Gun Control

I gave a potential solution to the entire problem

 

And nobody died. So why would we implement something like "knife control"?
I get your point, but it's obviously two completely different things

 

They have quite the comparisons. They are not completely different things.

 

Knives generally are used by the general populace for utility, not weaponry. There is significantly less of a threat when faced with a knife than with a gun, the latter capable of doing far more damage, far more quickly, to a greater quantity of people.

The only real comparison that can be made is that criminals use them both as weapons. The same could be said for anything, really. Someone could go on a murder spree with a bike lock and chain, and probably be far more lethal than with a knife

 

I understand your feelings on the matter, OP, but I disagree in pretty much every way. The things you've linked are beyond disingenuous, whether you realized it or not, and tend to pad numbers with suicides. From what I see, the issue is one grounded heavily within social and enocomic problems, and partially abysmal health care. There's also the increased media focus on shootings, despite their frequency not really increasing, but generally decreasing with some variance between years. I feel that it has had a large impact on giving people the idea to do such awful things.


The image about Trump undoing an Obama-era measure to stop mentally ill people from buying firearms is also disingenuous. What was undone was a Social Security administration rule that added Social Security disability recipients who have been deemed "unable to manage their own affairs", meaning eople "with marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease", to the federal background check system for gun purchases. Effectively barring the people who met that vague criteria from purchasing firearms. People who are just on disability and can't work. It used a broad classification to sweep over a bunch of people who hadn't even displayed any signs of being a risk.

Far from a measure solely aimed at stopping people who are dangerous from buying guns. It prevented ordinary, however disabled, people from buying firearms. People who weren't dangers to others, or themselves.

Currently, people who actually ARE a danger, such as individuals with paranoid schizophrenia, usually aren't able to legally purchase firearms. But it's not perfect, and it should be worked on to fix any flaws it may have.

Moving on,

 

People die in Australia as a result of firearms violence at almost the same rate they did prior to the firearms act, and some sources state that more than a quarter million illicit firearms exist in Australia currently.

The total firearms death rate in 1995 - the year before the massacre and the laws introduced - was 2.6 per 100,000 people. The total firearms murder rate that year was 0.3/100,000. From 1980-1995, Australian firearms deaths dropped from 4.9/100,000-2.6/100,000 without the implementation of firearms laws. This is a rate of decline that has remained fairly constant; Looking at 1996-2014, in which the rate has dropped from 2.6-0.86, it shows that the decline has been slower in a longer period of time since the law’s passing. Likewise, homicides declined more quickly in the 15 years prior to the firearms laws (0.8-0.3) than in the 18 years since it (0.3-0.1). This just indicates that firearms deaths haven’t been noticeably affected by the legislation you’ve claimed has done so much to decrease gun crime.

It should also be noted that around the same time, New Zealand experienced a similar mass shooting, but did not change their existing firearms laws, which remain fairly lax; even moreso than some American states like California, New York, or Connecticut. Despite this, their firearms crime rate has declined fairly steadily as well, and they haven’t experienced a mass shooting since.

The “australia banned guns and now they’re fine” argument is really old and really poorly put together. Gun control is little more than a pink band-aid on the sucking chest wound that is America’s social and economic problems. It’s a ‘quick fix’ issue used by politicians to skirt around solving the roots of the violence problem in the United States, which are primarily poverty, lack of opportunities, and lack of education.

You could ban guns tomorrow nationwide and gun violence and overall violent crime would not be reduced at all.

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn,[37] noted that the level of legal gun ownership in NSW increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide.[40]

A study coauthored by Simon Chapman found declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p=0.04), firearm suicides (p=0.007) and firearm homicides (p=0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased.[43]

Subsequently, a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that “the hypothesis that Australia’s prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported… if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events.”[44]


At this point I should also probably point out that Australia’s gun laws have not even reduced gun ownership in Australia. In fact, gun ownership in Australia is actually higher now than in 1996.

All of these inconvenient facts aside, we haven’t even touched on the cost of implementing Australian style gun control in America.

I keep hearing people say that the US should adopt Australia’s gun control policy and I don’t think they have really thought about the big picture of that plan.

Australia had far less guns per person and people in their country did not live in a society that was brought up respecting The 2nd Amendment. The culture of Australia is very different than that of the culture of America when it comes to gun ownership and self defense. There is also the fact that Australia has no bordering nations, and it is largely left to largely feeble attempts at cross-ocean smuggling, resulting in more successfully making the firearms themselves.

