[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Could the libertarian circle please tell me how they draw a line?
A knife a gun, a rifle,all OK, right?
100 rifles? Machine spring guns and mines? A tank batallion? Weapons of mass destruction?
What’s forbidden in Utopia?[/quote]
I´d say enough to overthrow a government- That means including assault rifles.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The constitution guarantees us that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Interpret away.
Once again - what business is it of non-Americans what we are allowed to have?
Because you are supposed to be the shining beacon in the sky and we can hardly see the light anymore.[/quote]
Hopefully, you will learn to think if us much the same way as we do Austria: hardly at all.
[quote]SimonSays wrote:
Why do Americans think MORE guns will solve violence issues?[/quote]
Why do Australians think that disarming law abiding people is going to discourage criminals from using firearms or other weapons against them?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
I mean, we killed a lot of the aboriginal peoples on our continent with smallpox-contaminated blankets…
Not this myth again, Varq.
[/quote]
All right, I suppose I should have said “Lord Jeffrey Amherst’s men” instead of “we”, but it was secondary to my main point anyway, which neither of the two Aussies even addressed.
[quote]SimonSays wrote:
All good points.
But comparing America and Australia, Our gun related crime is very low. [/quote]
Your murder rate is twice that of Honolulu Hawiai. It is also double that of Plano Texas. The fact of the matter is that comparisons are not reasonable because these are different countries with radically different factors.
ie Murder rates amongst Americans are not consistant across racial groups. One minority group far outpaces all the others for murder and pushes up the overall rate.
The statistics you are looking at are an average for everyone. Ultimately your comparison is an ignorant one because it does not take into account the vast discrepencies that exist.
ie The state of Michigan has a population of 10,000,000 the city of Detroit has a population of 900,000. Detroit has less than ten percent of Michigans population but it is responsible for over ninety percent of the murders.
This a trend that repeats across the country. We have these inner city areas where lots of dyfunctional people are living in close proximity to one another which magnifies their problems.
The reality of life in the ghetto is not the same as life in the suburbs and even amongst ghettos it varies according to the ethnic makeup. Yet you ignorantly take crime figures from our ghettos, average them with our good areas and try to claim this proves something about the entire country. [quote]
Guns are very hard to come by even for criminals and our police are just recently considering changing from 6 shot revolvers to semi-auto 9mm.
Wouldn’t the best approach be to limit the amount of firearms within a country?[/quote]
No it is not the best approach. If there was a universal gun control law imposed all across America, the ghetto areas would become much more violent and dangerous while the nice areas would become indefensible, which would invite criminals from the ghetto areas to invade and have a free for all.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Aragorn, I don’t think having a homicide rate per gun is an accurate way of looking at things. That means if a person who has 20 guns shoots 5 people (a rate of 0.25 per gun) and a person with one gun shoots one person the latter is more dangerous.
Australian stats are from the Aust. Institute of Criminology.
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/ [/quote]
Thank you for the source.
I am not having a homicide rate per gun. I have a homicide rate per 100,000 people via firearm discharge, just like all demographic stats. That is normal over here in the States, and I assumed you were familiar with that count method.
Fuck you very much.
Maybe I should explain. Those are OUR rights you’re talking about, not yours. This might not make sense to you, but we like our rights. In fact, we built this country based on the ideal that we had these right GUARANTEED to us, and that no one could take them away.
That was the whole point of the Bill of Rights.
As a necessary consequence, we realized then as we realize now “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.” Ben Franklin
I disagree that the ready presence of guns is antiquated or “silly”. And I would rather have my guns than let a gov’t walk into my home and confiscate them…like yours did.
Our crime problems, as was said very early in this thread I believe, stem more from the fact that we have a [quote]"There is a conflict of ideas, culture and status in the united states on a level that australia cannot comprehend.
Add to the fact that all these factors are in close proximity fuels the fire. THAT will be a cause for crime"[/quote] Thanks blazindave, you made a great point, and a very true one.
[quote]tedro wrote:
AndyG wrote:
I’m not sure why I’m arguing with you Aragorn, you’re supporting my point.
If the number of guns within a population increases so does the number of murders.
Guns or no guns the homicide rate in Australia has historically always been 1-2 per 100,000. In fact, crime in Australia is lower than in Texas across the board.
I don’t think it is fair to compare one specific crime, homicide by firearm, between two areas with inherently differenct crime rates, and then conclude that the reason for this one specific rate is gun laws, or lack thereof.
This isn’t even to mention the principle of the matter, and the respect for the individual. My murder rate is exactly zero. Taking my guns away or giving me a few more isn’t going to change this at all, but may in fact increase the probability of my own murder.[/quote]
Good points ted. That’s what I get for doing a half-assed job of research…I forgot to compare history and baseline…well, I was more just too lazy to do it. Oh well, I’ve invested far too much time and gotten way to involved in this than I wanted to in the first place.
[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If you don’t want rights for yourself, or if you feel the need to surrender them because they might clash with your skirt, that’s fine. But why do you need to stick your nose into that which is none of your fucking business?
You are not from this country, and there is no way my owning a guns, or hundreds of them will have any effect on your quaint little emasculated life down under.
And I am getting a lifetime membership of the NRA anyway, just to spite you and defend your right to own guns.
[/quote]
rofl. That is awesome. I want to see a picture of your membership card if you actually do this.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
I’m not sure why I’m arguing with you Aragorn, you’re supporting my point.
If the number of guns within a population increases so does the number of murders.
[/quote]
Your misunderstanding of the statistics as well as fundamental human rights is colossal.
[quote]SimonSays wrote:
zephead4747 wrote:
No. However, keeping them out of the hands of criminals is.
Why not? Gun control would also minimize the number of school shootings? [/quote]
Canada had a school shooting after they imposed their gun ban. Switzerland hasn’t had a school shooting. There are plenty of states within the US that have not had school shootings either.
Ultimately this is another ignorant arguement. School shootings are a very rare incident. Because of their rarity they generate a disproportionate amount of media coverage when compared to much more commonplace incidents like people defending their lives.
A school shooting is international news, a home self defense is lucky to make the local news.
It does not make sense to make law based upon a rarity while ignoring what is commonplace. [quote]
Australia has never had a school shooting. [/quote]
There are lots of countries that haven’t had one. Just like there are lots of American states that have not had one either. If you think it couldn’t happen in Australia you are wrong, so don’t be so smug.
If it does happen the gunman will be unopposed until after the police have arrived on scene and had the time to ascertain where he is and go get him.
That is why allowing teachers with CCW’s to carry is a good idea. One or more teachers firing back can save a lot of lives because it doesn’t require waiting on the police. Which leads to another point.
The police are almost useless when it comes to these situations. ie The Columbine siege was not ended by the police, it was ended by the gunmen committing suicide. [quote]
What do you think makes Australia so different from America, that widespread gun bans would not result in the decreased rate of gun related crime? [/quote]
There are lots of factors. America has lots of cities some of which have fallen on hard times. Some of these cities are populated with an ethnic group which has been terribly abused and has a lot of dysfuntion as a result.
Americas war on drugs the driving force behind most of the violence. War means killing. Lots of people die in a warzone. [quote]
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But again, what happens when the people want to overthrow their government and they have no means to defend themselves because they have allowed their government to take them?
The government will never limit the firepower it uses against its enemies why should you settle for anything less?
What country are you from?[/quote]
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
AndyG wrote:
Rainjack you represent what people think is wrong with America. You prioritise some silly right from a bygone era over human life.
I use my concealed firearm for the same reason a beat cop does. In defense of myself, my loved ones, and society. Are you going to tell me that cops don’t need guns?
