BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Laws only apply to the law abiding, criminals ignore them.
Now you are being silly.
As many here know my views on firearm ownership
Laws only apply to the law abiding, criminals ignore them.
Now you are being silly.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
We do not make laws with the law abiding in mind we make them as a response to actions deemed undesirable to society no one sat down at the beginning of mankind and dreamed up laws as a preventative action.
Perhaps, but expecting a "Gun Free School Zone" Law to keep a mass muderer from commiting a crime at a school is just wishfull thinking at best, if not out right Fantasy Land. where most of these people have been suicidal, the only deterent is a possible armed responce at the location. The Law abiding are the ones who obey & are then defenceless.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Nonsense, in terms of firearms I am both law abiding and defended the argument that firearms laws make you defenseless is pure scaremongering, as far as "Gun Free School Zones go New Zealands schools are all gun free and for the most part it works fine (read that as I can't remember any specific instances of a school shooting but we may have had one).
The problem is not the idea of gun free schools the problem is the American attitude to firearms as has been pointed out we have a very high rate of firearms ownership per capita of population yet we do not take people walking the streets with them lightly and the police will be on your arse faster than a stack of glazed doughnuts if you are in public with one.
As for suicidal people using them in mass shootings well that is purely a sign of how lax the system is there that they can get firearms with relative ease, I doubt the number of homicidal lunatics is any higher in the USA than it is anywhere else in the world as a percentage of the population yet only you have this issue on such regular intervals.
Just for the record this is last years fireams purchases:
1. Bushmaster’s 16" Modular Carbine
2. 7.62x54R Tigr Dragunov Syn Long Range Rifle & SVD Scope
3. 308 Lithgow SLR 9
4. 223 H&K SL8 Semi Auto
5. 12ga Benelli Supernova Tactical with Telescopic Stock
6. 12G Valtro PM-5 Hunting Stock 14"
7. 338 Lapua Remington 700 Police Long Range Tactical Rifle
8. Mauser P-08 Model 1937 (more a collectible than anything else)
Yet we have functioning and to date effect firearms laws, I would suggest that it is an indication that firearms restrictions can work without disarming the population, I am not suggesting that this system will work for anyone but New Zealand but it is an indication that a system can work.
Reasons for purchase:1, 2,3,4 and 7 were purchased for hunting I wanted to replace a couple of older weapons I had been using namely 2 x ex-Army .303's and an L1A1 (SLR) with newer ones, 5 was for duck and rabbit shooting and 6 was because when I purchased 5 it was sitting there and it was just too cool looking to pass up and 8 was because I didn't have one in the collection and this one had a set of matching numbers.
Note none for defense.
The problem is not the idea of gun free schools the problem is the American attitude to firearms as has been pointed out we have a very high rate of firearms ownership per capita of population yet we do not take people walking the streets with them lightly and the police will be on your arse faster than a stack of glazed doughnuts if you are in public with one.
As for suicidal people using them in mass shootings well that is purely a sign of how lax the system is there that they can get firearms with relative ease, I doubt the number of homicidal lunatics is any higher in the USA than it is anywhere else in the world as a percentage of the population yet only you have this issue on such regular intervals.
Just for the record this is last years fireams purchases:
1. Bushmaster’s 16" Modular Carbine
2. 7.62x54R Tigr Dragunov Syn Long Range Rifle & SVD Scope
3. 308 Lithgow SLR 9
4. 223 H&K SL8 Semi Auto
5. 12ga Benelli Supernova Tactical with Telescopic Stock
6. 12G Valtro PM-5 Hunting Stock 14"
7. 338 Lapua Remington 700 Police Long Range Tactical Rifle
8. Mauser P-08 Model 1937 (more a collectible than anything else)
Yet we have functioning and to date effect firearms laws, I would suggest that it is an indication that firearms restrictions can work without disarming the population, I am not suggesting that this system will work for anyone but New Zealand but it is an indication that a system can work.
Reasons for purchase:1, 2,3,4 and 7 were purchased for hunting I wanted to replace a couple of older weapons I had been using namely 2 x ex-Army .303's and an L1A1 (SLR) with newer ones, 5 was for duck and rabbit shooting and 6 was because when I purchased 5 it was sitting there and it was just too cool looking to pass up and 8 was because I didn't have one in the collection and this one had a set of matching numbers.
Note none for defense.
What's mind-blowing to me, and this is still a question which I feel has gone unanswered, not on this forum, but by gun-owners in the US.
The question is this. Why are you so afraid of your fellow man, that you feel the need to own a weapon (or several) for defense?
Is it the post-9/11 attitude of fear-mongering, that the Bush Administration forced down your throats, that the society of fear has spread? I just don't understand it.
The question is this. Why are you so afraid of your fellow man, that you feel the need to own a weapon (or several) for defense?
Is it the post-9/11 attitude of fear-mongering, that the Bush Administration forced down your throats, that the society of fear has spread? I just don't understand it.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The answer is a psychological one not a rational one.
I lived there for 7 years in some of the most seedy parts of Phoenix and at no stage did I feel the need to be armed, there were some interesting times like frequent gunshots in the apartment complex and some guy who every time I saw him he was carrying a shotgun but they left me alone and I left them alone and all was well.
I have spent time driving around the country and again at no stage was I ever threatened or even felt threatened their fears are just that fears and I believe they are reinforced by a very powerful lobby group who have pretty much brainwashed the country into believing the worst about itself to make money.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Yes, but do criminals abide by those laws? No they don't, its only the law abiding who do.
84RFK
Active member
And what puzzles me is that the number of massacres and school shootings are that low in Canada.
I know Michael Moore made a point of stricter gun-laws in Canada compared to the USA in his propaganda-movies, but I'm starting to wonder if it's that strict.
A friend of mine went to Canada some few years ago, found a nice girl, and just stayed there.
According to him there's no problem what so ever to aquire more or less what he feels like in Alberta, top-tuned assault rifle with all the trimmings, no problem!
And still the Canadians seem reluctant to start shooting at each other...:roll:
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
The Canadians introduced a new gun law not too long ago, very few complied with it.
In December 2001, cost rose to an estimated $527 million. The Canadian Firearms Program reported that a major factor behind the rising costs was the difficulty it had keeping track of licence fees collected. This was blamed, in part, on the computer system used to process applications. The audit said that the problem could not be resolved without "massive change," including "significant investment" in the computer system.
In April 2002 the tab for implementing the registry rose to $629 million. The costs were $2 million to help police enforce legislation; a minimum of $60 million for public-relations programs, including television commercials ($18 million of which went to ad agency GroupAction, which also received millions in sponsorship scandal contracts); $227 million in computer costs, including complicated application forms that slow processing times; and $332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms.
In December 2002, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the project was running vastly above initial cost estimates. The report showed that the implementation of the firearms registry program by the Department of Justice has had significant strategic and management problems throughout. Taxpayers were originally expected to pay only $2 million of the budget while registration fees would cover the rest. In 1995, the Department of Justice reported to Parliament that the system would cost $119 million to implement, and that the income generated from licensing fees would be $117 million. This gives a net cost of $2 million. At the time of the 2002 audit, however, the revised estimates from the Department of Justice were that the cost of the program would be more than $1 billion by 2004-05 and that the income from licence fees in the same period would be $140 million.
The net annual operating cost of the program, originally estimated to be $2 million, is reported to be $66.4 million for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think you may be confusing "stricter gun laws" with "effective policing", looking at Canada's gun laws they are similar to ours (perhaps a little stricter given that they require you to have registration certificates on borrowed firearms where we don't) so it is understandable that they can get high spec'ed weapons all you need is the correct license and you are in business.
Essentially Canada and New Zealand seem to work on the idea that if the license holder is vetted properly at the beginning of the process, carries out the required courses and inspections then you get a more responsible gun owner who can be trusted with high spec arms where the Americans seem to believe that if you dump millions of guns on the public all the bad ones will eventually weed themselves out.
pixiedustboo
Redfidelboo
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57565222/3-wounded-in-houston-area-college-shooting/
Three wounded. From this article it seems as if it was a 'fight' gotten out-of-hand.
Three wounded. From this article it seems as if it was a 'fight' gotten out-of-hand.
Some studys have been done comparing Seattle & Vancouver, and the researchers thought that the only difference was the Gun Laws. It was pointed out that the vast majority of crime in Seattle(and most other places in the US) is in the black community. While only about 12% of US population crime is way out of proportion to the %.The community has enbraised, perhaps by default, a culture of violence. The most obvious being gansta rap. Also the "fashion trend" in the community of walking around with their pants about to fall off their butts is to show solidarity with the bros in prison. Great role models there. On the local news from Mobile & Pensacola just about every night is some black kids who've shot or been shot. Back in the day things were settled with fists, then more recently knives & today it seems like any problem they have results in shooting. Part of the problem is revolving door prisons, people lying to the cops about crimes to jam up "the Man". The dropping of moral instruction in schools all play a part. Canada does have some gun problems from what I've seen on some episodes of "America's most wanted" when they visit up north.
lolwhassup
Active member
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo"]Gun Control - Watch What Happens When Guns Are Banned. - YouTube[/ame]
And that is Australia.
And that is Australia.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I will counter that with this published on 21 January 2013...
Faking waves: how the NRA and pro-gun Americans abuse Australian crime stats
The Sandy Hook massacre and President Obama’s response to it has refocused attention on impact of regulation on American gun crime. Crime statistics before and after the implementation of gun laws provide a quantifiable measure of their impact. As a consequence, Australia’s gun laws and their impact…
Author Michael J. I. Brown
The Sandy Hook massacre and President Obama’s response to it has refocused attention on impact of regulation on American gun crime. Crime statistics before and after the implementation of gun laws provide a quantifiable measure of their impact. As a consequence, Australia’s gun laws and their impact have become part of the American gun debate.
In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre and Monash University shootings, the conservative government of John Howard introduced a series of gun laws. These restricted who could own guns and the type of guns they could own.
While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia. Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people people, with less than 15 percent of these resulting from firearms.
Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occured in Australia.
Remarkably, American pro-gun advocates try to use the impact of the Australian gun law reform to make a case that reform “doesn’t work”. This seems amazing given the homicide rate in the United States is 5 per 100,000 people, with most homicides involving firearms.
When gun advocates use Australian crime stats, they sometimes employ a number of misleading tricks and sleights of hand. These tricks are common to several politically charged debates, and are a form of pseudo-science. Lets look at these tricks in action.
Cherry Picking
The selective use of data, or cherry picking, is a commonly used method of extracting the “right” answer. This is true even when all the data tells a completely different story.
Cherry picking often exploits random fluctuations in data. Firearm deaths in Australia have declined over the past two decades, but from year-to-year one can see variations up and down. Bigger fractional fluctuations are likely if you shrink your sample size.
Leading US pro-gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) was cherry picking when it’s publication, NRA News reported this statistic from New South Wales:
In the inner west, robberies committed with firearms skyrocketed more than 70% over the previous year, figures show.
Rather than giving the national trend over many years, the NRA chose one part, of one city, in one state and just two years of data. The NRA’s use of stats is misleading. Around Australia, robberies using firearms have declined from over 1500 per year in the 1990s to 1100 per year.
Look Over There!
When the most relevant statistics give the “wrong” answer, advocates often switch to less relevant statistics that give the “right” answer.
In the Wall Street Journal, Joyce Lee Malcolm stated
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
The implication is gun control has increased assaults and sexual assaults. This is completely misleading.
Weapons (including knives) are only used in 13% of assaults and 2% of sexual assaults in Australia. Firearms are rarely the weapon used, and only 0.3% of assaults in New South Wales used firearms.
Firearm use is almost completely irrelevant to assault and sexual assault in Australia, and cannot be driving changes in these crimes. Suggesting otherwise is deceptive.
Logical fallacy
Logical fallacies are very common in charged political debates.
Homicide rates in both Australia and the US have varied for a number of reasons. Since the decline in the US occurred without effective gun controls, does this mean gun control is ineffective? No.
While some gun laws may be ineffective (e.g., laws with grandfather clauses), it is wrong to conclude that all gun laws are ineffective. That’s like saying that because some cars are slow Datsuns, there cannot possibly be fast Ferraris.
Of course, this logical fallacy also ignores a gorilla in the room. Firearm deaths per capita in Australia are tiny compared to US firearm deaths per capita.
Making it up
If all else fails, there is a remarkably simple solution. Just make up some numbers. Over 300,000 people have recently viewed copies of an NRA tabloid infomercial which claims
“[Australian] gun murders increased 19%“.
This is just plain wrong.
However, inventing numbers is a remarkably effective approach, and isn’t limited to the Internet. If you lie, how many people will check your numbers? If the lie is caught, how will that be communicated to your audience?
For the record, in Australia firearms are now used less in robberies, homicides and kidnappings than they were in the 1990s.
Back to reality
So what is the reality? Homicide and suicide rates have declined in Australia since the 1990s. Deaths results from firearms have plunged even more dramatically. In Australia, mass shootings similar to Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield have not occurred for over a decade.
Is this the result of the gun laws introduced by the Howard government? While some (particularly gun advocates) dispute their impact, several studies conclude the laws have made a difference.
Claims that Australian gun laws have increased crime are pure spin and deception. They say more about American partisan politics than about the reality in Australia.
http://theconversation.edu.au/fakin...-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678
pixiedustboo
Redfidelboo
Yes.
BUT...the pro-gun conservative side DOES THE SAME THING.
Just so we're clear on that.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.
To say the implication is gun control has increased assaults and sexual assaults is misleading is nonsense.
Joyce Lee Malcolm also states
"The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.
To say the implication is gun control has increased assaults and sexual assaults is misleading is nonsense.
Joyce Lee Malcolm also states
"The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself."
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
That is exactly what they meant in my previous post under the heading...
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
But this time I will give you Snopes.com as my counter...
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
Last edited: