Gun laws could have prevented this? Fuck you. (2858 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.15 on 217 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by BeaverDamn (View user info) at 2007-04-17 11:34:17 EDT
Anyone who thinks gun laws could have prevented this is dead wrong.
If you make stricter gun laws, these psychos will find a way to obtain them.
"I need to take a course? Ok, I'll take a course and get licensed, and then I'll blow everyone to smithereens."
Banning guns is possibly the worst thing you can do. If you think everyone will turn in their guns, and we'll all live in perfect harmony, then you are as naieve as a 3rd grader.
When no one has guns but the criminals, guess whose house is getting robbed? That's right, yours.
And when the police are the only ones to defend you, you're fucked.
On England's gun ban, only .1% of the population owned a gun to before the ban.
"Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06."
That's a direct quote from wikipedia.
Here's the solution:
How about parents take some responsibility and quit fucking these kids up. Normal kids don't blow the shit out of everyone in their sights. Give em some love, or give em some meds. Just keep them the fuck away from me.
User Reviews
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-24 10:26:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
arabic food is teh awesome! it's good after a workout. their music's nice too. can't say i'm much of a fan of the rest, though i'm not sure i give a shit.
speaking of surrender monkeys, you must be happy that Mr. Sarkozy is about to get elected. you will have a pro-american Bush-admiring muslim-stomping ally at your side.
those are rare nowadays.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-24 10:17:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-24 09:50:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
people don't bite on my comments anymore :-(
------------------------
Only when you say you like arabic food you terrorist loving, freedom hating, jihadi supporting surrender monkey.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-24 09:50:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
people don't bite on my comments anymore :-(
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-24 07:59:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 16:11:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i like many of your arguments indo but your "Uh-merica Fuck Yeah!" theater is ridiculous.
i agree the gun control issue is not an easily solved one but your arguments are absurd. "THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG!" lol, nice one, nietzche. let's gas jews then! even conservative on this very website call you over the top. get a clue.
do you enjoy status quo so much? do you ever ask yourself "Mmmm, perhaps we could change this or at least look into it?" or are you too in love with the image of your country that you will still think it's paradise even if it was a nuclear wasteland?
i like how you are SO quick to defend your government's choice as acts of God but willing to blast every other country on the planet for decisions they take.
i once mentionned illegal economic sanctions imposed on Canada by the US and your response was "THEY HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU LET THEM HAPPEN! THEY WOULDN'T IF YOU FOUGHT BACK!" haha, ok. i guess all those people on 9/11 are guilty of their death.
or i remember once i just said i enjoyed arab music and like some of their food. it was a totally harmelss discussion and you went fucking BERSERK. it was fucking pathetic and we all had a good laugh on gabbly.
i never didn't want to be the one to tell you this dude, but you are viewed as not really different from ETS.
-----------------------------
Are you trying to tell me there is a clear right or wrong when it comes to guns?
For the record I don't own a gun, I am for stricter gun laws and harsher penalties for breaking guin laws, I think we should eliminate gun show loopholes, and I have no problems with waiting periods.
I don't like all out bans (on hand guns, semi-auto's should be illegal). I think law abiding citizens with clean records should be able to have concealed carry permits.
I agree that anyone who cares more about gun bans than alcohol bans is fucked up, but the two are comprable.
I went beserk because you said you liked arabic music? I consider beserk using your real info to mess with you in real life, sending offensive mail, tracking down your company and hasseling you (or your boss) at work. If I made fun of you or went on an internet tirade it probably had a lot more to do with my workload that day than with going "beserk".
Not different than ETS? When is the last time I claimed to have the truth, and threatened those who did not agree? I realize that most people on this site probably don't have the same opiniopns as me, and I am comfortable with that. I come here because I am bored not to educate "sheeple". If people really think of me as ETS I hope they get as big a kick out of me as I get out of him (I will try and foam at the mouth a little more).
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-24 07:37:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-22 02:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't get it Indoninja. How do they contradict each other?
-------------------
Fuck me.
They don't, I was reading that sentence wrong.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-23 09:45:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100809#2388765
great reply phauna. but indoninja will probably pull you some statistic about drunk driving accidents and make a correlation where there is none.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-23 09:31:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-04-23 04:24:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have had an idea.
What if gangster rappers could attack gun crime amongst youths by saying that real men weild knives and that shooting someone to death is like 'fucking with a rubber on'?
-----------
This is a good idea if only to determine the extent to which youth derives it's culture from its music. Kris Kross had all the BUY wearinging their pants backwards, maybe rapping about knives over guns will work.
Submitted by mynameisandy (user info) at 2007-04-23 07:00:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
OK, so banning guns wont stop psychos going on a killing spree, but at least it'd make it harder for the scummy, one time, street dispute, "Pop a cap in yo' ass" people getting hold of them so readily.
Or maybe we should just ban being black.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2007-04-23 06:43:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for using Wikipedia as a source.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-04-23 04:24:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have had an idea.
What if gangster rappers could attack gun crime amongst youths by saying that real men weild knives and that shooting someone to death is like 'fucking with a rubber on'?
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-22 02:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't get it Indoninja. How do they contradict each other?
-------------
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-20 13:35:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And the two articles completely contradicted each other.
"Before the introduction of the law, the overall number of homicides not related to guns had increased 1% a year. After the law took effect, this number fell by almost 2.5% a year.
And the total numbers of suicides fell by 4% after having risen annually by 2% before the introduction of the gun laws." - physorg
"The report also found the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56." (also the chart in this article is exactly opposite of what the previous article said) SMH article.
-------------
The quotes you made don't contradict each other, in fact they are about totally different things. The physorg ones are about 'non' gun related deaths. These are quoted to show that "There was no evidence that the use of other methods to commit suicide or homicide increased."
-----------------
If you don't like the palatable paraphrasing of these news articles, how about the source? Of course you have to pay for the full thing, but the abstract sums it up nicely:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/6/365
""Results: 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.
Conclusions: Australia's 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern. Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides. ""
----------------
Here is the abstract about the study which found no link, although this abstract is less useful than the last one. Again, you must pay to see the whole thing, feel free:
http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/azl084v1
----------------
Let me just finish with the most pertinent quote of a figure from the the first study; a figure which cannot be denied or quibbled over, and no amount of statistical trickery can distort it.
|
|
|
|
"In the 18 years before the gun law reforms, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, and none in the 10.5 years afterwards."
Submitted by Abbey (user info) at 2007-04-21 06:59:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
If you think a parent 'loving your child more' will save a mentally ill person...you're an idiot, and you don't know anything about mental illness. That's like saying if you loved your mother more, she wouldn't have had breast cancer and died.
Our society (not just American) failed miserably at helping this guy. So many signs...so many weak attempts at dotting the i's and crossing the t's, but nothing really ever happened. For people that are mentally ill to this depth, short term treatment is a joke. A few people stepped up to the plate, but most of them just watched this supposed psycho plow through life hugely disturbed.
