The funny thing about guns in cities is that they are only loosely related.
Chicago. Last year. Same laws for the entire city. Some zip codes had NO shootings, and others had around 100. What is the difference? Poverty.
No surprise, but zip codes with no shootings have money. Zip codes with dozens of shootings have poverty. So, instead of focusing on the guns, why not focus on the REAL problem?
Does anybody think that lax gun laws would actually create shootings in areas with money? Chicago already HAS strict gun laws, and that does not seem to help much.
And before anybody says "The criminals get their guns from cities with looser laws," compare Chicago with Dallas. About the same size, but Dallas has more lax laws, and less homicide.
So, a taxi driver is supposed to drive around for about four or five hours, and then sit around for a few hours to recharge? Yeah, there goes his income. Or, we could have TWICE as many of them so that the driver can swap out cars after four hours. That is economical!
I should also have mentioned that I'd like to disarm the police along with everyone else.
Once the President disarms the Secret Service, and Hollywood celebrities get rid of their armed guards, then we can talk. In a democracy, should ONLY the ones with power and/or money be allowed to be protected by guns, when the rest of the citizens take their chances? It seems to me that EVERYBODY deserves a chance to protect themselves from those what would do them harm, not just the elite.
So, how well do you think that disarming police would work out in, say, Paris, when terrorists have guns?
Anyways, the genie is already out of the bottle. With around 300,000,000 gun in this country, do you really think that you could get them all back? The one that you COULD get back would be the ones turned in by honest people. The people who intend to do harm would not give them back. So, at this point, the best that you can do is the best that you can do.
I wonder if any of the victims of a mass shooting wished that THEY had their own gun to hopefully stand a chance of taking down the bad guy?
Let's break this down into binary (Gray code order):
00 -- Nobody has guns. Unlikely, but the advantage goes to the young, healthy criminal.
01 -- The criminals are unarmed, but the citizens are armed. This is an ideal scenario. Unlikely, but ideal.
11 -- Everybody is armed. Not ideal, but at least the citizens have a chance.
10 - Only the criminals are armed. The victims are pretty much screwed, but this is the most likely outcome with draconian gun laws.
So, have you had this discussion with Eric S. Raymond? I bet he has a bit of an opinion on this.
I don't have any problem seeing why a reduction in the availability of firearms could cause an overall reduction of violence. Take away the guns, and the people who work to prevent violence (cops, etc.) can now do more non-firearm-related enforcement. Whine all you want about your rights. You curtail the freedom of everyone around you until that gun is gone, and theirs is the higher right. We'll get it out of your hands eventually.
When it comes to virtual machines or software licenses, I will defer to your judgement, since you are an expert in that. When it comes to slinging a million transistors onto a slab of silicon, that you would listen to me, since that is what I do for a living.
When it comes to law enforcement, I tend to listen to the people who do it for a living. Too bad the police don't think that gun confiscation is a good idea.
Here is a survey from a police organization (as near as I can tell, without a hidden agenda about guns)... The vast majority of police do not think kindly of harsher gun laws. http://police-praetorian.netdn...
Logically, if you COULD somehow take away ALL guns, we MIGHT be somewhat safer. Might. However, you have to then realize that young, healthy criminals would then feel free to victimize the elderly, since the average octogenarian could not fight back effectively. Women would also make more tempting targets. Without guns, physical skill and strength are vitally important in encounters with thugs.
Here are some things to keep in mind about strict gun laws....
1) Honest citizens will obey the laws, criminals will not. 2) There are a lot more honest citizens than there are criminals.
Thus it follows that taking guns away will affect the honest people a LOT more than it will the criminals.
Chicago has VERY strict gun laws, and yet that does not stop the shootings.
"But wait!" I hear you say. "Chicago gets its guns from other states that have very lax gun laws." OK. I admit that this may the case. So, why don't other states with lax gun laws (where the guns are available in the same town) have violence as bad as Chicago? Please explain that one.
Let's take a closer look at Chicago. The entire city has the SAME gun laws. Yet, somehow, the violence is isolated to certain areas. How can this be, since the gun laws are uniform? Well, economics are not uniform. The level of poverty is MUCH more closely related to the violence level than gun laws. Areas where the income is median or above do not generally have violence problems. This is not a "gun" problem, but a cultural and economic problem. If you have person willing and eager to kill, taking a gun away will just make that person use a knife. They might not be able to kill as many, but they will still manage to find a way to kill. Instead of focusing on making the murderer use a different weapon, why not focus on WHY the person desires to kill, and fix that?
We have a situation where morality is no longer being taught in schools. With record numbers of single-parent families, you have lots of children without the loving influence of a father. Plus, with the decline of acceptance of religious views, you have people being taught that they are nothing but animals. Add to that the new electronic society where people replace friends with computers. When you combine all that with poverty, is it any wonder that some turn to violence?
Australia went from 516 firearm deaths per year to 428 in the year of gun control enactment, and is now at 226. That's better than a 50% reduction in firearm deaths. And of course their population hasn't diminished! If you are reading otherwise, I suggest that someone's trying to distort the statistics.
Ahhhh yes. The old "firearm deaths" trope. I have a perfect plan for eliminating ALL firearm deaths. Nuke every single city. Kill everybody. Everybody would be dead, but on the plus side, no firearm deaths, and that is the only kind that actually counts, right?
Seriously, shouldn't the goal to be prevent all homicides, no matter what tool is used? Exchanging 100 gun deaths for 100 stabbing deaths makes people safer how, exactly?
Yes, Australia has had a reduction in firearm deaths, thanks to the firearm laws. But, strangely enough, those SAME laws have also somehow caused a reduction in stabbing deaths and beating deaths too! How could a gun law do that? Maybe, just maybe, it is because other factors have caused a drop in violent behavior. I have heard some speculation (unproven but compelling) that this could be caused by a reduction of lead in the environment (mostly leaded gasoline and paint).
And as I stated before, the overall homicide rate using any wapon dropped by 16% in Australia while it dropped by 43% in the USA (1995 to 2012). So, how effective are those laws?
Everybody has a crazy day in their lives. Everyone. And when that day comes, you will not be able handle your gun responsibly. Maybe nothing will happen, maybe something will. Given that there is an overall 1:1300 chance of dying from murder in your lifetime, you pose a small but finite risk to your wife and kids on that day. Or whoever is around you.
Bull....shit. Maybe YOU know yourself well enough that you are afraid that you might do this if you have access to weapons. However, not all of us are similarly unbalanced.
But, if you happen to WANT to follow that line of reasoning, the average male is more than THIRTY times as likely to commit sexual assault as the average gun owner is to commit a murder each year. So, I will make a deal with with. I have four daughters that I very much care about. I will get rid of my guns, thereby posing no danger of murder to you or your family, if you get castrated, thereby posing no danger of sexual assault to my daughters. You are getting by far the better end of the deal since the odds of me becoming a murderer are much less than those of you becoming a rapist.
Please let me know if you want to take me up on this deal. Using your own logic, it makes perfect sense, because you want to take something away from people based on what your irrational fear says they might possibly do.
And sorry, but I don't think that I should have to live somewhere else so that you can have guns.
Sorry, but I don't think that I should have to give up basic human rights so that you can feel safer from your irrational fears.
Actually, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun free zones," so if you want to minimize your chances of being a gun homicide victim, avoid "gun free zones" and you will certainly be safer.
As others have already noted, what you believed about guns and Australia is not true.
So, then why is the Australian Government LYING on its own web site about homicide statistics? The link that I gave began with "aic.gov.au." What reason do you have to believe that Australia is trying to slant their own numbers?
USA 1995 - Homicide per 100,000 - 8.2 USA 2012 - Homicide per 100,000 - 4.7
USA 1995 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 684.5 USA 2012 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 386.9
Australia 1995 - Homicide per 100,000 - 1.96 Australia 2012 - Homicide per 100,000 - 1.30
Australia 1995 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 240 Australia 2012 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 201
Here is the summary: USA Violent crime - decrease by 43% Australia Violent crime - decrease by 16%
USA Homicide - decrease by 42% Australia Homicide crime - decrease by 33%
So, the data DOES indeed show that, overall, Australia is a safer county, However, since banning most guns, Australia has not shows NEARLY the decrease in crime that has been seen in the US.
The US also has MUCH more cultural diversity, both racially and culturally, a different overall culture, a different economy, different poverty levels, and a different mental health care system. So Australian and USA are not an "apples to apples" comparison. However, the purpose of this is to see what effect the Australian laws have had on their crime rate vs. the USA.
Also, this is an interesting graph. Note how the sudden jump in robbery a few years AFTER the new gun laws went into effect? Curious. Also note how the "sexual assault" line has remained fairly constant. http://www.aic.gov.au/statisti...
Yes, I would take your gun. I hope to do so someday.
I am an honest man. Why in the world would you want to disarm an honest man? This is the thing that I absolutely cannot understand. Tell you what. If you want to live in a country without guns, there are several other countries just waiting for you. Instead of infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, just move somewhere with less freedom. That way, everybody is happier. I, for one, happen to enjoy living my own life the way that I want. I leave other people alone, and I expect the same from them. Why is that too much to ask? Do you enjoy forcing your opinions on others? Do you get a thrill from controlling people? If you don't like guns, don't buy one. It really is that simple. Tell you what. If you renounce your US citizenship, I will chip in $50 for a one-way ticket to the country of your choice, just to help you get started.
1995 - 18.4% of homicides were by gun. 2012 - 17.5% of homicides were by gun.
If you think that YOUR government is lying, then please contact them. Maybe elect a new government. But DON'T blame ME for what YOUR country does.
And, yes, our society may be "violence crazed," but blame the culture, the parents, and the schools. Don't blame an inanimate object. Banning an object will not change the heart. And, yes, it is still possible to commit mass murder without guns. It happens all the time in other countries. A couple of months ago, guys with knives killed FIFTY people in China. Yes, really. Look it up.
And notice that I have enough intelligence to make my point without having to resort to swearing or personal insults. It is actually possible. You should try it sometime.
And, I am also wondering why you are so fascinated with my penis. My wife has no complaints about its size, but I do not intend to share any pictures of it with you. If you really want to see pictures of some, there are web sites dedicated to that. Maybe once you know what one looks like, the mystery will be gone and you can stop taking about them.
Ummm, yeah. About that. You have a lot less homicide overall, and a somewhat different culture, different history, different racial makeup, and a different mental health care system. Of course, NONE of those have anything to do with anything.
Here is a great bit if info for you. From what I understand, the great gun crack-down happened around 1996.
Australia - 1995 - guns used in 18.4% of homicides Australia - 2012 - guns used in 17.5% of homicides.
So, how well is that working out for you? I would expect with these new laws, that gun homicides would be in the single digits.
Yes, gun deaths are down, but so are knife deaths (oh yeah, I forgot that you guys banned knives too), and beating deaths (are fists and feet outlawed)?
As a percentage of change, the US has dropped its homicide rate just as much as Australia. Meanwhile, overall violent crime has been dropping monotonically in the US, while it has just been hovering around the same amount in Australia (some years down, some up).
So, you mean that if America has enacted the same laws as Australia at the same time, we could have the same murder rate, and more violent crime too? Sign me up!
The USA's gun death rate is far far far higher than places like Canada, France, UK, etc.
Ahhh. The battle cry of the ignorant.
I have a SIMPLE solution that would eliminate ALL gun deaths. 100% guaranteed. Nuke every town in the US -- wipe out every living person. After that, nobody will die by a gun. That WOULD meet your definition of "success," right?
But that is stupid. Do you know why? Because the goal is to reduce the TOTAL number of homicides, not just homicide by guns. You would think that would be common sense, but I guess not.
So, explain to me how somebody stabbed to death is somehow less dead than somebody shot to death. I am waiting with baited breath to hear this one.
The odds are much higher that you will use that weapon against your own family than that you will ever use it in any way that actually protects them from harm.
It is proven that drownings happen a LOT more in houses that have swimming pools, so we need to ban them for the public good.
Sorry, but what I MIGHT do is not a good reason to restrict my rights.
If you do the math, the average male "member" is about 30 time more likely to commit sexual assault than the average gun is to commit murder. Do we need to castrate everybody based on what a tiny minority might do?
You wish to punish the 99.004% of honest gun owners based on the action of the 0.006%? Yes, those are real numbers.
Homicide is down by 50% since 1992. We are now twice as safe! We should do something to reverse this horrible trend!
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
Given that the gun genie is already out of the bottle, how do you propose to get the criminals to give up their guns? You think that only disarming the honest people makes you safer?
Australia got STRICT gun laws in 1996. Australia 1995: guns were used in 18.38% of homicides. Australia 2012: guns were used in 17.5% of homicides.
Yea, destroying THOUSANDS of guns resulted in less than 1% change. Plus, things are still not all rosy in Australia: http://thenewdaily.com.au/news...
If you choose to give up your freedoms, go ahead. But don't tell me how to live. That is all that I ask. I won't tell you what to do, and you don't tell me what to do.
A mass shooter passed a background check, so clearly we need universal background checks, to close the "gun show loophole." However, if you read about where mass shooters get their guns, NONE of them used a gun show.
OK, including more mental health information might be a good idea, I concede that, but that goes against medical privacy laws that Bill Clinton himself signed into law.
Also, background checks will not stop illegal gun sales out of the back of a trunk. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but some of the worst crime. How well has that worked out? Since criminal already own illegal guns, what additional laws would help? Make the guns MORE illegal?
Simply stated, if somebody actually came up with a law that would actually have in impact on crime without presenting an undue burden on honest people, I would have NO problem with it. However, NOBODY has come up with such a law.
Obama wants to keep people on the "no fly list" from buying guns. Yeah, a secret list that puts people in there without due process, and no legal process for getting off. No due process, no appeal, and guilty until proven innocent. Classy.
Armed victims aren't stopping shootings or deterring them. Also you have a poor sense of how targets are being sought.
Too bad actual FACTS don't back you up.
Case in point -- about two miles from my house. An armed honest person stopped a potential mass murderer. So, yeah, try to tell me that what happened in my neighborhood did not actually happen. When given the choice of believing you or the truth, I know which one I will go with.
Maybe just just don't know about it because the media does not want to report it.
From Wikipedia (with links to source studies):
Lower end estimates include that by David Hemenway, a professor of Health Policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, show approximately 55,000-80,000 such uses each year.[8][9]
Another survey including DGU questions was the National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, NSPOF, conducted in 1994 by the Chiltons polling firm for the Police Foundation on a research grant from the National Institute of Justice. NSPOF projected 4.7 million DGU per year by 1.5 million individuals after weighting to eliminate false positives.[7] Another estimate has estimated approximately 1 million DGU incidents in the United States.
So, depending upon how you define it, good guys use guns to prevent crime between 55,000 to 4,700,000 times per year.
Same way it does in Japan, Australia and pretty much every other first world nation that's not the USA: It reduces the number of guns in circulation, making it less likely you (or your little kids) will be shot.
So, getting shot to death somehow makes you MORE dead than somebody stabbed to death? Curios. Please explain the logic behind this. Isn't the real reason to ban guns to reduce the overall homicide rate? If so, banning guns FAILS at this.
Case in point, Australia. They cracked down on guns HEAVILY. Result? The homicide rate was reduced by about as much as it was in the US. Overall violent crime, however, has dropped a lot in the US, while it has NOT done that in Australia. Some years the violent crime rate was up, some years it was down, but the US has seen a distinct downward trend.
Another point for you in Australia, which banned lots of guns around 1996: In 1995, guns were used in 18.38% of homicides. In 2012, guns were used in 17.5% of homicides.
Yea, less than ONE PERCENT of change. Wow, what a difference.
Now, let's look at Japan, where they are NOT culturally diverse, respect for the law is a lot higher, the society stresses conforming, and suspects do not have the same legal protections that we do here. They also have no guns, and a MUCH higher suicide rate. I am not to dishonest as to ignore the other differences and say that if they had guns, that the suicide rate would drop to US levels. Apparently, you are not so honest and just like to look at the one difference that matters to you and are free to ignore the other differences.
Somehow that person always manages to get ahold of several guns. As long as that keeps happening you get to hear this over and over again until you come up with a better solution.
Maybe the solution is to NOT disarm the victims? Nobody seems to commit mass murders at police stations or NRA headquarters.
A mass shooter passed a background check, so we need universal background checks. Yeah, makes sense to me.
I think it was who said that one failed terrorist attack and we all have to take our shoes off before boarding a plane but 31 shootings later still no new gun laws. This country has it's priorities completely backwards:(...
Taking guns away from honest citizens helps them how? You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that somebody desiring to kill others would somehow obey gun laws. Plus, the laws that are always proposed after a shooting would, in general, have done nothing to stop the incident that actually caused the law to be proposed.
You have also failed to show how your comment is relevant to this story about a Sikh boy (a religion, I might add, that is not generally known to kill people).
California's laws aren't particularly restrictive at the state level.
Ummmm. Yeah. They banned the.50 BMG round. No guns that shoot that ammo are allowed in California. Number of CRIMES committed with the.50 BMG in the entire US? None. Zilch. Nada. So, the round was banned just because some politicians didn't like it, not to solve any particular problem.
Plus, to get around this law, there is a "California legal".49 BMG round that is almost identical. Number of crimes committed with that LEGAL bullet? None.
Please explain why that particular ban makes any sense at all.
The whole thing was INTENDED to be discriminatory. I can just imagine the father saying "This ought to panic them because you are Muslim."
The reason that I say this? Sorry, but the kid did NOT make a clock. Not even close. He took a commercial clock, removed it from it's case, and put it in a briefcase. Period. I am not sure that the kid learned anything scientific except maybe pain associated with not touching the primary inputs on a 120V transformer.
Here is a link where some engineer was able to identify the MODEL of the clock that was taken apart.
Whenever there is a violent tragedy, the common theme seems to be to find something to blame besides the actual person who committed the crime. Blaming a gun, a video game, or a flag all miss the point that the real problem is in the heart of the criminal.
So are you saying that the KKK does not use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?
No, not as far as I know. Well, not lately.
I find the notion of the KKK abhorrent, an I despise anybody that would join such an organization. However, if they have not broken a law, there is honestly not much that you can or should do to these people, from a legal perspective. Feel free to shun them, and call them names. But having an ideology (no matter how stupid it is) and joining a group is not, by itself illegal.
I have not heard of any KKK violence in quite a while (things were different 40 years ago). If any members did commit any violence or break any laws, then throw them in prison.
If this list is true, I would hope that any elected official on the list would immediately resign. Otherwise, recall efforts should be launched.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing about guns in cities is that they are only loosely related.
Chicago. Last year. Same laws for the entire city. Some zip codes had NO shootings, and others had around 100. What is the difference? Poverty.
No surprise, but zip codes with no shootings have money. Zip codes with dozens of shootings have poverty. So, instead of focusing on the guns, why not focus on the REAL problem?
Does anybody think that lax gun laws would actually create shootings in areas with money? Chicago already HAS strict gun laws, and that does not seem to help much.
And before anybody says "The criminals get their guns from cities with looser laws," compare Chicago with Dallas. About the same size, but Dallas has more lax laws, and less homicide.
So, a taxi driver is supposed to drive around for about four or five hours, and then sit around for a few hours to recharge? Yeah, there goes his income. Or, we could have TWICE as many of them so that the driver can swap out cars after four hours. That is economical!
Once the President disarms the Secret Service, and Hollywood celebrities get rid of their armed guards, then we can talk. In a democracy, should ONLY the ones with power and/or money be allowed to be protected by guns, when the rest of the citizens take their chances? It seems to me that EVERYBODY deserves a chance to protect themselves from those what would do them harm, not just the elite.
So, how well do you think that disarming police would work out in, say, Paris, when terrorists have guns?
Anyways, the genie is already out of the bottle. With around 300,000,000 gun in this country, do you really think that you could get them all back? The one that you COULD get back would be the ones turned in by honest people. The people who intend to do harm would not give them back. So, at this point, the best that you can do is the best that you can do.
I wonder if any of the victims of a mass shooting wished that THEY had their own gun to hopefully stand a chance of taking down the bad guy?
Let's break this down into binary (Gray code order):
00 -- Nobody has guns. Unlikely, but the advantage goes to the young, healthy criminal.
01 -- The criminals are unarmed, but the citizens are armed. This is an ideal scenario. Unlikely, but ideal.
11 -- Everybody is armed. Not ideal, but at least the citizens have a chance.
10 - Only the criminals are armed. The victims are pretty much screwed, but this is the most likely outcome with draconian gun laws.
So, have you had this discussion with Eric S. Raymond? I bet he has a bit of an opinion on this.
When it comes to virtual machines or software licenses, I will defer to your judgement, since you are an expert in that. When it comes to slinging a million transistors onto a slab of silicon, that you would listen to me, since that is what I do for a living.
When it comes to law enforcement, I tend to listen to the people who do it for a living. Too bad the police don't think that gun confiscation is a good idea.
Here is a survey from a police organization (as near as I can tell, without a hidden agenda about guns)... The vast majority of police do not think kindly of harsher gun laws. http://police-praetorian.netdn...
Here is an article from a Detroit news paper about how the police want the citizens to be armed. http://www.metrotimes.com/Blog...
Logically, if you COULD somehow take away ALL guns, we MIGHT be somewhat safer. Might. However, you have to then realize that young, healthy criminals would then feel free to victimize the elderly, since the average octogenarian could not fight back effectively. Women would also make more tempting targets. Without guns, physical skill and strength are vitally important in encounters with thugs.
Here are some things to keep in mind about strict gun laws....
1) Honest citizens will obey the laws, criminals will not.
2) There are a lot more honest citizens than there are criminals.
Thus it follows that taking guns away will affect the honest people a LOT more than it will the criminals.
Chicago has VERY strict gun laws, and yet that does not stop the shootings.
"But wait!" I hear you say. "Chicago gets its guns from other states that have very lax gun laws." OK. I admit that this may the case. So, why don't other states with lax gun laws (where the guns are available in the same town) have violence as bad as Chicago? Please explain that one.
Let's take a closer look at Chicago. The entire city has the SAME gun laws. Yet, somehow, the violence is isolated to certain areas. How can this be, since the gun laws are uniform? Well, economics are not uniform. The level of poverty is MUCH more closely related to the violence level than gun laws. Areas where the income is median or above do not generally have violence problems. This is not a "gun" problem, but a cultural and economic problem. If you have person willing and eager to kill, taking a gun away will just make that person use a knife. They might not be able to kill as many, but they will still manage to find a way to kill. Instead of focusing on making the murderer use a different weapon, why not focus on WHY the person desires to kill, and fix that?
We have a situation where morality is no longer being taught in schools. With record numbers of single-parent families, you have lots of children without the loving influence of a father. Plus, with the decline of acceptance of religious views, you have people being taught that they are nothing but animals. Add to that the new electronic society where people replace friends with computers. When you combine all that with poverty, is it any wonder that some turn to violence?
Ahhhh yes. The old "firearm deaths" trope. I have a perfect plan for eliminating ALL firearm deaths. Nuke every single city. Kill everybody. Everybody would be dead, but on the plus side, no firearm deaths, and that is the only kind that actually counts, right?
Seriously, shouldn't the goal to be prevent all homicides, no matter what tool is used? Exchanging 100 gun deaths for 100 stabbing deaths makes people safer how, exactly?
Yes, Australia has had a reduction in firearm deaths, thanks to the firearm laws. But, strangely enough, those SAME laws have also somehow caused a reduction in stabbing deaths and beating deaths too! How could a gun law do that? Maybe, just maybe, it is because other factors have caused a drop in violent behavior. I have heard some speculation (unproven but compelling) that this could be caused by a reduction of lead in the environment (mostly leaded gasoline and paint).
And as I stated before, the overall homicide rate using any wapon dropped by 16% in Australia while it dropped by 43% in the USA (1995 to 2012). So, how effective are those laws?
Bull....shit. Maybe YOU know yourself well enough that you are afraid that you might do this if you have access to weapons. However, not all of us are similarly unbalanced.
But, if you happen to WANT to follow that line of reasoning, the average male is more than THIRTY times as likely to commit sexual assault as the average gun owner is to commit a murder each year. So, I will make a deal with with. I have four daughters that I very much care about. I will get rid of my guns, thereby posing no danger of murder to you or your family, if you get castrated, thereby posing no danger of sexual assault to my daughters. You are getting by far the better end of the deal since the odds of me becoming a murderer are much less than those of you becoming a rapist.
Please let me know if you want to take me up on this deal. Using your own logic, it makes perfect sense, because you want to take something away from people based on what your irrational fear says they might possibly do.
Sorry, but I don't think that I should have to give up basic human rights so that you can feel safer from your irrational fears.
Actually, the vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun free zones," so if you want to minimize your chances of being a gun homicide victim, avoid "gun free zones" and you will certainly be safer.
So, then why is the Australian Government LYING on its own web site about homicide statistics? The link that I gave began with "aic.gov.au." What reason do you have to believe that Australia is trying to slant their own numbers?
USA 1995 - Homicide per 100,000 - 8.2
USA 2012 - Homicide per 100,000 - 4.7
USA 1995 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 684.5
USA 2012 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 386.9
Australia 1995 - Homicide per 100,000 - 1.96
Australia 2012 - Homicide per 100,000 - 1.30
Australia 1995 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 240
Australia 2012 - Violent crime per 100,000 - 201
Here is the summary:
USA Violent crime - decrease by 43%
Australia Violent crime - decrease by 16%
USA Homicide - decrease by 42%
Australia Homicide crime - decrease by 33%
So, the data DOES indeed show that, overall, Australia is a safer county, However, since banning most guns, Australia has not shows NEARLY the decrease in crime that has been seen in the US.
The US also has MUCH more cultural diversity, both racially and culturally, a different overall culture, a different economy, different poverty levels, and a different mental health care system. So Australian and USA are not an "apples to apples" comparison. However, the purpose of this is to see what effect the Australian laws have had on their crime rate vs. the USA.
Also, this is an interesting graph. Note how the sudden jump in robbery a few years AFTER the new gun laws went into effect? Curious. Also note how the "sexual assault" line has remained fairly constant. http://www.aic.gov.au/statisti...
I am an honest man. Why in the world would you want to disarm an honest man? This is the thing that I absolutely cannot understand. Tell you what. If you want to live in a country without guns, there are several other countries just waiting for you. Instead of infringing on the rights of millions of Americans, just move somewhere with less freedom. That way, everybody is happier. I, for one, happen to enjoy living my own life the way that I want. I leave other people alone, and I expect the same from them. Why is that too much to ask? Do you enjoy forcing your opinions on others? Do you get a thrill from controlling people? If you don't like guns, don't buy one. It really is that simple. Tell you what. If you renounce your US citizenship, I will chip in $50 for a one-way ticket to the country of your choice, just to help you get started.
-- Source Data --
Data for US: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/c...
Data for Australia: http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
Used estimates of Australian population of 18.07 million for 1995 and 22.72 million for 2012
Hey, did you SEE the link that I posted? It has ".gob.au? in it. So, if anybody is lying, it is YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
I did not make up those numbers.
1995 - 18.4% of homicides were by gun.
2012 - 17.5% of homicides were by gun.
If you think that YOUR government is lying, then please contact them. Maybe elect a new government. But DON'T blame ME for what YOUR country does.
And, yes, our society may be "violence crazed," but blame the culture, the parents, and the schools. Don't blame an inanimate object. Banning an object will not change the heart. And, yes, it is still possible to commit mass murder without guns. It happens all the time in other countries. A couple of months ago, guys with knives killed FIFTY people in China. Yes, really. Look it up.
And notice that I have enough intelligence to make my point without having to resort to swearing or personal insults. It is actually possible. You should try it sometime.
And, I am also wondering why you are so fascinated with my penis. My wife has no complaints about its size, but I do not intend to share any pictures of it with you. If you really want to see pictures of some, there are web sites dedicated to that. Maybe once you know what one looks like, the mystery will be gone and you can stop taking about them.
Ummm, yeah. About that. You have a lot less homicide overall, and a somewhat different culture, different history, different racial makeup, and a different mental health care system. Of course, NONE of those have anything to do with anything.
Here is a great bit if info for you. From what I understand, the great gun crack-down happened around 1996.
Australia - 1995 - guns used in 18.4% of homicides
Australia - 2012 - guns used in 17.5% of homicides.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
So, how well is that working out for you? I would expect with these new laws, that gun homicides would be in the single digits.
Yes, gun deaths are down, but so are knife deaths (oh yeah, I forgot that you guys banned knives too), and beating deaths (are fists and feet outlawed)?
As a percentage of change, the US has dropped its homicide rate just as much as Australia. Meanwhile, overall violent crime has been dropping monotonically in the US, while it has just been hovering around the same amount in Australia (some years down, some up).
So, you mean that if America has enacted the same laws as Australia at the same time, we could have the same murder rate, and more violent crime too? Sign me up!
If somebody is attacking me, i would prefer a gun.
Funny how criminals don't obey the law. France has very strict gun laws. Didn't seem to stop the terrorists.
If criminals actually obeyed the laws, they wouldn't be criminals!
Ahhh. The battle cry of the ignorant.
I have a SIMPLE solution that would eliminate ALL gun deaths. 100% guaranteed. Nuke every town in the US -- wipe out every living person. After that, nobody will die by a gun. That WOULD meet your definition of "success," right?
But that is stupid. Do you know why? Because the goal is to reduce the TOTAL number of homicides, not just homicide by guns. You would think that would be common sense, but I guess not.
So, explain to me how somebody stabbed to death is somehow less dead than somebody shot to death. I am waiting with baited breath to hear this one.
Disarming the victims sure hasn't helped. Look at theaters in Colorado, schools in Oregon, and churches in South Carolina.
Keeping guns out of the hands of honest people helps absolutely nobody.
Just because you fear wolves, pulling the teeth out of your golden retriever will not make you safer.
Ummm, yeah. You miss the point entirely. Logical fail.
If a "mass shooter" is stopped early, then there is not mass shooting at all, and it never shows up in any statistics!
Explain why almost every mass shooting happens in a "gun free zone." Go ahead. I'll wait.
It is proven that drownings happen a LOT more in houses that have swimming pools, so we need to ban them for the public good.
Sorry, but what I MIGHT do is not a good reason to restrict my rights.
If you do the math, the average male "member" is about 30 time more likely to commit sexual assault than the average gun is to commit murder. Do we need to castrate everybody based on what a tiny minority might do?
You wish to punish the 99.004% of honest gun owners based on the action of the 0.006%? Yes, those are real numbers.
Homicide is down by 50% since 1992. We are now twice as safe! We should do something to reverse this horrible trend!
Given that the gun genie is already out of the bottle, how do you propose to get the criminals to give up their guns? You think that only disarming the honest people makes you safer?
Australia got STRICT gun laws in 1996.
Australia 1995: guns were used in 18.38% of homicides.
Australia 2012: guns were used in 17.5% of homicides.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
Yea, destroying THOUSANDS of guns resulted in less than 1% change. Plus, things are still not all rosy in Australia: http://thenewdaily.com.au/news...
If you choose to give up your freedoms, go ahead. But don't tell me how to live. That is all that I ask. I won't tell you what to do, and you don't tell me what to do.
So, tell me what "sensible" gun laws are?
A mass shooter passed a background check, so clearly we need universal background checks, to close the "gun show loophole." However, if you read about where mass shooters get their guns, NONE of them used a gun show.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
OK, including more mental health information might be a good idea, I concede that, but that goes against medical privacy laws that Bill Clinton himself signed into law.
Also, background checks will not stop illegal gun sales out of the back of a trunk. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, but some of the worst crime. How well has that worked out? Since criminal already own illegal guns, what additional laws would help? Make the guns MORE illegal?
