A Poll About Gun Control

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.
.

numan,

If you are not American, I will simply disregard your comments and unimportant. If you are, and your opinion of American and Americans is that low, you know what to do.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I do not think that homicides did see an increase. See my earlier thread about the homicide rate. Looks relatively flat throughout the entire time.

I question any source that failed to get that statistical fact correct as well.

The lone spike after (and small dip during) the gun confiscation cannot be attributed to the law – it dropped right after. Spikes and dips are common in examination of things like murder rates. The overall trend was virtually flat though.

 

[FA_Q2]

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!

I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX. They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX. You have been invaded already – it’s just that there were not enough to take over the government there.

 

[eflatminor]

I'll show you my link...

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.

I do not think that homicides did see an increase. See my earlier thread about the homicide rate. Looks relatively flat throughout the entire time.

I question any source that failed to get that statistical fact correct as well.

The lone spike after (and small dip during) the gun confiscation cannot be attributed to the law – it dropped right after. Spikes and dips are common in examination of things like murder rates. The overall trend was virtually flat though.

In an effort to demonstrate the trends of several types of violent crime, I quoted Australian government statistics related to firearm-related murders, armed robberies, home invasions and overall homicide rates. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic (Crime and Justice - Crimes Recorded by Police) and the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, April 2003), in the three years after the confiscation, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions up 21%. The following year, homicides were up 20%. I'd argue that's a pretty broad and unbiased look at violent crime rates following the ban. Further, as idb's link shows, the 'gun-murder' rate has steadily increased. Taken together, the results demonstrate, IMO, that the ban did more harm than good.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

I do not think that homicides did see an increase. See my earlier thread about the homicide rate. Looks relatively flat throughout the entire time.

I question any source that failed to get that statistical fact correct as well.

The lone spike after (and small dip during) the gun confiscation cannot be attributed to the law – it dropped right after. Spikes and dips are common in examination of things like murder rates. The overall trend was virtually flat though.

In an effort to demonstrate the trends of several types of violent crime, I quoted Australian government statistics related to firearm-related murders, armed robberies, home invasions and overall homicide rates. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic (Crime and Justice - Crimes Recorded by Police) and the Australian Institute of Criminology (Report #46: Homicide in Australia, April 2003), in the three years after the confiscation, firearm-related murders were up 19%, armed robberies were up 69%, and home invasions up 21%. The following year, homicides were up 20%. I'd argue that's a pretty broad and unbiased look at violent crime rates following the ban. Further, as idb's link shows, the 'gun-murder' rate has steadily increased. Taken together, the results demonstrate, IMO, that the ban did more harm than good.

armed robberies, home invasions

i have not studied Australian crime trends for awhile

but i remember that Hot Home invasions ( where the victim is home at the time)

skyrocketed after the strict gun control was incorporated

 

[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?

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.

I was replying to this assertion by you...specifically related to gun crimes

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%).

However, you can try this graph then.
Allowing for annual fluctuations, it shows a steady decline in homicide rates, which continues.
Long term trends are more reliable than snapshots of a year.

I'm not sure if I said that gun control measures in Australia have improved the homicide rates...however I do dispute the assertion by firearms advocates that guns make a society safer, and these figures bear that out...gun controls were strengthened and the long-term reducing trend of murders has continued.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

 

[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?

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.

Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.

And those who do advocate unrestricted access to firearms are ignorant of the law and irresponsible.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'll show you my link...

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.

I was replying to this assertion by you...specifically related to gun crimes

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%).

No, you were not because I have never made that claim, that was another poster

I walked in on the middle of that conversation though. I refuted BOTH of your claims in this thread of the discussion though. I don’t see a significant increase in homicide rates that justify the claims that it was related to the gun law BUT you are also making a POSITIVE assertion that the homicide rate dropped because of the law. That is also incorrect as shown by the actual homicide rate without qualifies added.

However, you can try this graph then.
Allowing for annual fluctuations, it shows a steady decline in homicide rates, which continues.
Long term trends are more reliable than snapshots of a year.

Which is why I referred to trends and overall rate over many years. Again, it took about 7 years of a general flat homicide rate before a reasonable downward trend started appearing. To attribute that to a law passed 7 years ago stretches the concept of causality past a breaking point. It makes no real sense.

I'm not sure if I said that gun control measures in Australia have improved the homicide rates...however I do dispute the assertion by firearms advocates that guns make a society safer, and these figures bear that out...gun controls were strengthened and the long-term reducing trend of murders has continued.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

And I have not made that claim. My claim is that gun laws do NOTHING for crime rates at all. The data bears THAT out clearly and not your claims that gun laws make anything safer. You are attributing a downward trend realized 7 years after the fact to that law while the rates before and after were relatively flat. That is rather nonsensical. Further, the overall downward trend when taken during a larger time frame has not changed at all. The homicide rate in Australia has been trending that way for 2 decades since they started recording them in the first place.
[url]http://aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/research/homicide/homiciderate2.png[/url]
[img]
(same site)
Where are the effects of the gun law? They are not there. The realized crime rates don’t seem to care what the gun laws are. The only logical conclusion is that criminals are going to break the law regardless and that further gun restrictions are simply not effective at changing those rates or results.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.

