea.Should we regulate the number of children the poor can have?No. Reproductive freedom is one of the freedoms I value most.Should we create a welfare state?Or set something up to protect people from poverty using private insurance companies. Makes no difference, the result will be pretty much the same if it is to function correctly.

Earthborn

3rd January 2004, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Troll
If I feel we are equalSorry, you go wrong right here. Whenever there are two or more people anywhere, they won't feel equal. Like all with other intelligent social species, there is a hierarchy, a pecking order, from the start.

This is especially true when it comes to the threat of violence. If you have a 5 magazine revolver and your unpleasant neighbour has a sixshooter, you will not feel equal, you will feel outgunned.

Now suppose you think the neighbour might be a real threat. Do you also buy a sixshooter also, or will you take no changes and buy a sevenshooter? I think you will try to balance the danger he poses by his gun and his aggression with more fire power than he has.

Now he sees that you have bought a sevenshooter. He will think that you are up to something and will be afraid. So he thinks he needs an eightshooter, just in case...

Trying to make the 'odds even' will always result in an armsrace, because people will never preceive the odds being even.try the UN siteSo what am I supposed to see?Percentage of crime has dropped more in the US with their fewer gun restrictionsHow is that relevant? Are the fewer restrictions the cause of the drop?

Nikk

3rd January 2004, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by WildCat
Or could other factors be at work? (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/26/1032734278474.html)

Maybe an unarmed populace is why Australia and Britain lead the world in crime rates: (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902)

I think you are making a big mistake in trying to compare victimisation rates internationally by using police data. How can you possibly tell that the figures are compiled in the same way or that equal proportions of victims report criminal incidents? Most crime is unreported so the official statistics are highly inaccurate to begin with. Needless to say homicide is an exception as most of us can recognise a corpse when we see one and are likely to call someone to take it away and clean the carpet.

In effect you are using different sets of incomplete and inaccurate data compiled according to different criteria and using them to reach a conclusion. Beware, inside all of us a woo woo is trying to escape!

Furthermore if guns are an effective deterrent to burglary in the US then why are they not also an effective deterrent to homicide?

sorgoth

3rd January 2004, 08:53 AM

WildCat

3rd January 2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Nikk

I think you are making a big mistake in trying to compare victimisation rates internationally by using police data. How can you possibly tell that the figures are compiled in the same way or that equal proportions of victims report criminal incidents? Most crime is unreported so the official statistics are highly inaccurate to begin with. Needless to say homicide is an exception as most of us can recognise a corpse when we see one and are likely to call someone to take it away and clean the carpet.

In effect you are using different sets of incomplete and inaccurate data compiled according to different criteria and using them to reach a conclusion. Beware, inside all of us a woo woo is trying to escape!

Furthermore if guns are an effective deterrent to burglary in the US then why are they not also an effective deterrent to homicide?
The study was well aware of the differences in police reporting you described. That's why they did their own survey, using identical questions for all 17 countries surveyed, and didn't use police statistics at all: Here's an example of the Australian component (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tbp/tbp003.pdf). BTW, the survey was conducted by a Dutch University.

See also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1184515.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/23/ncrim123.xml
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/states_crime.html

As for the reasons the US has so many homicides, I'd guess it's because of the assinine "War on Drugs", which I like to call the "Street Gang Enrichment and Financing Program".

If availability of guns is the driving force behind homicide rates, then why are the rates from the 1950's (when gun access was virtually unrestricted) much lower than in post-Brady Law America?
Also, if guns were the one factor separating us from the British et al as far as homicide rates wouldn't you expect that homicides by means other than firearms would be similar? They are not even close!

US homicide rates have fallen dramatically in the last 10 years also, despite most states passing concealed carry laws in that time.

Troll

3rd January 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Earthborn

Trying to make the 'odds even' will always result in an armsrace, because people will never preceive the odds being even.So what am I supposed to see?How is that relevant? Are the fewer restrictions the cause of the drop?

And the last big arms race resulted in the two with the arms not using them on one another.

Are the fewer restrictions the cause? Doubtful that they alone are. And it's evident that more restrictions are not conducive to a drop either.

The point is it's not about the guns but people and societal change instead. So to advocate one isn't going to do anything to create a difference.

Troll

3rd January 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

That was tried in earlier times, e.g. in the Wild West. Obviously, we don't live in those times anymore, and we have realized that it doesn't work, either.

You may denounce other people's opinion on guns as a lack of ability of thought process. That, IMO, shows how weak an argument you have. The reason I do not agree with you is because I'm dumb?

What you advocate is a gun-cracy. He, who has the biggest gun, rules.

Sorry, I disagree. What will you do, shoot me?

It's not the opinions of guns that some have that I am talking about, Claus. It's the people with the lower opinion of human life that would use a gun to attack or commit some other crime against another.

And what I advocate is allowing people who would not commit crime to continue to own a gun to protect themselves from the above people.

The reason you disagree is simply because of your different views based upon your own life and enviroment, not because you are dumb. How you gathered I was saying otherwise may be a different story though. :p

Shane Costello

3rd January 2004, 10:34 AM

Does anyone have a link to US gun ownership and laws on a state by state basis? A lot of the New England and Mid-Western states have homicde rates comparable to European countries, and I was wondering how this relates to rates of gun ownership.

Troll

3rd January 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Does anyone have a link to US gun ownership and laws on a state by state basis? A lot of the New England and Mid-Western states have homicde rates comparable to European countries, and I was wondering how this relates to rates of gun ownership.

A direct link. Just click the state:

http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Default.aspx#

A link to other links including the ATF, the files tend to be pdf at the ATF site:

http://www.havegunwillvote.com/?sec=stategunlaws

karl

4th January 2004, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Basic, common sense amongst humans? If I can kick your ass I may do so at my own discretion. If I feel we are equal, then my chances are severly reduced and as such, I, as a thinking being, see no need to take that chance. If you feel I may have an increased chance, aka own a gun and know how to use it, you may feel less obligated to test the aforementioned and as such, I am safe and you can live.

There are at least two holes in that theory. First, it assumes that people behave rationally and act in their own best interest. We know that this isn't always the case today. In particular, drugs and alcohol sometimes make people do things they should know they can't possibly get away with. And then your having the chance to retaliate might not be much of a comfort. To put it another way -- do you really want to live in a country where every drunk carries a gun?

"Whoops! You OK there, buddy? I was just aiming for your hat."

Second, guns don't necessarily make people equal. The one who has his gun up, ready and aimed first, who is facing his opponent and is mentally prepared for the confrontation has a pretty big advantage. If the attacker is behaving rationally and has any sense of planning, that will be him, not you.

Criminals adapt. Where everyone is armed, there will be a lot fewer crimes of certain types -- for example bank robberies, where maybe two or three people need to keep a crowd under control without killing them -- but an increase in ambush-style crimes where guns offer little or no protection at all. For example that someone shoots you in the back from an open window and then runs out and grabs your wallet after you've stopped twitching.

Troll

4th January 2004, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by karl

There are at least two holes in that theory. First, it assumes that people behave rationally and act in their own best interest. We know that this isn't always the case today. In particular, drugs and alcohol sometimes make people do things they should know they can't possibly get away with. And then your having the chance to retaliate might not be much of a comfort. To put it another way -- do you really want to live in a country where every drunk carries a gun?

"Whoops! You OK there, buddy? I was just aiming for your hat."

Second, guns don't necessarily make people equal. The one who has his gun up, ready and aimed first, who is facing his opponent and is mentally prepared for the confrontation has a pretty big advantage. If the attacker is behaving rationally and has any sense of planning, that will be him, not you.

Criminals adapt. Where everyone is armed, there will be a lot fewer crimes of certain types -- for example bank robberies, where maybe two or three people need to keep a crowd under control without killing them -- but an increase in ambush-style crimes where guns offer little or no protection at all. For example that someone shoots you in the back from an open window and then runs out and grabs your wallet after you've stopped twitching.

Actually you supported my claim about people. Some are not rational, even without drugs or alcohol. No rational person that understands right from wrong and the law runs out to kill someone with or without a gun. People who are not rational should not be used as a basis for disallowing rational people from protecting themselves.

I've not heard of any instances of the crime you described ever happening. Most ambush style attacks in the US are pre-planned with an specific target, like quarreling lovers or love triangles or gang related type of crimes, possibly home invasion would fall into that category as well.

The main point isn't arming everyone but allowing people who are rational to continue to be allowed to own a firearm to protect themselves from those that are not. And that people are less likely to attack someone when they feel that person is not an easy mark.

JAR

4th January 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by The Fool

Garbage A_U_P and you know it too!!!

Mrs fool and I have had to wear body armour since the gun grabbers disarmed the law abiding citizens of Australia... Only last night I was ambushed taking the bins out. I reached into my pants but nothing was there! Damn the gun grabbers.How am I supposed to give Mrs fool covering fire when she goes out to get the mail???
The reason you don't want to have a gun to defend yourself is because you are a leftist. Leftists consider it a blessing to be robbed. The typical white male leftist with a white wife considers it an even greater blessing if his wife is raped and impregnated by a black man.