Because of this, the Australian government was able to buy back 631,000 guns at the estimated price of about $500,000,000.

And even after all of that, it still did nothing to prevent violent crime and criminals in Australia still have access to illegal guns, despite being an island country that isn’t bordered by other countries with high violent crime rates and rampant with illegal drug cartels.

There are over 360,000,000 legally owned firearms in America. If we go by Australia’s numbers ($792.39 per gun), these guns would cost our government $285,261,489,698.89 to buy back. Almost 300 BILLION dollars, assuming that every gun owner voluntarily turns in their guns… Which is a very slim to nothing chance.

Who’s going to pay for that? Anti-gunners? I think not.

So, in closing, you want America to put in place gun legislation that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars AND has already been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective at protecting innocent lives or creating a safer society?

Seems pretty silly.

 

IMPACT ON SUICIDE RATES:

Suicide is a phenomenon for which at least a very large portion of substitution of method occurs. If a person wants to die and his/her “preferred” means is not available, he/she can quite easily determine another quite satisfactory means. A good thing about means other than guns, when it comes to trying to kill oneself, is that most other means are quieter—so it’s likely your intent won’t be discovered if you are unsuccessful, leaving you free to try again until you are successful. The “success” rate for the average attempt with a gun may be higher than for other means, but a suicidal person can use some of the other means repeatedly until successful.


The gun suicide rate averaged about 3.45/100k from ‘79 to ‘87, then dropped unevenly at about .158/100k (average) per year from ‘87 to ‘96. This (‘97 & ‘98) is where gun controllers would think the suicide rate should drop immediately or start dropping at a higher rate (i.e., higher than .158/100k). Instead, the average drop per year was virtually identical (.156/100k) from ‘96 to '04.

The truth is that the semi-auto and pump firearms that were the target of the ban/buyback have no more value for suicide than any of the allowed firearms. If one shoots oneself in the head with a rapid fire gun, one does not then take another shot. It takes only one shot to commit suicide. So one should not expect the ban (that hardly reduced the stock of long arms and didn’t reduce the stock of handguns at all) to have had any impact on suicide.

It is also inconceivable that any other part of the new gun restrictions would have a perceptible impact on the gun suicide rate. Attempts to identify people who are likely to try suicide (except for those who have already done so) have been woefully inadequate. And those contemplating suicide are likely to hide weapons rather than surrender them all to their government.


One may wonder (from looking at the graph) if a trend in gun suicide had started from '93 to '96, in which case it could be argued that gun suicide dropped abruptly in '97 and '98, interrupting the trend. It is very possible. The '93-'96 points lie very close to a straight line. Another year or two of data points along the line would have made it quite probably a trend. A trend of only three years cannot be well proven because the possibility of such patterns occurring from chance alone is too great. If '93 to '96 was a trend, the post-'96 trend still appears to be heading towards getting back on the '93 to '96 trend line in a few years. Note too that the values from '01 to '04 look much like a nonlinear trend, largely because of the small departures from the curve.

Unfortunately, we can’t be very certain of conclusions drawn from such short-term trends even if the trends are very smooth. On the other hand, long term trends are not really good bases for detecting a change at a particular point in time if the fact is ignored that there really are many true short-term trends. A long-term trend needs to be stable to be useful. Suicide and crime rate trends result from many things, some consistent over the long term and some only over short terms.

The non-gun suicide rate averaged about 7.859/100k from '79 to '85, then jumped up where it averaged about 10.086/100k from '87 to '94. It increased at a rapid average rate of about .873/100k per year from '93 and '94 to '97, then dropped at a high, consistent rate (.585/100k per year, average) from '98 to '04. Note that the '96 rate was significantly below a trend line through the '93, '94, '95 and '97 points. Remember this when we get into the discussion of assault and robbery rates.


It is noteworthy that the rates for total and non-gun suicides dropped fast and consistently from '98 to '04. There is no way these impacts could relate to firearms. So something else has been actually working and reducing suicide rates. Maybe it was good economy. Maybe Australian governments have actually been doing something worthwhile. Whatever the cause, it had no impact on gun suicide rates, which simply continued to drop at essentially the same rate as between '91 and '97.


Yes, people die by guns where more guns are present. People also drown more often in places where there are bodies of water present. What this weak argument ignores is the fact that gun control does absolutely nothing to create a safer society.

 

Gun Control in Other Countries:

People have a habit of making the false assumption that stricter gun control results in lower violent crime and/or lower gun violence. This assumption is simply not true.

