I have a cartoon posted on my wall. I cannot read the author’s signature, or I would provide it, or a link to the cartoon. I shall attempt to describe it:
Two men are seen standing next to and setting up a large video camera. The camera is pointed at a rifle sitting on a stand on a table. One man is saying, “It’s an assault rifle. When it slinks off to kill someone we’ll catch it on film.”
I see this cartoon daily and I laugh at it all the time. The cartoon is from 2001, yet it’s still very relavent. Clearly there’s still some people who honestly believe that these inanimate metal objects are capable of independent thought and action. You can read about some of these people at the New York Times. The editorial is titled, “The Toll of Small Arms.” Are there people who read these things and actually believe them?
In the article, the authors clearly state their point: Guns are bad:
the Democratic Republic of Congo remains in the grip of civil war. The reason is clear. A flood of small arms and light weapons undermines the 17,000 United Nations troops mandate to protect civilians.
They are actually attempting to create a relationship between small arms and war. They believe that because there are weapons that there is a war. They don’t seem to realize that there was war long before there were guns, and there is still fighting even when there are NOT guns. Guns are not capable of causing wars, yet these authors actually think that they do.
In addition, the authors are complaining that the mission of the UN is undercut by these metal objects. There’s 17,000 U.N. troops there, but they can’t seem to manage some people with small arms. You’d think the U.N. would be better armed, but not according to these authors.
The authors go on to say that
Suffering will continue until governments recognize the obvious — that the vast majority of illicitly traded arms begin as legally produced weapons.
So the New York Times actually believes that if there are no guns, then there will be no war. It’s a logical extension of their vision of utopia, but it has absolutely nothing to do with reality. If you accept their view, then apparently there were no Crusades. The history books must all be wrong about the Roman and Greek empires. And that whole “Viking conquest” was just fairy tales. After all, according to the Times, without guns, there is no war.
Accompanying the insanity that is the editorial is a chart with pictures and figures — and even they contradict themselves! In one section, the chart states that
3.9 million people have died as a result of the conflict from August 1998 and April 2004 [sic]
Then, just a couple paragraphs later it says
Over 70% of the deaths — most of which are due to treatable diseases — occur in the eastern part of the country
So MOST of the deaths are NOT from inanimate metal objects running around attacking people, but from treatable diseases!
The chart also goes on to claim that 1,000 people a day die as a result of guns. The number is inflated, but they actually do provide the detail that only 250 people a day die as a result of “direct war deaths.” Did you know that 3,288 people are killed EVERY DAY as a result of traffic accidents and 1,370 people die every day from drowning?
This editorial is nothing but an attack on gun ownership. The New York Times doesn’t like you having guns — because you might use them against an oppresive government. And in case you missed the footnotes, let’s look at the authorities who penned this article.
Mvemba Phezo Dizolele, a journalist, recently traveled in Congo on a grant from the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.
So this author was paid to go provide anti-gun and anti-freedom information on a grant from an organization trying to advance liberalism and crush freedom.
Rachel Stohl is a senior analyst at the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information.
Ditto. The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting is a part of the World Security Institute. They just give them different names so it would have the sound of more authority.
Mgmt. design is a graphic design studio.
That is NOT a mis-quote. A graphic design studio is listed as the author of this Times Editorial. I’m going to assume they’re responsible for the graphical charts, but that’s clearly not what the article actually says.
Mvemba and Rachel, you are just plain wrong. Removing guns from people will not make the war end. Disarming people has never, in all of the history of mankind, reduced violence. It only allows dictators more control and people less freedom. Stop trying to force your false utopia on people and support freedom for once.
Said Ogre @ 1:00 pm | Permalink
Exactly how are the two statistics quoted above “contradictory”? Most of the deaths have occured due to treatable diseases. Why haven’t these diseases been treated? Because armed gangs prevent aid workers and doctors and public health officials from doing their jobs. Plus many of the people are forced to become refugees and live in horrible conditions. You don’t see the cause-and-effect?
You write, “There’s 17,000 U.N. troops there, but they can’t seem to manage some people with small arms.”
The United States has the most powerful military in the history of the world, and we aren’t doing too well in Iraq against insurgents and terrorists armed mostly with rifles and homemade bombs.
You write, “The chart also goes on to claim that 1,000 people a day die as a result of guns. The number is inflated…”
The authors got that statistic from the British medical journal The Lancet. You say that number is inflated; where does your information come from?
You write, “This editorial is nothing but an attack on gun ownership.”
First of all, this wasn’t an editorial–it’s an op-ed piece. It’s not the offical position of the New York Times. Second, your statement is demonstrably false. The authors write, “Suffering will continue until governments recognize the obvious — that the vast majority of illicitly traded arms begin as legally produced weapons. They must agree to control legal transfers of arms by adopting specific global guidelines to ensure that those who buy weapons use them in compliance with international law and human rights standards.”
So the authors want these LEGALLY produced weapons to be LEGALLY transfered to those who use them IN COMPLIANCE to the law. They aren’t calling for guns to be banned. Their calling for laws governing gun ownership and transfer to be enforced.
One of the reporters works for the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting, and about that organization you write, “So this author was paid to go provide anti-gun and anti-freedom information on a grant from an organization trying to advance liberalism and crush freedom.”
So I went to the Pulitzer Center’s website and found out what their mission is: “The World Security Institute’s Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, established in 2006, intends to be a leader in sponsoring the independent reporting that media organizations are increasingly less willing to undertake on their own. The Center’s goal is to raise the standard of coverage of global affairs, and to do so in a way that engages both the broad public and government policy-makers.”
Huh. Nothing about crushing freedom in their mission statement.
How about the World Security Institute’s Center for Defense Information? Those folks “(provide) expert analysis of the various components of U.S. national security, international security and defense policy. CDI promotes wide-ranging discussion and debate within the United States on issues affecting security such as nuclear weapons, space security, missile defense, small arms and military transformation. This work builds on a 30-year tradition of research and publications such as the acclaimed Defense Monitor, numerous books and monographs, and engaging conferences.
Wow. Wide-ranging discussion and debate about issues affecting US national security. Those monsters.
About the role weapons play in warfare, you write, “They believe that because there are weapons that there is a war. They don’t seem to realize that there was war long before there were guns, and there is still fighting even when there are NOT guns. Guns are not capable of causing wars, yet these authors actually think that they do.” You also say, “Disarming people has never, in all of the history of mankind, reduced violence.”
So you’re cool with Iran developing nuclear weapons then? I mean, keeping the Iranians from developing nukes won’t reduce the violence, right? The difference between Iran getting the bomb and gangs in Darfur getting a bunch of AK-47s is just a difference in their destructive power, and you’re bizarrely arguing that there IS no difference. Just because an AK-47 is more efficient at killing than a knife, that doesn’t mean we should try to limit access to AK-47s. After all, weapons don’t increase the violence, you said. So why don’t we sell Iran some of our older nukes and make a few bucks along the way? According to you, a few A-bombs won’t make any difference if we eventually go to war with Iran.
Comment by Mean Gene — 9/5/2006 @ 2:15 pm
I don’t usually notice these things but I happen to be home today.
How many comments have you left here today, Gene?
Comment by Cao — 9/5/2006 @ 2:39 pm
Wow. I’m amazed. Indeed there is yet another person who actually believes that guns cause death. Thanks for commenting, Gene, even if your comments show your lack of perception of reality.
Comment by Ogre — 9/5/2006 @ 5:51 pm
Actually, MeanGene clearly has a wide, and well educated grasp on reality. He does his homework, draws up his facts and illustrates his oppositions shortcomings. Through research and (factual) statistical data. From your posts Ogre, one really can’t draw the same conclusion. How does MeanGene have a lack of perception on the subject when he has blatantly pointed out the obvious? Wouldn’t your paradoxical statement be indicative of YOUR lack of perception of reality?
Stand back, take a big breath, use an adult and open perspective of the world and look at the countries with sensible firearm restrictions, and you’ll see that guns equal death. So boohoo, you might restricted on the rights that make it easier for you to maim, kill or threaten somebody.
According to Crimeinfo.org.uk,in Brittain, gun crime amounts to less than 1% of all crime. In Australia between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm related deaths has declined 47%- thanks mostly to gun control restrictions implemented in 1997. The may have a population of less than 20 million, but major cities there have half the populace of New York at 4 million people.
Its the unregistered firearms that are the problem, and these are what need to be controlled.
Yes, owning a firearm gives you a tremendous sense of power. It allows you to realise that you can kill something at at least 600 feet per second.
But you need firearms for protection.You have a family. Protection from what, SOMEONE ELSE with a gun?
In a public place?
You can’t carry a concealed weapon, its a felony. So outside of your house, how can you be protect anything, without breaking the law?
My family has been victimized by this terror. I have a cousin, now deceased, thanks to a maniac armed with, guess what? A firearm.
So do attitudes of people like me potentially impede on the freedoms of gun owners? Yeah, you bet. But only your ability to destroy organs at a velocity of 1500 feet per second.
People kill, guns just make it easier.
People who visit here should carefully observe MeanGene’s decree, his political views, philosophies and objectives. He thoroughly weighs up both sides of a perspective before taking a well-educated stance. So should the rest of us.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/5/2006 @ 10:09 pm
Well then, maybe the two of you can draw upon your wealth of facts and answer a few simple questions:
1.) How does the act of disarming law-abiding citizens make them safer from crime?
2.) Is it more desireable to be helplessly victimized by criminals armed with weapons other than guns?
3.) If gun bans prevent crime, why is the violent crime rate higher in Australia and the UK than in the US? (see 2005 UN global crime report)
Believe what you will, but do not feel entitled to impose your sadly twisted beliefs on me.
Law-abiding gun owners pose a threat only to violent criminals.
Comment by GuestGuy — 9/6/2006 @ 2:52 am
Wow. Another one. I guess these are the people who the Times is writing for. Absolutely incredible. Gee, maybe I should reconsider. Those long guns I have in the cabinet in the other room might come to my bedroom one night and attack me. Heck, the pistol sitting in the drawer right beside me might one day decide I need to die.
You claim firearm deaths in Australia have gone down. I guess you’re happy that people are dying from jumping out of windows and stabbings, then. And yes, I CAN and DO carry a firearm in public. Sometimes it’s concealed, sometimes it’s in plain view. Neither way is it illegal for me, sorry.
No, Gene has a very clear political stance. He has outlined it nicely. He is strongly opposed to freedom and would rather live in a totalitarian utopia. Go ahead and join him. I will kill or die to avoid living in such an oppressive world.
Comment by Ogre — 9/6/2006 @ 3:00 am
Guestguy you said it: “Law-abiding gun-owners pose a threat only to violent criminals.” Law-abiding beign the operative word here sir. It’s the non-law abiding gun owners that frighten me. It’s the compulsive, the agressive, the criminal and the insane that worry me. UNFORTUNATELY, American civilisation is strewn with the aforementioned.
Ogre. It is not wise to express ignorance if you wish to persuade readers with your arguments. You seem to be the kind that would take a gun and fight for any cause. An attitude taken up by the members of organisations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Jemaah Isalmiyah etc…
When I’m abroad and in other countries, people look at the US, and the gun crime problems and shake their heads.
The Columbine high school massacre.
The Jonesboro massacre.
Red Lake massacre.
Beltway sniper attacks.
Ohio highway sniper attacks.
The Baseline attacks.
In 1998, 54 Australians lost their lives to gun homicides, while in the States the number exceeded 13,000. That’s 260 times more gun-related deaths. Is that proportionate to population? Nope. America is only 10 times larger in populace. So what about that additional (250 times) gun mortality rate?
OGRE HOW WILl GUNS STOP PEOPLE JUMPING OUT OF WINDOWS AND PREVENT STABBINGS? There are thousands less deaths in Australia now.
I DON’T THINK MASS MURDER GENERALLY OCCURS WITH KNIVES-
(Don’t reference 9/11. People should have guns on planes? We need more air marshalls.)
SO OGRE, your questions.
1.) How does the act of disarming law-abiding citizens make them safer from crime?
Less deaths, as proven in one of my countries of residence, is PROOF that disarming strategies WORK. Oh law-abiding. All citizens start out as law-abiding, its the default. Then some/many change that status law-unabiding. We DON’T live in a UTOPIA.
2.) Is it more desireable to be helplessly victimized by criminals armed with weapons other than guns?
Yes. Your survival rate is much higher. IE YOU ARE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO SURVIVE.
3.) If gun bans prevent crime, why is the violent crime rate higher in Australia and the UK than in the US? (see 2005 UN global crime report)
Woah. That’s news to me. Maybe you’re right. But homicide? The US outstrips us by several hundred times, specifically in gun-related homicide. And again, you have only ten/twelve times the population. Hmmm.
Guns are fun, they give you a sense of power, but unfortunately they also kill. But as long as you have that ‘potential to kill’, you’ll never want it taken away. Men with power want more power.
AND OGRE, you HAVE A PISTOL IN A DRAWER?
Ever consider a safe? Got any kids? What about if someone broke into house, found it, loaded up and killed you. Or worse, stole it, and killed someone else. Be responsible with your arsenal. Two safes. One for ammunition. One for the weapon.
Guns don’t kill…
“No, I shot him. Bullets and the fall killed him.”
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/6/2006 @ 7:03 am
This is one of the funniest things I’ve read all year:
“No, Gene has a very clear political stance. He has outlined it nicely. He is strongly opposed to freedom and would rather live in a totalitarian utopia. Go ahead and join him. I will kill or die to avoid living in such an oppressive world.”
I’d be careful of ticking me off, Ogre. When me and my fellow totalitarian utopians go on the march and start enslaving people, we’re coming for you first. Just to warn you, we’ll be checking under the bed.
A question–you say you have some “long guns” in your cabinet. If someone was trying to break into your house, would you rather face them down with a shotgun or a pistol? How about a knife? How about your fists? Would you prefer to face an intruder armed with a lead pipe, or an Uzi? Guns are tools, just like a hammer or a drill or a computer. Thing is, they’re very good at killing people. And when assault weapons get into the hands of very bad people, it’s much easier for those people to do very bad things. Like commit mass murder.
I really can’t understand your logic here. The Op-Ed you mention doesn’t call for guns to be banned. It’s a call for the international community to try to keep assault rifles out of areas where roving gangs can commit atrocities. I can’t quite understand why you’d be opposed to murderous thugs getting their hands on assault rifles. Unless you like anarchy and misery and people fleeing for their lives because the local tough guy and his heavily armed gang have decided the local populace should be their slaves. It’s a bit harder for law enforcement to stop people like that when they’re armed with AK-47s as opposed to knives and clubs.
I happen to believe that law-abiding citizens have every right to own firearms. Don’t own one myself, but most of my friends do and most people in my family hunt. I think there should be gun CONTROL, not a ban on them. I don’t think there’s a compelling reason to allow people to own assault rifles, just as there’s no compelling reason for private citizens to own 155mm howitzers and Abrams tanks.
In closing, allow me to quote the completely fabulous British comedian Eddie Izzard:
“The NRA says ‘guns don’t kill people, people do.’ But I think that the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I think that if you just walked around going ‘Bang!’ you wouldn’t kill too many people would you? You’d have to be really dogdy on the heart for that to work. I think that people should just try that. Walk around going ‘BANG, BANG, BOOM, RATTA TAT, BOOM, RATTA TAT, BOOM!’ I think that they should just try it.”
Comment by Mean Gene — 9/6/2006 @ 10:12 am
To Gene and goshdarit: We are tired of your communist nonsense and we are not going to take it anymore. We are simply not going to listen to your feeble attempts to destroy our rights. If you want to be a defenseless victim, go ahead, nobody is forcing you to buy a gun. Just leave us, who still believe in taking care of ourselves and our families, alone.
Comment by Bill — 9/6/2006 @ 3:09 pm
Yeah and when someone comes and breaks into their home - and, say–try to steal all Gene’s poker earnings (bwahahahaha!) - they will have nothing to defend themselves with but their limp wristed fists, which don’t add up to much when faced when a criminal in a ski mask and a gun.
Comment by Cao — 9/6/2006 @ 5:36 pm
Goshdarnit, your position is clear. You don’t like guns. That’s fine. If that were your total position, that would be fine. I don’t mind that you don’t like guns. I won’t even try and make you like guns. But when you try and take my guns away, we’ve got a problem.
You actually believe that if you take my guns away from me that crime will go down. I’ve got news for you — it won’t. My guns and I haven’t committed any crimes. Not one. You might claim that you only want to take the guns away from criminals, but here’s another news flash — criminals don’t care! They already break the law, by definition!! It is literally impossible to disarm criminals. You CAN disarm non-criminals, but it is utterly impossible to take them from criminals, period.
You are free to be victimized by criminals all you want. You are not being forced to carry a gun, and I’d never want you to have one if you didn’t want one. But why do you think *I* shouldn’t be able to defend myself with one?
And yes, I have a pistol in a drawer. I have lots of guns, and there’s nearly always one within a few feet of me, whether I’m at work or at home. I’m not particularly worried about someone stealing one because they’d have to get past me to get to the darn things. I don’t pu them in a safe because if they were, the criminal could come kill me, then have lots of time to open the safe. If I can reach the guns, I can get them before the criminal can.
And if a criminal were to break into my house when I were not home and rob the place and use a gun to kill someone else, I’m not surprised you would blame that on me. How about if someone steals your car and uses it to commit a robbery? Should we lock you up for robbery? What if someone comes into your house and steals your clothes and wears them to commit rape? Should we lock you up for 25 years?
You don’t like guns. I got it. That’s fine. You will not get mine while I live.
Meangene, the article linked wants guns banned, period. They try and claim that they want to save some people in a civil war. They allude to how — having the UN force individual countries to ban guns. It IS an anti-gun piece, whether you see it or not.
Comment by Ogre — 9/6/2006 @ 6:20 pm
Ogre,
I wash about to hit my submit comment button and then I hit refresh and saw your last pretty much summed up what I was going to say. These guys like to think that the majority of gun owners are either wild-eyed psychopathic killers or incompetent retards, or sometimes both. I remember when the streets were going to run red with blood in Texas because of the concealed handgun laws. Still waiting for shootouts in the street at high noon… still waiting…
Comment by Duncan Avatar — 9/6/2006 @ 6:44 pm
Ogre wrote, “Meangene, the article linked wants guns banned, period.”
Here’s the full text of the article:
“DESPITE the presence of the world’s largest peacekeeping mission, the Democratic Republic of Congo remains in the grip of civil war. The reason is clear. A flood of small arms and light weapons undermines the 17,000 United Nations troops’ mandate to protect civilians.
In this country where war has raged since 1998, the results of the uncontrolled small arms trade have been brutish, but they have not been unique. Similar devastation from small arms occurs worldwide. Though the United Nations held a conference this summer to review efforts to control the trade, nothing was accomplished. To their shame, governments could not agree even on possible steps forward.
Suffering will continue until governments recognize the obvious — that the vast majority of illicitly traded arms begin as legally produced weapons. They must agree to control legal transfers of arms by adopting specific global guidelines to ensure that those who buy weapons use them in compliance with international law and human rights standards.
No such international agreement exists today, which is one reason imported weapons swamp countries like Congo, jeopardizing the genuine efforts of their people to find stability and build lasting peace.”
Uh, where does it say that they want guns banned, period? Oh, that’s right. It doesn’t.
It’s not a very long article, just a few sentences. Hard to see how you could misinterpret it so completely. It must’ve taken a lot of effort.
It also must take a lot of effort on the part of Bill and Cao to say that I want to take your guns away and destroy your rights, when I specifically said the following: “I happen to believe that law-abiding citizens have every right to own firearms.” Not too much ambiguity there. You wanna have guns? Go right ahead. Wanna have a gun on you at all times? Go get yourself a concealed weapon permit and have a blast.
Nor do I think, as Duncan said, that a majority of gun owners are “wild-eyed psychopathic killers or incompetent retards.” As I also said earlier, most of my friends and most of my family owns guns, and only a few of them are psychopathic killers or incompetent retards.
Fortunately I don’t live in an area with lots of violent crime and/or home invasions, so I don’t feel a pressing need to have a gun at home. I’m also a pretty big guy and I was taught to be aware of my surroundings and be on the lookout for trouble so I can avoid it before something happens. Having a gun in a shoulder holster won’t help much if someone hits me from behind and sticks a knife to my throat. I wouldn’t rely strictly on firepower to protect yourself.
