Time for ANTI-GUN people to put their money where their mouth is!

[steely07]

Lazs,i'm keeping it civil too,no offence intended

steely.... I am saying that you regestered your guns with the govenment and they used that regestration to confiscate firearms. In the U.S. the pro regestration people claim that regestration is not a prelude to confiscation.

As for deaths in aus... We never heard of any before the 24. So now you have 24 killed. You also have crime going up 40% by your panicy and knee jerk confiscation. How many lives have been lost so far because of your short sightedness?

 We did indeed register our guns,they were not confiscated,we had an "amnesty"and a gun buy back program where you could feel free to hand in any full or semi auto weapons that were then deemed to be illegal,many people did this and were paid very good money by the government for crappy weapons they didn't want anyway,of course those who didn't want to hand those kind of guns in kept them.
 There was no confiscation.



 As for not hearing of any before the 24,you weren't listening mate,America can be very insular in that regard,i have been asked by your countrymen(while on holidays in europe)if we spoke english in Australia,this isn't an attack on the US,as i know from being in the DHBG that many Americans are well informed about the rest of the world,but i feel this isn't the case generally,after all if it wasn't on CNN,it didn't happen right?

 As for the crime figures,show me the numbers,i wonder how this "40%"compares to the world average?

 Just my thoughts,and thanks for answering,as i said,no offence

PS,i think it was sort of a "panicky and knee jerk reaction"as well,but the feeling in the whole country here after it happened was one of disbeleif,and that something should be done,of course an instant reaction is always called a knee jerk,it hasn't stopped anyone owning a gun that wants or needs to tho,they just cant kill bunnies on full auto anymore

EDIT:If you're saying that crime went up 40% because of the gun registration and buy back program,you are totally wrong,most of us weren't armed before that and the people that were gun owners then are still gun owners now,we just don't carry them around with us

[Jester]

The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Gun Control:

Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small
children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around
the corner and is running at you while screaming  obscenities. In your hand
is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot.  You have mere seconds before
he reaches you and your family.  What do you do?

Liberal Answer:  Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
You're looking for simple solutions to complex issues.

*  Does the man look poor or oppressed?
*  Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack?
*  Could we run away?
*  What does my wife think?
*  What about the kids?
*  Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his
hand?
*  What does the law say about this situation?
*  Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
*  Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound
me?
*  If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while
he was stabbing me?

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few
days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:  Shoot the son of a squeak! Then take your family to a
baseball game, eat some hot dogs with apple pie, sing the national anthem,
go to church and praise the Lord for one more day of freedom.

[beet1e]

Andijg - you missed two points from your list of liberal questions:

• Could the knife wielding guy be Crocodile Dundee? (No mate, that's a knife) If so, no further action required. He's harmless. At worst he only wants to shag your wife.  If it's not Croc Dundee, go to the next question, which should be
• What would Ned Flanders do in this situation?

Sorry, Lazs - just having a bit of fun while we wait for you to come home and rejoin the debate.  

[Fatty]

Well Beetle what makes me bring it up is comments like 1% target shooting and 99% home defense as a summation of gun ownership.

You can't talk about national bans then turn around and say you're only talking about urban crime.  That is a large part of the problem, the desire of urban areas to make their gun laws national with no understanding whatsoever of what they are talking about.

[beet1e]

Fatty - just keeping it brief while we wait for Lazs...

My main concern is not with guys like you, or guys with hunting rifles in rural communities. The main threat is from handguns - weapons of convenience. I realise that both in the US and here, killing sprees have involved other types of weapon, ie not necesarily handguns. But a pie chart would demonstrate that the vast majority of gun deaths in America come as a result of handguns fired in urban areas.

[Gman]

UK stats from guncontrol.ca.

Crimes with firearms are up 400% since the gun ban.

Violent crime is up 250%.

I have an article of a story where a pensioner, after being robbed and assualted 3 time defended himself with his side by side shotgun after struggling with a knife wielding crack head looking for drug money in Northern England.  He owned one of the few guns you can in the UK, a side by side shotgun.

He shot the guy in complete self defense, mainly to protect his elderly wife, and was convicted of murder.  The papers went on to call the young man who was shot a "loveable rogue". ...who happened to have over 30 convictions for everything from dealing to home invasions to violent assaults.

Sorry Beetle, your socialist legal, non gun owning, non self defense respecting system is anothing but a disaster.

My country is following suit in nice commonwealth tradition, but not before we fracture.

Canada has far more strict gun laws than the USA, yet on a per capita basis, you are just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime here as you are in the USA, and some of our Provinces are far worse than the most crime free states in the Union.  At least in the USA you have the OPTION to carry a defensive system for your protection.  You certainly don't here.  There are home invasions, robberies, and shootings every day here in Calgary, a city of only 1 million.  I'd rather be able to defend myself against armed threats than be powerless.  Beet, your argument that "I feel no need to be armed " is swell, UNTIL it happens to you.  Sure, odds are, it won't, but we're taking 1 in 10 in your lifetime in this country that you'll be a victim.  10% is pretty good from a financial planners point of view for a yearly return.  Looking at it from the other end, that chance is high enough I would like to be able to deal with it in a way other than begging for my life.

edit :

gun deaths in America come as a result of handguns fired in urban areas.

Not being racist, but remove all the 13-25 African American males from that chart, and then tell me what you've got?  The data is all over the net, just search it up yourself.

The VAST majority of handgun "youth" shootings is crime related.  The crooks will always arm themselves, no amount of laws imposed on those who obey the law will change that, and an outright ban on handguns will put even more on the street, just like what is happening in the UK.

edit2:  As stated before, Canada has been registering and putting EXTREME restrictions on handguns since 1934.  Well, there are thousands if not millions of handguns on the streets still, in fact, a pal of mine (see old thread here if you like) was recently killed in a hold up at a gunstore while fully co-operating with his hands up, and another pal in Edmonton, who happens to also be a Edmonton Police sargent who runs a gun store was shot in the leg and will never walk 50% ever again.  All in a few months here.  Don't tell me that gun laws work, when I have to live in the threat of violence EVERY day with no way to "legally" defend myself.  We virtually have a "ban" on all handguns and assualt weapons, have had for a long time.  It doesn't work.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by bounder


Incidentally this survey was commissioned by the Countryside Alliance (sort of British Redneck Assoc) to prove that they should be allowed to kill burglars for sport.

It was reported by the BBC in more than one article. Someone could think you might be biased against the association.  

BTW
Scotland yard and the FBI keep great stats. From everything I have seen on both sites the violent crime rates have been going up in Europe and dropping in the US.

[Airhead]

Well, all I can say is that I live 45 minutes from Lazs and I have his address and I was planning on ripping off his Austin Healy until he posted pics of his guns and pronounced his willingness to use them, even against Rooks. Now I'll have to show up with a 12 pak, get Lazs drunk and steal his car when he passes out.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by funkedup
Didn't you ever see Indiana Jones?  You start waving that sword around like Zorro and you are likely to get a bullet in the brain.

I don't keep them to use them.  (The katana is within reach from my bed.)

If I absolutely had to, I sure as hell wouldn't stand in front of the guy and wave it around.

More like hide agaist the wall near a door and skewer the guy when he came through.

Never let hime know I was there if I could help it.

Still, I wouldn't give myself great odds, but better than being unarmed.


Only a sheer idiot whould stand out in the open with a sword and challenge a guy with a gun 20ft away.

[SC-Sp00k]

I'd swear I just left a thread just like this one LOL.

[beet1e]

Doh!  No word from Lazs.   Oh well...

Gman - You really need to read all that I said before you start passing judgement. Further up this thread, I said

In fairness, I have to say that were I to be compelled to live in some run down toejam hole like the Cabrini Green housing estate in Chicago, or parts of Los Angeles like Compton or the Watts district, I might be happier with a gun.

And that's because, as you put it...

Not being racist, but remove all the 13-25 African American males from that chart, and then tell me what you've got? The data is all over the net, just search it up yourself.

Yes I know there are pockets of hard core criminality, drug gangs, and the dealers killing eachother as they fight for territorial control. Does that mean I should be on the lookout if hiking through one of America's national parks? There's an area of London called Peckham. Hell hole. Estates like Broadwater Farm where, in 1985, a police office was hacked to death in the execution of his duty. Bad business. Clearly the police have got their work cut out in areas like that. And I agree that an armed response is needed. We have one of the few unarmed police forces in the world, and what that means is that there have been times when the police have had to abandon the pursuit of an armed gang. But that's a police problem. And it's not a situation that's going to be solved if I were to have a gun in my semi-rural home some 40 miles away from these problem areas. The odds of a gang like that coming all the way out here and knocking on my door are infinitesimally small. I'm more likely to get killed crossing the road, killed in a plane crash, car crash, or to die of old age waiting for you to convince me why I should have a gun. By the way, Peckham is largely black, and so yes we do have a pattern. Forget the fact that they all sound like Alec Guinness - I think Lazs was running out of steam when he said that. I have no business in Peckham. Just as I have no business being in Cabrini Green, south central Los Angeles, Harlem, Bronx, or the south side of Chicago. If there is a law and order problem in these areas, that's up to law enforcement to sort out. It's not going to be eased by some guy in North Platte, Nebraska going out and buying a gun and keeping it under his pillow at nights.

Canada has far more strict gun laws than the USA, yet on a per capita basis, you are just as likely to be the victim of a violent crime here as you are in the USA, and some of our Provinces are far worse than the most crime free states in the Union.

