Gun free zone

[myrkul]

Thought it might be about time to drop this into the conversation again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_guns,_less_crime

[FirstAscent]

Last five posts are rather laughable.

Oldest of the five seems to agree that there's a correlation with guns and homicides. Thank you for pointing this out.

Four: disagrees with five, and considering it's the same poster, demonstrates inconsistent thought processes.

Three: a pathetic post, somehow requiring us to buy into the idea that said countries are not free. Pathetic.

Two: classic misuse of culture as a defense for different statistics. Biggest mistake is not realizing that many making said posts are in fact the culture, not realizing it's in part their attitude which is the cause, if culture is the cause.

One: The bible for gun rights advocates, fraught with dubious facts and data that has undergone mysterious revisions upon criticism, then mysterious reversions upon further criticism.

[myrkul]

Saw this on Google +, thought I'd share with you guys.

Depending on who is speaking, the ban on firearms in Australia was either miraculous or a disaster. To get to the truth, I sought out the Australian government's own statistics. They are available from this site:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

In the first chart, we see that the number of homicides involving firearms as a total percentage of homicides has indeed gone down:

Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides:



However, this statistic was on a generally downward trend starting in 1971, and never historically ventured outside of the 20-40 incidents range anyway.

Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number):



From the page itself: "Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07."

So yes, homicide incidents have declined since the gun ban. By a staggering .6 percent per 100,000 people.

So with firearms usage in homicides, and the rate of homicides going down, one would expect the same trend for all overall violent crime, right? Wrong.

Violent crimes from 1996 to 2007 (per 100,000 persons per year):

Yes, restricting guns reduces gun crime. That's the sort of thing even FirstAscent can grasp. Unfortunately, it does not reduce crime. In fact, the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. Just a thought: Might it be because criminals no longer worry about their victims being armed? Perhaps the old and physically frail have no legal means to protect themselves from the large, imposing, knife-wielding punks? But I guess some people are OK with granny getting raped, robbed, and murdered. Just as long as they don't have to be afraid of a piece of metal on someone's belt.

[stochastic]

Saw this on Google +, thought I'd share with you guys.

Depending on who is speaking, the ban on firearms in Australia was either miraculous or a disaster. To get to the truth, I sought out the Australian government's own statistics. They are available from this site:

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

In the first chart, we see that the number of homicides involving firearms as a total percentage of homicides has indeed gone down:

Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides:



However, this statistic was on a generally downward trend starting in 1971, and never historically ventured outside of the 20-40 incidents range anyway.

Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number):



From the page itself: "Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07."

So yes, homicide incidents have declined since the gun ban. By a staggering .6 percent per 100,000 people.

So with firearms usage in homicides, and the rate of homicides going down, one would expect the same trend for all overall violent crime, right? Wrong.

Violent crimes from 1996 to 2007 (per 100,000 persons per year):

Yes, restricting guns reduces gun crime. That's the sort of thing even FirstAscent can grasp. Unfortunately, it does not reduce crime. In fact, the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. Just a thought: Might it be because criminals no longer worry about their victims being armed? Perhaps the old and physically frail have no legal means to protect themselves from the large, imposing, knife-wielding punks? But I guess some people are OK with granny getting raped, robbed, and murdered. Just as long as they don't have to be afraid of a piece of metal on someone's belt.

Another interesting thing is that the police are able to modify the statistics of violent crimes other than homicides.  People can make an armed robber into a robber.  "Are you sure you saw a gun?"  "Making robberies into larcenies, making rapes disappear."  They can make crimes go away.  When they do that it looks like the crime rate is being reduced while in fact it is not, they are just not doing their job.  It is the murder rate that really shows the true extent of crime.  It is almost impossible to hide a body and make a homicide into something else.  Also, most murders are reported or bodies found.  Unlike other crimes that can go unreported, homicides most often are.  Any crime stats reported by government agencies is most definitely more than what is reported.

Another interesting statistic to see is the number of homicides by the state on the residents of that nation.

[jgarzik]

Culture and history are integral to any solution, certainly.

America has an estimated 300 million guns within its borders.

If, hypothetically, all those guns were rounded up and eliminated, criminals and the mentally ill absolutely would have reduced access to guns.

However, outside that scenario, any amount of gun limiting can negatively impact lawful citizens while not materially impacting access to criminals and mentally ill.

[myrkul]

The opinion of a survivor of one of these mass shootings should carry some weight, yeah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

[fornit]

The opinion of a survivor of one of these mass shootings should carry some weight, yeah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

actually quite the opposite.
how can the most biased opinion possible further a rational discussion?

oh wait...what rational discussion? 

[fornit]

Culture and history are integral to any solution, certainly.

America has an estimated 300 million guns within its borders.

If, hypothetically, all those guns were rounded up and eliminated, criminals and the mentally ill absolutely would have reduced access to guns.

However, outside that scenario, any amount of gun limiting can negatively impact lawful citizens while not materially impacting access to criminals and mentally ill.

in a way, you are saying that the usa is, regarding guns, fucked up beyond repair. i can agree on that.

[Richy_T]

in a way, you are saying that the usa is, regarding guns, fucked up beyond repair. i can agree on that.

So given that*, what is the correct and most effective response to the problems?






*I disagree with this perspective but let's not make that the issue

[myrkul]

The opinion of a survivor of one of these mass shootings should carry some weight, yeah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

actually quite the opposite.
how can the most biased opinion possible further a rational discussion?