The Fool

4th January 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by JAR

The reason you don't want to have a gun to defend yourself is because you are a leftist. Leftists consider it a blessing to be robbed. The typical white male leftist with a white wife considers it an even greater blessing if his wife is raped and impregnated by a black man.
sigh...Sometimes I hate free speech. It means I've got to listen to pieces of human garbage like you.
Do your parents know what you do on your computer, or are they only concerned about keeping you off porn sites?

Anyway, If I want any more crap from you I'll squeeze your head ok?

The Fool

4th January 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Troll

The main point isn't arming everyone but allowing people who are rational to continue to be allowed to own a firearm to protect themselves from those that are not.

And this is generally where this argument runs out of steam. How would you propose to judge who are rational and who are not. It is not possible to subject everyone to a full psyc examination.... even then they don't get it correct. So you have to fall back to the default=rational.... Maybe you could make it a limit of one killing each? After you shoot your first person someone takes your gun away?.... I don't know who would take the gun away as the gun lobby doesn't like Gubment involvement. Maybe we could re-introduce the posse system? Maybe a system of hat colours too, White means rational, black means irrational and tin stars for those judged ultra good.

Troll

4th January 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

And this is generally where this argument runs out of steam. How would you propose to judge who are rational and who are not. It is not possible to subject everyone to a full psyc examination.... even then they don't get it correct. So you have to fall back to the default=rational.... Maybe you could make it a limit of one killing each? After you shoot your first person someone takes your gun away?.... I don't know who would take the gun away as the gun lobby doesn't like Gubment involvement. Maybe we could re-introduce the posse system? Maybe a system of hat colours too, White means rational, black means irrational and tin stars for those judged ultra good.

You allow people to live freely and punish them only after they have done something to warrant otherwise. Just a guess but to me that sounds an awful lot like freedom.

JAR

4th January 2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
sigh...Sometimes I hate free speech. It means I've got to listen to pieces of human garbage like you.
More evidence that you're a commie.
Originally posted by The Fool
Do your parents know what you do on your computer, or are they only concerned about keeping you off porn sites?

I show them some of the stuff I write in the forum but not all of it. My parents suffer from the politically correct syndrome like you do, so I probably won't tell them what I wrote in the message you replied to.

karl

4th January 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Actually you supported my claim about people. Some are not rational, even without drugs or alcohol. No rational person that understands right from wrong and the law runs out to kill someone with or without a gun. People who are not rational should not be used as a basis for disallowing rational people from protecting themselves.

Which I'm not. I'm using them as a basis for disproving your claim that "if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it no one would have the cahones to commit crime." (And it's spelled "cojones", I believe.)

I've not heard of any instances of the crime you described ever happening. Most ambush style attacks in the US are pre-planned with an specific target, like quarreling lovers or love triangles or gang related type of crimes, possibly home invasion would fall into that category as well.

Sure, but current statistics are irrelevant to a society where conditions are as radically different as the ones you proposed. Change the conditions and people will change their behavior, but not necessarily in the direction you hope. If I remember correctly, carjackings were a lot less common before manufacturers started building electronic anti-theft devices into their high-end models. It could have been argued back then that such crimes were virtually unheard of and that rational thieves would never take that kind of risk just to steal a car. Today we know the fallacy of such logic.

The main point isn't arming everyone but allowing people who are rational to continue to be allowed to own a firearm to protect themselves from those that are not. And that people are less likely to attack someone when they feel that person is not an easy mark.

Feel free to change the subject, but then you will have to talk about it with someone else. I'm just responding to your initial claim.

Troll

4th January 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by karl

Which I'm not. I'm using them as a basis for disproving your claim that "if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it no one would have the cahones to commit crime." (And it's spelled "cojones", I believe.)

Never said "everyone" in any way, shape or form. Read other posts and you'd see I'm for restrictions

Sre, but current statistics are irrelevant to a society where conditions are as radically different as the ones you proposed. Change the conditions and people will change their behavior, but not necessarily in the direction you hope. If I remember correctly, carjackings were a lot less common before manufacturers started building electronic anti-theft devices into their high-end models. It could have been argued back then that such crimes were virtually unheard of and that rational thieves would never take that kind of risk just to steal a car. Today we know the fallacy of such logic.

Yes and banning guns in any countries have not decreased gun related crimes, nor have they done so in areas of the US that have stricter bans. I'm merely stating bans don't work.

l free to change the subject, but then you will have to talk about it with someone else. I'm just responding to your initial claim. [/b]

Which is the same subject I am still on. Bans don't change anything, and disallowing others who are respectful of others and of the laws is an afront to their right to defend themselves from those that will not obey laws or bans pertaining to guns.

I never said I wanted everyone to have a gun. Not once. I merely said that you cannot take away the rights of others based upon a few. Given the crime rate with gun usage being less than 10 % of the populace, and that making 240,000 total crimes, many without guns, and their being over 90, 000,000 legally registered arms,.and the fact that 80-85% of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained illegaly, I'd say it's a safe assumption that the great majority of gun owners do not use them to harm others

Zep

4th January 2004, 05:41 PM

A lot of the "Australia's crime rate is increasing after the gun bans" baloney seems to be based on this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304). It, in turn, is a report from The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, a group closely aligned with and parroting the views of the US NRA. Further, there seems to be little, if any, precise detail in this report, just anecdotal waffle. In other words, it's a load of cr@p.

Note for example, the inflammatory statement that "homicide rate of the state of Victoria has risen by 300%"! Horrors! Reality? The previous year there were about 2 killings, next year there were about 6. Actuality: in a state with a population of 2.5 million, this would hardly constitute a blip on a very flat line. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

As I mentioned in a similar thread a long time ago, even if the US homicide rate IS falling and Australia's IS rising, the former is still many times higher than the latter - about five times higher, at last estimate. I HAVE provided links to the supporting data previously - if you doubt me, go find the thread and look them up again yourself.

Troll

4th January 2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Zep
A lot of the "Australia's crime rate is increasing after the gun bans" baloney seems to be based on this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304). It, in turn, is a report from The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, a group closely aligned with and parroting the views of the US NRA. Further, there seems to be little, if any, precise detail in this report, just anecdotal waffle. In other words, it's a load of cr@p.

Note for example, the inflammatory statement that "homicide rate of the state of Victoria has risen by 300%"! Horrors! Reality? The previous year there were about 2 killings, next year there were about 6. Actuality: in a state with a population of 2.5 million, this would hardly constitute a blip on a very flat line. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

As I mentioned in a similar thread a long time ago, even if the US homicide rate IS falling and Australia's IS rising, the former is still many times higher than the latter - about five times higher, at last estimate. I HAVE provided links to the supporting data previously - if you doubt me, go find the thread and look them up again yourself.

Nope. I get, and posted my resources from the UN who get their US stats from the Justice Department and the Aussie info comes from the same source used here, The Australian Criminology Institute. Violent crimes dropping at a faster rate in the US than in Australia and some crimes in Australia increasing at a greater rate than in the US. They even define violent crime so as not to have a bias in crime rate.

Troll

4th January 2004, 05:52 PM

Zep

4th January 2004, 05:53 PM

As I said (did you read my post?), the RATES may be going as you say, but the LEVELS may be significantly disparate.

Let's do it visually for you, OK?

The US crime rate is way up HERE, and falling.

The Australian rate is way down HERE and rising.

This is the zero point of no crime.

Get it??

Martin

4th January 2004, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Troll
And the last big arms race resulted in the two with the arms not using them on one anotherCool! Nukes for everyone! That'll solve all of our problems.

Troll

4th January 2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Martin
Cool! Nukes for everyone! That'll solve all of our problems.

Well, let's say equal number of nukes for all. Afterall, the two in question have been dropping their count for a while now. ;)

But even smaller numbers have equated to no use. India and Pakistan. Taiwan has none and China has yet to take them over. So arms race or no arms race, we don't have war or confrontation based upon those examples. We can carry that over to guns and civilians. 90 million registered guns in the US and far fewer crimes than that committed. Guess guns, nukes, weapons of any sort aren't the issue, people are.

Troll

4th January 2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Zep
As I said (did you read my post?), the RATES may be going as you say, but the LEVELS may be significantly disparate.

Let's do it visually for you, OK?

The US crime rate is way up HERE, and falling.

The Australian rate is way down HERE and rising.

This is the zero point of no crime.

Get it??

Yeah, I read the post. I said the same before and after the post. My post only stated that your claim of "A lot of the "Australia's crime rate is increasing after the gun bans" baloney seems to be based on this article." is incorrect as I got my info elsewhere. So what exactly are you arguing about my post?

Zep

4th January 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Yeah, I read the post. I said the same before and after the post. My post only stated that your claim of "A lot of the "Australia's crime rate is increasing after the gun bans" baloney seems to be based on this article." is incorrect as I got my info elsewhere. So what exactly are you arguing about my post? OK, let's take your research's figures (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf), shall we? Just one attribute by comparison.

Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm (per 100,000 inhabitants)

USA 1998: 3.37
USA 1999: 2.97

Australia 1998: 0.29
Australia 1999: 0.33

UK 1998: 0.09
UK 1999: 0.12

By my own reckoning, that is at least a factor of ten difference, an order of magnitude you might say. More, in the case of the UK (to them, WE could be considered the lawless Wild West!).

