We all feel passionately about guns, one way or another and nobody is going to change anyone's mind here. Guns are a normal part of the culture that I was raised in. I hunt with a muzzle loader 50 caliber, I have just one shot and I make it count. But if a person wants a high capacity magazine, semi automatic firearm, it is their right here to own one. I guess my whole point is when honest citizens voluntarily turn in their guns the criminals laugh. This in no way can cause crime to go down as the ones who turn in their guns are not the ones committing the crimes.
You explain the logic of how law abiding citizens turning in guns drops crime. "The evidence" shows a rise in crime of 7%, so if anyone is ignoring the evidence, that would be you. Please note the armed robbery statistics after honest citizens turned in their guns. VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 Trend Murder 321 284 -11.5 % Attempted murder 318 382 +20.1 % Manslaughter 29 39 +25.6 % Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8 % Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5 % Kidnapping/abduction 552 662 +17.8 % ARMED ROBBERY 9,054 10,850 +19.8 % Unarmed robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5 % Total 161,398 172,690 +7.0 %
Now show us the statistics in the same areas for 2008. The immediate aftermath is one thing, the long-term effects quite another.
Would not taking up guns show an immediate drop in crime if it really worked? A year isn't exactly immediate but long enough to show that it didn't drop crime. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to tell me how honest, law abiding citizens turning in their guns will reduce crime as they are not the ones committing the crimes.
No. Because it doesn't work immediately. It cannot work immediately. Patience is required when bringing in this sort of legislation because it won't work overnight. You have your opportunists, etc, who will try to take advantage, for example. Their advantage would be short-lived because the police would find them and come down on them like a ton of bricks (and they wouldn't own that gun any more, that's for certain). The murder rate in Australia peaked 3 years after new gun laws were brought in. In 2007, that had dropped by a third. Prior to 1997, guns were used in almost a quarter of all homicides, including a number of mass shootings. in 2006/7, that was down to slightly more than one in ten. There hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since the leglislation was passed. There is some debate about whether the gun control itself was responsible, granted, but there's certainly real correlation between the figures and the passing of the legislation. Read this article.
Culture has a lot to do with this. I lived in Toronto in the 80s and I remember the newspapers getting all in a panic when Toronto had 50 murders one year. Well, Detroit was basically just down the road. Similar size of city, similar climate, and (at the time) a more-or-less similar economy. Detroit had over 700 murders that same year. Fourteen times as many as Toronto. I don't know how many of these murders were gun murders. But I do know that the rate of gun ownership in Toronto was a LOT less than that of Detroit. Most Canadians don't own guns, and don't think about guns much, because there aren't many around. So it's not so easy to kill. As Eddie Izzard said: "Gun advocates say that guns don't kill people; people kill people. But I think the gun helps."
Hi Felipe, nice to meet you and thanks for singling out my comment I hope you realise that I was giving a hypothetical example, for argument's sake, so I don't actually need any references, let alone accurate ones. However, it might be of interest to you that I indeed was somewhat familiar with police statistics in Melbourne (but now they are dreadfully out of date which is why I am not quoting them) as I have had the privilege to work for a while in forensic psych, and murder statistics were often discussed. But as I said, I gave a hypothetical example, and I do apologise if I failed to make that clear. In any case, I hope that my point gave you food for thought - percentages mean nothing without real numbers, and also, I still firmly believe that it is a bad idea to sell weapons and ammunition in malls and corner stores. But that's just my opinion and by golly, I am entitled to it
Felipe I did not quite understand your original point. Your original post seemed aimed towards gun violence in Australia however to justify firearms you have relatively relied on examples with a US a backdrop. Look at it this way, the United States is a country which has allowed guns for a very long time. If you were now to take away those rights, then your opinion that gun-related violence would rise is probably true. As you say the criminals, will obviously keep their guns whereas the law abiding citizens would hand them over. In this case it is easy to see why such acts as armed robbery would rise. However, in a country like Australia where the use of guns has never been legal, your point does not fit. Yes, you are indeed right that gun-related crimes have risen in Australia over recent years but the numbers are indeed small when seen realistically. Someone pointed out about that a rise from 4 to 12 is an increase of 300% however, in reality 12 is still a fairly low figure.
