Gun Appreciation Day "Backfires"

[Jupiter551]

To all the non-Americans pissing and moaning about how you did this or that... newsflash... we don't give a rip.

Translation: "Okay so I can't actually debate legitimately using actual statistics so I'm just going to tell you to butt-out."

Go ahead, try and distort the obvious meaning just like all the other facts and figures that don't fit your opinion. Doesn't matter one way or the other.

Jesus Boce, my point is simply that saying we're not American is not a valid argument. Polls show most Americans are in favour of ALL the proposed measures including the AWB, so despite the fact some of us aren't American is the equivalent of simply conceding that you have no argument.

 

[Bocefish]

Myself and others have answered your questions over and over again. For example, you keep saying you can't understand what the problem is about a 10 round magazine limit when both myself and HGH have given you valid reasons, yet it's like you don't even read the replies or don't care. So why should we bother replying anymore? You have your opinion and we have ours.

There was a woman on the news not 5 minutes ago here who just bought a pistol and wisely stated that she didn't like any limits on semi-automatic weapons because it leads to total confiscation. Plenty of people have valid reasons for owning so-called evil black rifles. Just because you or the government doesn't think so is irrelevant. It's a right. The 2A was written when they only had muskets and shotguns some people might say, but I argue that was then and what they had was comparable to what the military had. No full autos or selective fire weapons can be owned by the general public, so there should be no limit on what semi-autos can be owned due to their cosmetics. Magazines can be switched out in a second so the 10 round magazine limit won't stop anything but hamper the legal owners.

 

[Nordling]

When logic is devoid of reason, it's not logic. Repeating the same assertions over and over will not make the assertions into facts.

The woman didn't want a limit on semi-automatics because it "leads to confiscation?"

Yeah, and limiting what sorts of cars may be used on public roads leads to confiscation of all cars, right?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Go ahead, try and distort the obvious meaning just like all the other facts and figures that don't fit your opinion. Doesn't matter one way or the other.
Jesus Boce, my point is simply that saying we're not American is not a valid argument. Polls show most Americans are in favour of ALL the proposed measures including the AWB, so despite the fact some of us aren't American is the equivalent of simply conceding that you have no argument.

At this point in the debate (both on the forum and the media in general) I am really suspicious of the validity of any poll showing what the American people believe or don't believe. It is just to easy to cherry pick the data.

That said, my anecdotal experience (the plural of anecdote isn't data ) is that foreigner seem to have a much stronger opinion that Americans, regarding the need to put in restriction on guns. By far the most vocal proponent of gun control in the media is CNN's Piers Morgan, who has been devoting 1-3 segments of his show to gun control for weeks. He is a Brit.

On this forum, we have yourself another Aussie and Brit arguing pretty strongly for banning assault weapons. On another forum which I frequent which include video/computer designer. Along with the normal liberal members of the forum, there are two Brits and Danish citizen who are among the biggest proponents to restrict guns. Interestingly enough one of the normally liberal guys on the forum, who happens to be a Olympic caliber competitive shooter is one of the biggest opponents. Finally among so current event/magazine forums that I read often (the Atlantic, the Daily Beast) I am seeing the same pattern lots of foreigner are are actively involved in the debates.

 

[Bocefish]

When logic is devoid of reason, it's not logic. Repeating the same assertions over and over will not make the assertions into facts.

The woman didn't want a limit on semi-automatics because it "leads to confiscation?"

Yeah, and limiting what sorts of cars may be used on public roads leads to confiscation of all cars, right?

How is her logic devoid of reason? How do you think confiscations started everywhere else? They started little by little and inch by inch until their rights were gone. That Feinstein witch has already openly admitted she wants all our weapons and you know they would if they could. The liberal gun grabbing wannabes still can't understand the 2A even after SCOTUS has explained it to them.

 

[Red7227]

On this forum, we have yourself another Aussie and Brit arguing pretty strongly for banning assault weapons. On another forum which I frequent which include video/computer designer. Along with the normal liberal members of the forum, there are two Brits and Danish citizen who are among the biggest proponents to restrict guns. Interestingly enough one of the normally liberal guys on the forum, who happens to be a Olympic caliber competitive shooter is one of the biggest opponents. Finally among so current event/magazine forums that I read often (the Atlantic, the Daily Beast) I am seeing the same pattern lots of foreigner are are actively involved in the debates.

This is the thing though. To a foreigner the US fixation with guns and the second amendment makes no fucking sense. I've had my lapses, but mostly I understand that its a uniquely US perspective and that it will never make any fucking sense. I also believe banning particular types of guns is a complete waste of time.

My favourite piece of anti-gun legislation ever was enacted by Western Australia back in the 70s. A 10 year old girl who was home from school shot a policeman with a Ruger 44 because she thought she was going to be arrested for skipping school. The usual hysteria ensued. "To prevent this tragedy happening again" all magazine fed centrefire rifles were banned. This left only one centrefire rifle available for purchase in Western Australia - the Ruger 44, because it has a tubular magazine.

 

[Bocefish]

On this forum, we have yourself another Aussie and Brit arguing pretty strongly for banning assault weapons. On another forum which I frequent which include video/computer designer. Along with the normal liberal members of the forum, there are two Brits and Danish citizen who are among the biggest proponents to restrict guns. Interestingly enough one of the normally liberal guys on the forum, who happens to be a Olympic caliber competitive shooter is one of the biggest opponents. Finally among so current event/magazine forums that I read often (the Atlantic, the Daily Beast) I am seeing the same pattern lots of foreigner are are actively involved in the debates.

This is the thing though. To a foreigner the US fixation with guns and the second amendment makes no fucking sense. I've had my lapses, but mostly I understand that its a uniquely US perspective and that it will never make any fucking sense. I also believe banning particular types of guns is a complete waste of time.

My favourite piece of anti-gun legislation ever was enacted by Western Australia back in the 70s. A 10 year old girl who was home from school shot a policeman with a Ruger 44 because she thought she was going to be arrested for skipping school. The usual hysteria ensued. "To prevent this tragedy happening again" all magazine fed centrefire rifles were banned. This left only one centrefire rifle available for purchase in Western Australia - the Ruger 44, because it has a tubular magazine.

This is how ridiculous it's gotten here, not to mention they're indoctrinating children with an irrational fear of guns. Another kid also got suspended for pointing his finger and saying bang not too long ago.

 

[Jupiter551]

On this forum, we have yourself another Aussie and Brit arguing pretty strongly for banning assault weapons. On another forum which I frequent which include video/computer designer. Along with the normal liberal members of the forum, there are two Brits and Danish citizen who are among the biggest proponents to restrict guns. Interestingly enough one of the normally liberal guys on the forum, who happens to be a Olympic caliber competitive shooter is one of the biggest opponents. Finally among so current event/magazine forums that I read often (the Atlantic, the Daily Beast) I am seeing the same pattern lots of foreigner are are actively involved in the debates.

This is the thing though. To a foreigner the US fixation with guns and the second amendment makes no fucking sense. I've had my lapses, but mostly I understand that its a uniquely US perspective and that it will never make any fucking sense. I also believe banning particular types of guns is a complete waste of time.

My favourite piece of anti-gun legislation ever was enacted by Western Australia back in the 70s. A 10 year old girl who was home from school shot a policeman with a Ruger 44 because she thought she was going to be arrested for skipping school. The usual hysteria ensued. "To prevent this tragedy happening again" all magazine fed centrefire rifles were banned. This left only one centrefire rifle available for purchase in Western Australia - the Ruger 44, because it has a tubular magazine.

Exactly, the reason you see foreigners being so anti-gun is because to us, to EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD (by and large) it is insane. You have so many people being murdered, more massacres than any other country in the world by a LONG way, and we foreigners are generally happy with life, don't fear our neighbours and don't understand how the most logical, clearcut statistics showing guns lead to higher rates of murder can be ignored. Do you know how many have died from guns in the US since Sandy Hook?

1243 in 5 weeks.

Dude in just FOUR MONTHS the number of people killed by guns in the USA will be approximately the same amount killed on 9/11. Don't you even CARE? Isn't it worth TRYING to scale back some things? This doesn't HAPPEN in other countries guys. Aren't thousands of your fellow countrymen worth taking a chance that in fact guns MIGHT be the cause? Or are all those deaths just sacrifices on the altar of the 2nd amendment?

Who's next? It could be you or someone you love. Seriously, think about it, over 11000 deaths per year, compared to countries like Japan that have 10.

