It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends.
Your stats only include the 12 months since new gun control laws were introduced in Australia. Here are some more recent stats:
An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Compared to firearm related suicides and accidents where less than 10 per cent involved the death of a female, a higher proportion of homicides involved a female victim (33%). Persons under the age of 15 years were least likely to die as a result of a firearm related injury. Males and females who suffered a fatal firearms injury tended to follow a similar age distribution, with persons aged between 24 and 34 years accounting for the largest number of firearm related deaths. There appears to be a shift in age related risk between 1991 and 2001. In 1991, males aged between 15 and 24 years had the highest risk of firearm related fatal injury (rate of 9.5 per 100 000), whereas in 2001 males aged 65 years and older had the highest risk (rate of 4.9 per 100 000). The majority of firearm related deaths were committed with a hunting rifle, although there has been an increase in the use of handguns.
The main data source analysed in the production of this report is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Underlying Cause of Death unit record data supplied to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) for the period 1991 to 2001. The registration of deaths is the responsibility of the individual state and territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Information relating to the cause of death supplied by either a medical practitioner or by a Coroner is included as part of the registration. Such information is then provided to the ABS for subsequent coding. The data used in this report have been coded by the ABS in accordance with the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which has been adopted for Australian use in the case of deaths.
In total there were 5083 registered deaths attributable to firearms in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for the majority of these deaths (77%), followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). Over the 11 year period the number and rate of firearm related deaths has decreased (Figure 1 and Table 1). In comparison, there has been little change in the trend for deaths caused by sharp instruments. In 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.
A = Accident, S = Suicide, H = Homicide, O + Other, T = Total.
note: sorry, the table wouldn't copy very well, I tried to space it properly, but it wouldn't work.
The firearm related death rate for males, females and all persons (regardless of gender) in Australia has similarly decreased over the 11 year period (Table 2). In 1991 the firearm related death rate was 3.6 per 100 000 persons, 6.6 per 100 000 males and 0.7 per 100 000 females. In 2001 the firearm related death rate decreased to 1.7 per 100 000 persons, 3.1 per 100 000 males and 0.4 per 100 000 females.
There is a whole lot more of this, too much to paste here. These stats only go to 2001, I am looking for more recent research. I just want to point out the increase in homicide in 1996. The number went from 67 in 1995, to 104 in 1996, then fell again to 79 in 1997. This would be attributed to the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were shot and killed, and 37 more were injured. Had this not occurred, the number would have been 44. It was after Port Arthur that new gun control laws were introduced, and there has been a steady overall decline ever since, at least until 2001. Like I said, looking for more recent stats between 2001 and now.[/quote]
and of course, your Government would never lie to you, right?
hahahahahahahah, the shit is getting deep around here, I'm gonna go get my waders on
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends.[/quote]
This from the University of Sydney:
Decline in gun deaths doubled since Australia destroyed 700,000 firearms
14 December 2006
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.
"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. "This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments."
After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."
As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."
"On top of that, and despite the new gun laws not being designed to reduce gun suicide, domestic shootings, and the much less common 'stranger danger' individual gun homicides, firearm fatalities in the three largest categories - total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides - all at least doubled their previous rates of decline following the revised firearm legislation."
While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
*International definitions of "mass shooting" and "mass homicide" range from 3 to 5 victims killed. To exclude most spousal and family violence killings, a "mass shooting" is defined here as one in which five or more victims are shot dead in proximate events.
Again, the original poster only mentions stats in the 12 months following the new gun control laws. Dunno where they came from, but for the sake of argument will assume they are fact.
One states assaults are up 8.6 %, but fails to mention that these could and probably do include fist fights and the like. If I had a choice, I'd rather be punched in the face than shot in the face.
Mentions a 3.2 % increase in homicides, but fails to mention how these occurred, firearms or otherwise.
Armed robberies up 44%, but again fails to mention whether or not a gun was used. You can threaten someone with a ball point pen during a robbery and be charged with armed robbery. If armed robberies are up, getting shot in the head during an armed robbery are down.
States that homicides in Victoria were up 300%. I'd like to see the source of that, and particularly the numbers. The actual numbers could be quite small.
Mentions a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults on the elderly, but again fails to mention whether or not firearms were used.
The fact remains, that even if crime rates are climbing, gun deaths overall are falling. The increases in crime rates are a separate issue in the context of this argument.
Your stats only include the 12 months since new gun control laws were introduced in Australia. Here are some more recent stats:
An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Compared to firearm related suicides and accidents where less than 10 per cent involved the death of a female, a higher proportion of homicides involved a female victim (33%). Persons under the age of 15 years were least likely to die as a result of a firearm related injury. Males and females who suffered a fatal firearms injury tended to follow a similar age distribution, with persons aged between 24 and 34 years accounting for the largest number of firearm related deaths. There appears to be a shift in age related risk between 1991 and 2001. In 1991, males aged between 15 and 24 years had the highest risk of firearm related fatal injury (rate of 9.5 per 100 000), whereas in 2001 males aged 65 years and older had the highest risk (rate of 4.9 per 100 000). The majority of firearm related deaths were committed with a hunting rifle, although there has been an increase in the use of handguns.
The main data source analysed in the production of this report is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Underlying Cause of Death unit record data supplied to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) for the period 1991 to 2001. The registration of deaths is the responsibility of the individual state and territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Information relating to the cause of death supplied by either a medical practitioner or by a Coroner is included as part of the registration. Such information is then provided to the ABS for subsequent coding. The data used in this report have been coded by the ABS in accordance with the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which has been adopted for Australian use in the case of deaths.
In total there were 5083 registered deaths attributable to firearms in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for the majority of these deaths (77%), followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). Over the 11 year period the number and rate of firearm related deaths has decreased (Figure 1 and Table 1). In comparison, there has been little change in the trend for deaths caused by sharp instruments. In 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.
A = Accident, S = Suicide, H = Homicide, O + Other, T = Total.
note: sorry, the table wouldn't copy very well, I tried to space it properly, but it wouldn't work.
The firearm related death rate for males, females and all persons (regardless of gender) in Australia has similarly decreased over the 11 year period (Table 2). In 1991 the firearm related death rate was 3.6 per 100 000 persons, 6.6 per 100 000 males and 0.7 per 100 000 females. In 2001 the firearm related death rate decreased to 1.7 per 100 000 persons, 3.1 per 100 000 males and 0.4 per 100 000 females.
There is a whole lot more of this, too much to paste here. These stats only go to 2001, I am looking for more recent research. I just want to point out the increase in homicide in 1996. The number went from 67 in 1995, to 104 in 1996, then fell again to 79 in 1997. This would be attributed to the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were shot and killed, and 37 more were injured. Had this not occurred, the number would have been 44. It was after Port Arthur that new gun control laws were introduced, and there has been a steady overall decline ever since, at least until 2001. Like I said, looking for more recent stats between 2001 and now.
and of course, your Government would never lie to you, right?
hahahahahahahah, the shit is getting deep around here, I'm gonna go get my waders on[/quote]
The original poster doesn't say where his/her stats came from. The stats from the ABS are backed by independent studies and research. Basically, what the OP is saying, is that as a result of tight gun control laws, gun fatalities actually increase, sometimes in alarming numbers, that citizens are rounded up and exterminated. In developed nations, this is simply bullshit. The FACTS of the matter are that in Australia at least, gun related deaths have declined. Some can argue that they were declining anyway, which may be true. My argument to the OP is that those rates are NOT increasing as a result of those laws.
if we were all armed less shit like this would happen
ps: you'd be surprised what you could do if you are being fired at by some psycho
I do appreciate that you have your own views, but we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I do not own, and will never own a gun.
