Cost of Gun Reform

At,
I don't know what to say, you do have some positive sides unknown to me.
Hmmmm,
best regards

 

He does and this is one.

 

Whooaaa! Back that truck up........

Did you really just say that Knives were not developed and designed with the purpose of taking life. So they are a tool with a sharp point and sharp edge and were first developed to be used around the fire while cooking. The gun is a tool like the knife that was first developed to take a life. Like the knife the gun is used everyday buy thousands of people world wide for something other than killing something. Gun clubs are a legitimate past time for many to the point that guns are in the Olympics.

The sad fact is that people all over the world use all manner of tools including guns to kill/injure people. As usual though the person should be to blame and not the tool/gun.

 

I think my last paragraph already answered that point

Ooooops sorry Lol

 

Just having a gun in the house does not prevent that and it DOES put you at greater risk of death and or being shot through the head - which take it from me, causes a LOT of brain damage!!

 

There are no guarantees in life, but there are statistics. Statistics say that if you confront a criminal and you have a gun there is a better than average chance they will change their mind. Statistics also say that you have an increased risk of injury by gun if you have a gun in the house.

I chose the gun in the house option, which to me is what this is about. You have your choice that you would make and I have mine, hence freedom of choice which is what nearly everyone wants unless your a dictator.

 

The topic seems to be moving in a different direction. We are now starting to blame the psychology of manufactured inanimate objects, because individuals are not correctly educated in the use of items being manufactured and sold - guns.

The main point of Howard's irrational gun control frenzy, and the do-gooder groups that supported him, is that they deceived and lied to the citizens about the true statistics relating to gun deaths, and that should not be forgotten.

Howard's intentions might have been genuine in trying to reduce the amount of guns in the hands of individuals who should not have had them in the first place. But, because he deceived and lied to the people regarding the true statistics; then most people who recongise the deception and lie, will always believe the gun bill/law was based on a political agenda, and had nothing to do with safeguarding the community.

I'm not totally against a certain form of gun control, but as my father once said: there are more pyscho's carrying guns in the military & police force than there are in the general community.

 

Though the flipside is someone educated and trained in the proper use of a gun is also able to use it more effectively to kill, then someone who is not trained and educated in its use.

 

But those things are not associated with an increase in suicide and death rates guns are

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

- - - Updated - - -

Really? Show me those "statistics" and let me chew them to pieces because the only research out there on this topic is so flawed it is laughable

 

If guns didn't exist it would be pills, carbon monoxide poisoning, hanging, or any of the other ways people chose to end their lives. Suicide wasn't invented after guns, it was the other way around.

Got me there, because many experts agree that many cases go unreported. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/ This article here points out the flaw of statistics in the argument, but which ever study you chose to believe both indicate that it does occur.

So I answered your question now you answer mine. Dictator or Freedom of Choice?
There are many bad things in the world that can do people harm. Do we start regulating them all?

 

I would like to know the source of the estimation of 700 fatalities per year. Comparing different countries in the Western World probably only the USA is a statistical "outlier". European countries have gun related death rates between 0.11 (Netherlands) and 3.1 per 100.000 (France). The USA have 10.3 for comparison. Main differences occur in suicide-by-firearm rates ranging from 0.2 (Netherlands) to 2.3 (France). For comparison: USA: 6.3. I myself would remove suicides from calculations because someone coming to the conclusion to kill himself has hundreds of alternatives and definitively will kill himself, guns available or not available. Suicides excluded from the rates above leads to a relatively comparable death-by-firearm rate of 0.3 per 100.00 in all European countries and New Zealand (USA: 4.0). With Australia having European heritage and mentally being closer to Europeans anyway, I would take the 0.3 /100.000 for an estimation for Australia, also regarding the fact that this value also is valid for New Zealand. That would lead to an estimation for Australia of 84 intentional or unintentional deaths by firearm per year. Because the predicted death rate in Australia being discussed in this threat exceeds that estimation almost by the factor 10, it would be very important to learn on which factors it was based or if it was simple guessing. If that is the case, it cannot be discussed because if guessing is "good guessing" or "bad guessing" cannot be determined in advance. A death rate of 84 per year for myself would be acceptable.That rate is lower than people in Australia annually are killed by jellyfish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

Selfish prat!

 

Actually RESEARCH proves otherwise. There is no evidence of substitution effect when gun availability is decreased

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

BTW thanks for the great link proving how flawed the statistics are in relation to gun use in self defense. But the REAL kicker to prove that is the question

"If guns are so necessary in America for self defense why are they not equally required elsewhere in the developed world?"

 

MM,
I liked your contribution and the way, your European logic has lead you to.
The logic you displayed compared to the one in the US, as seen by other contributers, just highlights what 500 years of root finding leads us to.
And we start showing similar tendencies here in downunder.....
The one thing I disagree is your A death rate of 84 per year for myself would be acceptable! I think no death is acceptable in my point of view, if we can somehow prevent it.
Cheerio

 

Well, since many studies show that while gun violence is higher in the US versus other countries most other countries also have a higher over all violent crime rate then the US. So maybe they are.

http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/tag/international-comparisons/

http://www.odessahistory.com/gunhist.htm (next to last paragraph)

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent (better one on guns deterring criminals and is from a US Gov agency so has some creditability.)

I've been in this discussion more then once and generally it comes down to this for people. Will you accept more gun problems or more violence over all. I have historically chosen gun.

 

What a load of rubbish!

 

Why, because you say so.

 

And that is exactly the reason behind the deceit and lies regarding gun control; the Government was scared and terrified that the citizens had the capability to use guns effectively & appropriately against a government that could deployed a military force against them. Disarm the general public, and you have effectively turned them into submissive slaves.

We cannot forget that the politicians campaign regarding gun control was based on deceit and lies. Shouldn't the next question the people be asking is: "why was it based on deceit & lies"?

 

No, the gun control was about limiting access to equipment which could kill many people in a short period of time..... something modern guns do very effectively. There is no reason for them to exist in society, but I do think range and tactical shooting are valid sports/hobbies if kept in, and limited to, secured ranges.

Sorry, your conspiracy theory about government control does not make sense, but I invite you to try and explain why you think your view might be something other then pure fiction. The argument about the citizens having guns being seen by government as a threat is ludicrous.

I'll put it to you there are two types of this; 1. Revolutions, these don't happen that way at all, they actually require the police and military to in a large part switch sides and abandon the government so citizens having guns is irrelevant, 2. Rebellion's, these are without military or police support and closer to what your suggesting, but these days need high explosives and stolen heavy military equipment, else the citizens with assault rifles stand zero chance, and therefore are zero threat to the government.

 

If my theory regarding gun control is so "ludicrous" and a "conspiracy theory". Then "WHY" did the politicians need to fabricate deception and lies that distorted all ABS date to introduce their gun control legislation?

Why didn't they just tell the people the truth about how many people died as a result of gun homicides verses gun suicides, before passing the legislation? Why did they need to lie and deceive the people into believing the data they released, suggested that all deaths by guns were homicide victims?

If you want to discuss gun control, that is fine, we can do that in a rational and logical debate. But to suggest that Howard's gun control legislation was implemented, based on accurate information and the truth, is a complete nonsense.

Logic and commonsense stands to reason that YOU only lie and be deceitful to someone, when you have hidden motives or a hidden agenda, and that is exactly what Howard did by not telling the people the truth and the correct information about gun related deaths.

This is not me crating the theory out of thin air, Howard did that himself by his own actions. Come on mate, where is your intelligence - you can dress a cat up to look like a duck, but you always know it's a cat.

 

To say that having a gun in the house increases your risk of death is ludicrous. It is an example of the creative interpretation of statistics by the anti gun lobby which are then presented in a missleading and deceitful way.
Why do you think the anti gun nuts never address the actual statistics? BB cherry picked a graph from the AIC site but then when I pointed out the AIC stats and graphs don't actualy support the gun laws there is no response. Just like the way the ABS statistics that I linked to that show homicide rates steadily falling since 1969 and unaffected by the gun laws has been ignored.

 

I have a laugh to myself on these forums and about some posters, because 99%of the time, these are the same people that want us to believe "their" statistics and data relating to climate change, but they refuse to accept, and ignore the same data and statistics we produce relating to the myth surrounding Howard's introduction of gun control.

Either the same source is credible relating to ALL data and statistics; or its NOT.

 

Usual response to validated research

 

But you have not produced any statistics - and those that have been produced have been misinterpreted

- - - Updated - - -

Prove there was fabrication

 

Three types of lies:

Lies
Damned lies
and statistics