Comment by Mean Gene — 9/6/2006 @ 8:41 pm
Guns are used, in the US, in self-defense, somewhere between 40,000 and 250,000 times a year. (depending on whose stats you use–even the “Brady Bunch” will usually admit to the first figure). Usually, the gun is never fired–merely letting the criminal know you have one is all that’s necessary.
In the US, each year, 30,000 people die as a result of someone firing a gun. Half of those are people committing suicide, so figure 15,000 people die as a result of a gun being fired, who did not choose to die. Some of these are people who are killed in self-defense. Seems to me that guns are definitely a net SAVER of lives.
Oh–and the children and guns thing? In order to get the numbers the anti-gunners use, they define “child” as anyone under 23, so as to include the vast majority of gang-bangers. An actual child (12 and under) is more likely to drown in a bucket than to die of a gunshot. The best way to keep your child safe from gun accidents is not to keep them away from guns–they’re too likely to find one, anyway, and have an accident satisfying their curiosity. Teach them gun safety and teach them well.
Another stat or two: In the US, the places with the most guns per capita tend to have the lowest crime rates. Criminals surveyed in prison say that their greatest fear when committing crimes was getting shot. And the crime that has skyrocketed fastest in the UK since guns were basically banned has been forced entry burglary while the family is home. Why? Because the burglar knows the family is unable to defend themselves. This is a species of burglary that is actually much more rare in the US, ’cause the bad guys are afraid of getting shot.
MeanGene and Goshdarnit, are you willing to put a sign in your yard that says “there are no guns in this house”? If you are not, then you are just using gun-owning Americans as cover–the bad guys are more cautious with everyone, ’cause they never know who might have a gun.
And someone, somewhere, please tell me why people think that there will someday be the Magic Gun Control Law passed that criminals (by definition people who do NOT obey laws) will suddenly obey and give up their guns?
Until that law is passed, gun laws only disarm the law abiding. And, of course, there’s that whole “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” thing. There is even less room in the Constitution for gun control than there is for gov’t interference in religion or Book Control.
Comment by Heather — 9/7/2006 @ 12:17 am
Oh–and just to point up the crime bit: I live in rural Missouri, a place where probably at least 80% of households have guns. We don’t bother to lock the house unless we’re going away overnight or something, and I can safely leave my keys in my unlocked car in the driveway. An hour away, in St. Louis, there are far fewer guns per capita, with a far higher percentage in the hands of the bad guys. People lock EVERYTHING and buy burglar alarms. And their stuff gets stolen anyway.
Comment by Heather — 9/7/2006 @ 12:23 am
Heather- Would I be willing to put a sign in my yard saying “no guns in my house”? Yes. Yes I would. I live in a city, where, gun violence is pretty much non-existant. The only gun-violence we have, is between two rival criminal organisations, who hire professional hitmen to do their dirty work.
Guns are used, in the US, in self-defense, somewhere between 40,000 and 250,000 times a year.
No matter how you twist it, most of Europe, the UK and Australia laugh at US gun crime and quote “only in America.”
Australia’s gun problem is so minimal, b/c of restrictions. Personally, if I lived in a society where gun control was NON EXISTANT, of COURSE I’D own a firearm. If work sent me to Colombia (like a friend of mine), the first thing I’d do is pick up a Glock. But that’s government needs to step in. Limit availability to those with hunting and sporting permits. 90% of shootings are commited by criminals without legal permits. But again, these were once legally purchased weapons. So in context, we’re dealing with a chicken and the egg issue here.
Just ask yourself-
DO YOU CONDONE MASS MURDERS?
HIGHSCHOOL SHOOTINGS?
BANK ROBBERIES?
In late 2003 the Australian Bureau of Statistics released an analysis of the Australian gun death figures for the year 2002.
They show that for the first time the total number of gun deaths fell below 300. It needs to be remembered that for most of the 1980’s the annual gun death figure was close to 700. That figure fell to a little above 500 in 1993. Improved gun laws were made in most jurisdictions following the tragic year of 1987 when no less that six gun massacres took place - perhaps the best remembered were at Hoddle Street and Queen Street. Gun lobby groups marched through the streets of Melbourne in January 1988 in an effort to stop stricter gun controls.
Improved gun laws again took place following the death of 35 people at Port Arthur in 1996. The gun lobby of course opposed those improved gun laws but the annual gun death figure declined. From 1998 to 2001 the annual gun death figure was between 300 and 350. Now the good news that in 2002 the figure was 299.
All this means that now, about 350 fewer Australians die each year from gun wounds. Surely that’s good news. It means that gun control works, despite what the gun lobby says. It also suggests that politicians should place little trust in the claims of gun lobbyists.
****
So Heather, if I had a semi-automatic pistol, carbine or bolt-action rifle and (I had no regard for your life), your whole family would be dead. Guns or not.
So Heather-
A smart criminal would BE AWARE of YOUR ALARM system. BE AWARE OF YOUR FAMILY MOVEMENTS. BE AWARE OF POTENTIAL ENTRIES and exits. Be it roof, windows or doorways. And if it were me (I’m not a sociopath, for the record), but if I targeted you and your family as a criminal, you’d all be dead. Guns in drawer or not. You wouldn’t see it coming. Until you heard the snap-ping of the gunshots, and the first bodies hit the floor. GUNS KILL.
If there were even just two of you, and I was armed with a knife, do you think someone would attempt that? I don’t think so.
Guns readily available to law-abiding citizens, also mean readily available guns to the non-law abiding citizen. Grow a brain, then try to - AH- think things through.
Sporting shooters, gun club members, and farmers.
When a member of your family is murdered, by guess what? GUNS, then you have the REAL right to comment. Not until.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/7/2006 @ 7:43 am
Apologies for the grammatical errors in my previous post. I’m a rapid thinker, and splurge out my thoughts. This of course does not mean that they aren’t clear, consise or coherent.
HEATHER once again, I will point that which you imprudently indicated. YOU LIVE IN A RURAL AREA. IT’S BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THAT CRIME LEVELS DROP SUBSTANTIALLY IN MOST RURAL COMMUNITIES.
Also Duncan- still waiting for the shootouts? Some people go through life either living under rocks, or with their eyes closed. All the media I GET, from the US, is about one of three things, IRAQ, IRAN or US shootings. So Duncan, you CAN OPEN YOUR EYES and STOP WAITING. It’s already happening. Has been for decades.
The real issue here is about legal weapons falling into the hands of gangs and militia. There must be gun control. Mikhail Kalashnikov and other Russian manufacturers should be sanctioned. What international terrorist or militia group IS NOT armed with AK-47s? There are 100 million of them floating around out there. Even US patent Colt is responsible for localised gangs in Indonesia being armed with M4 assault carbines. This has got to stop.
Or do we see these things as positive advances for humanity. Thoughts anyone?
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/7/2006 @ 8:11 am
I don’t know where Heather got her statistics, so who knows if they’re accurate or not. Saying that guns are used in self-defense “between 40,000 and 250,000″ times a year is meaningless, both because the spread between those numbers is so wide and because “self-defense” isn’t defined. Does that mean pulling out your piece and facing down a slavering maurauder, or does that mean someone who grabs the gun under their pillow when they hear a dog bark? How are these acts reported, confirmed, cataloged?
Likewise the statement that “children” are defined as those below 23-years old. Sounds ludicrous, and with no citation to where she got this info I see no reason to call it anything but.
She writes, “Another stat or two: In the US, the places with the most guns per capita tend to have the lowest crime rates.”
Again, no idea where she got this statistic, nor do I know how such a statistic could be accurate since lots of people probably own unlicensed guns and probably wouldn’t be too keen on talking about them. So I went hunting for my own statistics. The FBI breaks the nation into four regions when analyzing violent crime–Northeast, Midwest, South, and West. How do these regions break down on violent crime (which the FBI defines as “murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault”)?
Northeast: 18.6% of the population, 15.6% of all violent crimes
Midwest: 22.4% of the population, 18.8% of all violent crimes
South: 36.1% of the population, 41.9% of all violent crimes
West: 23.0% of the population, 23.7% of all violent crimes
Would it be safe for me to assume that gun ownership is higher in the red-state South and West, rendering your conclusion about gun ownership reducing violent crime null and void, or are you prepared to argue that New England is the most heavily-armed section of the United States?
So far as those bad guys in St. Louis who have guns, that’s rather the point of the article originally cited here, that the international community should do more about keeping assault rifles out of the hands of bad guys in Congo. Not that all guns should be banned.
Comment by Mean Gene — 9/7/2006 @ 8:52 am
Goshdarnit, Nifty way to cuss w/o using Gods’ name in vain!!
As to your gun stance, get a life! You only read 3 things in the American press because that’s all they publish! No good news, only Iraq, Iran and US Shootings. So how many 5 year olds you see shot lately?? American press publishes EVERY one and I have only seen 2 this year. But you must have missed the other news, fewer soldiers die in Iraq (in a free-fire zone) than civilians die (by guns)in Washington DC. And Washington DC BANNED GUNS! a long time ago! And I know your next comment too…the guns in D.C. came from gun friendly Virginia! So WHY did the criminals in Virginia take them to DC to kill people?? Because in Virginia the victims get to shoot back, unlike the fair people in D.C.
You want people to defend themselves with their fists, while the criminals still have guns??? You’ve seen too many Hollywood movies (strangely enough made by gun-haters like you!!). In the Long Island railway shooting in NYC several years ago, the gunman bought his gun legally, then violated gun control laws across the country, In New York, in NYC, on the train, and was still able to do a mass shooting. All of those laws didn’t stop him or even slow him down! So I want to be able to defend myself against people like that so I carry a gun (legally).
The number of guns in this country goes up by millions each year, yet the deaths don’t increase. They’ve even gone down! And while gun crimes in Britain and Australia are few and far between, they are still higher than before the bans.
One point to ponder…If you know of the ride of Paul Revere (the British are coming, the British are coming) then learn what the British were coming for…the guns…and what they failed to get over 200 years ago, you aren’t going to get now!
Comment by Ronbo — 9/7/2006 @ 11:41 am
I see these things as irrelevant to my ownership if firearms.
