Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 4, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 45

On gun control

:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013
:iconwplz:hen somebody shoots somebody up in the US, rational people point out that it's due to a number of problems with the prison system and mental health system. Unfortunately, neither of those make good political ammo, so they tend to get left unattended while people say we should become more like those civilized gun-free countries. But will getting rid of guns work?

Well, the US isn't alone in dealing with mass murders. n 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.

After that unfortunate incident and another one not long after, the British government banned handguns (in addition to a ban on semi-auto rifles and heavy regulations on shotguns). Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison. It didn't work.

ithin a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.
In contrast, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.




Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

The Australian government responded by passing the National Firearms Agreement. banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.




What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

:iconkillitwithfireplz:
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:icondregs-of-humanity:
dregs-of-humanity Featured By Owner Jan 8, 2013
Americans seem to have some idea in their head that we went from a US style system of almost unrestricted gun access and high ownership to an almost gun free society where only criminals have guns. The reality is its fairly easy to get a gun, theres at least 4 shops in my town selling guns and probably more that I'm not aware of. There is more legal guns in Australia right now than at any point in history, the majority of people who had guns bought back went out and bought guns with the money. As well there is lots of new gun owners like myself.

Guns had been regulated and restricted for decades before the 96 laws came in, handguns have been restricted since the 1920s. Fully automatic guns were banned in every state but Tasmania since the 1930s. The 1996 laws weren't about lowering homicide rates which have always been low here, they were a reaction to the efficiency with which Martin Bryant killed 12 people in 15 seconds at the broad arrow cafe (and killed a total of 35 people) and trying to avoid another incident like that, it works about as well as a tiger-repellant rock, we haven't had another incident like Port Arthur since.

I'm not a big supporter of the gun laws myself because rifles are rarely involved in crime as you pointed out, it was a paranoid reaction to an extremely rare occurence. I do support national registries and licensing and restrictions on urban people owning guns for 'self defense' though and I do feel quite safe living in a country thats always had gun restrictions, low levels of gun ownership and a low homicide rate.
Reply
:iconvisionoftheworld:
VISIONOFTHEWORLD Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
At first, I wasn't going to get involved in this because I figured I was too busy to try and have a statistics war... and then it occurred to me- why this argument, and all the rest of the gun freak arguments are complete failures:

You have not really made any case against gun control. Not even started to- as much as I'm sure you think you've made an awesome slam dunk :headbang:. Like all the rest of their hacks, you copied some stats out of another article on some rightwing blog or 'news' site, and think they this copy-paste of "See look- bad things still happen when there are no guns! Seeeeeee!" and that is frankly the argument of a child. I can say this about anything- like- the speed limit on the highway of 65 is obviously not working because people still get killed in speed related accidents. I can then start a stat-war by gathering all the numbers given to me by people opposed to speed limits, show that we have more highway deaths in America than another country with roads- say Romania- and that shows how regulation is EEEEvul. Essentially, there is nothing for the person who disagrees to possibly disprove.
Even if I go to wikipedia- that favorite of internet arguers- [link] and look at their chart of gun-related deaths- it is clearly made by someone who favors guns. How can I spot this? It doesn't list the total number of people killed by being shot at all, does it? Nope. It uses a 'per capita' figure, so that the smallest country with a crime problem will naturally look the worst- so there's tiny El Salvador at the top. Notice how the numbers for the USA- which obviously we don't bother counting gun deaths at all, ever- is from the year 2002! Gee, that's current data, eh? They found numbers for EL FUCKING SALVADOR that were a year old, but the latest thing they could find for USA is 10 year old numbers becoming 11 years old. Gee, wonder why.

My point isn't to have a stats battle. It's to tell you that listing numbers that show 'this is worse than that' is a crock of shit.
26 people were massacred in a school. Do you not care about the lives of children? Before that, the mall santa in Portland Oregon had to dive for cover as two more people were killed. Before that, in Colorado a movie theater was shot to hell. Even in El Salvador this kind of shit isnt happening- it's all gang crime. Then they showed this idiotic simulation on CNN or fox or something about what an armed teacher should do in a shooting situation in a classroom. Do you know what age and gender most elementary school teachers are? So that's the solution given by you freaks- expect a 24year old girl to be at-the-ready at all times every day of the year anticipating the moment of attack, and then get into a gun battle with a heavily armed, fatigue and armor-wearing maniac with a machine gun.

