What's With The Guns?

[The_Tooth]

@ExTank

Wrong! :mad: I said that if I lived in Australia, I would feel so much safer (safer than what, I didn’t say; you assumed that I meant safer than the U.S.), and then demonstrated with your own cites that in three major categories of violent crime, Australia’s crime rates are increasing at double-digit rates.

Of course I assumed that. What am I supposed to assume you meant? Safer than floating unprotected in space? Safer than being in an airplane about to plow into the ground?

An increasing rate means little if the rate is still low. Buying ten lottery tickets increases your odds of winning by 1000%, but that doesn’t mean much. Tripling the murder rate of a dinky little town is no big deal if there were three murders this year whereas last year there was only one. You may be worse off in urban Australia than you are where you live, but you wouldn’t be worse off in Australia than you would be in many places where you can carry a gun.

@ExTank

I then demonstrated that Australia’s crime rates exceeded the U.S.'s in two major categories, and that in my particular home-state, Australia’s crime rates exceeded us in three major categories.

Yes you did. And I acknowledged that.
[/Quote]

@Ex-Tank

Wrong again! :mad: :mad: Concealed Carry could quite conceivably dissuade those Assaulters and Rapists, if you could just wrap your brain around the concept that in most of the states where Concealed Carry is legal, violent crime rates are dropping faster than the national average.

Got a citation to prove that this is the case or that the presence of guns is the cause? John Lott says this is the case, but Robert Erlich feels Lott hasn’t made his case. He’s not the only scholar who’s criticized Lott’s work from a statistical point of view.

Concealed carry could conceivably dissuade those Assaulters and Rapists, but it could also conceivably increase the odds of their using firearms in committing their crimes since there’d be more firearms to be had, and firearms make a pretty convincing argument in anybody’s hands. Rape attempts that would have failed may now succeed. It has nothing to do with what I’m capable of wrapping my brain around, thanks.

A metro suburb is hardly “Nowhereville”.

I wasn’t saying you lived in Nowhereville. Just that I expect national crime rates track the crime rates of major population centers and that I would expect rural crime rates in either country to be lower than national rates.

@Ex-Tank

It’s called trends, and while they often take some time to appear, they’re staring the folks Down Under straight in the eyes.

Oh, so it hasn’t appeared. Well, that’s called making things up. I suppose the reduction in violent crime in Canada despite stricter gun laws is just an aberration and its only a matter of time before our streets aren’t safe too, then?

@Ex-Tank

On an emotional level, I agree 100% with Crafter_Man and Enipla. But gun owners can’t be so assertive and dismissive about the matter, what with the major media so liberally slanted, and “guns” being one of their top ten of “things that have to go.”

The liberal media doesn’t seem to stop you from being assertive and dismissive. Besides, why should I care what they say? I don’t support banning guns, I just question whether or not carrying them reduces crime. And I don’t base my opinions on the fearmongering reports so prevalent in American news.

@Ex-Tank

Anti-gunners have almost entirely framed the terms, terminology, and conditions of the gun control debate in the media, as evidenced by Nametag’s “90/10 rule” and the continuous lumping of criminals who use firearms into the category of “gun owners” in order to establish a meme by which gun owner = criminal in the minds of the populace. This is insulting to the lawfull gun owners, and just not true.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of lawfull gun owners do believe in gun control, but only to a certain extent; beyond that point, we believe it’s up to law enforcement, the courts, and the prison system to come down like a ton of bricks on the violent criminals who cannot and will not abide by the conventions of peaceable society.

As an example of gun control laws I could go for:

A state-administered Federal licensing law for gun owners; with a ten-year sunset provision to guard against abuse.

A manufacturer-to-distrubutor-to-dealer firearm registry, to aid law enforcement in tracking the guns that are getting to criminals.

In exchange for that, I would want:

Federal pre-emption laws to protect lawfull commerce of firearms from frivolous lawsuits at municipal, county and state level. This legislation would cover “environmental based” suits and “nuissance” suits, such as landowners suing outdoor shooting ranges for “noise complaints.”

Federal pre-emption laws to restrict municipalities, counties, and states from passing their own “gun bans” and restrictive registration and licensing schemes. This would have to be retroactive to repeal many state bans currently on the books.

Well, then we’re more or less on the same page. Although I think a noise complaint is a noise complaint and gun ranges shouldn’t automatically be exempt. I don’t believe in any protection against frivolous law suits of any sort, be they gun related or not, because that circumvents the legal system. If the case is frivolous it should be thrown out of court, sure, but it should be heard in court as well. I also think gun laws should be federalized. Having different laws in different states without any sort of state border control seems sort of pointless to me. Those who are more concerned with the sovereignty of individual states rather than results may feel otherwise.

I am unaware of any continuous attempts to equate legal gun owners with criminals. I certainly don’t hold to that. I just don’t especially believe that carrying guns reduces crime.

[The_Tooth]

@enipla

Sure, maybe. Big maybe. It could prevent them from being resold. Except from a criminal to another criminal. Oh. Ooops.

Eventually it’ll either be confiscated or ditched and found.

@enipla

I agree that it’s not a bad idea to lock up weapons. I would prefer that people with weapons would just be responsible with them. Teach their kids about them.

Locking them up when you’re not using them is responsible. I lock my car when I’m not in it for the same reason: so no one can come along and take it away when I’m not looking.

[ExTank]

@The Tooth

Of course I assumed that. What am I supposed to assume you meant? Safer than floating unprotected in space? Safer than being in an airplane about to plow into the ground?

Well, the Straight Dope is supposed to be about fighting ignorance, so you shouldn’t have assumed anything.

What I actually meant was, “…feel so much safer now [than before Australia passed their more restrictive gun control laws]”

@The Tooth

An increasing rate means little if the rate is still low. Buying ten lottery tickets increases your odds of winning by 1000%, but that doesn’t mean much. Tripling the murder rate of a dinky little town is no big deal if there were three murders this year whereas last year there was only one. You may be worse off in urban Australia than you are where you live, but you wouldn’t be worse off in Australia than you would be in many places where you can carry a gun.

Wrong one more time. In the U.S., crime rates are most often higher specifically in the places you cannot legally own or carry a gun, and National Stats mean just that: National. They comprise everyplace and everywhere, even the places with lower and lowest rates, so you cannot accurately compare city rates of one country to national rates of another, no matter how heavily (or not) the city rates influence (or weigh) national rates.

Even with lower rates, the U.S. will almost always have higher raw numbers of violent crimes than Australia by dint of our population disparity.

In any case, I actually feel that international comparisons are fairly meaningless; the socio-econoic factors that contribute towards any given population’s propensity towards crime vary widely from one country to another, even relatively similar countries such as the U.S. and Canada, and firearm availability is, IMO, only one factor, and not even a large one.

@The Tooth

Got a citation to prove that this is the case or that the presence of guns is the cause? John Lott says this is the case, but Robert Erlich feels Lott hasn’t made his case. He’s not the only scholar who’s criticized Lott’s work from a statistical point of view.

What are we going to do, play duelling experts? But Prof. Lott can speak for himself in refuting Prof. Ehrlich.

But I would flip the question back upon you: do you have a citation proving that more guns equals more crime?

@The Tooth

Concealed carry could conceivably dissuade those Assaulters and Rapists, but it could also conceivably increase the odds of their using firearms in committing their crimes since there’d be more firearms to be had, and firearms make a pretty convincing argument in anybody’s hands. Rape attempts that would have failed may now succeed. It has nothing to do with what I’m capable of wrapping my brain around, thanks.

And attempted Rapists and Assaulters may be apprehended and arrested, or dead, at the hands of the legally gun-wielding citizens they intend to prey upon.

@The Tooth

Oh, so it hasn’t appeared. Well, that’s called making things up. I suppose the reduction in violent crime in Canada despite stricter gun laws is just an aberration and its only a matter of time before our streets aren’t safe too, then?

I call it “Early Indicators.” As far as either Australia or Canada are concerned: Time will tell. As far as either’s crime rates are concerned, I can’t find too much historical data to support this, but I have always been under the impression that both have had, historically speaking, much lower crime rates than the U.S., even before the term “gun control” was coined.

@The Tooth

Well, then we’re more or less on the same page. Although I think a noise complaint is a noise complaint and gun ranges shouldn’t automatically be exempt.

If people don’t like the noise of a firing range, then either they shouldn’t move in next to them, or sit still when their zoning boards allow them to be built too close to residential areas. All-in-all, I think it’s just another symptom of Urban Sprawl.

[Residents Annoyed by Gun Noise at Shooting Range in Lenexa Kansas](http://www.nonoise.org/news/2000/apr2.htm#Residents Annoyed by Gun Noise at Shooting Range in Lenexa Kansas)

[Resident in Moore Township Pennsylvania Wants to Prevent Gun Club From Building Firing Range](http://www.nonoise.org/news/2000/apr2.htm#Resident in Moore Township Pennsylvania Wants to Prevent Gun Club From Building Firing Range)

[The_Tooth]

@Ex-Tank

What I actually meant was, “…feel so much safer now [than before Australia passed their more restrictive gun control laws]”

My mistake. Nevertheless, you’d still be safer in Australia than in most American cities where you can or cannot carry guns.

@ExTank

Wrong one more time. In the U.S., crime rates are most often higher specifically in the places you cannot legally own or carry a gun, and National Stats mean just that: National. They comprise everyplace and everywhere, even the places with lower and lowest rates, so you cannot accurately compare city rates of one country to national rates of another, no matter how heavily (or not) the city rates influence (or weigh) national rates.