That is not restricted access in the way that we are speaking about. That is a removal of rights through the court system. That would be like saying that I advocate for people to be restricted in when they can leave their house or forced to stay indoors. That would be incorrect however the courts actively use house arrest for those that have broken the law or institutionalization for the truly crazy.

There is a MASSIVE chasm between gun control and the legal restrictions on rights imposed through the courts.

What we are talking about is further gun regulation.

Of course it’s not a ‘gotcha’ cause you haven’t got me yet

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Think about it, of course you believe in some restrictions.
Haven't you already spoken about people with mental illness for example?
This isn't a 'gotcha'...just pointing out that almost nobody advocates for unrestricted access to firearms.

That is not restricted access in the way that we are speaking about. That is a removal of rights through the court system. That would be like saying that I advocate for people to be restricted in when they can leave their house or forced to stay indoors. That would be incorrect however the courts actively use house arrest for those that have broken the law or institutionalization for the truly crazy.

There is a MASSIVE chasm between gun control and the legal restrictions on rights imposed through the courts.

What we are talking about is further gun regulation.

Of course it’s not a ‘gotcha’ cause you haven’t got me yet

Any reasoned person would agree we should restrict/regulate ownership of nuclear weapons.

 

[numan]

'
This discussion is worthless, because you mindless idiots know nothing about crime statistics.

International crime statistics are a dog's breakfast. Every country defines "crime" with different parameters. In particular, the definition of "violent crime" differs -- well, violently -- from country to country. Any discussion of it is meaningless unless you are very, very careful to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.

.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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!

I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX. They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX. You have been invaded already – it’s just that there were not enough to take over the government there.

No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

'
This discussion is worthless, because you mindless idiots know nothing about crime statistics.

International crime statistics are a dog's breakfast. Every country defines "crime" with different parameters. In particular, the definition of "violent crime" differs -- well, violently -- from country to country. Any discussion of it is meaningless unless you are very, very careful to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.

.

That's what I tried telling you when you tried comparing the US to Switzerland.

 

[eflatminor]

However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.

.

Let's assume you're right. That hasn't a damn thing to do with firearms or any other inanimate objects.

 

[Bern80]

'
This discussion is worthless, because you mindless idiots know nothing about crime statistics.

International crime statistics are a dog's breakfast. Every country defines "crime" with different parameters. In particular, the definition of "violent crime" differs -- well, violently -- from country to country. Any discussion of it is meaningless unless you are very, very careful to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.

However, anyone who is not a lunatic American knows that Australians -- whatever else maybe the failings of their ersatz Wanabee-American culture -- are far more peaceable, non-violent and sensible than hysterical Americans are ever likely to be.

.

I tend to agree the statistics are meaningless, but for a different reason perhaps. Whether the crime rate goes up or down as the result of stricter or looser gun laws is irrelavent. The second ammendment was not written as a crime prevention measure. The reason the authors of the constitution afforded us the right to bear arms was so the citizenry would have the ability to defend themselves and/or fight a tryannical government.

Think about this amendment in context with all the other rights that come with the following ammendments. On their list of priorties the second most important thing to freedom of speech was making sure people had the right and the ability to defend their life and liberty. That is why statistics do not matter. It does not matter if the violent gun crime escalated ten fold as the result of less restrictive gun laws. It doesn't change the fact that you have the right to defend yourself. It doesn't change the fact that in order to avoid tyranny the citizenry needs an effective means of fighting a tyrannical government.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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!

I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX. They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX. You have been invaded already – it’s just that there were not enough to take over the government there.

No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.

and that is bad

how

 

[RKMBrown]

I think the point was that you are too late from stopping those like numan from coming to TX. They are already there gravitating to the few liberal bastions ion TX. You have been invaded already – it’s just that there were not enough to take over the government there.

No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.

and that is bad

how

It's not true at all. Austin proper is filled with people like numan.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No people like numan hate Texas and would never move here.

and that is bad

how

It's not true at all. Austin proper is filled with people like numan.

--LOL

that is quite the picture

--LOL

 

[RKMBrown]

Austin Voted the ninth best place for gays to live in 2010 by The Advocate, a national gay and lesbian magazine, the city of Austin is seen as “a small dot of blue in a vast sea of red conservatism,” said Matthew Gracia, 20, University of Texas at Austin junior women’s and gender studies major.

Austin voted ninth best place for gays to live in | The Austin Globe