I work as a paramedic. With everyone's resources stretched thin, we often arrive on the scene before police. Having a gun, would not make me feel any better equiped to do my job. In fact i don't think i could do it as well as i do if i did have one. I'd be stressed to the max about it. Talking to my workmates about this, i am not the only one that feels this way. I'd much rather rely on the skills we are taught like, situational awareness, verbal de-escalation skills, the most effective conflict resolution tool is talking. Talk, talk, talk and then a well-honed sense of when to get the fuck out of there, The one thing we can't be is fearful, (easier said that done), but if anything will get me killed, it will be fear before it's a gun.
The next time we have to speed though and intersection, the impact might be more powerful. The first time I get stuck with a needle, it just might contain a lethal virus. The next time I walk through a door into god knows what, there might be a lunatic waiting for me on the other side with a handgun or a knife. I'm not going to dwell on any of this. You can't do the job if you're afraid of each call. Trust me, you can't.
It's rewarding yes, and we put up with lots of crap. I love my job, not complaining, but it's not for everyone, that's for sure.
I've been spat on, spewed on, bit, kicked, abused, been offered money for sex (uhm yeah ok.......i'll just show my way out now...freaks....).
It's funny, most of the people who i work with that want to carry weapons, are just the sort who shouldn't. They cannot communicate effectively. They lack empathy and compassion. They're hot headed. Every patient encounter is an adversarial relationship. They conduct patient interviews like police interrogations. When there is any sign of conflict (which we get often), they're the type who thinks shouting orders and throwing their weight around constitutes effective leadership and good crisis management. They're just not...reasonable people. An unreasonable person with a firearm is just plain dangerous, regardless of whether you're law abiding or not.
So i know this is just my view, but i do not and would not feel safer with a gun. I'd feel less safe because i believe i would put myself in more volitile situations with the 'security' of the gun tucked away. And i still doubt i'd ever be able to use it.
As I mentioned, these stats only reflect the first 12 months after the buy back. They are also very unclear about the use of guns. They show homicide, robbery, assault and the like, but few of them make mention of whether or not firearms were used. Further to that, these two links appear to be bias, since they are from an interview with Keith Tidswell of the Australian Shooters Association.
The really interesting figure quoted in this is the apparent 300% increase of firearms related deaths in Victoria. Measuring these increases over a 12 month period hardly shows a long term trend, and could be the result of a multiple homicide. If four people on average are killed with guns every year, and then some fucker shoots his whole family of five, then himself, this is gonna show a marked increase in the stats for that year. Anyone conducting research and gathering statistics would know that the correlation co-efficients are insignificant in such a narrow time frame. This kind of research would be quickly disregarded.
The purpose of digging up the research over an 11 year time frame, was to demonstrate that despite what you might want to believe, that fact is that the gun buy back has not caused an increase in firearms related deaths. While the rates may have been in a steady decline prior to the buy back, and continued afterwards, the rates did not increase.
Further to that, the buy back did not involve all guns. The aim was to eliminate automatic, semi-automatic, rapid fire type weapons, since their only purpose is to kill. Sporting shooters, people who hunt recreationally can still obtain guns legally to pursue their sport.
As I mentioned, these stats only reflect the first 12 months after the buy back. They are also very unclear about the use of guns. They show homicide, robbery, assault and the like, but few of them make mention of whether or not firearms were used. Further to that, these two links appear to be bias, since they are from an interview with Keith Tidswell of the Australian Shooters Association.
The really interesting figure quoted in this is the apparent 300% increase of firearms related deaths in Victoria. Measuring these increases over a 12 month period hardly shows a long term trend, and could be the result of a multiple homicide. If four people on average are killed with guns every year, and then some fucker shoots his whole family of five, then himself, this is gonna show a marked increase in the stats for that year. Anyone conducting research and gathering statistics would know that the correlation co-efficients are insignificant in such a narrow time frame. This kind of research would be quickly disregarded.
The purpose of digging up the research over an 11 year time frame, was to demonstrate that despite what you might want to believe, that fact is that the gun buy back has not caused an increase in firearms related deaths. While the rates may have been in a steady decline prior to the buy back, and continued afterwards, the rates did not increase.