You keep telling me I’m wrong, but you don’t actually show it or anything. The fact is, there are many places in the U.S. where crime rates are much, much higher than the Australian rate, and you can bet the Australian rate is mostly determined by the regions of highest population. It’s not perfectly accurate, of course, because the Australian stats given cover the entire population, not just urban population. But considering the fact that the vast majority of Australia’s population is in the cities, I’m making what I consider a reasonable guess that the urban rates would be very, very close to the national rates. Saying it ain’t so isn’t going to convince me it ain’t so. If you have numbers to show otherwise, great. You’d have a hard time convincing me that the sparsely populated rural area is going to affect the numbers to the extent that the urban crime rates would rival those of major U.S. metropolitan areas. I stand by my earlier statement: there are many places in the U.S. where you’d be less safe than in Australia.

There are also places where you wouldn’t be. I’m sure Sydney Montana has a lower homicide rate than Sydney Australia. I’d by surprised if it were otherwise.

Australia’s population density

Australia’s population density at June 2001 was 2.5 people per square kilometre. The highest population density was in inner areas adjacent to city centres, such as Sydney (C) - Remainder (8,400 people per square kilometre), Waverley (A) (6,900) and North Sydney (A) (5,700) in Sydney, and Port Phillip (C) - St Kilda (5,500) in Melbourne. At the other extreme, there were around 250 Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in Australia with less than one person per square kilometre.

You can find more about crime rates by region here if you’re interested. Scroll down to State/Territory Comparisons. It’s not quite city by city, but it’s the best I can find gratis, and speaks more to the crime rates in certain areas rather than just national rates.

Assuming that crime rates are even higher in parts of the U.S. where you can’t carry guns doesn’t change the fact that they’re still higher than Australia’s rates in parts of the U.S. where you can.

@Ex-Tank

Even with lower rates, the U.S. will almost always have higher raw numbers of violent crimes than Australia by dint of our population disparity.

That’s right. That’s why we use rates per 100 000; so we can compare.

@Ex-Tank

In any case, I actually feel that international comparisons are fairly meaningless; the socio-econoic factors that contribute towards any given population’s propensity towards crime vary widely from one country to another, even relatively similar countries such as the U.S. and Canada, and firearm availability is, IMO, only one factor, and not even a large one.

But we’re not discussing the cause of crime, just the relative rates of occurences.

@Ex-Tank

What are we going to do, play duelling experts? But Prof. Lott can speak for himself in refuting Prof. Ehrlich.

I’m sure Mr. Lott stands by his work. Perhaps he even does so under his own name in addition to inventing personae to attack his critics. Prof. Lott doesn’t actually answer some very simple criticisms Dr. Ehrlich brought up, such as “my question on how his analysis can show the murder rate dropping immediately after the laws are passed, but the aggravated assault rate not starting its drop until four years later,” and “The actual data are much more irregular with lots of ups and downs, and they show nothing special happening at time t=0. Lott has used the data from 10 states in his book. When we look at changes in the robbery rate state by state, only two of the states (West Virginia and Georgia) show decreases at t=0, while the other eight show increases.”

What you and I should do, in order to avoid just playing duelling experts, is agree that Dr. Lott’s conclusions are not universally accepted by the academic community and that the debate is not settled.

@Ex-Tank

But I would flip the question back upon you: do you have a citation proving that more guns equals more crime?

I’m not making that assertion, and I never have. Why would I provide a citation to prove a point I’m not making?

@Ex-Tank

And attempted Rapists and Assaulters may be apprehended and arrested, or dead, at the hands of the legally gun-wielding citizens they intend to prey upon.

Or run away and find some other victim. Or shoot the intended victim from the bushes and rob the bleeding corpse. Or not provide the victim with a chance to draw his gun. Who can say one’s more likely than the others?

@Ex-Tank

I call it “Early Indicators.” As far as either Australia or Canada are concerned: Time will tell. As far as either’s crime rates are concerned, I can’t find too much historical data to support this, but I have always been under the impression that both have had, historically speaking, much lower crime rates than the U.S., even before the term “gun control” was coined.

This is true to my knowledge as well, but not exactly germane to the issue. Why wouldn’t homicide rates increase immediately if other crime rates have, and all the increases are tied to the same event, that being firearm restriction?

@Ex-Tank

If people don’t like the noise of a firing range, then either they shouldn’t move in next to them, or sit still when their zoning boards allow them to be built too close to residential areas. All-in-all, I think it’s just another symptom of Urban Sprawl.

Some complainers may have a valid complaint, others may not. In any case it’s not a gun control issue, it’s a civil planning issue.

That’s about all I can think of to say about this.

[ExTank]

The Tooth: I have never spoke of anything but rates where stats are concerned. You cannot with any validity assert that Australia is any safer than the U.S., in any given population density, by comparing the city rates of the U.S. to the national rates of Australia, and then supposing, no matter how confident you are, that you feel that American city rates more accurately reflect “the big picture” of the U.S.

I have shown, with the respective gov’t stats, that Nation-to-Nation, Australia leads in the Rapes and Assaults violent crime categories, while the U.S. leads in Murders and Robberies.

I have shown that from 1993-2003, Australia’s Firearm Murder rates show a significant drop, but that the overall murder rates show only a slight drop, and that there are double-digit swings from Firearm Murders to Non-Weapon Murders. This could very well be the “translation” of “other crimes,” like Assaults, Rapes, and Robberies (No Weapon Used) turning into Murders (No WeaponUsed)

I have shown that Australia’s crime rate is rising at a significant rate, while the U.S.'s is dropping the same.

So while people are safer, in a rate-per-100,000-sense, from crimes commited with a firearm in Australia, they are not necessarily safer, in-a-rate-per-100,000-sense, from that same crime committed with another type of weapon, or without any weapon at all.

The rise and fall, the change, is the key factor Im pointing out; and given time, Australia’s rapidly rising crime rates may indeed turn it into the crime-ridden hell hole that the anti-gun movement claims the U.S. is.

The other key factor, implicit to my position, is this: a Rape, an Assault, a Robery, or a Murder, is bad. Whether it is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a bicycle chain, or someone’s bare hands. Yes, Australian Murders (by Firearm) are dropping; yet even as we see other Firearm and Non-Firearm Crime Rates rising after the passage of severe gun control laws, the anti-gun crowds jump up-and-down and clap for joy just because Firearm Murders are dropping.

@The Tooth

If other crimes haven’t translated to more homicides already, why should I expect them to do so in the future?

@ExTank

It’s called trends, and while they often take some time to appear, they’re staring the folks Down Under straight in the eyes.

@The Tooth

Oh, so it hasn’t appeared. Well, that’s called making things up. I suppose the reduction in violent crime in Canada despite stricter gun laws is just an aberration and its only a matter of time before our streets aren’t safe too, then?

We’re not talking about Canada, we’re talking about Australia!

And speaking of which, is it seriously your contention that, over 10 years:

even with:[ul]
[li]an 18.16% drop in Murder (Firearm);[/li][li]a .29% drop in Murder (Other Weapon)[/ul][/li]
that:[ul]
[li]a 2.43% increase in Attempted Murder (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]a 21.96% increase in Assault (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]an 11.31% increase in Sexual Assault (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]a 41.67% increase in Robbery (No Weapon Used)[/ul] [/li]
has absolutely nothing to do with a 12.19% increase in Murder (No Weapon Used)?

Is it seriously your contention that, over 10 years:[ul]
[li]a 5.2% increase in Attempted Murders (Firearm) [/li][li]an 18.94% increase in Attempted Murders (Other Weapons) [/li][li]a 6.68% increase in Assaults (Firearm) [/li][li]a 41.94% increase in Assaults (Other Weapon) [/li][li]a 32.91% increase in Sexual Assaults (Firearms) [/li][li]a 22.02% increase in Sexual Assault (Other Weapon) [/li][li]a 92.88% increase in Kidnappings/Abductions (Firearms) [/li][li]a 96.06% increase in Kidnappings/Abductions (Other Weapons) [/li][li]a 106.98% increase in Robberies (Other Weapons)[/ul] [/li]
signifies nothing at all for the next 10 years potential Murder Rate (Firearm & Other)?!

And I believe that over this discourse, it has been shown that anti-gunners are ready and willing to attribute any rise in crime almost exclusively to firearm availability as long as they can blame some supposed state of gun control (or a nominal, but false, lack thereof), but they are obstinately unwilling to credit the same whenever confronted with rising crime rates (specifically crimes committed without firearms, or even no weapons at all) even in the face of draconian gun control.

It’s a “Rising Crime? Blame Guns, and ban 'em!” single-solution mindset that is unable and unwilling to countenance anything other than their ideology, their agenda, where their great bugaboo “Firearms” is concerned.

Quite a bit like the died-in-the-wool racists.

@The Tooth

Concealed carry could conceivably dissuade those Assaulters and Rapists, but it could also conceivably increase the odds of their using firearms in committing their crimes since there’d be more firearms to be had, and firearms make a pretty convincing argument in anybody’s hands. Rape attempts that would have failed may now succeed. It has nothing to do with what I’m capable of wrapping my brain around, thanks.

Apparently it does, because you automatically assume that more firearms in the hands of the people automatically equates to more firearms in the hands of the criminals committing crimes, even as Australia proves the lie. In your mind, Gun Ownership = Crime. If you have background checks and police doing their jobs, courts convicting criminals, and good prisons to toss their sorry asses into until they are too old and feeble to even jaywalk, it doesn’t.

And yet the U.S.'s crime rate has been dropping for 10 years, even as gun control laws relax. Could it be our improving economy? Advances in education spending? Increased arrests, convitions and incarceration rates of the most violent of criminal offenders?

Nope; not according to the rabidly anti-gun gun control crowd. To them only gun control laws (leading to bans of first handguns, then rifles and shotguns, then air and BB guns) will save us.

@The Tooth

That’s about all I can think of to say about this.

Well, it’s about fucking time. :rolleyes:

[Weirddave]

@The Tooth

Concealed carry could conceivably dissuade those Assaulter and Rapists, but it could also conceivably increase the odds of their using firearms in committing their crimes since there’d be more firearms to be had, and firearms make a pretty convincing argument in anybody’s hands. Rape attempts that would have failed may now succeed. It has nothing to do with what I’m capable of wrapping my brain around, thanks.

This is one particular assertion that I am having difficulty wrapping my brain around, could you please explain it to me clearly? It seems to me that you are saying that there are currently any number of assaulter and rapists who would like to use a gun while committing their crimes, but don’t currently…because guns are too hard for them to get their hands on? Because that’s the only way that argument makes a lick of sense.
See, I tend to believe that any criminal who wants a gun to use committing crimes has one already, and the only thing gun control laws are going to change is what percentage of his victims will be armed and able to defend themselves. Arguing that laws keep guns from criminals is stupid, because criminals by definition ignore laws, but maybe that’s my naughty old common sense rearing it’s ugly head again.

[pkbites]

@Rebekkah

Informal poll - how many of the gun owners on the board have had occasion to use their gun for personal protection?

I have. 2 guys with a tire iron tried to mug me. I’m a somewhat large man and I’ve been well trained in how to fight.
But they damn near smashed my skull and everything I threw at them didn’t work. It wasn’t until I produced a Ruger 9mm pistol that they took off.

[ExTank]

I also had an occasion to use a handgun for what I’m positive was self-defense, even if it was much less clear-cut than pkbites’ scenario.

I was working night shift in downtown Dallas some years back, and we’d had several muggings in the company parking lot. Security wouldn’t escort anyone to their vehicles (they were just there to call the police should you be mugged and manage to crawl, injured and bleeding, back to the building), so we were left to “wolfpack” ourselves to our cars at 2:00 AM in the morning in an incredibly high-crime area.

So anyway, I’m parked way the hell out on the dark side of the moon when I’m approached by 5-6 men. Since I’m in a commercial/industrial district with no residences for a long way away, and these guys stopped, looked at me, conferred amongst themselves, and then began following me, I didn’t feel to bad about pulling my pistol out and letting them get a good look.

They reversed course and left me alone.

[The_Tooth]

@ExTank

The Tooth: I have never spoke of anything but rates where stats are concerned. You cannot with any validity assert that Australia is any safer than the U.S., in any given population density, by comparing the city rates of the U.S. to the national rates of Australia, and then supposing, no matter how confident you are, that you feel that American city rates more accurately reflect “the big picture” of the U.S.

I don’t feel that. I feel that Australia’s national rate closely reflects the crime rates in Australian cities. I doubt there’s a vast rural Australian population that would drive urban rates comparable to the U.S.'s urban rates down to the Australian national rates. Therefore it’s a good bet you’re safer in Sydney than in Pittsburgh. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that. Don’t much care at this point.

@Ex-Tank

I have shown, with the respective gov’t stats, that Nation-to-Nation, Australia leads in the Rapes and Assaults violent crime categories, while the U.S. leads in Murders and Robberies.

Yes, and I’ve acknowledged that. Twice now, in fact.

[Quote=Ex-Tank]
I have shown that from 1993-2003, Australia’s Firearm Murder rates show a significant drop, but that the overall murder rates show only a slight drop, and that there are double-digit swings from Firearm Murders to Non-Weapon Murders. This could very well be the “translation” of “other crimes,” like Assaults, Rapes, and Robberies (No Weapon Used) turning into Murders (No WeaponUsed)

I have shown that Australia’s crime rate is rising at a significant rate, while the U.S.'s is dropping the same.[Ex-Tank] Yep. Even so, most rates are lower. Far lower. Australia’s not as safe overall as it used to be (you seem to be ignoring the fact that most states reported less crime, but that’s your choice), but a large population center in Australia is safer overall than a large American population center.

So while people are safer, in a rate-per-100,000-sense, from crimes commited with a firearm in Australia, they are not necessarily safer, in-a-rate-per-100,000-sense, from that same crime committed with another type of weapon, or without any weapon at all.

Safer than what? Safer than they used to be or safer than in American cities of comparable size?

@Ex-Tank

The rise and fall, the change, is the key factor Im pointing out; and given time, Australia’s rapidly rising crime rates may indeed turn it into the crime-ridden hell hole that the anti-gun movement claims the U.S. is.

Maybe. At the moment, however, it’s not even close. Live in the now.

@Ex-Tank

The other key factor, implicit to my position, is this: a Rape, an Assault, a Robery, or a Murder, is bad. Whether it is committed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a bicycle chain, or someone’s bare hands. Yes, Australian Murders (by Firearm) are dropping; yet even as we see other Firearm and Non-Firearm Crime Rates rising after the passage of severe gun control laws, the anti-gun crowds jump up-and-down and clap for joy just because Firearm Murders are dropping.

