Mombu the Politics Forum sponsored links

Go Back   Mombu the Politics Forum > Politics > Before the ban...
User Name
Password
REGISTER NOW! Mark Forums Read

sponsored links


Reply
 
1 19th April 04:30
seb
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


Reading this article, seems pretty relevant and interesting:

A nation-wide ****ysis of firearms deaths has found there were 10,150
firearm related deaths over the 16 years from 1980 to 1995. These accounted
for 0.5 per cent of all deaths registered.

Full results of the ****ysis by the Australian Bureau of Statistics were
released today in the publication Firearms Deaths Australia, 1980-95. The
figures were collated from the data on registered deaths maintained by the
Registrars of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in the States and Territories.

The ****ysis found that 78 per cent of firearms deaths were suicides. A
further 15 per cent were homicides and 5 per cent were accidents. Males made
up 89 per cent of all firearm deaths.

Over the period there were 210 firearms deaths of children under the age of
15 years. Almost half of the child firearm deaths were homicides (46 per
cent) and a further 30 per cent were accidents. However the highest firearm
death rates occurred among those aged 15-34 years. Among adult age groups,
most firearm deaths were suicides (over 70 per cent in each age group).

While the type of weapon used can be recorded on death certificates as part
of the cause of death details, about 37 per cent of deaths registered over
the period contained insufficient information to classify the type of
firearm involved. Of the remaining deaths, 63 per cent involved a hunting
rifle and 30 per cent involved a shotgun. Information on whether the weapon
used was automatic or semi-automatic is not available.

The number of firearms deaths and the death rate decreased over the
reference period. The firearms death rate decreased from 4.8 deaths per
100,000 population in 1980-82 to 2.6 deaths in 1995. There were 700 firearms
deaths in 1980 and 479 firearm deaths in 1995, the lowest number recorded in
the 16-year period. The rates declined for both males and females and for
the three major types of firearm death (accidents, suicides, homicides).

The firearm death rates for capital cities were higher than those for rural
areas at the beginning of the period, but recorded greater declines than did
the rates for rural areas. In 1992-94 the same average rates were recorded
and in 1995 the rural rate was higher than that for capital cities.

************

Interesting to note, the turn around point where homicides began to start
taking a downward trend (according to the AIC
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig09.html) was between 1965 -
1970.

Homicides were on a downward trend already, however I think it is also fair
to note that firearms related homicides began to drop most heavily around
the late 80's. What is difficult to tell is whether this was a result of
firearms laws, better policing, welfare reform or whatever...

Whatever the cause, it is arguable that the minor reforms following the 1987
massacres were the only reforms that had a signficant impact on firearms
related homicide. The usual spikes and lows of firearms deaths were still
present after the 1992 reforms and registration of handguns (an acknowledged
waste of time?), however we just can't see how the 1996 laws will affect
yet. The fact that the trend was towards a decrease of the amount of
homicides has to make me wonder however, in the absence of firearms reform
would we have reached the same level of low firearms homicides? It is my
humble opinion that we probably would not.
THe problem is, how does this affect the total amount of homicides?

I believe the difference is negligible. It seems that homicides always
experience yearly and monthly fluctuation but on the whole remain steady,
decreasing so slowly that only long term statistics notice the trend.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2002/fig08.html

This begs the question, are firearms related homicides so much worse than
that committed with a knife or with no weapon at all, that we need to spend
so much money and cause so much heartache reforming controls on guns? I
don't think so. To a degree, arms control works. Laws that keeps guns out of
the hands of criminals are the only ones that are shown to be effective in
long term statistics, even when you look solely at firearms homicides. The
laws implemented in 1992 (most) and 1996 (all) are unlikely to ever have the
effect that we want them to, as the measures implemented such as
registration of firearms and complex permit systems don't decrease the
possibility of a criminal getting his/her hands on one whatsoever. This not
only true as a result of the ever increasing illicti market of firearms, but
even if one was to decide he wanted to attain one legally, his obstacles
remain the same as they were 15 years ago, for the only effective measure
installed to stop potential criminals getting firearms in all this hoopla of
the past 10 years was background checks, and removing the possiblity of
certain criminals ever getting their hand on legal arms (1992).

So will bans on firearms work? Nope, not in this guys opinion...a total ban
will just increase the size of the growing illicit firearms market, a market
which is much easier to tap into by crims than the likes of drugs, not to
mention more profitable. Unlike drugs, the illicit firearms market is far
more difficult to control as guns are simply nothing more than machinery, a
combination of parts, not a chemical that can be easily detected. Looking at
the way drug laws have been so successfully enforced (HAHA), I find it hard
to imagine that police will be able to keep tabs on firearms. This point is
obvious to me. You just need to look at past and current examples of
prohibition such as drugs worldwide, cigarettes in Canada (sort of
prohibition), alcohol in the US, child **** on the internet....the examples
are never ending. Until we start controlling illicit markets we have created
already, I think it would be downright ridiculous to keep adding to the
problem, especially something that has so many usefeul potential uses and of
which the vices are so trivially negligible, such as firearms...

~seb
  Reply With Quote


  sponsored links


2 19th April 10:21
roger dewhurst
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


hard

is

examples

created


of


Good stuff, but convince the Great Australian Pygmy!