Further to that, the buy back did not involve all guns. The aim was to eliminate automatic, semi-automatic, rapid fire type weapons, since their only purpose is to kill. Sporting shooters, people who hunt recreationally can still obtain guns legally to pursue their sport.
Simply put, you trust the Government figures, blindly believing they would never lie to you. You are going to have a rude awakening very soon........
How can i be assured that "they" won't consider me crazy?
And do i have to take it to court and spend thousands of dollars to prove i am not?
You don't see the whole "slippery slope" side of this?
Its fucking retarded.
So anyone that is diagnosed as bi-polar shouldn't be able to own a gun?
Yeah right.
How about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Should we take away guns from all our returning veterans?
Bwahahahahah.
Come on.
This is just lame-o.
BTW,
WE ALREADY HAVE GUN CONTROL, FYI.
Why do we need more?
Gun Control Act of 1968
Prohibited persons
Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories individuals is prohibited.
Anyone who is under the age of 18, except with the written permission of their parent or guardian.
Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 created a national background check system to prevent firearms sales to such "prohibited persons."
You do understand that the slippery slope you refer to is an argumentative fallacy... You've literally said "Here is my argument and why it is wrong."
When Jesus said "Love your enemies" he probably didn't mean kill them...
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
Simply put, you trust the Government figures, blindly believing they would never lie to you. You are going to have a rude awakening very soon........
Simply put, I am more inclined to believe the facts and statistics than I am someone who seems to think that tighter gun control laws are going to mean the death of me. When my government begins to exterminate millions of unarmed Australians, I will eat my words.
The point of my involvement in this particular argument, was to prove that tight gun control laws over here did not result in an increase in firearms related deaths. You are yet to prove otherwise.
Simply put, I am more inclined to believe the facts and statistics than I am someone who seems to think that tighter gun control laws are going to mean the death of me. When my government begins to exterminate millions of unarmed Australians, I will eat my words.
The point of my involvement in this particular argument, was to prove that tight gun control laws over here did not result in an increase in firearms related deaths. You are yet to prove otherwise.
Maybe a fascist Australian Society is what you are already living under......
Ok, for a start, John Howard is no longer Prime Minister. I am feeling hopeful about Kevin Rudd, he's already made some really positive moves after only a short time on the job. John Howard was notorious for being a butt kisser to the US, trying to fashion Australia into a mini American and trying to spread the fear here that US government seems to have succeeded in doing over there. I can tell ya though, no fucker over here is buying and that message was conveyed to Howard in the last election.
Besides that, this is a separate issue to the original argument and statements that gun deaths are outta control here since the gun buy back or that the Australian government will start rounding up people and exterminating them. These new gun control laws have been in place since 1996, 12 years, and well, it's yet to happen. Like I said, if it does, I will eat my words.
Google Rex 84, go about 5 or 10 pages deep, the truth is never on the first page, wonder why?
"Plan for Government Continuity"
It's incredibly farfetched though I'd never put it past em
the number of people they'd need to put this into effect would be MASSIVE.
Our army is elswhere, our cops can barely keep the peace of the areas they try to control and the blackwater payroll would bankrupt the US.
In either case, anyone who's coming after you to put you in a camp is probably wearing body armour and will most likely not be detered by the 38 special you have in your nightstand drawer.
Besides that, this is a separate issue to the original argument and statements that gun deaths are outta control here since the gun buy back or that the Australian government will start rounding up people and exterminating them. These new gun control laws have been in place since 1996, 12 years, and well, it's yet to happen. Like I said, if it does, I will eat my words.
There's really no point to responding to this guy seriously. He believes he knows more about the impact of gun laws than us locals and the ABS, a public service that is independent of the government. Nothing you say will change his mind, and anyone reading these posts will see just how wrong he and his sources are.
There's really no point to responding to this guy seriously. He believes he knows more about the impact of gun laws than us locals and the ABS, a public service that is independent of the government. Nothing you say will change his mind, and anyone reading these posts will see just how wrong he and his sources are.