We have very strange mental health laws in this country. At 14, a child can check themselves out of a crisis unit. The days of forcibly committing a person are over. THEIR rights override what the rest of us think is necessary. So, a well-meaning parent can force for 24 hours what they think is god damn necessary for their child...concurred with by physicians...and the kid can simply say no and go home and continue to be mentally ill, or kill 32 people.
I speak from experience on this issue. Not going to go into details at this point (someone suggested I do so...am working on it), but I raised 4 kids, one who is very mentally ill. I worry daily about shit like this. The other three kids are 'normal.' We did nothing different for him. We tried every possible mental health help but were continually denied after he turned 14, and we started at 6...saw the signs that early.
Would loving him more helped? Heck...I don't know how I couldn't have loved him less. He got 10X what the other kids had because he was so disabled, and continues to be to this date. The problem is when they get to be adulthood and you have no legal control over what they do. For the safety of my family, we have no contact. (Again...long story.)
Very long story short, think before you place blame. It wasn't guns, it could have/maybe not parents, but most likely a young man that didn't get the medical attention he needed for years.
Just my 2 cents.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2007-04-21 00:53:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:38:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
We're not allowed guns in the UK, and our kids rarely get shot. Go figure."
---------------
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
I value my right to own a gun more than I worry about that .000028%, and that is pretending it is a perfect world where a gun ban actually could get guns off the street (it can't, look at DC and NYC)
-----------------------------------
Fifth, what the fuck indoninja?!
0.042802/0.014063 = 3.04. Therefore the chance of getting murdered in the U.S. is three times greater than in England.
Dipshit.
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2007-04-21 00:49:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
First of all, that is not "more than doubled" you idiot.
Second, it is not the fact that you have such shitty gun laws. It is the combination of that and the unbelievably low IQ of the American government/population that causes problems.
Third, I am drunk right now.
Fourth, may your entire nation burn to the ground and may the Cubans piss on the fire to put it out.
Ass-licking unilaterlist fuckholes.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 16:18:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
(that should start him for the rest of the week-end)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 16:11:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i like many of your arguments indo but your "Uh-merica Fuck Yeah!" theater is ridiculous.
i agree the gun control issue is not an easily solved one but your arguments are absurd. "THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG!" lol, nice one, nietzche. let's gas jews then! even conservative on this very website call you over the top. get a clue.
do you enjoy status quo so much? do you ever ask yourself "Mmmm, perhaps we could change this or at least look into it?" or are you too in love with the image of your country that you will still think it's paradise even if it was a nuclear wasteland?
i like how you are SO quick to defend your government's choice as acts of God but willing to blast every other country on the planet for decisions they take.
i once mentionned illegal economic sanctions imposed on Canada by the US and your response was "THEY HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU LET THEM HAPPEN! THEY WOULDN'T IF YOU FOUGHT BACK!" haha, ok. i guess all those people on 9/11 are guilty of their death.
or i remember once i just said i enjoyed arab music and like some of their food. it was a totally harmelss discussion and you went fucking BERSERK. it was fucking pathetic and we all had a good laugh on gabbly.
i never didn't want to be the one to tell you this dude, but you are viewed as not really different from ETS.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 15:56:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and yes, the shitty article on which you've been relying for the last 200 replies was owned.
it was obviously written by an idiot à la O'Reilly (your idol) who couldn't even figure out that the liberal party of Australia was right-wing...it's the same thing in my province.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-20 15:53:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It comes down to what you value"""
if you value guns over alchool, not only are you fucking retarded, but you have a small penis.
i like hunting, i like guns. but i don't see the POINT in having a handgun or an auto. if you're such a pussy that you need a firearm in your house, buy a shotgun or a hunting rifle and enforce a minimal barrel lenght to make weapons HARDER TO CONCEAL and just ban autos. do you really need more to protect a home? if you're so paranoid that you need a Glock under your pillow, don't even bother risking your life driving.
handguns and automatics should be illegal so that only the scum use it to shoot each others (<- a good thing). now the main argument of gun nuts is "WHAT IF A NIGGAH PULLS A GUN ON ME IN THE STREET!?!?" 1st. wtf are you doing in that neighborhood? 2nd. even if you have a gun on you, you're not fucking Clint Eastwood so how are you gonna pull it out without getting shot and most importantly 3rd. how is an auto gonna save your life more? and most importantly 4th. the number of innocents that die because of the availability of easily concealable and/or automatic weapons vastly outnumber your little drama queen scenario.
now you're gonna tell me "BUT THE MANY % OF THE SWISS HAVE AUTOMATIC RIFLES AND HAVE CLOSE TO NO HOMICIDE!" yes, but you're talking about tiny homogenous population with close to no unemployement as well, not a country of 300 mil infested with niggers, economic disparity and illiteracy. within those parameters, it's only logic to make useless dangerous weapons unavailable and tighten control over the more reasonable ones.
in short, if there was a reasone to having pistols and automatics i would respect your 'values' but seeing that there is none other than comfort pussies like you, wtf is the point?
that was very long, i know.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-04-20 15:18:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/100809#2386211
Although I do not agree with gun control, this rebut against it used really misleading stats. They took the percentage difference between The United States and Britain, which his small, without looking at the relative difference. Although is difference is only 0.000000whatever percent, because BOTH figures are so low, that also means they have 300% more murders in comparison to Britain.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-20 13:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:31:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
besides, the US is the only nation that has more gun related violence than some third world countries and it leads rich countries by far.
unequal wealth distribution + easy access to guns = bad
gun nuts can argue that as much as they want, the stastics are still there against you.
-------------------
Wasn't owned (my article could be wrong), just have to work sometimes.
Sorry Caul, but the stats aren't there. Murder with guns may go down with gun bans (in th eUS with all the guns we have now it would be a nightmare to do it overnight, maybe it would be ok after decades of increasingly tough gun laws) but other crimes definately goes up.
But lets pretend for a moment that a gun ban would stop deaths. So what. Banning alcohol would get rid of all the drunk driving and other alcohol related deaths (drunk driving alone is greater than gun murder, I think)? Why don't we do that? It comes down to what you value. It comes down to you wanting the govt to decide what is safe for you. There is no right or wrong, but if you believe that alcohol should be allowed you have to be able to understand and appreciate the argument for allowing guns.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-20 13:35:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:07:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Indo, you have one article, with no sources written by an American (gun nut, just read it and hear the subtext), 6 years ago, talking about a two year period.
I have two articles based on three reports, with sources by Australians, written last year, talking about a 28 year period.
You asked for some longer term studies, well here are some.
Also, lots of guns are still legal, especially for farmers, things like shotguns and rifles. We tend to ban only handguns in a 'draconian' manner, sorry we also banned the "pretty" guns also. What kind of serious article talks about how pretty a gun is, and why it shouldn't be banned? But officer, it's too pretty, it wouldn't hurt a fly.