Gun Related Deaths per 100,000

• United States - 10.64

Countries With Strict Gun Control:

• Mexico - 11.17
• Argentina - 10.5
• Brazil - 19.03
• Colombia - 28.14
• El Salvador - 46.85
• Guatemala - 36.38
• Honduras - 64.8
• Jamaica - 39.74
• South Africa - 21.51
• Swaziland - 37.16
• Venezuela - 50.90

Much like America, all of those countries have their own unique social and economic situations that have likely played a large hand in what's going on there. But some of them have one thing in common: Very strict gun control that has taken guns away from the civilians. I don't like that trend, given that it's done nothing to help them.

Other stats:

• Banning guns would not reduce murder and suicide
• No rise in mass shootings
• Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
• Guns are excellent self defense tools
• Mexico’s 90% Gun Supply come from the USA Myth
• DOJ Study Fails to Show 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Worked
• 64% of gun control advocates believe the incorrect assumption that gun crime has gone up
• 53% of Americans oppose stricter gun laws
• 64% of Americans believe it would be bad if only the government had guns
• 62% of Americans believe that the government wouldn’t fairly enforce gun laws
• 74% of Americans believe that the Constitution allows them to own a gun.
• Police feel safer with an armed public, oppose gun control
• Majority of criminals fear and avoid house and people they believe to be armed, fear armed civilians more than the police
• Anti gunners wishing harm and death on gun owners part 1
• Anti gunners wishing harm and death on gun owners part 2
• No correlation between homicide and gun ownership rates for OECD countries
• No correlation between suicide and gun ownership rates for OECD countries
• No correlation between homicide and gun ownership rates between states in the USA
• No correlation between household gun ownership, income, and poverty between the states in the USA
• Anti gunners wishing harm and death on gun owners part 3
• South American gun control little to no effect on major crimes, no correlation to crime rates
• South American gun ownership and crime rates not linked, no correlation

Chances of being shot or killed based on firearm deaths and population count:
Death by gun, suicide excluded:
0.0032%

Death by gun, suicide included:
0.0095%

Death in a mass shooting alone:
0.000032%

Injury by gun, no death:
0.024%

Death of injury by gun including suicide:
0.033%

Gun deaths and injuries etc based off general stats used by anti gun people, rather than exact numbers from each year because its faster and easier to do. Going by exact yearly figures would result in very little change to the average numbers used above.

Guns compared to other ways you can die:
Unintentional fall deaths:

• Number of deaths: 26,009
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4

Motor vehicle traffic deaths:

• Number of deaths: 33,687
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

Unintentional poisoning deaths:

• Number of deaths: 33,041
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

All poisoning deaths:

• Number of deaths: 42,917
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.9

All Drug poisoning deaths:

• Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.4 (2010)

All firearm deaths (suicide included):

• Number of deaths: 31,672
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.3

All firearms deaths (suicide excluded):

• Number of deaths: 12,664
  
• Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

Firearm deaths broken down completely:

3.6 for homicide
6.3 for suicide
0.30 for unintentional
0.10 undetermined

10.3 for deaths total in general of 3.6 for homicide only. You are more likely to trip and die than be killed by a gun. Cars kill more than guns but are not even protected by the constitution and isnt a right, and are less regulated than guns!

[Sources are FBI and CDC]

 

Google Earth map showing locations of self defense by gun

List of self defense stories, sort by state or gun

Massive collection of sourced information pertaining to firearm laws, myths, and statistics including:

• Gun Shows
• Assault Weapons
• Violence and Violent Crime
• 2nd Amendment
• Concealed Carry and Concealed Weapons Permits
• Licensing and Registration
• Firearm Deaths (Homicide, Accidents)
• Social Costs of Guns
• Children and Guns
• Automatic Weapons
• Microstamping
• Ballistic Fingerprinting
• Assault Weapons Ban
• Crime Gun Traces
• International Gun Ownership and Crime
• Gun Dealers
• Gun Control Statistics
• Deadly Force Encounters
• Guns, Crime, Criminology and Crime Prevention (Self Defense)
• Firearm Availability
• Guns and Police (Law Enforcement/LEO)

I have plenty of other information on the subject if you're interested and I ever remember to look back at this thread. Some(perhaps all, sorry. Old links.) of the redirects here may be dead, though, as it's mostly a few years old. If they are, you should be able to scrounge the URL from the redirect. Shouldn't be too hard.

