Sorry boys, here’s some stats you omitted.
Homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006
US:5.7
Aust:2.0
Homicides involving firearms
Aust:less than 16%
US: almost 51%
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Sorry boys, here’s some stats you omitted.
Homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006
US:5.7
Aust:2.0
Homicides involving firearms
Aust:less than 16%
US: almost 51%[/quote]
If you’re going to quote U.S. stats, please break them down by areas where there is strict gun control versus where there is not. You might learn something.
Now run along and leave the adults alone.
[quote]NateOrade wrote:
If you’re going to quote U.S. stats, please break them down by areas where there is strict gun control versus where there is not. [/quote]
He won’t. But I will.
First off, our Nation’s capital:
Washington, DC (Source: FBI Uniform Crime Rate Database, 1994)
Population, 2004: 554,239
Crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 2004
Total violent crime: 1,369.4
Murder: 35.7
Forcible rape : 40.1
Robbery: 577.7
Aggravated assault: 715.9
Gun laws in Washington, DC
In 1976, sale and possession of handguns was banned, and all rifles and shotguns were required to be registered with the DC Metropolitan Police. All firearms kept at home must be unloaded and disassembled or fitted with a trigger lock. The homicide rate in the District of Columbia, which had been declining prior to 1976, rose 200% between 1976 and 1991, compared to an average nationwide rise of 9% over the same period of time.
Next, just for fun, let’s look at the capital city of our former masters:
Greater London, England (source: London Metropolitan Police)
Population, 2005: 7,456,100
Crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants, 2004:
Total violent crime: 499.5
Murder: 2.8
Forcible rape : 7.7
Robbery: 63.7
Aggravated assault: 140.8
British Gun Laws:
Handguns completely banned
Semiautomatic “assault rifles” banned
Shotguns and rifles registered and licensed
Possession of air gun or replica gun in public banned
Sales of replica guns restricted
Must be 18 to purchase a knife
British Gun Crime (Source: British Home Office)
-In the year ending June 2005, there were 10,979 firearm offences recorded in England and Wales.
-The current number of firearms offenses is almost twice that of 1997/98, when the restrictive gun laws were put into effect.
-Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05, five more than the previous year.
(How could there be so much gun crime if there are no guns?!?!)
Now let’s compare these enlightened gun-free metropolises with one small city in the US South, which is positively bristling with guns.
Kennesaw, Georgia (Source: FBI Uniform Crime Rate Database, 1994)
Population, 2004: 26,246
Crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants, 2004
Total violent crime: 91.4
Murder: 3.8 (one murder: the weapon used was a knife)
Forcible rape : 7.6
Robbery: 34.3
Aggravated assault: 45.7
Gun Laws in Kinnesaw, Georgia:
On March 25, 1982, the city unanimously passed a law requiring the heads of all households to own and maintain at least one firearm (with the exception, of course, of convicted felons, the disabled, and people whose religious beliefs prohibited the bearing of arms). Furthermore, the city would provide firearms training to all gun owners, free of charge.
In the first year of this law, the crime rate plummeted 74 percent, according to Chief of Police Robert Ruble. Although the population has increased 500 percent since the law was passed, there have been only 4 murders in twenty-six years: two with knives, one by strangulation, and one with a gun. In the case of the gun murder, both perpetrator and victim were out-of-towners, staying in a motel at the time of the shooting.
Conclusion
You are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime in London or Washington, where the keeping and bearing of arms is virtually illegal, than in Kinnesaw, Georgia, where there are guns in every home, and legal carry of concealed weapons is widespread.
In short, an armed society is, in addition to being a polite society (according to Heinlein), also freer from violent crime.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Sorry boys, here’s some stats you omitted.
Homicide rate per 100,000 in 2006
US:5.7
Aust:2.0
Homicides involving firearms
Aust:less than 16%
US: almost 51% [/quote]
What is your point? The US is huge with ten times the population of Australia. You are taking an average for a vast region with wide variances and pretending it means something.
Detroit with a population of 900,000 has 47 murders per 100,000
Honolulu with a population of 900,000 has 1 murder per 100,000 which is half Australias murder rate.
Plano Texas has 1 murder per 100,000, which again is half Australias murder rate.
You are completely ignoring the fact that there are other factors other than gun ownership that are driving Americas murder rate. ie The Swiss have lots of guns yet they don’t have the same problems with crime as the US.
Another glaring problem with your statistics is this. If only 16% of murders in Australia are committed with guns that means %84 are committed with some other kind of weapon. That %84 are just as dead as if they were shot with a gun. Yet if they had a gun they probably would have been able to defend themselves.
Conclusion: You are less likely to be killed in a town of 25,000 people than 7 million. Have you heard of the term statistical signifigance? Didn’t point that out to him did you Sifu.
No problem at all with that 16%. If the people 84% killed had guns I daresay so would have their attackers. It ain’t working too well in America mate. Of course there are going to be other factors but three times the rate is a lot.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Conclusion: You are less likely to be killed in a town of 25,000 people than 7 million. Have you heard of the term statistical signifigance? Didn’t point that out to him did you Sifu.
No problem at all with that 16%. If the people 84% killed had guns I daresay so would have their attackers. It ain’t working too well in America mate. Of course there are going to be other factors but three times the rate is a lot.[/quote]
Did you even read the above posts? I guess the entire country of Switzerland isn’t statistically significant? Or what happened to D.C. when gun laws became MORE strict? Honolulu is not part of the U.S.?
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Conclusion: You are less likely to be killed in a town of 25,000 people than 7 million. Have you heard of the term statistical signifigance? Didn’t point that out to him did you Sifu.
No problem at all with that 16%. If the people 84% killed had guns I daresay so would have their attackers. It ain’t working too well in America mate. Of course there are going to be other factors but three times the rate is a lot.[/quote]
Please tell me you are not a dual citizen of America who votes via absentee ballot. Please.
[quote]AndyG wrote:
Conclusion: You are less likely to be killed in a town of 25,000 people than 7 million. Have you heard of the term statistical signifigance? Didn’t point that out to him did you Sifu. [/quote]
Honolulu is a city the same size as Detroit. Detroit has a murder rate that is 47 times higher. If you were to average them together Detroit would not look as bad while Honolulu woud look way more dangerous that it really is. The problem with averageing is it does not take into account regional differences.
Each state in the United States is almost an individual country. There are varying laws and crime rates amongst the states. But people like you want to pretend that America is one giant ghetto. Fact is there are lots of nice areas with low crime. [quote]
No problem at all with that 16%. If the people 84% killed had guns I daresay so would have their attackers. [/quote]
You are ignoring something very important about guns. Guns are the great equalizer. No other self defense weapon levels the playing field like a gun. A frail elderly person who has to use a walker to get around can hold themself up with one hand on the walker and shoot with the other. They can do that against one or more opponents too.
In Australia what does that same elderly person get to face a healthy young thug or thugs with? Something that requires physical strength and agility to wield. If the thug has a gun you are just plain fucked.
All you Australians do is stack the deck in favour of healthy young men. The very same part of society that is responsibe for the majority of violent crime. At the same time you put weak victim groups like the elderly and women at an even greater disadvantage.
Another thing that gun control does is make the police much less effective because it makes witness intimidation a much greater problem. In Britain witness intimidation is a huge problem, so much so that a lot of crime does not get reported anymore, because people are very afraid of reprisals if they talk to the police.
[quote]
It ain’t working too well in America mate. Of course there are going to be other factors but three times the rate is a lot.[/quote]
Gun onwership works very well. USDOJ statistics show that over 400,000 Americans have successfuly defended their lives with a gun. They would not be alive if the gun control nuts had their way.
The other factors are directly related to having areas of significant poverty combined with the war on drugs. ie Detroit and Baltimore.
A few years ago a couple of Vermont kids brutally butchered with a hunting knife a couple of unarmed liberal Dartmouth professors.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/2001/zantop/
What most folks don’t know (because the papers don’t report crimes that were prevented with a Glock that was revealed but not fired) is that they tried to the same scheme in the same neighborhood six months before.
Look at this AndyG just in time to reinforce my point an 85 year old Great grandmother defends herself against a burglar who was in her bedroom. Lets see you Australians try to beat that.
Granny with gun stops burglar 1:17
A quick-thinking, pistol-packing great-grandmother stops a suspected burglar. WPXI reports.
Heller registers a 22 cal revolver in DC.
Update:
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yesterday, the United States Senate voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Nevada Senator John Ensign (R), that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the “D.C. Voting Rights Act”, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia’s (D.C.) city council in defiance of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to restoring the gun rights of law-abiding D.C. residents,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “It’s ludicrous that good people in our nation’s capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling.”
