Gun Control

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

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?

I suppose you could consider crimes of racism that involve guns. But, otherwise, I'm not sure what problems you're referring to?

---

I have only found a few that has measured the degree of correlation between guns and crime, which could be interesting to have a look at. And I think it's hard to find reliable sources (I've read that about 70% of the information on the internet is wrong).

Yes I was referring to crimes of racism but also gang crimes that often are a result of several different cultures being mixed together.

But as I said earlier Joseph, I won't take part in this debate anymore as I have lots of other things to do!:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

That seems to have so far stopped mass slaughters similar to the one in this thread.

---

considering mass slaughters are somewhat uncommon, using that logic we can assume that bombing Afghanistan and Iraq has stopped terrorists attacks on u.s. soil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

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?

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.

---

It's actually because I am seeing so many conflicting "statistics" that I brought up that comment in the first place. I seem to be finding just as many referenced articles and stats that point to a correlation between tighter gun control and lower murder/crime rate as there are others purporting to show none. So without the time at the moment to really dig into the raw data - or determine which raw data is accurate to begin with - and/or to analyse all the different variables, what more can I say than the above?

I mean, here's some examples: trying to look at stats at Australian Bureau of Statistics website (which I believe would have the most chance of correct data without having the time to validate it fully), I see that in 1995, before the gun buy back scheme was introduced in 1996, there were 321 murders in Australia. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/8f1f383829ef039fca2570ec001b2fc4!OpenDocument

In the 5 years after that, the figures for murders are as follows:
1997: 321
1998: 285
1999: 343
2000: 315
2001: 311
2002: 318

And all that while our population grew from 18,310,700 (1996) to 19,662,800 (2002) (is that around 10%?)

So on that data, I would seem to have the right to believe there is a correlation between less guns and lower murder rate per capita, no?

And I would also have the right to believe it shows no link to less guns equalling higher murder rate, no?

But you can probably find there or elsewhere other stats that will back up what you believe, so where does that leave us? Basically both with the right to have our perspective opinions - and fully justified to do so - but also neither of us (or anyone else in this discussion) in a position to say to the other "You're wrong, I'm right".

Anyway, that's how I see it. ;)

Anyway, I went against my own efforts to stay out of here, but you know I always regard your posts as worthy of response. They're intelligent and well thought out enough that it would almost be rude not to respond sometimes! ;)

Laters...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar

considering mass slaughters are somewhat uncommon, using that logic we can assume that bombing Afghanistan and Iraq has stopped terrorists attacks on u.s. soil.

---

uncommon??...seems like we hear of a new one in the US every few months.

david

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

It's actually because I am seeing so many conflicting "statistics" that I brought up that comment in the first place. I seem to be finding just as many referenced articles and stats that point to a correlation between tighter gun control and lower murder/crime rate as there are others purporting to show none. So without the time at the moment to really dig into the raw data - or determine which raw data is accurate to begin with - and/or to analyse all the different variables, what more can I say than the above?

---

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about this. I haven't questioned the validity of the statistics you have posted. My contention is that they have been only part of the picture involved with the issue. When you look at ALL of the available statistics, they do not support the idea that strict gun laws make people safer. We are really in disagreement about how the statistics are interpereted rather than whether or not they are inaccurate or unavailable.

When looking at all of the available data, the only way you can conclude that strict gun laws make people safer (with any mathematical certainty) is to look at small parts of the data and ignore the rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

And all that while our population grew from 18,310,700 (1996) to 19,662,800 (2002) (is that around 10%?)

So on that data, I would seem to have the right to believe there is a correlation between less guns and lower murder rate per capita, no?

And I would also have the right to believe it shows no link to less guns equalling higher murder rate, no?

---

No. This is a good example of looking at a small amount of data (and making a mathematical error). Not that I am a statistics guru or anything. I probably just stayed awake 5 minutes long enough to catch the lesson about Standard Deviation in statistics 101. The numbers you showed would require a wide standard deviation. One of the years after the buy back had more murders. With such a small amount of data and significant variation, you can't conclude a strong mathematical probability that there is a correlation there. Besides that, as I mentioned, that is one statistic. If our objective is to consider the safety of citizens, murder is not the only hazard relevant to guns. For instance, how many rapes or burglaries are prevented by gun ownership?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

