Do people get robbed in Australia?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Do people die in Australia?
Just a yes/no answer will suffice.
Thanks in advance.
Printable View
Do people get robbed in Australia?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Do people die in Australia?
Just a yes/no answer will suffice.
Thanks in advance.
i would love to see the data for the 440 accidental. How many of those triggers were pulled by a kid and how many by an adult. I imagine the lions share of those are negligent adults.. not accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnusVS
Actually, probably didn't clarify myself correctly last post.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting removing guns altogether. Even in Australia there are guns around. It's more about much tighter controls over ownership and models available. I read somewhere that there was a "limit" in some US state for an individual to purchase "only" 4 guns a month! Limit???
And that's not excluding police/military from owning the weapons they require.
What I do find a little strange (and it may come from not a full understanding of how all legislation is implemented in the US) is how the whole "right to bare arms" thing is part of your national constitution - that gun lobbyists use to defend their position - and yet gun laws are actually this state by state basis that in effect have created almost an ad hoc system of regulation that makes not only the whole debate but the actuality far more complex than it should be. Why not consistent, clear and research based national legislation on gun ownership? Surely that would be a start for both sides?
Learn more how the Federal laws contain the State Laws.
What's your point, that everybody should be able to defend themselves by making sure that they have better caliber weapons than.. ummm... everybody else?Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
the right to bare arms, means i have the right to have a weapon. Each state then decides what is required to get said weapon, and in watch fashion you may have it.
In massachusetts you can only have certain kinds of weapons. and you need permits to cary those weapons for differnt things(hunting, concealed, just to have in your house)
its because we as a people are allowed weapons that we were able to free ourselves from englands rule back in the revolutionary war. That right is the last thing that prevents the government from being in complete controll. If you get rid of the publics ability to arm and fight back, you can rule them with an iron fist.
we have been trying the same thing with cocaine and marijuana for sometime, but funny enough both are very easy to get... and you know what.. often times that same alternative pharmaceutical rep can get you some guns to. In OZ regulation may be a bit easier as you have no national neighbors, at least not ones that can drive across the border.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
the united states is sort of large. One set of laws for that amount of area with that number people being unevenly spread in different areas and circumstances is just a bit nutty.Quote:
What I do find a little strange (and it may come from not a full understanding of how all legislation is implemented in the US) is how the whole "right to bare arms" thing is part of your national constitution - that gun lobbyists use to defend their position - and yet gun laws are actually this state by state basis that in effect have created almost an ad hoc system of regulation that makes not only the whole debate but the actuality far more complex than it should be. Why not consistent, clear and research based national legislation on gun ownership? Surely that would be a start for both sides?
But honestly the constitution doesn't really matter as much as it used to.
my point is they had illegal weapons that were better the police issued weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
simply removing firearms from the masses is not going to make a difference.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
#11 United States: 1.38527 per 1,000 people
#15 Australia: 1.16048 per 1,000 people
Yep.Quote:
Do people die in Australia?
#24 United States: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
#43 Australia: 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
I think I'd rather be robbed than killed just quietly.
And you find it quite acceptable using a justification that was relevant centuries ago to justify "protection" to day over the democratic system that you have in the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
If so I guess you'd better tell Bush he's wasting his time asking all them other countries to introduce democracy rather than rule by force into their societies. Would seem a might hypocritical, no? ;)
Thankfully, both coke and dope are....... (oops, G rated board). ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
So you don't have any national laws that everyone abides by?Quote:
the united states is sort of large. One set of laws for that amount of area with that number people being unevenly spread in different areas and circumstances is just a bit nutty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
now you're arguing with yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
Then how come it appears to make a difference in other nations?Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
we have federal laws (national), but not everyone abides by them ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
Quote:
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a similar story.
Myth No. 2: Gun control laws reduce crime. The nation already has 20,000 gun control laws, and the police arrest 220,000 people a year on weapons violations. Yet the violent crime rate is at an all-time high. Moreover, considering that fewer than 1 percent of all guns are involved in a crime and only 12 percent of all violent crimes involve a gun, gun control laws could have only a modest effect on crime - even if they worked exactly as intended, which they don't. For example, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., experienced sharp murder-rate increases after passing tough gun control laws. Canada, Taiwan and Jamaica reported similar experiences.
Myth No. 3: Guns are of little help in defending against criminals. In fact, guns are a big help. Each year, potential victims kill from 2,000 to 3,000 criminals and wound an additional 9,000 to 17,000. And mishaps are rare. Private citizens mistakenly kill innocent people only 30 times a year, compared with about 330 mistaken killings by police. Criminals succeed in taking a gun away from an armed victim less than 1 percent of the time.
Myth No. 4: Killing someone is the only reason to buy a handgun. The vast majority of gun owners cite protection from crime as one of the main reasons they own a gun. And for good reason. Americans use guns for self-protection about one million times a year. In 98 percent of the cases, they simply brandish the weapon or fire a warning shot.