Step back for a second and think of these “astronomical numbers”. We are talking about FOUR people out of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I’d bet you good money that 75% of all gun deaths fall into 2 catagories: suicide and criminal vs. criminal. Is that a reason to take a right? Dammit man I used to love you guys but you aussies are intent on making me dislike you.
mike[/quote]
More than 4 out of 100,000 people need killing.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
The other Australian wasn’t particularly impressed with the argument that if everyone has guns you can just shoot back. [/quote]
If you weren’t impressed why didn’t you come back and make a rational case, instead of running away like a bitch. [quote]
Americans have an ingrained attitude that the righteous always wins and that grannys are going to blow away hardened crims. [/quote]
And Australians and British have an ingrained attitude that a granny should be a defenseless victim and bad people really aren’t bad they are just misunderstood and therefore need protecting from their intended victims.
Or to put it another way Australians and Brits believe in the law of the jungle where the natural order is for there to be predators and prey. Australians and Brits have an ingrained attitude that one has a station in life and it is an outrage for one to try and change their station in life. [quote]
Of course the idea of making guns less available to crims has no merit. [/quote]
Because criminals will find a way to get guns through the black market. When they do law abiding people are fucked because they are defenseless.
Or they will go to other weapons. ie In Britain last year 25,000 people were admitted to hospital to be treated for stab wounds. With 60 million Brits that works out to 41 stabbings for every 100,000 people. The stabbing rate for all of Britain is almost equal to the murder rate for Detroit or Baltimore. [quote]
They always make themselves known so that everyone else has a chance to shoot first. [/quote]
Here in America people just know there are certain things you don’t do because you could get shot. [quote]
I have a three year old. It’s very difficult to take away her toys too.[/quote]
Guns are not toys and defending ones life against a violent criminal is not a childs game.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
NateOrade wrote:
AndyG wrote:
The other Australian wasn’t particularly impressed with the argument that if everyone has guns you can just shoot back.
Americans have an ingrained attitude that the righteous always wins and that grannys are going to blow away hardened crims.
Of course the idea of making guns less available to crims has no merit. They always make themselves known so that everyone else has a chance to shoot first.
I have a three year old. It’s very difficult to take away her toys too.
Funny how you make up crap while when presented with FACTS in the other thread…you don’t reply. It was shown that areas with less scrict gun control have less gun violence. It was shown this was true even in cities. It was shown that INCREASING gun control in cities INCREASES gun violence.
When this was shown you said nothing.
Like I said there. Read the statistics on gun crime and let the adults speak.
Since your foolish country has been awash with firearms I daresay there will be a lag between gun control measures and the effect being seen. [/quote]
What about the UK then. In the first five years after the gun ban the number of gun crimes doubled. In fact all violent crimes have gone up. So you are talking out of your ass, because there was an immdiate effect in the UK. [quote]
Criminal statistics are in general notoriously unreliable. Gun mad internet people even more so. Sites like gun facts are hardly going to be independent. One exception is the number of homicides. In Australia we generally figure out why someone dies. You guys probably don’t so the homicide rate is probably even greater than I quoted. [/quote]
You are one to talk. You are quoting statistics and acting like they prove something for the entire country when you know perfectly well they are the average of Americas nice areas and it’s ghettos.
In Britain the murder rate went up so much after the gun ban that the government no longers records a dead body as a murder until after the killer has been arrested, tried and convicted of murder. [quote]
I might consider the argument that gun control is impossible now but could have been the answer 50 years ago before there were as many about as there are now.
I can walk down any street in Australia and feel safe. How about you?
[/quote]
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Aragorn, first you must have done some sneaky work with your stats. You picked 1996 which was the year the Pt Arthur massacre occured and 36 people were killed. Of course the homicide rate is going to be drastically increased soley due to that. [/quote]
Yet when Aussies quote their statistics they start with 1997 say that the number of murders went down compared to 1996 and say see it worked. [quote]
Secondly our gun homicide rate is at about o.4 per 100 000. I’m not sure about your 3.03 figure for gun related deaths for us either. [/quote]
Yet you have lots of murders committed with other weapons. Which is the big flaw in your arguement. Gun control makes the use of other weapons that are much more readily available a more viable option.