Anyway, I went against my own efforts to stay out of here, but you know I always regard your posts as worthy of response. They're intelligent and well thought out enough that it would almost be rude not to respond sometimes! ;)

---

Thank you. I can say the same for you. Truth be told, I would say that I owe some of my confidence in conviction to your worthy debate. I probably wouldn't otherwise take the time to study, confirm and moderate my ideas. I appreciate that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

uncommon??...seems like we hear of a new one in the US every few months.

david

---

I know that is not true in reality....

in reality, there have been 12 incidents of massacre in the US since 1991, killing a total of 149 people (from WIKI sources)

1991 - 23 - Luby's massacre
1993 - 9 - 101 California Street
1993 - 7 - Brown's chicken
1993 - 25 - Long Is RR
1998 - 5 - Jonesboro
1999 - 15 - Columbine
2000 - 5 - Witchita
2005 - 10 - Red Lake
2006 - 7 - Capitol Hill
2006 - 5 - Amish school
2007 - 5 - Trolley Square
2007 - 33 - Virginia Tech


I am pretty sure that since 1998 (and stricter gun laws), there have been no mass killings in Australia. There have been 87 people killed in the US by mass killers in the same time frame.

And here is a list of school shootings in general, mass or otherwise, in the US since 1997 -

Pearl High School shooting, Pearl, Mississippi; October 1, 1997
Heath High School shooting, West Paducah, Kentucky; December 1, 1997
Jonesboro massacre - Jonesboro, Arkansas; March 24, 1998
Thurston High School shooting - Springfield, Oregon; May 21, 1998
Columbine High School massacre - Littleton, Colorado; April 20, 1999
Heritage High School shooting - Conyers, Georgia; May 20, 1999
Santana High School - Santee, California; March 5, 2001
Appalachian School of Law shooting - Grundy, Virginia; January 16, 2002
Rocori High School shootings - Cold Spring, Minnesota; September 24, 2003
Southwood Middle School tragedy, Miami, Florida; February 3, 2004
Red Lake High School massacre - Red Lake, Minnesota; March 21, 2005
Campbell County High School - Jacksboro, Tennessee: November 8, 2005
Platte Canyon High School shooting - Bailey, Colorado; September 27, 2006
Amish school shooting - Nickel Mines, Lancaster County; October 2, 2006
Weston High School shooting, Cazenovia, Wisconsin September 29, 2006
Henry Foss High School - Tacoma, Washington; January 3, 2007
Virginia Tech massacre - Blacksburg, Virginia; April 16, 2007

Why school shootings are so significant to non-US citz is that most countries cannot make a list, or it might have one entry. School is supposed to be a safe place, and in most western countries, it appears to be.

david

i agree that school shootings are a serious problem and may be more of a problem here in the US. i certainly agree that we should look at them closely and consider all options for preventing them and what the causes are.

at the same time, i believe that enacting stricter gun laws is not the answer. i think that its a desperate, knee-jerk reaction that fits well into newspaper columns. the statistics do not support the idea that the shootings could have been avoided with stricter gun laws. most, if not all, of the shootings happening despite gun laws. not in absence of them. this means that people intent on shooting people in this way do not stop because it is illegal to have guns in certain places, that they have to wait, etc.

I agree, but they do have easier access to guns....and that seems to be the most common factor in all of them.

Stricter gun laws maybe a knee-jerk reaction, but exactly that knee-jerk reaction seems to have worked in Australia in terms of making it much harder for multiple shootings to occur.

david

but, at what expense to others ability to defend themselves from other crimes? of course, we've come full circle on that one again. :)

im not against all forms of regulation personally. for instance, i think the possibility of considering mental illnesses should at least be looked at.

an interesting side note about that though, by arguing that medical history records should play into a persons ability to buy a gun, you are essentially using the same argument that the Bush administration has used for the NSA electronic surveilance program. It's the idea that the government is justified in accessing your private information in the interest of public safety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

If our objective is to consider the safety of citizens, murder is not the only hazard relevant to guns. For instance, how many rapes or burglaries are prevented by gun ownership?

---

Like you said, interpretation is everything. For instance, do you think the families of those who were killed would have preferred their family members murdered rather than raped or burgled? And in the end, this question may not be anything but a subjective argument with no definitive resolution. I know which I'd prefer, but I can't speak for everyone else.

No one is saying that tighter gun control is the solution to everything. What some are suggesting is that it has been shown to reduce deaths. And for many of us, that's an important point.

I hear you that people have varying opinions on it. Ultimately, I believe that the people should legislate whichever solution they prefer.

But, I don't see where it has been shown that tighter gun control has reduced death. I believe that there are other factors that are more influential toward death rates and crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I hear you that people have varying opinions on it. Ultimately, I believe that the people should legislate whichever solution they prefer.

But, I don't see where it has been shown that tighter gun control has reduced death. I believe that there are other factors that are more influential toward death rates and crime.

---

In the case of Australia, what do you think the other factors might be that have been more influential in reducing death rates from gun killings....apart from the bans and tighter gun laws?

Davo and I have both quoted statistics from fairly reliable sources that do seem to indicate (to us) a correlation between changes to the law and death by guns in Australia.

david

murder rate is not the same as gun killings. if reducing the number of guns did not truly have a bearing on the murder rate (and other crimes increased), no over-all positive effect has been achieved. what good is it to fix one small problem if it increases the problems for everyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

In the case of Australia, what do you think the other factors might be that have been more influential in reducing death rates from gun killings....apart from the bans and tighter gun laws?

Davo and I have both quoted statistics from fairly reliable sources that do seem to indicate (to us) a correlation between changes to the law and death by guns in Australia.

---

There's other things that have been brought up that are as important... such as ethnic composition and when different cultures interact there might be problems.

With Australia's somewhat stringent take on immigration in the last few years, and prior it's "White Australia Policy" from between 1901 to 1973; you have basically a doubly isolated interaction of the populace. Doubly so because of no bordering nations and then the rank likelihood that you will interact with a differing ethnic group.

That's just one possible factor that's not being added in, for instance.

Not saying that the stats are wrong; but I'd like to think they're not all inclusive. Japan has had very strict gun laws for years. The "deaths by gun ratio" is quite low. There again you have a largely singular "type" of population.

France had issues with differing ethnic groups clashing and thus violence happened. In the US, the melting pot and nigh-impossible ethnic separation; you might get clashes like this that escalate due to "other" differences.

Just a thought... not one I haven't seen brought up before in this thread.

There could be other reasons; such as gun legislature being a bit misguided in their aims to all kinds of other factors as lately mentioned.

G,
it is a good point, and I understand where there could be much greater problems due to the greater ethnic and cultural interactions and tensions that can occur in the US. But is that a good reason for almost anyone to be able to buy a gun as they feel the need?

I guess one of the questions I would want to ask is - do you think that many guns in such a society makes for more or less danger to people living in such a society?

Another question I would want to ask is whether schools are safer or less safe with easy access to powerful weapons by disgruntled, disturbed or just plain whacko kids?

I personally like the response our government made in tightening gun laws and instituting a gun buy-back scheme after the Port Arthur massacre (33 tourists and holiday-makers dead from memory)...I do not think for a minute that it has removed all so-called 'illegal guns' from circulation, but it stops all but the most dedicated, with a reasonable amount of money (to buy on the black market) from getting hold of automatic weapons for future killing sprees...and that has to be a positive step yes?

Our gun licencing laws are (and have been) very strict, handguns have always needed a licence, and now, since 1998, all rifles have joined that list, with the sale of automatics and semi-automatics totally banned. You even need to have a licence for a BB gun or any other air-powered weapon.

And to get a licence, the first requirement is that you have a professional need to have a gun.

david

oh, and we don't really have a 'stringent' take on immigration...our present government just has some draconian resolutions to illegal immagration.

I don't think we actually stop anyone from any country from applying through appropriate channels to emigrate to Australia.

david

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by david petley

And to get a licence, the first requirement is that you have a professional need to have a gun.

---

That is not exactly true.....exceptions are made for hunters, farmers, sports shooters, etc. ...but you still need a licence (with incredibly stringent tests), and automatic and semi-automatic weapons are off the list.

I do have a couple of friends who own sporting pistols...they are members of the local pistol shooters club, and keep their weapons in the club gun safe, taking them out only for competitions, or practice for competitions.

david

Did you just quote and argue with yourself, or is that a correction? I'm confused :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

Did you just quote and argue with yourself, or is that a correction? I'm confused :confused:

---

it was a correction, or more detailed and full explanation, of my previous statement. there are exceptions to the 'for professional use' comment. It is not a blanket 'only if your job requires a gun'.

david

hot fuzz, at the end, thats why everyone should have guns