The CT shooting and gun control

• BoatShoes

  LJ;1345577 wrote:http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
  
  [/LIST]The black market for banned guns is also pretty damn prevalent according to Aussies.

  The National Center for Policy Analysis is a right wing think tank that is openly biased on conservative issues. They fired one of my favorite pundits, Bruce Bartlett, when he came out against George W. Bush for his book alleging that he was betraying the Reagan legacy.
  
  It is about as biased a source in the search for truth on this matter as you can cite.
  
  The argument in the literature from Australia is that, while violent crime overall as a trend has dropped in line with the industrialized world, the laws have been effective in curbing violent, mass shootings which is beyond dispute as they have had zero since implementing the laws. Further, Australia already had lower levels of violent crime than the United States.
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;1345757 wrote:The National Center for Policy Analysis is a right wing think tank that is openly biased on conservative issues. They fired one of my favorite pundits, Bruce Bartlett, when he came out against George W. Bush for his book alleging that he was betraying the Reagan legacy.
  
  It is about as biased a source in the search for truth on this matter as you can cite.
  
  The argument in the literature from Australia is that, while violent crime overall as a trend has dropped in line with the industrialized world, the laws have been effective in curbing violent, mass shootings which is beyond dispute as they have had zero since implementing the laws. Further, Australia already had lower levels of violent crime than the United States.

  So all you have is that it has curbed mass shootings, but nothing else is out of line, except for the other levels of crime that have risen. Those are hard numbers directly from Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
  
  The point is, while there have no been violent mass shootings, that is all you can correlate to their ban. You have to throw out the overall drop, since it was only .2% lower than the U.S.'s drop in that same time. The U.S.'s violent crime has actually been trending down, while Australia's has been trending up. Face it, the numbers, when you dig into them, don't favor your argument. While there have been no LARGE mass shootings, Australians like to use fire to kill people
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire
  
  Many deaths in the Black Saturday Bushfires are attributed to fire that were lit intentionally
• jhay78

  

  Obama's remarks at the prayer vigil the other night:
  

  But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.

  Why no mention of Fort Hood? Accidental memory lapse?
• believer

  

  
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1345764 wrote:So all you have is that it has curbed mass shootings, but nothing else is out of line, except for the other levels of crime that have risen. Those are hard numbers directly from Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
  
  The point is, while there have no been violent mass shootings, that is all you can correlate to their ban. You have to throw out the overall drop, since it was only .2% lower than the U.S.'s drop in that same time. The U.S.'s violent crime has actually been trending down, while Australia's has been trending up. Face it, the numbers, when you dig into them, don't favor your argument. While there have been no LARGE mass shootings, Australians like to use fire to kill people
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire
  
  Many deaths in the Black Saturday Bushfires are attributed to fire that were lit intentionally

  Whatever the "Australian Bureau of Crime and Statistics Research" is it does not appear to be the official crime statistician of Australia. The official crime statistician is the Australian Institute of Criminology.
  
  This is a graph of violent crime in Australia. Although it does appear that assaults/batteries are on the rise....the murder rate is at its lowest level ever at 1.3 per 100,000. A lot lower than the United States. I don't know about you but I would take an increase in assaults/batteries that don't result in homicides. I could live with fist fights increasing I guess.
  
  Also, worth noting that despite apparent increases in some crime, still well below the United States per 100,000.
  
  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html
  
  
  Also, I had a hard time finding rape/sexual assault statistics. But it does appear that you're right in that Australia seems to have a significantly higher "rape" problem than the United States?? But apparently there is some dispute about the way sexual assault is defined. Sweden for instance reports a very high sexual assault rate. For instance, included in those numbers are statutory rapes...I'm not sure we would suggest that statutory rapes will materially rise in the absence of hand guns??? So I am not sure on this.
  
  Either way, according to the graph, sexual assault does not appear to have materially risen since guns were banned. There's not more criminals putting guns to women's heads who might stop them if they had a concealed hand gun.
  
  I will look some more at work tomorrow but as of now...it still looks like overall, the Australian society is overall safer without outlaws running rampant with guns in the aftermath of getting tough on guns.
• BoatShoes

  jhay78;1345965 wrote:Obama's remarks at the prayer vigil the other night:
  
  
  
  Why no mention of Fort Hood? Accidental memory lapse?

