Gun Control

[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?

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).

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

[FlashLackey]

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

[FlashLackey]

11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person.

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.

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.

For every accidental death, suicide or homicide with a firearm, 10 lives are saved through defensive use.

Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

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

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.

etc.

[david petley]

FL, where did all those statistics come from?

david

[FlashLackey]

FL, where did all those statistics come from?

david

sorry to be unclear about that. they came from the link i posted a few posts back.

this one: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...s4-1-Print.pdf

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

sorry to be unclear about that. they came from the link i posted a few posts back.

this one: http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-fa...s4-1-Print.pdf

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.
(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).

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?

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:

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.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

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.

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=32

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!!"

[FlashLackey]

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.

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.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

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/abs@.nsf/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...

[FlashLackey]

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!!"

Both of those articles were from 7 years ago. Since then, what has the change in crime been compared to the US?

[david petley]

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

[FlashLackey]

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

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?

[TallGuyLittleCar]

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.

[david petley]

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

[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

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

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??

[FlashLackey]

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.

[david petley]

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

[FlashLackey]

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.

[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.

[david petley]

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