TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- "Marine of the Year" opens fire on a crowd
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

For you gun-control nuts:

quote:

Originally posted by http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/ssrg/misc/misery.html A Record of Misery: mass killing in the past five decades This table lists events involving 100,000 or more human deaths. Mass Killings China: Mao's reign of terror, 1949-65 20 million plus [2,4,5] USSR: Stalin's terror, 1936-53 20 million plus [1,2,5] WWII: combatant deaths 16.8 million [4] WWII: noncombatant deaths Russia/USSR:civilian deaths by Nazis 7-12 million [4,5] Europe: The Holocaust, 1933-45 6 million [1,4] Other WWII noncombatant deaths 6 million [4] Sino-Japanese War: 1937-45 3.5 million [4] Korean War: 1950-53 2 million [4] Eritrea: vs Cuba/Ethiopia, 1961-91, inc. 1 mil. famine deaths 1984-85 2 million [4] Vietnam War: 1961-75, incl. 600,000 noncombatants 1.7 million [4] Cambodia: Khmer Rouge killing fields, 1975-79 1.6 million [4] Afghanistan: vs. Soviets, 1979-89 1.3 million [4] China: Civil war, 1945-49 1.2 million [4] Rwanda: Hutus vs Tutsis, 3 months 1994 1 million [3]* *Other estimates are of 500,000+ deaths for this period (Economist 8/20/94 p.33) Sudan: Civil war, 1955-72, 1983- (incl. 250,000 famine deaths in 1988) 1 million [4] Spain: Civil war, 1936-39 610,000 [4,7] Nigeria: Civil war (Biafra), 1967-70, including famine deaths 500,000 [4] Kurdistan: Kurds vs Iraq, Iran, Syria, Turkey, 1925- 500,000 [6] India-Pakistan partition 1949 500,000 Iran-Iraq war, 1987-1992 500,000 Algeria: FLN vs France, 1954-62 300,000 [4] Burundi: Tutsi slaughter of Hutus, 1972 300,000 [8] Pakistan: Reprisals against Bengalis, 9 months in 1971 250,000 [4] Indonesia: Civil war, 1965-66 250,000 [4] Indonesia: Timor war, 1975-88 200,000 [4] Bosnia: "Ethnic cleansing", 1992- 200,000 [3] Congo: Congo-Kinshasa unrest, 1960-66 110,000 [7] Rwanda: Hutu massacre of Tutsis, 1956-65 105,000 [7] Refugees Afghanistan: 1979-94 6 million [3] Rwanda: 3 months, 1994 2.4 million [3] Mozambique: Civil war & famine, 1975-92 1.5 million [3] Iraq: Kurds fleeing after Gulf War, in 6 weeks, 1991 1.4 million [3] Somalia: Civil war, 1988-94 1 million [3] Sources Charny (1988) Genocide: a critical bibliographic review, vol.2. Matthews (1994) Guiness Book of Records, pp. 184-85. Masland (1994) "Will it be Peace or Punishment?," Newsweek (August 1):37. Clodfelter (1992) Warfare and Armed Conflicts, vol. 2. Elliot (1972) Twentieth Century Book of the Dead. "Estmated War Casualties" (Table), Cultural Survival Quarterly, 11(3):11. Bouthoul (1978) "A list of the 366 Majot Armed Conflicts of the period 1740-1974," Peace Research, 10(3):83-108. "Burundi: Not a twin," Economist (August 20, 1994):34.

Executive Summary: Widely televised firearm murders in many countries during the 20th Century have spurred politicians to introduce restrictive gun laws. The politicians then promise that the new restrictions will reduce criminal violence and "create a safer society." It is time to pause and ask if gun laws actually do reduce criminal violence.

Gun laws must be demonstrated to cut violent crime or gun control is no more than a hollow promise. What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms.