I have before me a Home Office document. I attach it here .ZIPped up. It's a .PDF document - open with Adobe Acrobat. On Page 10, the homicide rate in Canada is given as 1.85 per 100,000 population. In the USA the figure is 6.26 per 100,000. So as far as murder is concerned, your statement is way off. Of course, the stats were for 1997-99. Has there been a four fold jump in crime in Canada in the time since?

America is very good at worrying about threats from outside, and then overlooking the threat from within. The airspace within 60 miles of the shoreline is scanned for unidentified aircraft. An aircraft must identify itself within this area. If it fails to do so, it can be shot down if it comes within 10 miles of the coast. But this was not much use on Sept. 11th, 2001. With regard to guns, some people are paranoid about threats from intruders, but completely overlook the threat within the home, and many hundreds of thousands of people die from smoking related illnesses, stroke resulting from high blood pressure and obesity etc. But there is a kind of it-can't-happen-to-me complacency in these matters, and a sense of paranoia about being attacked from outside.

I don't deny that there is a huge problem with armed criminals. But arming everyone is not the solution. Some people here need to develop some sense of proportion.

Oh, and I'm not a socialist.

[Toad]

Originally posted by beet1e
I don't deny that there is a huge problem with armed criminals. But arming everyone is not the solution. Some people here need to develop some sense of proportion.

And disarming everyone is not the solution either. Some people here need to develop some common sense.

Look, it's been shown in every thread so far.

People agree that restrictions/buy backs/bans do not disarm the criminals. The criminals still get guns. In any country. So we apparently just accept "criminal gun crime" as something we can't do anything about and everyone goes "tsk, tsk" and ignores it.

Then they turn to the common citizen. Surely this b*stard MUST be stopped. Because, after all, he is the REAL threat. Since the majority of these sneaky bastiges ARE law-abiding, restrictions/buy backs/ bans do get them to reduce/turn in their guns. Perfect. Now we're all safer, right?

Uh... no. Both English and Australian stats show that AFTER passing buy back/ bans the gun homicide rate either GOES UP or STAYS THE SAME.

Now some will point to this and say, "See? It's a great success!"

Those without the blinders on will note that:

1. Professional criminals weren't impacted. Everyone agrees they still get and use guns.

2. Those crazy bastige private citizens that had their guns taken away....... must not have been the ones resonsible BECAUSE THE GUN HOMICIDE RATE EITHER WENT UP OR STAYED THE SAME.

A bit of common sense leads one to the conclusion that the buy back/ ban laws are simply "feelgood" measures that do not affect the gun homicide rate.

In fact, there are "pro-ban" documents out there that state that exact opinion. They say things like:

the post-Port Arthur gun laws were clearly not the sole cause of falling gun homicides

Hiya Spook!

[Toad]

Copyright © by David Brundle 1998,1999





US Murder Rates

The US Dept. of Justice recently published a report concerning homicide trends in the US.  Using the FBI Uniform Crime Reports it shows that the US murder rate has declined dramatically throughout the 1990s.  The US homicide rate for 1997 dropped to 6.8/100,000 of the population, the equivalent figure for England and Wales continues to increase and now stands at 1.5/100,000 population.  The US homicide rate is now at its lowest level since 1967 and recent reports indicate that the US and UK crime figures are converging.  UK crime rates are increasing while the US crime rate drops, a trend indicated by the 3rd International Crime Survey and a Dept. of Justice report published in October of last year.  The violent crime rate in England & Wales now exceeds that of the US.

Pat Mayhew in her evidence to the Dunblane enquiry[1] notes that the US homicide rate using handguns is over 150 times that of the UK.  The Labour party[2] continued in a similar vein in its own submission to the enquiry.  As is typical of many advocates of gun control a simple causal relationship is implied in both papers.  However, in the period under study the overall US homicide rate remained approximately 8 times that of the UK.  The continuing decline in the US crime rate means that the US homicide rate has now dropped to approximately 4 times that of the UK.  Why then does a factor of 150 in the homicide rate using handguns not translate into a similar factor in the overall homicide rate?

In part at least the discrepancy can be explained by the "weapon substitution" theory, whereby an offender denied access to firearms would substitute another lethal weapon.  The theory would suggest that the crime dictates the weapon rather than the weapon dictating the crime.  Mayhew counters that most violent incidents are committed fairly spontaneously and that the presence of a lethal weapon produces a violent outcome.  Such spontaneity is in fact myth, a myth generated more by wishful thinking than any basis in fact.  Firstly consider domestic violence, many offenders do claim that a violent confrontation with a partner arose spontaneously and that their actions were not premeditated.  Yet domestic violence is rarely an isolated outbreak of such violence but simply another episode in a long cycle of abuse.  Secondly an armed robber does not discharge a firearm 'spontaneously' during a robbery.  The robbery may not have been planned with the intent to discharge a weapon but by carrying a firearm criminals are clearly prepared to do so should the situation demand it.

The difference in the US and UK figures can also be explained by the manner in which they are compiled.  The US figure is based upon the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI.  The FBI is solely responsible for classifying crimes and no matter what the subsequent criminal case becomes it is not changed.  On the other hand homicide in the UK reflects only those crimes resulting in a criminal conviction for murder, manslaughter or infanticide.  The US figure represents a gross estimate of homicide whilst the British estimate reflects a more conservative figure. The difference in methodology would tend to suggest that the difference between the US and the UK is not as pronounced as some gun control advocates would have us believe.

Finally, gun control advocates frequently attribute the UK's low rate of violent crime to its restrictive gun laws.  They would do well to bear in mind that in 1919, the year before gun control legislation was introduced, the US homicide rate was almost twelve times that of the UK.  After close to 80 years of rigorous gun control the gap has now narrowed to a factor of four.
 

Bibliography
1.    Evidence Submitted on Behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary.
Home Office Research & Statistics Directorate.
2.    Control of Guns: The Labour Party's Evidence
George Robertson, MP and Jack Straw, MP.

Talk amongst yourselves.  

[Toad]

Not to depress anyone or anything.......


Fun With Guns

Fun With Guns
03/19/02

(Or, the New York Times is For Idiots)

A guy who writes for the New York Times (Nicholas Kristof) is of the opinion that guns pose more of a threat to US citizens than foreign terrorism.  He's oh-so-alarmed at reports of increased gun sales since Sept. 11.  Blah, blah, blah.  This really isn't the point, but it's what his article is about.  What I'm here to do is to pass along some debunking of his numbers by Cathy Young of Newsmax.com (whom I am heavily paraphrasing and quoting in this rant hereafter).

Kristof said in a recent article:  "It is pointless to try to deny the link between more handguns and increased murder and suicide."    

Oh, really?  Well then let us embark on a pointless endeavor.  

First we shall address murder.

Japan, where handguns are practically unavailable, had only 29 gun deaths (both murders and suicides) in 1999, while the United States had 26,800 gun deaths in 2000.  England, another country with a strict handgun ban, has a murder rate only one-sixth of ours (before you go thinking England is safe, bear in mind that they have higher rates of assault and burglary than we do).  

That's very interesting.  What's even more interesting is that our non-gun homicide rates exceed total homicide rates in many nations. In 1998, the murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate in the United States was 6.3 per 100,000 people, and firearms were used in about two-thirds of these killings.

Even if we had somehow gotten rid not only of handguns but of all guns, and even if, improbably, none of the killers who used guns would have substituted some other weapon, we still would have been left with 2.1 murders for every 100,000 people - about four times the average annual homicide rate in Japan (0.5 per 100,000) and higher than the homicide rates in Great Britain (1.2) or Sweden (1.4). Obviously, access to guns isn't the only factor.

This proves my oft-repeated refrain of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."  It should be obvious even to the most leftist-minded that the above figures illustrate the fact that America has a somewhat violent culture.  We like to kill each other, apparently.  And as proven above, if we don't have guns to do it, we're still gonna do it.  It's just the way we are.  

To further prove this point, let's talk about Switzerland, where guns are common and crime is rare. Switzerland boasts a heavily armed population and a thriving gun culture (shooting contests for children are a popular tradition). Yet its homicide rates are comparable to Great Britain's.  I reiterate - it's not having guns around that makes people kill each other.  It's our CULTURE.  I am pretty sure that Switzerland doesn't have roving gangs of ethnic teenagers shooting each other several times daily.  

In Israel, where almost every home has a weapon, the low murder rate is pretty much the same as in Europe, where guns are very rare.  

Now let's talk about suicide.  More than half the "gun deaths" in America are suicides.  Did you know that?   I can just hear the lefties out there saying, "Well then guns have a lot to do with people offing themselves."  But you would be incorrect.

The 1996 suicide rates per 100,000 people:

 United States:  11.8

Canada:  13.4

Japan:  17.9

France:  20.9

Finland:  25

Handguns are pretty much unavailable to the public in Japan.  France, Finland, and Canada also have extremely stringent gun control laws, and most citizens do not have them in their homes.  

A person more than twice as likely to commit suicide in Finland (where very few people have guns) than they are in America (where guns are freely available).  

The facts speak for themselves.  Americans like to kill each other, with or without guns.  People like to kill themselves all over the world, with or without guns.   Welcome to reality.

Just something too discuss as well. Especially the suicide rates.

[Toad]

Just thought I'd throw out some new material to argue over.