A Poll About Gun Control

[numan]

Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?

You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training....

But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.

Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.

However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.

By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html

Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.

Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.

With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.

The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.

.

 

[eflatminor]

Please, I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.

As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.

Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

It wasn't a rhetorical question idb. I'm interested in your opinion.

Crickets. Too bad.

 

[eflatminor]

"Known to be dangerous", how? Did he commit a violent crime? Who determines he is dangerous?

Public opinion determines the danger to the community.

Perhaps you were you being facetious?

Then you were serious?

Oh my.

 

[westwall]

".....we don't get bullets any more," he adds. "The Army doesn't give ammunition now - it's all kept in a central arsenal." This measure was introduced by Switzerland's Federal Council in 2007....."The gun is not given to me to protect me or my family," he says. "I have been given this gun by my country to serve my country...."

emphasis added

Why -- GASP!! -- that appears to be the purpose of owning guns in the USA -- as described in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution!!! · ·

This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!

That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.

Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the form of a coherent argument.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
.

What was that sagamammymooth?

 

[FA_Q2]

emphasis added

This post is not surprising coming from you....GASP!!

That comment is a red herring and a violation of the rules of the Clean Debate Forum.

Stick to the topic and write something that at least has the form of a coherent argument.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment much better than does the present carnival of lawlessness and murder in the United States. Argue against that.
.

My point was that the Swiss gun regulations fulfill the intent of the 2nd amendment

then you would be wrong

Not really. The Swiss way of doing things really does fill the intent of the second. I would not advocate actually assigning a weapon to every single household in this nation though; that seems terribly rash and there are people that simply should not have a weapon. I prefer the method that we use now – those that should not own a weapon identify themselves by not purchasing one.

Simple.

That and the simple fact that the second is not the entire constitution. REQUIRING you to own or purchase anything is outright wrong no matter how you slice it. One of the base problems I have with Ocare but that is another thread.

 

[idb]

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.



Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

It wasn't a rhetorical question idb. I'm interested in your opinion.

Crickets. Too bad.

I'm travelling, it's too hard to answer on a phone but the discussion is interesting.
I'll get back to you.

 

[idb]

Then you're denying reality. The government supplied statistics have been provided here and elsewhere numerous times. They prove without a doubt that violent crime increased following the ban.



Which was only the case after the ban. Again, you can choose to deny reality, but it's not helping your case.



I'm suggesting there is no way the gun grabbers can associate civilian firearm ownership with violent crime rates. So please, leave law abiding citizens alone and focus on those that actually harm others.

Please, I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.

As gun advocates have said many times...if someone is going to commit violence and they haven't got a gun then they'll use a different weapon.

Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

I'll show you my link...

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.0619
2009: 1.04
2008: 1.08
2007: 1.12
2006: 1.19
2005: 1.04
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law


...you show me yours...

(reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).

 

[idb]

Care to speculate why violent crime rates rose in England and Australia immediately following the confiscation of civilian owned firearms while at the same time crime rates where dropping in the US as the number of firearms and conceal carry permits were skyrocketing (yes, right word)?

I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is because of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?

The assumption is made when you compare crime statistics before and after the law was passed in the same general geographic area. You tried to make a comparison using Japan without any frame of reference at all and now you question statistical figures that used a before and after snapshot of the same area?

All that tells me is that your criteria for data is that it shows gun control effective. Why would you ask this question of his data and then completely gloss over that same question when referring to Japan where causation is virtually impossible to establish.

Of course, I am going to point out yet again that raising crime rates is irrelevant anyway. The fact is that the crime did not decrease after the law was passed and therefore it is a bad law. Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.

Where's your similar frame of reference for the US experience?
When were guns banned so that you can compare that time with the present day?

 

[idb]

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.



Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

It wasn't a rhetorical question idb. I'm interested in your opinion.

Crickets. Too bad.

Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
Any sensible person does.
I'm sure you do too.

I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.

I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?

 

[jon_berzerk]

It wasn't a rhetorical question idb. I'm interested in your opinion.

Crickets. Too bad.

Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
Any sensible person does.
I'm sure you do too.

I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.

I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?

The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

in the 2013 presidents study on firearms the presence of a firearm

stopped the crime between 500 thousand and 3 million times

 

[idb]

Crickets. Too bad.

Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
Any sensible person does.
I'm sure you do too.

I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.

I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?

The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

in the 2013 presidents study on firearms the presence of a firearm

stopped the crime between 500 thousand and 3 million times

We're talking about different things.
The presence of a firearm during the execution of a crime in New Zealand results in more serious charges by the police.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?

You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training....

But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.

Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.

However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.

By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html

Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.

Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.

With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.

The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.

.

Really.

Texas has produced more jobs in this country than all the other states combined.

1000 people are moving to Texas each day.

I should read more?

You're the one trying to make a comparison between a country of 8 million to a country of 360 million.


I'm glad that you and your ilk don't like Texas. I can count on you and your kind to stay the hell out of my state.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you seriously comparing the US to Switzerland ?

You do know that they don't have a standing army and that the vast majority of men ages 20 to 30 undergo military training including weapons training....

But it's really not fair to compare a country with 8 million people to a country with 360 million.

Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.

However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.

By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html

Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.

Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.

With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.
The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.

The government will also be able to lift the ban in the event of a security crisis.

.

Really.

Texas has produced more jobs in this country than all the other states combined.

1000 people are moving to Texas each day.

I should read more?

You're the one trying to make a comparison between a country of 8 million to a country of 360 million.


I'm glad that you and your ilk don't like Texas. I can count on you and your kind to stay the hell out of my state.

To late. See Houston, Dallas, and Austin... such a mess.

 

[FA_Q2]

Please, I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.



Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

I'll show you my link...

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.0619
2009: 1.04
2008: 1.08
2007: 1.12
2006: 1.19
2005: 1.04
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law


...you show me yours...

(reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).

And your figures are false representations as already covered earlier in this thread. ‘Gun’ death statistics are woefully inadequate. If you are killed by gun, knife or spoon it matters not. This was ALREADY addressed. The HOMICIDE rate is what needs to be looked at (and crime rates if we want to delve that deeply). Looking at gun deaths only amount to finding data that fits one or another confirmation bias. Raw data needs to be examined.

Actual homicide rates should be examined:
Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

The law was passed in ’96 and there is no discernible change in homicide rates whatsoever until ’04. That is a sever year time gap. There is no reason to attribute the recent downturn in homicide rates with gun control masseurs enacted almost a decade ago. That is more than a precarious connection.

In Australia, gun control has not been shown to be effective.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't agree that the Australian violent crime rates increased any faster than before the ban.
As for the UK, who knows, I'm no criminologist but it appears to be one if the most crime-ridden countries in Western Europe.
A proliferating gang culture is one if the reasons being put forward.
Are you suggesting that the increase in crime is because of the restrictions on guns? How can you know that?

The assumption is made when you compare crime statistics before and after the law was passed in the same general geographic area. You tried to make a comparison using Japan without any frame of reference at all and now you question statistical figures that used a before and after snapshot of the same area?

All that tells me is that your criteria for data is that it shows gun control effective. Why would you ask this question of his data and then completely gloss over that same question when referring to Japan where causation is virtually impossible to establish.

Of course, I am going to point out yet again that raising crime rates is irrelevant anyway. The fact is that the crime did not decrease after the law was passed and therefore it is a bad law. Fewer rights with no realized benefit is bad law no matter how you slice it.

Where's your similar frame of reference for the US experience?
When were guns banned so that you can compare that time with the present day?

I already went over this idb. Apparently you have not even bothered to get into the facts that I already presented to you. Britton, Canada, DC, Chicago, CA, FL, TX and many more provide real frame of reference by having rates that are able to be examined BEFORE and AFTER the law passed accounting for most of the variables that are present when you cross nations and geographic areas. We cannot tell how effective the gun laws are in Japan because we do not have information there WITHOUT gun law. We do, however, have a wealth of information before and after the laws in various other locations many of which I have already provided for you.

 

[FA_Q2]

It wasn't a rhetorical question idb. I'm interested in your opinion.

Crickets. Too bad.

Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
Any sensible person does.
I'm sure you do too.

I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.
The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.

I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?

According to the data, any sensible person DOES NOT.

Stop demanding that your position is ‘sensible’ without any data whatsoever to support it. That does not make your position sensible at all.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes, I agree it is not fair to compare the USA with a country so much higher on the scale of civilization.

However, if we tossed Texas out of the Federal Union, and buckled down, and worked really hard, then perhaps even the USA could make some progress in becoming civilized.

By the way, you should look at this posting on this thread which you did not bother to read:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7734702-post224.html

Then you will see that the situation in Switzerland is different than you imagine, and rather more complex.


.

Really.

Texas has produced more jobs in this country than all the other states combined.

1000 people are moving to Texas each day.

I should read more?

You're the one trying to make a comparison between a country of 8 million to a country of 360 million.


I'm glad that you and your ilk don't like Texas. I can count on you and your kind to stay the hell out of my state.

To late. See Houston, Dallas, and Austin... such a mess.

You pick three of the most liberal cities in Texas and what point are you trying to make exactly?

Those cities themselves are producing jobs and having more people move there. So whatever point you were trying to make... you failed!