  GMAFB
• BoatShoes

  believer;1346021 wrote:

  There aren't people conspiring to assassinate average Americans and maybe if there weren't so many gun nuts running around we could scale back their security teams a bit, eh??
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;1346027 wrote:Whatever the "Australian Bureau of Crime and Statistics Research" is it does not appear to be the official crime statistician of Australia. The official crime statistician is the Australian Institute of Criminology.
  
  This is a graph of violent crime in Australia. Although it does appear that assaults/batteries are on the rise....the murder rate is at its lowest level ever at 1.3 per 100,000. A lot lower than the United States. I don't know about you but I would take an increase in assaults/batteries that don't result in homicides. I could live with fist fights increasing I guess.
  
  Also, worth noting that despite apparent increases in some crime, still well below the United States per 100,000.
  
  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent crime.html
  
  
  Also, I had a hard time finding rape/sexual assault statistics. But it does appear that you're right in that Australia seems to have a significantly higher "rape" problem than the United States?? But apparently there is some dispute about the way sexual assault is defined. Sweden for instance reports a very high sexual assault rate. For instance, included in those numbers are statutory rapes...I'm not sure we would suggest that statutory rapes will materially rise in the absence of hand guns??? So I am not sure on this.
  
  Either way, according to the graph, sexual assault does not appear to have materially risen since guns were banned. There's not more criminals putting guns to women's heads who might stop them if they had a concealed hand gun.
  
  I will look some more at work tomorrow but as of now...it still looks like overall, the Australian society is overall safer without outlaws running rampant with guns in the aftermath of getting tough on guns.

  So you are saying that I was 100% correct. Their murder rate has fallen at the same rate that ours has, and their violent crimes have gone up while ours have gone down. Thanks for verifying my information.
  
  Just an FYI, the U.S. murder rate is the lowest since 1960, so as you would say, technically, the "lowest ever" since they started keeping track in 1960, the murder rate has also gone down by 53% since 1991, violent crime has gone down by 49%
  

  Either way, according to the graph, sexual assault does not appear to have materially risen since guns were banned.

  
  
  Derp?
  
  
  

  Reported sexual assaults have increased by 51 percent since 1995, at an average of four percent each year.

  50% IMMATERIAL I SAY!!!
  
  (the increase for aged 15+ is ~20%)
  
  Once again, your only valid correlation is mass shootings, that's it.
• Belly35

  

  BoatShoes;1346031 wrote:There aren't people conspiring to assassinate average Americans and maybe if there weren't so many gun nuts running around we could scale back their security teams a bit, eh??

  
  
  Maybe we should scale back on Blacks and Hispanic people they commit highest percentage of murders 68.9% or banned them from malls, bars, public housing and big cities
  
  Maybe we should scale back on illegal immigrants: The FBI recently issued a set of statistics regarding crimes committed by illegal immigrants in the United States. The numbers are alarming. In Los Angeles, over 95% of arrest warrants issued for the crime of murder are for illegal aliens. At least 83% of arrest warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. The number climbs to 86% for Albuquerque. The most wanted lists for each of these cities is comprised of at least 75% illegal aliens.
  
  
  
  The problem is not weapons the problem is seriously mentally derange people commit horrible crimes. America doesn’t have to identify who has weapons or limit our 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment rights. We need to indentify individual who need help, parents take the responsibility of their children, seek help and help avaible, educator, school counselor, social workers and mental health professional to improve a failed system. So easy for Liberal to point to their agenda, miss the real and more difficult task of solving the problem.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1346031 wrote:There aren't people conspiring to assassinate average Americans and maybe if there weren't so many gun nuts running around we could scale back their security teams a bit, eh??

  Do the leaders of the UK and Australia not have security teams in place?
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1346046 wrote:So you are saying that I was 100% correct. Their murder rate has fallen at the same rate that ours has, and their violent crimes have gone up while ours have gone down. Thanks for verifying my information.
  
  Just an FYI, the U.S. murder rate is the lowest since 1960, so as you would say, technically, the "lowest ever" since they started keeping track in 1960, the murder rate has also gone down by 53% since 1991, violent crime has gone down by 49%
  
  
  
  Derp?
  
  
  
  
  
  50% IMMATERIAL I SAY!!!
  
  (the increase for aged 15+ is ~20%)
  
  Once again, your only valid correlation is mass shootings, that's it.

  I found this site which has a good side by side.
  
  http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
  
  My valid assertions are 1. Mass shootings, 2. Murder Rate overall where the U.S. has 4.1 murders per 100,000 and Australia has 1.0 murders per 100,000; 3. Homicides by Guns
  
  So the Australians have done a way better job against Homicide.
  
  I do concede that the Australians do indeed have an overall higher violent crime rate...30% vs. our 21%...Their victims of crime appear to be by and large victims of simple assaults, robberies/property crimes that don't involve the loss of human life.
  
  I agree and concede that they have pretty bad rape rate even if you accept that the definition is overbroad. So chalk that up to an argument against gun control.
  
  But what conclusion should we draw? Is the U.S. better off when substantially more humans die but the large swath of guns may deter simple assaults or escalate simple assaults into homicides? I'm not sure that's the case.
  
  Maybe if you believe it to be righteous to shoot a man attempting to take your wallet? I'm not sure.
  
  Seems to me that a reasonable conclusion from this data might be that we might allow women the right to carry a concealed weapon as opposed to men as substantially more rapes and homicides involve men. The Constitution permits discrimination on the basis of gender if that discrimination furthers a substantial government interest so I think that may be a reasonable restriction???
  
  All in all, the substantially less homicide in Australia seems to outweigh any larger prevalence of less heinous violent crime...rape aside. However, it seems we might try other approaches to massive widespread armanent to fix this apparent disparity in rape, if I'm an Australian, because they've done a good job against homicide.
  
  It is also still not clear to me that these rape stastistics are comparable???
  
  Are these rapists with an illegal gun to the head of the woman who might be able to defend herself if she could carry or are they old pervs banging teenagers???
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;1346286 wrote:...
  
  So what conclusion should we draw? Is the U.S. better off when substantially more humans die but the large swath of guns may deter simple assaults or escalate simple assaults into homicides? ....

  You can't answer this question unless an agreement on "what better off" means. If the people want guns in the U.S. sadly they are better off having a balance of not fully ridding pure evil and having their desired firearms.
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;1346286 wrote:I found this site which has a good side by side.
  
  http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
  
  My valid assertions are 1. Mass shootings, 2. Murder Rate overall where the U.S. has 4.1 murders per 100,000 and Australia has 1.0 murders per 100,000; 3. Homicides by Guns
  
  I do concede that the Australians do indeed have an overall higher violent crime rate...30% vs. our 21%...There victims of crime appear to be by and large victims of simple assaults, robberies/property crimes that don't involve the loss of human life.
  
  I agree they have pretty bad rape rate even if you accept that the definition is overbroad.
  
  So what conclusion should we draw? Is the U.S. better off when substantially more humans die but the large swath of guns may deter simple assaults or escalate simple assaults into homicides? I'm not sure that's the case.
  
  Maybe if you believe it to be righteous to shoot a man attempting to take your wallet?
  
  Seems to me that a reasonable conclusion from this data might be that we might allow women the right to carry a concealed weapon as opposed to men as substantially more rapes and homicides involve men. The Constitution permits discrimination on the basis of gender if that discrimination furthers a substantial government interest so I think that may be a reasonable restriction???
  
  
  All in all, the substantially less homicide in Australia seems to outweigh any larger prevalence of less heinous violent crime...rape aside. However, it seems we might try other approaches to massive widespread armanent to fix this apparent disparity in rape.

  
  The murder rate is not a valid assertion, as they already had a much lower rate and the change is right in line with the change that the u.s. has had. The u.s. rate has dropped the same % as Australia. They banned guns, the u.s. laws became more lax.
  
  The logical conclusion is that the gun ban has done nothing to their overall crime, including murders. I'm done arguing this. You keep trying to spin the same numbers over and over again and provide false correlations.
  
  You also provided a website with 10 yr old data.
• BoatShoes

  Belly35;1346184 wrote:Maybe we should scale back on Blacks and Hispanic people they commit highest percentage of murders 68.9% or banned them from malls, bars, public housing and big cities.

  Let's just cut to the chase and go after men :thumbup:
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1346290 wrote:The murder rate is not a valid assertion, as they already had a much lower rate and the change is right in line with the change that the u.s. has had. The u.s. rate has dropped the same % as Australia. They banned guns, the u.s. laws became more lax.
  
  The logical conclusion is that the gun ban has done nothing to their overall crime, including murders. I'm done arguing this. You keep trying to spin the same numbers over and over again and provide false correlations.
  
  You also provided a website with 10 yr old data.

  We still have a 3rd World Rate of death from guns and the reason the murder rate has fallen in the United States is because of America's medical exceptionalism!
  
  The rate of gunshot injury continues to rise even as improved medical care continues to cause the homicide rate to decline. So your argument that the "murder rate" in America also declined may not be a boon to the argument in support of widespread gun availability
  
  "In Medical Triumph, Homicide Rate Continues to Fall despite Soaring Gun Violence"
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html
• LJ

  

  BoatShoes;1346300 wrote:We still have a 3rd World Rate of death from guns and the reason the murder rate has fallen in the United States is because of America's medical exceptionalism!
  
  The rate of gunshot injury continues to rise even as improved medical care continues to cause the homicide rate to decline. So your argument that the "murder rate" in America also declined may not be a boon to the argument in support of widespread gun availability
  
  "In Medical Triumph, Homicide Rate Continues to Fall despite Soaring Gun Violence"
  
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html

  
  Pay article
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1346302 wrote:Pay article

  Try this link:
  

  In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn't account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.

  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=2&ved=0CC4QqQIoADAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812.html&ei=BGnDUIGFIdGA0AGImYGABA&usg=AFQjCNF8Yw5p2Eikv8bKDsQVzZ8y1sOPWQ&cad=rja
• LJ

  

  "No studies have quantified the relationship between emergency medicine and the recent decline in homicides."
  
  Don't forget, you have to apply the same argument to Australia, seeing how their violent crime has increased.
• LJ

  

  Go on thinking we have a gun problem and not a violence problem.
• Sonofanump

  Interesting post I saw on another site. I checked a few (not all) for accuracy.
  
  - A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
  - A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
  - A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
  - A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
  - A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
  - A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
  - A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
  • At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
  
  2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance .
• Belly35

  

  BoatShoes;1346294 wrote:Let's just cut to the chase and go after men :thumbup:

  Your logic not mine.... Mofo
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1346321 wrote:"No studies have quantified the relationship between emergency medicine and the recent decline in homicides."
  
  Don't forget, you have to apply the same argument to Australia, seeing how their violent crime has increased.

  I was going to say there may be good reason to believe that Australia has had similar advances in emergency medicine but nevertheless it still points to the fact that gun violence has indeed increased here.
• BoatShoes

  Sonofanump;1346546 wrote:Interesting post I saw on another site. I checked a few (not all) for accuracy.
  
  - A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
  - A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
  - A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
  - A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
  - A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
  - A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
  - A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
  • At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.
  
  2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance .

  Even if we accept all of this...people in America arekilled and maimed more by the massive prevalence of guns than they are saved by our heroic vigilantes. In these other countries these mysterious gunmen aren't needing to be stopped by heroic vigilantes because they don't have guns.
  
  Seems like a better choice than just giving everyone a gun.
• BoatShoes

  LJ;1346324 wrote:Go on thinking we have a gun problem and not a violence problem.

  Go on thinking that America wouldn't be a substantially better country with less unnecessary deaths of we just imposed reasonable regulations on guns like other rich countries have in the same way we regulate speech, assembly and other guaranteed rights.
• Sonofanump

  BoatShoes;1346688 wrote:Even if we accept all of this...people in America arekilled and maimed more by the massive prevalence of guns than they are saved by our heroic vigilantes. In these other countries these mysterious gunmen aren't needing to be stopped by heroic vigilantes because they don't have guns.
  
  Seems like a better choice than just giving everyone a gun.

  So only guns will exist illegally in the USA. I wonder who will obtain and use those? Gotcha.