Slashdot Mirror

If correlation proved causality, your statistics might actually mean something. I could also easily say that gun control results in more murders because the cities in the US with the greatest gun control laws in general have the highest percent of murders. In reality, while this may possibly be a result of tighter gun control, it is also the case that gun control laws were enacted BECAUSE these cities had high murder rates. The fact that they did not work or made things work is only part of the story.

A better question would be if murders went down significantly in countries that banned guns after the ban. They did not, and in fact the opposite happened.
Since Canada passed strict gun control laws, their homicide rate has gone up while at the same time going down in the US:
Canada 1
Canada 2
In England, people injured by firearms has increased by 110% in the 10 years leading up to 2008. (Ban was enacted in 1997). In late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths.
UK Gun Statistics
Australia did not ban guns, but has seen mixed results with their efforts to reduce the amount of guns owned. Accidental gun deaths are up, gun suicides are down with other suicides are up by the same amount, and assault rates are up. Gun robberies increased for the first 5 years but are now back down to the levels they were before the gun buyback program.
Australia Statistics

So comparing gun deaths in the US to countries that already had much lower gun deaths before the ban guns is obviously an irreverent comparison for this debate. Violence in the US is a complex issue, and one that will not be solved by more gun control laws. As long as one group of people is always blaming others for the problem, we will never get a handle on how to change our culture to reduce the attractiveness of violence in the minds of our children. For that to happen, we need to co-operation of parents, government, the media, Hollywood, etc. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to happen, because in my mind the biggest problem is children growing up without fathers being raised by TV, movies, and "music" artists which promote violence. As long as the government pays people to have children and pays single mothers to stay single and poor, this is not going to change.

>

Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!

[Citation Needed]

The only "evidence", if it can be called this, of an increase in violence are opinion pieces such as blogs and editorials. There are no statistics or research to back this up. As an Australian I am proud of our gun control laws and laugh every time I see some gun-nut claiming they've done harm.

This is just one site that shows how murders have NOT CHANGED and that gun related accidents have changed. They even state that assaults & other crime cannot be seen as a direct result of gun control laws.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

I can pick and choose to.

there are a LOT of people who's way of life and experience require some form of protection. A gun is one of those things.

Another thing, when you're talking about the number of gun deaths, what about the crime rate? You quote VIOLENT crime... but what about overall crime. Hmm lets look!

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html ... wait that can't be right it says the crime rate INCREASED... in fact it says the crime rate exploded... lets look at more references... this one must be flawed...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AU+crime+rate+gun+legislation&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

The first link off the google search you provided is: http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html I'll list a few stats for you.
Armed robberies:
1995 - 27.8%
1996 - 25.3%
1997 - 24.1%
1998 - 17.6%
1999 - 15.2%
2000 - 14.0%
There was a shocking 10% decrease in the space of 2 years? how can this be explained?

The most shocking statistic (for you) is that criminals are now targeting those who cant fight back in a fair fight. Criminals are cowards so crime against the elderly has increased whilst crime overall has decreased.

Also firearm hospitalisations have decreased. http://www.aic.gov.au/media/2001/20010402.html

The number of crimes against People and households is decreasing. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/8D4BD468F3B92E33CA2573D2001089F8?opendocument
The relevent info is under "13.4 Victims of Crime 2005" Overall crime has dropped, the only form of crime to increase are assaults, assaults are up whilst gun related deaths and gun related hosptial adminssions are down. The rise in this statistic also means that more assaults were reported to police, I tend to like the fact that if I'm attacked I'm going to live to tell about it. My wallet can be replaced, knife wounds heal, a gun shot is forever.

It's littered with the same thing. You are WRONG. Your violent crime might be down but your crime went through the roof!!!!!

*Cough*

The US has laws in place that pretty much screws anyone who shoots their gun without using their brain.

Which laws are these pray tell.

Gang violence is rife amongst many of your cities and you continue to protest that people who cant keep their guns under control are punished. Gun crime is a daily occurrence in the US, a single gun related murder is national news here in Australia

But this is exactly my point, contrary to the opinions of many uninformed Americans, guns are not banned in Australia they are restricted. I have a license, I can go and get myself a hunting rifle during lunch if I wanted to, I used to own guns but I sold them when I quit my blue collar job to further my education (they were for sporting purposes). American gun nuts tend to like bringing up the point that guns are no more dangerous then cars (which is total BS, guns are orders of magnitude more dangerous then cars, most people involved in car accidents survive while firearm accidents tend to ki

Whoa whoa buddy, your facts are ALL WRONG!!!

Somalia and Russia are a different playing field. More Somalia than russia really. People who have guns have power. Typically those without guns can't afford them. Plain as that. Comparing Somalia to the US is like comparing apples to oranges.

The world is a complex place, and "weapons" don't solve everything... but being a criminal, if you know that person has a gun typically you'll go after the person that doesn't. Less risk.

The US has laws in place that pretty much screws anyone who shoots their gun without using their brain. I wish i didn't live in a world where guns were needed but that's how it is. Before you pass judgment on me... I don't own a gun. The level of security i wish to live requires only two great dogs (labs) to alert me or let the criminal know that my house probably isn't the best place to rob.

However, there are a LOT of people who's way of life and experience require some form of protection. A gun is one of those things.

Another thing, when you're talking about the number of gun deaths, what about the crime rate? You quote VIOLENT crime... but what about overall crime. Hmm lets look!

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html ... wait that can't be right it says the crime rate INCREASED... in fact it says the crime rate exploded... lets look at more references... this one must be flawed...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=AU+crime+rate+gun+legislation&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

Well... I'll be damned. Government studies, independent studies and just plain facts show you're completely wrong. Here are some quotes from your own major news groups.

"Crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and AU since stricter gun control laws were enacted..."
"Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after it's gun control measures..."