I think you will have to agree that Australia's rate of increase of this crime will have to be continuous and spectacular over the next decade or so just to get up to the USA's current level! By which time we will have done something significant about it anyway (at least I hope we will).

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics...

Nikk

4th January 2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by sorgoth
[B]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nikk

I think you are making a big mistake in trying to compare victimisation rates internationally by using police data. How can you possibly tell that the figures are compiled in the same way or that equal proportions of victims report criminal incidents? Most crime is unreported so the official statistics are highly inaccurate to begin with. Needless to say homicide is an exception as most of us can recognise a corpse when we see one and are likely to call someone to take it away and clean the carpet.

Most crime is unreported? Prove it.

Furthermore if guns are an effective deterrent to burglary in the US then why are they not also an effective deterrent to homicide?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because when you steal from someone,it's planned. Most murders involve strong emotions, where someone's mind probably isn't working all that well. (Domestic violence, for example)

__________________________________________________ ___________

If you want proof that most crime is unreported then go to your National Crime Victimisation Survey. It's based on 100,000 interviews and reporting rates of well under 50% are common - depends on the type of crime of course.

As regards the deterrent effect of guns surely both robbers/burglars and killers aim to take their victim by surprise. As much property crime is opportunistic I would like to see evidence that homicide is a spur of the moment crime.

To be honest I suspect that the possibility that the victim may be armed may change the nature of the theft or attack, perhaps in the direction of making the attacker more violent, but whether it has an effect on the total number of crimes I don't know.

Troll

4th January 2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Zep
OK, let's take your research's figures (http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/seventh_survey/7sc.pdf), shall we? Just one attribute by comparison.

Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm (per 100,000 inhabitants)

USA 1998: 3.37
USA 1999: 2.97

Australia 1998: 0.29
Australia 1999: 0.33

UK 1998: 0.09
UK 1999: 0.12

By my own reckoning, that is at least a factor of ten difference, an order of magnitude you might say. More, in the case of the UK (to them, WE could be considered the lawless Wild West!).

I think you will have to agree that Australia's rate of increase of this crime will have to be continuous and spectacular over the next decade or so just to get up to the USA's current level! By which time we will have done something significant about it anyway (at least I hope we will).

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics...

while the one link you used shows the increase is greater in Australia, as I stated and you are not denying to be correct, I also posted a link to an earlier UN report from years before to use as comparison. There have been seven such UN surveys and the one was to the seventh and the first to the first two. So I do have the required time and count measurement you require to make it an accurate statement, you just never botherd to use the one link and it's info in this post.

Why not?:p

also Imentioned rate of growth or decrease, not just actual numbers. Rate, the speed of change. The speed of change for a decrease in these areas is faster in the US without substantial gun banishment laws

Nikk

4th January 2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by WildCat

The study was well aware of the differences in police reporting you described. That's why they did their own survey, using identical questions for all 17 countries surveyed, and didn't use police statistics at all: Here's an example of the Australian component (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tbp/tbp003.pdf). BTW, the survey was conducted by a Dutch University.

See also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1184515.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/23/ncrim123.xml
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/states_crime.html

As for the reasons the US has so many homicides, I'd guess it's because of the assinine "War on Drugs", which I like to call the "Street Gang Enrichment and Financing Program".

If availability of guns is the driving force behind homicide rates, then why are the rates from the 1950's (when gun access was virtually unrestricted) much lower than in post-Brady Law America?
Also, if guns were the one factor separating us from the British et al as far as homicide rates wouldn't you expect that homicides by means other than firearms would be similar? They are not even close!

US homicide rates have fallen dramatically in the last 10 years also, despite most states passing concealed carry laws in that time.

The survey you link to used a base of 2000 people per country as far as I can tell and seems to be a one off. As our own crime survey uses a base of 60,000 or so (I think) and the US one has a base nearer 100,000 I don't have much faith in it. Still it's a better approach than comparing police statistics.

I do not think that the high homicide rate in the US is primarily due to your gun laws. Other much more complex social and economic factors are involved. We probably agree that the single biggest legal change that would reduce crime would be to legalise most or all currently illegal drugs.

Zep

4th January 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Troll

while the one link you used shows the increase is greater in Australia, as I stated and you are not denying to be correct, I also posted a link to an earlier UN report from years before to use as comparison. There have been seven such UN surveys and the one was to the seventh and the first to the first two. So I do have the required time and count measurement you require to make it an accurate statement, you just never botherd to use the one link and it's info in this post.

Why not?:p

also Imentioned rate of growth or decrease, not just actual numbers. Rate, the speed of change. The speed of change for a decrease in these areas is faster in the US without substantial gun banishment laws I would think it's obvious to you why the US rate is going down so fast. If it had kept going up or had even stayed the same, it would have required martial law to control the situation! :)

I'm SO glad you are ignoring my point! As I said, that the levels are going up, down or sideways at whatever rate you calculate is pretty much irrelevant, given that you in the USA have an AWFUL long way to go down yet to reach our level of safety...in a gun-controlled country.

The point you are overlooking is that our figures are SO low that even a tiny change in count throws the rates-of-change up and down a long way and makes them utterly misleading. But I'm sure you knew that before you posted, didn't you... :)

Troll

4th January 2004, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I would think it's obvious to you why the US rate is going down so fast. If it had kept going up or had even stayed the same, it would have required martial law to control the situation! :)

I'm SO glad you are ignoring my point! As I said, that the levels are going up, down or sideways at whatever rate you calculate is pretty much irrelevant, given that you in the USA have an AWFUL long way to go down yet to reach our level of safety...in a gun-controlled country.

The point you are overlooking is that our figures are SO low that even a tiny change in count throws the rates-of-change up and down a long way and makes them utterly misleading. But I'm sure you knew that before you posted, didn't you... :)
No. You are ignoring the fact that our level drop at a higher rate than your country and all it's laws against guns. If you all obeyed the law there wouldn't be the sort of gun crime that is being discussed at all. So the argument that has been had here numerous times about only criminals having guns or using them in innapropriate manners is proven. No ban higher drop rate in the US. Ban and an increase or slower drop in some aspects of crime in Australia.

I've never ignored your claim, I just found it to be diversionary from the actual point. :p

Zep

4th January 2004, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Troll

No. You are ignoring the fact that our level drop at a higher rate than your country and all it's laws against guns. If you all obeyed the law there wouldn't be the sort of gun crime that is being discussed at all. So the argument that has been had here numerous times about only criminals having guns or using them in innapropriate manners is proven. No ban higher drop rate in the US. Ban and an increase or slower drop in some aspects of crime in Australia.

I've never ignored your claim, I just found it to be diversionary from the actual point. :p Rubbish. And it's gun-CONTROL in Australia, not "gun bans". (Fool, how long before they take notice of this???)

You seem to have a problem with the numbers, don't you. OK, take the NUMBER of people killed in Australia in 1999: 62 people for all Australia. Let's say that five more people, that's just five more people, were added to the count, for a total of 64. Why, that's nearly a 10 percent increase! Horrors! The Australian population is being decimated, despite the gun-control!

Now let's go to the USA for the same year (1998): 8,259 people for all the USA. What does five more people, or five less for that matter, do to that figure? Bugger all. You would need to go to a number of decimal points to see any difference there.

What does this mean? It means that just one "killing" in Australia makes a huge difference to our numbers. In fact, in some states here there are no killings in one year and just one the next year, so does that mean gun crime has really increased 100% in a year in that state?

By the way, this same report does not show figures for the year 2000 in the USA, but it does for Australia. Those figures run like this:

1998: 54
1999: 62
2000: 59

Oh dear. That's a 5% drop from 1999 to 2000. Our rate is going down there, isn't it. So much for your hypothesis, matey...

Troll

4th January 2004, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Rubbish. And it's gun-CONTROL in Australia, not "gun bans". (Fool, how long before they take notice of this???)

You seem to have a problem with the numbers, don't you. OK, take the NUMBER of people killed in Australia in 1999: 62 people for all Australia. Let's say that five more people, that's just five more people, were added to the count, for a total of 64. Why, that's nearly a 10 percent increase! Horrors! The Australian population is being decimated, despite the gun-control!

Now let's go to the USA for the same year (1998): 8,259 people for all the USA. What does five more people, or five less for that matter, do to that figure? Bugger all. You would need to go to a number of decimal points to see any difference there.

What does this mean? It means that just one "killing" in Australia makes a huge difference to our numbers. In fact, in some states here there are no killings in one year and just one the next year, so does that mean gun crime has really increased 100% in a year in that state?

By the way, this same report does not show figures for the year 2000 in the USA, but it does for Australia. Those figures run like this:

1998: 54
1999: 62
2000: 59

Oh dear. That's a 5% drop from 1999 to 2000. Our rate is going down there, isn't it. So much for your hypothesis, matey...

Control and bans are rather close given the type of control we're talking about. Obviously some people are banned under the control laws from owning and keeping firearms at home or carrying them

Dude, don't argue numbers with me if you go from 62 and add 5 and end up with 64. :confused:

I'm not talking total numbers and I never have. I am talking about rate of increase or decrease in a percentage aspect. If we play the total game then the US has decreased in the hundreds or thousands while you have only done so in the ones or tens. Where did you learn how to relate material and information?

and maybe your rate is going down. Big freaking whoop you slow child. I keep saying the rate of drop is higher in the US. That's what I've been saying. What the hell have you been reading?