I love the language in your article. Some quotes
------------------------------------------------------------
And the two articles completely contradicted each other.
"Before the introduction of the law, the overall number of homicides not related to guns had increased 1% a year. After the law took effect, this number fell by almost 2.5% a year.
And the total numbers of suicides fell by 4% after having risen annually by 2% before the introduction of the gun laws." - physorg
"The report also found the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56." (also the chart in this article is exactly opposite of what the previous article said) SMH article.
The article I quoted was pro-gun, and could be wrong, but there is so,ething wrong with your sources when they say complletely different things.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2007-04-20 06:28:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I concur.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-20 00:55:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ripple (user info) at 2007-04-20 14:37:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck you all. if gun laws mean that ONE PERSON couldnt have killed ONE OTHER, it has been a success in that one less family will mourn.
----------------------
net or gross?
Submitted by ripple (user info) at 2007-04-20 00:37:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
fuck you all. if gun laws mean that ONE PERSON couldnt have killed ONE OTHER, it has been a success in that one less family will mourn.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:58:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I have little confidence in the US legislating a better ban."
Good point, probably best in the case of the usa to just toughen up the restrictions/controls and get rid of the loopholes.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:52:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:20:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
indoninja has just been owned but he won't admit it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:31:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
besides, the US is the only nation that has more gun related violence than some third world countries and it leads rich countries by far.
unequal wealth distribution + easy access to guns = bad
gun nuts can argue that as much as they want, the stastics are still there against you.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:24:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime#Australia
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:20:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
indoninja has just been owned but he won't admit it.
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 17:07:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:59:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-----------------------------
The two articles you quoted conradicted each other.
The first shows a steady decline in gun deaths before and after the ban (and two different studies had different opinions on the effect the gun ban had on it).
The second said that gun death had been on the rise before the ban and quotes no sources.
Anyway beside having a negligable effect on deaths per year and costing over 500 million dollars (just to buy back guns, not counting admin costs for such a program), what about the effect on other crime inAustralia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
--------------------
Indo, you have one article, with no sources written by an American (gun nut, just read it and hear the subtext), 6 years ago, talking about a two year period.
I have two articles based on three reports, with sources by Australians, written last year, talking about a 28 year period.
You asked for some longer term studies, well here are some.
Also, lots of guns are still legal, especially for farmers, things like shotguns and rifles. We tend to ban only handguns in a 'draconian' manner, sorry we also banned the "pretty" guns also. What kind of serious article talks about how pretty a gun is, and why it shouldn't be banned? But officer, it's too pretty, it wouldn't hurt a fly.
I love the language in your article. Some quotes:
"adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns " (draconian, but limited)
"Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment because the fate of the nation was determined by a handful of statist socialists who find individual freedom abhorrent" (we also felt large massacres of people abhorrent)
"stringent gun control at the expense of freedom" (not an issue, we don't have some constitutional loophole which says we must carry bazookas)
"They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns" (again, sorry)
"Australia remained a subject of Great British until 1986, when the last ties with the British crown were dissolved." (except for the queen still being our head of state)
"With only 19 million people" (way over, more like 21 million)
"hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections." (lack of big game, except for pigs, makes sport hunting prohibitive. Most guns are used by farmers to kill rabbits which are the biggest pests, and sometimes cull kangaroos)
"the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items including handcuffs were banned." (this government may be labelled the "Liberal" party but, confusingly for outsiders, this party is actually the right wing party. Both major parties actually agree on gun control. In fact the prime minister, a right winger, describes gun proliferation as the 'American disease'.)
"Like Americans, Australians loved and possessed firearms - that is, until the ban." (before and after the ban everyone except a few farmers felt exactly the same. Handguns had been banned all along, this ban was only a crack down on semi and auto rifles. There is a general revulsion of guns by most people.)
"Freedom has been extinguished. A way of life has ended." (this article is an opinion piece, not a good article to use.)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 13:27:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think you read too many books.
Mafia and organized crime don't shun guns because of societal norms, but because it draws more attention to their business."""
no shit. it's the same thing. in a society with few guns, even more reason to avoid using them to keep a low profile.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 12:55:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 10:52:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
he's not entirely wrong. petty criminals and street gangs my resort to guns but more 'classy' criminals, like organized crime, tend to shun guns. sure they'll use guns on each others (who cares) but the killing of innocent people (more likely to happen with guns) is frowned upon. i know it is in the mafia. i remember that during the biker war, those who injured or killed innocent bystanders were eliminated by their own.
not every criminal is a ruthless barbarian that is willing to shoot in the face.
------------------------------
I think you read too many books.
Mafia and organized crime don't shun guns because of societal norms, but because it draws more attention to their business.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-04-19 12:42:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-17 11:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
murder rate in UK .014063 per 1000
in US .042802 per 1000
That means your chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem.
--------------------
Most bizarre use of statistics ever.
Submitted by nitty34 (user info) at 2007-04-19 12:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Didn't read the shitstorm of comments.
Barely read the post.
But the title alone warrents a +2.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 10:52:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
he's not entirely wrong. petty criminals and street gangs my resort to guns but more 'classy' criminals, like organized crime, tend to shun guns. sure they'll use guns on each others (who cares) but the killing of innocent people (more likely to happen with guns) is frowned upon. i know it is in the mafia. i remember that during the biker war, those who injured or killed innocent bystanders were eliminated by their own.
not every criminal is a ruthless barbarian that is willing to shoot in the face.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 10:10:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
In a gun ban culture, even criminals are loathe to use guns because it is so frowned upon by everyone.
--------------------
hahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Yeah if only guns were frowned upon more criminals would throw them away.
I know, why don't we decide to "frown upon" rape, murder, and stealing so all the criminals stop. All this time I thought we needed real penalties and fear of incarceration(or fear of being killed) to keep people with no morals in line. All that money wasted on police, jails, and courts when all along all we needed to do was "frown upon" crime and it would go away.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:59:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
-----------------------------
The two articles you quoted conradicted each other.
The first shows a steady decline in gun deaths before and after the ban (and two different studies had different opinions on the effect the gun ban had on it).
The second said that gun death had been on the rise before the ban and quotes no sources.
Anyway beside having a negligable effect on deaths per year and costing over 500 million dollars (just to buy back guns, not counting admin costs for such a program), what about the effect on other crime inAustralia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:37:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 08:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they should teach children to charge school shooters with their bagpacks in front of them. we have drills for fire, nuclear bombs...etc, why not assault attention seeking schizo idiots with guns?
------------
There is a school in the Us where the principle taught the students that if an armed intruder entered the class they should throw books, papers and charge him. I think he lost his job, and while it may not be the best plan in all cases if a mob in one of the classes did bumrush this guy he wouldn't have killed as many people (not saying that is what I would have done, I probably would have been first out the window, this i just food for thought).
