[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33795836]If someone wants to murder someone they will do it no matter what. If someone doesn't want to murder someone however, gun control means that it is less likely that an accidental or not premeditated homicide might occur. Even forcing people to take a gun safety class or something before they can get their permit will help greatly, and is gun control.[/QUOTE]
They don't require gun safety classes?
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33796349]They don't require gun safety classes?[/QUOTE]
Not in America, from what I've heard. Apparently you can just walk into a gun shop and as long as you're 18 they'll sell you a gun.
Licensing and training is some form of control I agree with, and believe it should exist on many tiers, but it should allow one to access anything, but get progressively more difficult. I support a system similar to what we have in Canada now, but extended so people can get "pocket" pistols, the guns they banned by name (or just eliminate this category altogether and integrate it into others), and automatics, so long as they've taken the proper course and test and are willing to abide by the proper regulations for storage, hunting, and transportation. It should ensure people know what they're doing before getting access to the gun, but should not stop them from potentially being able to get whatever gun they wish, mostly for collectors.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33796913]Not in America, from what I've heard. Apparently you can just walk into a gun shop and as long as you're 18 they'll sell you a gun.
Licensing and training is some form of control I agree with, and believe it should exist on many tiers, but it should allow one to access anything, but get progressively more difficult. I support a system similar to what we have in Canada now, but extended so people can get "pocket" pistols, the guns they banned by name (or just eliminate this category altogether and integrate it into others), and automatics, so long as they've taken the proper course and test and are willing to abide by the proper regulations for storage, hunting, and transportation. It should ensure people know what they're doing before getting access to the gun, but should not stop them from potentially being able to get whatever gun they wish, mostly for collectors.[/QUOTE]
you need a special permit to carry a concealed gun, or to carry a gun around town. But I guess just buying one is fine without a permit. (and that's in California, one of the tougher states)
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33798558]you need a special permit to carry a concealed gun, or to carry a gun around town. But I guess just buying one is fine without a permit. (and that's in California, one of the tougher states)[/QUOTE]
Depends on what state you're in. I heard you don't need any permit to purchase an ak74 in DC (not automatic but still).
See, the thing is, is that gun control is good in some places but not in others. I live in Canada. I have no reason to own a weapon.
What do I need to protect myself from?? This is what I don't understand, I hear all the time, "I have a gun to protect myself " ...FROM WHAT?? Crime is so low here, there's simply no need for it for me. But I just think in some places it's just unnecessary to have a gun.
I feel like people are like this:
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5V2ZbX4i4[/MEDIA]
[QUOTE=Contag;33795420]How has it climbed back up? Would you mind citing something to that effect?
Use of firearms in homicides have gone down
Trend in homicide incidents, firearm-related homicide and handgun homicide, 1992-93 to 2005-06
[img]http://www.aic.gov.au/upload/aic/publications/tandi2/tandi361.png[/img]
In NSW, firearm use in robbery peaked in 2001, and has been steadily declining until 2006 (as far as the data I found shows).
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
The biggest effect gun control tends to have is massive reduction of suicide, which is not replaced by others means (unlike in violent crime, where it may be replaced with knives as seen in Britain).[/QUOTE]
As I said, the rate of firearm related homicide has been decreasing at the same rate since 1986, which suggests gun control didn't do anything, good or bad.
As far as suicide goes, well it's very hard to say.
[img]http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suichisty.gif[/img]
We can see slightly more noticeable reduction around the time of the handgun buyback, but it's not really anything significant. Certainly a reduction of handguns in the home would reduce the amount of people who are able to choose a firearm as an option for suicide. But IMO, this is irrelevant, as people who want to commit suicide are most likely going to commit suicide, regardless of method.
As far as armed robbery, you are right, it peaked around 2001, but it hasn't declined significantly it's since been at roughly the same rate it was pre 96. Which again, suggests gun control hasn't had anywhere near the impact on armed robbery that control advocates claim it has.
[img]http://www.gunsandcrime.org/propcrym.gif[/img]
However the overall assault rate in Australia has increased dramatically
[img]http://www.gunsandcrime.org/assault.gif[/img]
Given that this shows assault increasing at the same rate since before the buyback, I don't think you can blame gun control on having any effect on assault rates.
[editline]19th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;33799546]See, the thing is, is that gun control is good in some places but not in others. I live in Canada. I have no reason to own a weapon.
What do I need to protect myself from?? This is what I don't understand, I hear all the time, "I have a gun to protect myself " ...FROM WHAT?? Crime is so low here, there's simply no need for it for me. But I just think in some places it's just unnecessary to have a gun.