Zep

4th January 2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Control and bans are rather close given the type of control we're talking about. Obviously some people are banned under the control laws from owning and keeping firearms at home or carrying them

Dude, don't argue numbers with me if you go from 62 and add 5 and end up with 64. :confused: Yes - my mistake - PIBKAC, but the effect is still the same, do you not agree?

I'm not talking total numbers and I never have. I am talking about rate of increase or decrease in a percentage aspect. If we play the total game then the US has decreased in the hundreds or thousands while you have only done so in the ones or tens. Where did you learn how to relate material and information? We have only had changes in ones or tens because there ARE ONLY ONES OR TENS INVOLVED in the calculations. You can't have a "fraction" of a homicide. So, given the scale of the numbers, just one person dead or alive consititutes more than 1% change either way in the totals, which makes "rate of change" highly variable as a result. That is, the numbers for Australia jump much further in either direction much more easily because the totals are so small to start with. But it seems "scale" is a concept that eludes you still. OK.

As I said before, I'm pleased that the rate in the US is coming down, percentage or total or whatever, but it has a LONG way to go yet to reach our levels of safety here, percentage or total or whatever. But I sincerely hope you make it.

plindboe

4th January 2004, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Face it, if everyone had a gun and knew how to use it no one would have the cahones to commit crime.

Wrong, it would simply be a matter of shooting first. Remember, all criminals, drugaddicts & insane would have guns too. That will be one dangerous society to live in. I wouldn't like to live in a war-zone like that.

The Fool

4th January 2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Control and bans are rather close given the type of control we're talking about. Obviously some people are banned under the control laws from owning and keeping firearms at home or carrying them

Yes just as some people would be "banned" from owning and keeping firearms at home under your model....So can I call you a gun grabber?? Can I say you advocate gun bans?? Dude, we are both gun control advocates, you just don't want to apply to yourself what you would like to apply to others.

I'm not talking total numbers and I never have.

No, Im not surprised you are not talking total numbers because its the US total numbers that underline the ongoing tragedy due to the country being awash with firearms. You can argue statistics and until you are blue in the face. I prefer just to count the dead bodies that have bullet holes in them. Australia has made an effort to reduce the number of guns around the place and there are now less dead bodies with bullet holes in them, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe there may be a link between those facts.

karl

5th January 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Troll

Which is the same subject I am still on. Bans don't change anything, and disallowing others who are respectful of others and of the laws is an afront to their right to defend themselves from those that will not obey laws or bans pertaining to guns.

I haven't advocated banning guns. Who do you imagine are you talking to?

I never said I wanted everyone to have a gun. Not once. I merely said that you cannot take away the rights of others based upon a few. Given the crime rate with gun usage being less than 10 % of the populace, and that making 240,000 total crimes, many without guns, and their being over 90, 000,000 legally registered arms,.and the fact that 80-85% of guns used in crimes in the US are obtained illegaly, I'd say it's a safe assumption that the great majority of gun owners do not use them to harm others

On closer inspection, I notice that it was NullPoinerException who said there would be no crimes if everyone had a gun. But you claimed this was common sense, so at least you supported the theory. I'm holding you to that until you retract it.

And again, I'm not saying there should be a ban on guns. My personal opinion is that guns are like antibiotics. They can be a very useful tool and downright idespensable in some situations. But in the long run they are self-defeating, because each time you use them you help push the evolution of strains that are immune to them.

The more people who carry guns in the general population, the more crime will necessarily evolve towards extreme forms where it makes no difference if the victim is armed or not. You can argue law-abiding people's right to defend themselves as long as you want -- and I'm not saying you are wrong -- but you'd better hope that only a minority exercises that right. Otherwise you'll wake up one day and realize you might as well leave your gun at home, because it has become obsolete as a defense against the typical violent crimes in your neighborhood.

Troll

5th January 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
Yes just as some people would be "banned" from owning and keeping firearms at home under your model....So can I call you a gun grabber?? Can I say you advocate gun bans?? Dude, we are both gun control advocates, you just don't want to apply to yourself what you would like to apply to others.

No, Im not surprised you are not talking total numbers because its the US total numbers that underline the ongoing tragedy due to the country being awash with firearms. You can argue statistics and until you are blue in the face. I prefer just to count the dead bodies that have bullet holes in them. Australia has made an effort to reduce the number of guns around the place and there are now less dead bodies with bullet holes in them, I don't think it is unreasonable to believe there may be a link between those facts.

Yes I would not allow some to own guns. But they would have had to have done something to warrant it. "If you can't play with your toys properly....." I wouldn't say " Johnny can't play wit his toy properly so I'm taking the toys away from the class". Hardly a gun grabber mentality.

I don't use total numbers alone, I use total population, total number of deaths, then the percentage and rate. You guys want to think total numbers make it look worse for the US. That's fine. But using percentage and rate we can determine who will be around longer.

You have a family of 100 and a rate of death via gun crime of 10% a year ( as an example, not the actual rate). Your rate of 10% is higher than that of the US who has a rate of 1% a year ( again, an example). You end up with roughly 31 people left after ten years, where as the US ends up with roughly 90. So if you wish to play the total numbers game look at the resulting total.

Yes almost all unecessary deaths are something to mourn or feel grief over. I'm not now nor have I ever belittled death of innocent people. So please don't try that claim on me. But people are going to die and people are going to committ crimes and people are going to kill. I mention the rates because one has stricter regulations on guns and yet they have a higher rate of death from them. It should be obvious that it's not simply the guns but the people that are the main factor.

So let's move from the guns are bad mode and try to understand what it is about the people that create the numbers of deaths.

Troll

5th January 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by karl

I haven't advocated banning guns. Who do you imagine are you talking to?

On closer inspection, I notice that it was NullPoinerException who said there would be no crimes if everyone had a gun. But you claimed this was common sense, so at least you supported the theory. I'm holding you to that until you retract it.

And again, I'm not saying there should be a ban on guns. My personal opinion is that guns are like antibiotics. They can be a very useful tool and downright idespensable in some situations. But in the long run they are self-defeating, because each time you use them you help push the evolution of strains that are immune to them.

The more people who carry guns in the general population, the more crime will necessarily evolve towards extreme forms where it makes no difference if the victim is armed or not. You can argue law-abiding people's right to defend themselves as long as you want -- and I'm not saying you are wrong -- but you'd better hope that only a minority exercises that right. Otherwise you'll wake up one day and realize you might as well leave your gun at home, because it has become obsolete as a defense against the typical violent crimes in your neighborhood.

I don't imagine who I am talking too. I often use other people's posts combined when posting. Sorry if you feel I attributed that to you, I merely used some other's posts in my post to you on the subject.

I can't say gun violence will die if everyone has a gun, I've also never advocated everyone having a gun. But I can say that fewer innocent victims will be had if the intended victim had a gun to protect themselves from someone that aren't fit to be amongst the rest of society.

Whose death do you mourn the most? The family killed by the robber, or the robber who was killed by the family that protected themselves from him with a legally owned gun?

Zep

5th January 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Yes I would not allow some to own guns. But they would have had to have done something to warrant it. "If you can't play with your toys properly....." I wouldn't say " Johnny can't play wit his toy properly so I'm taking the toys away from the class". Hardly a gun grabber mentality.

No, but it's a "gun-control" mentality, thankfully. Consider, though, if you applied the same method to car ownership. It would mean that anybody of any age could own and drive a car anywhere without needing instruction or a license, and they will only get the car taken off them when they crash into someone else or cause an accident. Sound ridiculous? I think so too, so why is it any different to license gun ownership, i.e. apply gun controls, the same way you train and license car drivers already today?

I don't use total numbers alone, I use total population, total number of deaths, then the percentage and rate. You guys want to think total numbers make it look worse for the US. That's fine. But using percentage and rate we can determine who will be around longer.

As I showed you above, any way you look at the available numbers - totals, percentages, rates - it isn't good for the USA.

You have a family of 100 and a rate of death via gun crime of 10% a year ( as an example, not the actual rate). Your rate of 10% is higher than that of the US who has a rate of 1% a year (again, an example). You end up with roughly 31 people left after ten years, where as the US ends up with roughly 90. So if you wish to play the total numbers game look at the resulting total.

Problem for you is that our rate is NOT higher than the USA. It's 5 to 10 times lower, and fluctuates about a fairly flat line (it actually went down 5% from 1999 to 2000). However, as mentioned above, the US rate is falling, which is good. Keep going.

Yes almost all unecessary deaths are something to mourn or feel grief over. I'm not now nor have I ever belittled death of innocent people. So please don't try that claim on me. But people are going to die and people are going to commit crimes and people are going to kill. I mention the rates because one has stricter regulations on guns and yet they have a higher rate of death from them. It should be obvious that it's not simply the guns but the people that are the main factor.

You should go live for a while in a country with gun control. People actually do feel safer with fewer guns around, and more uneasy when guns start getting involved.

So let's move from the guns are bad mode and try to understand what it is about the people that create the numbers of deaths.