You're right. It's evident in pretty much all his posts. It's just a little breathtaking how ignorant and brainwashed some people can get, all the while accusing you of being a blind follower. For the most part, I've been chuckling my way through this thread.
so you would rather be a victim than be able to defend yourself?
Defend himself from what? As far I'm aware, no one's come in here saying the government is storming his house to enslave him. I think you're taking your victim complex a little too far.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Defend himself from what? As far I'm aware, no one's come in here saying the government is storming his house to enslave him. I think you're taking your victim complex a little too far.
Doesn't make it a good thing. And if you can't see that in light of the events of the last week, I worry for you.
In fact, the combination of fear, paranoia, and sheer wrong-headedness I'm seeing from some people on here is making me have some serious reservations about visiting the States next month. Gun nuts freak me out bad...
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Doesn't make it a good thing. And if you can't see that in light of the events of the last week, I worry for you.
In fact, the combination of fear, paranoia, and sheer wrong-headedness I'm seeing from some people on here is making me have some serious reservations about visiting the States next month. Gun nuts freak me out bad...
Last week a kid on anti-depressants shot up a school. A kid at Virginia Tech who was also on anti-deppressants shot up his college. Columbine, some kids on, lets guess, antidepressants shot up their school. Their are reasons for everything.
Last week a kid on anti-depressants shot up a school. A kid at Virginia Tech who was also on anti-deppressants shot up his college. Columbine, some kids on, lets guess, antidepressants shot up their school. Their are reasons for everything.
And a kid in Ireland on anti-depressants shot no one. There's a reason for that too.
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Probably cause your more stable than other morons.
Yeah, we're the stablest of all the morons. :rolleyes:
Keep blaming the drugs if you want... But anti-depressants are widely available in Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and the rest of Europe, as well as the US. The only thing that isn't uniform is the school-shooting rate.
How can the recent tragedies not make you question these things just a little bit deeper than "Well... it is in the constitution..."
Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
Yeah, we're the stablest of all the morons. :rolleyes:
Keep blaming the drugs if you want... But anti-depressants are widely available in Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and the rest of Europe, as well as the US. The only thing that isn't uniform is the school-shooting rate.
How can the recent tragedies not make you question these things just a little bit deeper than "Well... it is in the constitution..."
Comments
Your stats only include the 12 months since new gun control laws were introduced in Australia. Here are some more recent stats:
An examination of firearm related deaths in Australia between 1991 and 2001 found a 47 per cent decrease in numbers, with a fall in the number of suicides accounting for the largest part of that decrease. Nine out of 10 firearm related deaths involved males. Compared to firearm related suicides and accidents where less than 10 per cent involved the death of a female, a higher proportion of homicides involved a female victim (33%). Persons under the age of 15 years were least likely to die as a result of a firearm related injury. Males and females who suffered a fatal firearms injury tended to follow a similar age distribution, with persons aged between 24 and 34 years accounting for the largest number of firearm related deaths. There appears to be a shift in age related risk between 1991 and 2001. In 1991, males aged between 15 and 24 years had the highest risk of firearm related fatal injury (rate of 9.5 per 100 000), whereas in 2001 males aged 65 years and older had the highest risk (rate of 4.9 per 100 000). The majority of firearm related deaths were committed with a hunting rifle, although there has been an increase in the use of handguns.
The main data source analysed in the production of this report is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Underlying Cause of Death unit record data supplied to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) for the period 1991 to 2001. The registration of deaths is the responsibility of the individual state and territory Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Information relating to the cause of death supplied by either a medical practitioner or by a Coroner is included as part of the registration. Such information is then provided to the ABS for subsequent coding. The data used in this report have been coded by the ABS in accordance with the tenth revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), which has been adopted for Australian use in the case of deaths.
In total there were 5083 registered deaths attributable to firearms in Australia between 1991 and 2001. Suicides committed with firearms accounted for the majority of these deaths (77%), followed by firearms homicide (15%), firearms accidents (5%), firearms deaths resulting from legal intervention and undetermined deaths (2%). Over the 11 year period the number and rate of firearm related deaths has decreased (Figure 1 and Table 1). In comparison, there has been little change in the trend for deaths caused by sharp instruments. In 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.
A = Accident, S = Suicide, H = Homicide, O + Other, T = Total.
Year A S H O T
1991 29 505 84 11 629
1992 24 488 96 14 622
1993 18 431 64 9 522
1994 20 420 76 13 529
1995 15 388 67 9 479
1996 30 382 104 5 521
1997 19 330 79 9 437
1998 21 234 57 15 327
1999 28 269 50 6 353
2000 45 222 57 7 331
2001 18 261 47 7 333
note: sorry, the table wouldn't copy very well, I tried to space it properly, but it wouldn't work.
The firearm related death rate for males, females and all persons (regardless of gender) in Australia has similarly decreased over the 11 year period (Table 2). In 1991 the firearm related death rate was 3.6 per 100 000 persons, 6.6 per 100 000 males and 0.7 per 100 000 females. In 2001 the firearm related death rate decreased to 1.7 per 100 000 persons, 3.1 per 100 000 males and 0.4 per 100 000 females.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html
There is a whole lot more of this, too much to paste here. These stats only go to 2001, I am looking for more recent research. I just want to point out the increase in homicide in 1996. The number went from 67 in 1995, to 104 in 1996, then fell again to 79 in 1997. This would be attributed to the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were shot and killed, and 37 more were injured. Had this not occurred, the number would have been 44. It was after Port Arthur that new gun control laws were introduced, and there has been a steady overall decline ever since, at least until 2001. Like I said, looking for more recent stats between 2001 and now.[/quote]
and of course, your Government would never lie to you, right?
hahahahahahahah, the shit is getting deep around here, I'm gonna go get my waders on
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more
than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their
prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'.
Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends.[/quote]
This from the University of Sydney:
Decline in gun deaths doubled since Australia destroyed 700,000 firearms
14 December 2006
The risk of dying by gunshot has halved since Australia destroyed 700,000 privately owned firearms, according to a new study published today in the international research journal, Injury Prevention.
"Not only were Australia's post-Port Arthur gun laws followed by a decade in which the crime they were designed to reduce hasn't happened again, but we also saw a life-saving bonus: the decline in overall gun deaths accelerated to twice the rate seen before the new gun laws," says study lead author, Professor Simon Chapman.
"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said Adjunct Associate Professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney. "This was a milestone public health and safety issue, driven by an overwhelming swing in public opinion, and promptly delivered by governments."
After 112 people were shot dead in 11 mass shootings* in a decade, Australia collected and destroyed categories of firearms designed to kill many people quickly. In his immediate reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, Prime Minister John Howard said of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns: "There is no legitimate interest served in my view by the free availability in this country of weapons of this kind… That is why we have proposed a comprehensive package of reforms designed to implement tougher, more effective and uniform gun laws."
As study co-author Philip Alpers points out: "The new legislation's first declared aim was to reduce the risk of similar gun massacres. In the 10½ years since the gun buy-back announcement, no mass shootings have occurred in Australia."
"On top of that, and despite the new gun laws not being designed to reduce gun suicide, domestic shootings, and the much less common 'stranger danger' individual gun homicides, firearm fatalities in the three largest categories - total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides - all at least doubled their previous rates of decline following the revised firearm legislation."
While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
*International definitions of "mass shooting" and "mass homicide" range from 3 to 5 victims killed. To exclude most spousal and family violence killings, a "mass shooting" is defined here as one in which five or more victims are shot dead in proximate events.
Again, the original poster only mentions stats in the 12 months following the new gun control laws. Dunno where they came from, but for the sake of argument will assume they are fact.
One states assaults are up 8.6 %, but fails to mention that these could and probably do include fist fights and the like. If I had a choice, I'd rather be punched in the face than shot in the face.
Mentions a 3.2 % increase in homicides, but fails to mention how these occurred, firearms or otherwise.
