PDA

View Full Version : Gun control


Hazzle
30-05-2006, 07:24 PM
I did do a search on this but couldn't find a thread about it. I was reading this and I wondered what we all thought about gun control:

Gun control in Australia (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-shot-at-safety/2006/04/27/1145861484114.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1in).

Often an argument put up against gun control laws is that they leave guns in the hands of the criminals, take them from law-abiding people and make the place more dangerous. I think the above article dispells that myth.

Thoughts?

duckula
30-05-2006, 07:26 PM
I will get some when I can afford them. We should also work on our self defence laws.

Hazzle
30-05-2006, 07:27 PM
You could try buying some from the Aussie government. According to that article they're sitting on a stockpile.

hasselbrad
30-05-2006, 09:46 PM
They bought back less than a million guns in the entire country? Shit, that would take care of the state of Georgia. Maybe.
Happiness is a warm gun, and I don't even own one.
I'd like to know what Australia's crime rate is in relation to the United States.
Of course, taking a lot of guns out of the hands of the general population is going to lead to a dramatic drop in accidental deaths, but the same argument could be made for crushing all motor vehicles and filling in swimming pools. I saw a similar article from a paper in Texas that had seen a dramatic drop in property crimes since more people were being permitted to carry firearms.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If they are going to take away that one...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

...it'll make this one a lot easier to take away.

Hazzle
30-05-2006, 10:38 PM
I see what you're saying Brad but we've had free speech in this country without the need to have a right to bear arms to protect it. If anything religious tolerance and free expression have improved since we stopped allowing people to have guns.

Interestingly enough, did you know that defamation law sprung up in response to death by duelling? Before defamation law, when someone defamed you, you'd challenge them to a duel, and kill them. Or at least severely harm them. But when the death rate from this soared, the English invented defamation law.

So the answer to your problem is actually disallow guns but stop eroding defamation law! The latter hardly exists in the States anymore and it's a shame.

hasselbrad
30-05-2006, 10:47 PM
But without guns, it makes it more difficult to thin the herd as effectively. :p

dave
01-06-2006, 08:23 PM
Often an argument put up against gun control laws is that they leave guns in the hands of the criminals, take them from law-abiding people and make the place more dangerous. I think the above article dispells that myth.

Thoughts?
Mostly the people who are in favor of 'gun control' lie. They publish fake studies and come to fallacious conclusions. Your newspaper article contains several indicia that it might be a lie. Look for 'news' that leads you to a particular conclusion backed up by unproveable 'facts.' (Specifically statistics from non-peer reviewed 'studies' by 'interest groups.' That's what was almost successful here in America. For years people were told that the 'Brady Bill' had reduced homicides by getting 'assault rifles' off the streets. Nobody had ever heard how many homicides were done using 'assault rifles' in the before the Brady Bill period. [extremely few, I believe that the number of homicides done using the particular assault rifles banned by the Brady Bill was zero. But nobody will ever know as those figures were not kept, and it is impossible to dig them out of the figures that were actually kept. The Brady Bill proponents took credit for a general decline in crimes, they 'proved' what they wanted to prove with 'made up' statistics.] )

Where there is a bias, there are sheep to be led.

Have murderers simply switched their methods of killing? While the annual average number of (all method) homicides has increased since June 1996, the rate per 100,000 population has fallen marginally, but can best be described as steady. The number of murders being committed has gone up. The population has decreased enough that that same number of murders is spread out over a smaller population thus the percentage is the same. This suggests that partially removing a single sub-type of lethal weapon may not reduce a type of crime committed using many possible means. This could change if Howard moves to tighten controls over handguns, which he has flagged.So, since taking away one fifth of the guns has not changed the actual number of people who are murdered, perhaps if we take away your pistols as well, sooner or later we will take away enough freedoms that we will be safe doing what we really want to do...
Simon Chapman is professor of public health at the University of Sydney and author of Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and Australia's Fight for Gun Control. Philip Alpers is adjunct associate professor of public health at the University of Sydney and editor of www.gunpolicy.org
Interesting that a professor at University of Sydney can publish an article which says the opposite of what you think it says, and get away with it. Even fooling Hazzle.

Hazzle
01-06-2006, 10:32 PM
Where there is a bias, there are sheep to be led.

You demonstrate this perfectly. With all due respect, you say that the people in favour of gun control lie. Proof please? You can't make a bold assertion because it doesn't fit in with your own beliefs. The Brady Pill was claimed to have a positive effect, and correct, there are no statistics to back this claim up, but NONE to prove that it's incorrect too.

I'm actually more Republican than Democrat, but what does get my goat about Republicans is the way they just make wild assertions like that without backing it up. You can't accuse someone of "making up statistics" because they don't fit. What you CAN do is claim that interpretation makes a difference, which is what I THINK you were trying to do below.

The number of murders being committed has gone up. The population has decreased enough that that same number of murders is spread out over a smaller population thus the percentage is the same.

I think you mean the population has INCREASED. If the population had DECREASED, and the number of murders increased, there'd be more murders per 100,000 people, because there'd be more murders averaged out over less people.

So, since taking away one fifth of the guns has not changed the actual number of people who are murdered, perhaps if we take away your pistols as well, sooner or later we will take away enough freedoms that we will be safe doing what we really want to do...

The NUMBER of people who die isn't crucial. The PERCENTAGE has to be. If there are more people, the deaths have less impact, if there are less people, the deaths have more. To say otherwise is stupid. If a town has a population of about 10,000 people, an event like 9/11 would wipe out most of the town. New York City has a population of 8 million and it therefore had less of an impact. That's not rocket science.

The idea that the right to bear arms is a "freedom" is ridiculous. The Constitution was drafted at a time when arms were needed, and there's no doubt that the constitution has to adapt to meet new challenges in society. You can argue that arms are STILL needed, that the world is just as dangerous, but to call it a "freedom" in such a way as to suggest it should be enshrined forever misses the point. Should we ever create a utopia where violent crime only affects 1% of the world's population, would there then be as much logic for the argument?

The idea that guns should be kept to keep the government at bay is sound. However it's NOT what the Framers had in mind, so we have to bear that in mind. If we enshrine the right to bear arms for this new reason, it's creating a new freedom, not protecting the old one. The banning of firearms in this country hasn't lead to a reduction in free speech. Or any other right. We're FAR more progressive when it comes to civil rights. Figure that one out!

Interesting that a professor at University of Sydney can publish an article which says the opposite of what you think it says, and get away with it. Even fooling Hazzle.

How did he fool me? The article is pro-gun control. His book is called "Over Our Dead Bodies" is an ironic twist to the cry of pro-gun lobbyists "Over Our Dead Bodies". Have you visited the site? It's pro-gun control.