Could absence of gun control have saved VT victims?

[Inman]

If it was legal to carry a gun, the vast majority of people carrying guns would be law abiding citizens. If I was a criminal, I would think twice about pulling out a weapon if I knew that was a good chance someone in the vicinity would have a gun.

You have a point. Your chance of having your house broken into while you are at home, a hot break in, is higher in countries with very restrictive gun control laws for this very reason.

But I think schools are different and especially colleges are different. At college, students get drunk and do stupid things. They get in fights. They vandalize property. Everyone having a gun in the dorm just multiples the problem.

This guy at VT was mentally ill apparently want to kill himself. If everyone was packing heat, it may have saved some lives, but it wouldn’t have detered him.

The deterence and ability to repel attackes of that nature is outweighed by the increased shootings you would get from general druken foolishness.

 

[tbrown57]

If this is not the same report please provide a link to this other Aus government report.

“Government site” Hmm i wonder what would make you assume those facts are acurate? Try Thes from the Aus police and news papers. Take your pick!!

AIC - Australian Institute of Criminology
ABS - Australian Bureau of Statistics
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997 while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%. (ABS figures) “Gun crime soars…” - Sydney Morning Herald - 28/10/98

“AIC define robbery as unlawful taking of property, accompanied by force or threat of force”

In 1998 8% were committed with a firearm, 38 % with another weapon, and 54 % unarmed

There were 10850 armed robberies recorded in Australia in 1998. This represents almost a 20% increase from the number of armed robberies recorded in 1997.

In 1013 robberies the type of weapon was not further defined, This figure was included in the category ‘Other Weapon’. It is possible that this 9% used in these robberies were firearms.

Armed Robberies have increased by 69% from 1995".

Crime involving guns has soared despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre…the number of robberies involving guns leapt 39% (ABS Report)…assaults involving guns jumped 28%.

Armed Crime on rise -The Sunday Mail - Brisbane 18/10/98
"According to ABS figures, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in NSW rose from 827 in 1996 to 1252 in 1997.

Sunday Telegraph - Sydney - 14/3/98
"National gun laws and the destruction of 640,000 firearms under the buyback scheme appear to have done little to reduce the national murder rate, says a new study.

Research paper issued by the AIC on the affect of the new gun laws. The Age - 3/6/99"
Queensland Police Commissioner Jim O’Sullivan yesterday expressed “grave concern” as the number of armed robberies across the state took a big jump for the second year running.

Sunshine Coast Daily - 13/11/98
Fatal shootings in Victoria have increased despite the introduction of tighter gun laws in 1996, a (AIC) study has found.

" State’s gun deaths rise" - Herald Sun - Victoria - 3/6/99
The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.

Geelong Advertiser - Victoria 11/9/97
Lowest Firearm Related Deaths, Gun Ownership Highest Ever
Again when you say, “As a result of the national gun laws 640,000 guns were collected and destroyed. It is not only murder rates that have fallen, but all firearm related deaths. Total firearm related deaths in Australia fell from 523 in 1996 to 328 in 1998”.

You would be well aware that Firearm related deaths per capita have been steadily falling since 1915, a figure which could be correlated with the increasing firearm ownership within the Australian community.

The figure of 640,000 is as dubious a figure as the implausibility of the staff who were caught defrauding the project in the two States, Queensland and Victoria which had the supposedly highest hand in figures.

640,000 is only a drop in the ocean when we consider that a third were not even semi-autos at all (which was supposed to be it’s target) but bolt actions and single shots. (See details further down article)

You are aware that the suicide rate increased, and the homicide rate increased (ABS reports 20% increase in Australian murder rate 1998/1999, The Age 29.6.2000 page 4) and the accidental deaths increased, but the deaths by firearms has been decreasing for over fifteen years well before any repressive legislation was introduced.

Every study by professionals prove that the legal firearm ownership rate is not related to increases in crime statistics. You have received the data from the ABS, on previous occasions so why delude the victims, the general public again?

"Gun deaths fell by 46 per cent during the last 15 years before tough new firearm legislation introduced after last year’s Port Arthur massacre, according to figures released yesterday by the ABS. “The figures clearly show that the absolute numbers of (gun) deaths, and the rates of death, has been steadily declining before Port Arthur.”
David Povah ABS - The Australian - 27/2/97

Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls for a decade - and its lowest arrest rate ever. The growing number of planned, ambush murders this year has put added pressure on the homicide squad."
Herald Sun - Melbourne - 12/11/99

More cases of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated burglary are being reported in Victoria…overall crime rate rising by 3.7 per cent in 11 months.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You have a point. Your chance of having your house broken into while you are at home, a hot break in, is higher in countries with very restrictive gun control laws for this very reason.