The other huge problem that gun control creates is that individuals who go to the police and report a crime have no means of self defense to protect themselves from reprisals.
ie In Britain witness intimidation is now a huge problem, the rate of crime reporting went down dramatically after the gun ban. Gun control therefore makes the police less effective a fighting crime. When I pointed this fact out in the other thread you ran away like a bitch and refused to address it. [quote]
Your figures are astronomical compared to ours. [/quote]
Only when you average a handful of really bad areas in with the vast majority of good areas. Again this is something I pointed out and you ignored it like a little bitch. [quote]
I don’t care that lots of people are responsible gun owners the dead people don’t care either. The fact is more guns = more dead people. [/quote]
Prove that. In Britain the big jump in murders came after the gun ban of 1997 and it has gone up every year since. [quote]
I’m not sure why you guys are so worried about defending yourselves against your government. They’re too busy shooting everyone else to worry about you.[/quote]
Because unlike you Aussies we are not so ignorant as to believe that Politicians are beyond reproach. We don’t share your false belief that politicians are somehow better than everyone else.
Given the awful treatment that many Australians ancestors suffered at the hands of the British government I wonder why you Aussies are so trusting of government and are so willing to be completely subservient to it.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Aragorn, I don’t think having a homicide rate per gun is an accurate way of looking at things. That means if a person who has 20 guns shoots 5 people (a rate of 0.25 per gun) and a person with one gun shoots one person the latter is more dangerous.
Australian stats are from the Aust. Institute of Criminology.
http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/
Rainjack you represent what people think is wrong with America. You prioritise some silly right from a bygone era over human life.[/quote]
Bygone era? What is bygone? What are you talking about? Explain that.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Just smart enough to question what the purpose of a right is and whether it should exist.
Most people who are wankers make themselves feel better by saying they don’t care what people think about them. You are too stupid to make any decent point you girly keyboard warrior.[/quote]
You are the one who is not making any decent points. When I do you run away like a little bitch.
AndyG, you apparently are not quite up on your history. Read about your Monash university shooting in Melbourne, 2002.
The only reason he was stopped before he shot more than 7 people was that he was tackled while changing weapons. They had to restrain him for 15 minutes until the police arrived.
If he had planned it out better he could have easily avoided being tackled while changing weapons (he had more magazines and other weapons at his waist) and could have killed and killed and killed until the police arrived. It could have been worse than Virginia Tech.
Aragorn, you are probably right, if the dude had more weapons at his waist he would have been harder to stop. He didn’t have more weapons because you can’t buy handguns here. From memory he killed two people and a dude kicked him in the jaw to bring him down.
Sifu, we don’t claim success after a one year anomoly. Don’t talk crap. Autralia has different areas too and our stats are averaged out as well. Aragorn was comparing Aust. to Texas and these were the figures we were talking about.
A homicide rate per gun discharge is a poor way of looking at things because there will be more discharges if there is no gun control. Gun control is looking to stop the number of discharges.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Aragorn, you are probably right, if the dude had more weapons at his waist he would have been harder to stop. He didn’t have more weapons because you can’t buy handguns here. From memory he killed two people and a dude kicked him in the jaw to bring him down. [/quote]
He had at least one handgun (a revolver) at his back, and shot 7 people. He had spare magazines at his waist, as well as “other guns”. Well referenced article.
He was also found “not guilty” of the murders and attempted murders. How the FUCK that happened I don’t have a clue. At least he’s locked in a mental ward.
Both the official US gov’t census stats websites here and your Austrailan gov’t stats webpage list it as such. cause of death “firearm discharge”.
Australia even breaks it down to “rifle, shotgun, larger firearm discharge” and “other firearms discharge” and “handgun, small firearm discharge”. Not much I can do about it if you choose not to believe me. I’m using governmental websites.