Goshdarnit’s responses to my earlier questions, and the existing violent crime data, can be combined as follows:
After you’re disarmed, the data shows you’ll be more likely to be the victim of violent crime/rape, but it’s more likely you’ll live through it.
No thanks, I prefer not to entrust my life to the pervert who chose to rob/assault/rape for a living.
I’ve not yet found the first recorded instance of an armed rape victim. Maybe you can direct us to one?
Plenty of news articles of assaults prevented by armed would-be victims from which to choose.
The contents of my gun safe are not at risk of being used for unlawful purposes, or ending up on the streets of (insert 3rd world country here).
I’d like to hear the thinking behind the statement “IT’S BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THAT CRIME LEVELS DROP SUBSTANTIALLY IN MOST RURAL COMMUNITIES.” please.
Why do crime levels drop in rural communities? Can the driver(s) for this substantial drop be reproduced in high-crime cities?
Comment by GuestGuy — 9/7/2006 @ 12:51 pm
Yes, of course crime drops in rural areas. WHY? is the important part. Rural households are technically easy pickin’s for criminals. Expensive stuff is left not locked up. Frequently (as in my case), there are NO neighbors in sight to notice a crime in progress. Frequently (as in my case), houses are not visible from the road, so a crime is unlikely to be noticed by a passer-by–if there should happen to be one on a lightly-traveled rural road. There is often (as in my case) no one in earshot to hear screams. Sheer distance slows police response times. I can’t reasonably expect a county sheriff to show up in less than half an hour after I call, simply because of the distances involved.
So, again, WHY ARE RURAL CRIME RATES LOW?
****BECAUSE RURAL PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY ARMED AND THE CRIMINALS KNOW IT****
I live in the woods, out of view of the road, with no neighbors closer than about a third of a mile–and those definitely not in sight. 3 miles from me is a major freeway–I-44, once known as Route 66, and still one of the major routes across the country. At the corner of the road I live on and the freeway outer road is a homeless shelter. We don’t lock up, and the shed we keep expensive outdoor stuff (bicycles, chain saw, outdoor tools, etc) in doesn’t even happen to have a door. This place would be _very_ easy pickins for a burglar. But prospective country burglars have to be dumb enough or desperate enough to brave dogs when people are not home, and dogs and shotguns when they are.
Research shows that the cities with the strictest gun laws are the ones that have the most crime. Armed citizens do FAR more to prevent crime than gun laws do. There is no such thing as “reasonable gun control”. First, one cannot “control” an inalienable right. Second, and more pragmatic, GUN LAWS DO NOT DISARM CRIMINALS. THEY ONLY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
Comment by Heather — 9/7/2006 @ 2:05 pm
Yes, of course crime drops in rural areas. WHY? is the important part. Rural households are technically easy pickin’s for criminals. Expensive stuff is left not locked up. Frequently (as in my case), there are NO neighbors in sight to notice a crime in progress. Frequently (as in my case), houses are not visible from the road, so a crime is unlikely to be noticed by a passer-by–if there should happen to be one on a lightly-traveled rural road. There is often (as in my case) no one in earshot to hear screams. Sheer distance slows police response times. I can’t reasonably expect a county sheriff to show up in less than half an hour after I call, simply because of the distances involved.
So, again, WHY ARE RURAL CRIME RATES LOW?
****BECAUSE RURAL PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY ARMED AND THE CRIMINALS KNOW IT****
I live in the woods, out of view of the road, with no neighbors closer than about a third of a mile–and those definitely not in sight. 3 miles from me is a major freeway–I-44, once known as Route 66, and still one of the major routes across the country. At the corner of the road I live on and the freeway outer road is a homeless shelter. We don’t lock up, and the shed we keep expensive outdoor stuff (bicycles, chain saw, outdoor tools, etc) in doesn’t even happen to have a door. This place would be _very_ easy pickins for a burglar. But prospective country burglars have to be dumb enough or desperate enough to brave dogs when people are not home, and dogs and shotguns when they are.
Research shows that the cities with the strictest gun laws are the ones that have the most crime. Armed citizens do FAR more to prevent crime than gun laws do. There is no such thing as “reasonable gun control”. First, one cannot “control” an inalienable right. Second, and more pragmatic, GUN LAWS DO NOT DISARM CRIMINALS. THEY ONLY MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. Even the far-from-pro-gun Justice Department had to admit that the assault weapon ban prevented no crimes and the effect of the Brady Law has been “inconclusive” (if you actually read the report, you’ll find “inconclusive” means “no effect to negative effect”).
So…again I ask, what Magic Gun Control Law is this that you know of that is suddenly going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, when the 20,000 gun control laws already on the books in this country have failed to do a damned thing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? With every single one of those laws being a violation of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms?
The UK has pretty much banned guns altogether, including some bans on toy guns. Crime has gone UP, not down. Gun crime has gone UP, not down (guns are not all that hard to make, you know). And stabbings and such have gotten so bad that they have recently instituted, or are about to, laws that block anyone under 18 buying knives, and institute limits and licenses for knives longer than about 4 inches, INCLUDING KITCHEN KNIVES.
(By the way, in case you didn’t know, the inalienable rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights are NOT granted to us by government. They are our birthright, due to having been born human, and any government that tries to take them away is committing tyranny.)
Comment by Heather — 9/7/2006 @ 2:15 pm
Oh, and, Goshdarnit, it would seem that crime does NOT go down in rural areas in the UK. Y’see the rural farmer there that ended up going to prison for shooting a burglar did so because he was at the end of his rope, having been robbed multiple times in a very short time span.
Basically unthinkable in a US rural area.
Comment by Heather — 9/7/2006 @ 2:27 pm
“From 1993-1998, there has been less of a decrease in violent and property crime rates in rural areas than in urban and suburban areas, though overall violent crime rates are still lower in rural areas.”
In regards to rural crime being minimal due to the presence of firearms on properties-
Heather, interesting PHILOSOPHICAL view, but we all know the truth. Desperate people do not drive for 100 miles to rob, rape (a random individual)or vandalize. I can’t believe I have to state the blatantly obvious here. “Did IQ’s drop sharply while I was away?”
Heather, again, if an armed individual, REALLY wanted something on your property, you likely wouln’t be aware of him until it was too late to go and break out the shotgun.
Outside of forced entry home situation, would someone like to discuss statistical data on where GUNS have SAVED someone from violent crime? Would someone cite an incident where a gun has prevented rape? Considering that most rapes are by those who are familiar to and have a level of trust with their victim.
If not, then read the analysis on Australian gun control- Article 16 above.
I’m assuming none of the replies have read it, as the results are CONCLUSIVE. GUN CONTROL -GUESS WHAT?- WORKS.
And unless -
-you have a gun under your pillow
- and carry one on your persons at all times - then I don’t believe you can site a gun as personal protection. Against -
muggers, gang bangers, rapists, psychotics or whomever else comes at you with an attitude. Save home invasion, and then, you BETTER PRAY they aren’t armed themselves.
HEATHER, GUESTGUY - I’ve given you governmental statistics in article 16. You’ve given me no statistics on your perspectives that guns prevent crime. Give me government statistics that counter what I have listed above, and I may just believe you.
If I have to move to the US, in regards to work, then I will purchase an assault pistol. It is clear that the country is in such a shambles that it would be a necessary precaution to take. Rather dismaying in my mind. It also makes me glad to live (at least for the moment) in Australia.
For the record: carrying an illegally concealed firearm did not save my cousin in Ohio.
Reread the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian on gun control in article 16 above, then comment. Thank you.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/7/2006 @ 3:21 pm
“The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there were 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. during the 1988-1993 period. This is probably a conservative estimate”
source
And for anecdotal evidence, I have used a gun to protect my life, and I didn’t even have to shoot anyone. It’s amazing how recognizable the sound of a shotgun loading is to gangs late at night.
You cannot effectively compare gun usage in different countries, because as you mention, they are different cultures. How about we just check the US alone? The areas with, by far, the highest crime and murder rates are Washington, DC, and Gary, IN. Guess what? Guns are banned there. How’s that working out for them?
Comment by Ogre — 9/7/2006 @ 6:05 pm
Goshdarnit, if a criminal were stupid enough to want something on my property, first he would have to brave 2 German shepherds (this is overkill…even the cockapoo I used to have took a dim view of unauthorized strangers, but we like German shepherds for their many other good qualities, too). Barking of German shepherds would alert me in plenty o’time to grab a gun out from under our bed, and possibly enough time to put my glasses on (assuming I was asleep & my husband, who has good eyesight, not home or otherwise unable to shoot). If not, I can manage to shoot someone at close range with a 12-gauge without the specs.
Veerrryyy few criminal types that I’ve met (even, or maybe especially when I lived in inner-city St. Louis) are going to stick around long enough to find out if the dogs are going to bite them, let alone long enough to find out if what’s in my hands is a rifle or a shotgun. When we lived in the city, they used to CROSS THE STREET to avoid the German shepherd puppy who was looking out the upstairs window, with a great big dog grin on his face. The dog who didn’t even bark unless someone came to the door. They were still crossing the street, worried about the dog, AFTER we moved us and dogs out of the house.
But the neighborhood, on a particularly noisy and strife-filled night, got quiet _very_ fast when my husband decided to clean the little shotgun (a .410) on the front stoop. He pointed it at no one. He threatened no one. He simply performed necessary maintenance on a tool on his front stoop on a hot summer evening. And caused about 50 people to decide that maybe it was time to stop acting like idiots and start acting like civilized human beings. They do say “an armed society is a polite society”.
Mean Gene: Your stats are irrelevant to the discussion, unless you can break only gun crime out of the numbers you posted–which you can’t. By no means is all violent crime gun crime. As to which region is most heavily armed: it’s hard to tell as the Fibbies don’t provide a map showing what land area they have put into each region, but it is quite likely that the Midwest is the most heavily armed region. Why? Simple. The largest portion of the region considered “west” is going to be California–a difficult state in which to be a law-abiding gun owner, although the criminals have no problem. The “west” region and “south” region are also going to include the vast majority of senior citizens (a group only just starting to arm themselves), recent immigrants, and illegal immigrants (two groups where few that are not criminals are likely to be armed, as guns ain’t cheap)–and we’ve all heard plenty this year, I’m sure, about crime rates among illegals. The northeast and midwest aren’t currently having problems with Mexican drug gangs. In the south and the non-California, non-city parts of the west, the average American citizen, especially the rural citizen, who is not a retiree, is likely to be armed, yes. But, as a percentage of all people in a region, I’d be willing to bet that the Midwest has guns in the most households.