But I think schools are different and especially colleges are different. At college, students get drunk and do stupid things. They get in fights. They vandalize property. Everyone having a gun in the dorm just multiples the problem.

This guy at VT was mentally ill apparently want to kill himself. If everyone was packing heat, it may have saved some lives, but it wouldn’t have detered him.

The deterence and ability to repel attackes of that nature is outweighed by the increased shootings you would get from general druken foolishness.

All that ignores one bright, shining point – Students at Viginia Tech can get permits to carry guns. If they are over 21 and have no criminal record, the permit is theirs for that asking (and paying a minimal fee.)

And guess what? You don’t get “increased shootings from general druken foolishness.” Concealed carry permit holders in Virginia (and in all other 36 states with “shall issue” laws) don’t misuse their permits. And VA Tech students with permits are no exception to that.

Since VA Tech students can get permits – and many do – it just isn’t intellectually honest to predict what they would do if allowed to carry. The path of honesty is to report what they** have done** – which is to conduct themself safely and honestly, like the overwhelming majority of permit holders.

 

[Sir_Knight]

A treaty, which merely requires a majority of the senate, cannot amend the Constitution.

All it would take is 51 votes in the U.S. Senate to pass an “agreement” to implement the UN’s IANSA civilian disarmament plan. The plan would then become federal law here in the U.S. This is according to Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, who is an attorney.

Source: here & here.​

 

[vern_humphrey]

All it would take is 51 votes in the U.S. Senate to pass an “agreement” to implement the UN’s IANSA civilian disarmament plan. The plan would then become federal law here in the U.S. This is according to Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, who is an attorney.

Source: here & here.​

Right, and a simple 51 votes in the Senate could also abolish the right to freedom of speech and the press, freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, the right to due process and so on.

I don’t think the Senate is willing to try that – and I don’t think the courts would agree.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Just repeating what an NRA attorney publicly had to say.

 

[mgrobertson79]

The senate will not sign a law that is directly opposed to the Constitution. They know they would not win. All laws passed by congress are jubject to review by the Supreme Court. If this were to come up, it would be shot down, all puns intended. Plus remember, we have a conservative judiciary now. I tank God for that and I think it was about time.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well, did you see this?

 

[mgrobertson79]

Well, did you see this?

Bloodshed will ensue. This is exactly the reason for the second amendment. They don’t know what they are about to set off. I just hope it isn’t a small group that makes up the first wave.

 

[Montalban]

WRONG!!! Could not find the earlier stats you mention. and RAPE has nothing to do with the stats I quoted unless the criminal was armed. They were crimes involving firearms or deadly weapons in any way, even if the criminal only had it in his possession.

I’m talking about ‘stats’ per se as posted by pro gun people I pointed out specifically where someone gave rubbery figures. Others have pointed out that the figures regarding violent crimes are less in Australia.

You obviously want to ignore both.

 

[Montalban]

If this is not the same report please provide a link to this other Aus government report.

“Government site” Hmm I wonder what would make you assume those facts are accurate? Try These from the Aus police and news papers. Take your pick!!
The police are part of ‘the government’ in the sense used here; they’re government employees. Their power is (here in Australia) that of ‘the Crown’.

And your ‘stats’ from newspapers (one word, not two) aren’t ‘stats’ but singular examples of crimes.

You thus display that you don’t know what a statistic is and you don’t know what the sources are

Your newspaper citations - who knows what quote mine you’re using, are also in some cases a decade old. That’s not ‘news’ and it’s certainly not new.

I cited the official figures, post #136
Here it is again

Pro-gun Americans always like to pretend that Australia is more crime-ridden than America.

It’s simply not true.

I’ve never been robbed/mugged/burgled.

I live in Sydney, the largest and oldest Australian city. It’s the capital of New South Wales, our oldest and largest Australian state. Sydney has over 3,000,000 people.

For crime statistics in this state:
lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_index

links to lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/RCS06.pdf/$file/RCS06.pdf
You will find that the most violent categories of crime such as murder, manslaughter etc have fallen. And they are significantly lower than the USA. And have dropped since tighter gun laws

Significant downward trends
There was a statistically significant downward trend in the monthly numbers of recorded criminal incidents for
the following offences:
break and enter – dwelling (down by 4.1%, see Figure 5)
break and enter – non-dwelling (down by 2.4%, see Figure 5)
motor vehicle theft (down by 3.0%, see Figure 6)
steal from person (down by 6.8%, see Figure 7)
Offences where there was no upward or downward trend
There was no statistically significant upward or downward trend in the monthly numbers of recorded criminal
incidents3 for any of the following offences:
murder (number of victims; see Figure 1) (1.3 per 100,000 population) (I don’t know how you guys got your statistics!)
assault – domestic violence related (see Figure 2)
assault – non-domestic violence related (see Figure 2)
sexual assault (see Figure 3)
indecent assault, act of indecency, other sexual offences (see Figure 3)
robbery without a weapon (see Figure 4)
robbery with a firearm (see Figure 4)
robbery with a weapon not a firearm (see Figure 4)
steal from motor vehicle (see Figure 6)
steal from retail store (see Figure 7)
steal from dwelling (see Figure 7)
fraud (see Figure 8)
Significant upward trends
malicious damage to property (up by 4.3%, see Figure 9)

 

[mgrobertson79]

I said I was done with this thread, but I can’t leave this alone.

They were not killed by their lack of a weapon; they were killed by another person.

To suggest that their unarmed state led to their deaths is fallacious reasoning – at best. The deranged decision by the shooter to do what he did ended their lives. Don’t put the blame on the victims or on the school for not having weapons or not allowing weapons. Cho did the killing. Cho, and his guns.

/interest in thread off

Peace,
Dante

They were killed because they were denied the right to defend themselves. Yes Cho made the decision to shoot them, but the administration made the decision to disarm them and not provide any security. All the blame does not belong on Cho, there is plenty to go around. Those students were given the LEGAL right by the VA legislature to carry a concealed weapon with a permit and the school ignored that right and allowed them to be massacred.

 

[Brendan]

I’m talking about ‘stats’ per se as posted by pro gun people I pointed out specifically where someone gave rubbery figures. Others have pointed out that the figures regarding violent crimes are less in Australia.

You obviously want to ignore both.

If you are refering to my post about ‘Rape’ vs’ ‘Sexual Assault’

Read my following post.

The term ‘Rape’ is used in US Federal Crime Reporting to cover 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree Rape, in other words any sexual offense.

To comply the the UN Crime Reporting Standards, (to which both the US and AUS comply), non forcible rape is excluded from the US statistics. So what is included in the FBI stat is all sexual offenses where force or threat of force is applied. This is identical to the crime category that AUS reports under the category of “Sexual Assault”

This makes it a 100% ‘apples to apples’ comparison, in fact that is why the UN released standardized Crime reporting methods. so people could do a comparison on crime levels between countries.

 

[Black_Jaque]

The bottom line is that a narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment saves more lives than it kills.

The 2nd Amendment is for more than just allowing us to defend ourselves from whackos. It is also for allowing us to band together and face bigger foes - even if that bigger foe wears our own governments uniform. For over year before the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Colonists (which is how they identified themselves) were fighting for their rights as English subjects - they didn’t want independence at first. Hence they were fighting against men in their own country’s uniform.

The argument can be made that your right to purchase a firearm at will (you don’t have to own it) helps to keep our own leaders in check. The 2nd Amendment prevents a Hitler or Stalin from gaining too much power before it’s too late.

If it is true that the 2nd Amendment, along with the other 9 in the Bill of Rights, prevents tyrants from siezing too much power, then the 2nd Amendment saves more lives than it costs.

Stalin is accounted for killing 20 million of his own people. Firearms in the U.S. kill 20,000/year by homicide. So if starting next year we had a gun control measure that brought those homicides to zero, but that same gun control law left the people powerless against a totalitarian zealot; 1,000 years of life-saving gun control would be completely undone by another Stalin rising to power.

In otherwords, if in the next 1000 years of that gun control law, it allows ONE Stalin to take power over the American people, that gun control law will have killed more people than it saved.

NOT TO MENTION there are much better ways to reduce that 20,000 gun homicides per year. Invest in inner-city missions. That’s where the bulk of those 20,000 deaths are coming from - gang violence. Break the gang economy and you will have reduced gun-violence effectively.

 

[Montalban]

If you are refering to my post about ‘Rape’ vs’ ‘Sexual Assault’

Read my following post.

The term ‘Rape’ is used in US Federal Crime Reporting to cover 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree Rape, in other words any sexual offense.

The underlined; that’s simply not true. Rape is a violent assualt upon a woman. What’s confused you is that the term ‘rape’ involves ALL kinds of VIOLENT sexual assault. NOT all kings of sexual assault.

The stats you cited of Australian crime include anything such as non-violent acts such as ‘flashing’. Which is an ‘assault’ that is ‘sexual’ but is not violent.