Edit: I might add, the reason people like myself, Bob, Red, Piers Morgan and other 'foreigners' are passionate about this isn't because we're spies for your government who want to see you subjugated by a tyrannical dictatorship. It's because we live in gun controlled societies and KNOW what it's like on this side of the world, and that you guys are fucking crazy.

 

[Jupiter551]

You know, in Australia in 1996 we had a mass shooting at Port Arthur. The guy used an SLR, a semi automatic rifle that was an ex Aust. Army rifle no longer in service. He killed 35 people and wounded 28. The SLR holds a 20 round magazine, it's banned now:

That was 17 years ago. We've not had another massacre since. We've had murders, but put simply we took away the tools with which madmen can cause mass carnage. I like guns, I like target shooting and I did it growing up. I wish I could get an SKS or an M14. Fact is, I can't, and it's a price I'm willing to pay to save innocent lives.
:twocents-02cents:

 

[Bocefish]

Multivictim killings will occur even where stringent gun controls are adopted.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... e/1778507/

Why not emulate Australia's rigorous gun control model in the United States?

For starters, it hasn't worked. Twelve years after the new regulations were implemented, Time reported on new research suggesting the new regime "was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates." The homicide rate had been declining before the 1996 ban; its post-ban decline has merely been a continuation of that trend. Indeed, not one other country that has banned guns has lowered its murder rate.

OUR VIEW: Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S.

That doesn't mean our existing gun controls are optimal. Early detection and treatment of mental illness might lead to firearms access restrictions that the most ardent gun rights advocates could support. But regulations must be fashioned with great care, not simply as a formulaic response to the Newtown tragedy. Multivictim killings — heart-rending and horrifying — are but a fraction of 1% of all murders in the United States, and they will sadly occur even where stringent gun controls are imposed.

Here's the overriding principle: The Supreme Court has affirmed an individual right to bear arms for self-defense and other purposes. Such rights are not absolute. But the court's decisions mean that government must show its proposed regulations will enhance public safety.

Yet 18 national studies in peer-reviewed journals establish that right-to-carry laws, for example, reduce violent crime; 10 studies indicate no discernible effect. No reliable evidence indicates that such laws increase crime.

The burden-of-proof point was central to a ruling this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry: "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden."

By all means, let's re-evaluate our gun laws in the aftermath of last week's disaster. But there are significant costs when rights are compromised. Let's be sure the ends justify the means

Also see http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Exactly, the reason you see foreigners being so anti-gun is because to us, to EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD (by and large) it is insane. You have so many people being murdered, more massacres than any other country in the world by a LONG way, and we foreigners are generally happy with life, don't fear our neighbours and don't understand how the most logical, clearcut statistics showing guns lead to higher rates of murder can be ignored. Do you know how many have died from guns in the US since Sandy Hook?

1243 in 5 weeks.

Dude in just FOUR MONTHS the number of people killed by guns in the USA will be approximately the same amount killed on 9/11. Don't you even CARE? Isn't it worth TRYING to scale back some things? This doesn't HAPPEN in other countries guys. Aren't thousands of your fellow countrymen worth taking a chance that in fact guns MIGHT be the cause? Or are all those deaths just sacrifices on the altar of the 2nd amendment?

Who's next? It could be you or someone you love. Seriously, think about it, over 11000 deaths per year, compared to countries like Japan that have 10.

Edit: I might add, the reason people like myself, Bob, Red, Piers Morgan and other 'foreigners' are passionate about this isn't because we're spies for your government who want to see you subjugated by a tyrannical dictatorship. It's because we live in gun controlled societies and KNOW what it's like on this side of the world, and that you guys are fucking crazy.

We have more states that have concealed gun carry laws today than in the past, we also have more guns than ever before. Background checks to purchase guns steadily increase each year. Yet we've had a steady decline in violent crime for many years now. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rime-down/
You state above 'clearcut statistics showing guns lead to higher rates of murder.' I'd very much like to see the study that's been done showing that. I've never heard that ever. One thing I have read shows that between America, where we allow our citizens to own guns, and Australia, where all the people are not 'fucking crazy' as you say, there has been an almost IDENTICAL decrease in murder rates.
'Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.' http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/ ... and-brits/
That just doesn't make sense with the clear cut Utopian environment you tell us you live in now that you are free of guns. Surely free from the evils of maniacal guns your crime rates should be dropping faster than any gun bearing society. Oh wait, you don't remember the adage. Guns don't kill people, people do.

