# Laws that exempt Politicians! = ??? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 30, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912 "2004-09-30T20:09:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/61 "2004-10-03T14:57:25Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > What would the Germans have done with guns except kill more Jews? I’m _glad_ he took away their firearms. I guess, if you subscribe to the idea that the Jews are so sheep-like and passive that they wouldn’t resist their forced relocation and horrible mistreatment (even given that they don’t know they’re going to die) with the tools to do so. Really, this is a pretty stupid statement. About as many Jews as could practically be killed were, because the holocaust was easy to implement - the victims lacked the tools to resist. When they did - look at the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Just a small group with a few guns made a major headache for the nazis. Imagine if a sizable portion of the Jewish population in Germany had such will and tools - so many SS would be killed on a daily basis that the holocaust would’ve quickly became impractical to implement. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/62 "2004-10-03T15:06:38Z")
> [@](#): > > “For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead to the future.” > > -Adolf Hitler, 1935 I’m pretty sure that quote has been de-bunked. I don’t think he said it. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/63 "2004-10-03T15:09:00Z")
Whoops. I didn’t notice that this thread had a second page, and that someone beat me to it. In any case, I think the lower homicide rate in Europe and other countries has less to do with the availability of firearms and more to do with the culture. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/64 "2004-10-03T16:13:14Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The quote is still bad, though, because it’s not real - someone made it up and ascribed it to hitler. I honestly thought it was genuine. Now I look like a fool. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/65 "2004-10-03T21:53:45Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I guess, if you subscribe to the idea that the Jews are so sheep-like and passive that they wouldn’t resist their forced relocation and horrible mistreatment (even given that they don’t know they’re going to die) with the tools to do so. > > Really, this is a pretty stupid statement. About as many Jews as could practically be killed were, because the holocaust was easy to implement - the victims lacked the tools to resist. When they did - look at the Warsaw ghetto uprising. Just a small group with a few guns made a major headache for the nazis. Imagine if a sizable portion of the Jewish population in Germany had such will and tools - so many SS would be killed on a daily basis that the holocaust would’ve quickly became impractical to implement. You may have a point here. If German Jews had had access to arms, perhaps it would have helped them later on in the war, although in that case they would have had to deal with armed lynch-mobs as well. Still, most Holocause victims (including the Warsaw Ghetto fighters) were not german but Polish, or from other European nations, and I don’t know what the status of gun ownereship was in those places. I wouldn’t be surprised if guns had been legal, but that most Jews never thought of owning them. Unfortunately, your “sheplike” comment is correct, to a certain degree. Up until the point when they realized what was going on, they generally accepted whatever was done to them out of habit and out of shewer misbelief in what their fellow human bewings would be willing to do to them. Not the type of thing that’ll happen again. To rebel against opressors, you don’t really need guns; you just need the will to say no. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/66 "2004-10-03T22:39:33Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > No. This sounds just like the emotional tripe that Brady and crew use. “If it’ll save one life, it’s worth it!”… bullshit. Policy decisions shouldn’t be made on such nonsense. Good. Glad you made that comment. I didn’t make my sarcasm obvious, but I was tossing a Bradyism back at them. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/67 "2004-10-04T04:51:41Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Good. Glad you made that comment. > > I didn’t make my sarcasm obvious, but I was tossing a Bradyism back at them. Ah, I suspected that might be the case, but I wanted to reply and be clear just in case. I absolutely hate when gun rights activists make emotional appeals like gun control advocates do. I’ve always viewed us as having rationality on our side and not needing to resort to appeals to emotion. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/68 "2004-10-04T05:39:22Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Even in “firearm free” places like England, Australia, etc., criminals still seem to be able to get firearms Please don’t try to use Australia as an example without the facts at hand. - There are still some three million firearms in private hands, I believe, down from around four million in the mid-90s. This is due to stricter laws and a gun buy-back scheme introduced after a couple of notorious crimes. - Since the stricter laws were introduced, there has been large drops in homicides by gun (see [these official statistics](http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/type.html)) and in all firearm-related deaths (see [these statistics](http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html), same source) So Australia is not “firearm free”, but is significantly safer than it was a few years ago. I don’t think Australia’s statistics help your case. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/69 "2004-10-04T07:21:54Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > Please don’t try to use Australia as an example without the facts at hand. Thank you for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/70 "2004-10-04T07:49:09Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > So Australia is not “firearm free”, but is significantly safer than it was a few years ago. I don’t think Australia’s statistics help your case. Safer in all forms of violent crime, or just gun related crime? ---
**Author:** ![TitoBenito](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2acd7d/32.png) [@TitoBenito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TitoBenito)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/71 "2004-10-04T18:15:51Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Very few in what terms? Numbers or percentages? I’ve seen estimates where over 50,000 crimes are prevented annually to prevent crime. That’s not very few, except in percentages of guns owned. > > Anyway, I’m sure you’ll agree that if even one deadly crime is prevented, it’s worth it. Yeah its enough to make me want to pack. Still I don’t beleive its terribly effective. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/72 "2004-10-04T19:18:32Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Safer in all forms of violent crime, or just gun related crime? Just from looking at those same statistics, it appears that, in Homocides, at least, Australia has not become safer, it just shifted the weapon of choice to knives and sharp instruments: Year, %Firearms, %Sharps, %Blunt, %Body, %Other 2000/01, 22,… 30,… 13,… 26,… 9 2001/02, 14,… 37,… 11,… 26,… 12 (I think I’d rather be shot than stabbed!) ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/73 "2004-10-05T00:27:12Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > Please don’t try to use Australia as an example without the facts at hand. … > > - There are still some three million firearms in private hands, I believe, > So Australia is not “firearm free”, but is significantly safer than it was a few years ago. I don’t think Australia’s statistics help your case. I was wondering about that myself. I had read that there was a “rabbit problem” there, and I was mystified how anyone could hunt those scwewy wabbits (huh huh huh huh) without any guns. Totatally unrelated to the thread, but I was sort of wondering. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/74 "2004-10-05T01:07:10Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Just from looking at those same statistics, it appears that, in Homocides, at least, Australia has not become safer, it just shifted the weapon of choice to knives and sharp instruments: > > Year, %Firearms, %Sharps, %Blunt, %Body, %Other > > 2000/01, 22,… 30,… 13,… 26,… 9 > 2001/02, 14,… 37,… 11,… 26,… 12 It’s easy to divine some sort of trend from two points. For example, you left off the 02/03 statistics, which show only 16% murders by gun and 29% murders by knife. And the mid-nineties statistics, for example 95/96, which shows 35% murders by gun and 31% murders by knife. There’s a more important statistical question you fail to address here - the statistics in the graph and table in my first cite refer to _percentages_, not raw numbers. If there is a 20% fall in the percentage of murders by gun, you’d expect to see a rise in the percentage of murders by knife, and the percentage of every other type of murder for that matter. Do you get my point? Is there a mathematician in the house who’s able to explain it more lucidly? I really believe my second cite is more useful here. You can see that deaths by gun, including accidents and murders, have nearly halved since the stricter laws came into action. Once again, note that these laws don’t ban all guns, but merely about 25% of those thought to be more dangerous. > [@Senor Beef](#): > > Safer in all forms of violent crime, or just gun related crime? I don’t know about all forms of violent crime, but feel free to find your own statistics. The Australian Institute of Criminology, linked to in my earlier cites, might be useful for this. Australia is certainly safer in terms of gun-related homicides (my first cite) and all gun-related deaths (my second cite), far safer. > [@SteveG1](#): > > I was wondering about that myself. I had read that there was a “rabbit problem” there, and I was mystified how anyone could hunt those scwewy wabbits (huh huh huh huh) without any guns. Totatally unrelated to the thread, but I was sort of wondering. I think banning rabbit rifles would be politically stupid for a conservative Coalition government which has a number of country seats. There hasn’t been any ban on .22s, basic shotguns, that kind of thing. Besides, we kill our rabbits with diseases, or attempt to do so - myxamatosis and the calcivirus are the two most famous versions. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/75 "2004-10-05T02:28:20Z")
Thanks for the info. So basic sporting/hunting guns are allowed (within the definitions of your laws). Sounds reasonable. So, if gun crime is lower there, here comes the big question… What are you doing there that we don’t do in the U.S.? ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/76 "2004-10-05T02:46:11Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > So, if gun crime is lower there, here comes the big question… What are you doing there that we don’t do in the U.S.? We have fewer guns per person overall, more strict licensing arrangements, and tighter restrictions on the type of guns you are allowed to own. Most rifles, basic shotguns and pistols are allowed, but there are tight restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. The idea is that you can use guns for certain things ie hunting, target shooting, historical collections, but personal ownership of guns for protection against others with guns is discouraged. The idea is that we shouldn’t have many people carrying guns on their persons, in their cars, or in the bedside table, and we don’t. However, I don’t think many people did this before the tighter restrictions were introduced. Now we’re getting into the more nebulous social factors, which make it hard to directly compare two countries. That said, I think the Australian ‘culture’ with respect to guns is about as close as any other Western nation comes to the US culture. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/77 "2004-10-05T02:46:54Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > It’s easy to divine some sort of trend from two points. For example, you left off the 02/03 statistics, which show only 16% murders by gun and 29% murders by knife. And the mid-nineties statistics, for example 95/96, which shows 35% murders by gun and 31% murders by knife. Well, in order to be useful, we need to know when your gun bans went into effect. I just grabbed the most dramastic statistics. > [@Atticus Finch](#): > > There’s a more important statistical question you fail to address here - the statistics in the graph and table in my first cite refer to _percentages_, not raw numbers. If there is a 20% fall in the percentage of murders by gun, you’d expect to see a rise in the percentage of murders by knife, and the percentage of every other type of murder for that matter. Do you get my point? Is there a mathematician in the house who’s able to explain it more lucidly? So then why didn’t you give us meaningful numbers in the first place? I was working with the numbers YOU claimed showed a safer Australia. Now you say it’s bullshit? You got more waffles than John Kerry! > [@Atticus Finch](#): > > I really believe my second cite is more useful here. You can see that deaths by gun, including accidents and murders, have nearly halved since the stricter laws came into action. Once again, note that these laws don’t ban all guns, but merely about 25% of those thought to be more dangerous. **Fascinating!** your second cite shows stable homocides and accidents, and _only a significant decrease in suicides!?!_ A safer Australia? For whom? Aopparently only for depressed nutjobs. > [@Atticus Finch](#): > > I don’t know about all forms of violent crime, but feel free to find your own statistics. The Australian Institute of Criminology, linked to in my earlier cites, might be useful for this. Australia is certainly safer in terms of gun-related homicides (my first cite) and all gun-related deaths (my second cite), far safer. Bullshit. Overall, homocides have remained the same for firearms, but there has been an increase in other homocides with knives. However, there are fewer firearm suicides. Maybe they’re using ropes? Your hand-picked statistics fooled me at first, but since you have pointed it out so clearly, they are obviously meaningless. Banning guns has NOT been proven to make Australia any safer – at least not by your select statistics. I think banning rabbit rifles would be politically stupid for a conservative Coalition government which has a number of country seats. There hasn’t been any ban on .22s, basic shotguns, that kind of thing. Besides, we kill our rabbits with diseases, or attempt to do so - myxamatosis and the calcivirus are the two most famous versions. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/78 "2004-10-05T04:24:54Z")
> [@SnakeSpirit](#): > > Well, in order to be useful, we need to know when your gun bans went into effect. I just grabbed the most dramastic statistics. Around 1997, 1998. They came into effect over a period of a couple of years. > [@](#): > > So then why didn’t you give us meaningful numbers in the first place? I was working with the numbers YOU claimed showed a safer Australia. Now you say it’s bullshit? I never said it was bullshit, merely that your suggestion about knives is based on a misunderstanding of statistics. Back before the ban, more than 30% of homicides (note spelling) were carried out with guns. Now the numbers are in the teens. There are fewer homicides with guns. The reason I brought up the fact that the statistics are expressed as percentages is to address your suggestion that it isn’t a drop in overall homicides, merely a switch from guns to knives. This is incorrect, as expressing the statistic as percentages would mean that a significant drop in the number of murders by gun would appear as an increase in the percentage of murders by knife, blunt instrument etc. It still all has to add up to 100%. > [@](#): > > **Fascinating!** your second cite shows stable homocides and accidents, and _only a significant decrease in suicides!?!_ A safer Australia? For whom? Aopparently only for depressed nutjobs. The two cites show dramatically fewer gun homicides and dramatically fewer gun suicides since the mid-90s, when the laws were tightened. The number of accidents is all over the place. If you can’t read the graph accurately, there are peer-reviewed and published papers linked to in each cite, which give a fuller picture. And fuck you for your point about “depressed nutjobs”. There are more than 200 fewer gun suicides in 2001 than there were in 1991. Nearly half the previous figures. More than 200 people not dead, in just one year. People, not “depressed nutjobs”. Fuck you for suggesting that they are worthless or irredeemible. > [@](#): > > Bullshit. Overall, homocides have remained the same for firearms, but there has been an increase in other homocides with knives. No. There hasn’t been an increase in homicides with knives, merely an increase in the percentage because the percentage of gun murders have been dramatically reduced. An example - let’s say in 1990 there were 40 gun murders in Australia, and 60 knife murders. That’s 40% gun, 60% knife. And in 2000, let’s say it was 20 gun murders and 60 knife murders. That’s 25% gun, 75% knife, but it doesn’t reflect an increase in the number of knife murders. Ok? Don’t believe me? Take a look at [this paper](http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269.pdf) underlying the quick graphs. Raw numbers, no confusing percentages. You’ll see that there were 76 gun murders in 1994, 67 in 1995, 104 in 1996 and 79 in 1997. Then the gun restrictions come in, and over 1998 to 2001 the numbers read 57, 50, 57, 47. Just raw numbers, just murders. > [@](#): > > Your hand-picked statistics fooled me at first, but since you have pointed it out so clearly, they are obviously meaningless. Banning guns has NOT been proven to make Australia any safer – at least not by your select statistics. Gun murders have been greatly reduced. Gun suicides have nearly been halved. We’re talking about significant numbers of lives here, hundreds of innocent people every year. These are accurate statistics from a government agency, and I’m showing you the raw numbers now, free of any confusing mathematics. I am safer and society is safer because of these laws. Trust me, they have a whole lot of meaning. ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/79 "2004-10-05T04:45:42Z")
> [@Atticus Finch](#): > > There are fewer homicides with guns. > Don’t believe me? Take a look at [this paper](http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269.pdf) underlying the quick graphs. > Gun murders have been greatly reduced. Gun suicides have nearly been halved. We’re talking about significant numbers of lives here, hundreds of innocent people every year. These are accurate statistics from a government agency, and I’m showing you the raw numbers now, free of any confusing mathematics. I am safer and society is safer because of these laws. Trust me, they have a whole lot of meaning. OK, I’ll be nice. It’s the pit, and my repressed angst tends to manifest in inapproptiate phraseology here. But I still think you are misusing the statistics. OK, murders with firearms have decreased, but have murders overall decreased? Same with suicides. What are the raw numbers overall? From all causes? Unless you can access those statistics, I’d say your government is giving you a snowjob. I looked, and I can’t find them… perhaps you – being there – have more resources? Can you defend your allegation that gun control has made Australia safer? Not with the statistics you’ve presented so far. Gun deaths (particularly suicides) have decreases. The homocide line looks pretty flat though, and frankly, I need to know total deaths as well as firearm deaths to make anything useful out of it. Understand? ---
**Author:** ![SnakeSpirit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snakespirit/32/7271_2.png) [@SnakeSpirit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakeSpirit)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912/80 "2004-10-05T04:50:30Z")
All I can find is statistics for 2000. 302 murders, 59 with firearms that’s 253 with other methods. Wish I could find comparative stats from earlier, pre-ban, years! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/laws-that-exempt-politicians/266912.md?page=5)