Forum Post: So you think banning firearms works - Well it didn't in Australia -
Posted 11 years ago on Jan. 7, 2013, 11:13 p.m. EST by Shayneh
(-482)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A lot of you think Australia is the safest place because they banned owning firearms - well think again.
Here is a video link posted October 2012 - explaining just how safe it is to live in Australia - It really works doesn't it.
Firstly, firearms aren't banned.
Semi-automatic weapons and pump-actions are banned.
Secondly, you can still own a handgun, but you need to join a pistol club first.
What annoyed me most, was that compound bows also made the license-to-own, list, but I guess if you've used one of these, you really know how accurate and powerful they actually are.
Didn't solve the problem though did it? People are still getting robbed and killed.
In heavily populated centres, there is crime and corruption and drug-dealing.
Where I choose to live, crimes of a violent nature are rare. Cities are hotbeds of crime, seemingly where-ever you go.
And if you haven't noticed the vast majority of those complaing about gun laws live in the larger cities. I guess it's because they can't own firearms like people in other areas can, so they think no one should own them or they should be gravely restricted.
How you doin in the case of the wildfires that are raging down there?
I was planning a trip to an area that got burned out. Will postpone until the weather cools down a bit.
Haven't really been affected where I am.
May you remain in the clear. I watched a pretty good PBS news hour yesterday that got into the effects ongoing of our current climate change. People really need to sit up and pay attention.
You may have seen this - but if not - it is very much recommended that everyone should watch and share this program:
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/ending_the_silence_on_climate_change_20130107/
No one is suggesting that gun control will ELIMINATE all killings.
But we MUST do something. Difficulty is not an valid excuse for inaction.
oh, an other gun-lobby troll,. say hi to the NRA payman,.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-government-banksters-are-coming-for-your-wealt/
Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence February 4, 2010
Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.
"Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."
Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.
The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide. Many of these self-inflicted gunshot wounds appear to be impulsive acts by people without previous evidence of mental illness. Guns in the home are also associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children.
Gun-related violence also has psychological and other consequences for survivors—especially children. Dr. Lippmann and colleagues point out that easy access to guns also enables tragic episodes like the mass killings at Virginia Tech University, in which a background check might have prevented the shooter from obtaining a weapon. Such "tragically recurrent" events are in addition to gun deaths related to criminal activities, gang violence, interpersonal disagreements, and other incidents.
Gun Violence Carries High Costs for Society Dr. Lippmann and colleagues cite research showing the massive economic consequences of firearm violence. Medical care for gunshot victims in the United States is up to $4 billion per year. Including indirect costs such as disability and unemployment, the costs may total up to $100 billion. In the authors' city of Louisville, expenses for uninsured gun-injury victims alone exceed the money allotted for indigent medical care costs for the entire community.
"Taxpayers often bear a large percentage of these financial burdens," according to the authors. Other costs show up in the form of increased insurance premiums. Gun violence costs the U.S. criminal justice system approximately $2.4 billion per year—nearly equal to all other crimes put together.
Despite these high costs, "[F]irearms remain so much a part of our culture that gun-related violence and legal expenses are routinely accepted as a normal part of our life," Dr. Lippmann and colleagues write. "Politically, gun control remains unpopular, but raising awareness among doctors about the relationship between firearms, the rates of violence, and expenses involved may have an impact on their thinking."
In publishing the review, the editors of SMJ hope to promote a conversation within the medical profession about the health, economic, and social consequences of guns in the United States. In an editorial in the same issue, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Ronald C. Hamdy writes, "Our goal…is to provide solid, scientific evidence regarding these often controversial topics, in an attempt to avoid the personal and emotional quagmire which is so easily adopted in issues such as these." The SMJ website features a podcast in which Dr. Lippmann discusses his findings.
Source: Southern Medical Association
written by a well known pacifist,.........."among the many misdeeds of british rule in india, history will look upon the act of disarming a whole nation of arms as the blackest" written by gandhi in his autobiography, page 446
Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:
Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned / 2.97 homicides
Per 100,000: England…: 6,200 guns owned / 0.07 homicides
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned / 0.14 homicides
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned / 0.51 homicides
Per 100,000: France…..: 31,000 guns owned / 0.06 homicides
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned / 0.08 homicides
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned / 0.90 homicides
Clearly the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.
More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.
When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.
For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1
For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9
In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England
The 1994 gun "ban" did not ban assault weapons. It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons. That is why so many people are buying AR15s before "Obama bans guns"
If YOU want to play with an AR15s - ENLIST!
There were 11 mass shootings in the decade prior to gun control. There have been none in 15 years, since the ban. So yeah, it worked.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
Can you guarentee that there will be no violence or kiillings if guns are banned in this country?
I have an idea - for every one of you whom think banning guns will solve the problem put $1000.00 in an escro account. And for everyone whom thinks banning guns will not solve the problem will match that amount.
In 10 years if there is no violence or killings by guns then you get to keep the full amount. If one violent killing by a gun happens during this time then you lose.
I doubt that anyone of you would be interested in that bet because you know there are people out there who will get a firearm illegally and use it when they have to.
Your question and suggestion are as inane as you are. People will always kill people. Holy hell. Are you stupid? It's highly consistent throughout history. That people kill people. That's not the point Ding-a-Ling.
The point is to reduce mass shooting incidents.
Military style, ridiculously high ammunition weapons, whose designed purpose is to lay down ground fire in battle, for the protection of troops, serves no rational purpose for civilian use.
I know this may come as a terrible shock to you - but you can't purchase a B1-B Bomber either. Go argue that in Court. The fact that you can't purchase a B1-B Bomber is infringing on your 2nd Amendment rights. Keep going farther into Crazytown. But I suggest you read Supreme Court DC v Heller and US v Miller first. Military weapons are for the purpose of a militia, and restrictions and regulations on types of weapons is entirely Constitutional.
The 1994 Federal Assualt Weapons Ban was never challenged in Court. The NRA never challenged it. Because they knew they would lose.
'there are people out there who will get a firearm illegally and use it' - Such a dumb statement. Logical fallacy on so many levels. Strawman, false dilemma of all or nothing. There's probably more.
I never claimed gun control will eliminate people acting illegally to obtain weapons. People get weapons illegally now. People will likely still obtain weapons illegally. I never claimed 'there will be no violence or killings'. Seriously? Are you flipping stupid? We can't stop all crimes. That doesn't mean we don't try to prevent some crime. Your logic is ridiculous.
There have been no mass shooting incidents in Australia in the 15 years since their gun control legislation was enacted. Just keep sucking on that one.
Your inane suggestion and faulty logic confirms that you simply have no rational argument.
We don't live in Australia - we live here in the US of A. Stop comparing a country with a little over 20 million people to a country of 300 million.
We are not talking about B1 Bomers are we? With regard to "military weapons" you don't have a clue as to either NATO or the governments definiton of defines "military weapons".
Semi Automatic weapons are not considered "military weapons" as defined by the Federal Government.
And as far as the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban' it didn't do a damm thing to reduce the number of violent killings in this country.
As a matter of fact, violent crimes have been on the decline since its expiration.
'Stop comparing a country with a little over 20 million people to a country of 300 million' - extrapolating those results means a reduction in mass shootings.
But yeah, we're not Australia. You're proof of that. The US is far crazier than Australia. Which means our regulations have to go beyond Australia's. Like banning the manufacture and sale of ammunitions greater than 7 or 10 rounds.
'military weapons' - the point is the government absolutely has the Constitutional ability to regulate and restrict types of weapons. Has at least since US v Miller 1939. That's why you can't buy a machine gun. Or a B1-B Bomber you nitwit.
'Semi Automatic weapons are not considered "military weapons"' - I'm not the least bit interested in the NRA's definition.
'Federal Assault Weapons Ban it didn't do a damm thing to reduce the number' - because it didn't go far enough. Because the NRA was involved!
'violent crimes have been on the decline since its expiration' - Nope sorry you're wrong. Violent crime rates peaked in the mid 90's. When the ban started. Then began declining. The reasons crime has been decreasing is due to improved proactive policing, changing demographics, and higher incarceration rates. Funny thing too how gun ownership has been declining at the same time overall crime has been declining.
One man stated [ the ban ] "It broke my heart"
I think he was talking about his penis.
An old man complained that if you have a gun at home, "you will defend yourself"
by the time he got his gun, he & his wife would have been shot dead. at least they survived
I hope that some of the networks start showing a gun death counter for the year
Which state in the US has the least gun control?
Which state in the US has the most gun deaths per 100,000 population?
Could it be in a "confederate" state?
Could both questions have the same answer?
Could the governor be a bobby?
guns dont kill people - a lack of gun laws kill people
Boy did you mis-state that - If I lay a gun down will it kill anyone - no. There has to be interaction -
You are right when you say "guns don't kill people" but it isn't the lack of gun laws - Its the fucking younger generation assholes that are depressed because they live a life of "I want it now and if I can't have it I will kill".
That's where the problem is - our drugged youth smoking pot, taking cocaine - and anything else that will get them off - binge drinking included.
You young morons have no idea about "self respect" let alone respecting others. It's apparent by the posts on this site.
When one of you disagree you start telling the person you disagree with to "fuck off" or "go fuck yourself".
Those comments says a lot about the people on this site and you can't stand criticizm without being offended.
You need to grow up and get some "balls" and start acting like a "man" instead of a "girly woman" like most of you are.
The vast majority of you couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag if your life depended on it.
If you were confronted by a thug you would "wimp down to him" instead of "standing up and fighting" And if you did stand up and fight you would probably be beaten to a pulp
And I will say this that the vast majority of you live in "large cities" where living like a "girly metro man" is cool - yah right!
demand a plan:
http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1
alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1