Australia: Gun ban had NO effect on murder rate

[br0k3n 0]

Quote

If 90+% of the citizens wanted to ban skydiving, would you just throw up your hands in exasperation and say "Oh well!", and obligingly give up your sport? Or would you protest and fight to keep it?

?

Ermm JR, now correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard of any children being massacred by some lunatic going postal in a school yard with an Automatic Stiletto, I’ve not even heard of a corner store being held up by someone packing a pump action Velocity…

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[Paulipod 0]

There are a few basic facts which make any gun ban sensible...

1. Less guns in circulation mean less potential shots fired
2. Less guns in circulation mean less accidents

If I could click my fingers today and make all guns dissappear - guess what.... no one would get shot!

To assume that arming all civilians to defend themselves is the way for a more peaceful safe society is a far stretch of the imagination.

If its self-defence that you think people need guns for - then maybe just provide bullet vests on a government subsidy

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Don't people who do something as a minority of the population, and
>who aren't bothering anyone by doing so, deserve to have their civil rights
>respected?

Why John! I do believe you are starting to become a bit of a liberal! All this "equal rights for everyone even if I disagree with them" along with support for gun rights may confuse some people here, though.

How does a concept from over 200 years ago suddenly get redefined as "liberal"? It's certainly not a new and different idea by any stretch of the imagination.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Since guns will never go away consider the following

Quote

There are a few basic facts which make any gun ban sensible...

1. Less guns in circulation mean less potential shots fired

Laws reducing legal gun ownership only remove guns from law abiding people. This leaves only the criminals (and governments) with weapons. Thus reducing personall safety.
2. Less guns in circulation mean less accidents

The same can be said about parachutes, cars, knives. This seams to be a rediculas argument

If I could click my fingers today and make all guns dissappear - guess what.... no one would get shot!

I am waiting!

To assume that arming all civilians to defend themselves is the way for a more peaceful safe society is a far stretch of the imagination.

An armed populas has made more than one country think twice before coming to the US. Google it

If its self-defence that you think people need guns for - then maybe just provide bullet vests on a government subsidy

Oh, theres the perfect answer

One can wish for whatever one wants but that does not change the way things are. We are not in nervana. Never will be

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

>Don't people who do something as a minority of the population, and
>who aren't bothering anyone by doing so, deserve to have their civil rights
>respected?

Why John! I do believe you are starting to become a bit of a liberal! All this "equal rights for everyone even if I disagree with them" along with support for gun rights may confuse some people here, though.

How does a concept from over 200 years ago suddenly get redefined as "liberal"? It's certainly not a new and different idea by any stretch of the imagination.

You're absolutely right -- yet this is position is held (mostly) by the people currently called liberals and fought vigorously (mostly) by the people called conservatives. At least until they switch positions again.

Perhaps the labels means nothing? Oh wait. You knew that.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Perhaps the labels means nothing? Oh wait. You knew that.

But,....... without labels, how will I immediately pigeonhole and judge a complete stranger without actually talking to them and getting to understand their views?

{{That position is held by people that call themselves liberal and conservative. It is also vigorously fought by members of both labels too. We all know it and have seen many examples. Which way it leans depends much more on the topic than other thing, in my experience. I completely disagree with your use of "mostly" when applying it in a general fashion.}}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JohnRich 4]

I'm catching up on weekend messages. First, I'll get the trivial fluff out of the way.

---

[christelsabine]
> "to deserve what, please?"

Apparently you hadn't noticed, but this thread is about the confiscation of many guns from law-abiding Australians.

> What's your reason to "fight" for "10-% of law-abiding citizens...
> in Downunder, please?

They were wronged. Do I need more reason than that? Perhaps you just don't care about people who are wronged in other parts of the world, but I do. Do you have a problem with that?

> "These posts are the pure nonsense, like usual. Need some
> more attention, right?"

Ah yes, you have no logical, factual response - just general personal insults. Such comments say more about yourself, then about me.

---

[downwardspiral]
> "Just out of curiosity John..... ever change anybody's mind?"

Yes. Plenty.

---

[SkyDekker]
> "Are you sure your real job isn't stand up comedy?"

See my last comment to christelsabine, above.

---

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Don't people who do something as a minority of the population,
>and who aren't bothering anyone by doing so, deserve to have
>their civil rights respected?

Why John! I do believe you are starting to become a bit of a liberal! All this "equal rights for everyone even if I disagree with them" along with support for gun rights may confuse some people here, though.

There is no "starting" to it. I've been like this all along. People want to brand me as a conservative because I'm pro-gun, but I'm also pro-choice on abortion (up to a point), and anti-religion. So those last two items tend to terribly confuse people who want to pigeonhole me as a staunch conservative they can hate. But such people are wrong.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You are so funny. The one who has demonstrated an ability to misrepresent data in many threads about your obsession with countries that control guns is you. And you have been shown to do so many times. Funny thing is that you always ignore the facts and continue with your rants.

Just because you disagree with me, doesn't mean that I "misrepresent", "obsess", "ignore" and "rant". Instead of all the insult-labeling, perhaps you should just try calmly representing your own views, supported with facts and logic.

Quote

I am quite sure I know more about stats then you do.

Since you don't know a thing about me, personally, such as my education, or job history, it's impossible for you to make such a claim. So there's that objectivity issue again...

Quote

Firstly - you introduce a graph that in your own (later) admission has nothing to do with gun laws down here.

You seem to think that restrictive gun laws produce downward trends in gun fatalities, so I was presenting that particular graph as an example that contradicts your belief.

Quote

Secondly the graph is based on such small "real" data (20-40 accidents a year) that you can not claim "trends" based on a couple of years with a few more accidents. Ever heard of the term "statistical significance testing"? Numbers are too small to show any significant change.

It was more than just "a couple" of years (who's misrepresenting now?), it was eight years of an upward trend. And that followed 17 years of a downward trend. So throw out all the individual highs and lows you want along the way, but the overall long term trends are unmistakeable: Gun accidents were declining before the gun ban, and have been climbing since.

Quote

just love the way how you think gun laws here are wrong when less then 10% are against it.

What's "right" is not always determined by a mere majority vote. A majority once thought that slavery was a good idea. A majority also once thought that Hitler would make a great national leader.

Taking property away from law-abiding citizens who aren't bothering anyone with it, is not right. Period. Regardless of how many people vote in favor of it.

And the fact that you can't seem to grasp that concept, is disturbing. Because your belief would allow every minority to be oppressed. And I hope that you don't think that is okay...

[SkyDekker 1,153]

It is just hard to keep track of wether you are using gun accidents or gun deaths stats. You seem to be intermingling both, drawing conclusions about gun deaths based on gun accident stats etc etc.

here is a slight example:

Quote

You seem to think that restrictive gun laws produce downward trends in gun fatalities, so I was presenting that particular graph as an example that contradicts your belief.

You are using a stat on gun accidents to make a point about gun fatalities? At the same time you are berating other people for not using logic or stats correctly, talking about objectivity and facts?

JR if you want other people to use logic and facts, you may want to first start using it yourself.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

If 90+% of the citizens wanted to ban skydiving, would you just throw up your hands in exasperation and say "Oh well!", and obligingly give up your sport? Or would you protest and fight to keep it??

Ermm JR, now correct me if I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard of any children being massacred by some lunatic going postal in a school yard with an Automatic Stiletto, I’ve not even heard of a corner store being held up by someone packing a pump action Velocity…

That was a cheap way out of addressing the issue of the process of governmental policy-making.

Suppose instead of skydiving, we used the example of alcohol. Alcohol destroys many lives per year, probably more than guns. Now, would you like to try again to answer the question? If a majority of citizens wanted to ban alcohol, would you just meekly surrender your ability to drink alcohol, or would you fight to keep it, as someone who is a responsible drinker?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

>Don't people who do something as a minority of the
>population, and who aren't bothering anyone by doing so,
>deserve to have their respected?

You're absolutely right -- yet this is position is held (mostly) by the people currently called liberals and fought vigorously (mostly) by the people called conservatives. At least until they switch positions again.

I disagree with your generalizations. It's issue dependent.

For example, when it comes to guns, liberals want to ban them, and conservatives want to keep them. When it comes to abortion, liberals want to keep it, and conservatives want to ban it. So, both types of people are on either side of the fence, depending upon what particular issue is being discussed. Neither party has a claim to being more one way than the other overall.

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

Suppose instead of skydiving, we used the example of alcohol. Alcohol destroys many lives per year, probably more than guns. Now, would you like to try again to answer the question? If a majority of citizens wanted to ban alcohol, would you just meekly surrender your ability to drink alcohol, or would you fight to keep it, as someone who is a responsible drinker?

I wouldn't try and fight Australia's right to drink alcohol though....

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It is just hard to keep track of wether you are using gun accidents or gun deaths stats. You seem to be intermingling both, drawing conclusions about gun deaths based on gun accident stats etc etc.

The chart on gun accidents was for fatal gun accidents. Try and keep up.

Quote

if you want other people to use logic and facts, you may want to first start using it yourself.

You might start paying attention so that you don't end up with your foot in your mouth.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Don't people who do something as a minority of the
>population, and who aren't bothering anyone by doing so,
>deserve to have their respected?

You're absolutely right -- yet this is position is held (mostly) by the people currently called liberals and fought vigorously (mostly) by the people called conservatives. At least until they switch positions again.

I disagree with your generalizations. It's issue dependent.

For example, when it comes to guns, liberals want to ban them, and conservatives want to keep them. When it comes to abortion, liberals want to keep it, and conservatives want to ban it. So, both types of people are on either side of the fence, depending upon what particular issue is being discussed. Neither party has a claim to being more one way than the other overall.

