Guncrazy USA

I really enjoy the fact that all you so called "hippies" say shit like this about the constitution that allows you to say shit like that.

You know what we'd have if not for the constitution, if not for the founding fathers and all the brave men who came after them? We'd be ruled by somebody like Hitler or Stalin. If not for that constitution, God forbid you're jewish, or black, or a free thinker, or whoever or whatever the reigning dictator hates.

Granted, we would've been under the rule of the Crown, but things would've fallen apart at some point. Not enough man power to handle the whole world.

You know what would happen if you spoke out against the government in a dictatorship like you do now? No, you've probably never considered that... You'd be strung up and lynched in public as an example of what a dictator doesn't like.

That's why Americans are allowed to have weapons. To prevent our government from becoming that, to keep that from coming here, and to defend ourselves. However, it is not solely up to the government to decide what a fundamental freedom is.

Guns hard to make? heh... My suspicion is that nobody in the UK has bothered to think of making their own gun because they're illegal there and many people just don't think that way.

Lemme tell you, I could, in one day, whip up a musket made out of pipe and wood and make gunpowder from scratch... This would be a musket with a reinforced barrel... a musket that could take someone's head off at 50 yards or more.

Hard to make...

The pure idiocy and ignorance of everyone in this thread astounds me. The pro-gunners are misrepresenting to a point, and the anti-gunners are using the same old tired, pointless arguments. While you people are wasting your lives arguing over something that we have no control over other than stating our opinion, I'm gonna go do something useful. While you're at your computer arguing through the weekend, I'll be lighting up a big fat joint and laughing.

*departs thread, and plans to come back and laugh my head off at the pure pointlessness of it at a later date*

 

Thanks for that, the link to the homicide stats didn't work, but I'll return the favour on the acceptance point. I apologize for implying those were the homicide rates, accident rather than deliberate misleading.

The skyrocketing point is a bit hazy too, when looking at the graph:


you can see that homicides and robberies shot up the year after, but it was part of a fluctuation. They shot up hugely in 1968, and guns were not banned then (if you could find a list of laws passed in Washington that year it'd help)

I accept that this is not the same as the Australian Stats, which I am too tired to find, but the point is still at least fairly valid.

I would say that the saving of a few lives is worth it, same way that lowering the speed limit to save lives is worth it (not just because it saves lives, but also because cars perform more economically at generally lower speeds, and because people need to learn to take things a bit slower sometimes).

I'd also say that armed robberies shooting up because they thought that people would no longer have the ability to defend themselves is another questionable one. They wouldn't nessacerily know if the house owner had relinquished their guns or not, or if they had one of the 'home made' guns mentioned here. Also, if people are paranoid about being burgled/armed robbed. Then they should probably just secure their houses properly, rather than buying something that'll only put their families at risk.

 

I'd say that's a little assuming, (sorry to double post by the way), plenty of countries have got by without a written constitution without resorting to dicatorship.

 

why the anarcy sign? by you posts you are very pro state.very pro keep the people from hurting them self laws .

 

I've been thinking about that actually. I'm more for a system with a lack of borders and the idea of land ownership.

Basically I'm pro:

freedom of movement
freedom of action (so long as it doesn't endanger others, which is where my beliefs on guns come under)
freedom of expression

not quite entirely anarchistic views, but there's no half anarchy sign.

 

a gun is not an action. I think you should reserch anarcy . cause half an anarcy sign is to much

 

Yes but I'd say owning a gun is. Basically, what I'm saying, is tat while anarchy is pretty unobtainable in our current state, it is an ideal and one I subscribe to. In our current state however, we should aim to be as free and safe as possible. My belief is that guns are fundamentally unsafe. It may not be yours, but it is mine.

 

Finnaz you really are something else. Actually I'm sorry, I meant to say quite typical.



Why can't you acknowledge the FACT that the ONLY observable result from the Australian gun ban was a near-doubling in Armed as well as Unarmed robbery for about 7 years, with NO discernable effect on the homicide rate?


It's as simple as that!

SPIN! SPIN! SPIN!

Is that all you know how to do???

 

The thing is mate, you've been spinning this out of proportion. Pour example, you keep mentioning how the complete firearm ban in Auz caused a huge surge in crime rates, well, few things you've got wrong there:

Firearms were strictly controlled in the first place, only allowed for Hunting Lodges, collectors, sportsmen and people who needed them for professional reasons (i.e bodyguards ect) . The government also didn't even remove all guns from these people, they simply had a buyback scheme on semi-automatic and pump action weapons. Ergo, it's quite unlikely that there is a direct link between armed robbery and this. People never had them in their homes to start with (unless they happened to live in a hunting lodge or were protecting someone at the time) , so why on earth would criminals suddenly think "Oh, no one's got guns anymore, we'll go rob them". Unless ALL of the armed robberies that accounted for the 'huge increase' were on hunting lodges, sports based shooting ranges and bodyguards. Then it is extremely unlikely that the two had any link. Crime levels increase and decrease perfectly naturally, and there were quite a lot of other laws passed in the same year. Do they have a correlation. Your version of spin is simply an example of seeing the statistics, and wanting to see something, so you see it.

Secondly:


there's the homicide rates, while most haven't changed hugely (this being all types of homicides, not just those caused by guns), you can see a drop in 1997 on the majority of them. And in the Northern Territories then the drop is pretty big (there's a spike up afterwards, but it drops again.

Oh and the 'massive' armed robbery increase you've reported can also be summed up as "what armed robbery increase?"

Have a look at the statistics:


1995 - 27.8%
1996 - 25.3%
1997 - 24.1%
1998 - 17.6%
1999 - 15.2%
2000 - 14.0%

(that's not the increase in armed robberies, that's the overall statistics). There effectively was/is no huge surge in armed robberies due to a law which technically couldn't really affect them.

Number of victims of assault aged 65 and over:

1996 - 1474
1997 - 1662 (12.8% increase from previous year)
1998 - 1663 (0.06% increase from previous year)
1999 - 1793 (7.8% increase from previous year)

There is an increase in assaults on the elderly, but one that can be judged as judged as a blip, rather than as a direct cause of something that, again, is unlikely to effect it.

Fact of the matter is, my good man, that you are flogging a non existant dead horse here. Move on to a rational argument about a country that has enforced a gun law that actually affected the general populace, and I might just overlook the amount of childish insulting you've been doing.

 

Admiral, I would reply, but the problem is, I'm not American, so I don't really feel I have the ability to discuss the constitution at length. It being something that means a lot more to Americans than it does to me.

 

Okay hehe, I did touch upon it, I just thought it would be best to leave it at before Messrs Savage decided I was some evil limey with no idea what I was on about.

 

"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."

Police Commissioner South Australia Mal Hyde 23/12/99 - The Advertiser - Adelaide

Robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 per cent over the previous financial year.

South Australian Police Annual Report - tabled in State Parliament 27/10/98

"Media Release: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Recorded Crime in Australia Release Date: July 15th, 1998

Police in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia all recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery.

The largest increase (+ 63%) occurred in New South Wales. However the increases in some other States were also quite substantial.

Victoria recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery of 38%, Queensland recorded an increase of 34%, South Australia recorded an increase of 10% and Western Australia recorded an increase of 7%.

Commenting on these figures, the Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said that "they suggested that the underlying causes of the upward trend in property crime in New South Wales were probably national rather than State-based."

Abbreviations
AIC - Australian Institute of Criminology
ABS - Australian Bureau of Statistics
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures) "Gun crime soars.." - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98

"AIC define robbery as unlawful taking of property, accompanied by force or threat of force"

There were 10850 armed robberies recorded in Australia in 1998. This represents almost a 20% increase from the number of armed robberies recorded in 1997.





Armed Robberies have increased by 69% from 1995".

Crime involving guns has soared despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre...the number of robberies involving guns leapt 39% (ABS Report)...assaults involving guns jumped 28%.

Armed Crime on rise -The Sunday Mail - Brisbane 18/10/98

According to ABS figures, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in NSW rose from 827 in 1996 to 1252 in 1997.

Sunday Telegraph - Sydney - 14/3/98

"National gun laws and the destruction of 640,000 firearms under the buyback scheme appear to have done little to reduce the national murder rate, says a new study.

Research paper issued by the AIC on the affect of the new gun laws. The Age - 3/6/99"

Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O'Sullivan yesterday expressed "grave concern" as the number of armed robberies across the state took a big jump for the second year running.

Sunshine Coast Daily - 13/11/98

Fatal shootings in Victoria have increased despite the introduction of tighter gun laws in 1996, a (AIC) study has found.

" State's gun deaths rise" - Herald Sun - Victoria - 3/6/99

The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost tripled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.

Geelong Advertiser - Victoria 11/9/97

"Gun deaths fell by 46 per cent during the last 15 years before tough new firearm legislation introduced after last year's Port Arthur massacre, according to figures released yesterday by the ABS.


David Povah ABS - The Australian - 27/2/97

Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls for a decade - and its lowest arrest rate ever. The growing number of planned, ambush murders this year has put added pressure on the homicide squad."

Herald Sun - Melbourne - 12/11/99

More cases of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated burglary are being reported in Victoria...overall crime rate rising by 3.7 per cent in 11 months.

Homicide - Sourceolice data, Crime management Report

 

You don't have any idea what you're on about. How can you actually suggest that the only people in Australia who legally held guns were "bodyguards" or "living on a hunting lodge"?

That's such a whopper I bet your nose grew as you typed it. Check in the mirror.