Goshdarnit, what in the world is an “assault pistol”? Do you mean a semi-automatic handgun? Seriously, even the recently-expired “assault weapons ban” was actually a ban on guns with specific _cosmetic_ features, rather than a ban on guns with any special shooting capabilities. Actual “assault weapons”–meaning automatic weapons, or machine guns–have been very difficult to get in the US since the 30’s, and were made more so in the ’60’s. Not that they have been widely used in crime, ever, really (despite some highly publicized Prohibition-era gangsters). Even the so-called assault weapons banned under the late and unlamented ban accounted for less than 1% of all crimes before the ban–and about as many during and after it, too.
As to: School shootings–check out how many of those kids were on entirely inappropriate medications–ones that cause just such rampages. Oh–also, several of the school shootings were stopped by armed people (usually teachers, but students at one college shooting) who were able to get to their cars to get the weapons that, had they been allowed to have them inside, some of those killed might be alive today. Check out Pearl, Mississippi, and a college shooting in, IIRC, either VA or WV for more info.
Bank robberies–really pretty rare, seldom actually involve shooting, and almost impossible to actually get away with.
Mass shootings–like school shootings, usually insane people. Often stopped or stoppable by armed citizens. Look up Texas Representative Suzanna Gratia Hupp for more on this.
As to Australia: Maybe fewer people are dying by gun, but, at least according to the article I read an hour ago, knives are more than taking up the slack. Death comes one to a customer, doesn’t matter what the weapon.
Comment by Heather — 9/7/2006 @ 7:01 pm
HEATHER:
What is an assault pistol?
Technically an ‘assault pistol’ is an SMG, Sub Machine Gun. Could be a GLOCK 18c, Beretta 93R, HK VP70. Look them up if you want the specs.
Truth is, I don’t like the reputation of automatic pistols. A sidearm should not be prone to jamming.
But otherwise, militarised tactical semi-automatics such the HK MK23 is an assault pistol otherwise known as the ‘offensive handgun’. A common Glock 17 would fall under this category. Browning 9mm H-Power. Most of Sig-Sauer advanced pistol range. The Colt m1911A1 (too wieldly for my tastes). All of the above are examples of offensive or assault pistols Heather, so feel enlightened.
Should individuals carry these weapons? Hell no, if trained, you could kill three armed men with such a piece before one could draw. But if everyone’s running around with artillery, then I’d like to packin’ twice the heat.
But if your going to throw hearsay at me, give me some numbers and present some facts. Knives you say. Yes, I’ve heard of a few gang related knife maimings in the last few years. None in the last six months. But present me this information, because less than ten stabbings doesn’t amount to much in a populace of twenty million. Facts and information. Sources people. Otherwise my point here, is made.
Homicide Statistics
US
18,233 POPULATION 293,655,405
Britain
3,742 POPULATION 60,270,708 for UK
AUSTRALIA
1,236 POPULATION 19,913,1442
- according to the US Census Bureau, International Data Base 2004.
Assess the crime per capita numbers yourself. Which country DOES NOT have gun restrictions?
Another thing that should not be overlooked, mass murder - (ie gun massacres), haven’t occurred in Australia since 1996.
Go to Wikipedia, lookup crime in Australia. The worst violent crimes of this decade barely fit on a page. So do I concede my point, or do I concede my point. No knife puns intended.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/7/2006 @ 8:37 pm
Gosh, you’re showing your ignorance of guns. You’re putting fully automatic guns (which are HIGHLY regulated so that hardly anyone can own one in the US) in the same group as common self-defense pistols. A SMG is NOTHING like a semi-auto pistol.
Comment by Ogre — 9/8/2006 @ 3:12 am
Yet isnt it a fact that criminals use them, Ogre? Even though they’re illegal, don’t criminals like drug dealers and the like appreciate having semi automatic or automatic weapons in their arsenal if they can get them?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that gun control laws are for disarming you and me and preventing us the right to defend ourselves. International Law and the UN don’t recognize the citizenry of any country has that right. There is an entire amendment to the constitution on this one, yet liberals ignore it.
Simply put, a gang member breaks laws. Murderers and rapists break laws. There’s not going to pay any attention to gun control; gun control just makes the crime rates go up, and instills fear into the population because it gives us absolutely no recourse when being apprehended or assaulted by a felon.
That means we might as well not fight off a criminal; in a carjacking, just let him take the car and shoot us. Just let ‘em rape our women, just let him kill us to steal a few bucks out of our pockets on the street during a mugging; just let him take our belongings from our homes.
No, I’d rather they pry my guns out of my cold dead heands.
Comment by Cao — 9/8/2006 @ 4:13 am
No, Goshdarnit, criminals DO NOT use “assault pistols”. I’m not spending time enough on this thread to do a bunch of ferreting out figures, but assault weapons (the sort that were banned in the now-expired ban) are used in about 1/5 of 1 percent of violent crimes, and about 1% of violent crimes involving a gun. Fully automatic weapons are used even less often, regardless of what Hollywood puts in movies.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Try putting Canada (about as heavily individually armed as in the US) into your comparison stats, and you’ll find that gun bans have little to do with murder rates. Yes, Canada has gun licenses/registries. Or at least the gov’t there has instituted same. In fact, they are so widely ignored that the Canadian Unregistered GunOwners Association feels no need to hide.
Oh, add the Swiss into your comparisons, too. They are _required_ to have a fully-automatic rifle in each and every household.
Gun ownership just doesn’t correlate to murder rates, unless you are very selective about your data.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
(By the way, several of the countries with higher murder rates than the US have very strict gun control laws–Mexico and Brazil, for example)
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html
Info on gun homicides in general, and info on school shootings:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvscho.html
For that matter, just work from GunCite’s home page, to get answers to whatever questions you have. Similar info is available elsewhere, but GunCite does their research, and writes decent articles about it.
http://www.guncite.com
Comment by Heather — 9/8/2006 @ 8:08 am
Ogre, I apologise. You’re right, but only on technicality. A true SMG, the most renowned being variants of the HK MP5, can be slightly larger than a (machine) pistol, and are smaller than an assault rifle. The most reputable trait of the SMG being that it takes sidearm ammunition. The strict title confusion can be attributed to the fact that a MAC-10 or TEC9 are specifically SMGs, but are commonly referred to as machine pistols. Therefore assault pistols can fall under this category. Several of these guns I’m very familliar with, local US laws on automatics and sem-automatics is an area of which I have no knowledge.
Or were you referring to the difference between an automatic pistol and an ‘offensive’ pistol? One is bullets in a can (point and spray), the other- how quickly you can callouse your trigger finger.
So what is my knowledge of firearms? Who cares. Though I will say, I know nothing of recreational weapons. I do know a lot about ‘offensive’ weaponry. I can field strip a glock 17 and the Browning Hi-Power, and have the technical knowledge on how to field strip both an F-88 Steyr and an M4 sans experience.
SOMEONE GOVERNMENT or UN FIGURES PLEASE! That’s all that’s relevent here. Not information from biased gun lobby councils.
Yes, Canada is a very safe country, and gun lax gun laws aren’t a problem there.
The Swiss have mandatory service laws, and as a result ‘most’, not all, own
The same applies to Sweden, and in fact most of Europe.
And cite rate of crime all you like, but homicides are between double and three fold per capita what they are in England and Australia. State by state, gun control won’t work. It has to be a national requirement. But it won’t happen. People love the power of being able to kill at the twitch of a finger.
Am I just an idiot. Were guns made for another purpose. Other than killing, maiming?
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/8/2006 @ 5:14 pm
I never stipulated anything about criminals and automatics. I merely stated, that if I was in a region with high-gun crime, then I would want to be more heavily armed than those around me. And that’s the paradox. If I was in an area with high-levels of gang-warfare, then I would want to carry a semi-automatic offensive pistol. That simple.
But wouldn’t it be better, if things were like Melbourne, Australia. Where no one worries about being assaulted, by knives or guns. Except knives in gang warfare (rare) and fists in bar fights. 4 million people. Such a “leftist Utopia” (by US standards) is just fine with me.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/8/2006 @ 7:27 pm
Ogre wrote, “Mean Gene: Your stats are irrelevant to the discussion, unless you can break only gun crime out of the numbers you posted–which you can’t.”
I posted those stats in response to something Heather said, to wit: “Another stat or two: In the US, the places with the most guns per capita tend to have the lowest crime rates.”
So it doesn’t matter whether the crimes involved in those numbers are gun-related, because Heather said that more guns = less crime. The FBI statistics say otherwise. If you don’t agree with that, your issue is with Heather, not me.
Comment by Mean Gene — 9/8/2006 @ 10:19 pm
Goshdarnit:
US
18,233 POPULATION 293,655,405
Britain
3,742 POPULATION 60,270,708 for UK
AUSTRALIA
1,236 POPULATION 19,913,1442
I think you’ll find these numbers you posted interesting, if you take a closer look at them.
Roughly speaking, the US has about five times the population of Britain (5 x 60M == 300M). Homicide statistics for these two nations are, per capita, about the same (5 x 3700 == 18,500), with BRITAIN being a slightly MORE violent place, per capita.
Australia has about 1/15 the population of the USA (15 x 20M == 300M). Performing the same rough calculation here yields (1200 x 15 == 18,000). Again, roughly in line.
Now, what was your argument about the US homicide statistics being so hugely out of line?
Comment by Corey — 9/9/2006 @ 8:16 am
It’s merely blind faith in government among gun-control enthusiasts that foster the ridiculous notion that government restrictions on firearms reduces violence and crime.
Two U.S. studies find no evidence to support the fallacy that gun control would make the population ’safer’.
The National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey of 80 different gun-control laws and some of its own independent study. In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns.
The National Research Council decided even more thorough research on the topic is needed.
(Note: The National Research Council is the ‘operating arm’ of the National Academy of Science [which produced this additional study also sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation].)
It only goes to show that gun control laws just keep the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens who will voluntarily register their guns.
The study also revealed that the number of criminals who got their guns legally through retail outlets or stores- was dwarfed by the number of those who got them illegally.
Reference:
WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Gun control doesn’t reduce crime, violence, say studies
National Academy of Sciences, Justice Dept. reports find no benefits to restricting ownership of firearms
Comment by Cao — 9/9/2006 @ 9:06 am
Statistics Indicate Gun Control Only Increases Crime
by Pierre Lemieux
There are so many studies and statistics that debunk the notion that gun control is a ‘good idea’ for the regular citizen, it’s ridiculous. I just love the conclusion to that article:
That’s the agenda, government control.
Comment by Cao — 9/9/2006 @ 9:09 am
I was always terrible at math Corey. I learnt how to count, 1,2,5,9- and that was about it. But here’s the reality check and the information update. The US has about 3 times the homicide rate. So Corey, do the number crunching and correct me if I’m wrong.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics:
Frequency Country Victimisation
rates, males females
VERY HIGH Russia 37.6 9.9
Mexico 33.9 3.7
**** U.S. 14.2 3.8
N Ireland 8.3 1.2
HIGH Italy 5.2 0.7
Scotland 4.7 0.9
Finland 4.6 2.4
Poland 4.5 1.4
MODERATE China (urban) 3.4 1.5
China (rural) 2.8 1.0
New Zealand 3.2 1.6
**** Australia 2.1 1.3
Etc…
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/9/2006 @ 9:16 am
And there’s the UN crime survey
HOMICIDE RATES PER COUNTRY
#6 Mexico 0.130213 per 1,000 people
#11 Ukraine 0.094006 per 1,000 people
#14 Thailand 0.0800798 per 1,000 people
#16 Zimbabwe 0.0749938 per 1,000 people
#18 Zambia 0.070769 per 1,000 people
#19 Costa Rica 0.061006 per 1,000 people
#20 Poland 0.0562789 per 1,000 people
#24 United States 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#26 India 0.0344083 per 1,000 people
#29 Azerbaijan 0.0285642 per 1,000 people
#34 Malaysia 0.0230034 per 1,000 people
#38 Korea, South 0.0196336 per 1,000 people
#40 France 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
#44 Canada 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
#45 Chile 0.014705 per 1,000 people
#46 United Kingdom 0.0140633 per 1,000 people
#47 Italy 0.0128393 per 1,000 people
#48 Spain 0.0122456 per 1,000 people
#49 Germany 0.0116461 per 1,000 people
#55 Ireland 0.00946215 per 1,000 people
#56 Switzerland 0.00921351 per 1,000 people
#58 Greece 0.0075928 per 1,000 people
#59 Hong Kong 0.00550804 per 1,000 people
#60 Japan 0.00499933 per 1,000 people
The truth is, in my country gun control works. In the US gun control will never happen, criminals and civillians just like their guns too much. The problem being, criminals steal and buy (weapons) from the latter.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/9/2006 @ 9:26 am
Goshdarnit: If you were to actually READ the stuff from guncite, you would find that they are generally citing the government statistics–and providing links to same.
Also, the definition fedgov uses for “automatic weapon” is a weapon that shoots more than one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. If it shoots one bullet per trigger squeeze, without having to do anything else (work a pump, slide a bolt, etc), it’s a semiautomatic. The “official” definition of “assault weapon”, as defined by the expired ban, is utterly meaningless, as it bases on cosmetic features alone.
Goshdarnit, you can honestly go walking through the worst areas of Melbourne with no fear of crime? I highly doubt it. (Not necessarily “no crime”, but no chance of it? I lived for a year and a half in one of the worst parts of St. Louis, and was never assaulted, either. The only guns I actually saw the whole time I lived there were either our own or ones being worn by cops). Your ideas of what crime in America is like seem to be very distorted by American “if it bleeds it leads” news reporting and the crap that comes out of Hollywood.
MeanGene: I’m the one who pointed out that your stats are irrelevant. Firstly, they don’t break down which parts of the country are better-armed, and I pointed out why your assumptions about the matter were likely to be dead wrong. Secondly, they don’t break out gun crimes, when the discussion has been about whether having guns more readily available means there will be more gun crime (something that has been proven over and over again to be not correlated–or reverse correlated, even on country-by-country comparisons. Some of the countries with the highest crime rates also have some of the strictest gun laws–Mexico and Brazil are examples of such).
I find it interesting that the people in this discussion who are supporting guns are supposed to provide stats and only gov’t stats, from gov’t sites (no gov’t stats from sites that exist to put them together in easy-to-find places, please), but those who claim that gun control works have yet to show ANY research saying that it does. (Crime rate comparisons from country to country do not correlate to gun control laws, as I have pointed out, with evidence). You can’t show that research, ’cause it simply doesn’t exist, no matter how much you jump up and down and say it does.
Comment by Heather — 9/9/2006 @ 9:30 am
Gun control doesn’t mean gun elimination. Gun control advocates usually don’t support depriving police officers and military personnel of the use of guns, (although nowadays they don’t want them to fire them off). The possibility of police or our military personnel owning or using guns while private citizens are not permitted to own them is more terrifying to me than just the possibility that criminals might get a hold of a firearm.
In my mind, I’d like to see both criminals and law-abiding citizens have access to guns rather than the state to have a monopoly on guns.
Guns don’t commit crimes; people do. Saying guns kill x number of people every year is like saying the same thing about a car, even though there’s a driver behind the wheel. Maybe we should outlaw cars, then. And SUVs, since more people die in SUV-related accidents in a year than have died in Iraq over the past three years.
Liberals’ ironic and idiotic solution is to lock up the guns and liberate the criminals.
Comment by Cao — 9/9/2006 @ 9:35 am
Goshdarnit, YOU are the one who originally posted these figures:
Homicide Statistics
US
18,233 POPULATION 293,655,405
Britain
3,742 POPULATION 60,270,708 for UK
AUSTRALIA
1,236 POPULATION 19,913,1442
- according to the US Census Bureau, International Data Base 2004.
Then, when Corey picks them apart, to point out that they just don’t say what you want them to say, you decide they’re no longer good figures. So…why’d ya post ‘em in the first place?
And you keep ignoring the inconvenient fact that Mexico, #6 on the rankings you just posted, basically bans civilian gun ownership. In fact, Mexico has much stricter gun laws than Canada.
Your argument just doesn’t stand up. And you’re only disproving it yourself, every time you post more statistics. Both the Australian Census Bureau stats & the UN stats show plainly that murder/victimisation rates do NOT correlate with rates of gun ownership.
Comment by Heather — 9/9/2006 @ 9:53 am
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23188&catcode=13
Here’s a good, footnoted, article about gun control & how it makes crime worse–even in Canada, the UK, and Australia.
Comment by Heather — 9/10/2006 @ 11:53 am
Heather, you’re absolutely right. I don’t like the original figures I presented.
What is PROOF: indisputable evidence. The PROOF is: gun control works.
I live in a large city that proves this. Melbourne. 4 million people. “Most livable city in the world.” Along with Vienna and Vancouver. -According to the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).
(Google Melbourne, most livable city.)
We have a colonial background, not dissimilar from the US.
The argument with cars- cars aren’t weapons, they’re not designed to deliberately kill. The people who die from gun wounds are generally murders or suicides. Deliberate acts.
So disregard the figures (if you so wish) and regard the cities. Mexico has a different culture, Australia and the US are quite similar. So throw away your preconceptions and then decide. Here GUN CONTROL WORKS. Understand this.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/10/2006 @ 12:17 pm
As you have proven, Goshdarnit, the culture in Australia and the US is VERY different! It is NOT the same and there’s no sense in trying to compare the two cultures. The people think differently, they just do. While gun control MIGHT work there, there’s absolutely NO way it will work in the US. Why?
Because the criminals have guns.
It’s as simple as that. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of criminals. It is ALREADY illegal for them to have guns. If a gun ban of any sort would have ANY effect on them, IT ALREADY WOULD.
In other words, to criminals, GUNS ARE ALREADY BANNED. So how’s the crime levels now that criminals don’t have guns?
Comment by Ogre — 9/10/2006 @ 12:21 pm
According to Professor Fox in Heather’s article:
“Guns are not the root cause of our violent society. In fact, the U.S. non-gun homicide rate (3.6 non-gun homicides per 100,000 residents) is double the overall homicide rate in virtually all our kindred nations, including Great Britain, Canada and Australia.”
So this doesn’t stipulate much against weapons, but it is indicative of the US homicide rate. I wonder what Fox’s figures are when inclusive of firearm related homicide.
Additionally, in reference to homicide rates: “Australia’s fell 26%”.
In regards to Mexico, compare the Mexican levels of education to the socioeconomic rifts, and you might see why their crime rate is so high. Simply put: desperation feeds crime.
America still has its high levels of educative and socioeconomic discrepancy, but I assume, nowhere near to the same degree (as Mexico).
Now as for Australia, according to the Oxford University Press: Despite reports of a crime wave in Australia following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms, evidence actually shows sweeping reductions in gun-related death, injury, and crime.” (Small Arms Survey 2004 Yearbook, June 2004)
Why are the Australian results relevent? Because more than 700,000 guns were removed from the community (the American equivalent would be 40 million weapons). No other nation had ever attempted anything on this scale. In our foremost newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, the question was posed, “So ten year later, can we see a difference?” The answer: a resounding yes. The results are in: Australia’s tightened gun controls have been followed by a remarkable reduction in gun homicide. Or any homicide. Period.
With the American passion for (violence) and weapons, statistics can prove a convoluted issue of treacherous ground, as far comparisons that are to be made. Stick to apples and apples: gun violence vs gun violence. When the REALITY is observed, it is inarguable that the rate of GUN homicide and GUN related death, is much higher in the US.
Nuff said.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/10/2006 @ 12:51 pm
[…] The New York Times on guns: “I have a cartoon posted on my wall. … I shall attempt to describe it: Two men are seen standing next to and setting up a large video camera. The camera is pointed at a rifle sitting on a stand on a table. One man is saying, ‘It’s an assault rifle. When it slinks off to kill someone we’ll catch it on film.’ I see this cartoon daily and I laugh at it all the time …. Clearly there’s still some people who honestly believe that these inanimate metal objects are capable of independent thought and action. You can read about some of these people at the New York Times. The editorial is titled, ‘The Toll of Small Arms.’ Are there people who read these things and actually believe them?” […]
Pingback by MND: » Gun Watch — 9/14/2006 @ 6:57 am
Yes, it’s utterly incredulous. Firearms as weapons. A gun, used to main, kill or murder: what a humourous notion.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/15/2006 @ 2:09 am
Goshdarnit, Yes guns kill. But it works both ways. There is an old phrase “You can’t rape a .38″. A man with a screwdriver, a knife, a bat or his bare hands can commit rape. But not if the victim has a .38/9mm/.45 etc!
Another old saying - “Never bring a knife to a gunfight”
As long as the bad guys have guns, I want them too. Since ALL gun control is aimed at MY guns, not the criminals’, I am against it.
If your theory is valid, why doesn’t the Australian Army get rid of all of its weapons? How about an Australian Army armed with only nightsticks?? Turn in all those evil pistols, rifles, bayonets, machine guns,
and tanks? You will be perfectly safe without them. Hell, if you have weapons somebody might get hurt!
Jolly old England disarmed the civilians long before WW2. Then the English had to beg the United States to send weapons when the wolves (Germany) were knocking at the door in 1940. After the wolves went away, they tossed all the weapons back into the sea. Somehow they think we will send them weapons again. I wouldn’t bet on it!
Comment by Ronbo — 9/15/2006 @ 1:25 pm
RONBO, just to enlighten you:
Regarding the British pandering to America for small arms: the Brittish have a corporation known as BAE Systems Land & Arnaments. Other than small arms used by the SAS, Britain either autonomously manufacture their SA80 series of carbines or purchases their NATO assault rifle’s from SIG, a Swiss patent. They also manufacture their own version of the (outdated and outmoded) SLR. Their manufacture includes the world-renowned Accuracy international L96 7.62 bolt action aka the PSG-90.
So other than the SAS buying a very small number number of Colt M4’s and M203 grenade launchers, I don’t think Britain will be pandering to the US any time soon for small arms.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 9/16/2006 @ 10:07 pm
Yes, but in the 1940’s Britain was producing Enfield rifles, Sten Submachineguns and Webley Revolvers. Of course if the BEF hadn’t left a lot of them in France, they might have had more. It was the “Home Guard” that needed weapons that were not available at the time. Since the Brits STILL have a small army, don’t have to produce a lot of weapons, I doubt that they have stocks of weapons for a “home guard” type units.
Comment by Ronbo — 9/18/2006 @ 8:29 am
I’m wondering if there will be any comment from the gun lovers regarding the recent spate of US shootings; of course not, that would threaten the gun-lover’s ballistic potential to kill.
The White House has conveyed that President Bush, concerned over the recent
rash of school shootings, would garner a conference of law enforcement to determine what the Federal Government could do to stop the problem.
Hey! Hey, I know Mr. Bush! How about gun restrictions on the national level! Now there’s an idea.
“But then the children won’t be able to protect themselves! Think of the children!”
I know! We could issue all school-age kids with cute little Derringer pistols. That way, little Tommy and little Suzie, won’t only be packing lunch, and yesterdays’homework; they’ll be PACKING HEAT!
Seriously people, the body count keeps growing, and the Gun Lobby ccontinually attempt to emphasize law-abiding gun owners. Well, I’m pretty sure Charlie Roberts was a law abiding citizen. That is, up until the point he snapped.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 10/4/2006 @ 10:44 am
Ah, the blind lunatic is back, I see.
Gee, you’re right. We should ban all guns right now. Because we know that all people who “snap” and want to murder people will immediately obey every single gun ban law that’s passed. After all, they’re law-abiding citizens who don’t break the law.
Comment by Ogre — 10/4/2006 @ 11:17 am
Say that to the Amish families.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 10/4/2006 @ 12:47 pm
They shoulda armed themselves! There is no magic potion that will expose anyone that is going to ’snap’ ahead of when they do. So you want to deny everyone guns on the basis of a handful who will ’snap’. Very few shootings are done by previously ‘law abiding’ citizens. The Amish folks suffered for the same reason that the residents of Washington D.C. suffer. You will note that both areas are “gun free” zones. Yet gun crimes happen anyway! Darn, the criminals in D.C. didn’t turn in their guns! D.C. is among, if not THE, murder capital of the country. And the death rate is greater than in the war zone called Iraq! Why, because in Iraq, everyone has guns, in D.C. only the criminals do! Lots of the people killed by guns in the US every year are themselves criminals! Shot by poilice, private citizens and other criminals.
Comment by Ronbo — 12/4/2006 @ 3:15 pm
There are also ways to get around gun control laws. Straw purchases allow criminals to buy guns through intermediaries without having to go through the background checks.
Proof? Here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_purchase
You will take note that on that page, it mentions the wife of Jim Brady using a straw purchase to buy a gun for her son for his birthday.
Still feel safe in your “gun control” society? There have been multiple incidents where guns have saved people from the depraved. Just look up attempted robberies that have been foiled when the cashier carries a gun. You see that every day on crime shows galore.
Comment by Craig — 12/14/2006 @ 7:10 am
Oh, and another thing. I neglected to mention that the criminals involved in the Columbine shooting got their guns through straw purchases. The website mentions that as well.
Comment by Craig — 12/14/2006 @ 7:12 am
Here’s more proof that guns save lives.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Comment by Craig — 12/14/2006 @ 7:27 am
Craig, Goshdarnit isn’t interested in the truth. He’s interested in hyperbole and emotions and using them to disarm you.
Comment by Ogre — 12/14/2006 @ 10:35 am
So if I understand straw purchases correctly it is the reason that underaged drinking prohibitions are not working because someone is always willing to buy a six pack for the 14 year old for some quick cash. That is why I own a gun(ssss)…..keeps the honest honest, and the dishonest bullet ridden so far as home invasion goes.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 12/14/2006 @ 12:59 pm
The term could be applied to that situation, yes. The term covers a wide range of unauthorized purchases - everything from controlled substances to gun purchases. Basically, anything that a minor (or criminal) is not legally entitled to purchase. Even cigarettes.
However, since this is a gun control topic, I will leave it to you to discover which meaning is relevant to THIS PARTICULAR topic. I’m sure you’re a bright young man.
Comment by Craig — 12/14/2006 @ 9:34 pm
Oh, and the self-defense provision applies only to a given situation where your life, or that of someone else, is in danger. The provision cannot be used to justify murdering an unarmed criminal. You murder an unarmed man, you go to jail. Read those stories again, and you will learn that in each case, someone’s life was in danger.
I’m left trying to determine whether you’re a stupid lout, or just a very clever person seeking to stretch the limits of what’s presented to justify your position. Again, I believe the latter is true. But I see right through it.
I suppose you’re one of those people that throw the Constitution out the window when it’s inconvenient for you, but you’re the first one to bring it up when it suits your purposes.
I have a good idea. Let’s leave guns in the hands of criminals, and watch gun crime “plummet” then downplay whatever gun crime does result as an “isolated incident.” How’s that strike you?
Comment by Craig — 12/14/2006 @ 9:50 pm
Craig, you need to attach a name to your replies. i.e. who were you talking to?
As to my comment and your reply, I was drawing an analogy of a commonly seen event for others to relate to. If your second post was in referance to my comment also, then you should know that the latter part of my post was tongue in cheek. I do own guns, but have never seen a reason to open the safe to pull one out, my doberman keeps home invasions to a minimum.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 12/15/2006 @ 8:15 am
Well Craig, first off, your Constitution is not applicable to the laws of my residency. Second of all, I’ve already locked, loaded, fired upon, reloaded and riddled your arguments to pieces in my previous posts. Take the time to read ALL of them, before you stop by the dropbox next time.
I’ll try to summarize:
1.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics:
Australia, a country WITH provisional gun restrictions, has an annual average of 350 firearm related deaths. About 320-340 of these are suicides. Australias population is 20,090,437.
THEREFORE: GUN CONTROL WORKS.
2. SELF DEFENSE
Hypothetical: If I was an ‘armed’ lawbreaker willing to tresspass on someone’s property, then I would survey that property. I would monitor the movements of those inside. When they are accounted for, in a single room, I would breach the house, and secure, incapacitate or murder them. (I believe this is what occurs with most break-ins if the occupants are home.) If someone plays hero, I/criminal/whoever would kill them. Hypothetically speaking.
Self-defense is really only applicable when the HOUSEHOLDER HAS the element of surprise. With break-ins, its usually vice-versa, y’know? Or am I misconstrued in this route of thought?
So citing the minority of instances where the above DOES NOT happen, is really inconsequential.
3. Strawpurchases DON’T HAPPEN when guns are a rarity in a country. IE AUSTRALIA.
America, however, has more gun stores than gas stations. I’m lucky to find 10 in all of Melbourne, POP 4,000,000.
GUN CONTROL WORKS.
4. Ogre- Goshdarnit isn’t interested in facts. (I literally coughed onto my screen at that.) Perhaps you, Ogre, should read 1 and 3 above. Then pretend you didn’t, and hypocritically claim that Goshdarnit isn’t interested in facts. Ta.
5. Australia used to have around the same level of gun related deaths as America per-capita in the 80’s. Now we have around 10 related homicides YEARLY.
Hmmm.
GUN CONTROL WORKS.
Sorry fellas, hate to spite superiority, but I just ate up your fallibility, chewed it down and puked it all over my freakin floor… So, after any further replies, do I get to mop up?
Comment by Goshdarnit — 12/15/2006 @ 1:38 pm
Please do mop up. The stuff you’re leaving in here sure stinks.
Comment by Ogre — 12/15/2006 @ 1:44 pm
Sorry, Craig, forgot to cover cashiers…
It’s the twenty first century. Shatterproof glass was invented in the twentieth. Sorry pal, but that argument don’t cut it.
Next someone will tell me that school teachers should carry guns.
Bassically, as far as I’m concerned, everyone (w/o) training, thinks they’re invincible behind a firearm. If someone else is armed, said individual DOESN’T CARE. He’s faster, better trained, Dirty-freakin-Harry,…
Two armed individuals… Equates to equal force against equal force… equals a damn bloody mess.