I think there are many more examples where the right would try to infringe on the rights of a minority view. They would seek to restrict how people have sex and who with, their ability to buy porn, to use drugs, have abortions, use contraception, and consume alcohol. Pretty much anything related to having fun. (damn puritans)

Common beliefs on the left would be seen in attempts to restrict on gun ownership, porn (some feminists), and smoking of nicotine. Can you add to this list?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think there are many more examples where the right would try to infringe on the rights of a minority view.

Nope, the list is vast and split up between the two - and each is issue dependent that crosses the lines between the groups more often than not. Guns and Abortions are the perfect examples - you just can't take a stereotype bias and pigeonhole anybody on these two issues. You just don't know what someone thinks until they speak on it.

What you really mean, is there are many more examples where the right tries to infringe on those things that are meaningful to you personally. I take issue with a lot of the insidious crap from both parties and the people that try to call themselves libs and cons who are really just Reps and Dems. They both just want to force mold everyone into this little picture they have.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

The chart on gun accidents was for fatal gun accidents. Try and keep up

And what does the trend of fatal gun accidents tell you about the overall trend in gun deaths? Is this your display of logic and the proper use of facts?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Guns and Abortions are the perfect examples - you just can't take a stereotype bias and pigeonhole anybody on these two issues. You just don't know what someone thinks until they speak on it.

The platforms of the two respective parties paints a pretty clear picture on these subjects. It's not a stereotype to acknowledge the party line. Sure individuals vary. (A point without a point)

So...can you add to the Democrat list?

[rushmc 18]

>I take issue with a lot of the insidious crap from both parties and the people that try to call themselves libs and cons who are really just Reps and Dems. They both just want to force mold everyone into this little picture they have

Quote

Now here you and I agree. I do not agree with you which party does this the most.

We both know which party claims the high road on it however.

I think one party deminishes more rights overall by trying to reduce individual responsibility and by lowering moral standards overall calling it pesonal freedoms.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[billvon 2,473]

>How does a concept from over 200 years ago suddenly get redefined
>as "liberal"?

I suppose it's done by people who disagree with whatever it is people are doing. Gay people getting married, raising kids, creating families? Only a liberal would "allow that assault on the family!" Letting non-christians avoid pledging to a God they don't believe in? "Liberal bedwetters who hate America don't want the Pledge said in schools!"

Of course the concept hasn't changed. But what it represents is a very real threat to some people.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The chart on gun accidents was for fatal gun accidents. Try and keep up

And what does the trend of fatal gun accidents tell you about the overall trend in gun deaths? Is this your display of logic and the proper use of facts?

I made no such conclusions from that chart. The connection you have drawn, above, is entirely your own.

I know you love to try and shoot me down, but since you fail so often like this, I would think it would make you gun shy. It would be for your own good.

[billvon 2,473]

>If a majority of citizens wanted to ban alcohol, would you just
>meekly surrender your ability to drink alcohol, or would you fight to keep
>it, as someone who is a responsible drinker?

We did ban it; turned out to be a mistake.

Instead, we now regulate it, and restrict its usage under many conditions. (Driving, working in certain industries, carrying it in certain places, using it in certain places, age restrictions, alcohol content restrictions, etc) Seems to work a lot better.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>How does a concept from over 200 years ago suddenly get redefined
>as "liberal"?

I suppose it's done by people who disagree with whatever it is people are doing.

You were once vehement about not letting the partisan definition of 'liberal' guide your use of it. Now you are defending the partisan definition.

"Of course the concept hasn't changed" so that's a 'conservative' position. This one worth taking despite the FALSE partisan crapulence you guys all like to wallow in.

"It represents a very real threat" it sure does, to anyone that wants to allow individuals to be individuals, to anyone that wants to own private property, to anyone that wants to not be part of a popular religion, to anyone that wants to be, etc etc.

It is so very wrong to even start to make this one concept some kind of "my party is so great and yours isn't" kind of rant. Any other item is free game, but this one is the important one. (so far, only JR in this string seems to write like he gets it - even if it's only represented by one subject matter)

The concept that we all have rights that can't be infringed upon - especially if we disagree with them - is 100% not party specific.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

I made no such conclusions from that chart. The connection you have drawn, above, is entirely your own.

So, you agree that your chart has absolutely no bearing on total gun deaths or the effectiveness of the gun restrictions in Australia. Why exactly did you post it then?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So, you agree that your chart has absolutely no bearing on total gun deaths or the effectiveness of the gun restrictions in Australia. Why exactly did you post it then?

I'd guess that he posted it so people would half-consciously absorb the exact conclusion that he'll deny if someone calls him on it.

It's a nice twist of his to then get self-righteous about it. "Not only didn't I mean anyone to conclude that obvious but false conclusion, I'm offended that you're explaining the falsehood."

First Class Citizen Twice Over