Author Topic: gun control... (Read 5947 times)

Warspawn · « **Reply #15 on:** April 11, 2007, 12:12:41 PM »

For the time period of 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND

Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%

Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%

Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%

Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%

Kidnaping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%

Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%

Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%

New Zealand currently has a much lower homicide and violent crime incident rate per capita than Australia; it also has a much more relaxed firearm policy.

Quote

From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks,

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

[/i]

Fishu · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2007, 12:14:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
so bluedog... no one in your country has ever been attacked where a firearm would have saved them?

It's not that simple. The more there are guns on the streets the more the guns will be used. In extreme cases it would lead the robbers to kill their victims by a surprise and then clean them up.

However I'm not for complete ban of firearms. There needs to be some restrictions, but not a total ban or very strict restrictions.

Warspawn · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2007, 12:31:24 PM »

Heh, some interesting newspaper articles in Australia after the anti-gun nuts went crazy using the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 to justify their crusade:

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

--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.

"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."

--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.

"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%."

--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.

"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."

--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.

"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."

--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.

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

--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

-----------

Did you know that even prior to the Port Arthur attacks, gun laws at that time required any Tasmanian who wanted to own a firearm or even an air rifle to pass a gun handling course and carry a photo-bearing gun license that had to be produced prior to the purchase of any firearm or ammunition? The only end result for all Australians was a government turn-in scheme and the follow-on destruction of more than 640,000 hunting rifles and shotguns, and a higher violent crime rate afterwards.

john9001 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2007, 12:59:14 PM »

gun ban laws have little effect on criminals because criminals don't obey the law, that's why they are called criminals.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2007, 01:51:11 PM »

And the U.S. is heading the same way.

lazs2 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2007, 03:36:16 PM »

fishu... mighty white of you to allow that we should be able to have some guns to protect ourselves even if you wish to "restrict" them.

Can you tell me what kind of "sensible" gun laws your lordship would allow us poor subjects to own?

Perhaps you can tell me of a gun law that decreased crime or protected anyone?

If old people or women or the infirm are victimized by the young and strong... well... that would just have to be the price you are willing to pay right?

lazs

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2007, 03:51:22 PM »

Zombies aren't too scary. That is unless you get a pack of those ones that can run fast. Short distance quick hobbles aren't too bad, but those dawn of the dead ones can friggin run.

Chairboy · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:23:08 PM »

If you haven't read this yet, it's a great book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zombie_Survival_Guide

Very practical approach to surviving a Zombie infestation, including weapons, avoiding stairs, etc.

Reschke · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:26:05 PM »

Gun control means squat.....

Quote

“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .”

Fishu · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:27:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
fishu... mighty white of you to allow that we should be able to have some guns to protect ourselves even if you wish to "restrict" them.

Protect from what? Would you need a .50 caliber machinegun to fend off robbers?

From the government? You're nothing but a sheep if you think you and your buddies are having any restraint over the government with your armoury. While you're happy with your buddies to have guns, the government is herding you with their propaganda towards their agenda. So much for the defense against an oppressive government - They've got you with their propaganda.

If it's the government you're afraid.. don't worry, they can do everything they want and mostly with your consent! You're under influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates your opinion over a wide range of political issues.

Not a long while ago the majority was for the Iraq war.. now the numbers have dropped. All the sudden many pro-war people have turned anti-war and they act like they've been always against the war.

It's a laughable BS to claim that all the neat guns are there against a possible oppressive government. You don't either need a heavy armoury against a robber.

As much as I like guns, I don't think it is wise or necessary to give everyone all the guns they want. Without restrictions we might as well give them a right to own a nuke. Where should the line go? I don't know, but I do know that the line must be drawn somewhere.

68Hawk · « **Reply #25 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:29:29 PM »

When it comes down to it its not even about the guns, because it no one had ever invented them, or if they were suddenly to be removed from society, humans would just resort back to other weapons.

It comes down to an issue of who you trust. Do you trust individuals to protect themselves and be responsible or do you trust the state to protect ALL individuals? Obviously some individuals are bad people who would rob you for crack. We cannot trust these individuals. Obviously the state cannot be everywhere all the time without draconian laws that burn us all and such dramatic over expenditure on law enforcement that our children starve.

Laws only work in a democratic society because the majority of people follow them. Laws should only be created in a democratic society because the majority of people agree with them. Laws from an isolated minority, such as prohibition or alcohol or marijuana have been proven to be colossal failures, because people don't respect them. Law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves from those who don't abide.

We can either trust people or the state. Sometimes in modern mass society it is hard to trust people, but we must. This goes both ways (lazs), and we must not always live in fear. I'd hope we can all agree that trusting to the state as a parent figure in social policy is a really bad idea.

Do for yourself before you ask someone to do for you.
Help thy neighbor as you would want them to help you.

If we could all help each other more we wouldn't need police all over the streets trying to mediate disputes. Police should be for handcuffs and fingerprints, not for peace and quiet, cuz they're never going to be able to keep it quiet.

But some people will always break the law and threaten others with violence. Even in the 21st century there are, sadly enough, people who still need killing in this world. Ask the terrorist for their guns and see if they give them up.

Ask the Chinese for their guns and see if they hand them over. (Ha, they'd sell them if we'd let them!)

Chairboy · « **Reply #26 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:30:36 PM »

Fishu: I respectfully disagree with your "just lie back and think of England" approach to losing freedom.

Kuhn · « **Reply #27 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:38:47 PM »

Fishu, How did you read fear of government into this?

Fishu · « **Reply #28 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:42:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kuhn
Fishu, How did you read fear of government into this?

I didn't say that someone said so in this particular threat. The fear of oppressive government has been very often used as a reason against gun restrictions. I was wondering from what does he want to defend himself with a wide range of weapons.

Chairboy,

The gun restrictions in the UK are a failure and I've never denied that. I haven't claimed that the guns needs to be totally banned.

68Hawk · « **Reply #29 on:** April 11, 2007, 04:50:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
They've got you with their propaganda.

If it's the government you're afraid.. don't worry, they can do everything they want and mostly with your consent! You're under influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates your opinion over a wide range of political issues.

Without restrictions we might as well give them a right to own a nuke.

First off, propaganda operates everywhere, the US, Europe, China, everywhere. It is itself neither good nor bad. It is an informational weapon, and its character is only reflected by the hand that wields it. Edward Bernays argued that it was a good and necessary thing in modern society (in 1928), but qualified it by saying that propaganda isn't deceptive. Not that I agree with that though.

If you think they don't have propaganda in a store near you then who's the sheep? One would do better to say, "We're under the influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates our opinion over a wide range of political issues."

The nuke statement is just over the top absolutism. I personally don't believe that anyone should have nukes. I think they're a foolish waste of societies resources (the reason I don't believe Iran is building a bomb). You're right that a line has to be drawn, because flame throwers in shopping malls makes only for good video games. But some responsible citizens enjoy owning flame throwers for scholarly study, historical preservation and fun.

Yeah, where should the line be drawn? Is my Katana dangerous to my neighbors even though I am a historian that studies martial history and weaponry? NO! My katana (and my sai for that matter) stands in it's place of peace ready should I or my neighbors ever need it. No one #$#ks with me and my friends, but everyone who is kind is welcome in my place.

edit- oh yeah, Finland might be nice this time of year, but there are places in the US that could qualify as war zones under some definitions. People hear shots at night and sleep on the floor. They should be able to sleep without fear. Taking their guns will not do that.