Let's see what's wrong with your bullshit. First off, roughly 1/4th of Australia by land mass (all of Queensland, and all of Victoria) had NO, ZERO, NADA licensing requirements. In otherwords if you want a gun (long arm) you've got one. In fact MACHINE GUNS were perfectly legal in Victoria until the 1996 ban.

The rest of Australia had strict gun regulations, but not so strict that you had to be a "bodyguard" or "living on a hunting lodge". You wanna talk about bullshit? Since when does a "hunter, collector, or sportsman" not live at home like the rest of us? What planet do you live on? Everyone kept their guns AT HOME.



Now on to the buyback scheme that as you claim "only confiscated semi-automatic and pump action weapons". Weapons were confiscated as follows:

Automatic - .1%,

Semi-auto rifles - 3.2%,

Pump action shotguns - 15.1%,

Manual or bolt-action shotguns- 32.7%,

Manual or bolt-action rifles - 47.5%,

other -1.8%.


Semi-automatic and pump-action weapons, the weapons they were targeting, only made up about 18% of the total confiscated weapons.







This:









Is not a decrease in murder. The little squiggles in the line don't mean shit. Look carefully. Every vertical line of increase on that graph represents 1/5th of a person.

So from 1993 to 2006 the rate went from 1.6 out of 100,000 to 1.4 out of 100,000.


I don't know about you, but that would be filed under "little to no change" or "natural fluctuation" in my book. Wouldn't you agree?



And as I pointed out before, starting in 1997 and continuing for 8 years BOTH ARMED AND UNARMED ROBBERY INCREASED BY 20-30 PEOPLE PER 100,000.

So homicides drop by a half a person in 100,000, which adjusted for population means there were 100 less homicides OF ANY KIND, gun involved or not.

And also there were at least 10,000 additional armed and unarmed robberies.



This is like the third time I've clearly illustrated this very black-and-white issue in regards to Australia. It doesn't seem to be getting through though so I'll stop now.



Oh but one interesting thing to note is I had a cute little graph courtesy of the Australian Institute of Criminology that VERY CLEARLY showed a massive and immediate rise in armed/unarmed robberies beginning in 1997 as I just described. Just looking at it would make the case for anyone with a brain in their head.

However, it's now been replaced with a much differently formatted graph, showing actual numbers of instances instead of percentiles, distributing those instances over 12 points per year instead of 1, AND omitting all data prior to 1995. I guess SOMEONE high up didn't like what they saw and made a call to the minister of propaganda.


Ugh...just ugh.

 

We can all quote to our hearts content, unfortunately, statements like:
"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
don't really mean anything.

Reread my point on ownership, note the 'etc.' . I was also exaggerating to make a point, that being gun ownership was low anyway. 670,000 out of a population of 18,310,7140 (in 1996), and that's assuming that the guns taken were 1 per person. It's not even 1/30th of the population. Assuming that because 1/30th of the population no longer having guns caused a criminal surge is a bit far fetched.

Lets have another look at the stats shall we, no quotes here, quotes are meaningless without evidence.

In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards. Declines in firearm-related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Firearm suicides represent the largest component cause of total firearm deaths in Australia (more than three in four of all firearm deaths). In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 8850 firearm suicides (annual average 491.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 1726 firearm suicides, an annual average of 246.6. While the rate of firearm suicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this more than doubled to 7.4% per year after the introduction of gun laws. The ratio of trend estimates differed statistically from 1 (no effect; p = 0.007). We conclude that the decline in total firearm suicides accelerated after the introduction of the gun laws.

n the 18 years (1979–96), there were 1672 firearm homicides (annual average 92.9). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 389 firearm homicides, an annual average of 55.6. While the rate of firearm homicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this increased to 7.5% per year after the introduction of gun laws. However, the ratio of trend estimates failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.15) because of the low power inherent in the small numbers involved.

When all firearm mass homicides (>=5 victims shot dead per incident) were removed from the data the conclusions were only slightly altered. The reason for this slight change is that all mass shootings in Australia in the years studied occurred before the introduction of gun laws. This increases the apparent downward trend in the pre-gun law period (0.971 when all homicides are considered, v 0.961 when mass shootings are removed). The trend in the post-gun law period is unaffected.

(note how I'm pointing out here that several of the trends have not been noticeably affected, because this is not a black and white issue.)

Here's the study I got this information from by the way, feel free to scrutinise it word for word:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/6/365

 

OK, fair enough. How about quotes like:



"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost tripled since the introduction of tighter gun laws." - Geelong Advertiser - Victoria


"There were 10850 armed robberies recorded in Australia in 1998. This represents almost a 20% increase from the number of armed robberies recorded in 1997. Armed Robberies have increased by 69% from 1995" - Australian Institute of Criminology


"According to ABS figures, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in NSW rose from 827 in 1996 to 1252 in 1997." - Sunday Telegraph - Sydney


"Crime involving guns has soared despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre...the number of robberies involving guns leapt 39% (ABS Report)...assaults involving guns jumped 28%." - Armed Crime on rise -The Sunday Mail - Brisbane 18/10/98


"Police in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia (4 out of 5 states) all recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery. The largest increase (+ 63%) occurred in New South Wales. However the increases in some other States were also quite substantial. Victoria recorded an increase in the rate of armed robbery of 38%, Queensland recorded an increase of 34%, South Australia recorded an increase of 10% and Western Australia recorded an increase of 7%." - Media Release: Australian Bureau of Statistics - Recorded Crime in Australia Release Date: July 15th, 1998

I know it seems far fetched to you...that doesn't make it any less true.



.

 

I am really sick and tired of hearing your "Guns are designed to kill" argument. Swords were and are designed to kill. That is their only purpose, and yet it sounds perfectly reasonable to reasonable people to collect swords and medieval memerobilia, as well as oriental swords. It is true that many of the swords available today are nothing more than show pieces, but there are many still out there that are perfectly lethal; and I know of many people who will go out back and practice with these weapons for the sheer enjoyment of it.

You can call it "practicing for killing" or whatever you want (and in a few cases, it very well may be), but just because it's possible to kill someone, doesn't mean that that is all that it is ever used for. I shoot, my grandpa shoots, but neither of us has ever killed a person. I hunt occasionally, but when I do, I waterfowl hunt; yet most of my collection, and the majority of my shooting involves rifles and handguns. My grandpa is over 70 years old and has not hunted once since he was 25, but now he owns over 100 guns and shoots regularly. He is an older man with a heart condition who rides his motorcycle on the weekends with his wife of over 30 years... so are you saying that he's spent his whole life training himself to kill, oh I dunno, the president?

I mean, seriously, you're just talking to hear yourself speak with this argument. You have no factual evidence of any sort (or any circumstancial evidence for that matter) to show that your little theory contributes to this thread in any way, shape, or form, let alone whether you're right or not. You seem to be implying that any John Doe who picks up a rifle and plinks out a tin can is honing his master sniper skills to take out an important foreign dignitary some time in the future. Stick with the facts and statistics... you're better at that then coming up with theories.

 

Read back a bit, I've provided quite a lot of factual evidence. Another point is that, while gun control laws (as pointed out in the report I linked to) have no discernible affect either way on armed robbery or homicide. What they do have an effect on is suicide rates and they practically wipe out mass killings. As the report points out, in the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards.

On the sword point, it's a lot easier to escape a person with a sword, and they're a lot harder to conceal.

 

Oh shut the hell up you stupid overly-dramatic, ignorant, overly-confident, short-tempered pot-head.

First of all, the story in your newspaper was probably a fluke. The thing about living as an imperfect being, surrounded by other imperfect beings is... sometimes we're imperfect. Chances are the gun-shop owner made a mistake, or even committed a crime; and of course that is going to be in the newspaper, it's pretty rare that that kind of thing happens.

Second off, you're just throwing words and insults around about the "forefathers" largely based off of heresay and blown-out-of-proportion real life events. To call somebody a rapist or a murderer is big shit, you might want to back that up with something intelligent people like to call "evidence."

You come in here with your pie-in-the-sky notions and idealistic theories shooting your mouth off, and you don't know the first goddamn thing about what you're talking about. Let me give you some advice, princess... if you're going to be strongly opinionated about something (and being the opinionated person that you seem to be, I'm guessing that there are a lot of somethings), take the time to know what the hell you're blabbering about; because the people you're bitching at, do.

 

I never said that you didn't provide evidence. You have some pretty compelling stuff when it comes to Australian statistics. What I am saying is that I strongly disagree with your "guns are designed only to kill, and therefore anyone using a gun is preparing to kill with it" argument. There is no plausible way to prove that, however there are thousands upon thousands of gun collectors world-wide who would be glad to tell you that you're wrong.

That's why I said that you should stick with your facts, because those are compelling pieces of evidence. You're overly-simplified theories, however, are not. You might sway somebody with those numbers, but you ain't going to convince anybody with that load of garbage.

As far as the sword goes, I wasn't saying that swords are as effective as a gun, I was just saying that they are also instruments specifically designed for killing, and you have no objections to people collecting them.

 

Okay, I will admit that that point was a little weak, I was tired and marginally on the drunk side at the time. I do agree that there are plenty of people who collect guns purely for show and as a hobby. Under U.K law, I am near certain that with a license, you are allowed to still collect guns (licenses are understandably incredibly hard to obtain as I understand).

I doubt any gun collector (though correct me if I'm wrong here) would get antiques from an arms store though.