No offence to my brethren, but if America can’t limit it’s gun homicides, than it’s inalienable fact that America has transended into a pisspoor excuse of a first world country. Time to clean up the act. Cao & the Wide Awakes, your political ideologists have a cleanup in aisle 4.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 12/15/2006 @ 1:56 pm
Ogre: The word stinks, isn’t that a lil’, y’know, oxymoronical coming from a guy who’s name is Ogre?
Comment by Goshdarnit — 12/15/2006 @ 1:58 pm
Ogre: The word: stinks; isn’t that a lil’, y’know, oxymoronical coming from a guy who’s name is Ogre?
Comment by Goshdarnit — 12/15/2006 @ 1:59 pm
No more ironic than someone who is unarmed who actually believe gun control works.
Comment by Ogre — 12/15/2006 @ 2:01 pm
As for arming teachers, well, someone just beat me to it:
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5811854
Comment by Ogre — 12/15/2006 @ 2:30 pm
Excerpt from http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html
VI. GUNS AND HOMICIDE
Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.
Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this accounts for the murder rate being lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada. However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5%. US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 — at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun. Statistics-gathering may have been less thorough at that time — and few people had the money or interest to buy guns. But American gun supply (including handguns) doubled from the 1973-1992 period, during which homicide rates remained unchanged (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4-Aug-2000, p.A10).
Politicians in Massachusetts have cited the State’s tough gun control laws as the reason for its low murder rates. However, the adjacent states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have some of the least stringent gun control laws in the US, yet the first two have lower murder rates than Massachusetts and the murder rates in Vermont are comparable to those in Massachusetts. Murder rates in Boston increased 50% in 2004 over the previous year, while murder rates in Los Angeles, Miami, Washington and many other major cites saw murder rates decline.
This is a nicely written site. Now all of you stop being mean and start playing nice….Ogre, Goshdarnit, no more name calling……
Comment by Richard Nixon — 12/15/2006 @ 3:17 pm
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
So I forgot to post the site I referance in my last paragraph above.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 12/15/2006 @ 3:17 pm
Your statements are contradictory. If Australians are mainly killing themselves with guns, what does that do to your little theory? Suicide is the exact same thing as murder, only the person does it themselves.
Actually, I think goshdarnit has a point. Maybe if we all started encasing ourselves in shatterproof glass, we would be better protected. Of course, there’s a slight detail about our oxygen supply.
Shatterproof glass isn’t available to the average resident, just most convenience stores. And as soon as he leaves his workplace, he is quite vulnerable. Shatterproof glass helps, but unless we can encase ourselves in it without suffocating, we’re back to square one.
Comment by Craig — 12/16/2006 @ 9:51 pm
Oh, and goshdarnit’s statements are very contradictory. He says gun control works, but according to his own figures, 340 out of 350 deaths are from suicides. Isn’t suicide a form of murder? And didn’t these people use a gun to do it? No offense to any Australians out there, but this just proves that these people are incredibly depressed, and need mental help. Therefore, they SHOULD NOT own a gun.
Comment by Craig — 12/16/2006 @ 9:55 pm
Richard, your info is quite interesting, though I don’t put much stock in psychological analyses, because ultimately, they depend on the person. I’ve heard Americans are more violent all the time, but that doesn’t drive me to commit violence, for example.
It’s kind of like connecting video games to violence (albeit a totally different ballpark, but still comparable), but that’s all I’m going to say about that. This is an article about gun control.
Comment by Craig — 12/16/2006 @ 10:46 pm
Also goshdarnit, you say guns are a rarity in Australia. If that’s true, then I ask you, WHERE are the people who are commiting suicide getting their guns? Guns may be a rarity in Australia, but they do exist, and as long as they exist, people who want to murder are going to do everything they can to get one. Period.
Comment by Craig — 12/17/2006 @ 4:00 am
Craig is right. The only TRUE path to gun control is to take guns off the market altogether. There will always be a way to acquire guns as long as they’re on the market. Did you know that gun control actually began in World War 2, when Hitler banned guns during the Holocaust? The Jews were forbidden from owning any kind of firearm, or even owning a gun shop.
What happened? The Jews were murdered by the millions. They had no way to defend themselves. What do you people intend to do if someone points a gun at you? Nothing much you can do without having a gun yourself, except cower down and hope he doesn’t pull the trigger. Guns don’t kill, it’s the psychotic arsehole behind the trigger you need to worry about.
Comment by Id-10-t — 12/17/2006 @ 1:13 pm
Everyone has a logic of their own, idiot. I have a .44 magnum locked away at all times. The only time I’ve EVER used it is when I go out in the backyard to shoot a few Coke cans. (I live in a wooded area in the boondocks. The nearest neighbor is about 10 miles away.) I hope I never have to use it in self-defense, because truthfully, I don’t think I could bear the weight of taking another life, even if he/she were trying to kill me. I’m not like that. My point is only this: Gun control laws were made to prevent those who would use them to kill from getting hold of them, and it obviously isn’t working, otherwise we wouldn’t have the ridiculous murder numbers. People like me and Ogre get upset when people try to take guns from law-abiding citizens, because that’s all gun control has done. It’s making it harder for honest citizens to protect themselves, because law enforcement certainly won’t. They have their hands too full to watch people 24/7, ESPECIALLY in places like New York City, Los Angeles, and all that, where the crime rate is highest.
Comment by Craig — 12/17/2006 @ 1:41 pm
What about when someone points a gun at you, and you can’t do anything about it but cower and hope he doesn’t pull the trigger? You people make out that guns are to blame for the murder in the world, when they’re really not. It’s the psychotic arsehole that pulls the trigger that you need to worry about.
Comment by Maximillion — 12/17/2006 @ 1:58 pm
I get upset when they try to take my right to bear arms also.If other counries wish to impose gun control that is on them and their citizens. As for me, I am glad for the second amendment, I think it has helped keep America free.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 12/17/2006 @ 2:41 pm
Most definitely it has. If people don’t want guns, let them go somewhere else and stop messing with my freedom. I think the 2nd amendment is probably one of the most important guarantees in the bill of rights.
From the Cato Institute:
[1] “Urban Murders on the Rise,” Newsweek, February 9, 1987, p. 30. The officer’s formula does not consider the possibility that gun ownership might be a response and a deterrent to rising crime rates. For gun ownership as a response to crime rate increases, see B. Benson, “Private Sector Responses to Rising Crime,” in Firearms and Violence: Issues of Public Policy, ed. Donald B. Kates (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1984), pp. 329- 56.
[2] D. Lunde, Murder and Madness (San Francisco: San Francisco Book Co., 1976), p. 1.
[3] Donald B. Kates, Why Handqun Bans Can’t Work (Bellevue, Wash.: Second Amendment Foundation, 1982), p. 23. One study of various Illinois counties found no relation between gun ownership and crime, except that female gun ownership appeared to rise in response to a rising crime rate. See David Bordua, “Firearms Ownership and Violent Crime: A Comparison of Illinois Counties,” in The Social Ecoloqy of Crime (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986).
Comment by Cao — 12/17/2006 @ 2:54 pm
Craig: “Your statements are contradictory. If Australians are mainly killing themselves with guns, what does that do to your little theory? Suicide is the exact same thing as murder, only the person does it themselves.”
Well this isn’t an ideological argument, so I’ll avoid your religious suicide banter and move onto the point. Legally, suicide IS suicide, murder is the deliberate killing of another.
“…what does that do to your little theory?” What theory? That gun control works? Before you rebut me, you should do a little of your own research. Go out, look for the figures. Oh, I’ve already done that for you. 350 deaths anually.
With firearms HEAVILY regulated here, you have to have a specific reason with which to own one.
I highlighted how the US has more gun stores than gas stops. I also illustrated how my capitol city of 4 million, has less than 10 gun stores. America HAS more than 88,650 related deaths anually when suicide is included. Woah. Damn. Craig, it’s best for your argumen if we leave suicide OUT of the equasion. Don’t you think?
However Craig, if your watery attempt at implication is to insinuate that 350 anual gun related deaths in Australia is a high number, then … simply put, you’re stupid.
But, if you were trying to insinuate that MINIMIZING firearm access is imperfect, then technically, you’re right. An all out weapons buyback scheme, would lower that number to ten. But I’m not suggestion that firearms be barred in entirety, just controlled.
As for that whole shatterproof glass and lack of oxygen thing… Craig, you have walked into a bank before, right? I’m guessing not. My suggestion? Research, or know what the heck you’re arguing about, before you argue.
“However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5%.”
Well, that’s an elementary given. Once the murder rate reaches a certain level, you get compensation. You’ve still got that 81.5 percent factor to contend with. Or more specifically, the 45.75 percentile gun-homicide remainder.
Let’s face it. In Australia, America’s clone nation, gun control works. So according to that tried and tested model… gun control works. WHICH MEANS TO YOU IMBECILES: GUN CONTROL WORKS.
You might wish to argue more on why civillians deserve to hold the right to weapons, and less on the crime factor. Again, as usual, I think I win my part of the argument. It is ironically, like shooting fish in a barrel ’round these parts.
Cao, valid points you have brought into the fray. But I PERSONALLY believe that Switzerland is NOT an effective model of comparison. The socioeconomic, educative and social variances between the US and Switzerland are too vast. Culturally, they are worlds apart. The US and Australia are VERY similar. Much more so than the US and the UK. Although Australians are more direct than Americans,(and don’t like to beat around the bush) they are just as prone to violence.
Conclusively, the Australian death doll is self evident. With 350 anual firearm-related deaths, it’s inarguable. Gun control works. No one can argue with that.
Comment by Goshdarnit — 12/18/2006 @ 8:32 am
Your example of the Swiss sums it up…..debate over.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 12/18/2006 @ 8:34 am
I was waiting for that. Richard, no matter what evidence we come up with that proves gun control doesn’t work, goshdarnit will find a way to discount the proof as irrelevant.
Comment by Cao — 12/18/2006 @ 6:09 pm
Woah… Cao, hold up. I’m good. But I’m not THAT good. Besides, the same could be said of YOUR argument. I’ve already given you proof, less than 10 firearm related murders anually in a country of 20 million. THERE IS YOUR PROOF! RIGHT THERE!!! But o