 

[eflatminor]

Please, I said that violent crime in Australia increased no faster than before the ban.

Incorrect.

According to government statistics, in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% and firearm-related deaths fell 50%.

Three years after the confiscation of civilian owned firearms, firearm-related murders were up 19% (and armed robberies were up 69%, home invasions up 21%).

The following year, homicides were up another 20%.

That is a DRAMATIC increase in violent crime immediately following the gun ban.



Or they'll just find a firearm. Either way, can we infer from this statement that you do not support the restriction of civilian owned firearms?

I'll show you my link...

In Australia, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is

2010: 1.0619
2009: 1.04
2008: 1.08
2007: 1.12
2006: 1.19
2005: 1.04
2004: 1.16
2003: 1.45
2002: 1.49
2001: 1.68
2000: 1.69
1999: 1.83
1998: 1.67
1997: 2.31
1996: 2.82
1995: 2.59
1994: 2.88
1993: 2.89
1992: 3.47
1991: 3.57
1990: 3.48
1989: 3.26
1988: 4.06
1987: 4.25
1986: 4.21
1985: 4.31
1984: 4.34
1983: 4.20
1982: 4.56
1981: 4.15
1980: 4.67
1979: 4.71

Guns in Australia: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law


...you show me yours...

(reminder, 1997 was the year of the new gun control measures).

Why "gun deaths"? Wouldn't it be more honest to consider "murder" and "violent crime" rates, which CLEARLY saw a dramatic increase following the firearm confiscation...which I've already quoted? Stated differently, the point of civilian firearm ownership is to allow individuals to protect themselves against thugs (and tyranny of course). Dead is dead, whether a firearm or other object is used (hundreds of thousands of Rwandan killed by edged weapons proves that).

Further, your figures indicate a rise in 'gun deaths' after the ban, though arguably not a dramatic increase, but the point is violent crime rates are what really tell the story and in that sense, the ban did far more harm than good.

 

[eflatminor]

It wasn't a rhetorical question idb. I'm interested in your opinion.

Crickets. Too bad.

Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
Any sensible person does.
I'm sure you do too.

I support no restrictions on anyone's fundamental rights until such an individual has actually harmed or taken from another and been proven guilty of doing so in a court of law. Even then, we know darn well that telling felons they can't own a firearm doesn't do a thing to prevent them from obtaining a firearm. Still, I wouldn't complain about that kind of restriction. I absolutely stand against restricting freedoms based on the idea that central planners will prevent bad people from doing bad things...as any sensible person would.

I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.
A simple Google search will find calls to arm the cops - it's an ongoing discussion - but at the moment access to firearms for the police is limited and firearms incidents against the cops are low.

Good for your society...seriously. However, unarmed police hasn't a thing to do with an INDIVIDUAL'S God-given right to self protection.

The presence of a firearm in any crime escalates the seriousness of the charges hugely.

And since we know that NO society stops thugs and crazies from obtaining weapons for use in their crimes, that's all the more reason to not restrict good people from arming themselves. Why in the world would you want to give a tactical advantage to those that couldn't care less about your rules? That's crazy!

It isn't in our general national psyche to own guns for personal protection and, even though we have a relatively high ownership of guns, we don't feel that the restrictions are oppressive.
In fact, it is illegal to own firearms for the purpose of security.

We do. Again, there is no logical reason to but good people at a disadvantage when we all know criminals...wait for it...don't obey the law.

I find it impossible to accept that if concealed-carry firearms were suddenly allowed it wouldn't make us less safe and more concerned about personal security.
I take it that you believe the opposite...if CC weapons were allowed to us, would we all be safer feel more secure?

This is not about "feelings", it's about facts. The fact is that where conceal carry permits have risen, violent crime and murder have dropped. Not hard to figure out. Criminals are opportunists. The thugs will go where the people are disarmed and the crazies seek out 'gun free zones'. Makes NO sense to give an edge to the bad guys. None.

 

[numan]

Of course I support restrictions on civilian-owned firearms.
Any sensible person does.
I'm sure you do too.

I am afraid your opinion of Americans is far too complimentary.

Not many Americans are sensible persons -- too brainwashed and prone to hysteria.

And as you can see from this site, far, far too tetchy and lacking a sense of humor. · ·

I live in a society where police don't routinely carry firearms because they don't feel outgunned by the general population.

A very, very important point.

Congratulations for living in a society more civilized and superior to the carnival of violence and destruction so prevalent in the Land of Debris and Home of the Crazed.

Pity us; if it had not been for the Insurrectionary Terrorists mis-named the Founding Fathers, we might have been as good as your country or Canada.
.