To comply the the UN Crime Reporting Standards, (to which both the US and AUS comply), non forcible rape is excluded from the US statistics. So what is included in the FBI stat is all sexual offenses where force or threat of force is applied.

Then you are a witness against yourself because you note that the US definition of ‘rape’ is involving force. “Sexual Assault” does not necessarily.

This is identical to the crime category that AUS reports under the category of “Sexual Assault”

That is not true. I gave you the legal definition of ‘sexual assault’.

So what you’re doing is as charged. You’re quoting US sources on rape - which includes violence, against the Australia stats on ‘sexual assault’ which as we define it does not necessarily have violence. You almost hit the nail on the head when you noted that for international statistics the US defines rape as .‘x’ AND SO DO WE for those same purposes. BUT you didn’t show Australia’s stats on RAPE but SEXUAL ASSAULT.

This makes it a 100% ‘apples to apples’ comparison, in fact that is why the UN released standardized Crime reporting methods. so people could do a comparison on crime levels between countries.

I agree that we have standards, but our definition of Rape, meaning the same as yours is NOT THE SAME as our definition of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning the same as yours of RAPE. If sexaul assault equalled rape, then they’d call it rape. Our version of sexual assault would more nearly match your definition of sexual assault.

Rape
Sex with a woman, other than a wife, without her consent. But many states have changed this basic definition to include sex with a minor (with or without consent; also known as statutory rape), sex with a man without his consent, or exempting men who force their wives to have sex.
duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-qr.aspx#R

compared to the Australian definition…
Rape
An offence at common loaw of having carnal knowledge of a woman without her consent.
Butterowrths Concice Australian Legal Dictionary (2nd ed.), p365

In summary, for reporting purposes there ARE INDEED standards of defintion of rape. These involve violence, or the threat of violence, or where sexual knowledge takes place without someone’s consent.

Then, taking that knowledge you compare a standard figure on rape, to a standard figure on sexual assault WHICH INCLUDES RAPE.

 

[mgrobertson79]

The bottom line is that a narrow interpretation of the 2nd Amendment saves more lives than it kills.

The 2nd Amendment is for more than just allowing us to defend ourselves from wackos. It is also for allowing us to band together and face bigger foes - even if that bigger foe wears our own governments uniform. For over year before the Declaration of Independence was signed, the Colonists (which is how they identified themselves) were fighting for their rights as English subjects - they didn’t want independence at first. Hence they were fighting against men in their own country’s uniform.

The argument can be made that your right to purchase a firearm at will (you don’t have to own it) helps to keep our own leaders in check. The 2nd Amendment prevents a Hitler or Stalin from gaining too much power before it’s too late.

If it is true that the 2nd Amendment, along with the other 9 in the Bill of Rights, prevents tyrants from siezing too much power, then the 2nd Amendment saves more lives than it costs.

Stalin is accounted for killing 20 million of his own people. Firearms in the U.S. kill 20,000/year by homicide. So if starting next year we had a gun control measure that brought those homicides to zero, but that same gun control law left the people powerless against a totalitarian zealot; 1,000 years of life-saving gun control would be completely undone by another Stalin rising to power.

In other words, if in the next 1000 years of that gun control law, it allows ONE Stalin to take power over the American people, that gun control law will have killed more people than it saved.

NOT TO MENTION there are much better ways to reduce that 20,000 gun homicides per year. Invest in inner-city missions. That’s where the bulk of those 20,000 deaths are coming from - gang violence. Break the gang economy and you will have reduced gun-violence effectively.

This is what we need to hear from the public sector media(cable news doesn’t count). The gun grabbing zealots, many of whose supporters likely read these forums, blind themselves to these facts.

Do we really wish to put our lives or those of our children or grandchildren in the hands of a Stalin, Hitler or even George Bush with total power. This is not good for us, it is not good for America. There is not a reasonable argument for gun control, regardless of where it is coming from. If this were the Churches stand, it would have been long ago and it wasn’t. A few leaders at the Vatican and elsewhere have made political stands in the international community, but this is not binding on any of us.

Let us never forget the past and what absolute terror absolute power is capable of. Nazi Germany 11,000,000; Stalin Russia 20,000,000; Maoist China 10,500,000; Milosevic Yugoslavia 500,000+. These numbers are only from the 20th century and do not count casualties of war, only innocent civilians slaughtered by tyrannical leaders and government.

Remember, history did not start in 1900, there have been tyrannical regimes throughout the history of mankind, right back to Cain and his brother Able. It is a fact more will likely die, just don’t let America, or a shell of America be the next killing ground for a ruthless, tyrannical leader.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I wish this thread included a poll.

