GUN CONTROL!!!

[bgwah]

What is gun control like in your state?

I put together this map of Washington State. It is based off of Initiative 676 from 1997. It is a recent vote involving gun control and gives an accurate picture of the gun control issue in Washington.

I-676 asked:
"Shall the transfer of handguns without trigger-locking devices be prohibited and persons possessing or acquiring a handgun be required to obtain a handgun safety license?"

71% of the voters rejected it.



Not even San Juan, the most liberal county in the state, voted for it. It was closest though, with 46% of its residents supporting it. Columbia County was the most against it, with 94% of its residents voting no. Five other counties cracked 90% no.

[Platypus]

get a map of the federal parliamentary seats in Victoria, make all the Melbourne based seats in favour of gun control, all the very rural ones no, and the rest 50/50. Basically, Victorians would be at least 80% in favour of some form of gun control; i'd say maybe 40-50% would be like me, wanted guns banned for everyone but police, famers (rifles only), park rangers, etc.

[Ebowed]

There may be a few predominantly black counties in South Carolina that support gun control, but I'm not really sure what the black community's view is on the issue.  The NAACP, which strongly supports gun control, also strongly supports things like abortion and gay marriage, so I wouldn't say they're representative of black people in general.

[dazzleman]

It's funny how gun control has turned into a political liablity and Democrats seem to be abandoning it.

I've always been somewhat indifferent to gun control.  I don't mind it, but I think it's completely ineffective.  Why would a person who's willing to shoot somebody follow the law in buying a gun?

It's also funny that the people who put their faith in gun control are the same people who have done everything in their power to put criminals back out on the street rather than in jail where they belong.

The same coalition that puts all its faith in gun control is generally more concerned with the rights of criminals than victims, unless the crime is a "hate" crime (translation -- the victim is a minority, and the perpetrator is white) or the victim is a woman (i.e., domestic violence cases in which the victim is a man don't count).

I think all violent crime should be punished severely, regardless of the reason for the crime, and if a gun is used, the punishment should be extremely severe.  This will work better than ineffective attempts to prevent violent criminals from getting guns.

[Platypus]

i think the peoblem with the us is that there are just too many bloody guns. Take away law-abiding citizens rights to guns and they're 'undefended' (although I read that more people die from their own guns then kill others in self defence) from the mountains of guns possessed by cruiminals. Australia has the fortunate circumstances of only the big crims having guns, and only using them to shoot eachother. In the US, your gun culture has led to a 'damned if you do, an damned if you don't' set of circumstances; although we only know that the latter is true. I reckon that trying gun control is necessary now, after we've seen that laz gun laws simply don't work and make for a more dangerous society.

[CARLHAYDEN]

i think the peoblem with the us is that there are just too many bloody guns. Take away law-abiding citizens rights to guns and they're 'undefended' (although I read that more people die from their own guns then kill others in self defence) from the mountains of guns possessed by cruiminals. Australia has the fortunate circumstances of only the big crims having guns, and only using them to shoot eachother. In the US, your gun culture has led to a 'damned if you do, an damned if you don't' set of circumstances; although we only know that the latter is true. I reckon that trying gun control is necessary now, after we've seen that laz gun laws simply don't work and make for a more dangerous society.

Have you te se any evidence of though on your part!

[John Dibble]

(although I read that more people die from their own guns then kill others in self defence)

This may actually be true, but not because guns aren't used in self-defense much. On the contrary, depending on your source guns are used from 800,000 to 2.5 million times a year in self-defense in the U.S. - a much larger number than those killed by their own guns(I'm pretty sure it's less than 1000 a year, but you can check on that). So, given the number of times firearms are used in self-defense relative to the number of times an accidental death occurs, how could it be possible that the number of accidental deaths surpass the number of self-defense gun deaths of criminals? The explanation is actually very simple - in the vast majority of cases, criminals will run away when confronted by an armed victim, and in the majority of cases where a shot is fired it doesn't hit the criminals and he still runs away. This is because criminals usually try to prey on those weaker than themselves, and if the victim pulls out a gun the criminal has lost the advantage they thought they had and will normally run. I remember reading a survey of incarcerated felons that said they were more afraid of their victims being armed than they were of the police.

[Platypus]

Now, this is BEFORE we had tight gun laws:

The gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in 1994 by country were as follows:

    * U.S.A. 14.24
    * Brazil 12.95
    * Mexico 12.69
    * Estonia 12.26
    * Argentina 8.93
    * Northern Ireland 6.63
    * Finland 6.46
    * Switzerland 5.31
    * France 5.15
    * Canada 4.31
    * Norway 3.82
    * Austria 3.70
    * Portugal 3.20
    * Israel 2.91
    * Belgium 2.90
    * Australia 2.65
    * Slovenia 2.60
    * Italy 2.44
    * New Zealand 2.38
    * Denmark 2.09
    * Sweden 1.92
    * Kuwait 1.84
    * Greece 1.29
    * Germany 1.24
    * Hungary 1.11
    * Ireland 0.97
    * Spain 0.78
    * Netherlands 0.70
    * Scotland 0.54
    * England and Wales 0.41
    * Taiwan 0.37
    * Singapore 0.21
    * Mauritius 0.19
    * Hong Kong 0.14
    * South Korea 0.12
    * Japan 0.05

(according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.)

I'll try and find a more recent figure.
------------------------------------------------------------

"There was a decrease of almost 30% in the number of homicides by firearms from 1997 to 1998."

-- Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 1999. Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra, Oct 1999. The Gun laws were introduced in late 96/early 1997, iirc, immediately following Port Arthur.

-----------------------------------------------------

The Australian Bureau of Statistics counts all injury deaths, whether or not they are crime-related. The most recently available ABS figures show a total of 437 firearm-related deaths (homicide, suicide and unintentional) for 1997. This is the lowest number for 18 years.

The Australian rate of gun death per 100,000 population remains one-fifth that of the United States.

------------------------

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

[bgwah]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't "gun-related deaths" include suicides?

[Platypus]

indeed, and over 3/4 of australia's gun-related deaths are from suicides. (78% to the period to 1995; can't find more recent info)

I also suggest people take a look at this:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html

it is not necessarily a statistical proof of anything, but it's a very interesting read.

[bgwah]

I didn't click your link, but including suicides seems like a manipulation of data to support gun control.

[Platypus]

hardly. Guns in the house=quick and very efficient way to kill yourself. You're a hell of a lot more likely to suceed in a suicide attempt by putting a bullet through your head, then by taking a few too many sleeping pills.

BTW, If it's 'inflating' the numbers, it would be inflating the number for each country. Take away suicides and the number drops, sure; I'm not sure how much for the USA, but uif you don't want to count them, the number drops for Australia to roughly 0.75. It's the lack of guns that keeps the rate so low; Australia isn't less violent then America-perhaps we're even more violent, I'm not sure-but the lack of access to guns means less people die from them-either at their own hands, or at the hands of criminals, or insane people like Martin Bryant.

[Emsworth]

"Gun-related deaths" is too broad a term. It can include all manner of things: suicides, killings by police, and the like non-criminal activities. A more important figure to consider might be "gun-related murders."

But even if gun-related murders are higher in the U.S. than in, say, Australia, it would be no argument against gun control. The primary argument in favor of gun rights is not that it reduces crime; the primary argument is that there is an inherent and fundamental right of self-defense. Ultimately, the weapon is not responsible for the crime; the criminal is. And penalizing individuals for the actions of criminals, by depriving them of so important a right as self-defense, strikes me as absurdly unjust.

[Platypus]

but the access to the weapon is what's producing the deaths!

Criminals will still try to kill people sometimes, sure; but they'll be a lot less sucessful.

ANd I think the right to live in a society where there is no need for self-defence is more important.

[Emsworth]

but the access to the weapon is what's producing the deaths!

I hesitate to be flippant, but so what? Knives often cause deaths; shall we ban knives as well? Or if someone decides to bludgeon another person to death with a cricket bat, should we ban cricket bats as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I completely disagree. A criminal tends to have no regard for gun control. Whether there are gun control laws or not, criminals will still have access to firearms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No such utopia exists, or in practice can exist.

[Platypus]

but Australia is a lot closer to it. I can walk down the street in any neighbourhood in Australia and not be fearful of having a gun-or a knife-stuck in my face.
I point to the figures-after gun control came into effect in Australia, gun related deaths-including homicides-fell. Total homicide rates also fell.

[John Dibble]

Hugh, two things:

1. For the suicide argument to hold weight, you have to prove one of two things. You can either show that after gun control is implemented that there is a significant rise in suicide rates, or you can show the opposite. I've never seen any study that has shown either.

2. It's a bad idea to compare countries when it comes to gun deaths, or even crime in general. The reason for this is there are many differences between countries. For instance, compare USA and Switzerland - the Swiss have one of the lowest if not the lowest crime rates in the world, yet they give out fully automatic weapons to the general public. Some pro-gun people will use this as an argument for an armed society, and I'll admit that I have done so in the past - but what I have learned is that the conditions in these two countries are vastly different. Culture, ethnic diversity, economic conditions, and even things like temperature and sunlight can affect things like murder and suicide rates. It's much better to make comparisons of things that are similar - such as two European nations or two states within the US.

