Looks Like I was Right

[Skashion]

You shouldn't just look at the firearms-related deaths but at the overall murder/homicide rate. However, it is still five times higher in the United States. Generally the evidence does support more guns, more homicides. It's not exact but there's a strong correlation and anyone who denies it is a bit of a fool. Guns were invented and perfected with the aim of increasing killing efficiency so it's fundamentally stupid to argue they don't. Nobody argues over whether a computer from 2012 is no better than a computer from 1982. So how can anyone possibly argue having 20th century handguns makes it no more likely that your murder designs will be successful than a medieval-style stabbing? It's a bizarre argument used by those with an agenda.

It is also a fact that in the United States you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than an intruder.

 

[PistonBlue]

Less guns doesn't therefore mean less murder

Australia enacted strong gun control in the mid 90's and the murder rate, both in general and with guns, stayed the same. Also the highest and 2nd highest rate of yearly gun related murder over a 7 year period occurred after the policy change. Armed robbery rose right after the ban. Gun related suicide did drop quite dramatically (around 50%) but unfortunately suicide rate overall was unaffected, continuing a steady rise.

There will always be some murder but high amounts of murder have more to do with economics, drug laws and culture (eg. cultural clashes, heterogeneity etc.) than what items you have readily available to commmit the murder.

The University of Sydney think otherwise. http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news/2006/Dec/061214.php

"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said adjunct associate professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney."

 

[ElanJo]

Less guns doesn't therefore mean less murder

Australia enacted strong gun control in the mid 90's and the murder rate, both in general and with guns, stayed the same. Also the highest and 2nd highest rate of yearly gun related murder over a 7 year period occurred after the policy change. Armed robbery rose right after the ban. Gun related suicide did drop quite dramatically (around 50%) but unfortunately suicide rate overall was unaffected, continuing a steady rise.

There will always be some murder but high amounts of murder have more to do with economics, drug laws and culture (eg. cultural clashes, heterogeneity etc.) than what items you have readily available to commmit the murder.

The University of Sydney think otherwise. http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news/2006/Dec/061214.php

"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said adjunct associate professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney."

No, they don't. Nothing there conflicts with my post.

 

[johnmc]

I wont let the kids out unless they are strapped nowadays

 

[stonerblue]

Some people will say anything for a little bit of attention.

 

[ElanJo]

You shouldn't just look at the firearms-related deaths but at the overall murder/homicide rate. However, it is still five times higher in the United States. Generally the evidence does support more guns, more homicides. It's not exact but there's a strong correlation and anyone who denies it is a bit of a fool. Guns were invented and perfected with the aim of increasing killing efficiency so it's fundamentally stupid to argue they don't. Nobody argues over whether a computer from 2012 is no better than a computer from 1982. So how can anyone possibly argue having 20th century handguns makes it no more likely that your murder designs will be successful than a medieval-style stabbing? It's a bizarre argument used by those with an agenda.

It is also a fact that in the United States you're more likely to shoot a family member by accident than an intruder.

That's exactly what I did. I did both.

I agree.

Indeed

I wouldn't make such an argument. I only argue that, judging from the facts (at least in te case of Australia), murder rates, both gun-related and notso, are not affected by gun control. Therefore it is wrong to say Less guns = Less murder.


Anywho... I care about murder rates. I do not care more about murder based on what is being used to commit a murder. It would seem that in the case of some (not even necessarily on here) there is a weird fetishism with hating the yank's fetishism with guns, like they wouldn't care too much if murder rates were high just as long as there were no gun related murders. This is how it appears at times.
I believe that the US' murder/homicide rate would be drastically reduced by following Portugal's lead concerning drug laws. That would be a bigger help, and be far more achievable - both politically and practically, than trying to take people's guns from them.
That is my position until I see evidence that counters it.

I realise that by arguing in favour of a libertarian approach to guns, or at least not arguing in favour of the reverse, I will, to some at least, appear to be a gunnut but I am not. Never fired one, never even seen one in real life. And I doubt I would ever own one even if given the chance.

 

[PistonBlue]

Less guns doesn't therefore mean less murder

Australia enacted strong gun control in the mid 90's and the murder rate, both in general and with guns, stayed the same. Also the highest and 2nd highest rate of yearly gun related murder over a 7 year period occurred after the policy change. Armed robbery rose right after the ban. Gun related suicide did drop quite dramatically (around 50%) but unfortunately suicide rate overall was unaffected, continuing a steady rise.

There will always be some murder but high amounts of murder have more to do with economics, drug laws and culture (eg. cultural clashes, heterogeneity etc.) than what items you have readily available to commmit the murder.

The University of Sydney think otherwise. http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news/2006/Dec/061214.php

"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said adjunct associate professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney."

No, they don't. Nothing there conflicts with my post.

Yes, they do. Prof Alpers suggests that the removal of 700,000 guns was associated with a declining rate of gun homicides. You suggest the gun control made no difference to gun homicides.

 

[masterwig]

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

 

[ElanJo]

The University of Sydney think otherwise. http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news/2006/Dec/061214.php

"From 1996 to 2003, the total number of gun deaths each year fell from 521 to 289, suggesting that the removal of more than 700,000 guns was associated with a faster declining rate of gun suicide and gun homicide," said adjunct associate professor Philip Alpers, also from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney."

No, they don't. Nothing there conflicts with my post.

Yes, they do. Prof Alpers suggests that the removal of 700,000 guns was associated with a declining rate of gun homicides. You suggest the gun control made no difference to gun homicides.

Read my post again, please.

 

[brooklandsblue2.0]

'The gat protects'. A strawberry blonde from Brooklands actually typed this.

I laughed out loud at this. I don't know why but I did. Nice one Johnny.

I really live it.