Really? The opinion of some who has been the victim of one of these shootings doesn't carry any weight, and, in your opinion should be ignored because it's biased? Are you fucking crazy?

[gyverlb]

The opinion of a survivor of one of these mass shootings should carry some weight, yeah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

actually quite the opposite.
how can the most biased opinion possible further a rational discussion?

Really? The opinion of some who has been the victim of one of these shootings doesn't carry any weight, and, in your opinion should be ignored because it's biased? Are you fucking crazy?

No, he's quite rational. Opinions are biased by definition, a victim is obviously predisposed for the highest bias possible.
Where a victim is most useful is when he/she is acting as a witness, not as a victim and gives facts not opinions.

Edit: by the way you just nicely and concisely demonstrated that you didn't understand what a rational discussion is. The fact that I think you demonstrated intelligent thinking in the past is the only reason why you are not in my ignore list, but you just came really close.

[FirstAscent]

Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.

Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.

[myrkul]

The opinion of a survivor of one of these mass shootings should carry some weight, yeah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

actually quite the opposite.
how can the most biased opinion possible further a rational discussion?

Really? The opinion of some who has been the victim of one of these shootings doesn't carry any weight, and, in your opinion should be ignored because it's biased? Are you fucking crazy?

No, he's quite rational. Opinions are biased by definition, a victim is obviously predisposed for the highest bias possible.
Where a victim is most useful is when he/she is acting as a witness, not as a victim and gives facts not opinions.

So, when a rape victim says, "Man, I wish I had a gun." You tell her... what? That a gun wouldn't have helped her? Had that woman not left her weapon in her car, her father would not have died that day. Her mother would not have died that day. Are you going to try to deny that?

Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.

Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.

Sounds like an excellent plan to get guns out of law-abiding hands.

[FirstAscent]

Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.

Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.

Sounds like an excellent plan to get guns out of law-abiding hands.

You haven't thought it through, have you?

[myrkul]

Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.

Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.

Sounds like an excellent plan to get guns out of law-abiding hands.

You haven't thought it through, have you?

Criminals will just hand in all their guns, huh? They're stupid, not insane.

[FirstAscent]

Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.

Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.

Sounds like an excellent plan to get guns out of law-abiding hands.

You haven't thought it through, have you?

Criminals will just hand in all their guns, huh? They're stupid, not insane.

Yes. They want a quick buck and only think very short term. Those with permits will understand the dynamics, and be resistant to hand in their guns, obviously.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gun-buyback-program-in-deadly-nj-city-nets-over-1000-firearms-breaks-record/

… it was revealed Tuesday by the attorney general that many of the “long guns” turned in to authorities over the weekend had been used to kill Camden city police officers.

[myrkul]

Reduce guns in America. Gun permits should be federally controlled, to eliminate situations like Chicago.

Institute a federal gun buy back program. For every X guns bought back, one gun permit is issued to the next qualifying individual, where X is some number > 1.

Sounds like an excellent plan to get guns out of law-abiding hands.

You haven't thought it through, have you?

Criminals will just hand in all their guns, huh? They're stupid, not insane.

Yes. They want a quick buck and only think very short term. Those with permits will understand the dynamics, and be resistant to hand in their guns, obviously.

OK then, you enjoy your little fantasy-land.

[FirstAscent]

OK then, you enjoy your little fantasy-land.

It's people like you who are the culture of America that you blame the problem on. You and your buddies keep saying - "You can't change American culture. It's just the way it is." Well, I'm sorry, but attitude and education make a difference.

Tell me again why Japan's homicide rate is so low.

[gyverlb]

The opinion of a survivor of one of these mass shootings should carry some weight, yeah?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJFAvA-ZUE

actually quite the opposite.
how can the most biased opinion possible further a rational discussion?

Really? The opinion of some who has been the victim of one of these shootings doesn't carry any weight, and, in your opinion should be ignored because it's biased? Are you fucking crazy?

No, he's quite rational. Opinions are biased by definition, a victim is obviously predisposed for the highest bias possible.
Where a victim is most useful is when he/she is acting as a witness, not as a victim and gives facts not opinions.

So, when a rape victim says, "Man, I wish I had a gun." You tell her... what? That a gun wouldn't have helped her? Had that woman not left her weapon in her car, her father would not have died that day. Her mother would not have died that day. Are you going to try to deny that?

Of course, did you actually study what she said?

She doesn't have a clue what would have happened if she had her gun. She even said "He took her a good 45 seconds to realize that this man wasn't there to commit a robbery..." before she thought ot reaching for her purse where a gun should have been.

I don't know about you but 45 seconds to think about reaching for a gun doesn't seem anything like an appropriate response to a rampage shooting. And that's what all gun advocates fail to realize: if it's not your daily job to react to aggression and you have the appropriate training and reflexes that go with this responsibility your gun is of practically no use, it can even be part of the problem as it's potentially more weapon and ammo to grab for the shooter. Even if she had her gun, she would probably have missed because of the stress and instantly become the primary target for the shooter. This seems like an old story so like she said he was a big target and she may have had a chance. Today killers even wear body armor so only a bullet to the head would stop them, she would have been dead mere seconds after drawing her gun.

As I said in a previous post, today in her situation a kevlar suit and a taser would be far more effective for survival (assuming that's the goal but I think many fantasize about killing the killer instead of minimizing the damage he can do...).

[myrkul]

45 seconds is a hell of a lot better response time than the 5, 15, or even 45 minutes it takes the cops to get there.