Where to go from here? (Possible debate, gun control)

[IndyRnRfan]

This was pasted from another web site and I'll quote it here in a minute. Interesting numbers for those always referring to Australia as an example of successful gun ban. I think Obama even mentioned not too long ago.



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

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

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

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp#KbjkZGAJXmQdI8Ym.99"

 

[SirDuff]

But stricter gun laws do seem to reduce gun violence in other countries.

Or are citizens of countries where stricter gun laws can be passed less likely to resort to violence (or gun violence specifically)?

 

[Disneyliscious]

Even if you assume that every single criminal gun homicide would still happen, that all of those involve people so determined that they will go out and obtain illegal weapons at cost and risk and with planning, that not one would be caught in the process, etc--there are still 80 other gun deaths from suicide and accident for every one time a gun actually ends up used in a justifiable way against someone. So getting guns out of hte hands of law abiding citizens, when they are not acting as part of an organized militia, is still likely to save lots of lives.

If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so - with or without a gun. Accidents happen when driving a car, playing baseball, swimming, walking through your own backyard. There will always be unfortunate casualties - with or without guns. Freedom is the result of unfortunate casualties. Whether it be the ability to live in a free nation or the freedom to bear arms.

I actually think that is the single biggest issue--we need to stop seeing guns as a form of protection (which they rarely are)--this is really shaping the debate in a way that simply does not make logical sense.

People who feel guns are rarely a form of protection are not taking into consideration of the reason why. Criminals do not seek out gun owners or businesses who allow conceal carry to target. They seek out schools, churches or other places where people are vulnerable when they want to pull off a mass attack. Thats why you "rarely" hear of them being used for protection. When you are protected, you are far less likely to actually have to use the protection.

 

[lauradis]

This was pasted from another web site and I'll quote it here in a minute. Interesting numbers for those always referring to Australia as an example of successful gun ban. I think Obama even mentioned not too long ago.



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

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

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

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp#KbjkZGAJXmQdI8Ym.99"

The problem with those numbers are the Australia law enforcement has had enough time to round up all the illegal guns. It will be interesting to see what the next 5/10 years holds for statics numbers.

Plus I have always wondered why if the citizens don't need guns then why does the military need guns or police?

Why didn't Australia band all guns period?

 

[SirDuff]

This was pasted from another web site and I'll quote it here in a minute. Interesting numbers for those always referring to Australia as an example of successful gun ban. I think Obama even mentioned not too long ago.



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

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

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

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp#KbjkZGAJXmQdI8Ym.99"

I'm sorry but did you actually read what you quoted? Don't even have to look far, Snopes (which you quoted/link to) does the work for you. From your link...

For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.) An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program.

it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years.

I'm not arguing that gun laws always (or even ever) reduce gun related crimes (as I've not done the research), but your quote absolutely does not prove what you seem to think that it does.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

I said I was bowing out, but this was posted while I typed so I will quickly answer it. NO, I would not feel safer with a gun. IN fact, my husband travels 80% of the time. so often I have been alone at night, or just me and kids. I do not now, nor have I ever, own a gun. I do not want one. I do not think it would make me safer.

I have a question, what are you going to do if someone tries to break into your home? You will call someone who carries a gun. Why wait 3-10 minutes for the police?

I do agree that you shouldn't have one because you don't feel comfortable with one. Me, a gun is just like a fork or a spoon to you. I am very comfortable and have had training and practice with many. If I am ever in a situation to need to call the police, it will be with a coroner too because the criminal will be dead. Police take too long to get to me and I'm not taking that chance, nor is my son or wife. They both know how to load and shoot my weapons. If something happened to them while I was gone, it would be my fault as a father and husband that I didn't give them the best chance for survival.

 

[Domo]

That works in your country, will not work here. As soon as criminals know normal citizens can't or it is too difficult to buy a gun, then crime will sky rocket.

There's an old saying in America, "an armed person is a citizen, an unarmed person is a subject". This is also true of ither countries. I will always be a citizen until I die regardless of any law passed until I die.

Why won't what works in our country work for you? I'd call it a resounding success in practicality

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Hadley, I took that word as an adjective since it was talking about a statement.

I think your viewpoints are interesting and worthwhile, and that you shouldn't let that cause you to leave.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Here's another interesting fact site.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But many, many gun deaths are not from people who are criminal most of the time, It is that split second things when an argument over texting in a movie theatre turns into someone being shot to death, the "self defense" that goes way over the top, or a perceived threat which is not even there being dealt with with deadly force, etc. AND, simply having few guns readily accessible does mean that fewer will get into criminal hands (harder to steal, more costly on the black market, etc)--plus it adds to the culture of fear and retaliation which is, in my opinion, mostly at the core of this issue.

Basically, IMO, the guns should only legally to be out at certain times and loaded only in certain places (shooting ranges, and hunting areas when hunting with a license). I feel, if enforced (breaking the law ought to deprive you of your gun licence, and guns, for several years to permanently IMO--not jail time or fines) this would greatly reduce accidental gun death, suicide by guns (harder for a non owner to get ahold of one and ammunition), and "unplanned" criminal death by guns.

It'S my opinion, and it is close to how guns are handled in many other places--ridiculous or not much of the world has managed to do it this way (or similarly, anyway) and, amazingly, have much less gun violence, gun suicides, accidental shooting deaths, etc.

It's also been pointed out that there are other places with nearly as many guns as the US, and still no gun crime.

It's also been pointed out that none of the places with "successful" gun control programs HAD a gun problem prior to gun control. In fact, gun related crime has actually been on the rise in the UK & Australia for the past 2 decades and on the decrease in the US for the past 4 decades.

None of the places with US levels of violence have been able to implement a successful gun control program. One need only look at Mexico for proof of that.