A very good point, and much more worth your effort in examining. And lo and behold, a film-maker has done a cinematic essay on this very subject only recently. Although it is arguably highly biased, he has raised some excellent points on why there is such a culture about this. But I'm sure you know him... Does Michael Moore and Bowling For Columbine ring any bells? Worth a look as a starting point for this discussion, I feel.

Troll

6th January 2004, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Zep
No, but it's a "gun-control" mentality, thankfully. Consider, though, if you applied the same method to car ownership. It would mean that anybody of any age could own and drive a car anywhere without needing instruction or a license, and they will only get the car taken off them when they crash into someone else or cause an accident. Sound ridiculous? I think so too, so why is it any different to license gun ownership, i.e. apply gun controls, the same way you train and license car drivers already today?

Okay I think I see what we have here. You fee that gun control includes a set of guidelines on them like alcohol does with age limits and cars with drivers licenses. And I feel that changes which further restrict what we had as far as rights pertaining to guns, are gun control.

In the US saying gun control is almost synonymous with taking away guns, not merely putting guidelines in place pertaining to the purchace, sale and ownership of them. I'm for sensible policies, but against making any illegal.

Problem for you is that our rate is NOT higher than the USA. It's 5 to 10 times lower, and fluctuates about a fairly flat line (it actually went down 5% from 1999 to 2000). However, as mentioned above, the US rate is falling, which is good. Keep going.

Again, I never said Australia had a higher rate. Last I checked violent crimes were dropping in both places. But the rate of decline is higher in the US.

You should go live for a while in a country with gun control. People actually do feel safer with fewer guns around, and more uneasy when guns start getting involved.

You mean more restrictions than what we have in the US, right?:p See above to catch the joke. Why would I want to live somewhere where something I enjoy is harder to enjoy? California had more strict gun laws while I lived there than does Pennsylvania. There's more guns owned on the road I live on in rural PA than an area of equal size in San Diego or Los Angeles, I'm talking legally owned guns. People around here feel pretty freaking safe. To be honest with you, I feel safer when people feel they have the control of themselves that would prevent them from needing to get rid of soemthing they feel they may misuse, than around people that have to stay away from pointy sticks because they may poke someone with it if they get ticked off.

And you could probably make a better argument using someone or some other group than using Moore. His bias often detracts from his attempted message.;)

karl

6th January 2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Troll
I can't say gun violence will die if everyone has a gun, I've also never advocated everyone having a gun. But I can say that fewer innocent victims will be had if the intended victim had a gun to protect themselves from someone that aren't fit to be amongst the rest of society.

Sure, if you have figured out a way to go back in time and lend the victim a gun prior to the attack. Otherwise your statement is rather pointless. Think about it. If one out of several thousand people gets killed in a situation where his life would have been saved if he had carried a gun, and you don't know in advance which person that will be, it means you'd statistically need to arm thousands of people just to prevent one such death. And if even one out of those thousands of new gun owners in turn has an accident and happens to kill an innocent person, you have accomplished nothing. Except of course that the bad guy is now dead. Perhaps that's all that matters?

Whose death do you mourn the most? The family killed by the robber, or the robber who was killed by the family that protected themselves from him with a legally owned gun?

It seems you are talking to your imaginary friend again. This is getting tiresome. I'm outta here.

Troll

6th January 2004, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by karl

Sure, if you have figured out a way to go back in time and lend the victim a gun prior to the attack. Otherwise your statement is rather pointless. Think about it. If one out of several thousand people gets killed in a situation where his life would have been saved if he had carried a gun, and you don't know in advance which person that will be, it means you'd statistically need to arm thousands of people just to prevent one such death. And if even one out of those thousands of new gun owners in turn has an accident and happens to kill an innocent person, you have accomplished nothing. Except of course that the bad guy is now dead. Perhaps that's all that matters?

It seems you are talking to your imaginary friend again. This is getting tiresome. I'm outta here.

You're saying to allow people to arm themselves means that all people will be armed. I'm merely stating that allowing people to chose that for themselves shouldn't be taken away. Where you get the ideas you're posting about are beyond me. I mean I'm obviously talking about the future potential and you come up with time travel?:confused:

a_unique_person

6th January 2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by plindboe

Wrong, it would simply be a matter of shooting first. Remember, all criminals, drugaddicts & insane would have guns too. That will be one dangerous society to live in. I wouldn't like to live in a war-zone like that.

It is the most desperate who are the most dangerous. They usually don't have the money to buy a gun in Australia.

Zep

7th January 2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Okay I think I see what we have here. You feel that gun control includes a set of guidelines on them like alcohol does with age limits and cars with drivers licenses. And I feel that changes which further restrict what we had as far as rights pertaining to guns, are gun control.

In the US saying gun control is almost synonymous with taking away guns, not merely putting guidelines in place pertaining to the purchace, sale and ownership of them. I'm for sensible policies, but against making any illegal.

OK then, we seem to be on the same page, and have discarded emotive concepts. So what guidlelines would you envisage? How and where and when would you enforce them, and to what?

Again, I never said Australia had a higher rate. Last I checked violent crimes were dropping in both places. But the rate of decline is higher in the US.

Good. So now let's do some simple math. What is the current rate of decline of the US gun-crime rate? By comparison, by how many people does the Australian count have to change in order to meet or exceed that rate? (Hint: each single person counts for roughly 1.4% either way)

You should go live for a while in a country with gun control. People actually do feel safer with fewer guns around, and more uneasy when guns start getting involved.

You mean more restrictions than what we have in the US, right?:p See above to catch the joke. Why would I want to live somewhere where something I enjoy is harder to enjoy? California had more strict gun laws while I lived there than does Pennsylvania. There's more guns owned on the road I live on in rural PA than an area of equal size in San Diego or Los Angeles, I'm talking legally owned guns. People around here feel pretty freaking safe. To be honest with you, I feel safer when people feel they have the control of themselves that would prevent them from needing to get rid of something they feel they may misuse, than around people that have to stay away from pointy sticks because they may poke someone with it if they get ticked off.

Gee, you have trouble seeing the wood for the trees, don't you. Restrictions? What stinkin' restrictions! I have all the freedoms you have, PLUS I don't need to carry a weapon to walk the streets at night because almost no-one else does either! Your attitude seems to be that of "impregnable Fortress Troll". OK, whatever...

And you could probably make a better argument using someone or some other group than using Moore. His bias often detracts from his attempted message.;)

I said above he was arguably biased in his presentation, but can you deny that he has presented facts? Synopsis of Columbine (have you seen it?): The USA has a history of high gun-ownership, wars, crime, constitutionality, etc, all cited as reasons for the populace to own guns. However there are many other countries with similar populations, histories, rights and policies (eg. Canada). And yet the US gun-crime rates are many times higher than these countries, and incidents such as Columbine High remain regular news items. Moore simply asked why this was so. His answer was "fear". In the US, there is great fear in communities, put there by many means including the media. Whereas in other countries, fear plays a much lesser part in community life. Of course, this is all up to you to agree or disagree (I thought Moore was well overdramatic in many places, but the point was valid all the same).

Can I suggest that you reread your paragraph above, and see if you can tell me why you need to live in a gun-rich community to feel so safe.

Troll

7th January 2004, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Zep
OK then, we seem to be on the same page, and have discarded emotive concepts. So what guidlelines would you envisage? How and where and when would you enforce them, and to what?

Well I'd never make a mandatory carry or ownership law. Those should actually be considered unconstitutional as it removes choice.

If you have a habit of drinking and driving they take your license and your legal eligibilty to drive and in some cases your car. If you have a history of violent behavior and a habit of making threats to cause harm to others, I feel you should lose the gun equivelent. Permit to carry, guns ( you can lose life, liberty and property with due process), and eligibility to purchase new guns, depending upon the crime, the severity or frequency of the crime or various crimes. Defending yourself in a bar fight would not qualify. Criminal checks don't take long to conduct and there's never really a need to rush a purchase.

Good. So now let's do some simple math. What is the current rate of decline of the US gun-crime rate? By comparison, by how many people does the Australian count have to change in order to meet or exceed that rate? (Hint: each single person counts for roughly 1.4% either way)

Let's do some simple math? Where are your numbers? Don't push the work all on me. I gave a link that showed the recent rates. Stop being so damned lazy.:p It's bad enough I gotta try to figure out how to post to you Australians that can't seem to figure out the html tags.;) I did the math about a year ago in one of the gun threads and as I really suck at math you can either go by my memory or do it yourself. If I recall correctly it was roughly a 12% decline rate for the US and an 8% decline rate for Australia. I'm still not fully understanding the amount of wood you seem to be copping over this in trying to figure out what it would take to catch up. My point was and still is, and I'll highlight this for you, The fact that our violent crime rate and homocide rates can drop faster should show that guns and gun laws aren't the major factor in the decrease of violent crimes.

Obviously you missed the joke in the next part. Then got confused by what I said.

You said:
You should go live for a while in a country with gun control. People actually do feel safer with fewer guns around, and more uneasy when guns start getting involved. *italics are my own emphasis*

I had previously mentioned in our discussion our differing views on gun control and how one views it as restrictions (you) and I view it as (banning). I even said to see above for the joke.

