In short the answer is no. Liberals say that less guns out in the people's hands the safer everyone will be, but the truth is the only people that will be safer are the criminals. There is a reason most mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, the perpetrator wants to do the most amount of damage possible and what better way to do that then go where you are sure there will be no good guys or gals with firearms that could defend themselves and everyone else. I am proud to say that I am a registered trained CCW permit holder and I exercise my right to carry and defend my family legally. I urge everyone out there to do some research into this topic. I could keep typing but what is the point you won't believe me, you don't know me. And before you snap judgment on firearms go out and shoot them, please try them out. I did this with one of my co-workers and guess what her and her husband went that same day and bought their first guns. These are people that were completely against guns they didn't even like pellet guns that's how bad they were, but two hours on the range with a variety of firearms they went and bought a Kimber 1911 and S&W AR-15.
Gun regulations and buy-back programs significantly reduced gun-related homicides and suicides in Australia.
Ralph has always had a very weak understanding of the concept that freedom may be abused by some people, but that doesn't mean that freedom is not worth protecting and fighting for.
Yes they did. Gun laws reduced gun related homicides in Australia.
And at the same time increased homicides using other tools, so your point is?
"And at the same time increased homicides using other tools, so your point is?"
Are you sure about that? Not according to this chart showing homicides in Australia:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opini … n-too.html
"In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996."
1) While you may view a decrease in homicide rate 8 years after the action (gun buyback) as indicative that the buyback caused the decrease I don't. And don't believe that anyone without an axe to grind will view it that way, either.
The quote, in an editorial from a man very obviously patting himself on the back for political "points" claims that gun related homicides fell; a no brainer that I've never contested. He also claims that suicides in general fell, without offering any evidence whatsoever. Again, should you choose to believe a politician "on the stump" it is your prerogative but something I decline to do without supporting evidence.
Same thing for gun massacres; a very careful statement that homicides in that category decreased with no mention of the wider, more important, category. Care to guess why the statement was so carefully limited?
Are you beginning to understand where I'm coming from, Ralph? Every single piece of data you've presented is for gun related homicides and completely ignores the proven fact that homicide rates don't fall with gun ownership. You keep producing the same tired old stats, and getting the same tired old replies from me, but isn't it about time you actually looked at those stats? You're a smart man - put it to use, drop the preconceived common sense notion and look at it with an open mind questing for answers.
You are asking the impossible.
The best use of Ralph is as a straight man so that we can show the fence-sitters the willingness of the anti-firearm side to knowingly using non-factual material, to eagerly presenting emotions as discussion-points instead of reason and logic, and to be bankrupt in any ideas that can help solve the problem.
A number of hubbers and readers have mentioned to me that reading Ralph helped change then from anti-gun to pro-gun. All in all, he is actually a "plus" for our side.
Lol, I still can't believe that someone can be perfectly willing to use Source A as a source for an argument, until they find out it actually says the opposite of what they thought, then all of a sudden it's not a valuable source.
Even harder when all of your arguments are on the internet, can't be changed, and anyone can see your hypocrisy. That's just typical of the emotionally-driven though.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. The problem is that this, particularly after Newtown, is a very emotional issue. It hurts to see something like that happen.
It is also a very "common sense" problem in that the answer to the solution is obvious. It takes time, effort and a very objective mind set to understand and accept that guns aren't the problem, and few are willing to provide any of the three, let alone all of them.
I'm a moderate -leaning towards gun control- on this but I have to say that both sides look like bloody morons.
Just an observation from a fence sitter.
"Every single piece of data you've presented is for gun related homicides and completely ignores the proven fact that homicide rates don't fall with gun ownership. "
Not true. The data I presented were ALL HOMICIDES. Contrary to your previous comment, total homicides decreased following the passage of gun control laws in Australia:
Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.
Murder is the predominant charge and has been throughout the 18-year data-collection period. In 2006-07, there were 230 murder charges, 28 manslaughter charges, one infanticide charge, and one unknown. The type of charge against an offender may change once the incident proceeds through the judicial process.
In 2006-07, there were 260 homicide instances, involving 266 victims and 296 offenders.
Note: The majority of homicide data presented below is derived from two main sources with different data collection cycles. The charts and tables derived from the Institute's National Homicide Monitoring Program data set is collected on a financial year cycle. The other charts and tables are based on ABS data which is collected on a calendar year cycle.
Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
Homicide victims from 1993 to 2007 (number per year)
The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.
The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded.
Homicide incidents in Australia, 1989-90 to 2006-07 (number)
Chart: Trends in homicide incidents
The figure shows that although there have been fluctuations from year to year, the number of homicide incidents has shown a steady decline since the inception of the NHMP in 1989. 2006-07 saw the second-lowest number of homicide incidents in the collection period.
Source: AIC National Homicide Monitoring Program 1989-90 to 2006-07 [computer file]
Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
Source: Adapted from ABS causes of death 1915-2003 data
The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968.
Did you even read my post? Sure, look at homicide rates from '93 to '07 and you will find a decrease. Look at the rate from '93 to '03 (including the big gun buyback in '96) and there is no decrease; they actually increased slightly until '93. Guns are gone, there is no discernible change in homicide rate but a gun buyback caused a decrease in that rate?
When you declare that a buyback program that happened in '97 and took 600,000 guns out of circulation in that one year but had no effect for another 7 years whereupon it caused a big decrease, I have to question that line of reasoning.
"The percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continued a declining trend which began in 1969. In 2003, fewer than 16% of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44% in 1968." (bolding and italics added)
Your point in this? I believe it's exactly what I'm complaining about with your stats. Or are you explaining that gun related homicides began declining long before the big buyback and the rate of decline was unaffected by that buyback?
I'll stick with Prime Minister Jon Howard's statement:
"And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996."
Moreover, the Australian government statistics I cited show that all homicides in Australia declined following the gun control laws adopted in 1996. This refutes your unsupported theory that if guns are banned homicides will continue unabated using knives, baseball bats, poison, etc.
Lol Ralph, you didn't read what he said.
He said X.
You said 'Nu-uh, X'.
' "And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996." '
I don't think any more need be said on that account.
Moreover, the very stats you provided clearly show that for 7 years after the gun buyback the total homicide rate remained very constant. Coupled with the statement from the prime minister that "gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996" I can only conclude that non gun-related murders increased sharply. When the total does not change but a subset does it indicates (to me anyway) that a different subset had to change in the opposite direction to maintain the total. Your arithmetic may be a little different, but that's how I see it.
You have a good day, Ralph. When you not only refuse to read what I post but also refuse to read what you yourself post I don't see any reason to continue the debate. Another day, another subject perhaps.
Did you actually look at your graph?
Yes? Is it your claim then that a steady decline beginning in '79 is the result of a gun buyback in '97?
The Chart's label didn't appear. The graph represents gun homicides as a percentage of total homicides. It does appear to show a decline in homicides due to guns following the adoption of gun control laws. It's true that gun homicides had begun to decline previous to the gun controls and buy back program. Here's the title that I thought would appear on the chart. Contrary to some 2nd amendment supporter claims, homicides didn't increase with more stringent gun controls and a reduction in the number of guns in the country.
Homicides involving firearms as a percentage of total homicides, 1915-2003
Here's Politifact's take on the effect of gun control in Australia:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-co … australia/
The e-mail says that "[i]t has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms." Actually, it’s been 13 years since Australian gun law was originally changed. In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declined from 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.
Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Homicides in Australia
Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.
Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.
So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. But the only argument we’ve seen arguing that it caused an increase in murder comes from our anonymous e-mail author.
The claims about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a "small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics" signifying little.
Deeds comment: I accept that correlations don't prove cause and effect relationships, because most effects have multiple causes. [For example some blame the president when gasoline prices go up when the truth is oil and gas prices in the short run especially are determined by factors beyond his control.]
Ah, that makes more sense.
As far as I know, Australia (is that the graph?) had no really strong gun laws prior to '96, where the chart ends. Some, but not terrible restrictive.
If, however, gun ownership decreased during the period, it clearly shows that the percentage of homicides using guns decreased at the same time. As the homicide rate did not decrease (or at least not at the same rate of decrease), it thus shows that when guns aren't available something else will be used, which is just what I've been saying.
Of course, that's simply combining this graph with the earlier one, that started at 1993. From that point on, this graph shows a first derivative of something around -1 while the previous graph showed about a 0. Which is what tells us that no guns = other weapons.
See my amplified comment acknowledging that cause and effect relationships are hard to
1) I at least have never claimed the homicide rate goes up without guns; on the contrary I have repeatedly said there is NO correlation. Because there is no correlation a causal effect is denied. Not unknown; denied. If there is a causal relationship then there will be a correlation in these graphs; no correlation = no causal relationship. Basic logic 101; A. B. Not B. therefore, not A.
2) Again (third time, I think) looking at numbers 8+ years after an action gives no correlation at all. There is no need to keep pointing at it as I don't accept it.
3) More rhetoric about gun homicides as similarly rejected as irrelevant just as it was before.
This is the current Australian figures. Gun laws did little to slow anything down.
The real problem with guns is suicide and gangs.
I don't believe people are against all guns. Just those that have clips/magazines that have the ability to shoot more then 10 shots. Many like me, would require private sales to involve a background investigation as well.
I am all for the background investigations. But as for the magazine topic I think it is ridiculous. Criminals don't care about the laws so they will keep their large capacity mags and that means that we as law abiding citizens will be even further out gunned.
Yes, because no more guns could possibly be smuggled into the US. And none could possibly be made, especially since we can now print 3D objects at home.
You could print a metal rifle, at home. How do you propose we prevent that from happening?
And when reducing the number of rounds that guns hold to ten doesn't help in the least little bit to reduce crime then the mantra will be: If we reduce the number to only FIVE then THAT will solve the problem. And when that doesn't solve the problem then the hue and cry will be to reduce the number of rounds that a gun holds to one...
And, of course, when THAT doesn't work...
And when requiring background checks for everyone doesn't do a thing to reduce crime then...
There is no, one silver bullet. A variety of measures will have a good result.
And when Ralph is shown to be 100 percent wrong...Those who knew in advance that the first step, the second step, and the tenth step would not work to reduce crime will be the loudest in shouting for the next step.
And Ralph lets freedom dribble away in the vain hopes of actually keeping criminals from being criminals.
I remember a study years ago in Phili. The 2 year study showed people carrying weapons to protect themselves, were more likely to be shot or killed. Maybe it makes sense? If confronted by an armed individual robbing you with no gun, he probably won't shoot you. But confront that robber with a gun of your own and he will immediately shoot out of being shot himself. Your thoughts?
I remember a study that said a woman was much better off just laying back and letting the rapist have his will. Otherwise she ~really~ might get hurt.
@Jack Burton...My example shows many who have guns for protection will hesitate to the point of getting shot or killed just by showing that gun. Your example, as ludicrious as it its, might not end in death. And to go further on your example, as i remember the your study, it also said a "man" was much better off just laying back and letting the rapist have her will. I'm not saying don't fight back if confronted but yours obviously does.
Unfortunately for you, your "example" doesn't match reality. I can show you thousands of actual articles directly from the mainstream media where ordinary citizens saved themselves and others with the judicious use of a gun against a social deviant who was victimizing them. You can't show me bupkis to back up your claim.
Doesn't that give you a clue about something? At some point in time you people have to stop living in the fantasy land in your head and confront reality.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Plain and simple.
If people didn't have guns, perhaps people wouldn't get killed?
Also if I remember correctly Philly is a no carry city. That means even if you do have a CCW in PA you cannot legally carry in that city. Furthermore if you do carry and hesitate at the opportunity to defend yourself, you should not have that weapon. I for one do carry, I have had extensive training both civilian and military, and won't hesitate to pull the trigger.
Sorry for the incorrect data the laws have changed since I last renewed my CCW but the fact still remains a person who carries is safer than one that does not. And thank you for pointing out my error.
Guns protect people a lot better than "No Guns Allowed" signs.
by Jo_Goldsmith114 years ago
Are we growing quiet to what happened 112 days ago? The local media believes we have become lost in the current news. Washington seems to be gearing up for another election cycle and trying to bring into...
by Castlepaloma46 hours ago
I was told by a few gun fans that hammers kill more people than guns. Personally I could not beat a man into a hamburger. Or Hamburger hill would be grossly rewritten. If someone challenge you to death duel, would...
by SpanStar3 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a...
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41874You got that right! We can't let that happen here!
by tobey1006 years ago
Now that the left is beginning to realize the mantra of 'conservative vitriol' isn't working regarding the tragic events in Arizona 60% plus don't believe the template set forth by the media), they've gone to page two;...
by Buster Johnson4 years ago
How do you feel about gun control? Something has got to be done, but what?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.