===
i'm sure the shooter would also be quite suprised to see the 'helpless little humans' charge him back. he wouldn't have time to reload and shooting a rushing mob is harder than shooting someone crouching under a table.
i'm not saying i would do this either, but remember that soldiers always say their training kicks in when they are in a dangerous situation. perhaps if we taught kids at an early age to charge those morons, enough of them would have the self-preserving instinctive reaction to fight back instead of hiding (and dying). it might also be a deterrent for kids growing up with the fantasy of killing their schoolmates.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:30:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by pobz (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:18:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Never mind the parents, stop bully the weird kids at school cos these are the ones that now come back and shoot you!
Next time you point and laugh at an emo in the corridor remember he may come back to get you!
===
he wasn't bullied and by other students account, they did try to integrate him.
besides, everyone is bullied at one point or another. whether you're a popular kid or a marginal, someone will eventually take a giant shit on you. being bullied doesn't justify shooting people you short-sighted moron.
Submitted by pobz (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:18:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Never mind the parents, stop bully the weird kids at school cos these are the ones that now come back and shoot you!
Next time you point and laugh at an emo in the corridor remember he may come back to get you!
Submitted by spyder882001 (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:17:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
in columbus ohio you can buy pistols for like 15 bucks on the street. seriously ppl will walk up 2 ur can and be like "hey bro wanna buy a gun" gun laws are futile
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:15:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
First an old review that sums up some facts:
Submitted by phauna (user info) at 2007-01-03 18:44:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good points, there is a spectrum, not only two polar opposites.
Anyway, here is a news item about a recent report done in Australia after the gun buyback scheme. This shows a marked decrease in gun suicides and gun homicides:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html
The gist is "492 firearm suicides a year" before buyback and "that figure dropped to 247 in the seven years for which reliable figures are available".
And "the rate of gun homicides fell from an annual average of 93 in the 18 years before 1996 to an annual average of 56."
There is a bit at the end about a different study which had findings which said the buyback made no difference at all as rates were already falling.
"""Both found that the rate of gun suicide declined faster after the gun buyback and neither found any significant difference in the rate of decline in gun homicide before and after the gun buyback," he said.""" (Another snippet)
---------------------------------------
Another news item, same report:
http://www.physorg.com/news85298565.html
""total numbers of suicides fell by 4% after having risen annually by 2% before the introduction of the gun laws.""
""Before the introduction of the law, the overall number of homicides not related to guns had increased 1% a year. After the law took effect, this number fell by almost 2.5% a year.""
""The fall in the number of deaths associated with the use of firearms, including suicides, rapidly accelerated after the law took effect. The decline was at least twice as high (6%) as it had been before the reforms were introduced.""
""The study shows that in the 18 years before the legislation was passed, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia, in which 112 people died and 52 were wounded. There have been no mass shootings since the law came into force."" (<-- which happened ten years ago.)
***************************************
Now, some things I've newly thought up. If this kid wanted to kill people, that's pretty normal, but he had access to guns. Worse though is the "gun culture" which you all know about if you are American. Guns are glorified, looked on as totally normal or even a must have. People congratulate each other on being a 'reponsible citizen' (a gun toting prick). Guns are thought of as the embodiment of freedom, of machismo, of power and many other things. Most of you are bantering on about how great guns are, how they can solve all problems, how many you have, what kind, how the government is kept in place totally by an armed populace. You know, normal talk for civilized folk.
Well, that is all a crock of complete shit. Many countries still have accountable governments without an armed populace. America has, in fact, a quite shitty government and guns didn't prevent that happening. Where was the uprising against Bush's vote rigging? Where were the armed citizens responsibly demanding a recount and some accountability?
People in America have no revulsion of guns. The opposite if anything. Your logic of more guns, scared criminals goes both ways. Less guns equals less scared criminals, means less criminals needing guns. In a gun ban culture, even criminals are loathe to use guns because it is so frowned upon by everyone.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 09:14:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 08:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they should teach children to charge school shooters with their bagpacks in front of them. we have drills for fire, nuclear bombs...etc, why not assault attention seeking schizo idiots with guns?
------------
There is a school in the Us where the principle taught the students that if an armed intruder entered the class they should throw books, papers and charge him. I think he lost his job, and while it may not be the best plan in all cases if a mob in one of the classes did bumrush this guy he wouldn't have killed as many people (not saying that is what I would have done, I probably would have been first out the window, this i just food for thought).
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-19 08:43:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they should teach children to charge school shooters with their bagpacks in front of them. we have drills for fire, nuclear bombs...etc, why not assault attention seeking schizo idiots with guns?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-19 07:18:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:32:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"It is a question of resources. If guns were made illegal tomorrow you would have a lot more criminals. A lot of people wouldn't just turn in their guns. And since we have millions of gun owners in the US who aren't tracked we would have millions of guns ready to be sold on the black market, or hoarded from the cops who whould have to waste time tracking them down."
Absolutely, of course there would still be many many existing guns out there, but it would be a lot harder for someone who wanted a gun to get one....and the existing guns would be gradually tracked down.
That sounds mad.....and it is......the problem is that the handgun ban was very very poorly legislated, it banned handguns, but not objects that are essentially handguns in waiting.......it is extremely easy to convert certain bb guns into a working handgun, and such guns-to-be are available for anyone to walk in and buy in any city centre. I could go and buy 50 of them tomorrow, and convert them myself after a bit of internet research.
-------------------------------
I am very worried about the interim crime rate while the cops are tracking the guns down. I am also worried about the skyrocketing assaults, rape and robberies that have gone hand in hand with every weapons ban (NZ, Australia, and UK). I would rather the US continue its current approach in criem reduction which has been more successful at reducing crime over the last 15 years than any country that has tried to ban weapons.
I have little confidence in the US legislating a better ban. I am all for waiting periods, background checks to get guns, and stiffer penaltied for people with illegal weapons (we also have som crazy rules about gun shows where you can basically buy anything with no background check). I know this wouldn't stop VT type scenarios, but I think it is silly to legislate based on the exceptions and headline making tragedies. I would rather lawmakers focus on the much more common "day to day murders" (for lack of a better phrase).
Submitted by Snare (user info) at 2007-04-18 23:31:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Way I figure, you the more you Yanks fight gun laws, the more of you get killed as a consequnce.
Goodness reigns.
Submitted by BeaverDamn (user info) at 2007-04-18 22:40:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 21:16:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ticklish_squirrel (user info) at 2007-04-18 19:21:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, I kinda see where you're coming from. Psychos will still find guns, even after the rest of civilization has laid theirs to rest.
If EVERYONE had a gun, then that stupid fuck would've had his brains smeared on the chalkboard by 32 other gun-toters before he managed to pull his own fricken trigger.
----------
if everyone had a gun, he would be going in with grenades..
----------
Where the hell would you get grenades from?
But I guess it doesn't matter though because he could just plant some plastic explosives.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 21:16:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ticklish_squirrel (user info) at 2007-04-18 19:21:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, I kinda see where you're coming from. Psychos will still find guns, even after the rest of civilization has laid theirs to rest.
If EVERYONE had a gun, then that stupid fuck would've had his brains smeared on the chalkboard by 32 other gun-toters before he managed to pull his own fricken trigger.
----------
if everyone had a gun, he would be going in with grenades..
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-18 20:59:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"[S]cholars point to a dramatic effect on firearm deaths in Australia as a result of the post-Port Arthur massacre gun restriction and buyback. A peer-reviewed article by scholars at Monash University, looked at mortality statistics and firearm deaths over three periods of regulatory reform and found that "dramatic reductions in overall firearm related deaths and particularly suicides by firearms were achieved in the context of the implementation of strong regulatory reform."
Other studies have supported the conclusion of a reduction in firearm crimes as a result of regulation."
And THAT, my friend, is a direct quote from wikipedia.
Submitted by manic_impressive (user info) at 2007-04-18 20:56:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
+1 for this:
"That's a direct quote from wikipedia."
Nice research skills, Doctor.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-04-18 20:19:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ubersite gets that nice mix of posts containing obscenity-filled bad jokes, and long philosophical debates about controversial issues such as gun control.
Submitted by ticklish_squirrel (user info) at 2007-04-18 19:21:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yeah, I kinda see where you're coming from. Psychos will still find guns, even after the rest of civilization has laid theirs to rest.
If EVERYONE had a gun, then that stupid fuck would've had his brains smeared on the chalkboard by 32 other gun-toters before he managed to pull his own fricken trigger.
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2007-04-18 18:53:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"That's a direct quote from wikipedia. "
ahahahahahaahahahahah
hahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA
HA
HA
Nice source...
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-18 17:24:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
-------
No, let's not. That thought is just foolish. No one will stop you on the sidewalk and demand your property or person under threat of a nuclear weapon. No person will respond to such an attack by setting off a nuclear weapon. A handgun is a personal weapon designed to be used by an individual. Nuclear weapons are not. Apples and Oranges, stfu.
And before everyone loses sight of the legality issue: while the shooter did purchase the guns legally, he then brought them onto a school campus. That violates the Statutes of Virginia as well as Federal Law. Enforce the laws already in place and there would have been no guns at V Tech.
----
Actually, Because Virginia Tech is a "gun-free" zone, the university police officers weren't allowed to carry sidearms, which is why police were not able to respond quickly or properly in this situation. It's Virginia's ridiculous gun laws that makes crime so easy. Anybody can purchase a gun but the police are not allowed to do their jobs to enforce what few gun restrictions they have. Make the restrictions tighter on who can buy them and let POLICE OFFICERS have all the guns they want.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 17:09:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
-------
No, let's not. That thought is just foolish. No one will stop you on the sidewalk and demand your property or person under threat of a nuclear weapon. No person will respond to such an attack by setting off a nuclear weapon. A handgun is a personal weapon designed to be used by an individual. Nuclear weapons are not. Apples and Oranges, stfu.
And before everyone loses sight of the legality issue: while the shooter did purchase the guns legally, he then brought them onto a school campus. That violates the Statutes of Virginia as well as Federal Law. Enforce the laws already in place and there would have been no guns at V Tech.
------------
if a mentally ill person can buy a gun legally, then your laws are fucked up..
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:32:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"It is a question of resources. If guns were made illegal tomorrow you would have a lot more criminals. A lot of people wouldn't just turn in their guns. And since we have millions of gun owners in the US who aren't tracked we would have millions of guns ready to be sold on the black market, or hoarded from the cops who whould have to waste time tracking them down."
Absolutely, of course there would still be many many existing guns out there, but it would be a lot harder for someone who wanted a gun to get one....and the existing guns would be gradually tracked down.
By the way, the UK case of rising gun crime after the ban is an interesting one.
before the ban, someone wanting to own a gun would need to meet certain conditions....it would be registered....and you'd need a license.....depended what kind of gun you wanted.
after the handgun ban anyone wanting to own a handgun would go into a shop and buy one with no checks or licence at all.
That sounds mad.....and it is......the problem is that the handgun ban was very very poorly legislated, it banned handguns, but not objects that are essentially handguns in waiting.......it is extremely easy to convert certain bb guns into a working handgun, and such guns-to-be are available for anyone to walk in and buy in any city centre. I could go and buy 50 of them tomorrow, and convert them myself after a bit of internet research.
In the case of the UK, guns actually DID become easier to obtain after the ban.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:28:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:19:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"More people are killed in drunk driving accidents than in gun deaths."
This may be wrong, I can't find the stat for this now. But suicide is included in a lot of gun related deaths so calling death by drinking a suicide doesn't negate it as something the state should ban if we are just looking at deaths caused by it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:19:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:11:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There are responsible uses but but no need for it (there is alegitimate need for guns in some areas, ask a convenience store clerk who has pulled one). It kills more than guns."
that's very different too, alcohol kills a lot of people....but the vasy majority of the people it kills are people who chose to use alcohol.....suicide (kinda).
----------------------------------
More people are killed in drunk driving accidents than in gun deaths. It isn't suicide when a drunk plows into a family.
If you think it is reasonable to take away law abiding citizens right to own a gun what is the justification for taking away their right to drink? Used safely it hurts no one. True you can't kill a large group of people with alcohol, but if you look at the big picture it is a bigger killer than guns.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
-------
No, let's not. That thought is just foolish. No one will stop you on the sidewalk and demand your property or person under threat of a nuclear weapon. No person will respond to such an attack by setting off a nuclear weapon. A handgun is a personal weapon designed to be used by an individual. Nuclear weapons are not. Apples and Oranges, stfu.
And before everyone loses sight of the legality issue: while the shooter did purchase the guns legally, he then brought them onto a school campus. That violates the Statutes of Virginia as well as Federal Law. Enforce the laws already in place and there would have been no guns at V Tech.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:15:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:04:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"We can't keep guns out of criminals hands now, how are we going to when cops are busy chasing after otherwise law abiding citizens?"
So you really disagree with my chainsaw analogy?
You really think that criminals would find it EASIER to get/keep guns if they were illegal?
If the answer to that is yes, then I suppose it's simply a difference of opinion/prediction, and though I think that would be a rather nutty opinion/prediction to have/make, that's your choice......if the answer's no then I really don't get what you're saying
-------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't a simple yes or no answer.
It is a question of resources. If guns were made illegal tomorrow you would have a lot more criminals. A lot of people wouldn't just turn in their guns. And since we have millions of gun owners in the US who aren't tracked we would have millions of guns ready to be sold on the black market, or hoarded from the cops who whould have to waste time tracking them down.
