Here's something for the limp wristed gun control crowd

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Where to start. First off, on what basis are you disputing the DOJ's 7x statistic?

Actually, I wasn't disputing that stat. I was just pointing out that the 7x stat is for total homicides, not gun homicides. For gun homicides taken alone, the figures for 1974 - 2004 are the ones I gave above. Those numbers are also from the DOJ site, and aren't close to 7-1. However, that is not taking into account your point about unsolved cases or your point about the racial misrepresentation of Hispanics, who are apparently involved in a lot of gun crime, as per your earlier link to the LA Times.

I'm not sure if atozcom's reference to Mr. Simpleton is a reference to me. I have never said that I am for a constitutional amendment which would completely prohibit private citizens from owning or carrying arms. I'm simply voicing my concerns and questions as a citizen of a country where it is illegal to bear arms, and where gun homicides are almost non-existent.

The case of Australia and the fact that there have been 0 multiple murders by deranged shooters since they restricted access to guns should also be explained away by the 2nd Amendment lovers.

I would say in closing on this issue that the tone of atozcom's post, and other unsubstantiated rhetoric like it, is what gives the gun control lobby and other concerned citizens the creeps. I have asked earlier how many gun deaths come as a result of innocent civilians using a gun to kill a criminal who was attacking them. I suspect that there are very few.

 

[acronym]

Quote from dcraig:

The most recent study (reported in SMH yesterday) finds gun controls have cut the number of firearms related deaths in Australia since Port Arthur by half. Quotes on some shooters association web site don't cut it.

Do you have a link, i cant find it?
There must have been a staggering drop just in the last few years if thats the case, but to forget the actual trend had been decreasing since the early 80's would be a bit "selective" dont you think?

Particularly, given up till what, a year or two ago, the attorney general and this guy

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html

appeared to conclude any difference was negligible to non-existent, and in fact demographic and social, and with zero bearing on gun control laws.

 

[acronym]

Quote from traderNik:



The case of Australia and the fact that there have been 0 multiple murders by deranged shooters since they restricted access to guns should also be explained away by the 2nd Amendment lovers.

Gee, i could have sworn some there have been at least a few, thats COMPLETELY INCORRECT and a TOTAL LIE.
There was the asian guy who shot his family, the other asian guy at a melbourne uni, likely a few more too, not to mention the gangland killings , i dont see why the shooter being deranged should be considered particlarly important either.

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from acronym:

Gee, i could have sworn some there have been at least a few, thats COMPLETELY INCORRECT and a TOTAL LIE.

All right, all right, take it easy. I had heard from multiple sources in the past few days (since VT) that the rate of gun homicides in AUS plummeted after the ban, and I heard on CBC radio today from a supposed 'expert' that there have been no mass killings since the ban. If you have figures that show that gun homicide rates in Australia remained steady after the ban, then post them.

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from traderNik:

All right, all right, take it easy. I had heard from multiple sources in the past few days (since VT) that the rate of gun homicides in AUS plummeted after the ban, and I heard on CBC radio today from a supposed 'expert' that there have been no mass killings since the ban. If you have figures that show that gun homicide rates in Australia remained steady after the ban, then post them.

Too small a sample Nik. Aus never had a pronounced gun violence problem so a before/after is meaningless.

During the same proposed sample period, even the gun-happy U.S. saw a sharp decrease in murders. IMO the developed world has seen falling crime rates for reasons completely apart from gun accessibility issues.

 

[acronym]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Too small a sample Nik. Aus never had a pronounced gun violence problem so a before/after is meaningless.

During the same proposed sample period, even the gun-happy U.S. saw a sharp decrease in murders. IMO the developed world has seen falling crime rates for reasons completely apart from gun accessibility.

Yeah, exactly-dcraig, i now realise you meant the link you posted, sorry for the confusion, which looks highly disparate in its "conclusions", and a data set back to 1915? By economists? Academics?

Id love to know what model or info they included, if gun homocides have mysteriously dropped off in the last few years, dont you think its more likely from "crackdowns ' on gangs, or mafia hierarchy sorting out there leadership squabbles, than "gun control" laws?