On the Japan note. OMG that is funny. 10...TEN??? Seriously, couldn't you make up a real sounding number? Japan does have a lower murder rate I grant you but let's not be ridiculous. In 2009 Japan had 506 homicides. If you count from 1995 through 2009 they had 9635. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... icide_rate Download the UNODC pdf. it's got a bunch of numbers in it. I'm still chuckling at 10.

The simple fact that's overlooked is most of those gun deaths here we just don't give a shit about. You think it's a sign of bad, we don't. You picture America as a bunch of people running around murdering each other at random and you've got all these numbers to feed your paranoia. Most of us here tend to remember those numbers are padded with other things like suicides by gun, police shootings involving guns, home invasions stopped by guns, self defense shootings. Things of that nature. Honestly, If bad people die while doing bad at the hands of good people trying to protect themselves or others - we don't give a shit!

'We foreigners are generally happy with life, don't fear our neighbours.' Same here! You see we have guns to protect us from the bad ones unlike you. That said, I feel the reason you state that above is become you haven't ever looked at your real crime statistics to fully understand what crime truly exists in Australia. You see, when you take away guns from the citizens you deny them the right to protect themselves from bad people. Like your country, where during that same time period, 1995 to 2007, that I mentioned before, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. http://www.captainsjournal.com/2012/07/ ... and-brits/

Congratulations. You don't have a few massacres that make world news every once in awhile. Instead you traded that off for not allowing your woman to protect themselves from rapists.

I guess that's the difference, we give the law abiding citizens guns and the right to kill anyone that would harm them, which is another reason those gun death numbers are higher. But given the alternative of your system where crime is rampant, it seems given the numbers. I think I like this system better. I feel safer here.

Just a thought, instead of worrying so much about the politics of other countries you might want to concentrate on enabling social change in your own area. It looks to the rest of the world like you've got a massive problem with crime there.

One last parting bit of wisdom. Taken from a source I've already cited above.
'The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations. Twenty-six percent of English citizens — roughly one-quarter of the population — have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized. The United States didn’t even make the “top 10″ list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.'

Do you see that? YOU, Australia, are the NUMBER ONE country of violent crime in the entire world. Lo and behold England, another country that does not allow guns, is number two! Whereas America with over 300 million guns didn't even get in the top 10 list. So, please, next time you want to get on a high horse and call us 'fucking crazy' you might want clean up your own yard first. You are a cesspool of crime, WAY more violent than us.

 

[Shaun__]

@jodeum you know America has millions of more people than England and Australia put together right? When people use percentages instead of solid numbers they are probably trying to hide something. I also noticed that the years were carefully picked out as well.

 

[Jupiter551]

1. Japan, I was referring to firearm homicides:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/japan

In Japan, annual firearm homicides total

2008: 11
2002: 47
2001: 56
1997: 34
1996: 36
1995: 42
CompareRate of Gun Homicide per 100,000 People
Chart
In Japan, the annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population is

2008: 0.0
2002: 0.04
2001: 0.04
1997: 0.03
1996: 0.03
1995: 0.03
1994: 0.02

2. guns lead to murder more frequently because they're more lethal, and they cause incidents to escalate. You get into a fight, someone pulls a gun, someone dies. Ask Trayvon Martin, oh wait. It's an absolute NO BRAINER to figure out that if you take the most lethal personal weapon possible (a gun) then incidents involving them are going to escalate into fatalaties more often than other weapons. Lots of people survive a stab wound, with the self defense laws in the US it;'s actually more expedient just to kill the person so they can't dispute your account. I bet it happens a lot.

3. percentages are bullshit when you're talking about giant differences in population and crime figures. Your murder rate is by far the highest of the world's developed countries - that's indisputable fact.

4. If the Sandy Hook children were in Australia they'd still be alive. So again, will you not give up a very small portion of your freedom in choice of guns in order to guarantee the constitutional rights of innocents like those children, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[Jupiter551]

Multivictim killings will occur even where stringent gun controls are adopted.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... e/1778507/

Why not emulate Australia's rigorous gun control model in the United States?

For starters, it hasn't worked. Twelve years after the new regulations were implemented, Time reported on new research suggesting the new regime "was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates." The homicide rate had been declining before the 1996 ban; its post-ban decline has merely been a continuation of that trend. Indeed, not one other country that has banned guns has lowered its murder rate.

OUR VIEW: Australian gun control holds lessons for U.S.

