Yeah i dont support the radical gun reform movement however he did make a pretty compelling case about how messed up our gun crime & gun usage rates are compared to other countries.
the GOPers on this thread are acting just like i expected them too. Idiots who would rather not hear the truth
1. Assault weapons bans or restrictions would accomplish little or nothing, since some number substantially smaller than 100 out of roughly 30,000 total deaths can be attributed to anything that could be even remotely described as an "assault weapon."
2. There are very few, if any, places where any sort of gun ban or restriction has been shown to have a material impact. Yes, I know that UK and Australia, two oft-sited examples, have a) strict gun controls, and b) low gun crime/death rates. But UK and Australia had low gun crime/death rates BEFORE they had those gun controls. Remember, the historic rate of gun crimes in UK is so low that bobbies have never been armed. And if you plot the Australian gun death rates on a graph before and after they enacted their gun control law, you get virtually a straight line. If you don't mark the year when the law took effect, it would be impossible to pick it out from the data. Basically, the history is that places that had low rates of gun crimes/deaths before passing a gun control law continued to have low rates after such laws were passed, and places that had high rates of gun crimes/deaths before passing a gun control law continued to have high rates after such laws were passed. There are a few exceptions going both ways. California did see some decrease after passing some restrictive laws, while in Latin America the rates actually went up after passing strict laws.
The rate of gun crimes/deaths in this country is unreasonably high. But the measures being proposed to deal with it are not the right steps to take.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2013 12:35 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(12-09-2013 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The points that people are missing:
1. Assault weapons bans or restrictions would accomplish little or nothing, since some number substantially smaller than 100 out of roughly 30,000 total deaths can be attributed to anything that could be even remotely described as an "assault weapon."
2. There are very few, if any, places where any sort of gun ban or restriction has been shown to have a material impact. Yes, I know that UK and Australia, two oft-sited examples, have a) strict gun controls, and b) low gun crime/death rates. But UK and Australia had low gun crime/death rates BEFORE they had those gun controls. Remember, the historic rate of gun crimes in UK is so low that bobbies have never been armed. And if you plot the Australian gun death rates on a graph before and after they enacted their gun control law, you get virtually a straight line. If you don't mark the year when the law took effect, it would be impossible to pick it out from the data. Basically, the history is that places that had low rates of gun crimes/deaths before passing a gun control law continued to have low rates after such laws were passed, and places that had high rates of gun crimes/deaths before passing a gun control law continued to have high rates after such laws were passed. There are a few exceptions going both ways. California did see some decrease after passing some restrictive laws, while in Latin America the rates actually went up after passing strict laws.
The rate of gun crimes/deaths in this country is unreasonably high. But the measures being proposed to deal with it are not the right steps to take.
Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[25] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)."
Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[26] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[27] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998.[citation needed] There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.
yes the Aussie's have had low gun violence rates. however anyway you slice it......
(12-09-2013 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: The points that people are missing:
1. Assault weapons bans or restrictions would accomplish little or nothing, since some number substantially smaller than 100 out of roughly 30,000 total deaths can be attributed to anything that could be even remotely described as an "assault weapon."
2. There are very few, if any, places where any sort of gun ban or restriction has been shown to have a material impact. Yes, I know that UK and Australia, two oft-sited examples, have a) strict gun controls, and b) low gun crime/death rates. But UK and Australia had low gun crime/death rates BEFORE they had those gun controls. Remember, the historic rate of gun crimes in UK is so low that bobbies have never been armed. And if you plot the Australian gun death rates on a graph before and after they enacted their gun control law, you get virtually a straight line. If you don't mark the year when the law took effect, it would be impossible to pick it out from the data. Basically, the history is that places that had low rates of gun crimes/deaths before passing a gun control law continued to have low rates after such laws were passed, and places that had high rates of gun crimes/deaths before passing a gun control law continued to have high rates after such laws were passed. There are a few exceptions going both ways. California did see some decrease after passing some restrictive laws, while in Latin America the rates actually went up after passing strict laws.
The rate of gun crimes/deaths in this country is unreasonably high. But the measures being proposed to deal with it are not the right steps to take.
Historically, Australia has had relatively low levels of violent crime. Overall levels of homicide and suicide have been in decline for several decades, while the proportion of these crimes that involved firearms has consistently declined since the early 1980s. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of firearm-related deaths in Australia declined 47%.[25] According to a 2011 report from the Australian government, "...the number of victims of homicide has been in decline since 1996". There were 354 victims in 1996, but only 260 victims in 2010, a decrease of 27 percent. Also, "The proportion of homicide victims killed by offenders using firearms in 2009–10 represented a decrease of 18 percentage points from the peak of 31 percent in 1995–96 (the year in which the Port Arthur massacre occurred with the death of 35 people, which subsequently led to the introduction of stringent firearms legislation)."
Firearm suicides have fallen from about 22% of all suicides in 1992[26] to 7% of all suicides in 2005.[27] Immediately following the Buyback there was a fall in firearm suicides which was more than offset by a 10% increase in total suicides in 1997 and 1998.[citation needed] There were concerted efforts in suicide prevention from this time and in subsequent years the total suicide rate resumed its decline.
yes the Aussie's have had low gun violence rates. however anyway you slice it......
a 47% decrease is still pretty significant
Except that you're talking about a 10-year period, and the gun law was passed right in the middle of it, and the rate of decline before was pretty much the same as the rate of decline after. There is no significant change in the rate of decline after the law was passed (if anything, the negative slope almost flattens out a bit). The interpretation of this has been that the decline is more attributable to better law enforcement than to the gun control law.
The other thing is that the numbers, both before and after, were so small that percentages are almost meaningless. A study led by Professor Chapman, who led the effort to pass the gun control law, concluded that the impact was not statistically significant, primarily because the numbers were so small both before and after.
It is correct that the law was passed in the wake of a mass shooting in Tasmania, and that there has not been another similar incident since, but the numbers are so low to begin with that the impact gets lost in the noise.
***and please dont go down this "hes not a REAL citizen" road***
For once I agree with john01992. I applaud any person that takes it upon themselves to go through the effort to become a legal US citizen. It's not an easy process, if done legally, and requires committment and resources. It's not something somebody just does on a whim.
/
Fareed Zakaria gives us advice on guns.