I see no jumping. I hear no clapping. If you do, take it up with them. Has nothing to do with me.

@Ex-Tank

And speaking of which, is it seriously your contention that, over 10 years:

even with:[ul]
[li]an 18.16% drop in Murder (Firearm);[/li][li]a .29% drop in Murder (Other Weapon)[/ul][/li]
that:[ul]
[li]a 2.43% increase in Attempted Murder (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]a 21.96% increase in Assault (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]an 11.31% increase in Sexual Assault (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]a 41.67% increase in Robbery (No Weapon Used)[/ul] [/li]
has absolutely nothing to do with a 12.19% increase in Murder (No Weapon Used)?

Is it seriously your contention that, over 10 years:[ul]
[li]a 5.2% increase in Attempted Murders (Firearm) [/li][li]an 18.94% increase in Attempted Murders (Other Weapons) [/li][li]a 6.68% increase in Assaults (Firearm) [/li][li]a 41.94% increase in Assaults (Other Weapon) [/li][li]a 32.91% increase in Sexual Assaults (Firearms) [/li][li]a 22.02% increase in Sexual Assault (Other Weapon) [/li][li]a 92.88% increase in Kidnappings/Abductions (Firearms) [/li][li]a 96.06% increase in Kidnappings/Abductions (Other Weapons) [/li][li]a 106.98% increase in Robberies (Other Weapons)[/ul] [/li]
signifies nothing at all for the next 10 years potential Murder Rate (Firearm & Other)?!

Fair enough. I’ll retract. Australia’s overall homicide rate looks to increase in the future when these numbers are considered. But since crime’s up in some Australian states but down in others whereas gun controls applied to the entire country, I won’t lay the blame gun control for the trends.

@Ex-Tank

And I believe that over this discourse, it has been shown that anti-gunners are ready and willing to attribute any rise in crime almost exclusively to firearm availability as long as they can blame some supposed state of gun control (or a nominal, but false, lack thereof), but they are obstinately unwilling to credit the same whenever confronted with rising crime rates (specifically crimes committed without firearms, or even no weapons at all) even in the face of draconian gun control.

It’s a “Rising Crime? Blame Guns, and ban 'em!” single-solution mindset that is unable and unwilling to countenance anything other than their ideology, their agenda, where their great bugaboo “Firearms” is concerned.

Quite a bit like the died-in-the-wool racists.

As far as I can tell it hasn’t been shown, it’s just a claim you make. In any case, take it up with them. It has nothing to do with me. Of course, your gross generalization that you’re morally superior to all anti-gun folks because of one incident that happened to you is nothing at all like dyed-in-the-wool racism, but a cogent analysis formulated after painstaking research.

@Ex-Tank

Apparently it does, because you automatically assume that more firearms in the hands of the people automatically equates to more firearms in the hands of the criminals committing crimes, even as Australia proves the lie.

Australia doesn’t prove the lie. Firearm availabilty went down, and so did firearm use in crime. See here and scroll down to “Weapon Use”. See the graph labeled “Firearm used in commission of offence”

In your mind, Gun Ownership = Crime.

No it doesn’t. I think a large gun population increases the odds of a criminal using a firearm, though. It’s simply a matter of availability. That’s why I favour laws requiring guns be secured when not in use.

@Ex-Tank

And yet the U.S.'s crime rate has been dropping for 10 years, even as gun control laws relax. Could it be our improving economy? Advances in education spending? Increased arrests, convitions and incarceration rates of the most violent of criminal offenders?

I think so, yeah. I’ve never said otherwise. This business of gun ownership equalling crime in my mind is just something you made up.

Why are you attributing a lowering crime rate to an improved social situation in the U.S. but an increasing crime rate in Australia to firearm controls? Seems a bit of a double standard to me. But suit yourself. I hear racists follow similar patterns: " [insert race here] people are stupid, unless they happen to excel. Then they’re conniving bastards." Either way, the racist’s racism is justified.

@Ex-=Tank

Nope; not according to the rabidly anti-gun gun control crowd. To them only gun control laws (leading to bans of first handguns, then rifles and shotguns, then air and BB guns) will save us.

Possibly their position is what you say it is, although judging by your record when it comes to reading my mind I won’t take your word for it. In any event, take it up with those who want to ban firearms. It has nothing to do with me.

[The_Tooth]

@Weirddave

This is one particular assertion that I am having difficulty wrapping my brain around, could you please explain it to me clearly? It seems to me that you are saying that there are currently any number of assaulter and rapists who would like to use a gun while committing their crimes, but don’t currently…because guns are too hard for them to get their hands on? Because that’s the only way that argument makes a lick of sense.
See, I tend to believe that any criminal who wants a gun to use committing crimes has one already, and the only thing gun control laws are going to change is what percentage of his victims will be armed and able to defend themselves. Arguing that laws keep guns from criminals is stupid, because criminals by definition ignore laws, but maybe that’s my naughty old common sense rearing it’s ugly head again.