You don't seem to grasp how many more guns we have in the US compared to the UK prior to the gun ban. Even in the UK the gun ban hasn't significantly cut gun crime. How much good do you think it would do in the US?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:11:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There are responsible uses but but no need for it (there is alegitimate need for guns in some areas, ask a convenience store clerk who has pulled one). It kills more than guns."
that's very different too, alcohol kills a lot of people....but the vasy majority of the people it kills are people who chose to use alcohol.....suicide (kinda).
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:07:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, seriously, prevented what?
I live under a rock. A rock without cable.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:05:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:53:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
oranges and apples, stfu
--------------------
What about alcohol?
There are responsible uses but but no need for it (there is alegitimate need for guns in some areas, ask a convenience store clerk who has pulled one). It kills more than guns.
It comes down to what rights you think the govt should be able to take from you in the name of safety.
I happen to feel particulary strongly about letting the govt take gun rights because in countries where it has happened crime has gone up, and in the US we can't get the guns out of criminals hands now.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:04:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"We can't keep guns out of criminals hands now, how are we going to when cops are busy chasing after otherwise law abiding citizens?"
So you really disagree with my chainsaw analogy?
You really think that criminals would find it EASIER to get/keep guns if they were illegal?
If the answer to that is yes, then I suppose it's simply a difference of opinion/prediction, and though I think that would be a rather nutty opinion/prediction to have/make, that's your choice......if the answer's no then I really don't get what you're saying
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 16:01:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:58:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind. """
let's all have nuclear weapons then!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:54:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:33:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
In otherwords, when you say "chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem."
What you actually mean using the correct figures (taken from the statistics that you linked, so you can hardly argue with them) is 'chances of being murdered in the US are 3.8 times higher with our out of control gun problem'
That adds up to an extra 12,534 people murdered each year in the usa (and yes, that does take into account the difference in population).
So when you say you value your right to own a gun more than the 0.000028% greater chance of being killed.....what you actually mean is you value your right to own a gun more than 12,534 people losing their lives each year.
Although the liberal part of me aggrees with you that people should have the right to own guns, the realistic part of me says people cannot be trusted not to shoot each other with them. And your figures show that all too well.
----------------------------------------
Let me try and make it simple.
Lets say you have a one in a million chance of winning wit one lottery ticket, then your chances of winning are .0001%. If you buy three your chances are three times as high, but your increse in chance to win is only .0002%.
So the increase by .0028% is just as accurate as three times more likely.
And that is a make believe argument. If you want to talk realistic banning guns WOULD NOT STOP GUN CRIME. It didn't stop gun crime in the UK. In fact gun crime has incresed in the UK after the gun ban, while gun crime in the US has gone down. You are also ignoring how we have absurdly more guns in the US. If there were real moves to make them illegal don't you htink there would be stockpiling and an increase in the black market of guns?
You would have an argument if somehow magically a ban would make every gun disappear, but it wouldn't. We can't keep guns out of criminals hands now, how are we going to when cops are busy chasing after otherwise law abiding citizens?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:53:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i love how people compare carswith guns.
first of all, cars are used for transportation, guns are made to kill.
billions are spent to control traffic and regulate car safety. the only money spent on guns is to make them more efficient.
fast transport is useful and accounts for one of the main factor for our current way of life, guns don't do shit
in large majority, people kill others with their vehicles by accident or out of neglect (alcohol). with guns it's the other way around. most homicides are caused voluntarily.
yes, cars are pretty dangerous but if you were exposed to as many guns daily, i assure your life expectancy would drop significantly.
oranges and apples, stfu
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:36:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
*nods at woody*
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:33:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well I guess no-one wants to argue my points with me......and Indoninja, your maths is.....insane.....I have no clue where you're getting that figure from, I'll try and work out something for you hang on......
going by your figures (that link you posted) the usa had 3.72 gun killings and England/Wales had 0.11 (Scotlands figure was only very very slightly higher and the relative population of England and Scotland means it would have a negligble affect to indluce the figures....and no way in hell am I listening to any twat who thinks I should include the terrorism shootings in NI)
So that's 3.61 gun killings in the usa that didn't happen in the UK.....however there is of course the fact that some people would in the abscence of guns use other means.
UK homicide rates (again excluding NI, but Scotland is different enough to make a difference so I've added that in) are 1.5, usa is 5.7
In other words 4.2 more people are killed per 100,000 in the usa.....or each individual has a 0.000042% greater chance of getting killed. That doesn't sound much, but considering a UK persons chance of being murdered is only 0.000015% IN TOTAL 0.000042% is a lot.
Think about that.....your additional likelyhood of being murdered in the usa is more than twice as much as the total likelyhood of being murdered in the uk.
In otherwords, when you say "chances of being murdered in the US are .000028% higher in the US with our out of control gun problem."
What you actually mean using the correct figures (taken from the statistics that you linked, so you can hardly argue with them) is 'chances of being murdered in the US are 3.8 times higher with our out of control gun problem'
That adds up to an extra 12,534 people murdered each year in the usa (and yes, that does take into account the difference in population).
So when you say you value your right to own a gun more than the 0.000028% greater chance of being killed.....what you actually mean is you value your right to own a gun more than 12,534 people losing their lives each year.
Although the liberal part of me aggrees with you that people should have the right to own guns, the realistic part of me says people cannot be trusted not to shoot each other with them. And your figures show that all too well.
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:31:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The US has all the gun laws it needs already. And yes, this kid bought his guns legally. The guys who flew the planes into the WTC towers took their training legally too. Car crashes kill hundreds of people daily, and almost all involve legally licensed drivers. Legality is not the issue.
Guns can be used for good purposes or bad purposes. The presence of guns in the hands of private citizens of the US is a crime deterrent at the same time that it is occasionally a crime enabler. Most important in this thought is the point that the gun does deter the crime nor does it commit the crime. It is the presence of the gun AND the will to use it that has the effect. Would I give you my money just because you told me to? No. If you have a knife? Perhaps. If you have a gun? More likely. But what if I have a gun? Will you tell me to give you my money? Not likely. If you have a knife? Still not likely. If you have a gun too? Slightly more likely. But our guns do not make the decisions for us. You and I decide the outcome of that situation. The gun is not the issue.
It is the mindset of the people involved that leads to situations involving violence. The presence or absence of a particular weapon does not change the foundation of the situation, only the possible outcome. It is foolish to say that the guy would not have killed anyone if he had no guns. It is more reasonable to say that fewer people would have died if he had no guns. But it is not foolish at all to say that there would have been no shooting if the guy wasn't motivated to kill in the first place. The availablity of guns is not relevant to the guy's state of mind.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:15:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
say if everyone was pro-gun,
and everyone had a gun to protect themselves..
and following this line of thinking,
the criminals will now go get hand-grenades so they can rob you..what next?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:11:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
- unequal wealth redistribution
- low collective IQ
- high rate of brown people
add to that no restriction on guns, it's no wonder school shootings are about as frequent in the US as bombings are in Iraq.
----------------------------------
But brown people don't do school shootings.
I can't wait until Jesse Jackson and Al sharpton get a hold of this one.
It was bad enough when only white people went on school shooting sprees, but now asian people, first generation asian people at that, are pulling ahead of blacks in school shooting. If that isn't an indication of the oppression inherent in the system towards blacks I don't know what is.
Submitted by awesome_face (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:08:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Drugs are illegal, people are still able to get them, people still use them.
Drugs aren't very different from guns in this case. As long as their is a demand then somebody will supply it. There is no way to win the war against firearm related violence, but you can certainly make it worse. Banning firearms will do just that.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-04-18 15:06:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Prevented what?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:48:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
of course we had more school shootings, population wise, in my province than in the US but that's just a statistical anomaly :P
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:47:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Caul's comment just made me literally laugh out loud
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
- unequal wealth redistribution
- low collective IQ
- high rate of brown people
add to that no restriction on guns, it's no wonder school shootings are about as frequent in the US as bombings are in Iraq.
Submitted by yhywstudios (user info) at 2007-04-18 14:37:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anyway unless you can find some long term study that proves gun bans are specifically responsible for stopping gun crime it is pretty unreasonable to assume these studies are flawed just because you like gun bans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm actually undecided on this one and was just merely correcting what I perceived to be an overstatement of the studies implication. You make a good point generally.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 13:26:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by yhywstudios (user info) at 2007-04-18 13:10:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think its abit unfair to dismiss the effectiveness of gun banning based on one years worth of tabulated data. Surely the politicians who enacted these policies were thinking in terms of long term cost benefit. A 10 years survey would be a much better judge on its effectiveness, but since that is too long a timespan, we could try asking a suitable question which results can be immediately measured.
I.e Are there any exisitng data/ways in which we can measure the long term correlation between gun crimes and gun laws such that external factors can be accounted for in a statistically satisfactory manner.
And since its only in the long run which we are interested in, what you have quoted doesnt bear any significance to the debate. It is however a very good thing to abuse, since most people dont understand statistics.
----------------------
It is all the data I could find.
I know in the UK gun crime continued to rise pretty much every year since the gun ban, while in the US it has been falling pretty steadily for the last 15 years.
Long term studies also introduce a lot of uncertanties. I.E the general crime rate can vary a lot over a ten year period, but not much over a two year period, which makes it easier to isolate individual actions and their effect on certain types of crime.
Anyway unless you can find some long term study that proves gun bans are specifically responsible for stopping gun crime it is pretty unreasonable to assume these studies are flawed just because you like gun bans. I doubt the politicians were thinking longer than the next election.
Submitted by yhywstudios (user info) at 2007-04-18 13:10:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
From Australia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
This is pretty dated, but all I could find. Doesn't really inspire confidence in gun bans.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its abit unfair to dismiss the effectiveness of gun banning based on one years worth of tabulated data. Surely the politicians who enacted these policies were thinking in terms of long term cost benefit. A 10 years survey would be a much better judge on its effectiveness, but since that is too long a timespan, we could try asking a suitable question which results can be immediately measured.
I.e Are there any exisitng data/ways in which we can measure the long term correlation between gun crimes and gun laws such that external factors can be accounted for in a statistically satisfactory manner.
And since its only in the long run which we are interested in, what you have quoted doesnt bear any significance to the debate. It is however a very good thing to abuse, since most people dont understand statistics.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 11:38:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hear hear, danger dude
Submitted by dangerdude (user info) at 2007-04-18 11:33:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Perkman, I just wanted to say something.
You're looking way too far into the situation and you're dishing out way too much misplaced blame.
A firearm is a tool. It is designed in every way to be a machine which kills.
Be it hunting or self-preservation, it doesn't matter. The GUN isn't what is killing. The gun is merely executing an action, a function of its user.
The person pulling the trigger is where the problem lies and that person is where the blame should be placed. If a man can decide to take another man's life then they should obviously be in question.
There is no amount of testing that can read into the future. There is no background check in the WORLD that will reveal exactly how someone will snap if they're pushed to their limits. You can't screen for things which you can't even define. There is no way to prevent this by CONTROLLING firearms. You're already doing almost all that you can to prevent abuse of the most lethal firearms, IE, concealed weapons and automatic weapons.
The problem is society. The problem is people. The problem is the way the media creates this over-sensational image of this whole clusterfuck. By showing everyone exactly how devastating this is, by letting them know it CAN happen and it WILL happen, by showing all of this shit on TV and having program after program go through every conceivable reason why and how it happened. That only FEEDS the menace, it shows the kids who are being pushed over the edge where to strike and how to strike the hardest. Kids who are on edge don't want to fade away quietly, they want to cause pain and suffering to the community which either abused them or ignored their problems.
The problem is people. We're fucking apathetic. Our communities grow and everyone grows apart, everyone changes. Society is ever-increasingly fucked up. Pair really shitty lives with really shitty people and a lot of strain and you get blowouts. Sometimes these blow outs walk around with a 9mm and when they go out its more than just a bang. The only way to stop this kind of massacre is to prevent this shit from even seeding. It's to help the kids that need help and fucking lock up the ones who can't deal.
Tougher penalties for those who fuck up with guns and a more sincere populous, especially in school. There definitely aren't enough councilors (there weren't when I went to highschool a few years back) to deal with all the kids and their petty bullshit.
--------
I'll concede that society is in part to blame. There were warning signs that this was coming. This kid wrote disturbing pieces in his creative writing class and the English department head at V-Tech actually recommended this kid for counselling several times, and actually went to the police department with concerns over his mental health. and this was in 2005! but nothing was done, and the kid was quickly forgotten. This kid was angry because society had basically ignored him and left him alone. People lash out because of this all the time, whether it be a 12-year old kid who starts fights for attention, or a 23-year old loner college student who blows away 32 people for no apparent reason. The problem is BECAUSE society is so fucked up we need to get rid of the MEANS to cause so much damage. This kid would never have been able obtain the guns he used illegally. This case didn't happen in some gang-riddled city where he could have gone to some street corner and bought a used pistol for $100, and in fact I dont believe a kid like this would have had the guts to do so. No, this happened in Blacksburg, VA, a town of a few thousand and in fact the university is about 3 times the size of the town. Instead this kid snapped one day, went down to the local gun store with a smile on his face and picked up 2 shiny new pistols LEGALLY, and then went and blew his classmates away. The fact is that I personally don't trust society enough to let people carry guns and use them responsibly, there are too many fucked up people out there that can do this exact thing. I personally dont want guns banned entirely, I feel that people have a right to use them recreationally and for defense, but handguns are the #1 cause of violent gun crime, specifically because a kid can throw them in his backpack and bring them to school, or stick one in his pants and rob a liquor store. If the kid had a rifle or a shotgun, he would never have been able to sneak it into his dorm room in the first place, and this never would have happened.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 11:11:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
haha, i don't really have an opinion either way..
but if you're being robbed, you won't know untill you have a gun in your face..
so it wouldn't make any difference if you were packing anyway..
might make the robber more jittery though..
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:55:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
do you have data seprating gun crime and gun deaths?
i would imagine the criminal would be less likely to shoot somebody if he knew the victims weren't likely to have guns..
-----------------
www.nationmaster.com lots of great stats.
But your line of thinking, if I follow it correctly, hurts my soul.
Are you trying to make an argument for gun control by saying criminals won't shoot honest citizens as much if they don't have guns to fight back with? Following that line of reasoning I shouldn't have a lock on my door because it will make a criminal break my door down.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
do you have data seprating gun crime and gun deaths?
i would imagine the criminal would be less likely to shoot somebody if he knew the victims weren't likely to have guns..
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:33:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2007-04-17 18:08:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
gun control is a horrible idea
_________
Nice to see you expounding on your opinions, Bart Bart.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:30:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i'm from NZ, if you could show me the stats of gun crime here and if it's bad - maybe it could shift my point of view alittle - but the fact is, everyone, criminal and honest has acsess to guns too easliy in your country, i visited america a few years ago and my hotel had to get evacuated because some doctor had been gunned down in the lobby --- and everyone there treated it like it wasnt a big deal. Some guy got fucking shot and people went on as if it was an inconvenice to them.
with guns it's too easy to shoot now think later, except later there's alot of people dead
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:29:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
From Australia?
"Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies, an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults, and a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent.
Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery - until the ban."
This is pretty dated, but all I could find. Doesn't really inspire confidence in gun bans.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/6/26/12629
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:21:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:15:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so no, i will never understand 'gun culture' i just know that if america had stricter gun laws - this probably wouldnt have happened. cos according to the reports i've seen - this guy wasnt a criminal and had gotten his guns legally - just like the columbine kids.
--------------------------
Lets pretend that someone hell bent on going on a shooting spree wouldn't have gotten guns illegally.
What about all the other criminals who are stopped or deterred from crime by gun carrying citizens?
I know this is an attention getting tragedy, but mass shootings really don't concern me. Many more people die from "regular" crime related deaths.
By the way what country are you from? I am guessing NZ or Australia? I would be really interested in gun crime data from there. If the laws have helped cut crime down that much I am suprised I have never seen them mentioned in anti-gun campaigners literature.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:15:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so no, i will never understand 'gun culture' i just know that if america had stricter gun laws - this probably wouldnt have happened. cos according to the reports i've seen - this guy wasnt a criminal and had gotten his guns legally - just like the columbine kids.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 10:03:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I cant speak for the UK, seeing as i don't live there, and you can spout all the facts that you want, but i can honestly say that i feel safer for living in a gun-free place - our police officers don't even carry guns, i've never seen a gun, i've never heard of anyone close to me having died from a gunshot wound let alone seen one. I live in a poor district and i can guarantee that i will never be shot in a 'driveby' to use the american term.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 09:50:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 09:36:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you just don't fucking get it do you? so saying the 'honest people' had a gun that day (at VT)that 30 people wouldnt have died? the shooter would have walked into the classroom and been faced with 'honest people' with their guns and there would have been this heroic showdown?
Guns will never solve the problem, they will always be the cause
----------------------------------
No, you don't get it.
In the grand scheme of gun deaths in the US this is a fucking blip.
It is no reason to go ape shit and start making laws that will do absolutely ntohing to stop crime. We can't get guns out of the hands of criminals now. What makes you think a gun ban, that will create much more work for police who have to take guns from otherwise honest citizens, will somehow allow them to more effectively take guns from criminals?
Gun crimes went *UP* in the Uk after the ban. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm
Gun ownership by private citizens is a bigger deterrent to criminals than the cops when it comes to break ins (the only crime talked about in the quoted study). If your gun ban is so great why has crime shot through the roof in the UK compared tot he US in the last 10 years? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
The fact is that the gun ban in the UK did not work and it would much more difficult to enforce in the US given the number of our guns (illegal and legal). All it would do in the US is leave an armed criminal element and strip honest citizens of their rights and the ability to defend themselves.
I don't think everyone having a gun is reasonable or even possible. But in two recent cases in the US shooters on rampages in schools have been stopped with private citizens using their personal weapons.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 09:36:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
and once criminals knew they had nothing to fear from honest people crime would go through the roof.
-----
you just don't fucking get it do you? so saying the 'honest people' had a gun that day (at VT)that 30 people wouldnt have died? the shooter would have walked into the classroom and been faced with 'honest people' with their guns and there would have been this heroic showdown?
Guns will never solve the problem, they will always be the cause
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:57:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You can bring up the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' but guns make it alot fucking easier.
--------------------------------
Mass shootings get everyones attention but are a miniscule portion fo the gun deaths.
People for gun bans in the US don't have a leg to stand on with their argument unless they can explain how to get guns away from criminals, which we can't do now. All a ban would do is to take guns from people who wouldn't use them for crimes anyway.
and once criminals knew they had nothing to fear from honest people crime would go through the roof.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's very typical that some americans - after all that has happened recently - can still think that thier gun laws are alright. What the fuck will it take for people to get it? the last gun massacre that happened here (NZ) was in 1990 at Aramoana and our gun control laws got strict - so much so that it has not happened again in 17 years. on a larger scale, australia went through the port arthur massacre and their gun control laws got strict - and it hasnt happened again. But in the red corner we have the americans who have barely gotten over columbine and the social consequences that came with that and well hey some guy went 'hey im gonna shoot me some people today'. Guns are the problem - if he had walked in there with a fucking steak knife the casulty list would probably sit at... 2 and with a gun...30
You can bring up the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' but guns make it alot fucking easier.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:51:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 07:51:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry, just how did you come up with .000028%?
i think you should've multiplied it by 10 instead of dividing it by 1000, % are over 100, not 1000000
----------------------------------
.028 murders per 1000 people.
(.028)/1000 = (.0028)/100 = .0028%
I have no idea where I pulled those extra two zero's from.
But still I am willing to risk my .0028% chance increase of being murdered for the right to bear arms, especially considering gun bans in Britian did not decrease the gun crime rate.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they need guns because white boys can't fight..
----------------------------------
Then why do black people commit most of the gun crime when they are a minority in the US?
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by sexualchocolate1984 (user info) at 2007-04-18 05:44:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why exactly is it you yanks need guns? They should have no place in any civilised society - OK answered my own question there - Civilised
--------
they need guns because white boys can't fight..
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2007-04-18 08:03:47