Armed robberies up 44%, but again fails to mention whether or not a gun was used. You can threaten someone with a ball point pen during a robbery and be charged with armed robbery. If armed robberies are up, getting shot in the head during an armed robbery are down.
States that homicides in Victoria were up 300%. I'd like to see the source of that, and particularly the numbers. The actual numbers could be quite small.
Mentions a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults on the elderly, but again fails to mention whether or not firearms were used.
The fact remains, that even if crime rates are climbing, gun deaths overall are falling. The increases in crime rates are a separate issue in the context of this argument.
and of course, your Government would never lie to you, right?
hahahahahahahah, the shit is getting deep around here, I'm gonna go get my waders on[/quote]
The original poster doesn't say where his/her stats came from. The stats from the ABS are backed by independent studies and research. Basically, what the OP is saying, is that as a result of tight gun control laws, gun fatalities actually increase, sometimes in alarming numbers, that citizens are rounded up and exterminated. In developed nations, this is simply bullshit. The FACTS of the matter are that in Australia at least, gun related deaths have declined. Some can argue that they were declining anyway, which may be true. My argument to the OP is that those rates are NOT increasing as a result of those laws.
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
Sweep the Leg Johnny.
I work as a paramedic. With everyone's resources stretched thin, we often arrive on the scene before police. Having a gun, would not make me feel any better equiped to do my job. In fact i don't think i could do it as well as i do if i did have one. I'd be stressed to the max about it. Talking to my workmates about this, i am not the only one that feels this way. I'd much rather rely on the skills we are taught like, situational awareness, verbal de-escalation skills, the most effective conflict resolution tool is talking. Talk, talk, talk and then a well-honed sense of when to get the fuck out of there, The one thing we can't be is fearful, (easier said that done), but if anything will get me killed, it will be fear before it's a gun.
The next time we have to speed though and intersection, the impact might be more powerful. The first time I get stuck with a needle, it just might contain a lethal virus. The next time I walk through a door into god knows what, there might be a lunatic waiting for me on the other side with a handgun or a knife. I'm not going to dwell on any of this. You can't do the job if you're afraid of each call. Trust me, you can't.
It's rewarding yes, and we put up with lots of crap. I love my job, not complaining, but it's not for everyone, that's for sure.
I've been spat on, spewed on, bit, kicked, abused, been offered money for sex (uhm yeah ok.......i'll just show my way out now...freaks....).
It's funny, most of the people who i work with that want to carry weapons, are just the sort who shouldn't. They cannot communicate effectively. They lack empathy and compassion. They're hot headed. Every patient encounter is an adversarial relationship. They conduct patient interviews like police interrogations. When there is any sign of conflict (which we get often), they're the type who thinks shouting orders and throwing their weight around constitutes effective leadership and good crisis management. They're just not...reasonable people. An unreasonable person with a firearm is just plain dangerous, regardless of whether you're law abiding or not.
So i know this is just my view, but i do not and would not feel safer with a gun. I'd feel less safe because i believe i would put myself in more volitile situations with the 'security' of the gun tucked away. And i still doubt i'd ever be able to use it.
As I mentioned, these stats only reflect the first 12 months after the buy back. They are also very unclear about the use of guns. They show homicide, robbery, assault and the like, but few of them make mention of whether or not firearms were used. Further to that, these two links appear to be bias, since they are from an interview with Keith Tidswell of the Australian Shooters Association.
The really interesting figure quoted in this is the apparent 300% increase of firearms related deaths in Victoria. Measuring these increases over a 12 month period hardly shows a long term trend, and could be the result of a multiple homicide. If four people on average are killed with guns every year, and then some fucker shoots his whole family of five, then himself, this is gonna show a marked increase in the stats for that year. Anyone conducting research and gathering statistics would know that the correlation co-efficients are insignificant in such a narrow time frame. This kind of research would be quickly disregarded.
The purpose of digging up the research over an 11 year time frame, was to demonstrate that despite what you might want to believe, that fact is that the gun buy back has not caused an increase in firearms related deaths. While the rates may have been in a steady decline prior to the buy back, and continued afterwards, the rates did not increase.
