Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[Giantone]

And here is an example of gun control working.


Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control Laws - ABC News

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I heard the pop, pop, pop, of a gun not a firework. I to have fireworks louder then a gun and heard fireworks on new years louder I just know the sound of a gun.

Yeah. Sitting in the field across the street from my house, we heard one burst of automatic fire and several shots from semiautomatics. Normal for downtown Baltimore. Actually heard fewer shots than in the past.

Still remember the time I celebrated New Year's Eve with a friend a couple blocks away and, while standing in the driveway, two guys across the street stepped out of a doorway and started blasting away into the air. One had a hand gun the other an automatic rifle ... We went back inside quickly.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

And here is an example of gun control working.


Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control Laws - ABC News

No, not really.....

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

But at least criminals aren't getting shot, so that's nice.....

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

No, not really.....

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

But at least criminals aren't getting shot, so that's nice.....

Any stats involving just percents are useless. A percent is always the easiest "number" to manipulate when analysing. Why ad companies use percent all the time.

Example:

Koons Chevy was down 20% in car sales in 2012 compared to Jimmy John's Rust Bucket Lot who was up 10% in sales.

Looks like Jimmy John cleaned house in 2012. Right?

Koons Total Cars Sold 2012: 1200
Jimmy Johns Cars Sold 2012: 11

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Any stats involving just percents are useless. A percent is always the easiest "number" to manipulate when analysing.

Your stat example is misleading as you're comparing two different dealerships, I am using their stats where they take the same crime and compare it in different years.

Do you see the difference?

So the stats I cited stand up to examination, yours clearly wouldn't as you're comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though. I'll give you 2/10 for effort.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Your stat example is misleading as you're comparing two different dealerships, I am using their stats where they take the same crime and compare it in different years.

Do you see the difference?

So the stats I cited stand up to examination, yours clearly wouldn't as you're comparing apples and oranges. Nice try though. I'll give you 2/10 for effort.

You are comparing two countries I am comparing two car dealerships. It is the total number of your subject matter that weighs the most not the percent number.

How do like them apples?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mredskins

You are comparing two countries I am comparing two car dealerships. It is the total number of your subject matter that weighs the most not the percent number.

How do like them apples?

I LOVE them!

Look again: Violent crime ROSE. Do you agree or would you argue that it's not what it means when 'Assault rose 49.2 %'?

As for the percentages, yes, you could argue that one is not comparable except that the statement 'Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.' isn't a percentage.

Wait! Are we the shitty rust bucket or the Cadillac dealer in the analogy?

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I LOVE them!

Look again: Violent crime ROSE. Do you agree or would you argue that it's not what it means when 'Assault rose 49.2 %'?

As for the percentages, yes, you could argue that one is not comparable except that the statement 'Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.' isn't a percentage.

Wait! Are we the shitty rust bucket or the Cadillac dealer in the analogy?

Look I am not arguing whether or not not Australia has a more effective or less effective gun laws. I am just saying a percent is a poor benchmark because it can be manipulated.

Even Australian women are now rapped over times as often as American women. How do quantify that? If only 3 women lived in Australia and all 3 were raped yeah I guess that be true. 100% of the female population was raped in Australia; OMG! How many women was that? Oh 3 compared to the millions that live in the US.

Next you are going to argue only choosy moms choose Jiffy.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Look I am not arguing whether or not not Australia has a more effective or less effective gun laws. I am just saying a percent is a poor benchmark because it can be manipulated.

It's still a measure that, without going into overwhelming number crunching, illustrates that the argument being used by some people is erroneous.

Originally Posted by mredskins

Even Australian women are now rapped over times as often as American women. How do quantify that? If only 3 women lived in Australia and all 3 were raped yeah I guess that be true. 100% of the female population was raped in Australia; OMG! How many women was that? Oh 3 compared to the millions that live in the US.

Clearly that's not a serious argument. The sad fact is that violent crime goes up when criminals know there's a lower risk of fatal consequences.

Originally Posted by mredskins

Next you are going to argue only choosy moms choose Jiffy.

As long as they are making sandwiches..... J/K

[Giantone]

For those who don't read.......


Australia a Model for Successful Gun Control Laws - ABC News



The laws banned assault rifles, tightened gun owner licensing, and created national uniform registration standards. Howard knew they might be unpopular among some of the same voters who helped put him into office -- during one particularly hostile public town hall, he wore a bulletproof vest.
But something extraordinary happened: the laws tapped into public revulsion at the shooting and became extremely popular. And they became extremely effective.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images
Protesters march to the National Rifle... View Full Size


Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images
Protesters march to the National Rifle Association headquarters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 17, 2012.






In the last 16 years, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia has fallen by more than 50 percent. The national rate of gun homicide is one-thirtieth that of the United States. And there hasn't been a single mass shooting since Port Arthur.
"It's not that we are a less violent people and that you are a more violent people," says Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the University of Sydney who runs GunPolicy.org, which tracks gun violence and gun laws across the world. "It's that you have more lethal means at your disposal."
But it wasn't just the new laws that made Australia safer. The gun buyback program collected nearly 650,000 assault weapons and 50,000 additional weapons – about one sixth of the national stock. Fewer guns on the street helped severely reduce the likelihood that guns could be used for a mass shooting.
"Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of gun owners simply, voluntarily gave up guns that they did not need to give up," Alpers told ABC News. "You could not be a gun owner during that period and not feel terribly persecuted, terribly under threat from public opinion. The commentaries were vicious."

[Giantone]

Guns in the United States: Facts, Figures and Firearm Law


A link that keeps numbers.......

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Giantone

A link that keeps numbers.......

A link that contradicts your previous post from Brady Campaign.

Gun Homicides:

2009: 9,146
2008: 9,484
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659
2002: 9,369
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259
1998: 9,257

I don't see 30K there, do you?

Thanks for the link, the numbers are close to those of the FBI and CDC.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

A link that contradicts your previous post from Brady Campaign.

Gun Homicides:

2009: 9,146
2008: 9,484
2007: 10,129
2006: 10,225
2005: 10,158
2004: 9,385
2003: 9,659
2002: 9,369
2001: 8,890
1999: 8,259
1998: 9,257

I don't see 30K there, do you?

Thanks for the link, the numbers are close to those of the FBI and CDC.

Brady numbers are for all gun deaths,not just homicides so no the numbers aren't close,your welcome.

[Giantone]

All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and the CDC's source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

if you dig into their source, it says in 2009, the homicides committed with firearms was 11,493
Quote:
11,493
, very closer to the FBI numbers.
My point is, just because it's official doesn't mean it's correct.

interesting note from the CDC 2009 source: there were 9,000 suicides committed by suffocation that year.

total suicides that year: 36,909
total homicides that year: 16,799

what do suicides and homicides have in common? bueller? bueller?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

All firearm deaths

Number of deaths: 31,347
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.2 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

and the CDC's source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

if you dig into their source, it says in 2009, the homicides committed with firearms was 11,493
Quote:
11,493
, very closer to the FBI numbers.
My point is, just because it's official doesn't mean it's correct.

interesting note from the CDC 2009 source: there were 9,000 suicides committed by suffocation that year.

total suicides that year: 36,909
total homicides that year: 16,799

what do suicides and homicides have in common? bueller? bueller?

So are you saying that around 20,000 people either die by accident or suicide with guns each year? I'd have a hard time buying that.