That doesn't mean our existing gun controls are optimal. Early detection and treatment of mental illness might lead to firearms access restrictions that the most ardent gun rights advocates could support. But regulations must be fashioned with great care, not simply as a formulaic response to the Newtown tragedy. Multivictim killings — heart-rending and horrifying — are but a fraction of 1% of all murders in the United States, and they will sadly occur even where stringent gun controls are imposed.

Here's the overriding principle: The Supreme Court has affirmed an individual right to bear arms for self-defense and other purposes. Such rights are not absolute. But the court's decisions mean that government must show its proposed regulations will enhance public safety.

Yet 18 national studies in peer-reviewed journals establish that right-to-carry laws, for example, reduce violent crime; 10 studies indicate no discernible effect. No reliable evidence indicates that such laws increase crime.

The burden-of-proof point was central to a ruling this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry: "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden."

By all means, let's re-evaluate our gun laws in the aftermath of last week's disaster. But there are significant costs when rights are compromised. Let's be sure the ends justify the means

Also see http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

That snopes article basically debunks everything said about increased murder rates in Australia since the firearms buyback. Did you actually read it? :lol:

No one, NO ONE is disputing you should be allowed to have handguns etc for self defense. The debate is about where the line between a self defense weapon and an extravagantly destructive human-killing machine is drawn.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Exactly, the reason you see foreigners being so anti-gun is because to us, to EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD (by and large) it is insane. You have so many people being murdered, more massacres than any other country in the world by a LONG way, and we foreigners are generally happy with life, don't fear our neighbours and don't understand how the most logical, clearcut statistics showing guns lead to higher rates of murder can be ignored. Do you know how many have died from guns in the US since Sandy Hook?

1243 in 5 weeks.

Dude in just FOUR MONTHS the number of people killed by guns in the USA will be approximately the same amount killed on 9/11. Don't you even CARE? Isn't it worth TRYING to scale back some things? This doesn't HAPPEN in other countries guys. Aren't thousands of your fellow countrymen worth taking a chance that in fact guns MIGHT be the cause? Or are all those deaths just sacrifices on the altar of the 2nd amendment?

Who's next? It could be you or someone you love. Seriously, think about it, over 11000 deaths per year, compared to countries like Japan that have 10.
y.

Here is the thing while the absolute number of sounds big and suppose for countries with a fraction of the US population it is big. The really important number is the death per 100,000 and for the US that number is ~3/100,000 for guns. Now I'd far more concerned about gun homicide in this country if the trend wasn't down but it is a 20 years ago the rate was closer to 7/100,000. Overall crime in this country has come down dramatically over the last 35-40 years and for many crimes that rate is 1/2 when I was in high school, American are now less likely to be crime victims than Brits. Now there are lot of possible explanation why this has occurred but to me one of the most logical is we are locking up career criminal for long period including harsh penalties for anybody using a gun associated with a crime. To me it is far more important to focus on issues that are getting worse with society than things that are getting better, and gun violence is becoming less of a problem. Even if the media goes crazy each time a new incident happens. "If bleds it leads" and nothing bleds more dramatically than innocent 1st and 2nd grader and their brave teachers dying. The statistics don't support the furor

As I mentioned in a previous posts the real issue is mental illness. Virtually all of the high profile mass shooter have been mental ill and their intention was not only to cause harm to others but to commit suicide. More over in a large majority of the cases signs of their mental illness were readily apparent to classmates, friends, teacher, and others in the community.
Unlike homicide or gun deaths which have been going down, suicides both in the US and the world have been steadily going up especially among young men 15-24, who are precisely the same demographics of most mass shooters. At 10 suicides/100,000 population it is simply a much bigger problem than gun deaths. If we can track and identify mental ill people and keep them from gaining access to any gun or any other dangerous object (e.g. explosives) not only can we prevent some of this mass murders, but we can also prevent many of the far more common situation where they contemplate killing others but end up killing the only themselves. As practical/political matter there is virtually no opposition by pro or anti-gun groups to making it harder for mental ill people to get guns, and to find better treatment for these people. Now there maybe opposition to some of the more intrusive measure I am suggesting, but their is very little constitutional rights of privacy for anything you do in public. So if the maybe-crazy 20 year old boy walks into a gun store, this should trigger an intervention by cops, or school counselors.

