Why is Gun Control a BAD thing?

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I never said that they had to do with the latest shootings, but the NRA's defense of having automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets is part of the problem in that they won't even acknowledge that there is an increase of violent crimes in the US.

How big a part of the problem are these things? What percentage of crime is committed with automatic firearms? Hint: very, very, very small. What percentage of crime is committed with armor piercing bullets? Hint: very, very, very small. Please let me know how much either of these two bannings will effect overall crime rate. I'd be curious to discover why these are highlighted, other than the media wow factor.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

Also there IS an upswing in violence that is NOT caused by guns but by deeper psychological problems. But guns are used in the crimes. I truly believe that with proper background checks and psychological testing some of these crimes could have been prevented. The problem is there is no facts to prove my point but also none to prove me wrong.

I haven't come on here opposed to background checks. And I agree with you that they need to be done, and done properly. But this isn't anything new. So why don't people start threads saying "Let's enforce our current laws"? Why do we always have to have threads looking for new ways to let the government exert more control over us?

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

The automatic weapons isn't the problem but the NRA's refusal to acknowledge that there is no need for those kinds of weapons is a big problem. Why does a hunter need an automatic weapon to kill Bambi's mom? They don't but the NRA will still fight for this right. To me the problem is that they can't even concede ANYTHING to the other side of the argument even the use of automatic weapons.

The 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with hunting. I don't know why hunting is the standard by which we justify firearms.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

But I do agree with what I quoted above. We should enforce what we already have in place successfully and see if that leads to some improvement.

We are in total agreement here.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

I disagree about the government trying to exert more control however. I feel the Patriot Act is an example of trying to exert more control not better and or safer gun laws.

When an enumerated right is whittled down by government intervention I get defensive. Whether we're talking about the 1st, 2nd, 4th ammendment, etc... So I agree with you completely about the patriot act. But hold those same standards to the 2nd ammendment as well.

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

We can agree that there is no excuse for the Patriot Act!

Yes, definitely!

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]



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 relatively consistent with annual trends. 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.

Im still here wrote:

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.

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.

Are you guys really reading these entire posts? WTF?

Im still here wrote:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html

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.