Where did this "data" come from? Do you have a source? People keep asking me for a source so where did you read that the purpose of this was to reduce gun homicides? ... Are you serious? Obviously you don't have the first clue of what you're talking about. They were under the illusion that if honest citizens voluntarily turned in their guns that crime would go down? do you realize just how rediculous this sounds? I guess armed robberies don't count in your world as they rose. Er, no. They were under the "illusion" that gun homicides would go down. Number of armed robberies in 2008, 5686. That's a drop of 38% since before these gun laws, despite a population increase of about 4 million (roughly a 16% increase). Explain that. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/1-20/15.aspx Had you read my link, from a credible source, you would have seen 98 I read it, I quoted it. Again I ask you for a source, I never said this. But compare the population sizes. Cannot be bothered. Then why do you keep responding? Good question. I didn't drag anyone anywhere. It is a fact that crime rose after law abiding citizens turned in their gun voluntarily, go figure... I didn't mean literally. It's also a fact that gun homicides reduced by roughly half. A statistical snapshot of 1 year means exactly nothing. Now the criminals just know there are less guns in the hands of the innocent. The logic of this escapes me because there is none.[/QUOTE] I imagine a lot of logic escapes you. I shall leave you too it, you obviously don't need anyone else in this "discussion". I have exactly zero passion about anything related to firearms, I just hate people abusing statistics, which is exactly what you're doing here.
I already explained why you shouldn't trust the data from the sites you've been providing, as well as giving verified statistics from Australian government agencies (as opposed to pro-gun bloggers...). The legislation, as has also been explained, aimed to reduce gun deaths, which it did. Gun crime is only one part of gun injuries and homicides--suicides fell, accidental injuries and deaths fell, homicides fell, and over the long term, so did armed robbery and assault. The lack of guns that are easily available to the population also discourages people from becoming criminals--a crime of passion might be averted, a person may not be compelled to use their (legally obtained) firearm to commit a robbery, etc. You are using a very restricted set of statistics to prove a very reductive statement about one small aspect of gun crime and deaths. You can argue your point all you want, but until you learn to rely on real, verifiable statistics and present them properly, you're only proving the negative stereotypes of pro-gun advocates.
Thanks for defining romanticizing for me... I'd like you to point out where i've attached anything but the truth to guns. I know how to work a gun Felipe... You don't need to argue axiomatic points That classic arguement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my life. A guns only function is to kill, it's not a machete, it doesn't clear forests, it's not a hammer, it doesn't build houses, it kills. I'm not saying it's evil by itself, I never said that, I'm just pointing out the flaws in your similes and the values you place on guns. And yeah, exactly my point, Americans died protecting American interests, thanks for proving that. What's the deal with this innocent criminal binary you've come up with? What's the difference between a criminal and an innocent? One hasn't commited a crime. What turns an innocent into a criminal? Motive, means and opportunity, if we take away the means, or reduce the chance of said criminal gaining the means that also reduces opportunity and by extention we reduce crime. I'm not saying taking guns from innocents will stop crime, but it will reduce it. Thank you, I'm glad one of you have some idea on how to provide a credible arguement. And you're right, it does seem rather easy for people to obtain illegal weaponry, I thank you for finally providing some decent evidence. However you should probably spend more than two minutes selecting sources, because on the final one I found a link (PDF) that I think you, Felipe and a few others should definitley read: C. Neill and A. Leigh, Weak tests and strong conclusions: a re-analysis of gun deaths and the Australian Firearms Buyback, ANU, 2007. http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/GunBuyback.pdf
O.K., I understand now. If honest, law abiding citizens turn in their guns, crime will go down even though they aren't the ones committing the crimes. All I have to do is wait long enough, use enough words and insult people until they believe it. Now I'll start working on another liberal idea of spending my way out of debt, it's working for Obama, right?
Yes, I just chose to ignore you because of your insulting tone and the way that you talk to people in general. A gun is a tool, millions of police officers do not strap on a gun in the morning thinking, "I'm going to kill someone with this today, that's the only reason it was made." They strap it on in case they need it to protect the innocent, to enforce the law. Killing is not always a bad thing. When you have an insane person shooting students on a campus, or on a military base killing them is a good thing. Again, it is a tool that can be used for good as well as evil. What's the deal with this innocent criminal binary you've come up with? What's the difference between a criminal and an innocent? One hasn't commited a crime. What turns an innocent into a criminal? Motive, means and opportunity, if we take away the means, or reduce the chance of said criminal gaining the means that also reduces opportunity and by extention we reduce crime. I'm not saying taking guns from innocents will stop crime, but it will reduce it. I find this entire statement without merit, there is plenty of difference between a criminal and an innocent person who goes to work, obeys the law and does not commit crimes ever. Taking away the guns that they hunt with or keep foe home protection will in no way ever result in a drop in crime.