In this study, the author examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations: i.e., Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. The widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearms crime. Since firearms are only a small fraction of criminal violence, the public would not be safer if the new law could reduce firearm violence but had no effect on total criminal violence.
The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales




Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

�What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,� says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade � for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world � in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.
Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study

According to this you're more likey to die at your own hand than that of a gun:

According to this if you're white your less likely to commit homocide but more likely to commit suicide:



Source: Table E. Deaths and percentage of total deaths for the 10 leading causes of death, by race: United States, 2002

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 So by this it means that you want to be a slave. One thing you're freely willing to give up is your natural sovereign rights.

typical american i dont agree with enshrining rights & laws in a constitution, so i must be against freedom
nothing could be further from the truth.

im all for the legislative protection of human rights. what i am NOT in favour of is putting those rights in a document that is very difficult to change. for instance in australia it takes a majority of the ppl and a majority of the states to effect change in our constitution. constitutions are OLD, and they get older and more out of touch with modern issues every day. i dont think its a good idea to place a 'right' into a largely unchangeable document that could mean something entirely different in 200 years time, thats all.

and id like you to prove to me that owning an assault rifle is a 'natural sovereign right'.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 It fails you to see that when the populace is unarmed the criminals are.

abolutely. and this trend can be linked to the right to bare arms. as far as im concerned the US is a lost cause in relation to gun control. whereas countries with historically stricter forms of control are also comparitively safer. the US has more than 10,000 gun deaths a year. australia wouldnt have that for the last 100 years.


the force is used for knowledge and defence. never for attack.
yoda, empire strikes back


im not saying guns cause crime. but the more guns prevalent in a society, the more readily available they are to those who would misuse them.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 To think that a gun-controlled society is a utopia...well then you're diluting yourself.

yeah. sure. and australia currently has exactly ZERO school shootings.
please let me know how far ahead the great american empire is on that score.

pkcRAISTLIN:

You keep ignoring history and the reasons we've sited for the right to defned your own life as a "Natural" right.

And this figure of "10,000 deaths" you site; Are you aware that a LARGE portion of those deaths are from suicide by gun? And many would have been commited with another weapon had the gun NOT been available.

You seem to think that if there were no guns in the world there would be no crime.

Your gun arguments are weak and parroting of the mis-guided lies that any lazy and un-educated individual could get from the skewed nightly TV news. You know nothing of why the 2nd Amendment was created or the people who were behind it and their thoughts, nor how it is STILL relevant today. But you're GREAT out spouting the same old tired lines we all hear from the media.......which by definition, makes your arguments tired as well.

You are nothing but a sheep, handing the reins of your life over to some abstract notion of "Government", blindly trusting and hoping that they never decide to turn on you for any reason what-so-ever.

I am glad you feel comfortable in your role as "follower". I think there's many a Government around the world who when asked would honestly say; "We need more like him".

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You keep ignoring history and the reasons we've sited for the right to defned your own life as a "Natural" right.

dont try and be clever. coz youre not. i never even raised the right to defend one's own life. that was never an issue. hey, i want a nuke to defend me from the bad guy. gimme one now, i have the right to self defence

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco And this figure of "10,000 deaths" you site; Are you aware that a LARGE portion of those deaths are from suicide by gun? And many would have been commited with another weapon had the gun NOT been available.

i grabbed that number from moore's doco, bowling for columbine (his stat was 12,000 in whichever year) as well as ogvh5150's stats that he so kindly provided. the stat (if ive read it correctly) correlates to 8000 homicides, NOT related to suicide

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You seem to think that if there were no guns in the world there would be no crime.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im not saying guns cause crime

um, can you in fact read???

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Your gun arguments are weak and parroting of the mis-guided lies that any lazy and un-educated individual could get from the skewed nightly TV news. You know nothing of why the 2nd Amendment was created or the people who were behind it and their thoughts, nor how it is STILL relevant today. But you're GREAT out spouting the same old tired lines we all hear from the media.......which by definition, makes your arguments tired as well.

disagreeing with you does not make me uneducated, nor does it mean i like to tow the media line(s). stop being an arrogant and presumptuous little shit. happening to coincide with a media's platform is purely coincidental. oh, for that matter, your arguments are part and parcel of any NRA pamphlet, which, by definition makes your arguments tired as well.

i dont need to be a US constitutional expert to believe that enshrining rights in a largely untouchable legal entity is something i strongly disagree with. its all about rights and never about responsibility. the law is so very slow to catch up with social interests already, i dont see making that process slower to be of any use whatsoever.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco You are nothing but a sheep, handing the reins of your life over to some abstract notion of "Government", blindly trusting and hoping that they never decide to turn on you for any reason what-so-ever.

quite simply, get fvcked. if you have something intelligent to criticise, then im all ears. dont sit their with your conspiratorial notions, accuse me of all kinds of irrational bullshit, simply coz I DONT TRUST PEOPLE. especially not with sophisticated weaponry.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco I am glad you feel comfortable in your role as "follower". I think there's many a Government around the world who when asked would honestly say; "We need more like him".

and there are plenty of ignorant, far-right militias that would feel the same about you. go grab some C4 or semtex so you can protect yourself from your govt.

for the record, the level of unified action that would be required of your citizens to actively resist your armed forces would never occur. sitting in your loungeroom, armed to the teeth aint gonna stop your govt getting you i hate to break it to you.

guns dont kill people. people kill people. with guns. if youre happy with the levels of firearm related homicide in your nation so that you can fool yourself into thinking you could resist any professionally trained outfit, then have a ball for me.

at the end of the day im much happier with my nation's approach to gun control, and youre happier with yours. peace.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN typical american i dont agree with enshrining rights & laws in a constitution, so i must be against freedom nothing could be further from the truth.

That is a blanket remark. If I were a typical american I would be more for whatever the gov't says is the enemy, whatever social program will benefit me, giving up sovereignty, accepting a global community as one.
But frankly I am not your typical american as you mistakenly pointed out. And I would kindly ask that you refrain from such childish ad hominem talk.

quote:

im all for the legislative protection of human rights. what i am NOT in favour of is putting those rights in a document that is very difficult to change. for instance in australia it takes a majority of the ppl and a majority of the states to effect change in our constitution. constitutions are OLD, and they get older and more out of touch with modern issues every day. i dont think its a good idea to place a 'right' into a largely unchangeable document that could mean something entirely different in 200 years time, thats all.

Sounds like you are confusing civil rights with natural or sovereign rights. You choose to have the state or community/communism grant you certain rights that you've already have. The right to breathe is one that you are taking for granted. Pretty soon there will be a consensus (albeit not too far fetched) that will not grant you the right to live. Then will you change the sail for the wind and cry afoul of crimes against you.

Soverign or natural rights are different and superior over civil rights.

Civil rights are rights granted to you by the courts.

quote:

and id like you to prove to me that owning an assault rifle is a 'natural sovereign right'.

I guess you feel comfortable with government being the only ones with weapons don't you? Try explaining that to those oppressed and killed by their governments.

quote:

abolutely. and this trend can be linked to the right to bare arms. as far as im concerned the US is a lost cause in relation to gun control. whereas countries with historically stricter forms of control are also comparitively safer. the US has more than 10,000 gun deaths a year. australia wouldnt have that for the last 100 years.

I ask that rather than you recite "facts" off the top of your head by actually using facts from reliable sources.

Just because you say the sky is orange doesn't make it so.

quote:

the force is used for knowledge and defence. never for attack. yoda, empire strikes back

Lucasfilm, brainwashing humans since 1977.

Apparently you seem to make this a joking matter. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see you try a jedi mind trick on a soldier and his unholstered MP5.

quote:

im not saying guns cause crime. but the more guns prevalent in a society, the more readily available they are to those who would misuse them.

Just because you say the sky is orange doesn't make it so. Please again find facts and stop trying to get misguided disciples.

quote:

yeah. sure. and australia currently has exactly ZERO school shootings. please let me know how far ahead the great american empire is on that score.

Again you aren't stating any facts just rhetoric.

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.

• Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
  
• Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
  
• In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
  
• In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
  
• There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

pkcRAISTLIN;

Getting gun stats from Michael Moore is just pathetic. I didn't even want to say it, but I had a feeling that's where you dredged that number up from. It's a mis-leading and in-accurate number. He doesn't break down all the different ways in which these supposed numbers come to exist, like via gang violence, accidents, spousal abuse, etc....the truth is, the victims of random gun crimes percentage is so small, you'd be an ass to really worry about it. And I don't trust that Moore's "Number" does NOT in fact include the suicides.

As was pointed out above, crime goes up when legal private ownership goes down. It happened in England, and now it's happening in your country too because you took the foolish notion to follow their lead.

As for my stats and info? I base them on infromation provided by organizations like the FBI, BATF, varied Police Departments, Acredited Researchers...........not bias liberal movie makers with an eye towards "entertainment" rather than fact.

In this country, it's a statistical fact that in the now 2/3 of the states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons on their person, violent crime has always dropped on average 8% in that first year, and then continued to drop in the year after. This right to carry wave has been spreading across the country over the past 15 years, and guess what? Crime over-all in the U.S. has been coincidentally dropping right along with it.

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe being MORE armed is the answer, not less? How do you explain Switzerland not having nearly the same crime issues that we have here, if they are so well armed over there? There's a lot more at play here; Social issues, culture, economic issues, the legal system, etc...imo, criminals are treated FAR too leniently, and that has a HUGE effect on illegal gun use. The NRA happens to be for harsher punishment of those that use guns illegally (always has!)...yet they get this un-fair rap in the news about their true intent as an organization.

But in the end, anti-gun groups LOVE to make the argument about "self-defense from the average criminal"...then they can begin to try and make the argument that you don't need certain guns for self-defense...thus begins the erosion of your freedoms. But, it's still not about this in the end. They also love to call you a "paranoid conspiracy theorist gun nut"...somehow thus demonizing you as a lesser thinking ape, completely ignoring the validity of the men who created the Constitution and their reasons for creating it in the way they did.

I'm paranoid? Then I'm glad I'm in the good company of people like our Founding Fathers.


BTW: Who's being clever now? "I'm not saying guns cause crime"........pffft, whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

dude...you were referring data from michael moore...meaning YOU'RE AN IDIOT

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 That is a blanket remark...But frankly I am not your typical american as you mistakenly pointed out. And I would kindly ask that you refrain from such childish ad hominem talk.

fair point. just dont go accusing me of wanting to be a slave coz i disagree with you regarding the ways in which legal systems work or should work. ie not every nation has to conform with what the US views as the best way forward in terms of how a liberal democracy functions. australia doesnt have a bill of rights, nor a constitution that guarantees us natural or civil rights, and we get along ok

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Sounds like you are confusing civil rights with natural or sovereign rights.

quite possibly, though its also likely id see them as one and the same.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 I guess you feel comfortable with government being the only ones with weapons don\\'t you? Try explaining that to those oppressed and killed by their governments.

yes, when compared to any random walking down the street, absolutely. the fewer guns in a society, the harder they are to access by those who would misuse them. and again, id like to point out that i dont believe guns cause crime!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Just because you say the sky is orange doesn\\'t make it so. Apparently you seem to make this a joking matter. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see you try a jedi mind trick on a soldier and his unholstered MP5.

no, but i see quoting sun tzu to be about as useful as lucas to be honest.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Again you aren't stating any facts just rhetoric. Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms. Assaults are up 8.6 percent; Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent; In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent; In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily; There has been a reported \\\"dramatic increase\\\" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly. Crime up Down Under Since Australia\\'s gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

firstly, i like to grab stats from either side and put the realities somewhere in the middle. you can look up hundreds of diff stats with very different results, making most stats meaningless. ive done far too many research methods courses to have blind faith in what a data grabber might have done with them. so im still happy with my 10,000 thank you very much, but we\\'ll use ogvh5150\\'s 8000 for the sake of a comparison, though that only includes handgun homicides.
from the australian bureau of stats:

Weapons used against victims of crime

A weapon was most likely to have been used in attempted murder (76%) and murder (58%), and least likely in sexual assault (1%) in 2003. The proportion of murders involving a weapon peaked in 1996 at 78% and has since declined to 58% in 2003; similarly for attempted murders weapon use peaked in 1997 at 87% and decreased to 76% in 2003 (graph 11.11). The proportion of assault offences involving a weapon increased from 10% in 1995 to 13% in 2003. The proportion of robberies in which a weapon was used increased each year from 36% in 1994 to 46% in 1998, and has since gradually declined to 36% in 2003 (table 11.12).

oz bureau of stats

for those too lazy, we had 38 firearm murders, & 71 firearm attempted murders for 2003. now, whether you believe stats or not, the difference from 8000 to 38 is remarkable. even 380 (US is roughly 10x Australia's population) doesnt even come close.

overall trend:

link

i dont see any trend between our introduction of stricter gun legislation and an overall increase in crime.

quote:
Firearm use in murders peaked at 32% in 1996, but has since declined steadily to 13% in 2003 which is the lowest level on record. For attempted murders in 2003, a firearm was used in 20% of offences, marginally above its low of 19% in 1998 and well below its high of 32% in 1999 (graph 11.13).

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 If given the choice between calling police or getting the crook what would you decide if the lives and property in your house were paramount? Every one is for gun control until that skell comes in the house ready to take property and lives.

very true. but i would argue that a person invading my house in australia is a lot less likely to have a firearm than if i were living in the US. if it came down to a choice between both of us armed, and neither, id choose neither every time.

erotic buddha, you can chew my balls.

so now i have some stats to disagree with you donny, what you gonna do now? you have your stats, i have mine. is why i dont trust stats!

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco How do you explain Switzerland not having nearly the same crime issues that we have here, if they are so well armed over there? There\\\\\\'s a lot more at play here; Social issues, culture, economic issues, the legal system, etc...imo, criminals are treated FAR too leniently, and that has a HUGE effect on illegal gun use. The NRA happens to be for harsher punishment of those that use guns illegally (always has!)...yet they get this un-fair rap in the news about their true intent as an organization.

i totally agree mate. its much much deeper than gun laws. but i am still of the opinion that a greater number of guns in a society makes their abuse more likely. look at ogvh5150\\\\\\'s chart above that states the majority of guns in criminal\\\\\\'s hands are stolen. in australia, its comparitely more difficult to steal a firearm than it is in the US.

in a sense i believe you only need the 4th amendment (is it the 4th?? sorry if im wrong) because you have the 4th amendment, you know?

edit: sorry bout typos. the program i gotta use to post on TA whilst at work is a bit crap.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN fair point. just dont go accusing me of wanting to be a slave coz i disagree with you regarding the ways in which legal systems work or should work. ie not every nation has to conform with what the US views as the best way forward in terms of how a liberal democracy functions. australia doesnt have a bill of rights, nor a constitution that guarantees us natural or civil rights, and we get along ok

Based on your statments prior, I had to pinpoint what you wanted to do and be as opposed to whom you think I am. Quite the difference.

quote:

quite possibly, though its also likely id see them as one and the same.

No, they are not.

Civil Rights Are rights held by individuals and groups derived from the social contract - the common consent of society at large to the rules under which its members live. The term relates in particular to the ideas outlined by Rousseau in The Social Contract. Under this conception, civil rights derive from society rather than God or nature [see Human Rights, and Natural Rights] and can be changed. On the one hand this gives the state the power to deprive people of liberties they once had (e.g. the ability to drugs, or to drink alcohol), but also enables "progressive" political groups to argue for new "rights", for instance the "right to vote" or the "right to healthcare".Rights such as these cannot be derived from nature as they depend on particular (and not commonly achieved) degrees of social organization and wealth.