Did you know that even today, it's easier to purchase an AR15 in most parts of Canada than it is in a typical Northeastern state?

Japan has almost no guns, but a HIGHER suicide rate than the US.

And you can't simply legislate guns out of existence. You said you'd grandfather current owners. There are over 300 million guns in the US. And guns just don't wear out under normal use. The most popular rifle in the US is a 50-year-old design. The most popular handgun a 100-year-old design. If we never made another, these guns could still be working hundreds of years from now.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

Why won't what works in our country work for you? I'd call it a resounding success in practicality

This is like me saying why doesn't your country become a communist nation, it works for North Koreans.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

1, 2 and 3 ARE my fist steps--those are the things we could do quickly if we only got our heads out of the sand and decided we all care enough. The other cultural shift in how things are viewed and people are educated, etc would take longer to implement even if all laws were passed tomorrow, and would take even longer to show results.

That is my opinion based on research, and living in the US, and living in Spain and living in Germany and speaking at length with people who live any many different places and how guns are handled where they are and looking into rates of violence and gun deaths, etc. Why wouldn't I "admit" I feel that way?

Never gonna happen.

 

[IndyRnRfan]

It's also been pointed out that there are other places with nearly as many guns as the US, and still no gun crime.

It's also been pointed out that none of the places with "successful" gun control programs HAD a gun problem prior to gun control. In fact, gun related crime has actually been on the rise in the UK & Australia for the past 2 decades and on the decrease in the US for the past 4 decades.

None of the places with US levels of violence have been able to implement a successful gun control program. One need only look at Mexico for proof of that.

Did you know that even today, it's easier to purchase an AR15 in most parts of Canada than it is in a typical Northeastern state?

Japan has almost no guns, but a HIGHER suicide rate than the US.

And you can't simply legislate guns out of existence. You said you'd grandfather current owners. There are over 300 million guns in the US. And guns just don't wear out under normal use. The most popular rifle in the US is a 50-year-old design. The most popular handgun a 100-year-old design. If we never made another, these guns could still be working hundreds of years from now.

Why keep posting facts, you're just wasting your time. The uninformed just keep taking info from govt officials who bend the numbers to make it look like they did domething good.

 

[Domo]

this like me saying why doesn't your country become a communist nation, it works for North Koreans.

I see what you mean.

Still, the statistics stand: following our tightening of gun controls, our violent crime rates - specifically, homicides - have plummeted. Now our death rates as a result of firearm proliferation are a FRACTION of what the USA endures and I think that the world should take note.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Yep, this is true--there are some supreme court decisions, both older and newer, that I disagree with. Is there anyone who agrees with all of them?

The way I read the second amendment, and interpret it, it does not place many limits but it also does not say no limits can be placed. And it does place the limit that arms are to be carried as part of a well organized militia--that doesn't necessarily mean walking around town on your own just in case. Nor, does it state firearms. just "arms" and yet we regularly prevent people from carrying knives, swords, bows and arrows and all manner of other arms in places we allow open carry or concealed carry and say that those FIREarms somehow enjoy more protection than others types of arms. I do not understand that, and i do think it will eventually (sadly, IMO; probably a long time from now) be interpreted differently by a court.

The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

You don't need the Supreme Court to interpret that. Any 4th grader who knows how to diagram a sentence can show you the mention of "militia" in that sentence places no limitations on the people. BTW, "the militia", as defined by our founders is all able bodied men. Additionally, "well regulated" in 1776 speak means "well armed".

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I see what you mean.

Still, the statistics stand: following our tightening of gun controls, our violent crime rates - specifically, homicides - have plummeted. Now our death rates as a result of firearm proliferation are a FRACTION of what the USA endures and I think that the world should take note.

I've seen no evidence to support that notion that your rates "plummeted" after strict gun control. Fact is, there was a time when it was easier to buy a gun in London than it was in New York. And London still had a much, MUCH lower homicide rate at that time.

Fact is, your strict gun control "solved" a non-existent problem.

 

[SirDuff]

It's also been pointed out that none of the places with "successful" gun control programs HAD a gun problem prior to gun control. In fact, gun related crime has actually been on the rise in the UK & Australia for the past 2 decades and on the decrease in the US for the past 4 decades.

Still, the statistics stand: following our tightening of gun controls, our violent crime rates - specifically, homicides - have plummeted. Now our death rates as a result of firearm proliferation are a FRACTION of what the USA endures and I think that the world should take note.

And herein lies a large part of the problem with these discussions - people quote "facts" without backing them up. Again, I've not done the research, but it is clear that one of these statements has to be incorrect. The "facts" posted by Indy have been shown to be, at best, suspect (I've not dug through the second link, but given the site's mandate, I'd be suspicious. I'd also, frankly, be suspicious of US (or other) government sites). Differences of opinion are expected, but there shouldn't be differences in facts.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Do you really believe that there are so MANY fewer criminals in most of the rest of the Western world than in the US? That we somehow breed substantially higher numbers of criminals than France, Canada, Germany, Denmark, etc?
When there are fewer legally owned guns out there, there are simply fewer guns for criminals to get their hands on, and what is there costs more, which does not stop those who are super intent on committing gun violence, but it stops a whole lot of other, smaller time criminals, angry ex spouses, etc. And keeps guns out of the hands of a whole lot of suicidal teens. and and and

Interesting that you included a chart with Finland. I suggest you read up on ownership rates of guns in that country

 

[Pea-n-Me]

If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so - with or without a gun.

Access to a firearm is a risk factor for suicide. Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.

Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible. About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely
used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%.

Males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states.

Oops, this is the right link: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

 

[undertheradar]

For those of you concerned about open carry and concealed carry laws, perhaps the change in Kansas law can carry as much outrage as the now removed flag in SC.