What's the deal with this innocent criminal binary you've come up with? What's the difference between a criminal and an innocent? One hasn't commited a crime. What turns an innocent into a criminal? Motive, means and opportunity, if we take away the means, or reduce the chance of said criminal gaining the means that also reduces opportunity and by extention we reduce crime. I'm not saying taking guns from innocents will stop crime, but it will reduce it. In addition, there is such a vast difference between a criminal and an innocent that it should go without saying. The criminal mindset such as in prison, where one is liable to be gang raped by the same sex is miles away from the lifestyle of members of my church. I'm sure that a lot of them have had or could have the motive to say kill someone for a wrong done against them or a family member. They certainly have the means as most if not all of them own guns and opportunity abounds. They are different by miles in their beliefs and moral standards so that they would never kill another person. To say simply that the only difference is that one has committed a crime is totally without merit. if we take away the means, or reduce the chance of said criminal gaining the means that also reduces opportunity and by extention we reduce crime. It has been shown that most guns used by criminals are obtained through straw purchases. The "take away" attitude will never be tolerated in America. I'll refer to this quote... A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, including their own government. George Washington.
I'm not saying people who own a gun are going to kill/want to kill, I'm just saying that a guns only purpose is to kill, and I know killing isn't always a bad thing, I already posted that atleast twice, if you paid less attention to my "tone" and more to my actual arguement you would see that. Okay... you do realise that most people have done something illegal in their lifetimes right? I don't understand why you have this childish good/evil innocent/criminal idea stuck in your head. There isn't a vast difference between an innocent and a criminal, if you put a bunch of people in a dirty hole like a prison to rot I'd like to see how they hold out. Oh, okay, I see your arguement now. If people go to church then they are above crime. Perhaps you might want to reread my post mate, if you REALLY want to kill someone then that's motive, if someone's a dick to you at church that's not a real motive. You know that they've stopped selling the guns they're taking away in Australia right? They can't just go and buy them back again...
There isn't a vast difference between an innocent and a criminal, if you put a bunch of people in a dirty hole like a prison to rot I'd like to see how they hold out. Oh, okay, I see your arguement now. If people go to church then they are above crime. Not at all, my church has members, myself included, who have committed crimes before they gave their life to Christ. Still, as they live now, there is a vast difference in the way that we live and the way a real criminal lives and thinks and acts. Our guns are for hunting and protecting our homes. Their guns are to rob other people or to kill rival gang members. It is simply a tool, mine puts meat on the table and protects my home. Perhaps you might want to reread my post mate, if you REALLY want to kill someone then that's motive, if someone's a dick to you at church that's not a real motive. Real people often have real reasons to want to do someone harm, not just because someone was a dick to you in church. Say a drunk driver kills your child and beats it through a technicality and shows no remorse. Say they continue to drink and drive and you know it. You have motive, that doesn't mean that you would act on it and take it upon yourself to kill them, even if they deserve it.
I live in Texas and I have been around guns my whole life. I own several, from pistols to asault rifles. Never thought much of it. Never seen a crime with a gun, except on TV. Only an insane person here would break into another person's home, unless they want to get shot. My favorite gun is my Heckler-Koch USP .45. It is a beauty.
Like it or not, guns are here and everyone has to deal with it. I honestly don't see how society as it exists today could go on without them to enforce the law, either on a law enforcement or personal level. As Slappydappy said, only an insane person here would break into another person's home, unless they want to get shot. Cities here in America have tried banning guns and this resulted in only criminals having guns. Mexico itself has some of the strongest anti gun laws and some of, if not the highest use of guns against each other.
Oh please. Now you're just being ridiculous. You only need to look across the ditch to the UK to find an example of a society that functions fine without guns. Police in New Zealand don't carry guns, and private ownership is a tiny, tiny percentage of the population despite us having relatively liberal gun laws (which, given the politics of gun control, should be more correctly called relatively conservative gun control laws). Even the example you initially cited, Australia,as you'd know if you'd done better research, has shown improvement after banning guns. Then there are the Scandinavian countries, where gun ownership for hunting and sport is fairly common, but not for self-defense, and the terms of ownership in terms of make, calibre and use is quite restricted. So yes, society as it exists today can and does go on without guns.
Actually guns are legal in this country. And special units of the police use guns; the anti-terrorist unit. Myself, I own a 22. rifle, which is fully licensed, and which I bought for £120 at an open-air shooting range. Guns are NOT illegal here, nor do we function fine without them, because we have them (firearm offenses have increased in the last few years) just the legal ones are restricted to those who can prove they can be trusted with a firearm. Not that this matters really, as it's very easy to get illegal firearms. I know of three places within a mile of my house where I can buy an illegal gun no problem if I make the right moves. See also: http://www.met.police.uk/firearms_licensing/ Personally, I fully support the British 'legal but restricted' gun laws.
America is a completely different place than New Zealand. What holds true there would not hold true here. If our police did not have guns we would be quite literally f***cked. Do I wish it was like New Zealand? Yes. Will it ever be? Most likely not in my life time.