Crimes happen. If there’s a firearm to be stolen during the committing of that crime, then it will be stolen. If someone’s legally carrying that gun then it could possibly be used for protection, sure, but guns don’t protect people, people do, and that person could fail in his attempt to protect himself. That gun is then out of the hands of legal owners and floating around in the criminal world. Or the gun could have been stolen from a glove box or a purse when the owner wasn’t looking, or from the owner’s home when the owner was away. Those stolen weapons then find their way into the hands of other criminals, or are used by the same criminals in a personal crime. The guns you assume criminals to already have have to be acquired somehow, and the more that are floating around out there rather than being locked away in safes when not in use, the more likely criminals are to acquire them. It’s a pretty simple supply-and-demand situation. You don’t have to ban the guns, just see to it that only the legal owners have access to them.

If you seek further clarification, talk to Ex-Tank. He seems to think he’s qualified to say what I do or do not think. Enjoy the circlejerk.

[Banquet_Bear]

@ExTank

And speaking of which, is it seriously your contention that, over 10 years:

even with:[ul]
[li]an 18.16% drop in Murder (Firearm);[/li][li]a .29% drop in Murder (Other Weapon)[/ul][/li]
that:[ul]
[li]a 2.43% increase in Attempted Murder (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]a 21.96% increase in Assault (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]an 11.31% increase in Sexual Assault (No Weapon Used) [/li][li]a 41.67% increase in Robbery (No Weapon Used)[/ul] [/li]
has absolutely nothing to do with a 12.19% increase in Murder (No Weapon Used)?

Is it seriously your contention that, over 10 years:[ul]
[li]a 5.2% increase in Attempted Murders (Firearm) [/li][li]an 18.94% increase in Attempted Murders (Other Weapons) [/li][li]a 6.68% increase in Assaults (Firearm) [/li][li]a 41.94% increase in Assaults (Other Weapon) [/li][li]a 32.91% increase in Sexual Assaults (Firearms) [/li][li]a 22.02% increase in Sexual Assault (Other Weapon) [/li][li]a 92.88% increase in Kidnappings/Abductions (Firearms) [/li][li]a 96.06% increase in Kidnappings/Abductions (Other Weapons) [/li][li]a 106.98% increase in Robberies (Other Weapons)[/ul] [/li]
signifies nothing at all for the next 10 years potential Murder Rate (Firearm & Other)?!

…with respect ExTank-how about a link to the primary sources for your statistics that you are promoting your arguement with? A 96% increase in kidnappings could mean an increase from one kidnapping in 2003 to two kidnappings in 2004. Without your primary primary sources-your figures show nothing…

[danceswithcats]

@Weirddave

This is one particular assertion that I am having difficulty wrapping my brain around, could you please explain it to me clearly? It seems to me that you are saying that there are currently any number of assaulter and rapists who would like to use a gun while committing their crimes, but don’t currently…because guns are too hard for them to get their hands on? Because that’s the only way that argument makes a lick of sense.
See, I tend to believe that any criminal who wants a gun to use committing crimes has one already, and the only thing gun control laws are going to change is what percentage of his victims will be armed and able to defend themselves. Arguing that laws keep guns from criminals is stupid, because criminals by definition ignore laws, but maybe that’s my naughty old common sense rearing it’s ugly head again.

Amen Weirddave. That’s the basic tenet of the anti gun lobby which makes no sense-all of my guns are registered, legally purchased, and I keep my CCP current.

Joe Gang-Banger isn’t likely to say to himself, “This piece ain’t mine accordin’ to the law, so I best not use it when I rob the liquor store. I might get in more trouble. I’ll threaten the store owner with a comb.” :dubious:

[The_Tooth]

You’re probably right. What does that have to do with anything I said? And what does your paperwork being up do date have to do with anything at all? Do you think some pickpocket’s going to come along and say “Gee, I better not snatch her purse, her gun might be properly registered!”?

Carrying a gun makes one available to your mugger just as much as it makes it available to you. That’s all I’m saying. That doesn’t mean I oppose carrying weapons, I don’t much care either way. It does mean I think securing weapons when not in use is a good idea. Creating a pool of weapons available to be stolen is a consequence of carrying weapons in a high-crime society, and that’s the way it is. Why is this difficult to grasp?

[ExTank]

@Banquet Bear

…with respect ExTank-how about a link to the primary sources for your statistics that you are promoting your arguement with? A 96% increase in kidnappings could mean an increase from one kidnapping in 2003 to two kidnappings in 2004. Without your primary primary sources-your figures show nothing…

They aren’t “my” sources, Bear, they’re yours. From Sarah Woodruff’s post, and my follow up response to FinnAgain’s request for clarification.

[ExTank]

IN addition: I never intended to turn this into a “my-country’s-better-than-your-country” pissing contest. I’ve never been Down Under, but from everyone I’ve talked to who has, it’s a great place to visit and live, and if I should ever decide to travel, I could do much worse than picking Australia as a destination, but not much better.

My only intent was to burst Sarah Woodruff’s bubble of self-deception that Australia is ahead of the U.S. in every category of violent crime. How I got drug into The Tooth’s ever-increasing spiral of inanity is beyond me, but I have no one to blame but myself for that.

Considering that factors most criminologists agree contribute most to crime, and the rise and fall thereof, Australia’s changing rates are quite baffling. Your stringent gun control laws are one factor that cannot be ignored, but I never attributed the rate-change solely to those laws.

[Weirddave]

@The Tooth

Carrying a gun makes one available to your mugger just as much as it makes it available to you. That’s all I’m saying. That doesn’t mean I oppose carrying weapons, I don’t much care either way. It does mean I think securing weapons when not in use is a good idea. Creating a pool of weapons available to be stolen is a consequence of carrying weapons in a high-crime society, and that’s the way it is. Why is this difficult to grasp?

My point is that plenty of guns are already available to criminals. I believe that the saturation point has been reached, or to put it another way, I do not believe there is a criminal in America (or even Australia or Canada or England) who desires a gun and yet does not have one because none are available to him. Australia has very stringent gun control laws. So does England. Are the criminals there unarmed? Everything I’ve ever read says “no”. If the criminals are already armed, than what is the point in worrying about some nonexistent pool of little old ladies packing heat who are supplying criminals with guns as they fall victims to violence? Does it honestly make a lick of sense to you? Because it seems to me to be a monumentally deluded concern, completely divorced from reality.

[The_Tooth]

I’ve twice shown that reports of firearm use in crimes reported in Australia is down, and once that violent crime in general in Canada is down. If you want to put up strawmen about pools of little old ladies and throw insults instead of paying attention, you’re on your own.

I’m sure reports like “BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually
involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds
of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost
one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts
or burglaries from stores or other businesses,” are just my imagination. See ya.

[roger_thornhill]

@Weirddave

.Australia has very stringent gun control laws. So does England. Are the criminals there unarmed? Everything I’ve ever read says “no”.

How many people are shot by these armed criminals each year? Not very many, I believe. Not much need therefore for Aussie and UK citizens to arm themselves so that they won’t be blown away when Johnnie Criminal comes busting through their front door. And fewer guns in the gun pool for 4 year old kids to find and shoot each other with.

[ExTank]

@The Tooth

I’ve twice shown that reports of firearm use in crimes reported in Australia is down, and once that violent crime in general in Canada is down. If you want to put up strawmen about pools of little old ladies and throw insults instead of paying attention, you’re on your own.

You are a fucking idiot. Australia’s own crime stats show marginal drops in in a few categories of crimes commited with firearms, most notably murder. But in several categories (a majority of categories, actually), a substantial increase in the same crimes committed “With Other Weapons” or with “No Weapon Used.”

@The Tooth

I’m sure reports like “BJS estimated that more than 340,000 crimes annually
involved firearm thefts. During the period almost two-thirds
of such losses occurred during household burglaries and almost
one- third in larcenies. The survey does not report on thefts
or burglaries from stores or other businesses,” are just my imagination. See ya.

Your study covers a five year period, 1987-1992. Do you have some thing a bit more current?

(Editing to fix coding and quote tags. -JMCJ)

[The_Tooth]

Jesus. This is like playing cards with my sister’s kids. Only my sisters kids don’t say stupid shit like “In your mind, Gun Ownership = Crime.” Sounds to me like you have a persecution complex or something.

Weirddave said:

@Weirddave

I do not believe there is a criminal in America (or even Australia or Canada or England) who desires a gun and yet does not have one because none are available to him.

I replied by saying that firearm use in crime is down in Australia, which seems to me a pretty good indicator that there are in fact criminals who commit their crimes yet don’t have guns. As does your cite that crimes involving other weapons is up, for that matter. Weirddave’s feelings about what they want are as based in fact as your boneheaded statement about how gun ownership = crime in my mind. That is to say, not based in fact at all and entirely made up. What Weirddave’s beliefs have to do with the fact that more guns means more guns to be stolen (just like diamond rings or cars or iPods) escapes me.

The fact that more than a quarter of a million firearm thefts in five years should be good enough to show Weirddave’s statements about the nonexistence of firearms available to be stolen to be the bullshit they are. Why isn’t it? Do you think criminals are done stealing firearms or something?

http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/gun_theft_fs.pdf (PDF file) If you don’t find it current enough, too bad.

I can’t believe there’s not one but two people out there who don’t think a larger firearm population means there are more to be stolen and used in crimes later on. It’s a strange world. Oh well, believe whatever you like.