Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Shooter in Belgium, which has very restriction gun control.

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The Cysko Kid Rising Star

The Cysko Kid

Posted
Posted

Round and round she goes. The sad fact is that most massacres and atrocities are committed with perfectly legal firearms by legal owners. Random gang related crime is often with stolen weapons but let's be honest. Who are we more worried about? The children of Newtown or the victims in the south side of Chicago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kosar_For_President Newbie

Kosar_For_President

Posted
Posted

Round and round she goes. The sad fact is that most massacres and atrocities are committed with perfectly legal firearms by legal owners. Random gang related crime is often with stolen weapons but let's be honest. Who are we more worried about? The children of Newtown or the victims in the south side of Chicago?

 

Exactly. Do you know what else they had in common?

 

http://worldtruth.tv/nearly-every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-one-thing-in-common-and-it-isnt-weapons/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

 

Dude you're such a douche bag.

 

That was clearly the point of picking those three people for that picture and adding that caption. Showing a normal looking dude would do no good.

 

 

Mental health definitely is an issue though, and is a piece of these shootings. Just pointing at this though while giving out more guns and looser rules won't help though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kosar_For_President Newbie

Kosar_For_President

Posted
Posted

That was clearly the point of picking those three people for that picture and adding that caption. Showing a normal looking dude would do no good.

 

 

Mental health definitely is an issue though, and is a piece of these shootings. Just pointing at this though while giving out more guns and looser rules won't help though.

 

No one is "giving" these people guns, they are buying them (responsible owners and criminals). It is a trillion dollar a year industry and a right and is NEVER going to go away. FACT, in 2012 more people were shot in Chicago, than were killed in action in Afghanistan, while having the tightest restrictions on guns in the US. The correlation is so evident, can't believe a MI educated dude doesn't get it. And YES tighter rules leads to MORE crime.

 

They are not going away. Criminals are going to get guns.

 

Trust me dude, no matter how educated you are, you will eventually grow up and learn that your altruistic utopia of gun control goes by the wayside when presented with the FACT that murder rates go up when gun control does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

Again, that really doesn't help your argument at all. If anything it hurts it. But w/e

 

Let's look at what you posted.

 

 

First of all, I am not talking about "banning guns", that is unrealistic. You're right, that very large industry is not going anywhere. There is too much money and too much control. The NRA doesn't really give a shit about anyone really, except these gun manufacturers. More money for them. Whatever, that occurs in way too many aspects of our govt. and public policy and is another issue all together.

 

The picture in the link you posted, clearly they found the 3 craziest pictures they could to try to prove the point these shooting had nothing to do with the guns, just the crazy people. That definitely played a huge factor and increased mental health and awareness in this country would be great. I don't believe that is the only issue here though

 

Correlation and causation are too different things. Rates and trends show more here than absolute numbers for one city in one year. There really isn't any scientific consensus here that more guns means less crime. I believe Australia went on a pretty big gun reform kick and their crime rates and gun violence dropped. I believe Missouri also loosened gun laws and saw more crime. There are examples you can find for both sides. There are many factors in play in each situation though. So just pointing at Chicago or wherever else is listed on GunPatriotAmerica.com doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

 

It just seems counter productive to say "Here are more guns to protect yourself from all of the guns".

 

Also, I am not sure why there is so much hate toward the smart gun idea. There are some gun shop owners that have tried to sell these, also to receive death threats from "real americans" for doing so, causing them to change their mind.

 

 

But fuck it, I'm younger than you so what do I know.... then again, if I found someone older than you that agreed with me, that would mean THEY were right. Hmmmm

 

 

 

Time for the Memorial Day party! Burgers are brats are fantastic

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

I googled around just now about that Harvard "study". Apparently it wasn't even peer reviewed, just posted in some school journal. (Side note: Law papers are awful to read. I much prefer engineering and technical reports. Much more clear.)

 

Also, the authors of that study made a mistake. That pointed to the homicide rate of Luxembourg and used that as a key example. They said it was 9 for every 100,000 people. In fact, the number was supposed to be 0.9 (I looked on wiki right now and it was listed as 0.8). So they either made a bad report and had bad data, or they purposefully lied. Either way it doesn't seem this was peer reviewed by any outside source.

 

If you are going to claim things like correlation or lack there of using scientific methods, a key element of that is peer review. One of the reasons scientists are so in agreement on climate change is because of the numerous peer reviewed articles all reaching the same conclusion.

 

Also, I'm not sure how you can compare Russia to the USA or England or something. Russia is pretty out there. There are many many factors that distinguish Russia and the USA apart from the gun laws.

 

 

Here is info from Harvard's School of Public Health, info that is actually taken from peer reviewed articles.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

They seem to come to the conclusion that more guns = more deaths.

 

Here is another link

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/

 

It looks like it was a joint effort study between the Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health

 

 

I also found papers from Northwestern and U of Chicago that say the opposite of that Harvard "study". It also seems the more looking around I do the more that "study" is exposed for having some major flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- As former Australian politician Tim Fischer turns the shooting of Christopher Lane into an opportunity to push a travel boycott until the U.S. changes its gun laws, police in Sydney launched “a new plan to tackle out-of-control gun violence” there.

The new action against gun violence was launched on August 21 and will pull together various police-sponsored gun control operations into one. The name of the new effort is Operation Talon.

According to the Ballina Shire Advocate, “over 9,000 guns have been taken off New South Wales (NSW) streets and 3352 people have charged” during previous operations in the last 12 months alone.

NSW police commissioner Andrew Scipione explained:

“There is no single source of gun violence… guns have fallen into the hands of organized crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs, mid-level crime groups and petty thieves and the lines are often blurred.”

Not ironically, Australia implemented a massive purge of guns in 1996, which included bans on “assault weapons” and other semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. They also did forced buybacks and then entered into a strict licensing and registration agreement where certain single-shot rifles and similar firearms could be owned but only if the owner provided justification for the possession of such a weapon.

Yet 17 years after the implementation of gun control schemes that are very similar in many ways to those being pushed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the NSW police department is launching a new operation to rein in gun violence.

The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will.


Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/gun-crime-out-of-control-despite-strict-australia-laws/#ixzz32tMyEZYE
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Wrong, as usual, kid woody:

**************************************************

Measuring the effects of firearms laws in Australia Changes in social problems related to firearms over time

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.
The number of guns stolen has fallen from an average 4,195 per year from 1994 to 2000 to 1,526 in 2006–2007. Long guns are more often stolen opportunistically in home burglaries, but few homes have handguns and a substantial proportion of stolen handguns are taken from security firms and other businesses; only a tiny proportion, 0.06% of licensed firearms, are stolen in a given year. Only a small proportion of those firearms are recovered. Approximately 3% of these stolen weapons are later connected to an actual crime or found in the possession of a person charged with a serious offence.[28]
Contention over effects of the laws[edit]
Research[edit]
In 1997, the Prime Minister appointed the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor the effects of the gun buyback. The AIC have published a number of papers reporting trends and statistics around gun ownership and gun crime, which they have found to be mostly related to illegally-held firearms.[29][30]
Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[31] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[32] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[33]
In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[34] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence. Professor Simon Chapman, former co-convenor of the Coalition for Gun Control, complained that his words "will henceforth be cited by every gun-lusting lobby group throughout the world in their perverse efforts to stall reforms that could save thousands of lives".[35] Weatherburn responded, "The fact is that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility. It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."[36]
In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the Sporting Shooters' Association of Australia(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[37]
Weatherburn described the Baker & McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted" and stated that the available data are insufficient to draw stronger conclusions.[38] Weatherburn noted the importance of actively policing illegal firearm trafficking and argued that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped in this regard.[39]
A study co-authored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[40]
Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australian and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996/1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."[41]
In 2009 a paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University concluded:
The implemented restrictions may not be responsible for the observed reductions in firearms suicide. Data suggest that a change in social and cultural attitudes could have contributed to the shift in method preference.[42]
A 2010 study on the effects of the firearm buybacks by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne studied the data and concluded, "Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates."[43]
A 2010 study claimed, on the basis of modelled statistical estimates, that the gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74%.The study,[44] by Christine Neill and Andrew Leigh, found no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state. The estimated effect on firearm homicides was of similar magnitude but less precise.
Most recently, McPhedran and Baker found that there was little evidence for any impacts of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms method restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide.[45]
A recent report by the Australian Crime Commission said a conservative estimate was that there were 250,000 longarms and 10,000 handguns in the nation's illicit firearms market. The number of guns imported to Australia legally has also risen, including a 24 per cent increase during the past six years in the number of registered handguns in NSW, some of them diverted to the black market via theft or corrupt dealers and owners.[46]
Statements by organisations[edit]
The American National Rifle Association claimed in 2000 that violent crimes had increased in Australia since the introduction of new laws. The federal Attorney General Daryl Williams accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics and urged the NRA to "remove any reference to Australia" from its website.[47]
CLASS (The Coalition of Law Abiding Sporting Shooters) in 2003 stated that no benefit-cost analysis of the buyback had been carried out and that scientific debate was politicised and ignored benefits of shooting and costs forced on legitimate owners.[48]
The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia states that there is no evidence that gun control restrictions in 1987, 1996 and 2002 had any impact on the already established trends.[49][50]
Responding to Neill and Leigh, The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia replied [51] that suicide by firearm has been decreasing steadily since the mid-1980s, but suicide by other methods such as hanging has not followed the same trend; that important assumptions of the work were not mentioned in media reports; that 93% of people replaced their seized firearms with at least one, if not more, to replace their loss; and recommended the work of Lee and Suardi, who reviewed almost 90 years of ABS data when making their conclusions, while Leigh and Neill chose to analyse only two five-year periods on either side of the 1996 buy-back.
Major players in gun politics in Australia[edit]
State governments and state police[edit]
Firearms laws are the responsibility of state governments, and usually these Governments act on the recommendations of their Police services in firearms matters. Before 1996, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia all had different laws, in QUntil 1996, the federal government had little role in firearms law. Following the Port Arthur massacre, the Howard Government (1996–2007), with strong media and public support, introduced uniform gun laws with the cooperation of all the states, brought about through threats to Commonwealth funding arrangements. The then Prime Minister John Howard frequently referred to the USA to explain his opposition to civilian firearms ownership and use in Australia, stating that he did not want Australia to go "down the American path".[52][53][54] In one interview on Sydney radio station 2GB he said, "We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns... ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."[55] John Howard had earlier expressed a desire to introduce restrictive gun laws when he was Opposition Leader during a 1995 interview with Australian political journalist Laurie Oakes.[56] In his autobiography Lazarus Rising: A Personal and Political Autobiography, Howard expressed his support for the anti-gun cause and his desire to introduce restrictive gun laws long before he became Prime Minister. In a television interview shortly before the 10th anniversary of the Port Arthur massacre, he reaffirmed his stance: "I did not want Australia to go down the American path. There are some things about America I admire and there are some things I don't. And one of the things I don't admire about America is their... slavish love of guns. They're evil". During the same television interview, Howard also stated that he saw the outpouring of grief in the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre as "an opportunity to grab the moment and think about a fundamental change to gun laws in this country".[57]
The prime minister had strong public support in the immediate aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, especially from those peueensland, New South Wales, and Tasmania long guns were not registered; owners of firearms were required to be licenced from 1988, and licences were only introduced for long guns in Tasmania in 1991. Western Australia and the Northern Territory had tight restrictions, especially on centrefire semi-automatic firearms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8975/australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-gun-crimes-not-lower/

Since Australia banned semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and pump action shotguns the gun crime rates have skyrocketed throughout the country.

  • Murders committed with guns increased by 19%.
  • Home invasions increased by 21%.
  • Assaults committed with guns increased by 28%.
  • Armed robberies skyrocketed with an increase of 69%.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/8975/australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-gun-crimes-not-lower/#jEambze4LyuKgmQr.99Many former gun owners blame the government and their gun control laws for the increases in crimes. They feel helpless in their own homes, unable to protect themselves. In fact, home invasions were so rare prior to the gun ban that the nation did not even have a legal definition for what a home invasion was.

Seeing the direct results of what the ban on guns did in Australia, they are now warning us not to follow in their footsteps.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/8975/australian-gun-ban-resulted-in-higher-gun-crimes-not-lower/#jEambze4LyuKgmQr.99

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

A lot of those graphs just seem to show a lagged response.

 

Since you're using sources like "Ammolamd" though I'm probably gonna go back and check you're numbers. Clearly someone on the pro gun side already did the work to discredit the Australia numbers.

 

Like we just saw with that Harvard "study", it always helps to double check. I wonder what I'll find.

 

There's also all of the actual peer reviewed research by the Harvard school of public health that I posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

"They Seem" or "If I can remember" seem to be the basis of Woody's findings, got ya.

 

 

Did you not see my post on the previous page? The Harvard "study" you posted has errors in its data and wasn't even peer reviewed. It is not a study at all. I then went on to post the site of their School of Public Health that actually included peer reviewed studies that came to the conclusion opposite of yours.

 

Or are you just going to ignore all of that and add some bullshit about how I'm younger than you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...