Could absence of gun control have saved VT victims?

[valient_Lucy]

I don’t understand when people argue that if guns were illegal, there would be less shootings. Drugs are illegal and that doesn’t stop anyone from getting them if they want.

You could say the same thing about abortion. Many people do.

 

[browser1]

How many more Americans need to die before something is done about guns. I would bet my last dollar that this is not the first and definately wont be the last time America sees a massacre on such a large scale.

I found the following article on the web

It’s so misleading when people tote the phrase “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. You know what’s more correct? “People kill people but people with guns kill MORE people”. Of course, I realise that once properly restricted, the world isn’t going to be magically all nice and lovely again. However, the solution isn’t going to be “if we can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. We need social reforms, education changes, welfare etc etc and we also need to restrict gun use.

Comparing gun restriction to prohibition is ridiculous. I wonder why that article dosen’t make the comparision to drug control. People take drugs illegally anyway, why not just legalise them? People go rob places everyday, why not legalise theft? The problem with prohibition was because people didn’t really see the harm of alcohol at face value, it was like a common social drink amongst people. However, guns do in fact kill, like how heroin and cocaine can kill.

I would say the stats quoted about the states are misleading too. Crime rates go up for many reasons; recission, unemployment, gangs etc. It’s not necessarily linked to gun ownership. Even if it is, then gun control needs to be tightened up at a federal level to fix the problem. The solution is not to make it EASIER for people to have such weapons.

And when it comes to the issue of defence, there are other ways to defend oneself. Tasers, capsicum spray for example. If the ease of getting guns is reduced (i.e. making guns not available from the shop down the street) then at least a portion of desperate petty crime would be reduced. I personally would rather be threatened with a knife than with a loaded gun.

Paranoia about crime going out of control if guns were stricted country-wide is unfounded. Just look at Australia as an example. Is it total anarchy here? No. Gun-related violence has dropped since the buyback. Of course, what is required is a change in mentality too. It shouldn’t be a common thought to go “well I have my trust gun with me in case anyone attacks me I can shoot them”. I’m glad to say I’m confident that most people in Australia don’t have that mentality which was why the buyback was so successful. As mentioned, much of the US has a terrible, violence-driven thought pattern to how solve problems. There needs to be more social changes in that respect.

the link is also quite interesting
guninformation.org/

Im comfortable knowing that in my country most of my couterparts dont go around carrying guns

 

[colliric]

Here’s a bit more from the AUS government website

Homicide Assault Sexual assault Robbery Kidnapping

aic.gov.au/media/2005/20050427.html
\

Homicides are the ONLY one that has gone down. All other violent crime has gone way up, especially sexual assault and kidnapping

Hahaha, you didn’t read the first paragraph OR the title of that report… “Rate of crime victimisation declines in Australia”!

You just clicked the link and moved on…

If you had of bothered to read the first paragraph, this is what you would have been meet with:

“Seventeen per cent of Australians experienced at least one incident of crime in 2004 - a seven per cent drop from the 24 per cent recorded in the last survey in 2000”, Dr Makkai said.

“These survey results are consistent with trends in police recorded property crime rates in Australia as well as crime victim surveys in Britain, Canada and the USA.”

Fear of crime has declined. Seventy-two per cent of both male and female respondents reported feeling safe walking alone after dark, compared with 64 per cent in 2000.

Once again… Crime Victimisation dropped by 7% and people felt safer!!!

In my own state, they happened to up the police numbers drastically during that time(1999 onwards)…

next time you criticize us for getting our facts wrong, don’t use a source which supports our convictions and then say that it doesn’t!

 

[colliric]

As noted above, NSW’s muder crime rate is 1.3 per 100,000. NSW is our most populous state.

Currently your national rate is 5.9 per 100,000

Australia’s national rate is 1.28 per 100,000
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

yep… but you could have gone to his own source… he didn’t bother reading it, he just skipped over to the nice glossy table…

 

[Montalban]

yep… but you could have gone to his own source… he didn’t bother reading it, he just skipped over to the nice glossy table…

I’ve had the same argument with pro-gun people in the past. Australia’s so dangerous the person doesn’t want to come here. (this person may have been on another forum site under a different name - but the argument is so familiar)

Charlton Heston was one who pushed the “Australia is sooooo dangerous, because we don’t have guns”.

 

[browser1]

What is really interesting is that Austrailans rape each other at at about 2 1/2 times the rate of Americans.

(81 per 100,000 vs. 33 per 100,000)

Now imagine what that rate would be if the rapists thought their victims were armed. But I suppose you expect the victim to call the Police on her cell phone during the rape instead

Homicides are the ONLY one that has gone down. All other violent crime has gone way up, especially sexual assault and kidnapping.

I know that cos most of you arent gonna bother opening and reading through the link i posted, ive copied and pasted some of it here:-

MYTH: The crime rate has been skyrocketing in the UK and and Australia since stricter gun control laws were enacted in 1996-1997.
TRUTH: The claim that following the gun ban Australia experienced big increases in crime has been refuted as an urban legend at www.snopes.com, a website that is devoted to exposing urban legends. “Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because ***‘criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed’ are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn’t own firearms even before the buyback.” ***(source). Australia’s homicide rate is lower than the homicide rate in the US and there has been little variation in Australia’s homicide rate since their gun buyback (source).

 

[Chancellare]

At the risk of getting shot at for being a nut case, let me add my 10 cents:

1. Per capita deaths by guns for gunless countries like Japan and Scandinavian countries are more than 50% lower than in US.
2. Has anybody thought that only those who are responsible for security (police, etc) are supposed to have guns?
3. Has anybody thought what would Christ say about gun ownership?
   (I know already about wielding swords)
4. Has anybody thought that having more guns in the population is just like adding more darkness to a night already devoid of stars?

 

[Montalban]

At the risk of getting shot at for being a nut case, let me add my 10 cents:

1. Per capita deaths by guns for gunless countries like Japan and Scandinavian countries are more than 50% lower than in US.
2. Has anybody thought that only those who are responsible for security (police, etc) are supposed to have guns?
3. Has anybody thought what would Christ say about gun ownership?
   (I know already about wielding swords)
4. Has anybody thought that having more guns in the population is just like adding more darkness to a night already devoid of stars?

It stands to reason that less guns equals less gun-related shooting,* to the point that if you had no guns, there’d be 0 gun-related shootings

*and before someone asks ‘what other kind of shootings are there?’ there’s more than one type of projectile weapon - believe me, people have asked me this before (think for e.g. of ‘crossbow’)

 

[Chancellare]

It stands to reason that less guns equals less gun-related shooting,* to the point that if you had no guns, there’d be 0 gun-related shootings

*and before someone asks ‘what other kind of shootings are there?’ there’s more than one type of projectile weapon - believe me, people have asked me this before (think for e.g. of ‘crossbow’)

Taking the syllogism further:

Knives and guns don’t kill, people do. It just makes the job easier.

Then we come to the point of only the criminals get shot at if everybody has a gun:

That’s assuming criminals (of all forms) are a dying breed.

 

[colliric]

It stands to reason that less guns equals less gun-related shooting,* to the point that if you had no guns, there’d be 0 gun-related shootings

*and before someone asks ‘what other kind of shootings are there?’ there’s more than one type of projectile weapon - believe me, people have asked me this before (think for e.g. of ‘crossbow’)

I’ve heard of people getting killed by BB guns and paintball guns if they are shot at point blank range… BB guns especially.

I guess that would be considered “Shooting” too.

 

[Montalban]

Taking the syllogism further:

Knives and guns don’t kill, people do. I**t just makes the job easier.
**
Then we come to the point of only the criminals get shot at if everybody has a gun:

That’s assuming criminals (of all forms) are a dying breed.

Indeed. I recall a ‘massacre’ here in Australia some decades ago (1987; 7 people killed). Julian Knight went on a rampage. He randomly shot at passers-by. A man on a motorcylce came up over a bridge and saw a woman half-fallen out of her car. He slowed down to see what had happened. He then saw Julian Knight who jumped up (from a distance) and shot him.

If Julian Knight had only had knives then that man would have got away on his motorcycle. But, with the nature of guns he could be 100m down the road, and still get killed.

 

[mary_bobo]

We have discussed this adnauseum for 151 posts and I don’t think any of us is going to change the others mind. What one thinks is a reasoned argument the other thinks is folly–and vice versa. Let’s all go our merry way and find something else to discuss. :banghead:

 

[tbrown57]

cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/00news/finaldeath98.htm

Interesting article. Good news: for the time studied,

but the bad news is that the deaths were in the thousands.

Children. And teens.

Unacceptable. Period.

I freely admit I didn’t scour the web looking for current data, and that the numbers I found were for all gun deaths of kids and teens (not just accidental ones). But I’ll give kudos to anyone who finds such data showing that the numbers are no longer in the thousands due to fewer restrictions on guns.

Add the deaths of children and teens in with the accidental shootings that may occur when armed civilians step in to defend themselves, and the number of unacceptable deaths would be even higher, of course.

Call me a liberal anti-gun nut, but one child who kills himself accidentally by finding mommy and daddy’s gun and playing with it is enough reason to ban the filthy things, in my estimation.

Peace,
Dante

These facts are highly skewed. If you look at the demographics, a child is defined as anyone under the age of 20. Also if you look into FBI or other Law enforcement records for the same time, the vast majority, about 90+% of the Child and Teen deaths referrred to are between 14-19 and located in areas where GANG Violence is high. The drop is due more to increase police presence and enforcement of existing laws and newer gang targeted laws. I would be willing to bet that real accidental firearm deaths for children are less than 2% of what this report states. Accidental meaning an unintentional discharge by a child or adult that causes the child’s death. This does not include children killed by a drive-by shooting because that was not an accident. A Drive-By is an intentional act with no regard for anyone and many times no specific target.
The Brady foundation and the media love to spin statistics to emphasize their view. The worst culprit of this by far is Michael Moore, the so called Documentary producer, which is a subject that could fill up a blog all by itself.

 

[tbrown57]

Indeed. I recall a ‘massacre’ here in Australia some decades ago (1987; 7 people killed). Julian Knight went on a rampage. He randomly shot at passers-by. A man on a motorcylce came up over a bridge and saw a woman half-fallen out of her car. He slowed down to see what had happened. He then saw Julian Knight who jumped up (from a distance) and shot him.

If Julian Knight had only had knives then that man would have got away on his motorcycle. But, with the nature of guns he could be 100m down the road, and still get killed.

And since then all privately owned firearms were confiscated by law enforcement. So why has your violent crime rate, and armed robberies increased by over 47% by the last data I read from your own government news releases.
Great solution that turned out to be. you should have learned from Great Britian. They made the same mistake and now are expiriencing an even higher increase in violence.

 

[Sir_Knight]

At the risk of getting shot at for being a nut case, let me add my 10 cents:

1. Per capita deaths by guns for gunless countries like Japan and Scandinavian countries are more than 50% lower than in US.
2. Has anybody thought that only those who are responsible for security (police, etc) are supposed to have guns?
3. Has anybody thought what would Christ say about gun ownership?
   (I know already about wielding swords)
4. Has anybody thought that having more guns in the population is just like adding more darkness to a night already devoid of stars?

• Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
• Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
• Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
• The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
• We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
• The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
• An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
• A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
• When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).
• One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
• The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
• The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
• These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arm” refers to the state.
• “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
• Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
• Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.

*** Continued in NEXT Post ***

 

[Sir_Knight]

*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***

• In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
• The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
• Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
• A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
• Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
• Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
• Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
• A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
• Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
• Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
• The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
• Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
• The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
• Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
• Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
• We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
• Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
• Private citizens don’t need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
• Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
• “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. Private citizens do not.
• Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

When the US Founding Fathers guaranteed the right of the people forever to keep and bear arms, it was not so that there could be a government-run national army. A “well regulated militia” referred to the public as the militia for the preservation of liberty and as a CHECK against the STATE (our US OF A) becoming tyrannical and oppressive of us, the people. If we are armed, the government cannot rule as a tyranny. A country in which the state alone possesses weaponry is a country that could easily become a tyranny against the common people, who, being unarmed, would be unable to overthrow the tyranny.
The USA was born by overthrowing the British occupiers, for pete’s sake. The founding fathers of the USA understood the danger of a government which had absolute authority over unarmed people.

 

[mgrobertson79]

When the US Founding Fathers guaranteed the right of the people forever to keep and bear arms, it was not so that there could be a government-run national army. A “well regulated militia” referred to the public as the militia for the preservation of liberty and as a CHECK against the STATE (our US OF A) becoming tyrannical and oppressive of us, the people. If we are armed, the government cannot rule as a tyranny. A country in which the state alone possesses weaponry is a country that could easily become a tyranny against the common people, who, being unarmed, would be unable to overthrow the tyranny.
The USA was born by overthrowing the British occupiers, for pete’s sake. The founding fathers of the USA understood the danger of a government which had absolute authority over unarmed people.

This is true. There will be much bloodshed in this country if this gun control issue get any more advanced. It is not my wish to see that, but these folks don’t realize what they are doing. The people of this country, for the most part, will fight against government oppression. If you want to see a modern day civil war, keep pushing for more gun control and bans.

 

[tbrown57]

At the risk of getting shot at for being a nut case, let me add my 10 cents:

1. Per capita deaths by guns for gunless countries like Japan and Scandinavian countries are more than 50% lower than in US.
2. Has anybody thought that only those who are responsible for security (police, etc) are supposed to have guns?
3. Has anybody thought what would Christ say about gun ownership?
   (I know already about wielding swords)
4. Has anybody thought that having more guns in the population is just like adding more darkness to a night already devoid of stars?

Todays news 4-25 2007
“Violent crimes and shootings have been skyrocketing in JAPAN and the majority are directly a result of or related to organized crime. Some of the toughest restrictions on gun ownership has had NO effect” MSNBC television.

Just a thought- What if we banned Hollywood movies that glorify Gangsters and gun violence. Read “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” by David Grossman. Clear concise proven facts that the rise in violence is directly the fault of glorified violence in movies, television, and video games. Increased exposure erases the moral barrier to killing that 99.99% of humans are born with.

Police in Great Britian never carried guns until it became required after they started banning them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When the US Founding Fathers guaranteed the right of the people forever to keep and bear arms, it was not so that there could be a government-run national army. A “well regulated militia” referred to the public as the militia for the preservation of liberty and as a CHECK against the STATE (our US OF A) becoming tyrannical and oppressive of us, the people. If we are armed, the government cannot rule as a tyranny. A country in which the state alone possesses weaponry is a country that could easily become a tyranny against the common people, who, being unarmed, would be unable to overthrow the tyranny.
The USA was born by overthrowing the British occupiers, for pete’s sake. The founding fathers of the USA understood the danger of a government which had absolute authority over unarmed people.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in American cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in North America.

Noah Webster, writing as “A Citizen of America” in “An Examination of the Leading Priniciples of the Federal Constitution,” Philadelphia, October 17, 1787