Full Story:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4508
Senate Roll Call:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Update:
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yesterday, the United States Senate voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Nevada Senator John Ensign (R), that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the “D.C. Voting Rights Act”, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia’s (D.C.) city council in defiance of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to restoring the gun rights of law-abiding D.C. residents,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “It’s ludicrous that good people in our nation’s capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling.”
Full Story:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4508
Senate Roll Call:
[/quote]
Interesting to note that Sen. Gillibrand from NY voted Nay. The dems have been crapping their pants about this supposedly pro-gun senator replacing queen Hillary. She was also rated highly by the NRA once again proving them to be a sellout organization.
mike
No surprise on some of the other Nay votes, though, huh?
Boxer (D-CA)
Burris (D-IL)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Update:
Friday, February 27, 2009
Yesterday, the United States Senate voted, with overwhelming bipartisan support, to adopt an amendment offered by Nevada Senator John Ensign (R), that seeks to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in the District of Columbia. The amendment, attached to S.160, the “D.C. Voting Rights Act”, will repeal restrictive gun control laws passed by the District of Columbia’s (D.C.) city council in defiance of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision. The vote margin was 62-36.
“Today’s vote brings us one step closer to restoring the gun rights of law-abiding D.C. residents,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “It’s ludicrous that good people in our nation’s capital continue to be harassed as they try to defend themselves and their loved ones in their own homes. This vote reinforces the historic Heller ruling.”
Full Story:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4508
Senate Roll Call:
Interesting to note that Sen. Gillibrand from NY voted Nay. The dems have been crapping their pants about this supposedly pro-gun senator replacing queen Hillary. She was also rated highly by the NRA once again proving them to be a sellout organization.
mike[/quote]
It wasn’t exactly a clean bill. The D.C. Voting Rights bill would give the city its first ever seat in the House of Representatives.
[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
It wasn’t exactly a clean bill. The D.C. Voting Rights bill would give the city its first ever seat in the House of Representatives.[/quote]
That seems unconstitutional to me. Article I stipulates that the District is a federal territory, separate from the States, and governed by the United States Congress. Giving DC a seat in the House seems at cross-purposes with this stipulation.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
It wasn’t exactly a clean bill. The D.C. Voting Rights bill would give the city its first ever seat in the House of Representatives.
That seems unconstitutional to me. Article I stipulates that the District is a federal territory, separate from the States, and governed by the United States Congress. Giving DC a seat in the House seems at cross-purposes with this stipulation.[/quote]
You are not alone in thinking that.
[EDIT: The Congressional Research Service issued a report in 2007 finding that it is likely that Congress does not have authority to grant voting representation in the House of Representatives to the Delegate from the District of Columbia.]
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
It wasn’t exactly a clean bill. The D.C. Voting Rights bill would give the city its first ever seat in the House of Representatives.
That seems unconstitutional to me. Article I stipulates that the District is a federal territory, separate from the States, and governed by the United States Congress. Giving DC a seat in the House seems at cross-purposes with this stipulation.[/quote]
This is one reason I don’t fault Dodd, Schumer et. al. for voting “No”. I have no doubt that their motives were anything but pure. However, this is NOT a precedent that needs to be set–it’s a direct contravention of our Constitution in my mind, and as much as I want the DC people to have protection from ridiculous gun laws, this is too important a rider to be allowed on this bill.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
It wasn’t exactly a clean bill. The D.C. Voting Rights bill would give the city its first ever seat in the House of Representatives.
That seems unconstitutional to me. Article I stipulates that the District is a federal territory, separate from the States, and governed by the United States Congress. Giving DC a seat in the House seems at cross-purposes with this stipulation.
This is one reason I don’t fault Dodd, Schumer et. al. for voting “No”. I have no doubt that their motives were anything but pure. However, this is NOT a precedent that needs to be set–it’s a direct contravention of our Constitution in my mind, and as much as I want the DC people to have protection from ridiculous gun laws, this is too important a rider to be allowed on this bill.[/quote]
TITLE II (SECOND AMENDMENT ENFORCEMENT ACT) of the Senate Bill contains the following:
[i]SEC. 212. SEVERABILITY.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this title and amendments made by this title, and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.[/i]
So it’s possible that even if TITLE I (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2009) is ruled unconstitutional, then TITLE II still survives.
Another interesting tidbit in the Senate Bill:
[i]
SEC. 9. FCC AUTHORITIES.
(a) Clarification of General Powers.--Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, guidelines, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, guideline, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part)--
(1) the requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against Television Station WTVH, Syracuse New York, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 (1987); or
(2) any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.‘’.
(b) Severability.–Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision
of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those
sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.[/i]