R
  Reply With Quote
3 19th April 10:21
seb
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


I've dedicated the rest of my life to it. I manage to sneak something about
firearms control into every situation possible, and am constantly drawing
****ogies whenever I see something else banned I know some of these anti-gun
fanatics might like. They call pro-gun lobbyist fantics when they are the
ones trying to force their opinion and social theories onto us trying to
constantly "keep the issue alive". In the words of Winston Churchill:

"A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject."

I think that quote defines nearly every person involved in this issue. Both
feel they are right and are trying to convince the other.

~Seb
  Reply With Quote
4 19th April 10:22
ian mcfadyen
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


about


anti-gun

Both


Just explain one thing. What do you want to have a gun for? What do you
intend doing with it?
The crucial point, which you ignore, is that banning guns doesn't matter
because most people don't have a gun and don't want a gun in the first
place. No one except a professional shooter needs to own a gun so what's the
problem with outlawing them.
  Reply With Quote
5 19th April 10:22
jdege
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


It's none of your business, so long as he doesn't intend a criminal act.


The crucial point, which you ignore, is that in a free society people
can do as they like, unless they have been proven to have caused harm,
through due process, and beyond a reasonable doubt.

No one but a professional golfer needs to own a golf club.

--
While it may be that a society in which crime is so rare that no one
ever needs to carry a weapon is "civilized," a society that stigmatizes
the carrying of weapons by the law-abiding -- because it distrusts its
citizens more than it fears rapists, robbers, and murderers -- certainly
cannot claim this distinction.
- Jeffrey Snyder, "Nation of Cowards"
  Reply With Quote
6 19th April 10:22
seb
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


Along with what Jeffrey said, which is a great explanation from a legal,
ethical and moral standpoint...

I want a gun for the beauty of it's design. I want a gun to defend my home.
I want a gun, so that I can experience it's reality. I want a gun because of
their unbelieveable role in shaping history. I want a gun because I derive
enjoyment from collecting them Just because YOU don't like guns and don't
wan't them doesn't mean you can simply decide that nobody is allowed tp want
them.

Just like the examples I gave, who needs motorbikes other than a
professional racer? Who needs a dog other than a security guard or blind
person? Who needs alcohol or cigarettes? Who really needs half the things we
keep in our home? No-one.

The point is we want to have them we don't need them, we don't NEED lots of
things, we just want them to make our life better, to gain enjoyment or a
feeling of security.

Finally, where did you get the statistic that most people don't have a gun
and don't want a gun? That's garbage and I know both you and I know it. You
can't live in Melbourne or Sydney (very urban places), ask 3 of your friends
if they like guns and then claim that be a viable sample of the population.
Nor can you post a poll in some Melbourne newspaper and expect it to be an
accurate sample, how is Joe from Alice Springs represented or Michael from
Fremantle?

If no-one wants or needs a gun, why do we have all these so called
'extremist' organisations forming throughout Australia fighting for more lax
gun laws? Do you think that they are all idiot hicks who don't care about
society? Think about what creates extremist organisation, it is always as a
result of a great injustice to the victim (usually the founder)....an
injustice so great, that they are willing to put their lives, families and
freedom on the line just to fight it...

~Seb
  Reply With Quote
7 19th April 10:22
jacques guy
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban... (respect)


Hole in one! Ban golf clubs! All the more so that they
can be used as lethal weapons. All the more so that
few are aware of the dangers of golf clubs. What the
public needs in this respect is education. The
harmless-looking fellow you see lugging a bagfull
of golf clubs, what is he really plotting?

What does he need golf clubs for anyway?
Putting silly little balls into silly little
holes in the ground? There is no need whatsoever
for the things. BAN THEM NOW.

(And golf lawns are a waste of water, anyway.
Another reason for banning golf clubs).
  Reply With Quote
8 19th April 10:23
ernie b.
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


Because he wants one, or more. That's reason enough.

Why would that concern you unless you fear that he would take a shot at
you? Do you have anything on your conscience?


A crucial point which you seem to ignore is that freedom of choice is the
basis of a free society. Banning possession of *anything* _does_ matter
because it restricts that essential freedom of choice.

I've heard of no one, with the exception of a symbolic, never enforced, law
in a city in the US, who is trying to force people who don't like guns to
have anything to do with them. On the other hand people who don't like
guns are forever trying to force their views on society in the form of gun- grabber laws.

And no one except a professional carpenter needs to own a hammer and saw,
no one but a professional chef needs to own a knife set. The problem is
obvious but it's one of those "If you have to ask then you'll never
understand it" things.
--
Ernie B.

Anarchist: Someone who doesn't need a policeman to point out the
difference between right and wrong. _U. Utah Phillips
  Reply With Quote
9 19th April 15:13
lurch
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


If it saves just one life..........


Lurch
http://www.thelurch.co.uk
  Reply With Quote
10 19th April 15:13
bernardz
External User
 
Posts: 1
Default Before the ban...


In article <3f6659d1$0$23613$5a62ac22@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
magic_j@iinet.net.au says...

What would be interesting is a figure for how many lives were saved as a
person had a gun to frighten away thieves?
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes




Copyright © 2006 SmartyDevil.com - Dies Mies Jeschet Boenedoesef Douvema Enitemaus -
666