I feel like people are like this:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5V2ZbX4i4[/url][/QUOTE]
No one is saying YOU need a gun to protect yourself, but you cannot turn around and tell someone he doesn't need a gun to protect himself.
Basically you are saying "I don't think i need it, so you shouldn't be able to have it either" which is probably the most terrible argument of them all.
I'm still not sure where that data is from. I went to the website and was unable to find anything validly cited for the post-1999 statistics.
[quote]One should be cautious about bias in information or conclusions in documents produced by the AIC. The organization has a definite bias toward promoting gun control on the basis of biased "evidence," like the biased advocacy of USA medical researchers.[/quote]
If not the AIC, then what statistical data sets are used?
The data for the reduction in suicides was Tasmanian sourced from the AIC.
[quote]But IMO, this is irrelevant, as people who want to commit suicide are most likely going to commit suicide, regardless of method.[/quote]
This isn't correct. There is a wealth of data that suggest that suicide is often an impulsive act, and that guns significantly facilitate suicide in ways that other methods do not.
Is there a graph with firearm involved assaults? Without that, the assault rate graph is essentially meaningless.
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
To be fair, if I handed a criminology essay in with the same wild speculation and lack of citations, I would have failed.
[QUOTE=Contag;33802953]
Is there a graph with firearm involved assaults? Without that, the assault rate graph is essentially meaningless.
[/QUOTE]
Not at all. An argument of gun control is that it stops or reduces violent crime, assault is a violent crime, and it has not gone down in the slightest due to the new Aus regulations on guns, thus meaning it doesn't necessarily impact violent crime as people would like to believe. I'd be interested to see if a substitution for murder weapons has popped up there, as it did in Britain with knife crime.
You can't put a blanket term on something until it harms your argument to. You can't say "Gun control reduces violent crime," until someone points out it doesn't, and then clarify, "Except the crime not involving guns," that's utter nonsense. Yes, gun control has been known in some countries, mostly developed ones, to reduce gun crime, however that doesn't mean it reduces violent crime as a whole, which is what most advocates of gun control say, they use the blanket "violent crime" terminology, and in truth it's false, gun control doesn't necessarily reduce violent crime on a whole.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33803426]Not at all. An argument of gun control is that it stops or reduces violent crime, assault is a violent crime, and it has not gone down in the slightest due to the new Aus regulations on guns, thus meaning it doesn't necessarily impact violent crime as people would like to believe. I'd be interested to see if a substitution for murder weapons has popped up there, as it did in Britain with knife crime.
You can't put a blanket term on something until it harms your argument to. You can't say "Gun control reduces violent crime," until someone points out it doesn't, and then clarify, "Except the crime not involving guns," that's utter nonsense. Yes, gun control has been known in some countries, mostly developed ones, to reduce gun crime, however that doesn't mean it reduces violent crime as a whole, which is what most advocates of gun control say, they use the blanket "violent crime" terminology, and in truth it's false, gun control doesn't necessarily reduce violent crime on a whole.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I wouldn't expect it to reduce violent crime at all. What I would like to know however is if it reduces violent crimes with guns, and if the fatalities of violent crimes lessen.
[QUOTE=Contag;33802953]I'm still not sure where that data is from. I went to the website and was unable to find anything validly cited for the post-1999 statistics.
If not the AIC, then what statistical data sets are used?
The data for the reduction in suicides was Tasmanian sourced from the AIC.
This isn't correct. There is a wealth of data that suggest that suicide is often an impulsive act, and that guns significantly facilitate suicide in ways that other methods do not.
Is there a graph with firearm involved assaults? Without that, the assault rate graph is essentially meaningless.
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
To be fair, if I handed a criminology essay in with the same wild speculation and lack of citations, I would have failed.[/QUOTE]
1. S. Mukherjee, et.al. A Statistical Profile of Crime in Australia
(Canberra, Australia: AIC, April 1993) RPP07, Table 4.5
2. Crime and Safety part of "Australia Now" series at Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) web site, Table 11.12
3. "Income and Welfare: Income support programs - Dept. of
Family & Community Services" p/o "Australia Now"
series at ABS web site.
4. "Crime and Justice: Expenditure on public order and safety"
p/o "Australia Now" series at ABS web site.
Those are the references, which pool the same statistics the graph you posted come from. I'd ignore the actual article I pulled the graphs from, as it is a biased web site, even if it tries not to be at times.
Also no, I can't find any statistics for firearm involved assaults in comparison to assaults in general, if you can find it on the ABS please post it. It's just there to show that gun control didn't have a major effect, good OR bad. Again I want to reiterate my point that people focus on the "gun" part of the equation far too stringently.
I get it, it's much easier to pick something and lump all the blame on it rather than looking at a wide variety of social and economical issues that probably have a larger effect on crime overall. But that doesn't make it right.
I cannot even begin to describe how much I disagree.
EDIT FOR CONTENT:
If anyone ever said that guns were the sole cause of crime, please slap them for me. It's true that the root of the problem is the people, but do you think that things would stay the same with no guns? If yes, you're wrong. If someone wanted to kill someone, they would feel a lot more confident if they had to just point something at them, and pull a trigger. Then said person would die, almost no risk to the killer. With no guns? I think that over half of the people who would have originally shot and killed someone would think that they couldn't do it, and they wouldn't.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;33803481]To be honest, I wouldn't expect it to reduce violent crime at all. What I would like to know however is if it reduces violent crimes with guns, and if the fatalities of violent crimes lessen.[/QUOTE]
What good is it to decrease violent crimes with guns if he total number does not decrease? That just means people are using things other than guns, proving the point of gun advocates.
[QUOTE=sgman91;33806141]What good is it to decrease violent crimes with guns if he total number does not decrease? That just means people are using things other than guns, proving the point of gun advocates.[/QUOTE]
because guns are much more dangerous then knifes.
[QUOTE=sgman91;33806141]What good is it to decrease violent crimes with guns if he total number does not decrease? That just means people are using things other than guns, proving the point of gun advocates.[/QUOTE]
I'm interested in fatalities.
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;33802527]
As far as suicide goes, well it's very hard to say.
[img]http://www.gunsandcrime.org/suichisty.gif[/img]
[/QUOTE]
I think you would probably find that majority of the gun related suicides in Australia would be farmers. I tried looking but I couldn't find any research into demographic trends of suicide in Australia.
I did find this showing where suicide occurs the most however. [QUOTE=responseability.org][IMG]http://www.responseability.org/client_images/992494.JPG[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Looking at that the highest rated states by suicide rate have large rural and farming sectors.. so take of this as you will. This is mostly speculation but in my experience living in a fairly rural place in Australia myself is that around 90% of the gun related suicides I hear about are farmers that have suffered because of droughts and things for several years. (oh for all the Non-Aussies the reason this is relevant is because being a farmer is pretty much one of the only reasons people are allowed guns and they are the largest gun-owning demographic in Australia since Howard changed the gun laws)
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;33804957]1. S. Mukherjee, et.al. A Statistical Profile of Crime in Australia
(Canberra, Australia: AIC, April 1993) RPP07, Table 4.5
2. Crime and Safety part of "Australia Now" series at Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) web site, Table 11.12
3. "Income and Welfare: Income support programs - Dept. of
Family & Community Services" p/o "Australia Now"
series at ABS web site.
4. "Crime and Justice: Expenditure on public order and safety"
p/o "Australia Now" series at ABS web site.
Those are the references, which pool the same statistics the graph you posted come from. I'd ignore the actual article I pulled the graphs from, as it is a biased web site, even if it tries not to be at times.
Also no, I can't find any statistics for firearm involved assaults in comparison to assaults in general, if you can find it on the ABS please post it. It's just there to show that gun control didn't have a major effect, good OR bad. Again I want to reiterate my point that people focus on the "gun" part of the equation far too stringently.
I get it, it's much easier to pick something and lump all the blame on it rather than looking at a wide variety of social and economical issues that probably have a larger effect on crime overall. But that doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE]
I agree that the focus on [B]gun[/B] crime is often a huge mistake, as there are plenty of violent places with and without guns, and vice versa.
[editline]20th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;33803426]Not at all. An argument of gun control is that it stops or reduces violent crime, assault is a violent crime, and it has not gone down in the slightest due to the new Aus regulations on guns, thus meaning it doesn't necessarily impact violent crime as people would like to believe. I'd be interested to see if a substitution for murder weapons has popped up there, as it did in Britain with knife crime.
You can't put a blanket term on something until it harms your argument to. You can't say "Gun control reduces violent crime," until someone points out it doesn't, and then clarify, "Except the crime not involving guns," that's utter nonsense. Yes, gun control has been known in some countries, mostly developed ones, to reduce gun crime, however that doesn't mean it reduces violent crime as a whole, which is what most advocates of gun control say, they use the blanket "violent crime" terminology, and in truth it's false, gun control doesn't necessarily reduce violent crime on a whole.[/QUOTE]
Except that firearms are not the only variable! Unemployment rates might have risen, and that might have caused more violent crime. If you could see the firearm assault rate, you'd be able to see how much on an impact that it had.
