What about Switzerland? Its stance on private firearm ownership is extremely restrictive, but the militia structure of its army means that for practical reasons, most men have to keep an assault weapon at home. Is it oppressive, or free? DOES NOT COMPUTE
2 Likes
If you have access to a firearm, does it really matter whose name is on the title? You can either get your hands on a gun or you canât. Is that really that hard to figure out?
But not as low as the number of people whose lives were saved by owning those same high-capacity semi-automatic weapons. Now before you find some obscure story about some little old lady who scared off a burglar with her AR-15, consider âwas the type of weapon used critical here or would this person have been able to defend themselves just as easily with a shotgun?â
Actually almost all forms of violent crime in Australia have dropped since 1996. Iâm sure youâll find a way to cherry-pick the data to support your hypothesis, though.
7 Likes
I understand your disquiet about this and to some extent share it, but in countries like France or Italy the actual wording of the law is much more restrictive, and yet the outcome in practical terms more lenient, because police are inclined to take a more common-sense view of knife possession than they are in the UK. Every French police officer knows that people need knives to cut their cheese at lunchtime. The fact is that until the Megacities are built, judges will not be in a position to assess situations and act pre-emptively to prevent crimes, so police need to be empowered to intervene before violence occurs. Perhaps there is a better way, but I canât think what it is. At some point police do need to make decisions, whether or not you like them all the time.
1 Like
Ha ha, fooled you! You have to keep the rifle at home, but you canât get your hands on the AMMO - that was formerly issued in sealed containers and this practice ended a few years ago (which kind of makes it pointless to keep the firearm at home, except for convenience of maintenance).
Anyway, if you prevent some citizens from arming themselves, and FORCE others to, isnât that doubly oppressive? I mean some will be unhappy at having a rifle in the house, and others will be cool with it - but if I put a gun to your head and force you to eat a whole tub of your favourite ice cream, isnât that still oppressive?
Anyway, as you say, it only matters if you can get your hands on a gun when itâs needed. Iâm content that even in the face of the most draconian laws and enforcement, the Rebel Alliance will be able to source firearms when the need arises, so the argument for now really is about whether we should take some peoplesâ toys away.
2 Likes
REPORTED violent crime has been rising steadily in Australia since at least the 1970s. I donât think that itâs entirely down to more crimes being committed, but either way thereâs no causal link to restriction of firearms unless a time machine was involved. In which case, time machines should be banned.
And 1996 was when the first gun buy-back occurred, wasnât it?
The cyanide thing is a sore spot for me. The chelating alternatives for electroplating tend to be rather inferior.
3 Likes
Everything is a trade-off, my friend. We have cars, so we have car deaths. To restrict the lives of millions of Americans to save maybe a dozen lives is not a great trade-off. As I said, we could save MORE lives by scrapping the 4th Amendment. Up for that one?
I NEVER cherry-pick my data. I ran the numbers myself based on the best data that I could fine. I will be happy to post my numbers, along with the sources to the Australian Government links when I get home tonight. You can call me a lot of things, but dishonest is not one of them.
Hey, HERE is a great graph:
http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTools/facts/weaponSpecified.html
Choose Homicide, 1995 and Homicide, 2012. The number of gun homicides, by percentage, looks almost EXACTLY the same. Firearm usage in murder dropped from 18.38% to17.5% Wow. WHAT A SLAM DUNK! There might be a LOT of reasons for the decrease in homicide rate, but apparently less than 1% can be attributed to banning guns. Wow, that maks a difference, huh?
Anyways, thanks a lot for the link showing the gun usage has really not declined. Another nail for the coffin.
So, banning guns accomplished pretty much nothing. Nice to know. As I pointed out above, based on a link provided by somebody else to the Australian Government, the use of guns in murders has only been reduced by less than ONE PERCENT, as a percentage of weapon used in homicide. If the gun ban actually worked, I would expect the percentage of guns used in murder to rapidly approach zero.
A lot of people gave up their rights to feel better, but no actual change.
Or, you could set a nationwide speed limit of 45, and save a LOT more lives. Banning mass shootings might save a dozen or two dozen people a year. Dropping the speed limit to 45 nationwide would certainly save at least 5,000 and maybe 10,000. Which one seems like a better deal. Oh, wait. You own a car, so you would not go for this. You do not want any rights taken away to impact YOU, only other people.
I gave up my right to drive at 85 miles per hour, and all I got were an additional TEN THOUSAND highway deaths.
Hey, check out THIS page and sort the table by year:
(There is a link to workplace, school killings, etc. Go to this page, and then follow the links to the other tables.)
Letâs look at 2014:
Rampage Killers: 6 victims
School Massacres: 0 victims
Workplace Killings: 0 victims
Hate Crimes: 0 victims
How about 2013:
Rampage Killers: 6 victims
School Massacres: 0 victims
Workplace Killings: 12 victims
Hate Crimes: 0 victims
Hey, look. TWENTY FOUR victims in all of 2014 and 2013. Yes, 24 over two years!
Wow, by taking away the rights of 300,000,000 million Americans, we could have MAYBE saved 24 of them over the past years. According to the Bureau of Transportation, there are about 13,000 fatalities related to alcohol. Should we ban alcohol? Be honest, if no, why not? We could save a LOT more lives.
By the numbers, it just does NOT make sense. So much effort and so many rights taken away for such little gain. The only logical reason is that you are on a crusade, facts be damned.
1 Like
Didnât you say something a couple of posts back about how you never cherry-pick your data?
4 Likes
Yes, I noticed that, and made an edit!
I do admit that it is remotely possible that this Wikipedia page might not have been updated recently, but that is unlikely.
** Edit ** Fixed the data, and went included 2013 and 2014. Now, even if it has not been updated, at least 2013 should be accurate!
Iâm not going to take the time to chase down every one of those numbers but itâs pretty clear that youâre missing a lot of incidents. For example, hereâs a list of 27 mass shootings (each of which claimed at least four lives) in the U.S. from 2013 alone.
1 Like
99 incidents of firearm discharges in schools since Sandy Hook, but, you know, 3 were legit self-defense.
3 Likes
You can pass laws against 3D printers, but you canât legislate away technology. (That is to say, the Rebel Alliance can always get what it needs, provided itâs blue and made of plastic).
Some robots with railguns follow me around everywhere. But personally, no, I donât have any weapons.
3 Likes
Perhaps. It all depends upon how you define âmass shooting.â If crazy Uncle Bob gets drunk and shoots four people with his five-shot revolver, should that be counted as a âmass shootingâ for purposed of banning AR-15 and AK-47-type guns? Use your common sense, pleaseâŚ
I also like the very first entry in the list. For women who were shot, but were tied up first. If their hands are tied, they could have been easily dispatched with a sharp pencil. Gotta ban machine guns for that one!
So, you know there is a deficiency. Feel free to add to the Wikipedia page. it is open for all to edit!
Why are you all still feeding the repetitive, dishonest troll? In classic NRA-style semantics games he demands proof yet provides none himself, short of a few dishonestly selected uncited numbers that we have to take his word for. Kevin_Harrelson can have a big olâ cry when sense one day prevails and Americans make the sensible choice to take guns off selfish people like him. Until then, enjoy your killing fields.
He claims to speak authoritatively on Australiaâs crime statistics, demanding we show him violent crime statistics that do not exist in a comprehensive format. He also talks entirely out of his arse on the matter. @Kevin_Harrelson if youâre sure of your conviction the you show us proof that violent crime in Australia has increased at a rate greater than the increase in population and adjusted for the increased rates of reporting such crimes. If you canât do that then itâs intellectually dishonest to expect us to prove the opposite - itâs your stupid talking point. Youâve made this point numerous times before and youâve never proven it with data.
Murder rate is an indication of the overall level of violence in a society. If his moronic claim that people will move to âknives and clubsâ were accurate then Australiaâs homicide rate would not have exhibited such an undeniably sharp decrease around the time we introduced more sensible gun laws.
2 Likes