Further to that, the buy back did not involve all guns. The aim was to eliminate automatic, semi-automatic, rapid fire type weapons, since their only purpose is to kill. Sporting shooters, people who hunt recreationally can still obtain guns legally to pursue their sport.
Simply put, you trust the Government figures, blindly believing they would never lie to you. You are going to have a rude awakening very soon........
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
Has there been some legislation passed that I don't know about?
has al Gore been elected president and I was not informed?
are the Republicans not still partially controlled by the Gun Lobby?
I'm not quite sure what your worst case scenario is:
Blackwater troops patroling the streets?
Economic collapse and street gangs taking over?
This issue has you chasing your own tail to the point that you never really asked If anyone agrees with you.
which I do, by the way
to a point.
Google Rex 84, go about 5 or 10 pages deep, the truth is never on the first page, wonder why?
"Plan for Government Continuity"
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
You do understand that the slippery slope you refer to is an argumentative fallacy... You've literally said "Here is my argument and why it is wrong."
"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead. No, wait, not me, you." -Deep Toughts, Jack Handy
Simply put, I am more inclined to believe the facts and statistics than I am someone who seems to think that tighter gun control laws are going to mean the death of me. When my government begins to exterminate millions of unarmed Australians, I will eat my words.
The point of my involvement in this particular argument, was to prove that tight gun control laws over here did not result in an increase in firearms related deaths. You are yet to prove otherwise.
Maybe a fascist Australian Society is what you are already living under......
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16738500-29277,00.html
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
Ok, for a start, John Howard is no longer Prime Minister. I am feeling hopeful about Kevin Rudd, he's already made some really positive moves after only a short time on the job. John Howard was notorious for being a butt kisser to the US, trying to fashion Australia into a mini American and trying to spread the fear here that US government seems to have succeeded in doing over there. I can tell ya though, no fucker over here is buying and that message was conveyed to Howard in the last election.
Besides that, this is a separate issue to the original argument and statements that gun deaths are outta control here since the gun buy back or that the Australian government will start rounding up people and exterminating them. These new gun control laws have been in place since 1996, 12 years, and well, it's yet to happen. Like I said, if it does, I will eat my words.
It's incredibly farfetched though I'd never put it past em
the number of people they'd need to put this into effect would be MASSIVE.
Our army is elswhere, our cops can barely keep the peace of the areas they try to control and the blackwater payroll would bankrupt the US.
In either case, anyone who's coming after you to put you in a camp is probably wearing body armour and will most likely not be detered by the 38 special you have in your nightstand drawer.
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
You're right. It's evident in pretty much all his posts. It's just a little breathtaking how ignorant and brainwashed some people can get, all the while accusing you of being a blind follower. For the most part, I've been chuckling my way through this thread.
it's compelling and completely insane.
makes me want to live in another country.
the inmates are truly running the asylum.
in my opinion and my opinion ONLY carrying a gun would be a manifestation of living in fear and I refuse to live in fear.
so you would rather be a victim than be able to defend yourself?
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
Defend himself from what? As far I'm aware, no one's come in here saying the government is storming his house to enslave him. I think you're taking your victim complex a little too far.
I am no victim, I am not scared in the least.....
try again.....
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
If you're not scared, why cling so tight to your precious pea-shooter?
Doesn't make it a good thing. And if you can't see that in light of the events of the last week, I worry for you.
In fact, the combination of fear, paranoia, and sheer wrong-headedness I'm seeing from some people on here is making me have some serious reservations about visiting the States next month. Gun nuts freak me out bad...
And a kid in Ireland on anti-depressants shot no one. There's a reason for that too.
Yeah, we're the stablest of all the morons. :rolleyes:
Keep blaming the drugs if you want... But anti-depressants are widely available in Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and the rest of Europe, as well as the US. The only thing that isn't uniform is the school-shooting rate.
How can the recent tragedies not make you question these things just a little bit deeper than "Well... it is in the constitution..."