The money and energy spent doing this would save lots more lives than simply saying magazine can have no more than 10 rounds. In a country where tens of millions of higher capacity magazine already exist, this is really an empty feel good gesture. Basically we have a lot less mentally ill people in this country than guns. Right now one of the US biggest problems with suicides in the US is returning serviceman, and a fair number of soldiers kill a spouse or others before taking their own life. To think that any gun restriction is going to prevent soldiers from getting access to real assault rife (i.e fully auto) is silly.

You mentioned Japan. Suicide is far more prevalent in Japan than the US 23 deaths/100,000, even though Japan has as you say virtually no gun homicide or gun suicides for that matter. Mentally ill people have figured out ways of killing themselves without guns there. Here is the thing if all US gun homicide disappeared tomorrow, but suicide rates continued to reach Japan's level 30,000+ more Americans would die each year. Conversely if America's suicide rate dropped to Australia's level the lives saved would equal all of the gun homicides deaths. The way I figure they young dad who jumps in front of subway trains death is just as tragic as the young dad who is a victim of gun murder. We should focus on saving the most lives we can with the resources available.

 

[Bocefish]

A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of Melbourne University's Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."

Hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods.

In 2010, a consortium of researchers concluded that Australia’s gun laws were a high cost intervention with ecological evidence only for a possible role in firearm suicide reduction, and noted that firearm suicide reductions could not be attributed unequivocally to the legislation; on this basis, they included the gun buyback and associated legislative changes in their list of "not cost-effective preventive interventions"

Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found that there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia’s firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.

A recent report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 percent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... te_note-37

Gun bans do NOT work!

 

[Red7227]

The simple fact that's overlooked is most of those gun deaths here we just don't give a shit about. You think it's a sign of bad, we don't. You picture America as a bunch of people running around murdering each other at random and you've got all these numbers to feed your paranoia. Most of us here tend to remember those numbers are padded with other things like suicides by gun, police shootings involving guns, home invasions stopped by guns, self defense shootings. Things of that nature. Honestly, If bad people die while doing bad at the hands of good people trying to protect themselves or others - we don't give a shit!

That is an interesting factor. Statistics can prove anything, which is why I'm not paying any attention to the various claims being made, but a breakdown of exactly who is shooting whom would be good to separate out exactly what contributes to the higher US homicide rate.

 

[Bocefish]

The simple fact that's overlooked is most of those gun deaths here we just don't give a shit about. You think it's a sign of bad, we don't. You picture America as a bunch of people running around murdering each other at random and you've got all these numbers to feed your paranoia. Most of us here tend to remember those numbers are padded with other things like suicides by gun, police shootings involving guns, home invasions stopped by guns, self defense shootings. Things of that nature. Honestly, If bad people die while doing bad at the hands of good people trying to protect themselves or others - we don't give a shit!

That is an interesting factor. Statistics can prove anything, which is why I'm not paying any attention to the various claims being made, but a breakdown of exactly who is shooting whom would be good to separate out exactly what contributes to the higher US homicide rate.

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago last year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico, and trying to cut off their gun supply will be as effective as trying to cut off their drug supply.

Quite frankly, America is being dragged down by broken cities full of Obama supporters with broken families whose mayors would like to trash the 2A just like Obama and Feinstein want to do across the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs. Not to mention the guns they want to ban are used in such a minute percentage of crimes that it's almost laughable to think they actually believe banning the evil black rifles will accomplish anything meaningful.

 

[LadyLuna]

The country is being dragged down by the corporations more than the government, but that's a different fight.

I just wanted to point out something. When you have groups of numbers that are close together, like a country that has 100,000 people vs a country that has 150,000 people, then yeah, percentages aren't needed. But when you're talking about the US vs UK, you're talking about a few billion people vs a few million people. So let's make these numbers a little smaller to show why talking about them in percentages is a better way to do it.

Lets say you have a country with 100,000 people, and a country with 1,000 people. In the bigger country, there are 200 deaths per year. The the smaller country, there are 50 deaths per year. 200 vs 50? I'd rather be in the small country. But look at the percentages.

In the big country, that 200 is only 2% out of the population. This means that if the big country were as small as the smaller one, only 20 people would've died. I'd rather take my chances in the big country after all. Sure. 4 times as many people died, but it's still a smaller chance that it's someone you knew.

So yeah, percentages are the best way to compare what's going on in one country vs another, especially when you're talking about countries that have dramatically different sizes of populations.

The math major has spoken. Thou shalt harken to her words.

 

[Red7227]

So yeah, percentages are the best way to compare what's going on in one country vs another, especially when you're talking about countries that have dramatically different sizes of populations.

The math major has spoken. Thou shalt harken to her words.

My point is only that statistics don't prove anything unless great care is taken to make sure they are comparable.

I did a comparison a couple years ago now between Australia and California. Basically the same population within about 10%.

Comparing all categories of crime, California and Australia match across the board. We had slightly more bar fights and car thefts per 100,000 and California had about twice the murder rate per 100,000. I ignored rape because the majority aren't reported anyway, and categories are totally different. In Australia, sexual assault can be anything from touching someone inappropriately to tearing their clothes off and trying to fuck them. Sexual assault with penetration on the other hand can be anywhere from digital penetration to sexual intercourse. You would have to sort though and pick out the worst categories of sexual assault with or without penetration to have a meaningful figure to compare to the US one.

 

[Just Me]

The country is being dragged down by the corporations more than the government, but that's a different fight.

I just wanted to point out something. When you have groups of numbers that are close together, like a country that has 100,000 people vs a country that has 150,000 people, then yeah, percentages aren't needed. But when you're talking about the US vs UK, you're talking about a few billion people vs a few million people. So let's make these numbers a little smaller to show why talking about them in percentages is a better way to do it.

Lets say you have a country with 100,000 people, and a country with 1,000 people. In the bigger country, there are 200 deaths per year. The the smaller country, there are 50 deaths per year. 200 vs 50? I'd rather be in the small country. But look at the percentages.

In the big country, that 200 is only 2% out of the population. This means that if the big country were as small as the smaller one, only 20 people would've died. I'd rather take my chances in the big country after all. Sure. 4 times as many people died, but it's still a smaller chance that it's someone you knew.

So yeah, percentages are the best way to compare what's going on in one country vs another, especially when you're talking about countries that have dramatically different sizes of populations.

The math major has spoken. Thou shalt harken to her words.

Exactly, and to further that, when people say statistics can prove anything, it just means the statistics do not support their argument. If you want to argue how those statistics were gathered and if they are valid, that is a different story. Math does not lie but people do.

 

[Bocefish]

When you realize that 75 to 80% of the gun related homicides are gang related, wouldn't it make sense to focus on the gang issue rather than banning inanimate objects? The gang bangers don't obtain their firearms legally, so more laws or bans will not effect them. It's Feinstein's hope to dry up the supply of evil black rifles in a century or so by not allowing the millions of them already out in the world not be handed down or sold. Brilliant. :roll:

As far as all this military style assault weapons bullshit, just about every gun worth anything was originally made for military purposes and it's civilian counterpart was adopted.

With that said, I'll leave you with a booby kiss.

Have a nice day.

 

[LadyLuna]

I am well aware that statistics can still be misleading. Was just pointing out that if you have accurate ones, then percentages are best. ^_^

Also- avoid averages. Those things are filthy. MFC has it set up so that the average camscore is supposed to be 1000. And yet you have those models all the way up at 10,000. Average tells you shit without the other numbers.

To know truly what the stats are, you need the range, the average, the standard deviation, the median and the mode. THEN you have some idea of what's going on. (if you think one is missing, mean is the word statisticians use in place of average)

NOTE: any statistics below are made up, just there to demonstrate what the numbers mean

Range: lowest number and highest number
Average/mean: everyone knows this

mode: the result that has the most hits (if you sample 1000 people's favorite numbers into 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; 1 gets 90 hits, 2 gets 500 hits, 3 gets 40 hits, and 4 gets 300 hits, and 5 gets 70 hits. The mode is 2. The average, btw, is 2.48.)

median: you line all the results up in numerical order. The one directly in the middle is the mean. If you have an even number of results, take the average of the two in the middle.
(in the mode example, when you line all the numbers up, the 500th and 501st number will each be 2. Thus, the median is 2.)

standard deviation: 10% of the sample will fall within this amount from the median on either side.
(example: if the median is 1000 and the s.d. is 10, and the sample was 2000 people, then 200 people fall within 990-1000 and 200 people fall within 1000-1010. The numbers are: 200 is 10% of 2000, 990 is 10 less than 1000, and 1010 is 10 more than 1000.)

 

[Jupiter551]

Quite frankly, America is being dragged down by broken cities full of Obama supporters with broken families whose mayors would like to trash the 2A just like Obama and Feinstein want to do across the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs. Not to mention the guns they want to ban are used in such a minute percentage of crimes that it's almost laughable to think they actually believe banning the evil black rifles will accomplish anything meaningful.

:lol: So the Obama supporting citydwellers with broken families are trying to get guns taken away? Brb grabbing tinfoil I need to make hats for me and my pet.

Btw, if it's so laughable that banning the 'evil black rifles' will do anything, just let them go ahead with the ban, then laugh. I fucking love how the pro-gun lobby claims "assault weapons" are no different than normal hunting rifles except cosmetically, but absolutely refuses to just use these (apparently identical) normal hunting rifles. Is it a colour-coordination issue? Because I'm sure you could paint some camo on that woodgrain.

 

[Jupiter551]

The gang bangers don't obtain their firearms legally, so more laws or bans will not effect them.

That just isn't true, or at least it's not the full truth. Most of the firearms come from either straw buyers or no background check gun show loophole, or both, and one of the major intiatives Obama is pushing for is much harsher penalties for people who buy guns on behalf of criminals, and enforcing background checks. It will effect them. They're not immune to the free market and if penalties get harsher and guns are harder to get for people with criminal backgrounds, then prices will go up. You seriously think gangbangers go pay 4x the price on the black market for their guns when they can just get their sister/cousin/neighbour to walk into a store and buy one for retail price?

As for 'looking like their military counterparts' you know damn well that's disingenuous. 'Semi-automatic variant' would be a more accurate term. I see the pro-gun guys are trying to make out it's like a car that LOOKS like a race car, when in fact it's actually just the street version of the same car. Just be honest about it.

You seriously wanna tell me this isn't a semi-automatic M4? Some soldiers actually only ever USE their assault rifles in semi-auto anyway.

Btw, if anyone hasn't seen this they should. No matter what side of the debate you're on Jon Stewart is hilarious.

 

[Jupiter551]

:lol: :lol: lol quote of the day from Jon Stewart video regarding dictators taking guns:

Ohh, so now I get it. So this is what it is: their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from adressing our actual dystopic present. We can't even BEGIN to address 30,000 gun deaths that are ACTUALLY, in reality, happening in this country every year because a FEW of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.

 

[WildFingers]

More than likely the assault riffles are not the weapon of choice in the gang banging murders.

Banning hand guns or legislating against hand gun or gun ownership will only take away weapons for the law abiding gun owners. No criminal.gang banger is going to turn in their hand gun/weapons EVER!

Some people should not own weapons or handle them with out the knowledge of the weapon. If these individuals that were involved the accidental firing of the weapons at the gun show had specific knowledge on gun safety these incidents would not have occurred.

There are far too many stupid people in the world and stupid hurts every time. The media likes to encourage stupid. Honeyboobo is an example of encouraging stupid.

 

[Bocefish]

Blah, blah, blah gangbangers get their guns from straw buyers and gun show loopholes. Get a flippin' clue. You have no idea and the more BS you spew the less I'll respond.

Btw, if it's so laughable that banning the 'evil black rifles' will do anything, just let them go ahead with the ban, then laugh. I fucking love how the pro-gun lobby claims "assault weapons" are no different than normal hunting rifles except cosmetically, but absolutely refuses to just use these (apparently identical) normal hunting rifles. Is it a colour-coordination issue? Because I'm sure you could paint some camo on that woodgrain.

Blah, blah, blah Feinstein's so-called list a joke and proves she is a clueless idiot. Oh, it's an assault weapon because it has a pistol grip or heaven forbid a bayonet mount... Gimme a friggin' break! It is just cosmetics. She left a bunch of weapons off that list which can be far more deadly for wannabe mass murderers. Oh, and BTW, how long do you think it will take for gun manufacturers to retool the cosmetics? The AWB will probably never pass anyway.

As far as the Stewart vid, he admits the magazine limit is pretty useless along with the AWB but says to try it again. That would be fine if it didn't fuck with our rights. He's about as ignorant as Feinstein is. Trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is insanity which is basically what they're doing. Maybe they should focus on the gangs and mental health? Hmmm.

When you have something relevant to argue instead of saying the same old tiresome and ignorant nonsense I might reply.

 

[Nordling]

 

[Bocefish]