Simply stated, if somebody actually came up with a law that would actually have in impact on crime without presenting an undue burden on honest people, I would have NO problem with it. However, NOBODY has come up with such a law.
Obama wants to keep people on the "no fly list" from buying guns. Yeah, a secret list that puts people in there without due process, and no legal process for getting off. No due process, no appeal, and guilty until proven innocent. Classy.
Too bad actual FACTS don't back you up.
Case in point -- about two miles from my house. An armed honest person stopped a potential mass murderer. So, yeah, try to tell me that what happened in my neighborhood did not actually happen. When given the choice of believing you or the truth, I know which one I will go with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And ... more examples.
http://concealednation.org/201...
Maybe just just don't know about it because the media does not want to report it.
From Wikipedia (with links to source studies):
So, depending upon how you define it, good guys use guns to prevent crime between 55,000 to 4,700,000 times per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
So, getting shot to death somehow makes you MORE dead than somebody stabbed to death? Curios. Please explain the logic behind this. Isn't the real reason to ban guns to reduce the overall homicide rate? If so, banning guns FAILS at this.
Case in point, Australia. They cracked down on guns HEAVILY. Result? The homicide rate was reduced by about as much as it was in the US. Overall violent crime, however, has dropped a lot in the US, while it has NOT done that in Australia. Some years the violent crime rate was up, some years it was down, but the US has seen a distinct downward trend.
Another point for you in Australia, which banned lots of guns around 1996:
In 1995, guns were used in 18.38% of homicides.
In 2012, guns were used in 17.5% of homicides.
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...
Yea, less than ONE PERCENT of change. Wow, what a difference.
Now, let's look at Japan, where they are NOT culturally diverse, respect for the law is a lot higher, the society stresses conforming, and suspects do not have the same legal protections that we do here. They also have no guns, and a MUCH higher suicide rate. I am not to dishonest as to ignore the other differences and say that if they had guns, that the suicide rate would drop to US levels. Apparently, you are not so honest and just like to look at the one difference that matters to you and are free to ignore the other differences.
This is rather curious, coming from a guy who is supposed to champion freedom.
I am an honest citizen. Can you give me any logical reason why I should not be able to protect my family?
Just because you fear wolves, pulling the teeth out of the family golden retriever will NOT make you safer.
Maybe the solution is to NOT disarm the victims? Nobody seems to commit mass murders at police stations or NRA headquarters.
A mass shooter passed a background check, so we need universal background checks. Yeah, makes sense to me.
Taking guns away from honest citizens helps them how? You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that somebody desiring to kill others would somehow obey gun laws. Plus, the laws that are always proposed after a shooting would, in general, have done nothing to stop the incident that actually caused the law to be proposed.
You have also failed to show how your comment is relevant to this story about a Sikh boy (a religion, I might add, that is not generally known to kill people).
Ummmm. Yeah. They banned the .50 BMG round. No guns that shoot that ammo are allowed in California. Number of CRIMES committed with the .50 BMG in the entire US? None. Zilch. Nada. So, the round was banned just because some politicians didn't like it, not to solve any particular problem.
Plus, to get around this law, there is a "California legal" .49 BMG round that is almost identical. Number of crimes committed with that LEGAL bullet? None.
Please explain why that particular ban makes any sense at all.
The whole thing was INTENDED to be discriminatory. I can just imagine the father saying "This ought to panic them because you are Muslim."
The reason that I say this? Sorry, but the kid did NOT make a clock. Not even close. He took a commercial clock, removed it from it's case, and put it in a briefcase. Period. I am not sure that the kid learned anything scientific except maybe pain associated with not touching the primary inputs on a 120V transformer.
Here is a link where some engineer was able to identify the MODEL of the clock that was taken apart.
http://blogs.artvoice.com/tech...
And this is supposed to help the immigrant cause how?
I think they mean that the old way takes 6.4 times as long as their newest toy.
Whenever there is a violent tragedy, the common theme seems to be to find something to blame besides the actual person who committed the crime. Blaming a gun, a video game, or a flag all miss the point that the real problem is in the heart of the criminal.
No, not as far as I know. Well, not lately.
I find the notion of the KKK abhorrent, an I despise anybody that would join such an organization. However, if they have not broken a law, there is honestly not much that you can or should do to these people, from a legal perspective. Feel free to shun them, and call them names. But having an ideology (no matter how stupid it is) and joining a group is not, by itself illegal.
I have not heard of any KKK violence in quite a while (things were different 40 years ago). If any members did commit any violence or break any laws, then throw them in prison.
If this list is true, I would hope that any elected official on the list would immediately resign. Otherwise, recall efforts should be launched.