 

Firstly, just wanna say, holy crap. Nicely stated in that massive post.

This isn't a dumb argument. Do you presume babies are born predisposed to criminality? That's a pretty dumb argument, if so. People are products of society and personal learning. No individual comes out of the womb with a predisposition toward murder and carnage. These behaviors are learned. Human morality can change, and if any effort is to be made, that is where we should be making it. How we raise kids, what we expose them to and how we teach them. Not blaming a problem on an implement instead of the individuals responsible for misdeeds.

Boy, isn't that just sweet. You think a gun is the most inexpensive and most efficient way of taking a life? How do you define efficiency in taking a life, anyway? Instantaneous death? I'm not sure how I feel about you even giving that consideration, but no, I'd like to point out that in terms of both expense, and 'efficiency' as you would like to think of it, would be poison.

In what regards are we 'worse than North Korea and Iran'? Surely you don't think that just because we, in our much more massive country, are worse because we have a higher rate of murders? There are so many factors you're ignoring here that it is absolutely mind numbing.

Nexxus wasn't even suggesting that you were. He was rebutting your argument and you misread.

 

Nice stats, but it'd be ill advised to compare United States to other Latin American countries with strict gun control laws since their government is very limit, coming no where close to the spending that other EU countries or US spends annually, and thus lacking in their ability to actually enforce the laws they create. The fact is, if United States were to make a gun law, it would be very effectively enforced because of the policing force we have, and the technology we could use to monitor those things. The Facebook group you got those graphs from seem to just ignore the very glaring discrepancies that United States has very high gun violence crime rate compared to other 1st world countries and no graph can deny that.

 

Those laws are actually enforced in places like Mexico, because the only way to get firearms legally is from one of... two?(I think) people who sell firearms. There may be a few more stores that popped up in the last few years, but the point still stands that due to how it's all working, barely any of their citizens have legal firearms.

I clearly stated that there are large differences between the nations, and that it was just a trend I am not fond of. It served only to present that point.

 

I also strongly disagree with your "fact" that laws would effectively be enforced.

Because we have them, and they honestly aren't.

>The Facebook group you got those graphs from seem to just ignore the very glaring discrepancies that United States has very high gun violence crime rate compared to other 1st world countries and no graph can deny that.

"Yes, people die by guns where more guns are present. People also drown more often in places where there are bodies of water present. What this weak argument ignores is the fact that gun control does absolutely nothing to create a safer society." is something I believe I have demonstrated.

 

The fact that you are copy pasting your Facebook page is the literal spread of fake news and we just overlooked that so much. Almost all of those "stats" are represent something that's very far from reality. A simple google search just reveals that Australia had much stricter gun control laws than United States already in place in regional parts of Australia, and the national law and a series of laws following were a means to nationalizing those laws and create a way for the federal government to enforce those laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia

You can also read about the actual effectiveness of the National Firearm Agreement here: (it's way more effective than your Facebook group is telling you)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Agreement
This was all a single google search away. Next time you read your blog, you should google things, it's a pretty effective way to stop ignorant opinions in the age of technology.

 

Why are Americans so adamant to having guns? Like I don't see why the bump stock is needed considering its capabilities. Why is it that we have to adapt to these murderers by having armed people at our schools. O wasn't aware but my professor explained ro us why the classroom doors can be locked on the inside. They changed all of the doors because if nass shootings and in the case one happens the door can be locked without going outside and using the keys. ThaT might seem like a small change but rather than fixing we are adapting.

 

I don't even use facebook.

Additionally, I want to inform you that the wikipedia pages you're linking happens to cite several of the things I've provided. I don't think you thought this through.

On that note, I have given multiple government-funded studies with verifiable statistics, as well as independent studies. You're giving... Wikipedia links.

Not even trying, bro. Come on now.

 

I'm Canadian.

 

Clearly if your graphs don't represent the data that the study actually give you is a strong indication that your "stats" are falsified. I want you to just actually read a couple of sentences, and not go off your false data. Thanks.

 

This is the 21st Century United States we're talking about here. WE SHOULDN"T HAVE to build walls and fences around the schools or have metal detectors or anywhere else for that matter.

 

You're saying I'm... sourcing myself(I think?), but I'm not. All of the links are external, regardless of where I'm getting them from, and either are direct links to government funded studies, independent, or link to articles that will do the same.

For the few very broad assertions you're making, you're sure not doing a very good job of providing evidence, or even refuting mine. If that's all you're going to do, I won't bother past this post my guy. It's not worth my time.