Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
I think we just had some awesome and rational pro gun posters in this thread that made very valid arguments and managed to sway general opinion! Just wish the rest of the US was as sane as most of us here
You're deceiving yourself badly if you think this is what happened.I think we just had some awesome and rational pro gun posters in this thread that made very valid arguments and managed to sway general opinion! Just wish the rest of the US was as sane as most of us here
- 6,338
- 7,144
I'll bite, though. Who had a come to Jesus moment about guns based on the awesome arguments posted in this thread?
If hands weren't attached to the human body, the government would want to regulate them. Can we stop trying to blame the tool and push for some personal accountability instead?
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
Yep. It seems quite a few people came to this thread thinking that it was blatantly obvious something had to be done about assault weapons. Then they find out its only 3% of firearm deaths and the argument for the AWB kind of collapses.
Then some people move on to the vague "well, if it would save one life" argument, ignoring that these 3% would just switch to handguns.
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,656
It's probably not. There was a local journalist around here who took a bet to run a "responsible use of guns" story every day for a year. So every day he had a different story (not long-ass editorial stories, it was usually just him scanning police reports from around the State and getting a followup with someone involved if that was possible). And it usually wasn't dramatic stuff either, just pretty damn boring "well that didn't escalate very quickly at all did it" stories. The most common theme were things like, "man walks into a gas station intending to rob the place. The attendant pulls a gun and threatens, the would be robber flees".
He said that when he took the bet he was fairly sure he was gonna lose it, but then after about 2 months he had enough po'lice sending him reports that he had to spend about an half an hour a night deciding which one he wanted to go with.
Even so, I don't know that responsible use is under-reported. That was the takeaway. Responsible use is assumed. Irresponsible use what's most newsworthy.
Of course this will vary State to State, and it will vary highly even between regions within States. He admitted this as well. There were parts of the State where for the entire year he couldn't even find ONE responsible use story.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,411
- 98,678
BUT WE HAVE HIGHER MURDER RATES!
There is just nothing to debate when it comes to gun control. Firearms ownership has only increased every single year while for the past 30 years our murder and crime rates have fallen.
guns increase, crime decreases CANT EXPLAIN THAT
There is just nothing to debate when it comes to gun control. Firearms ownership has only increased every single year while for the past 30 years our murder and crime rates have fallen.
guns increase, crime decreases CANT EXPLAIN THAT
If you're going to quote a source, it would be nice if you actually cite the source. Quick question: what exactly is the Australian bureau of criminology ? Google finds no such bureau. The closest thing is the Australian institute of criminology. You can go to their website and do the research yourself as opposed to relying on some random web-blog. I know, I know, doing your own research ? LUDICROUS ! So I went and did it for you:
Takeaway:
- Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996.
- The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Rates have declined by 38 percent since 2001, to 86 per 100,000 per year.
- The rate of kidnapping remained between three and four per 100,000 per year from 1996 to 2007.
- The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).
- The rate of recorded sexual assault increased between 1997 and 2007, from 78 to 94 persons per 100,000 per year.
In other words, the statistics are far from conclusive. Some violent crimes went up, like assault and rape, while others went down, like murders and robbery. An impartial observer would conclude that no real conclusions can be derived from these statistics. But reading the blog you quoted, it is obvious that conclusions are being drawn. Some are cherry picking statistics, while other claims are actually in absolute contradiction with them. The most galling thing to me, however, was the insinuation that a gun ban has increased the rate of violent crimes other than homicide, but that the decrease in homicides was a fluke that had nothing to do with the gun ban. Que ?
Source
I know I keep editing this post, but I find this fascinating. So the original blog you quoted is foundhere. In it, the blog cited to the "Australian bureau of criminology" (which as far as I can tell, doesn't exist, and they are instead referring to the Australian institute of criminology) usingthisthink tank as the source. But the think tank also cited its own source, which turns out to be . . .this free republic article.
This shit is worse than email chain letters.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
So let me get this straight. By your own statistics, after a complete gun ban and confiscation, the rate of homicides went down a bit and other crime possibly went up. You then sum it up by saying that no real conclusions can be derived from these statistics.
In other words, by your own statistics the effect on crime was probably a wash, after acomplete gun ban. On the other hand, the effect on personal liberty isn't a wash at all. Yet you are for more gun regulation?
I don't get it.
edit: This was also during a period when homicides dropped overall in the US even though if anything our gun laws were relaxed.
Ok, first of all, the gun ban wasn't a COMPLETE gun ban. Exceptions were made and people still have guns. Second of all, no where in that post did I say more regulations were needed. If anything, I'm trying to advocate some common sense and honesty when people are citing sources as authority. The whole point is to have a more honest and open debate. So if you cite a source, don't make me spend an hour doing my own research only to find out that it was a random blog citing a non-existant governmental agency in an article by a random think tank that cited the free-republic as its authority. That's all.
Man, I don't know what you're talking about.
A Freep article that ends up referring back to itself is a way better primary source than a Mother Jones article with about 20 cites back to various academic publications (and yes, a few questionable ones as well).
A Freep article that ends up referring back to itself is a way better primary source than a Mother Jones article with about 20 cites back to various academic publications (and yes, a few questionable ones as well).
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
First of all, I am not Kinner. I am trying to have an honest debate with you. Fair enough, it wasn't a complete gun ban. However, they did ban all semi-automatics. So yeah, semi-automatic rimfires with 10 or fewer rounds are in circulation, and even those you have to jump through hoops for. You even have to provide a genuine reason to have an airsoft gun.
So again by your very own sources the laws in Australia were a wash pretty much on crime, even though their laws are clearly unconstitutional here. Yet you ARE for more gun regulation, unless you have changed your mind recently. You didn't advocate it in your post, but you have in the past on this thread.
I don't get it.