It's littered with the same thing. You are WRONG. Your violent crime might be down but your crime went through the roof!!!!!

The only gun control the US needs is to require education on ALL purchasing of firearms, and much much stiffer penalties on those that illegally own firearms. I have NO problem with someone owning an automatic weapon as long as they have proven that they are trained to use it.

And here's an article completely refuting your Australia reference: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

Are you on crack?

Lets look at the numbers:
There were 17,034 murders in 2006 in the United States. (source)
We don't know how many of these were gun related, and the same gun could be used for more than one death. But for the sake of argument (and to make you look just a little less like a moron) we'll assume that 17,034 different guns killed 17,034 people.

"The net of civilian guns made available for use is about 68.6 million guns over a 14 year period, for an average of 4.9 million guns per year." (source)
That's just how many new guns were made and given to civilians. That doesn't count the tens of millions of guns that were purchased years before.

So if, as you say, "95% of guns kill people illegally", then last year about 4,655,000 people in the U.S. died from being shot by a gun. Which is odd, because I thought there were about 17,000 people murdered... hmmm...

From my calculations, a very, very high estimate of the percentage of guns that are used to kill people is 0.34%, as in about 1/3 of 1%.

For guns to make a place safer, there'd have to be some mechanism to ensure that only `good` people get guns, and only do good with them. I have no idea what this mechanism is, and how it's supposed to work, but it's quite clear that whatever it is, it isn't working in the US.

Wrong, armed a person can not protect themself but they can also protect those around them. Criminals are less likely to rob or kill someone if they know people are armed. Only someone with a death wish would hold up someone if they knew others were armed.

This website, THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE, has a graph of the crime rate of England and of the US between 1981 and 1996. It shows that per 1000 people crime went from 13 incidents to 20 in England whereas in the US it went from 12 to 9. Just Facts has some stats such as in the US "Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year." Further:

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:
"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence."
When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them

If you have an open mind it has more stats that show just how firearms have affected crime rates, with right to carry laws crime has dropped.

Since you explicitly decline to give us any evidence that supports your claims, I see no reason to believe any such evidence exists:

Or you could pay attention to SCOTUS decisions.
Review of said decisions here.
Said latest decision (using google's pdf to html) here.

The OP was exactly correct, the police have NO duty to protect any specific individual, absent a "special relationship" - which a restraining order is explicitly held not to do.

Here are some links to some studies, though if you missed the GONZALES case, decided a whole 4 months and 2 days ago (it even made the news AND /., IIRC), I doubt you are really all that interested. Which probably explains why you "still haven't seen anyone citing actual studies":

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/165476.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/florccw.html
etc, etc, etc.

Since you explicitly decline to give us any evidence that supports your claims, I see no reason to believe any such evidence exists:

Or you could pay attention to SCOTUS decisions.
Review of said decisions here.
Said latest decision (using google's pdf to html) here.

The OP was exactly correct, the police have NO duty to protect any specific individual, absent a "special relationship" - which a restraining order is explicitly held not to do.

Here are some links to some studies, though if you missed the GONZALES case, decided a whole 4 months and 2 days ago (it even made the news AND /., IIRC), I doubt you are really all that interested. Which probably explains why you "still haven't seen anyone citing actual studies":

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/dgufreq.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/165476.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/florccw.html
etc, etc, etc.

Banned guns will only mean criminals will have them leaving law abiding citizens defenseless. From THE TRUTH ABOUT GUNS, CRIME AND VIOLENCE

Guns make it easier to kill and injure people. Therefore, it is obvious to the most casual observer that reducing the prevalence of guns will reduce the prevalence of death and injury.

But, what about people who aren't just "casual observers"? As with many issues, if a person cares enough about the issues of violence and liberty to actually make the effort of getting all the relevant facts about gun possession, things are no longer so obvious. And there are a lot of really technical facts related to the costs and benefits, to us all, of private citizens possessing firearms.

Tell that to the 1400 that die, and 100,000 that get injured accidentally each year.

Reference: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/accident.html

This is what happens when you give up your guns.

What does this have to do with the article?

I may as well post this: Guns And Crime. You'll see by the stats posted there that our robbery and other forms of crime are lower than England's and other countries, even though we have *gasp* guns. While we have a higher percentage of murder, our murder rates are declining while theirs are rising, narrowing the gap.

May as well bother reading the rest of the site, if you can handle actual pro-gun agenda established with hard facts without cowering and closing off your mind because of fear.

More interesting facts about crime in general.

Can't trust their reporting, NOW you can't trust the photos!

example:
LA Times promoting the banning of "Assault Weapons" - when in fact they mean semi-automatic firearms WHICH LOOK like assault weapons ..

example LA times art.

Assault weapon definition

which has resulted in Olympic Pistols being declared illegal in California (because the magazine is IN front of the pistol grip)

here's an example of an attempt to make Olympic Pistols once again LEGAL in CA. (I don't know the results of the attempt) ab2351

more ..
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20021115-82494 916.htm

NOW, given this is something I KNOW about, it makes me question the OTHER stuff the LA Times spews that I DON'T know about.

Care to quote your statistical source?

How about the American Bar Association? They're citing the Journal of Trauma and say:

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely...

There has been some arguement about the number most often bandied about by gun control advocates, which is 43:1. An article that argues that this number is unfair states:

According to the study's classification of the deaths, there were 389 noncriminal deaths for only 2 intruder deaths, for a ratio of 194.5 to 1 so quoting the "43 times" in relation to intruders is a misrepresentation of the findings.

I guess they're trying to show that guns kill more noncriminals than even gun control advocates suggest. That's not what I would do if I was debating the point, but oh well. *shrug*

Look at Australia, where they banned guns and crime went up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2f82fa6294.ht m
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/