I live in australia, and I've seen an entire civilian m16 (ar15 i think but idk) that was imported piece by piece on a yacht. If people want them they will get them
I'm not very political, but I'd like to say that I do own guns, and I use them for hunting and target practice. I would never consider shooting anyone else just because I have a gun, and it is my opinion that if someone is depressed enough to kill themselves, or angry enough to commit murder, they will do it with whatever is at their disposal. If guns are outlawed me might as well outlaw knives, then anything metal or wooden, then ropes, then pillows, and then small plastic items that might get lodged in your throat, and to finish it off we should outlaw public use of hands!
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;33809311]I'm not very political, but I'd like to say that I do own guns, and I use them for hunting and target practice. I would never consider shooting anyone else just because I have a gun, and it is my opinion that if someone is depressed enough to kill themselves, or angry enough to commit murder, they will do it with whatever is at their disposal. If guns are outlawed me might as well outlaw knives, then anything metal or wooden, then ropes, then pillows, and then small plastic items that might get lodged in your throat, and to finish it off we should outlaw public use of hands![/QUOTE]
Let's face it though you can't mow down 20 people in a minute with a knife. If no-one had guns then no-one would need guns (apart from farmers and hunters). In the ideal world gun control would work, but in reality gun ownership is so ingrained in the culture of the US that gun control wouldn't work because there would be outrage.
[QUOTE=McGee;33809295]I live in australia, and I've seen an entire civilian m16 (ar15 i think but idk) that was imported piece by piece on a yacht. If people want them they will get them[/QUOTE]
yeah, if by "people" you mean "just people who can afford to import something piece by piece on a yacht"
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33813735]yeah, if by "people" you mean "just people who can afford to import something piece by piece on a yacht"[/QUOTE]
and by "people who can afford to import something piece by piece on a yacht" he means gangs and criminals. Banning guns only stops ordinary citizens.
no, i dont think most criminals have access to the sums of money that I'd imagine would be required to do that unless you can show that having a gun imported special is inexplicably cheap
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33814808]no, i dont think most criminals have access to the sums of money that I'd imagine would be required to do that unless you can show that having a gun imported special is inexplicably cheap[/QUOTE]
no, but a criminal has enough money to buy guns from a gun smuggler.
plenty of people didn't give up their guns in the buybacks anyhow
Problem with the "BUH BUH I NEED IT FOR SELF DEFENCE!" argument: using a gun for self defence counts as excessive force, and will get you a pretty hefty punishment
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33814865]no, but a criminal has enough money to buy guns from a gun smuggler.[/QUOTE]
And you don't understand that the primary motivation for crime is poverty. Bravo.
[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;33814865]no, but a criminal has enough money to buy guns from a gun smuggler.[/QUOTE]
not if the smuggler has to charge more because his job is harder, and his job can be made harder by making guns harder to get.
people always say "if you make guns harder to get criminals will still get them on the black market" but seem to forget that a: the black market has to come from somewhere and b: it isn't some universal constant like the speed light in a vacuum; it can be hindered and impeded, reducing it's functionality
This is probably late but in Cali the feds are trying to make it so that anyone who purchases a medicinal card automatically submits their second amendment right to bear arms. Apparently the government cannot make something legal without making something else illegal.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;33815131]not if the smuggler has to charge more because his job is harder, and his job can be made harder by making guns harder to get.
people always say "if you make guns harder to get criminals will still get them on the black market" but seem to forget that a: the black market has to come from somewhere and b: it isn't some universal constant like the speed light in a vacuum; it can be hindered and impeded, reducing it's functionality[/QUOTE]
the problems is that cracking down on diverted firearms is pretty difficult to do
and bringing firearms into a country like Australia is pretty easy
[QUOTE=Suff;33775308] I really have no reason to have a weapon. I have a phone to call the Authorities if I feel I'm in danger.[/QUOTE]
I suppose that would make it easier for the police to find whoever killed you.
[QUOTE=Candels;33815188]This is probably late but in Cali the feds are trying to make it so that anyone who purchases a medicinal card automatically submits their second amendment right to bear arms. Apparently the government cannot make something legal without making something else illegal.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty stupid.
Does any other medication have that requirement?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