Myth No. 5: People who buy guns are more prone to violence and crime than are other people. Violence and crime are higher among black than white, lower-income than middle- or upper-income, young than middle-aged, single than married, and urban than rural individuals - all contrary to the pattern of gun ownership.
Myth No. 6: Criminals mainly have guns in order to commit crimes. The number one reason criminals acquire guns is for self-protection against other criminals. Fewer than half of felons think handguns are important for use in committing crimes.
Myth No. 7: Killings and other violent crimes were prevalent in the Old West because guns were so plentiful. Much of the violence on the frontier involved clashes with Indians, bandits and foreigners. Even so, the frontier was a lot safer than America is today. There was very little ordinary crime - less than in most cities in the East.
Myth No. 8: Gun controls keep criminals from obtaining guns. In surveys of prisoners, a majority said that prior to imprisonment they had owned a handgun. But fewer than one in six guns had been purchased from a retail dealer. Three-fourths of the felons said they would have no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released, despite legal prohibitions.
Myth No. 9: Required waiting periods would prevent some of the most vicious crimes. If the Brady bill were law, it would not have saved Jim Brady. Nor would it have prevented the Killeen, Texas, massacre or the slaughter at McDonald's in Stockton, Calif. However, an instant records check (to identify felons when they try to purchase guns from retail dealers) and better enforcement of existing laws (to turn criminals into convicted felons) might well prevent some vicious crimes.
Myth No. 10: Most murders are committed by people killing friends or family members. The actual number is about one out of five. Most in-household killings are not crimes of passion. They're the culmination of years of abusive behavior, and often it is the abuser who is killed.
Myth No. 11: The availability of guns contributes to crimes of passion. In about 90 percent of "crime-of-passion" domestic homicides, the police had been called in previously to break up violence. In half the cases, the police had been called in five or more times. There is no evidence that a significant number of homicides occur simply because a lethal weapon is handy.
Myth No. 12: Automatic rifles and so-called assault weapons are too dangerous to be left in private hands. Over the past 50 years no civilian has ever used a legally owned machine gun in a violent crime. And despite their repeated use by drug dealers on "Miami Vice" and in the movies, no Uzi has ever been used to kill a police officer. Even gun control advocates concede that so-called assault weapons play a minor role in violent crime.
Myth No. 13: Gun control laws are especially needed to prevent the purchase of "Saturday Night Specials." Inexpensive handguns are involved in only 1 to 3 percent of violent crimes, and criminals are no more likely to use one than any other type of handgun.
Myth No. 14: People don't need guns for self-protection because they can rely on the police. About 83 percent of the population will be victims of violent crime at some point in their lives, and in any given year serious crime touches 25 percent of all households. Considering that, effectively, there is only one police officer on patrol for every 3,300 people, the odds are not likely to improve. And the courts have ruled that government has no duty to protect individual citizens from crime.
Myth No. 15: Gun ownership is not a constitutional right. The Second Amendment reflects the founders' belief that an armed citizenry (called the "general militia") was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution's framers.
Does it?Quote:
Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A careful review of 18 academic studies shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. International evidence tells a similar story.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita
Looking at most of the countries above and around the US, I don't know if any of them would have as civil a society as the US. Looking at those of a similar environment, wouldn't Finland (with half as many deaths) be the first?
So it could be argued myth number one is actually not a myth, so where might that leave the other "myths"?
Nice rhetoric, perhaps not much else.
More than that, it is impossible!Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
There is never going to be a way to get rid of all guns!
Why cant people get that through their heads?
If someone suggests getting rid of guns is the answer, they are a complete idiot.
How about a solution that could actually happen?:
Give everyone body armor.
there is more crime than just murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
according to nation master, OZ has the highest number of crime victims per capita.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
there are 80 crimes per 1k people in the U.S.
there are 105 crimes per 1k people in New zealand
78% of people in the Us feel they are safe from being robbed
42% in NZ feel the same.
1.3% of NZ people get sexually assualted
.4% for the US
It's really sad that I'm starting to believe that some members are here only to point out what's wrong with the world and offer no sympathy in anything other than esoteric situations where their efforts end up being drops of hope in a desert of futility just to say they've done something.
It's so easy to be a critic and never fully commit to anything other than a nebulous "point" that really just can be relegated to a simplified "finger point" and an evasive language that really answers nothing, solves nothing, says nothing.
It's really sad that I see this as other non US members pointing to the US and trying to say "Look!!"
...when they have more corruption and murder in their country that any other...
Let me say this, if you hate MY country so bad......give up the computer that WE designed. Stop using the Internet.....that WE developed. Stop wearing the clothes that WE conceptualized. Stop trying to be like US "westerners"...
Let's face it, every country is corrupt, well, their government is... All of you.....**** it.....turds......pointing a finger at us need to stand down. Remember that you would be less without the 'blessing' of the US than you are now. We send out Millions of dollars to all of you countries via gifts from private citizen that NONE of you appreciate. And a simple thank you will not do. There are some of us that care about the world and what is going on in it. It's just a GOD DAMNED SHAME that you can't fathom what you are getting from "the great oppressors".
Let me just say this, you love your country.....****ed as it is... you see past it's faults...
Now, tell me... Why can't ALL OF YOU see past ours'? And by 'ours' I mean one man's vision of idiosism <-- my new word...
Tyrants are world-wide, and quite frankly, I hate all of you for pointing your dirty fingers at my country, I am sick of it... thoroughly sick of it. SA kills more of it's own people than any other country in the world. We called that genocide a "few" years back...
Nerds and politics.....kinda like Gods and plebs...
thats not such a bad idea, without computers there wouldnt be internet crime.
India and Russia are both vying for top spot in SPAM...
I think we should just stop producing bullets...down with bullet manufacturers!!!!!!!
/pistol whipQuote:
Originally Posted by creativeinsomnia
You need to study your history. You know who charles babbage was?Quote:
Originally Posted by EVPohovich
Alan turing? No?
Please do your research before posting arrogant and uninformed crap like that.
Personally, i dont think there are enough guns in the US.
designing something, and actually creating something that works are differnt things.
babbage had great ideas but he couldnt get the job done.
turing stole all his ideas from al gores grand father.
You've just made your point very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
I don't see anyone making any suggestions they hate the US. I don't see anyone balking at discussing any issues in their own countries. All I did see (before the usual defensive posturing) was a discussion about an issue that was very relevant due to an unfortunate recent event in the US.
Next time we have some event in Australia that could have been influenced by something - and that anyone here is actually interested in discussing - you'll find me all ears, and not taking any offense at anyone's researched ideas or suggestions, even if they oppose mine (which, if critical of the Australian government, is highly unlikely).
Actually gerbick, this time you can take credit: Until your post (closely followed by EVPohovich's) I thought this discussion about a very passionate and controversial issue was proceeding very civilly, despite people's differing and sometimes opposing viewpoints. Well done old chap!
there are two kinds of people in this thread.
Those that get shot, and those that are gonna shoot back.
Oh jesus, let's just steer this conversation right into the manure and start comparing wangs shall we? I guarantee mine's bigger than yours!Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
errect of flaccid?
As I learnt from an ex, you're either a grower or a shower - one or the other, never both.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverx2
And I don't think you'll ever be in a position to find out. ;)
so true... sooooo very true.
eh? you quote me then say this.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo
either back it up where I said that, or apologize.
Just because it was going in a manner that you agreed with doesn't equal passion.Quote:
Actually gerbick, this time you can take credit: Until your post (closely followed by EVPohovich's) I thought this discussion about a very passionate and controversial issue was proceeding very civilly, despite people's differing and sometimes opposing viewpoints. Well done old chap!
I didn't steer anything, unless you're just that weak-minded. I said quite possibly as nebulous of a statement as anybody else, no stats are needed for what I said.
Say nothing, do nothing, solve nothing. Gun control is an issue we will continue to disagree with. That's as specific as I need to get in regards to you.
But the second I show "passion" and say one statement, you think I was referring only to you?
Get a clue Davo. You are not a problem to me. You are not a factor even. You factor into my life that one time I had to ban you and a few others for not minding the rules. You get all upset, say that "you're not playing fair" and pick up your stuff and huff off once somebody either says "stick to one point" or "make one point" or if somebody counters you.
Seriously. Above... either show me where I stated that "You hate the US" or apologize.
I said no such thing in this thread. I'll be waiting for my apology once you see your folly.
so then you are using a computer whose microprocessor comes from a company that originated elsewhere than the u.s.Quote:
Originally Posted by lesli_felix
Hate perhaps too strong a word, but with nearly every post you insinuate that the only issues reside this side of the Atlantic, and if you can't see your own bias than it's worse than I thought around here.Quote:
I don't see anyone making any suggestions they hate the US.
How is this even relevant? The topic is gun control, not my country is better than yours. Guns could be removed from law obeying citizens then leaving them defenseless, however there are other methods of defending yourself and it would also make it harder for criminals to obtain guns, not all gun crime is committed using illegal weaponry.
Heres a quick hypothetical, say you find your girlfriend/boyfriend cheating on you and your in a mad rage, as in fury, the gun is right there and easy to get at and rather than going over a whacking him in the face etc you deliver a shot which is very likely to leave him/her dead or critically wounded. If the gun wasn't there and you were not some terrorist with illegal possession then the whole incident may have been alot less worse.
While I don't think my country is perfect, I also don't think any is and a few people on here are talking like America is the ruler of the world.
To be fair, he's had a few Australia-specific posts about issues. However, I still want to know how my words were construed to fit into such a small box of "...hate the US..." when I had not said such a thing at all.
That's past insinuation. That's a lie. That's purposely changing what somebody had said. That's putting words in a person's mouth. That's libel since the internet is considered "media".
And above all, it's not even pertinent.
yes.. you may have grabbed a knife and gone OJ simpson on the both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by tidenburg