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.