Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 44 of 44

Thread: Watch what happens when Guns are banned in Australia

  1. #41
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnails View Post
    =========================================

    I like the name change.
    In your country could I buy a gun for the sole purpose of self defense, could I buy a shotgun and then reconfigure it by cutting off the stock and the barrel to 18 1/2"? Lets assume I am sane and a good guy.

    In my country gun ownership is at an all time high. Approximately 37,500 gun sales, including 17,800 handgun sales, are completed every day in the United States. There are approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States.This means that 25 percent of all adults, and 40 percent of American households, own at least one firearm. These owners possess 192 million firearms, of which 65 million are handguns.

    Gun-related homicides have declined by 33 percent since 1993, including a 35-percent drop in handgun homicides. Meanwhile, from 1992 to 1996, murder rates declined by 20 percent, aggravated assaults by 12 percent, and the overall violent crime rate by 16 percent.2 The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Uniform Crime Report data for 1997 show that these trends are continuing, with murder and robbery totals declining by 7 percent over the previous year and the total of all violent crimes declining by 3 percent.

    Furthermore.

    According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
    Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

    In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

    In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

    In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

    In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

    In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.


    Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

    -------------------------------------------

    Sorry for the long post.
    Your post is detailed and not the worse for it....I think there are two sides to the story of gun ownership, but the fact of the matter is while your rates of gun-related crime maybe lower than what they were (which is probably a result of the type of policing I alluded too above) they are still very high compared to other comparable countries. As for using guns as a form of self-defense, I think in certain situations that's fair enough, but one of the issues is is that pretty soon you are engaging in a type of arms race with criminals where those on the self-defense side have to be better armed and more trained than those opposing them, but even that won't guarantee their safety. What will however is if guns are limited so that criminals find it difficult to access them in the first place. Apologies for the brief reply, in the middle of a poker tournament online.

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    Name changed because when I was posting in these threads where the topic was about deaths that had occured......yeah the name just isn't appropriate. Initially got the name because when I signed up I'd just finished reading a book about the Bubonic Plague....obviously didn't think of the consequences at the time in terms of posting here.
    D'oh!

    And now you can't post in thebigragu's AA thread

  3. #43
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soberphobia View Post
    Name changed because when I was posting in these threads where the topic was about deaths that had occured......yeah the name just isn't appropriate. Initially got the name because when I signed up I'd just finished reading a book about the Bubonic Plague....obviously didn't think of the consequences at the time in terms of posting here.
    It's your name, of course, but thats sounds like oversensativity to me. People who canot differentiate a forum login name with a current event are not people worth conversing with.

    As for you questions above its some sort of government bureaucracy that does it, as it should.
    So you don't know then who does it or how.

    I think in our country if you have a legitimate use for a weapon you can get to have one.
    Legitimate is in the eye of the beholder. Legitimate, to you, is what you mean.

    I agree about the people having no ability to overthrow the state but I would question whether owning guns would change that reality in any material sense, if in any sense at all.
    As stated, today, no. It makes no difference today, as that purpose of the 2nd Amendment has been technologicly eclipsed over time.

    If anything mass gun ownership in the United States has sparked the growth of government, given that mass-surveillance policing is a fact and a huge encroachment on civil and human rights across all western socities, and given that this policing uses the excuse for its spread (quite justifiably in most cases, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also affect civil rights for the worse) rising violent gun crime and the sorts of massacres we've seen in the USA in recent weeks.
    Respectfully, thats a pile of steaming assumption and theory not backed in fact. Government needs to excuse to expand, expansion is core to it's being.

    You are scared of more vetting to get guns?
    At what point did I say that?

    What about the fact you have probably already been vetted 10 times without your knowledge by the NSA or the FBI or some other US government acronym to see if your mindset is acceptable to them?
    I am displeased by that fact, but am powerless to stop it.

    Would you rather fill out some form with a right to appeal where you know the outcome or would you prefer some version of your secret police sticking their nose in your life without your knowledge?
    I would posit that there are more options that your A. and B. here.

  4. #44
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    It's your name, of course, but thats sounds like oversensativity to me. People who canot differentiate a forum login name with a current event are not people worth conversing with.



    So you don't know then who does it or how.



    Legitimate is in the eye of the beholder. Legitimate, to you, is what you mean.



    As stated, today, no. It makes no difference today, as that purpose of the 2nd Amendment has been technologicly eclipsed over time.



    Respectfully, thats a pile of steaming assumption and theory not backed in fact. Government needs to excuse to expand, expansion is core to it's being.



    At what point did I say that?



    I am displeased by that fact, but am powerless to stop it.



    I would posit that there are more options that your A. and B. here.
    Yeah, sorry deep in this tourney with a decent stack - my comments on policing are because I've done a thesis on police surveillance for my honours year. Not claiming to be an absolute expert but I've read the literature (a lot of it from the USA) and have a fair idea of what they are doing and why they are doing it - and in most cases they hide behind your constitutional rights or find a way to circumvent it. So, probably not really assuming more just making a statement based on my experience/knowledge.

    Hey at least you have a Bill of Rights over there, which we don't, but frankly in terms of the police it doesn't really make a difference anyway.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us