Anyway, my vote would be: yes, the absence of gun control probably would have saved VT victims.

This has been a very fast growing thread. I only just spotted it now and it has a huge number of posters.

---

In my opinion, the forces of Political Correctness prevented the perpetrator from being committed to a mental institution. The forces of deinstitutionalization have resulted in a number of destructive, severely mentally ill persons being allowed to walk the streets.

If I recall correctly, Peggy Noonan asked in her column: where were the adults?

 

[colliric]

More cases of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated burglary are being reported in Victoria…overall crime rate rising by 3.7 per cent in 11 months.

These facts are all outdated. And also in 1999 there was a State election literally fought over them which saw the Kennett state government ousted by the New State labor party(left wing) leader Steve bracks, who was in the job less than 6 months when he got elected,(now he’s reached 8 years, and counting).

Unfortunately for you, the reason crime in general rose in Victoria in the years immediately following Port Arthur and in the first years of the Kennett government, which started in 1992 and went to 1999 is not Gun Control at all. Victoria was in budgetary crisis, the previous labor governement had sent the state into massive debt.

Services like Electricity, Transport, gas and other State government owned and operated services had to all be sold off to private investors to drag our state out of debt. Not only that but other intergral services had to be scaled back until the state pulled out of the debt. This included the closing of an alarmingly large amount of public schools, Hospitals and other such facilities. The state pulled out of debt under Kennett, but it was at a gigantic cost to services, despite the fact he left what is argubally a glowing record for having brought the state back into contention with NSW.

One department which was in the firing line was the Police and it was over this department which the Bracks bandwagon digged it’s heels into and went for gold(they also backed more Nurses and Teachers) promising 700 new police positions(which turned instead to 1600 new police!!!) and more police stations. The computers used in police stations during the late ninties were quite often from the late-1980s, The numbers of police was considered bare bones at best, the department was consistently accused of Corruption, and unlike today when it takes just over 10 minutes for cops to come out, there was often a long wait of more than 20 minutes for police to show up. In short it was the laughing stock of the nation’s State police forces.

However if you now look at modern figures(ACIS, the 2004 report the other user showed), since the obvious boost the force received from the Bracks Government, which promised funding for 700(and eventually has turned into 1600) more police officers, Crime has generally dropped considerably.

your facts are therefore completely outdated, and because you look at them without understanding the greater issues surrounding them, you think it was an adverse effect of Gun Control, when in fact it was considered generally to be at the entire opposite end of the spectrum… at least in Victoria.

The reason why you may think this is a case of “on the outside looking in”, so you won’t go wider than “oh it’s because of gun control crime went up” when in fact in Victoria living in the 1990s I know one of the many reasons why Steve Bracks got elected in 1999… to fix up the ****** police force by giving it the funding it needed to stop the continued esclation of Crime which had festered in the Kennett era when that government was focusing on the other issue of saving the state financially by being a Tight *** and selling all the government owned services to private investors.

familiesmatter.com.au/alp/pdf/achievements/keepingSafe.pdf

1600 new police…and here I was thinking it was only 700 they put on… No wonder crime dropped to record lows. Once again, if you want to stop crime, don’t get your own gun… More police offices and more tighter laws are the RIGHT solution. It worked here, it can certainly work there.

 

[colliric]

“Government site” Hmm I wonder what would make you assume those facts are accurate? Try These from the Aus police and news papers. Take your pick!!

The police are part of ‘the government’ in the sense used here; they’re government employees. Their power is (here in Australia) that of ‘the Crown’.

And your ‘stats’ from newspapers (one word, not two) aren’t ‘stats’ but singular examples of crimes.

You thus display that you don’t know what a statistic is and you don’t know what the sources are

Your newspaper citations - who knows what quote mine you’re using, are also in some cases a decade old. That’s not ‘news’ and it’s certainly not new.

I cited the official figures, post #136
Here it is again

In victoria, the same thing occured once the long terms problems of the inadequate police force had been resolved by 2001, from 2001 to 2004, crime droped considerably… and it was wholly due
to the Police finally being “unleased” with good laws on their side.

The other user was not aware of the politics which saw Steve Bracks win office because he didn’t live in victoria. Brack’s big three promises were arguably “no more tollways”(he broke that one recently!), “Australia’s best and most accountable state police force”(he has delivered that) and “no more selling of state government owned services and no more closing of hospitals, police Stations(see promise 2) and public schools”.

 

[Urf]

Honestly…

Yeah VT wouldnt have happened if everyone had a gun on them and shot him first. The world would be a safer place if everyone owned a gun.