Anyhow, you then replied to my reply with:

Gee, you have trouble seeing the wood for the trees, don't you. Restrictions? What stinkin' restrictions! I have all the freedoms you have, PLUS I don't need to carry a weapon to walk the streets at night because almost no-one else does either! Your attitude seems to be that of "impregnable Fortress Troll". OK, whatever...

I would have to respond to that by mentioning you do not have all the freedoms I do if you do not have all the gun freedoms that I do. I also don't need to carry and never said everyone does or should. I merely advocate the ability to be eligible to do so.

Can I suggest that you reread your paragraph above, and see if you can tell me why you need to live in a gun-rich community to feel so safe.

No. The reading must be done again on your part. I never said I need to live anywhere. I said I feel safer in a place where people feel they are capable of possessing such dangerous things like guns, and not misusing them than I would in a place where people doubted themselves and wanted all dangerous things banned from their vicinity. I will elaborate. I feel better in a place where some are afraid of something and try to remove the right to enjoy said thing from others.

Troll

7th January 2004, 10:47 PM

Often we see posts trying to determine the number of people who used a gun to defend themselves from a crime. I just stumbled upon this while looking for something else

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

tried to post the damned table but I keep messing it up. It's about halfway down the page.

Zep

7th January 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Troll

Well I'd never make a mandatory carry or ownership law. Those should actually be considered unconstitutional as it removes choice.

But then so does a driving license. You have the right to buy and own a car, but you earn the priviledge of using it (by passing the tests and staying within the law).

If you have a habit of drinking and driving they take your license and your legal eligibilty to drive and in some cases your car. If you have a history of violent behavior and a habit of making threats to cause harm to others, I feel you should lose the gun equivalent.

Is that before or after you hurt somebody?

Permit to carry, guns (you can lose life, liberty and property with due process), and eligibility to purchase new guns, depending upon the crime, the severity or frequency of the crime or various crimes. Defending yourself in a bar fight would not qualify. Criminal checks don't take long to conduct and there's never really a need to rush a purchase.

In other words, you DO advocate some form of control. Again, we seem to be in some form of agreement.

Let's do some simple math? Where are your numbers? Don't push the work all on me. I gave a link that showed the recent rates. Stop being so damned lazy.:p

Moi? The exercise in getting you to do the math with your own numbers is so that YOU discover what is happening here. However, I shall be kind and show you the results below.

It's bad enough I gotta try to figure out how to post to you Australians that can't seem to figure out the html tags.;)

Just keeping you on your toes and thinking, that's all...

I did the math about a year ago in one of the gun threads and as I really suck at math you can either go by my memory or do it yourself. If I recall correctly it was roughly a 12% decline rate for the US and an 8% decline rate for Australia.

OK, let's run with that, shall we? And we shall use the nice round figure of 60 people killed for 1999 as our starting point (it was actually 62).

For 60 people, each single homicide constitutes 100/60 = 1.67% of the total. To make a 12% decline in the following year for Australia, matching the US rate of decline, the number of homicides required would be 12/1.67 = 7.18, or shall we say a round figure of 8. That's just 8 people fewer in all of Australia in one year to actually exceed the US rate of decline. Don't you agree that is VERY EASILY possible, given that the total numbers are so small?

But let's take another example. In one particular Australian state there were zero homicides in one year, and one (1) homicide the next (it's a small state). Does that mean the state was having a crime-wave that year with homicide up 100%??

I'm still not fully understanding the amount of wood you seem to be copping over this in trying to figure out what it would take to catch up. My point was and still is, and I'll highlight this for you, The fact that our violent crime rate and homicide rates can drop faster should show that guns and gun laws aren't the major factor in the decrease of violent crimes.

I understand what you are trying to say, all right. MY point is that your point is based on utterly contrived figures that are close to meaningless when it comes to the Australian stats. See above.

Obviously you missed the joke in the next part.

Nope. Ha ha.

Anyhow, you then replied to my reply with:

Gee, you have trouble seeing the wood for the trees, don't you. Restrictions? What stinkin' restrictions! I have all the freedoms you have, PLUS I don't need to carry a weapon to walk the streets at night because almost no-one else does either! Your attitude seems to be that of "impregnable Fortress Troll". OK, whatever...

I would have to respond to that by mentioning you do not have all the freedoms I do if you do not have all the gun freedoms that I do.

Then you don't understand about the situation at all. I was being humourous, yes, but I meant what I said. Please name a "freedom" you have that I don't.

I also don't need to carry and never said everyone does or should. I merely advocate the ability to be eligible to do so.

I also have that right to do so, if I choose. There's just a few rules and regs that I need to comply with, that's all, just like getting a car license.

Can I suggest that you reread your paragraph above, and see if you can tell me why you need to live in a gun-rich community to feel so safe.

No. The reading must be done again on your part. I never said I need to live anywhere. I said I feel safer in a place where people feel they are capable of possessing such dangerous things like guns, and not misusing them than I would in a place where people doubted themselves and wanted all dangerous things banned from their vicinity.

You really do trust that these people are PROPERLY trained and licensed to use these weapons? That they have them properly stored and locked against accidental misuse? That no-one knows they are there, or where they are stored? That they will not be robbed from them illegally by bad guys and used against them and others?

The thing is, I CAN say "yes" to this with more certainty here because weapons are NOT in most homes, and those that are comply with strict safety rules. Incidentally, most gun-clubs like this arrangement - they are usually the places that have safe gun storage and approved training, so they get lots of new members who want to learn to shoot properly and safely, and store their guns safely. That's a development I applaud.

I will elaborate. I feel better in a place where some are afraid of something and try to remove the right to enjoy said thing from others.

You seem to be saying US citizens enjoy this right in much the same way a smoker with cancer "enjoys" cigarettes. You know they are killing you, but you still can't give them up.

Troll

8th January 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Zep
But then so does a driving license. You have the right to buy and own a car, but you earn the priviledge of using it (by passing the tests and staying within the law).

Right. I agree and I see no harm in applying that to guns as well, but I'd offer some differences. We have younger age allowances for driving for farm workers in many if not all states. I'd allow for the same for shotguns and hunting rifles. I see no need for all encompassing laws pertaining to age alone. A side note, in all the talk of either restrictions or control, neither of those words have ever been applied to a drivers license, which is where my semantics may tend to focus more than others on the words restriction or control as pertaining to guns, especially in light of the fact that I personally wouldn't care if both a drivers license and guns were treated the same. However, as for freely purchasing a gun, I'd probably pull some guidelines for the use of and purchase of alchohol as well, with the exception of the previously mentioned farmer type of clause.

Long winded I know but I'm trying to avoid misconceptions as to what I am suggesting.

Is that before or after you hurt somebody?

Well to be honest it's can only be a consideration after the fact. They cannot disallow the purchase of a gun if nothing shows up on the check. So to be disallowed, you must have shown some sort of violent or anti-social or sociopathic tendancy previously. If you have numerous convictions of assault, you have previously hurt someone, with or without a gun.

In other words, you DO advocate some form of control. Again, we seem to be in some form of agreement.[b]

Yes, if by control we mean the same type of control used concerning driving or buying or consuming alcohol. Which it seems that we both agree on. I've said several times I don't think everyone should have one or be told to have one, and I don't think everyone should be told they cannot.

[b]But let's take another example. In one particular Australian state there were zero homicides in one year, and one (1) homicide the next (it's a small state). Does that mean the state was having a crime-wave that year with homicide up 100%??

Only in the mind of the person trying to use skewed facts to support their side of the issue. This is why I say all totals should be taken into consideration and not just one.

I also have that right to do so, if I choose. There's just a few rules and regs that I need to comply with, that's all, just like getting a car license.

I'll admit I'm not fully up on all of Australia's gun laws, so maybe you can help me by answering questions pertaining to freedom as it concerns guns.

Can you keep all of your guns at home?
Can you legally apply for and obtain a permit to carry a handgun?
Are there any limitations in caliber of the gun you may own? This one is one of the newer attempts some in the US are trying to make right now. Trying to limit the caliber. Fortunately it's not going too well for them.

You really do trust that these people are PROPERLY trained and licensed to use these weapons? That they have them properly stored and locked against accidental misuse? That no-one knows they are there, or where they are stored? That they will not be robbed from them illegally by bad guys and used against them and others?

The thing is, I CAN say "yes" to this with more certainty here because weapons are NOT in most homes, and those that are comply with strict safety rules. Incidentally, most gun-clubs like this arrangement - they are usually the places that have safe gun storage and approved training, so they get lots of new members who want to learn to shoot properly and safely, and store their guns safely. That's a development I applaud.

I trust them no more or less than people driving their cars. I'd just rather not see either banned because of a small minority not being able to properly use either.

And while I applaud and feel that training, both in use of and saftey concerning the gun, should be a requirement to having one, we may disagree with where to park it. I park my car in my driveway and not at a car dealer or club so I feel I should be able to manage keepin other dangerous but allowable things like my guns at home as well.

You seem to be saying US citizens enjoy this right in much the same way a smoker with cancer "enjoys" cigarettes. You know they are killing you, but you still can't give them up.

Well I wouldn't have used cigarettes as an equivelent, as even though not everyone who smokes will get cancer, the effect on the body is generally the same as far as smoke filled lungs. Let us use cars for example. They kill more people than guns, more people own them than guns, they're easier to obtain, don't mix well with intoxicated or angry users. But I still say people should be allowed to enjoy them.;)

Zep

9th January 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Troll
But let's take another example. In one particular Australian state there were zero homicides in one year, and one (1) homicide the next (it's a small state). Does that mean the state was having a crime-wave that year with homicide up 100%??

Only in the mind of the person trying to use skewed facts to support their side of the issue. This is why I say all totals should be taken into consideration and not just one.

At last! FYI, Australia has the same population as California (give or take a few hundreds of thousands). However it has the gun-homicide count of Rhode Island, a much smaller place. I looked this up!

I'll admit I'm not fully up on all of Australia's gun laws, so maybe you can help me by answering questions pertaining to freedom as it concerns guns.

Can you keep all of your guns at home?

Yes, provided they are locked up properly.

Can you legally apply for and obtain a permit to carry a handgun?

Yes, although there are heavy restrictions on handguns - you need to have a damn good legal reason to own one.

Are there any limitations in caliber of the gun you may own? This one is one of the newer attempts some in the US are trying to make right now. Trying to limit the caliber. Fortunately it's not going too well for them.

Not as far as I'm aware. A friend of mine collects English Civil War memorabilia, and has a working musket which I think is 1 inch bore. However various classes of weapons are actually banned from sale and ownership. Genuine assault rifles, all automatic weapons and shortened longarms, for example.

You really do trust that these people are PROPERLY trained and licensed to use these weapons? That they have them properly stored and locked against accidental misuse? That no-one knows they are there, or where they are stored? That they will not be robbed from them illegally by bad guys and used against them and others?

The thing is, I CAN say "yes" to this with more certainty here because weapons are NOT in most homes, and those that are comply with strict safety rules. Incidentally, most gun-clubs like this arrangement - they are usually the places that have safe gun storage and approved training, so they get lots of new members who want to learn to shoot properly and safely, and store their guns safely. That's a development I applaud.

I trust them no more or less than people driving their cars. I'd just rather not see either banned because of a small minority not being able to properly use either.

And while I applaud and feel that training, both in use of and saftey concerning the gun, should be a requirement to having one, we may disagree with where to park it. I park my car in my driveway and not at a car dealer or club so I feel I should be able to manage keepin other dangerous but allowable things like my guns at home as well.

See above about gun ownership here.

You seem to be saying US citizens enjoy this right in much the same way a smoker with cancer "enjoys" cigarettes. You know they are killing you, but you still can't give them up.

Well I wouldn't have used cigarettes as an equivalent, as even though not everyone who smokes will get cancer, the effect on the body is generally the same as far as smoke filled lungs. Let us use cars for example. They kill more people than guns, more people own them than guns, they're easier to obtain, don't mix well with intoxicated or angry users. But I still say people should be allowed to enjoy them.;)

It is the severe and emotional attachment to the adverse addiction that I was referring to, not the addiction itself. I could have used a drugs metaphor just as easily.

Troll

9th January 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Zep
At last! FYI, Australia has the same population as California (give or take a few hundreds of thousands). However it has the gun-homicide count of Rhode Island, a much smaller place. I looked this up!

Ah, your 4,804,281 square miles and roughly 19,731,984 people, compared to CA's 155,973 square miles and roughly 20,000,000. Yes they are very close in population. And after the next little math problem I'll let you in on a theory I've had for a long time. Australia has enough land for about 4.1 people per square mile. That's like one family per square mile. California has enough land for 128 people per square mile. That's like 32 families and maybe some inbred cousins they try to keep a secret per square mile.

If you look through the homicide rates for the US you're going to see an average of higher numbers in the larger cities where population is more dense. I know others always want to say "What other factors contribute to the rates", well I contend that human nature and close quarters are the biggest contributing factors to crime in general, not just gun crimes. I can't say it as a fact, but the numbers almost always support me. I lose out only when one loony takes out a bunch at a time in a rural area, but even then they never match the numbers of the larger cities.

It is the severe and emotional attachment to the adverse addiction that I was referring to, not the addiction itself. I could have used a drugs metaphor just as easily.

It's not the gun itself that I find myself addicted to so much as the freedom to own one, which is often under attack in the US in a variety of ways. The gun itself is like any tool I have in the basement or garage. It's good to have around incase I need it, and sometimes I don't really need it but decide to do something with it that is fun, like target practice with the gun or building a scratching post for the cat with the tools.

rockoon

10th January 2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Troll

also Imentioned rate of growth or decrease, not just actual numbers. Rate, the speed of change. The speed of change for a decrease in these areas is faster in the US without substantial gun banishment laws

How come the leftists think the speed of change is important in regards to the environment but not to anything they disagree with?

Nikk

10th January 2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Troll

If you look through the homicide rates for the US you're going to see an average of higher numbers in the larger cities where population is more dense. I know others always want to say "What other factors contribute to the rates", well I contend that human nature and close quarters are the biggest contributing factors to crime in general, not just gun crimes. I can't say it as a fact, but the numbers almost always support me. I lose out only when one loony takes out a bunch at a time in a rural area, but even then they never match the numbers of the larger cities.

Actually most of Australia is empty semi-desert and the bulk of the population live in a restricted coastal area so your comparison of population densities is wrong.

Equally the population density of the UK is much higher than California and again there is not only a much lower homicide rate but also a very much lower gun crime rate.

It's perfectly true of course that there is a big difference in crime rates between country/small town/large town and big city but population density alone is not a good indicator of crime rates. For example in London both Mayfair and Brixton are densely populated areas. The former is near the centre and very, very, wealthy - it's inhabitants are not in the habit of commiting violent or non violent crime. Brixton on the other hand is rather poor, has a large black population with numerous social problems and a high crime rate, much if it drug related.

Ultimately crime rates have much more to do with people's social circumstances than population density.

a_unique_person

10th January 2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by rockoon

How come the leftists think the speed of change is important in regards to the environment but not to anything they disagree with?

Is it time to take your Ritalin?

Speed of change is important, but this alone is not meaningful without knowing the history, eg, the base of the figures.

Troll

10th January 2004, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Nikk

Actually most of Australia is empty semi-desert and the bulk of the population live in a restricted coastal area so your comparison of population densities is wrong.

Equally the population density of the UK is much higher than California and again there is not only a much lower homicide rate but also a very much lower gun crime rate.

It's perfectly true of course that there is a big difference in crime rates between country/small town/large town and big city but population density alone is not a good indicator of crime rates. For example in London both Mayfair and Brixton are densely populated areas. The former is near the centre and very, very, wealthy - it's inhabitants are not in the habit of commiting violent or non violent crime. Brixton on the other hand is rather poor, has a large black population with numerous social problems and a high crime rate, much if it drug related.

Ultimately crime rates have much more to do with people's social circumstances than population density.

Well I don't claim population density as a sole factor but a key one. Financial situations seem to have a large part to play in the US as well. But then in the Appalchians we have some of our poorest people but here we have to combine that with more space as well and they have far fewer incidents of crime than we have amongst the poor of the larger cities. So while not one particular factor can be seen as a major cause it's obvious that a combination of factors will increase the chances of violent crime.

Zep

11th January 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Troll
Ah, your 4,804,281 square miles and roughly 19,731,984 people, compared to CA's 155,973 square miles and roughly 20,000,000. Yes they are very close in population. And after the next little math problem I'll let you in on a theory I've had for a long time. Australia has enough land for about 4.1 people per square mile. That's like one family per square mile. California has enough land for 128 people per square mile. That's like 32 families and maybe some inbred cousins they try to keep a secret per square mile.

If you look through the homicide rates for the US you're going to see an average of higher numbers in the larger cities where population is more dense. I know others always want to say "What other factors contribute to the rates", well I contend that human nature and close quarters are the biggest contributing factors to crime in general, not just gun crimes. I can't say it as a fact, but the numbers almost always support me. I lose out only when one loony takes out a bunch at a time in a rural area, but even then they never match the numbers of the larger cities.

Keep on researching, slick! 85% of Australia's population is in just 5 big cities on the coastline, two of which are bigger than San Francisco. So if population density is anything to go by, why aren't we awash in gun-crimes?

All the same, I do agree that there are other factors than just gun ownership per se at work here. But that doesn't mean that gun ownership is (a) NOT an important factor, and (b) does not exaccerbate the situation significantly.

It is the severe and emotional attachment to the adverse addiction that I was referring to, not the addiction itself. I could have used a drugs metaphor just as easily.

It's not the gun itself that I find myself addicted to so much as the freedom to own one, which is often under attack in the US in a variety of ways.

***COUGH!*** If that were true, you would all be happy to give them up, knowing that you would be free to get one again if you wanted/needed. See that happening anytime soon???

The gun itself is like any tool I have in the basement or garage. It's good to have around in case I need it, and sometimes I don't really need it but decide to do something with it that is fun, like target practice with the gun or building a scratching post for the cat with the tools.

Sure! Same here. So the questions is: What do I REALLY need a gun for out here in suburbia? What is ever likely to happen that I will NEED a gun? When is it the RIGHT tool?

Farmers here use rifles to keep down vermin: foxes, rabbits, dingos and kangaroos sometimes. They have a good reason to keep and use a gun. (Interesting aside: I lived in the country when young, and I was surprised to discover that it was actually common for country folk of all ages to shoot themselves or others, accidentally or otherwise, resulting in disfigurements and deaths. This was "normal" - I don't know if it has changed much since.)

But if I'm interested in target shooting or trap or skeet or sport shooting, rather than go to the trouble of building all the paraphenalia to lock the dern things up safely, why don't I pay a few bucks and use my gun club's excellent facilities instead? And while I'm at it, I can get some training and pointers from experts there too, plus an occasional hour or two's practice on a well-equipped range, etc. Doesn't that sound safer without infringing anyone's liberties?

Troll

11th January 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Keep on researching, slick! 85% of Australia's population is in just 5 big cities on the coastline, two of which are bigger than San Francisco. So if population density is anything to go by, why aren't we awash in gun-crimes?

All the same, I do agree that there are other factors than just gun ownership per se at work here. But that doesn't mean that gun ownership is (a) NOT an important factor, and (b) does not exaccerbate the situation significantly.

well naturally it's because of several factors, one being that even in your five cities none have the same population as California's more condensed and more heavily crime-ridden cities. So I'm not losing points there. And I only claimed it as a big factor, not the biggest factor. Another factor could be your more stringent policies as pertaining to guns. Nothing to argue about there. Just using size and population density as an example of one of the factors. You have people living in what we consider rural and , not trying to offend, I just don't know what you really call it yourself, what you may call the outback. Let's just say out in the boonies. California has a bit of that type of area themselves where few if any people live so that actually reduces the size of livable land even more and condenses population even more.

But all the above isn't an argument or disagreement. It's just more food for though on the discussion as it pertains to the population density factor. Which admittedly I claim is a key factor but not the sole factor.

***COUGH!*** If that were true, you would all be happy to give them up, knowing that you would be free to get one again if you wanted/needed. See that happening anytime soon???

No. I'd give up drinking sooner than guns. Guns can be useful tools as I mentioned and cheap fun when used in safe target practice. Booze just makes me sleepy and no smarter than an Australian. Just kidding. I'm actually enjoying discussing this matter with you more than with anyone else I've actually discussed guns with. I just felt the need for some levity, at your expense of course.:p

Sure! Same here. So the questions is: What do I REALLY need a gun for out here in suburbia? What is ever likely to happen that I will NEED a gun? When is it the RIGHT tool?

Farmers here use rifles to keep down vermin: foxes, rabbits, dingos and kangaroos sometimes. They have a good reason to keep and use a gun. (Interesting aside: I lived in the country when young, and I was surprised to discover that it was actually common for country folk of all ages to shoot themselves or others, accidentally or otherwise, resulting in disfigurements and deaths. This was "normal" - I don't know if it has changed much since.)

But if I'm interested in target shooting or trap or skeet or sport shooting, rather than go to the trouble of building all the paraphenalia to lock the dern things up safely, why don't I pay a few bucks and use my gun club's excellent facilities instead? And while I'm at it, I can get some training and pointers from experts there too, plus an occasional hour or two's practice on a well-equipped range, etc. Doesn't that sound safer without infringing anyone's liberties?

I'm not going to argue any of the above. Why? Because I could not do so on good consciousness. In some cases it would make sense as pertaining to what you mentioned about storage. But as you stated sometimes some people need access a little quicker due to animals attacking their livestock. I get bears, deer, coyotes and various other animals walking through my backyard on a daily basis. I keep my cat indoors but if an animal set it's mind on getting to him or one of my visiting relatives infants, I'm glad I have easier access to my guns.

Yes the US has a high crime rate. Sometimes the animals that are threatening my cat or my cousins little babies aren't on four legs. Just another reason I'm happy to have my guns handy.

Now here's where I will argue, but I'm not sure if this is what you meant so I'll state my point and allow you to either alter what you said or stand by it.

"Doesn't that sound safer without infringing anyone's liberties?"

Not sure if you are refering to the storage or the training or both. I wouldn't argue about it infringing upon liberties as far as training and safety. Storage I tend to think that may cut into them a little. It tells you where to store and not really allows a choice in where to store your own property. Granted, parking laws do the same, but that is in public, whereas the other affects the home.

Anyhow I'll wait and see what your next reply is before going further into this. But I do want to reiterate how much I'm enjoying this conversation on the subject of guns. It's hands down the most civil I've ever had the pleasure of being involved with.:D

Zep

11th January 2004, 10:42 PM

I'm going to cut out some chunks as this is getting a bit unweildy...

Originally posted by Troll
well naturally it's because of several factors, one being that even in your five cities none have the same population as California's more condensed and more heavily crime-ridden cities. So I'm not losing points there. And I only claimed it as a big factor, not the biggest factor. Another factor could be your more stringent policies as pertaining to guns. Nothing to argue about there. Just using size and population density as an example of one of the factors. You have people living in what we consider rural and , not trying to offend, I just don't know what you really call it yourself, what you may call the outback. Let's just say out in the boonies. California has a bit of that type of area themselves where few if any people live so that actually reduces the size of livable land even more and condenses population even more.

Whoops, sorry to disabuse you again, but... Sydney and Melbourne are as urbanised as San Francisco and LA, if not more so. Sydney could actually be SF's twin city in many respects. We also have about the same smog levels as LA (aaargh!). I suspect you have been watching too many National Geographic documentaries - few Australians actually ever venture into the bush, or even outside the cities, so we are VERY urbanised in fact. Rural? Nope. A Croc-Hunter myth.

But all the above isn't an argument or disagreement. It's just more food for though on the discussion as it pertains to the population density factor. Which admittedly I claim is a key factor but not the sole factor.

Yes, population density could well play a part here. But, without wanting to cast too many aspersions, it appears that certain ethnic/tribal/interest groups have a propensity for use of guns as a "tool" of their trade also.

For example, recently here in Sydney there are a number of Middle Eastern and Far Eastern enclaves for whom a "war using guns" seems to be an "honourable" way to settle various debts or slights. In other words, ethnic gang wars. The level of violence has escalated recently, especially the use of illegal guns. Although the death rate by Californian standards might be considered "slight", here we consider it fairly extreme, so major efforts are under way to try and stamp this out...including gun clampdowns by police.

No. I'd give up drinking sooner than guns. Guns can be useful tools as I mentioned and cheap fun when used in safe target practice. Booze just makes me sleepy and no smarter than an Australian. Just kidding. I'm actually enjoying discussing this matter with you more than with anyone else I've actually discussed guns with. I just felt the need for some levity, at your expense of course.:p

Sure, why not. As long as you don't both drink and shoot - THAT is a subject that leads nowhere but down...

I'm not going to argue any of the above. Why? Because I could not do so on good consciousness. In some cases it would make sense as pertaining to what you mentioned about storage. But as you stated sometimes some people need access a little quicker due to animals attacking their livestock. I get bears, deer, coyotes and various other animals walking through my backyard on a daily basis. I keep my cat indoors but if an animal sets it's mind on getting to him or one of my visiting relatives infants, I'm glad I have easier access to my guns.

Then you would have a perfectly valid reason to own guns, so no problem there. Just stay with the "rules of ownership and use" and it should be no problem, yes? Just like a car?

Yes the US has a high crime rate.

No, a high GUN-crime rate. Or perhaps more accurately still, a higher gun-DEATH rate. From what I can gather, Australia has a similar burglary rate, car-crime rate, and suicide rate as the US. But the percentages of these involving guns and gun-deaths is way less.

This supports the contention that when guns get involved, the deaths start to mount up, and that's bad. As Fool said a while back, fewer guns means fewer bodies hitting the deck with bullet-holes in them.

Sometimes the animals that are threatening my cat or my cousins little babies aren't on four legs. Just another reason I'm happy to have my guns handy.

What sort of neighbourhood is it that has such threatening people?

Now here's where I will argue, but I'm not sure if this is what you meant so I'll state my point and allow you to either alter what you said or stand by it.

"Doesn't that sound safer without infringing anyone's liberties?"

Not sure if you are refering to the storage or the training or both. I wouldn't argue about it infringing upon liberties as far as training and safety. Storage I tend to think that may cut into them a little. It tells you where to store and not really allows a choice in where to store your own property. Granted, parking laws do the same, but that is in public, whereas the other affects the home.

I was referring to both. Here, there is no compulsion to use a gun-club's facilities at all. But let's face it: they will have far higher safety for storage than we could reasonably afford, they would have legal and well-controlled ranges to shoot on, ammo available to purchase, etc, etc. Everything you would need to partake of your sport happily and legally as far as your money will go. You could rent a shotgun and have a go at trap or skeet, or rent a target-pistol and try that, etc, etc. Not a problem at all. I've even had a few rounds of paintball - a fairly popular pastime here.

FYI, here's the Australian state of Victoria's Firearms Regulations details (http://www.ssaa.org.au/vic.pdf). It's pretty much the same for all the other states.

Anyhow I'll wait and see what your next reply is before going further into this. But I do want to reiterate how much I'm enjoying this conversation on the subject of guns. It's hands down the most civil I've ever had the pleasure of being involved with.:D

Indeed!