Natural Rights Are rights possessed by all human beings derived from nature. These are thus distinct from the rights derived from membership in society derived from a changeable social contract. The "right" to a free education, for example, cannot be a natural right since it depends on contingent factors such as the wealth of a given society. But the right to be treated fairly in a court case could be connected to a fundamental right to justice. In practice, the rights that have been understood as "natural rights" have varied from society to society.
The idea of intrinsic rights ultimately depends on the belief that value is inherent in the structure of the universe, and is thus connected to theories of Natural Law. In the modern world the American Declaration of Independence makes the connection clear - deriving the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", from "nature and nature's God". The genealogy of these ideas goes back to the English philosopher John Locke, who was influenced by the Anglican theologian Richard Hooker. Hooker in term reflected common medieval ideas about natural law, found for instance in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. But neither Aquinas nor any other Christian originated "natural law", which has roots in the Hellenistic philosophy called Stoicism..
Brooklyn College Glossary

quote:

yes, when compared to any random walking down the street, absolutely. the fewer guns in a society, the harder they are to access by those who would misuse them. and again, id like to point out that i dont believe guns cause crime!!!

So the government being the sole owner of guns is ok by you? Tell that to anyone that has seen their family die at the hand of their own governments. Just because there might a utopia now in Australia doesn't mean a dystopia is not possible.

And I am sure there are those that have seen violent regimes in their lives that have said to themselves: "If we only had guns.."

quote:

no, but i see quoting sun tzu to be about as useful as lucas to be honest.

Sun Tzu's writing of the Art of War has been seen as a guide for everyday life for some.

Whereas, Mr. Lucas's claim to fame was a bunch of fictional movies set in a galaxy far, far away. A far cry from realistic ideals and strategies. Sun Tzu benefits a minds' strategies, whereas Mr. Lucas benefits from the box office.

quote:

Weapons used against victims of crime A weapon was most likely to have been used in attempted murder (76%) and murder (58%), and least likely in sexual assault (1%) in 2003. The proportion of murders involving a weapon peaked in 1996 at 78% and has since declined to 58% in 2003; similarly for attempted murders weapon use peaked in 1997 at 87% and decreased to 76% in 2003 (graph 11.11). The proportion of assault offences involving a weapon increased from 10% in 1995 to 13% in 2003. The proportion of robberies in which a weapon was used increased each year from 36% in 1994 to 46% in 1998, and has since gradually declined to 36% in 2003 (table 11.12). oz bureau of stats

Flawed assumption where the use of the word weapon is misleading.

What types of weapons where used?
What is the ratio of weapons and crime?

To equate guns as being the only source of crime in those stats is just wrong. You'd have to get more detailed than that.

quote:

for those too lazy, we had 38 firearm murders, & 71 firearm attempted murders for 2003. now, whether you believe stats or not, the difference from 8000 to 38 is remarkable. even 380 (US is roughly 10x Australia's population) doesnt even come close. overall trend: link i dont see any trend between our introduction of stricter gun legislation and an overall increase in crime. quote: Firearm use in murders peaked at 32% in 1996, but has since declined steadily to 13% in 2003 which is the lowest level on record. For attempted murders in 2003, a firearm was used in 20% of offences, marginally above its low of 19% in 1998 and well below its high of 32% in 1999 (graph 11.13).

Great you did some research. But by their own account:

quote:

Incidents of crime reported to police Many factors influence whether or not a victim will report an incident they perceive as a crime to police, and these factors change for different offences. The victim's desire for further action, and their perception of police willingness and ability to deal with the incident, can impact on the victim reporting the incident to police. Reporting of property offences will also be influenced by external factors such as insurance company requirements for police reports prior to processing claims. Victims of personal crimes are much less likely to report the offence to police than victims of property crimes.

quote:

very true. but i would argue that a person invading my house in australia is a lot less likely to have a firearm than if i were living in the US. if it came down to a choice between both of us armed, and neither, id choose neither every time.

You left out a knife as a weapon. Albeit if guns used in the commission of a home invasion is lower than that of a knife, I wouldn't want to recite stats in my mind before any attempt was made on my life or someone elses'.

quote:

so now i have some stats to disagree with you donny, what you gonna do now? you have your stats, i have mine. is why i dont trust stats!

Are you admitting that stats are flawed? If so then your argument is flawed being that you used these and others as your prime motivation.

quote:

i totally agree mate. its much much deeper than gun laws. but i am still of the opinion that a greater number of guns in a society makes their abuse more likely. look at ogvh5150's chart above that states the majority of guns in criminal's hands are stolen. in australia, its comparitely more difficult to steal a firearm than it is in the US.

Although the majority of guns were stolen for the use of a crime they were not necessarily stolen by the aggressor.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 No, they are not.

*sighs* i didnt say they WERE the same, i said i would probably VIEW them as the same. and given your eloquent definitions, then yes, i view them as the same. but thats hardly the point here lets not argue about whether youre free to buy a loaf of bread if you have no money to do so

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 So the government being the sole owner of guns is ok by you? Tell that to anyone that has seen their family die at the hand of their own governments. Just because there might a utopia now in Australia doesn't mean a dystopia is not possible.

yes, i do prefer the thought that only the govt has guns. there are far too many fvcked up individuals out there, how and why would i trust them with the huge responsibility of possessing a firearm? if your bill of rights and constitution are so important and protective, why would you need a small arsenal to protect yourself from your govt? and indeed, *thinks of the david koresh (sp?) and the davidians* do they actually offer you any protection at all?? only a massive, full-scale uprising by your civilian population could ever hope to resist your trained military and police outfits. indeed, i would argue that such a full-scale uprising would be powerful enough WITHOUT said weapons.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Flawed assumption where the use of the word weapon is misleading. What types of weapons where used? What is the ratio of weapons and crime? To equate guns as being the only source of crime in those stats is just wrong. You'd have to get more detailed than that.

yeah, i think i pasted a few by mistake, is why i put the link in for the whole site, which gives a breakdown of stats for various offences.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Great you did some research.

haha, i hardly call grabbing a bit of info from a website research

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 You left out a knife as a weapon. Albeit if guns used in the commission of a home invasion is lower than that of a knife, I wouldn't want to recite stats in my mind before any attempt was made on my life or someone elses'.

i would be a lot happier about a home invader who was armed with a knife than a gun.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Are you admitting that stats are flawed? If so then your argument is flawed being that you used these and others as your prime motivation.

stats are inherently flawed. dont trust em at all. youve already answered a lot of your own question. i agree, their are vital parts missing out of all stats that could change their impact. what do you do when you have 2 sets of stats with totally different results?

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Although the majority of guns were stolen for the use of a crime they were not necessarily stolen by the aggressor.

exactly right, see above comment on stats however i would also like to bring to your attention that just coz someone is being the aggressor does not, in and of itself, justify the use of deadly force. i dont trust random individuals to be able to properly understand 100% of the time when their use of deadly force is justified.

forgetting all stats etc. my central thesis is that a higher proportion of gun ownership creates a higher POTENTIAL for their misuse or theft. it is relatively weak gun laws that enable troubled or brutalised teens to enter their school and gun-down children. yes, its sensationalised and obviously its a rare occurence. but that doesnt and shouldnt lessen the impact. but like i have already mentioned, its too late for the US now. you cannot possibly extend gun laws. i just think thats unfortunate is all.

also, i am not saying you couldnt have a right to bear arms in another binding legal document, but one that is more able to be changed to keep up with social & technological trends. who the hell knows how sophisticated and dangerous weaponry will be in 1000 years?

Although you arguments have been repeated by you at length I am sure you don't speak for all the anti-gun proponents.

And with that I leave you to your thoughts.

After all one can only beat a dead horse but so far.

Impasse

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 After all one can only beat a dead horse but so far.

yeah, but im sure theres a million and one wonderful ways to shoot one

quote:

[b]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN [b] ...only a massive, full-scale uprising by your civilian population could ever hope to resist your trained military and police outfits....

You mean like our successful Revolutionary War against the British??

Odd that you can't see this is the lesson learned by the Revolutionaries and is the whole reason why the put the 2nd Amendment in to the Constitution!

quote:

[b]Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN [b]i would be a lot happier about a home invader who was armed with a knife than a gun.

...but I'll bet a women or older person wouldn't be happy squaring off against someone armed like this....I'd be willing to bet in fact that they'd feel safer armed with a gun...even if their attacker was armed in kind.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.