I honestly thought you people were insane before. Now I'm convinced you are utterly lost. Without morals, completely shameless.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
So:
*The statistics are false, as they take into account that countries with high populations have more crimes because they have more people.
*Statistics in general are wrong when they disagree with you, as you are omnipresent.
*The statistics are wrong because data for the US is more dated than El Salvadore's, despite the fact that the sources for both countries are from the same year (2009).
*Emotional outburst. I could shoot back by pointing out that last year 70 teens were killed and 65 wounded in a shooting in gun-controlling Norway, or how the worst school massacre in the US was not with guns, but I doubt that you really care.

:iconovisionoftheworldplz:
You're retarded.

But anyways, welcome back! ~TBSchemer took over your spot as Forum Idiot, but I see that you're well on your way to reclaiming the title.
Reply
:iconbob401:
bob401 Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The fact of the matter is that getting rid of guns and making them more strict will do nothing much to help lower the crime rates. You see, in world with guns the criminal will attack without assurance that his victim will have a gun and if he ever finds one with a gun, he may either a - making better plans in the future or b - decide to quit for fear of him/herself getting shot. Our founding fathers made guns legal for one reason and that is to give people the ability to rise up against their government in case it were ever to become far too corrupt, but guns and weapons of death evolve all the time, and someday killing someone will become far too easy; so in my opinion we need to restrict more powerful weapons (i.e. a barrett 50 cal) while leaving the weaker ones in the hands of our people.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
I don't think that a .50 is a very efficient weapon to murder somebody with.
Reply
:iconbob401:
bob401 Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
You're probably right, but I meant a weapon with a long range.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
So, rifles in general? What if I want to hunt?
Reply
:iconbob401:
bob401 Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I just meant the range, not all rifles, I mean a gun with a huge distance, a 50 cal has about a 1,800 m range just over a mile and I don't think you need that much to shoot game.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
You aren't thinking practically. Somebody with the funds to buy a .50 and the skill to hit you from a mile way probably isn't going to be stopped by gun laws.
Reply
:iconbob401:
bob401 Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Yes, but if the laws aren't there then it becomes far too convenient and criminals will use it to their advantage. It's true what you said about someone with the ability to afford it, but how often does a crack-shot have that much money, it's probably a good amount, but those two variables do not always come together. People do not shoot people because they're good at it, the do based on the emotion and the memory of a person. A man could shoot the commander-and-chief and get caught for it, only to be interrogated to reveal that the president slept with his wife and threatened blackmail if he were to go public. A man kills someone in the middle of the night with a .50 cal, (now in this universe there are no gun restrictions on this weapon) they check the wound and find it to be a .50 cal, it will be impossible to find him due to no gun restrictions on that weapon. Though he bought it from a store there, he did not have to fill out forms, and destroyed the weapon leaving no evidence, could have caught him if those forms were filled.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013
When was the last time you've heard of somebody being murdered with a .50?

Time to drop some knowledge on you. In 2011, there were 323 murders with rifles of any type and caliber. For comparison, there were 496 murders with hammers & clubs, 1,694 with "knives or cutting instruments," (far more than rifles and shotguns combined), and over 6,000 with handguns. If you're going to regulate something, rifles should be the last thing you consider.
[link]
Reply
:iconnovuso:
Novuso Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
Have to save this for the next time some gun grabby liberal brings up Australia.

Thanks
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Try doing your own research to avoid looking like the fool.
Reply
:iconnokari:
nokari Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
I want to kill you for making yet another gun control topic. If only I had some sort of hand-held killing machine...
Reply
:iconpakaku:
Pakaku Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
A radio playing today's "top hits" like Friday and Baby Baby Baby!
Reply
:iconnokari:
nokari Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
Naw, I don't want to make other people kill themselves.
Reply
:iconzagstrike:
ZaGstrike Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
Adding to what thunder-fox said, a vast amount of assaults that happen in Oz were largely due to either drugs or alcohol issues.

Although of course, if you used links people could see that for themselves...
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
To add to that, the incident where I was assaulted involved a drunk person. Having a gun drawn on him would have been over the top (he already had a K9 unit raring to rip his throat out after I got security). And if I had a gun, the drunk guy could have one too. What a winning combination...

I'd rather be glassed in a pub than shot.
Reply
:iconzagstrike:
ZaGstrike Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
It's rather shocking how lethal force seems to be an acceptable form of defense for these people, not to mention how it utterly subverts the justice system.

A police officer catches a purse snatcher, crim goes to jail. An armed civilian catches a purse snatcher, crim gets shot and dies. BECAUSE LIBERTY!


Also i'm sorry to hear that you've been the victim of an assault yourself, i sympathize.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
I'd call them 'heroism fantasies'. When my incident happened, my friend and I immediately left to get security so no-one could let it escalate. Not exactly heroic. If possible, just walk away... a hero can become an hero.
Reply
:iconzagstrike:
ZaGstrike Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
Suggesting that these people just act like responsible adults (like you did) instead of vigilante gunslingers is nigh heresy!
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Assault has nothing to do with firearms, so I'm not sure why you bothered to include that. You're also wrong: Australia has not had a massacre since Port Arthur. Why the dishonesty?
Reply
:iconno-doves-fly-here:
no-doves-fly-here Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
He's not being dishonest: [link] [link]
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Yes. He is. After the Port Arthur massacre is when restrictions were put in place. Only in 2002 was there a shooting, where the gun was obtained legally (further increasing restrictions), and there hasn't been since. That Monash shooting in 2002 pales in comparison to the US.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
An increasing violent crime rate suggests that guns keep the crime rate down

Assault has nothing to do with firearms, so I'm not sure why you bothered to include that. You're also wrong: Australia has not had a massacre since Port Arthur.

Between 1996-97 and 2000-01 there were four mass homicide incidents: two incidents involved four victims (knife and carbon monoxide gas), one incident had five victims (carbon monoxide gas), and another incident fifteen victims (arson/fire). All but the last mass murder occurred in a domestic situation
[link]
Reply
:iconzagstrike:
ZaGstrike Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
"An increasing violent crime rate suggests that guns keep the crime rate down"

A lack of guns suggests that assaults were prevented from being murders.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
There was almost no deviation in the homicide rate - it was dropping 3.2% before the buyback, and continued to drop 3.2% after. So what the numbers suggest is that people simply found other ways to kill each other, while depriving law-abiding citizens of their defenses against assault and rape, which skyrocketed. I'd hesitate to call the buyback a "success".
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
Fancy that. None of them were with a gun. Maybe the restrictions on firearms possession has actually had an effect in reducing firearm crimes? If only criminals could get guns, then why weren't they using them? Maybe it actually did have an effect? No, it couldn't be.

Perhaps 'assault' has a different meaning in the US. Not to downplay it's seriousness (I've been assaulted), but it's one of the more minor serious crimes to perpetrate. If I had brought out a gun in my incident, that would have been completely over the top. If robbery or grievous bodily harm shoots up 40%, then maybe you'd have a point. But with homicide dropping...
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013
Maybe it's just me, but I doubt that it makes a difference to the victim whether they're shot, stabbed, burned, or gassed - they're still dead (well, if I was going to be murdered, getting shot seems like one of the better options, but that's neither here nor there). Would you consider it a success if gun crimes dropped to zero but the homicide rate doubled?

We could debate all day about how minor and insignificant petty crimes like rape and aggravated assault are, but the overall point was that the homicide rate wasn't affected very much, if at all. In other words, the government created a negligible or non-existant homicide drop while making other crimes much more common.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
The fact is, the homicide rate did drop.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
But not significantly more than it was previously. All evidence suggests that the buyback had zero effect on homicide. In fact, all it's done is increase the violent crime rate.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
A 6% drop in homicide. That's not a zero effect on homicide.

If you knew anything about Australian culture, you'd be glad that they're mere assaults. If any yahoo could get a gun, there's be so, so many deaths around pubs.
Reply
:icontheredsnifit:
TheRedSnifit Featured By Owner Jan 6, 2013
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. The homicide rate had been falling before the buyback, and it didn't accelerate downwards after. Hence, the buyback had little to no effect on homicide:
The total homicide rate has been slowly declining throughout the 1990s (figure 4-1). In the five years post-NFA there has been no pronounced acceleration of that decline.
~The study I gave you earlier.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontristancody:
TristanCody Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Student Writer
Let me summarize how the debate on gun control goes:

Pro to Opposing - :fork:
Opposing to Pro - :fork:

The same thing. Each one will be bigoted, sadly and nothing will be accomplished.
Reply
:iconzagstrike:
ZaGstrike Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013
Forgot to add links?
Reply
:iconpakaku:
Pakaku Featured By Owner Jan 4, 2013
The solution to gun control is to
Reply
:icontacosteev:
tacosteev Featured By Owner Jan 5, 2013  Hobbyist
make another thread to discuss it :la:
Reply
:iconthegman0:
theGman0 Featured By Owner Jan 7, 2013  Hobbyist
lol
Reply
Add a Comment: