You forgot the <sarcasm> tag, I do it it all the time....
Printable View
You forgot the <sarcasm> tag, I do it it all the time....
I think the mistake in thinking here is that the citizens, as individuals, are not more often on the front line fighting crime. The police do it daily as their line of work, how often is any one average joe citizen likely to come across crime and criminals?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
And leading on from that, how much training in recognising crime, and choosing the appropriate response, does joe citizen have compared to police?
Does joe citizen also carry mace, or taser, or nightstick and handcuffs so that there are alternatives in what response to crime they can make?
david
this is true. gun ownership in the "wild west" was higher. and, if memory serves (i cant find the article i read on this) crime rates were lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
speaking of cowboys, David I just realized you have had that avatar and your title for the past 6 years I think haha - that's pretty cool. I always wondered though, what does the quote come from re: Montana and who is that guy?
i really can't speak to the criminals in australia, but in the u.s. most criminals pray on citizens.. it is quite rare that a criminal will try to rob, rape, mug, or murder a police officer on duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
It was my first avatar, and the title is a quote from 'Montana', off Frank Zappa's Overnight Sensation album. Frank is a genuine musical genius composer in my eyes and I loved his irony. I am so used to it now that it seems not worth ever changing (and I am not sure I would be allowed the same number of characters for any new one I wanted to use).Quote:
Originally Posted by Visionray
The picture comes from a free library of historical 'wild west' images I found online a long time ago. I have a slight interest in old cowboy music, and that seemed fitting to me to represent that.
david
How many citizens, as a proportion of the total population, do you think would be actually have been exposed to physically aggressive and life threatening crime (that would actually need them to resort to the use of a gun to protect their own lives, rather than just their property, which is replaceable)?Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
david
that number may be higher than you think. probably available somewhere in this document: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...s4-1-Print.pdf
those stats would be available through nationmaster.com. Where you in some way trying to argue that private citizens are more often confronted by criminals than police.. i'm not following your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Quote:
11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.
Quote:
Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.264 Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using a firearm defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.
Quote:
Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.
Quote:
For every accidental death, suicide or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.
Quote:
Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.
Quote:
When using guns in self-defense:
• 83% of robbery victims were not injured
• 88% of assault victims were not hurt
• 76% of all self-defense use of guns never involve firing a single shot
etc.Quote:
After the implementation of Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibiting handgun possession
for protection, the “breaking and entering” crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the American rate.
FL, where did all those statistics come from?
david
I am just curious about this stuff...we have had a few mass killings of our own here, but the response seems very different.
After the Port Arthur killings, there were new federal laws controlling the ownership and sale of automatic and semi-automatic rifles, along with a massive government buy-back scheme that was basically a generous, no questions asked, type of action.
That seems to have so far stopped mass slaughters similar to the one in this thread.
Smaller hand guns have always been hard to obtain legally, you need to be licenced and have a reason to have a licence. Most pistol owners here are members of sporting clubs and leave the weapons in the club safe.
There are illegal guns here, no doubt...we have rashes of gun crimes often, but not in the numbers that make ownership of one completely neccessary to protect one's life from others who own one.
david
sorry to be unclear about that. they came from the link i posted a few posts back.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
this one: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...s4-1-Print.pdf
But what have the costs been in the over-all picture? Is it better to prevent occasional mass slaughters if the over-all violent crime rate increases as a result of the prevention?Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Those "facts" put forward by the gun lobby have been criticised quite often. If you found them backed up by a more impartial group I would be more inclined to give them credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
(so doesn't mean I'm going to say they're wrong - unless I find some stats of my own - just that I'll take them with a grain of salt, which I'm sure you'd do likewise if I presented something from an anti-gin group)
I think we ALL have to be a little careful of giving Internet-based "facts" too much credit (and that's me included. Wasn't valid for Uni assignments, unless verified fully).
Well, with some Internet stats (so let's all take them with a grain of salt ;)), it seems the idea that the tougher gun laws in Oz hasn't had a positive effect may not be 100% accurate:Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htmQuote:
Sharp Drop in Gun Crime Follows Tough Australian Firearm Laws
Latest official data from Australia shows a marked reduction in gun-related crime and injury following recent restrictions on the private ownership of firearms.
Twelve days after 35 people were shot dead by a single gunman in Tasmania, Australia's state and federal governments agreed to enact wide-ranging new gun control laws to curb firearm-related death and injury. Between July 1996 and August 1998, the new restrictions were brought into force. Since that time, key indicators for gun-related death and crime have shown encouraging results.
Firearm-Related Homicide
"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."
-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999
This report shows that as gun ownership has been progressively restricted since 1915, Australia's firearm homicide rate per 100,000 population has declined to almost half its 85-year average.
Homicide by Any Method
The overall rate of homicide in Australia has also dropped to its lowest point since 1989 (National Homicide Monitoring Program, 1997-98 data). It remains one-fourth the homicide rate in the USA.
The Institute of Criminology report Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999 includes 1998 homicide data showing "a 9% decrease from the rate in 1997." This is the period in which most of the country's new gun laws came into force.
Gun-Related Death by Any Cause
The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.
The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.
"We have observed a decline in firearm-related death rates (essentially in firearm-related suicides) in most jurisdictions in Australia. We have also seen a declining trend in the percentage of robberies involving the use of firearms in Australia."
-- Mouzos, J. Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms. Trends & Issues in Crime & Criminal Justice No. 116. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, May 1999; 6
http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=32Quote:
The US National Rifle Association (NRA), led by actor Charlton Heston, and other pro-gun groups are actively promoting misinformation on the results of Australia's tough Uniform Agreement on Gun Laws, adopted by all States and Territories following Martin Bryant's April 28 1996 rampage and massacre of 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania.
"This is the last act of a desperate organisation," says Gun Control Australia (GCA) Spokesperson Randy Marshall.
"The facts being circulated in print and now electronic media are wrong, incomplete, unsubstantiated and designed to create panic among pro-gun supporters both within and outside the United States," Mr Marshall says. "They are insulting to Australia, and dangerously misleading."
Citing a "crime wave" in Australia since the new laws were adopted, the NRA and others have apparently chosen to take evidence from the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (SSAA) interpretations of the true facts, painting a story of increasing assaults, increased break-ins, higher homicide rates and a general reduction in public safety Australia wide. The cause? A disarmed populace, left defenceless by a worldwide "left-wing" conspiracy to confiscate weapons.
"Worst of all, this misinformation ignores the remarkably good news coming both from Australia and Canada - two countries where the benefits of tighter gun controls have saved thousands of lives and made significant improvements in public safety in recent years.
"According to the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 1998, Australian gun deaths decreased by 110 (26%) between '97-and '98; 194 (38%) between '96 and '98; and 369 (more than 55%) between '88 and '98. Within these figures, gun homicides are down proportionately.
"Canadian gun death rates are down about 40% from a 1977 high, following tougher gun laws introduced in that country in 1977, 1991 and 1996," Mr Marshall says.
"The degree of deception being practised by the NRA and others suggests that pro-gun groups are desperate to stop the perceived loss of their 'rights' to uncontrolled gun ownership and use, threatened by Australia's successes and recent US milestones such as the Smith & Wesson Company's concession to make their guns safer, more traceable, with enhanced in-built child-proofing," Mr Marshall notes.
But, as I said, I've presented the above merely to point out that the idea of increased crime/death rates in Oz is disputed by some, and not as any proof that "I'm right, you're wrong - nyaaaa!!" ;)
Actually, a small tangent with regards to online sources (and because I happened to read it right after posting the above). I just read this:
"Those new measures came too late for history department faculty members at Middlebury College in the US. In January, they passed a resolution forbidding students from using the online encyclopedia for academic assignments."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/mor...e#contentSwap1
I'm a little surprised that a college had to make it a resolution - and that it was such a big deal - over citing Wikipedia as an academic source. I wouldn't even have considered it, and I'm fairly sure non of my Uni teachers would have accepted it. What is the situation in the US college arena with regards to Wikipedia as a source? Any idea? I'm now interested in what the "official" take is within other Aus universities too.
Just seems really strange that anyone would even consider Wikipedia a valid source for academic papers. A starting point, yes. But evidence??
Yes that could be right. But as you have your personal opinion about this subject, I have mine. I posted the Wikipedia article to show that there are many people researching and finding different results, so I guess we'll have to wait for more researching to be done. (and say "I told you so!" ;))I'm actually surprised to see how little statistics there are about this subject on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
("ethnic groups": With this, I meant the problems that can occur when different cultures meet.)
The link I posted has a source for every fact. It's not just some findings that the guy (or the gun lobby) found himself. Rather, they are from a myriad of sources. Which sources do you have a problem with?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
I don't know. You have brought up the idea (paraphrasing) that you are suprised that many people dont "even consider that they may be wrong". It seems to me that you are at least equally reluctant to consider that you may be wrong, that a wide variety of gun laws have been implemented all over the place, that the facts are actually readily available and you really just dont like guns personally.
I don't know. I seem to be able to find statistics on this all over the place. There are a zillion books on the subject. I could fairly easily provide a decent list of links including statistics on this. I mean, which ones are missing? Could it be that the side of the argument you find yourself on doesn't find the statistics useful?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
I suppose you could consider crimes of racism that involve guns. But, otherwise, I'm not sure what problems you're referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Both of those articles were from 7 years ago. Since then, what has the change in crime been compared to the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo