-
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;695668]how? a buyback only works with registered weapons, you don't need to register a firearm in the USA.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how they could accomplish it, the USA seems to be sunk in a tide of guns and gun culture
But those stats expose the oft propogated lie that 'guns dont kill people' because demonstrably they do. Guns kill people and it stands to reason that more guns means more gun-deaths, because b y those figures there is definately a correlation between total guns/total murder, as well as total guns/gun assault
I wonder how AU and US rates stack up against the comparable per-capita murder rate is in the (basically non-armed) Netherlands eg, and their gun-murder per 100,000 ratio ...?
-
[quote=Fleet 500]Again, if the criminal really wants a gun, he can get it. No matter what the laws are or if there are 1 million gun laws.[/quote]
Don't realise how ridiculous that argument is? That's like saying "Well, if a criminal wants to commit a dangerous and violent crime he's gonna do it regardless, so what's the point in trying to stop him, eh?" Surely it's the fundamental responsibilty of the law makers to be doing everything they can to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of criminals/potential criminals, not just rolling over and giving up trying to protect civilians from gun crime?
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695637]
Tell that to those who are alive today because they had a gun in the house.
[/QUOTE]
And what should we tell to the families of the thousands who have lost their life as a result of the proliferation of guns (both legal and illegal) and prevalent gun culture in the US?
Since we're playing the statistics game, this should make some interesting reading for anyone who thinks the wide and near unrestricted availability of firearms is good for keeping the populace safe...
[B]Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):[/B]
[B]Homicide[/B] [B]Suicide [/B] [B]Unintentional[/B]
[B]USA[/B] 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
[B]England/Wales[/B] 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04 (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
Seems to me a fairly clear indication of the benefits of having very strict gun regulations like we have here in the UK.
And some more stats regarding the banning of handguns -
In 1995 there were [B]358[/B] recorded gun deaths in England/Wales. In 1996 there was a partial ban on handguns, followed by a TOTAL ban on handguns in 1997. Number of people shot dead in 2006 was [B]49[/B]. In the 10 years since the legislation came in the number of gun deaths has fallen to a fraction of what it once was.
-
[QUOTE=nota;695682]I don't know how they could accomplish it, the USA seems to be sunk in a tide of guns and gun culture[/QUOTE]
then why worry about it? why not try and come up with a solution that would actually work? ;)
storage laws would help, but the problem is it's just gone too far, we're about 100 years too late.
-
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;695668]how? a buyback only works with registered weapons, you don't need to register a firearm in the USA.[/QUOTE]
Crims are stupid they might think they can get a quick buck from it lol..
But it's in the minds as much as there hands, It's a way of life.. We sing meat pies kangaroos and holden cars..
The kiwis sing sheep pies kiwis and we got no cars.
The poms sing bla bla whine whine **** off tosser..
The U.S sings fried food lama's and fire arms.
It's every Americans right to have a firearm, It's maybe gone to far now and this type of tragedy will just keep going on.. It's not the movies even though they might try and blame them..
I was just watching cheaters:p, And this guy they were after had a gun in the glove box and he was a nut with a restraining order to keep away from his wife.. He made sure he warned them he had it on camera.
-
[QUOTE=Jack_Bauer;695687]
Since we're playing the statistics game, this should make some interesting reading for anyone who thinks the wide and near unrestricted availability of firearms is good for keeping the populace safe...
[B]Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):[/B]
[B]Homicide[/B] [B]Suicide [/B] [B]Unintentional[/B]
[B]USA[/B] 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)
Canada 0.54 (1999) 2.65 (1997) 0.15 (1997)
Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -
Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -
[B]England/Wales[/B] 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)
Japan 0.04 (1998) 0.04 (1995) <0.01 (1997)
Seems to me a fairly clear indication of the benefits of having very strict gun regulations like we have here in the UK.
And some more stats regarding the banning of handguns -
In 1995 there were [B]358[/B] recorded gun deaths in England/Wales. In 1996 there was a partial ban on handguns, followed by a TOTAL ban on handguns in 1997. Number of people shot dead in 2006 was [B]49[/B]. In the 10 years since the legislation came in the number of gun deaths has fallen to a fraction of what it once was.[/QUOTE]
I looked around and found the same figures from a "gun control" website. Just how accurate are those figures?
The subject of gun control was on another message board I visit and here is some info I found...
In Switzerland, every adult male is given a fully-automatic rifle with several hundred rounds of ammunition by the Swiss militia. As a result, Switzerland has one of the highest rates of civilian firearms possession in the world. Switzerland has a population of 7,523,934 and on average has 69 homicides/year. (One homicide/109,043 people.)
In the U.K., private ownership of firearms has been nearly abolished. The U.K. has a population of 60,609,153 and on average has 853 murders/year. (One murder/71,054 people.)
There are approximately 19,457 crimes involving firearms in the U.K. every year. How can that be if gun control works so well?
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695717]The subject of gun control was on another message board I visit and here is some info I found...
In Switzerland, every adult male is given a fully-automatic rifle with several hundred rounds of ammunition by the Swiss militia. As a result, Switzerland has one of the highest rates of civilian firearms possession in the world. [/QUOTE]
So every adult male of any age (18 - 105 y/o?) in Switzerland posesses a rifle .. throughout their lifetime? I suppose this also encompases prisoners, those frail or sick including the mentally ill or deranged ..?
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695717]IThe subject of gun control was on another message board I visit and here is some info I found...
In Switzerland, every adult male is given a fully-automatic rifle with several hundred rounds of ammunition by the Swiss militia[/QUOTE]
it is not [I]given[/I], it is issued to them during their years of compulsory military service, after which they are allowed to keep their weapons at home.
The training is not to be overlooked, i wouldn't agree with assault rifles [I]given[/I] to the general public of Australia at least, since for the most part they're ill-trained morons. After training i wouldn't be so skeptical (well, maybe. half of them can't operate a car properly)
-
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;695726]it is not [I]given[/I], it is issued to them during their years of compulsory military service, after which they are allowed to keep their weapons at home.
[/QUOTE]
Anyone happen to know what percentage eventually relinquish these weapons?
-
[QUOTE=nota;695729]Anyone happen to know what percentage eventually relinquish these weapons?[/QUOTE]
i don't know, but surely once over a certain age they'd have to be given back anyway? That said there are some old timers today i'd rather have fight with me than the current youth :D
i had a lol at this
[QUOTE]
My Pharmacology Professor posted these statistics. I thought you guys
would
find them interesting.
Tongue in Cheek~~
Consider these facts:
1. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000
2. Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year is 120,000
3. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171 (US HHS)
Then consider this:
1. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000
2. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500
3. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188
Therefore:
Statistically speaking, physicians are approximately 9,000 times more
dangerous than gun owners. Not everyone has a gun but almost everyone
has at
least one physician. Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We
must ban physicians before this gets out of hand. As a public health
measure, I have withheld the statistics from lawyers for fear that the
shock
would cause you to see medical attention! [/QUOTE]
could probably apply this comaprison to anything
-
[QUOTE=clutch-monkey;695731]
i had a lol at this
could probably apply this comaprison to anything[/QUOTE]
Lol. That's it... no more doctors for me! I'll just buy another gun instead!
-
ugh. How did i guess this thread would turn into malarky about gun control.
it's not even about this Sad man and the lonely existence he lived - it's been turned into a circus over Gun Control.
Show some F**king respect to the victims families - let them grieve. don't use their tragedy to push your agendas.
thats for everyone.
-
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695717]
The subject of gun control was on another message board I visit and here is some info I found...
In Switzerland, every adult male is given a fully-automatic rifle with several hundred rounds of ammunition by the Swiss militia. As a result, Switzerland has one of the highest rates of civilian firearms possession in the world. Switzerland has a population of 7,523,934 and on average has 69 homicides/year. (One homicide/109,043 people.) [/QUOTE]
The Swiss model is another typical gun nut red herring. It totally ignores cultural and social influences as well as the fact that every Swiss male must complete several years in the military. So the population to a man has military training including discipline. They are not [I]“given a fully-automatic rifle with several hundred rounds of ammunition by the Swiss militia”. [/I]They are given the option to buy a weapon upon leaving the military. They also have a high gun suicide rate.
I find it startling that even gun nut mentality can find any logic in highlighting the eccentricities of one country out of all the rest as the example to follow even forgetting the unique circumstances that surround it.
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695717] In the U.K., private ownership of firearms has been nearly abolished. [/QUOTE]
From what I can see they can own small calibre rifles that do not contain a magazine (single shot)
[QUOTE=Fleet 500;695717]
The U.K. has a population of 60,609,153 and on average has 853 murders/year. (One murder/71,054 people.)
There are approximately 19,457 crimes involving firearms in the U.K. every year. How can that be if gun control works so well? [/QUOTE]
Because criminals still have them and people still have them . A buy back or ban or whatever won’t work immediately. Guns will have to slowly go out of circulation. It is a slow process but one that can’t work unless it has a starting point.
I have a friend who recently (a couple of years) migrated from England because he found it was getting violent there and wanted his kids in a better environment. He constantly talks to his brothers and friends and they also reiterate the trouble there. When you have a country which is experiencing violence and crime the last thing you want is the proliferation of weapons. How would England’s current circumstances be helped by giving everyone access to more guns? There is no logic in that.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695740]ugh. How did i guess this thread would turn into malarky about gun control.
it's not even about this Sad man and the lonely existence he lived - it's been turned into a circus over Gun Control.
Show some F**king respect to the victims families - let them grieve. don't use their tragedy to push your agendas.
thats for everyone.[/QUOTE]
Well some people find this is closely related to the issue. Ignoring the surrounding circumstances and not learning from such a tragedy means it can happen again. And we all know that it will. While special interest groups selfishly go about trying to protect their ability to own weapons innocent people will die and be injured. People will always die but I am of the opinion the less carnage and grief the better. I am not looking for perfection, just improvement.
-
[QUOTE=crisis;695749]Well some people find this is closely related to the issue. Ignoring the surrounding circumstances and not learning from such a tragedy means it can happen again. And we all know that it will. While special interest groups selfishly go about trying to protect their ability to own weapons innocent people will die and be injured. People will always die but I am of the opinion the less carnage and grief the better. I am not looking for perfection, just improvement.[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how making it more difficult for him to get a gun would have prevented him from getting one - it would have just delayed the inevitable.
and even when that happens whats to stop him going to the black market?
While i agree that less guns all round is the better solution it is not the reality - and more than likely never will be.
I am still of the opinion that more can be learned from the reasons behind this man becoming so isolated and violent than the methods through which he carried out his final deeds.
-
[QUOTE=IBrake4Rainbows;695740]ugh. How did i guess this thread would turn into malarky about gun control.
it's not even about this Sad man and the lonely existence he lived - it's been turned into a circus over Gun Control.
Show some F**king respect to the victims families - let them grieve. don't use their tragedy to push your agendas.
thats for everyone.[/QUOTE]
You've got to be kidding .. aren't you?
Explain exactly how an attempt at a mature discussion in an automotive forum (of not just the 'why' but also [i]'how'[/i] this dreadful event was able to occur) makes us somehow 'less respectful' to those grieving families?
What makes you think those very family members will be reading this debate?
Do you think it likely they will check out the list of 'sincere condolences' in UCP?
Would you think it a tad [i]more sincere[/i] if those dishing up their deeply personal condolences might bother doing it in a form that would actually be received by said grieving families, such as in a letter, and therefore mean [i]something[/i] to the bereaved?
Talk is cheap, but so are crocodile tears. You asked a lot of questions in post # 68. I for one am merely attempting to canvass the answers