Machine gun ban being lifted in US....

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 04 Oct 2004 23:15

I finally got around to checking up on the statistics Nathen linked about Australian crime and they are very misleading - if not completely false.

Before the harshening of gun laws in Australia there were about 500 gun deaths per year. There are now about 300. Of those 15% are actually homocide - the majortity is suicide and the rest are accidents. So before the heavy gun laws we had about 2 gun murders every 400,000 people per year. Now we have about 1 gun murder for every 400,000 people per year.

Not only that but Australia has always had harsher gun laws than the US.

Since the change of government we have seen a rise in drug related crime - mainly because of the governments "war on drugs" campaign that has a focus on punishment rather than help. However we still have fairly low drug rates compared with countries such as the US and have a much more compassionate legal system I believe.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html

That's a link to some stats about Australian Crime.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 05 Oct 2004 07:17

Jeremy's link to gov't stats on gun deaths is misleading for our purposes.

"Total number of firearm related deaths" , does not include armed robberies or assaults.

Most of the "pro-gun" studies I looked at only showed Aussie. homicides rising about 3% right after the ban.

The highest "bar" on the graph is suicide anyway. The greatest drop in gun deaths is from reduced suicide.

I would contend that suicide rates, or a decline of such, have no bearing on this discussion.

The graph (yellow) does show a small rise in homicides for 1996.

The graph SAYS that "legal intervention" is included. I interpret this to mean the cops intentionally or accidentally killing people. Then they leave that stat. out of the graph.

These numbers look rigged. Maybe the numbers of deaths from police drug raids would overshadow the other message they are tryting to send.

I think that the Aussie. government paints the numbers to show that the gun-ban was a success.

I'll admit that different nations classify crimes differently ( sexual crimes may not be considered violent crimes, threats or intimidation maY OR MAY NOT BE, for example), the numbers may be tainted.
-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 06 Oct 2004 15:58

In total there were 5083 registered firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides accounted for the majority of these firearm related deaths (77 per cent), followed by homicide (15 per cent). In 1991, there were 629 firearm related deaths compared to 333 deaths in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearm related deaths over the period 1991 to 2001.

Looks pretty damn straight forward to me.

Before heavier gun laws there were over 600 gun deaths a year. After gun laws there was under 400. Of course there are other factors but it seems very hard to claim that the laws failed. The point of the laws was not to stop armed robberies, assaults or murder. The point of the laws is to stop gun deaths. Most armed robberies in Australia involve either an easier to obtain firearm or another weapon.

Also I would much prefer to be assulted in a pub than be shot in the head. - if every murder turns into 10 assaults - I think that's a good thing!

edit: I think you'd have to agree that heavier gun laws saves lives. It may also create in increase in non leathal violent crimes - although the reductions in welfare and many social conditions in Australia might also be a reason for this.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 06 Oct 2004 16:10

Unless you are involved with "holding a block down" for the purposes of territory to move drugs, and hoes. . . you have a better chance of being hit by some bitch in an SUV drinking a starbucks cinnamon vanilla no fat half caf micro foam latte whose reading the paper than of being shot with an assault weapon...

in America I don't think too many people actually get caught up in random drive by violence. I only know of one person who claims to have known someone killed randomly . . . and he was "involved" in the above described activities.

Guns don't kill people, people not knowing where they are from where they belong kills people, or something like that.

*edit ??? *

atze · Post by **atze** » 07 Oct 2004 03:58

yes, but WHEN you get shot down by a halfgrown wannabepimpgangster who boosts his little ego with a big gun simply because you took a wrong turn somewhere or he has to "proove himself" or you have "looked at him funny" or any such reason that causes these type of people to want to start trouble, you might wish that he had called his two big brothers to beat you up instead...

and SUVs should be just as hard to get as weapons anyway. who the hell needs such a big car? all it does is endanger the lives of other people because if you're in a car like that you think nothing can happen to you anyway, so you start

drinking a starbucks cinnamon vanilla no fat half caf micro foam latte whose reading the paper

.

BUT THEN: people like you guys would come up with stuff like: "it's not cars that kill, its people" or "but I need an SUV for work" or "it's my bloody right to own whichever car i choose" or stuff like that.

fact is, if you could trust people to be responsible and respectfull to others, there needen't be any laws. since unfortunately human beings are selfish brutes, you need certain restrictions and regulations to protect society. and if those restrictions held save lives without making life unbearable for anybody, so the better.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 07 Oct 2004 08:35

HEADLINE:

"SUV jumps wall, kills 4"

From what I see on T.V. and newspapers, you would think that SUV's were autonomous, independent killing machines.... always on the look out for crowds of people and hybrid cars.

How long til a lawyer defends his client by saying, "Well, he was behind the wheel, but the SUV did it!"

Imagine how dangerous an SUV with a gun on the dashboard would be?

The SUV would autonomously mow down groups of school children, while the handgun would autonomously be holding off the pursuing police.

That would make a cool web video, an SUV driving around by itself.

-n

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 07 Oct 2004 18:31

You're absolutly right - clearly the problem is not the SUVs but the people who drive them - write to your local politician asking that a law be passed through congress such that all people that own or express interest in owning an SUV be executed - Not only will this save lives but it will take away the bad image of SUVs and put the focus on the drivers.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 08 Oct 2004 07:07

Thanks Jeremy,

So now you want to commit genocide in my white collar world.

Guess I'd better pack up, learn a trade (like automotive repair) and sell my truck in favor of the sporty ole '87 corolla.

Then maybe society and footbag can accept me again.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 08 Oct 2004 10:20

<----------------------Begin Diversion----------------------------------------->
I am stoked. I"ve made it three whole weeks on one tank of gas, and it's still half full. I was filling up one point three times a week . . . and to have cut down on driving so much means . . .

I have saved $93 . . that's almost a trip to san diego and back, or a one way ticket.

Funny eh, saving gas so I can buy gas to go on a trip . . . oh the irony.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic diversion