 

[acronym]

Quote from traderNik:

All right, all right, take it easy. I had heard from multiple sources in the past few days (since VT) that the rate of gun homicides in AUS plummeted after the ban, and I heard on CBC radio today from a supposed 'expert' that there have been no mass killings since the ban. If you have figures that show that gun homicide rates in Australia remained steady after the ban, then post them.

I dont know, try these-these figures are from the australian bureau of statistics, not sure about the british graph, but many of them cover the timeline involved.

I dont know how they could be just "some" stuff on a shooting organisations sight, which must be untrustworthy by definition.


http://www.ssaa.org.au/newssaa/political archive/graphs/gunlegintro.htm

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

Too small a sample Nik. Aus never had a pronounced gun violence problem so a before/after is meaningless.

During the same proposed sample period, even the gun-happy U.S. saw a sharp decrease in murders. IMO the developed world has seen falling crime rates for reasons completely apart from gun accessibility issues.

Well... meaningless? That seems a bit strong - what is the population of Australia? Anyhow, the point about the coincidence of generally decreasing rates in Western countries is a reasonable one.

2nd Amendment supporters would have to show me that the decrease in the number of crimes of passion and opportunity, combined with accidental death of kids who play with guns, would be outweighed by the increase in homicides which resulted when innocent civilians were unable to defend themselves against gun wielding criminals. I just don't believe that gun owners care much about black-on-black gun homicide. And to me as well, the question of criminal-on-criminal gun deaths is irrelevant.

(Or... maybe they don't care about absolute death rates from gun homicide, and the fact is that their right to protect themselves from attack supercedes concern about such statistics).

Another thing which just occurred to me... I wonder how police forces feel about the Second Amendment? I mean, after all, would it not be better for police officers if these nutbags had a harder time getting guns? The argument that criminals get their guns from places other than the store isn't a great one, IMO. So how do criminals get guns? The argument seems to be that they get stolen guns. If there were substantially fewer handguns in circulation, would it not be harder for criminals to acquire stolen guns? I agree that criminals are going to get guns one way or another. But again, how do cops feel about the fact that anyone can buy a gun, and that it would be harder for criminals to get guns if they were illegal to own?

 

[acronym]

Quote from traderNik:

The argument seems to be that they get stolen guns.

The australian figures are negligible for that, but the us would be very different , far more firearms per capita, no question.
More people, too, australia's population sits around 20,000,000, give or take.
Of whom about 12 mill are voters.

But even here, it begs the question-where do they get them?
Heres a guess-the same places they get vast tonnage of illicit drugs, imported illegally in containers, yachts, shipping.

If they were serious about stopping access, wouldnt that be the place to start, in any country?

 

[atozcom]

Quote from traderNik:

Another thing which just occurred to me... I wonder how police forces feel about the Second Amendment? I mean, after all, would it not be better for police officers if these nutbags had a harder time getting guns? The argument that criminals get their guns from places other than the store isn't a great one, IMO. So how do criminals get guns? The argument seems to be that they get stolen guns. If there were substantially fewer handguns in circulation, would it not be harder for criminals to acquire stolen guns? I agree that criminals are going to get guns one way or another. But again, how do cops feel about the fact that anyone can buy a gun, and that it would be harder for criminals to get guns if they were illegal to own?

The U.S. constitution is to protect the citizens from the government. The police is part of the government.

The criminal get their fire arms from all kind of illegal channels, stolen or smuggled, Since criminal is always a very small percentage of the any society, a very small percentage that cause most of the crimes. A very small percentage of guns stolen from a large number of gun owners would be sufficient to cause problem. But we don't ban car just because people steal car to commit crime. We don't stop people from driving cars just because driving car cause more death than shooting.

There was an old man who kill over 10 people in a farmer's market in California because he lose control. There was a young man who killed a few people on the side walk because he was mad. Do we want to ban cars?

The criminals and the crazy are the problem, not guns, cars, knives or base ball bats.