Australian Gun Control

[falcata]

Unfortunately the 3rd part of this series has not yet been posted on Youtube as of yet.

I understand that many people on this site believe that gun control measures don't work. Some people say specifically in America this won't work, and some say that it doesn't work at all. Though after watching this I do honestly believe gun control does and will work. I do have an understanding that Australia and the United States are 2 different countries, though I believe the extent to which it worked in Australia proves at least somewhat that it very well would have affect in America.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Unfortunately the 3rd part of this series has not yet been posted on Youtube as of yet.

I understand that many people on this site believe that gun control measures don't work. Some people say specifically in America this won't work, and some say that it doesn't work at all. Though after watching this I do honestly believe gun control does and will work. I do have an understanding that Australia and the United States are 2 different countries, though I believe the extent to which it worked in Australia proves at least somewhat that it very well would have affect in America.

Because this Daily Show segment ignored the fact that after the gun confiscations violent crime went UP, sure gun crime went down when they went door to door and took them all but the criminals didn't engage in less crimes, they just didn't have guns.

No victim to these confiscations? How about the real Crocodile Dundee who was killed during his confiscation raid?

Would you be fine being murdered or raped, so long as it wasn't with a gun? I thought so.

 

[Paschendale]

Because this Daily Show segment ignored the fact that after the gun confiscations violent crime went UP, sure gun crime went down when they went door to door and took them all but the criminals didn't engage in less crimes, they just didn't have guns.

No victim to these confiscations? How about the real Crocodile Dundee who was killed during his confiscation raid?

Would you be fine being murdered or raped, so long as it wasn't with a gun? I thought so.

1. Correlation, not causation.
2. Australian violent crime did increase during the late 90s and early 00s, but has been going down again since around 2008. Murders have been consistently down since the gun ban. Non-fatal assaults went up while fatal assaults went down, which is reasonable, since people are still violent, but now they're not killing each other.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

1. Correlation, not causation.
2. Australian violent crime did increase during the late 90s and early 00s, but has been going down again since around 2008. Murders have been consistently down since the gun ban. Non-fatal assaults went up while fatal assaults went down, which is reasonable, since people are still violent, but now they're not killing each other.

I never implied correlation = causation, I made no reference to correlation. Their violent crime rate was on the rise anyways, the gun ban didn't matter, nor did the tool used matter to the murdered.

As for the non-fatal assaults going up despite fatals going down, I would never despite that guns make killing easier.

 

[Paschendale]

I never implied correlation = causation, I made no reference to correlation. Their violent crime rate was on the rise anyways, the gun ban didn't matter, nor did the tool used matter to the murdered.

As for the non-fatal assaults going up despite fatals going down, I would never despite that guns make killing easier.

So getting rid of guns didn't change human nature, but it did result in fewer people getting killed. So where's the downside?

 

[Un biased]

Look at the U.K. Knife bans where does it all end .


Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504

Instead of gun crime, the UK worries about knife crime. And has been practicing knife control.

The UK outlawed the switchblade and gravity knife in 1959.

In 1988 possession of a pocket knife with a blade larger than 3 inches in public became illegal.

In 1996, it became illegal to sell a razor blade to anyone under the age of 16.

In 2007, you needed a license to be able to sell “non-domestic knives.”



team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

“We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.”

 

[Spartacus FPV]

So getting rid of guns didn't change human nature, but it did result in fewer people getting killed. So where's the downside?

In our case it would be the removal of our 2nd Amendment rights and the capacity to defense ourselves against such slightly less harmful criminals.

Freedom is far more important than safety.

 

[blaxshep]

I understand that many people on this site believe that gun control measures don't work. Some people say specifically in America this won't work, and some say that it doesn't work at all. Though after watching this I do honestly believe gun control does and will work. I do have an understanding that Australia and the United States are 2 different countries, though I believe the extent to which it worked in Australia proves at least somewhat that it very well would have affect in America.

To be honest I really don't care if gun control works or not, I want nothing to do with it. We the people of America went to war to escape the mentality of the UK and Australia. It is about rights and freedom not crime and safety.

 

[Paschendale]

In our case it would be the removal of our 2nd Amendment rights and the capacity to defense ourselves against such slightly less harmful criminals.

Freedom is far more important than safety.

Were it not for that codification in the second amendment, would it be as necessary a right? Clearly the capacity for lethal self defense didn't save Australian lives. And "slightly less harmful"... You think that survivable injuries are "slightly less harmful" than dying? That's likely just hyperbole on your part, but feel free to affirm that if you truly believe it.

And that's a great talking point, but it's obviously not true. If it were, no violence would be outlawed. So some sacrifice of freedom for safety is necessary and agreeable. It's just a matter of how much.

To be honest I really don't care if gun control works or not, I want nothing to do with it. We the people of America went to war to escape the mentality of the UK and Australia. It is about rights and freedom not crime and safety.

Indeed. The right of people not to live in fear and freedom from violence.

 

[blaxshep]

Indeed. The right of people not to live in fear and freedom from violence.

Who lives in fear other than those who want to ban guns?

 

[Paschendale]

Who lives in fear other than those who want to ban guns?

Man Brings Rifle Into Grocery Store In Gun Rights Demonstration | WAMU 88.5 - American University Radio

Everyone else who was in that grocery store who didn't want to take it on faith that the strange man who was approaching them, armed for no apparent reason, didn't want to murder them or their family members. And anyone else who finds themselves in public with people who feel the need to carry deadly weapons around.

 

[blaxshep]

Man Brings Rifle Into Grocery Store In Gun Rights Demonstration | WAMU 88.5 - American University Radio

Everyone else who was in that grocery store who didn't want to take it on faith that the strange man who was approaching them, armed for no apparent reason, didn't want to murder them or their family members. And anyone else who finds themselves in public with people who feel the need to carry deadly weapons around.

Right that is fear. Meanwhile CCW people are everywhere ..... BOO!

 

[Cable]

Man Brings Rifle Into Grocery Store In Gun Rights Demonstration | WAMU 88.5 - American University Radio

Everyone else who was in that grocery store who didn't want to take it on faith that the strange man who was approaching them, armed for no apparent reason, didn't want to murder them or their family members. And anyone else who finds themselves in public with people who feel the need to carry deadly weapons around.

People fear what they don't understand. When I first moved to Arizona I did get a bit nervous when I saw a firearm on some man or woman's hip. Coming from Cali I just wasn't prepared for that. After 8 years there I was carrying a sidearm and actually felt a sense of comfort when I saw others carrying. Because I knew that for the most part they were pretty well trained and competent shooters and their concern was the safety of their family and other citizens.
I came to realize it was the criminals who had to live in fear in that environment. Now that I am back in Kaliforkus I dearly miss Arizona and it's wise ways.

 

[Goshin]

America =/= Australia.


310 million people, over 300 million guns, most of them never registered.

That's just the most obvious of many differences.

 

[Boo Radley]

To be honest I really don't care if gun control works or not, I want nothing to do with it. We the people of America went to war to escape the mentality of the UK and Australia. It is about rights and freedom not crime and safety.

While at some level I agree with you, this type of tone strikes me as unreasonable and I find myself not wanting to agree. We can acknowledge the risk and still believe the risk is acceptable in light of the freedom it represents.

 

[TurtleDude]

So getting rid of guns didn't change human nature, but it did result in fewer people getting killed. So where's the downside?

well I know its not a downside to you but to many of us its called infringing on constitutional rights and the diminishment of freedom.

Its amazing how the left will support any measures that they think will make them safer as LONG as those measures also screw over mainly conservatives. Yet, stuff that has an even better chance of reducing crime-like getting tough on criminals and not throwing out the convictions of the obviously guilty on technicalities- the same liberals tend not to support because after all, punishing criminals does not advance the greater good as much as harassing the NRA

 

[Boo Radley]

America =/= Australia.


310 million people, over 300 million guns, most of them never registered.

That's just the most obvious of many differences.

True, there are differences, but that many guns does cause pause. Our culture may not be healthy. Just saying . . .

 

[TurtleDude]

Were it not for that codification in the second amendment, would it be as necessary a right? Clearly the capacity for lethal self defense didn't save Australian lives. And "slightly less harmful"... You think that survivable injuries are "slightly less harmful" than dying? That's likely just hyperbole on your part, but feel free to affirm that if you truly believe it.

And that's a great talking point, but it's obviously not true. If it were, no violence would be outlawed. So some sacrifice of freedom for safety is necessary and agreeable. It's just a matter of how much.



Indeed. The right of people not to live in fear and freedom from violence.

that sort of attitude would justify jailing young black men? YOu don't have a right to infringe on my rights merely because I might do something in the FUTURE that might harm you.

 

[Somerville]

Look at the U.K. Knife bans where does it all end .


Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504

Instead of gun crime, the UK worries about knife crime. And has been practicing knife control.

The UK outlawed the switchblade and gravity knife in 1959.

In 1988 possession of a pocket knife with a blade larger than 3 inches in public became illegal.

In 1996, it became illegal to sell a razor blade to anyone under the age of 16.

In 2007, you needed a license to be able to sell “non-domestic knives.”



team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.

“We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect.”

Before posting about England's "violent crime" rate, you really should read the definition used by English law enforcement.

also - there is the ever so relevant fact that the numbers quoted come from a press release put out by the Conservative Party during the election campaign of 2009, the numbers for all nations other than the UK have no known source.

Most recent release of crime stats

Crime Statistics, Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2011/12

Violent and sexual crime covers a range of offence types. For example, violence spans minor assaults, such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious assault and murder. Sexual assault covers offences from indecent exposure to rape. In half of incidents identified by the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) (50%) and offences recorded by the police (56%), the violence resulted in no physical injury to the victim.

The 2011/12 CSEW shows that there were 2.1 million violent incidents in England and Wales with 3% of adults victimised. The number of violent incidents has halved from its peak in 1995 when the survey estimated over 4.2 million violent incidents.

Focusing on the most serious violence, the number of homicides currently recorded by the police has increased from 1961 to 2002/03, and shown a generally downward trend since. The number currently recorded for 2011/12 (540) is the lowest since 1989 (521).

Offences involving the use of firearms peaked later than overall violent crime with 24,094 offences being recorded by the police in 2003/04. Since then the number of such offences has fallen by 60% to 9,555 recorded offences in 2011/12. The current 16% fall between 2010/11 and 2011/12 is the eighth consecutive annual decrease in firearm offences.

In addition to murder and manslaughter, violent crime as measured by the British Crime Survey includes: assault with minor injury; assault with no injury; wounding; and robbery.

The FBI's definition of violent crime covers, murder and manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Just subtracting the "assault with no injury" class makes a huge difference in the stats. All in all, just another attempt by some folks to say other developed nations are more dangerous because they don't allow citizens to own as many firearms as the US allows.

 

[TurtleDude]

Before posting about England's "violent crime" rate, you really should read the definition used by English law enforcement.

also - there is the ever so relevant fact that the numbers quoted come from a press release put out by the Conservative Party during the election campaign of 2009, the numbers for all nations other than the UK have no known source.

Most recent release of crime stats


In addition to murder and manslaughter, violent crime as measured by the British Crime Survey includes: assault with minor injury; assault with no injury; wounding; and robbery.

The FBI's definition of violent crime covers, murder and manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Just subtracting the "assault with no injury" class makes a huge difference in the stats. All in all, just another attempt by some folks to say other developed nations are more dangerous because they don't allow citizens to own as many firearms as the US allows.

who cares, the country proved it had become a reactionary nanny state when it decided to punish all the lawful pistol owners because one nut case went bonkers in Scotland


such idiocy proved that the country was going down the collectivist toilet

same with Australia

 

[falcata]

who cares, the country proved it had become a reactionary nanny state when it decided to punish all the lawful pistol owners because one nut case went bonkers in Scotland


such idiocy proved that the country was going down the collectivist toilet

same with Australia

I don't think that passing legislation after decades of gun crime is really reactionary, that instance was just a trigger for public opinion and notice rather than the actual problem.

It's funny though because these people seem to function just fine without firearms. In fact it seems that most are relieved and/or pleased their society is indeed safer without these firearms.

I'd like to ask you a questions though. Do you believe our 2nd amendment rights are more important, less important, or equally important as our 1st amendment rights?

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't think that passing legislation after decades of gun crime is really reactionary, that instance was just a trigger for public opinion and notice rather than the actual problem.

It's funny though because these people seem to function just fine without firearms. In fact it seems that most are relieved and/or pleased their society is indeed safer without these firearms.

I'd like to ask you a questions though. Do you believe our 2nd amendment rights are more important, less important, or equally important as our 1st amendment rights?

Uh so it was not a reaction to one massacre

come off it

the people safer without honest people owning firearms are generally those needing to be shot

 

[falcata]

Uh so it was not a reaction to one massacre

come off it

the people safer without honest people owning firearms are generally those needing to be shot

The legislation passed because of the momentum that came with that horrific massacre. However gun crime had always been a problem and this was a solution. So effectively, no, it was not a reaction to just one massacre, it was a wake up call to the reality of gun crime in the UK.

And what about criminals? You act like we are only outlawing law-abiding gun owners. Of course you'll use the now classic line that criminals don't follow the law anyways. That however is such an incredibly stupid statement. First off do think it'll be easier for criminals to get weapons when their legal or illegal? Also according to that statement we have no use for law whatsoever. You figure that criminals are going to do it anyway so why make it illegal? Why do we make crystal meth illegal? Why do we make murder illegal? Why do we make theft illegal? Why do we make rape illegal? People who are going to do it are just going to do it anyway right?

No. We make things things illegal because they are malignant to society. There can be responsible forms of some kinds of vice and contraband, however in some cases the advantages of having these things maintained is far outweighed by the negative consequences of having them.

I really am curious though to your answer to my question hat I asked before "Do you believe our 2nd amendment rights are more important, less important, or equally important as our 1st amendment rights?"

 

[TurtleDude]

The legislation passed because of the momentum that came with that horrific massacre. However gun crime had always been a problem and this was a solution. So effectively, no, it was not a reaction to just one massacre, it was a wake up call to the reality of gun crime in the UK.

And what about criminals? You act like we are only outlawing law-abiding gun owners. Of course you'll use the now classic line that criminals don't follow the law anyways. That however is such an incredibly stupid statement. First off do think it'll be easier for criminals to get weapons when their legal or illegal? Also according to that statement we have no use for law whatsoever. You figure that criminals are going to do it anyway so why make it illegal? Why do we make crystal meth illegal? Why do we make murder illegal? Why do we make theft illegal? Why do we make rape illegal? People who are going to do it are just going to do it anyway right?

No. We make things things illegal because they are malignant to society. There can be responsible forms of some kinds of vice and contraband, however in some cases the advantages of having these things maintained is far outweighed by the negative consequences of having them.

I really am curious though to your answer to my question hat I asked before "Do you believe our 2nd amendment rights are more important, less important, or equally important as our 1st amendment rights?"

gun laws that prevent ownership most heavily impact those who obey the law. FIrst and second amendment rights are of equal importance.

as I noted, the people who most want honest people disarmed are generally those who most need shooting

 

[falcata]

gun laws that prevent ownership most heavily impact those who obey the law. FIrst and second amendment rights are of equal importance.

as I noted, the people who most want honest people disarmed are generally those who most need shooting

Well that's kind of common sense isn't it? That the people that follow the law would be affected by it? How is that different from any other law? If I don't follow a law and don't get caught doesn't that effectively not affect me?

I also don't believe that anyone here has ever specifically said they wanted honest people in particular disarmed. That piece of rhetoric is kind of misleading. People who are in favor of gun control want reasonable restrictions on firearms in order to minimize gun violence on a whole in our society. None of that conspiracy nonsense where we are trying to divert conservative funds to protect gun control.