An end to gun control - people vs the state (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

If civilians all had guns, then criminals would shoot them before robbing them to prevent the risk of getting shot by their victim. Result: more deaths. This is one of my primary concerns.

There didn't seem to be an epidemic of that before howards gun control laws. If all these people were dying in tonnes of accidents before howards gun laws, I don't see the stats to support it.

 

[absolution*]

I say let the redneck Americans kill eachother. They will overwhelmingly be Bush supporters anyway.

With regard to the point that people should be allowed guns to protect themselves, as the fat, capped crusader points out, the US, with the most liberal gun control laws in the world, doesnt have less crime or violence than any other country. Evidently, the possiblity of someone having a gun and using it in self-defense isnt really much of a deterent to the attacker.

So the idea that, "gun control isn't giving people the right to carry out vigilante justice, its giving them better means to protect themselves" whilst perhaps being theoretically plausible doesnt stand up to reality. But further, I think youll also find that accidental shootings make up a fair percentage of the firearm homicide level, in the US anyway.

Kudos to..

By giving the responsbility for crime prevention and the administration of justice to individuals the individual, without consultation, or by recourse to an organised set of rules and laws becomes a vigilante who self helps his or her way to justice in the name of provention of crime.

 

[erawamai]

There didn't seem to be an epidemic of that before howards gun control laws. If all these people were dying in tonnes of accidents before howards gun laws, I don't see the stats to support it.

Australian's never really had unadulterated access to guns even before the new gun laws.

The Howard government response came about because of the few massacres that had occured before Martyn Bryant. The fellow who snipered people in Melbourne with his licenced high power rifle. The guy that went nuts at Strathfield shopping mall plus a mass killing in NZ at the time pushed Howard to do something. It was a popular move and the nats didn't mind because farmers are allowed to keep their bolt action rifles.

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

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

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

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

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But further, I think youll also find that accidental shootings make up a fair percentage of the firearm homicide level, in the US anyway.

Given that there are apparently so many accidental shootings when you make weapons legal, how come this doesn't show up in australia statistics pre/post 1997?

Australian's never really had unadulterated access to guns even before the new gun laws.

Yea and I don't think we should have unadultered access to guns - I just think having a gun for protection should be a legitimate claim, particularily for some jobs.

 

[absolution*]

Given that there are apparently so many accidental shootings when you make weapons legal, how come this doesn't show up in australia statistics pre/post 1996?

I think its cultural and probably socio-economic. Many Americans believe lax gun laws tend to signify their freedom and liberties, and as such guns a proliferated throughout society. Whereas this was never the case in Australia, and as such guns were no doubt kept for their purpose, locked away, away from children, without being brandished around in public like Id assume they often are in the US.

 

[erawamai]

Yea and I don't think we should have unadultered access to guns - I just think having a gun for protection should be a legitimate claim, particularily for some jobs.

The only people who should have guns in society are the police, security guards and farmers, who should have access to single shot bolt actions rifles, not semi automatic or automatic assualt rifles.

BTW while just goolging around I found this. Pauline Hanson believes that Port Arthur is unsolved.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010224063124/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0102/22/pageone/pageone1.html

---------------
In any event these killings pretty caused the changes to the gun laws.

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

1987 August 9

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

April of 1996.

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

August 17, 1991

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

December 8, 1987.

 

[HotShot]

The only people who should have guns in society are the police, security guards and farmers, who should have access to single shot bolt actions rifles, not semi automatic or automatic assualt rifles.

BTW while just goolging around I found this. Pauline Hanson believes that Port Arthur is unsolved.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010224063124/http://www.smh.com.au/news/0102/22/pageone/pageone1.html

more like the only ppl who shouldnt have guns are the police. COs they dont bloody well use it, and each time i see a police, i feel like stealing it off him.

anyway, guns are pretty useless, if you can get it done with a pepper spray, shock guns, tear gas, smoke nade, batons and hundcuffs , i really dont understand the philsophy of 'using guns for self defense'.

The police are always going to come after a crime has been comitted. the chances of having a gun and shooting an offender (who probably has a gun as well) is slim, and will result in more deaths. u dont need stats to back this, its obvious.

guns shouldnt even be used for hunting, hunting should be done abo style with spears and boomerangs...

 

[transcendent]

I'm against guns, but I do believe it is a great way to thin the population. The problem is that it's most likely young people dying, and we have an aging population...

 

[loquasagacious]

What people seem to be missing in the rape scenario is the arms race and pre-emption involved.

For example in our hypothetical someone is attempting to rape someone else and is stopped by the rapee using a firearm this seems to assume that the rapist is almost passive. Afterall in a society of gun owners it is reasonable to assume that the rapist is also armed. Given this situation I would assume that a rapist would as a first step disarm his victim - and clearly he will be able to, as the agressor he has the initiative the only way to prevent this would be for a woman to continuously pre-empt potential assailants by disarming every man she came in contact with....

Is anyone else seeing the problem here?

 

[davin]

Whereas this was never the case in Australia, and as such guns were no doubt kept for their purpose, locked away, away from children, without being brandished around in public like Id assume they often are in the US.

Um....guns brandished around in public in the U.S.? where did you get that idea, exactly?


and there's a lot of factors that lead to extra violence in the united states...racial tensions in inner city areas are one of the big things.
For example....Washington D.C. has strict gun control...if i recall correctly, you outrihgt can't own a gun, only police have them.....
Here were the crime statisitcs:

The number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI in 2003 was 8,839. The number of murders and homicides was 248. The violent crime rate was 15.7 per 1,000 people.

Compare that to El Paso, Texas...the population difference is 584,000 vs D.C.'s 563,000, but this was el paso's statisitcs:

The number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI in 2003 was 3,502. The number of murders and homicides was 21. The violent crime rate was 6 per 1,000 people.

thats a violent crime rate about 40% of washington d.c, but el paso is in texas, with very liberal gun laws and D.C. has the strictest in the nation.

For additional comparison:
Nashville, Tennessee:

The number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI in 2003 was 8,331. The number of murders and homicides was 74. The violent crime rate was 15 per 1,000 people.

Seattle, Washington: 569,101

The number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI in 2003 was 3,946. The number of murders and homicides was 34. The violent crime rate was 6.8 per 1,000 people.

Boston, Massachusetts: 581,616

The number of violent crimes recorded by the FBI in 2003 was 7,173. The number of murders and homicides was 39. The violent crime rate was 12.2 per 1,000 people.

those are all similarly sized cities, and while they vary, there's no correlation between gun control and crime rates. That El Paso has the rates it does, and compared to D.C. in particular, show that more guns doesn't equal more crime

 

[wheredanton]

Um....guns brandished around in public in the U.S.? where did you get that idea, exactly?


and there's a lot of factors that lead to extra violence in the united states...racial tensions in inner city areas are one of the big things.
For example....Washington D.C. has strict gun control...if i recall correctly, you outrihgt can't own a gun, only police have them.....
Here were the crime statisitcs:


Compare that to El Paso, Texas...the population difference is 584,000 vs D.C.'s 563,000, but this was el paso's statisitcs:

thats a violent crime rate about 40% of washington d.c, but el paso is in texas, with very liberal gun laws and D.C. has the strictest in the nation.

For additional comparison:
Nashville, Tennessee:


Seattle, Washington: 569,101


Boston, Massachusetts: 581,616


those are all similarly sized cities, and while they vary, there's no correlation between gun control and crime rates. That El Paso has the rates it does, and compared to D.C. in particular, show that more guns doesn't equal more crime

Most of those stats can be put down to the fact other states within the union have very liberal gun laws.

If NSW had strict gun laws and QLD had liberal gun laws it is most likely that violent crime in NSW would not differ.

 

[davin]

ah, but still, guns would be scarcer in D.C., in theory. it also brings up the question of how reliable fully banning can be. obviously, the u.s. is at a disadvantage with its two large borders, ESP the border with Mexico. But I mean, you can rely on people to not have what they aren't allowed to by law. Its why drug legislation has been so successful everywhere its been implimented.

 

[wheredanton]

Its why drug legislation has been so successful everywhere its been implimented.

Outlawing drugs works for the great majority of the population mainly because drugs are not really desirable in mainstream society. It's not socially acceptable to do coke. Whereas owning a gun in the USA is largely acceptable within social norms.

 

[davin]

i was being sarcastic with that particular statement....drug legislation doesn't work. drugs being illegal hasn't stopped them from being fairly easy to obtain

 

[wheredanton]

drug legislation doesn't work. drugs being illegal hasn't stopped them from being fairly
easy to obtain

Drugs are addictive, guns are not. Drugs laws serve to make drugs and now firearms socially unacceptable as the maintream majority accepts the laws.

The reason why the great majority of Australian's support gun laws is because the laws in place eventually influence social values. It could also be because the average Australian sees a causal connection between the gun masscares mentioned on the previous page and the ownership of guns.

 

[shady_03]

what even happened to the notion that people in numbers sharing a unified voice would be more powerful then the use of firearms?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

what even happened to the notion that people in numbers sharing a unified voice would be more powerful then the use of firearms?

they all got shot.

 

[shady_03]

they all got shot.

HAHA i see ur still into those wisecracks NTB - How's the course goin by the way?

 

[withoutaface]

what even happened to the notion that people in numbers sharing a unified voice would be more powerful then the use of firearms?

No, seriously, if we have an authoritarian government who doesn't give a fuck what the people say, how are a million voices going to help?

 

[volition]

Even if they did have guns, who should the "people" go and shoot? public servants? politicians? How would it all work?

Or is it all supposed to work on based on the threat of rebellion?