[bgwah]

I could walk almost anywhere in the entire Northwestern United States and not have to worry about being mugged, and definitely not murdered...

[Platypus]

Dibs-Australia and the USA, are, however, very similar countries culturally, historically, etc. We have similar crime rates, etc. Whilst not a perfect comparison, I think it is pretty reasonable. About the suicide thing-I'll try to find the source, but I remember reading that whilst attempted suicides had increased in Australia over the last decade, sucessful suicides had not increase significantly at all. Whilst this is not an absolutely direct corellation with lack of guns, I think it is reasonably sound to put the two together, at least partially.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hugh, you just never cease to make gross factual mistatements (I'm not going to call them 'lies' because there is ample evidence you are incapable of understanding the difference between truth and a lie).

The US and Australia are VERY different in population composition as it relates to violent crime, particularly 'murder and nonnegligent homocide.'

If you look at the proportion of the black population in the two countries, and then look at the number of murders atributed to blacks in the two countries, you will see the number one explanation of the elevated murder rate in the United States relative to Australia.

[Platypus]

Are, a) Blacks more likely to posses guns?, and b) More likely to use guns in crimes?

You can use all the abusiveness you have in you, I don't care. Guns kill people. Through people, sure, but they kill people, and a LOT more effectively then any other personal weapon.

I'm not even sure why i'm bothering. I have the fortune to live in a society that is relatively safe from gun-related crimes, and also a society in which I have no fear of gun-related crimes. Ask a single mother in Houston-black or white-if they are concerned about gun-related violence, and the answer you'll get almost all the time in 'yes'.

And whilst it's vaguely off topic, is it acceptable that in the USA a social group can be so significantly poorer then the rest of the population, so significantly more involved in crimes, including those related to guns, and so significantly more likely to have problems with drug addiction? Australia had these problems with our Aboriginal population, which makes up 2% of the total population. We've dealt significantly with the second problem; the first and third are still at unacceptably bad levels, but at least something has been done. It's also much harder to cope with Aboriginal communities, and whilst I won't go into that here, the basics are culture, isolation and poverty. The third is shared by both, but unlike in the United States, the average wealth of aboriginal Australians has skyrocketed over the last few decades-it's still very very low, but it is improving.

Once you become involved, Carl, arguments get abusive and messy. I will not continue to post in this thread. But it is my firm belief that once you take away all the ifs and buts, the core of the problem is higher rates of gun ownership, and thats why you're more likely to die at the hands of someone else then me. Enjoy your liberty to own a weapon of destruction; i'll enjoy my extra years of life.

[KEmperor]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.  And they will find a way to do so whether you make it illegal to own guns or not.

Your argument about suicides is silly, btw.  If you are really that committed to killing yourself, you will simply find another way if you don't have a gun to make it quick and painless.

[Platypus]

I can't stop myself. Last post here.

People kill people, sure, but guns are a LOT more effective at doing it. In premeditated murders, there is no difference, basically, it's the spur-of-the-moment killings that really push the murder rate up, and guns are undeniably the best personal weapon for doing that, particularly pistols. A pull of a trigger is a split second thing; stabbing someone sufficiently to kill them takes far, far longer in most cases.

About suicide-the same thing applies. If someone gets all depressed and tries to kill themselves, as a spur-of the moment type of thing, they're likely (well, certain) to succeed with a gun. With other methods, their chance of success is lowered. If it's premeditated and they've taken every sep to ensure death, it'll still happen. The fact of the matter is, there is no other method that is uicker, painless and as effective as a bullet through your brain.

[KEmperor]

I can't stop myself. Last post here.

People kill people, sure, but guns are a LOT more effective at doing it. In premeditated murders, there is no difference, basically, it's the spur-of-the-moment killings that really push the murder rate up, and guns are undeniably the best personal weapon for doing that, particularly pistols. A pull of a trigger is a split second thing; stabbing someone sufficiently to kill them takes far, far longer in most cases.

About suicide-the same thing applies. If someone gets all depressed and tries to kill themselves, as a spur-of the moment type of thing, they're likely (well, certain) to succeed with a gun. With other methods, their chance of success is lowered. If it's premeditated and they've taken every sep to ensure death, it'll still happen. The fact of the matter is, there is no other method that is uicker, painless and as effective as a bullet through your brain.

Yes, and you cant just stab yourself with a knife in a spur of the moment thing?  Perhaps just slit your wrists?

[John Dibble]

Are, a) Blacks more likely to posses guns?, and b) More likely to use guns in crimes?

The first I don't know, but that's irrelevant(let's assume the rate of gun onw - the second one is, though. Statistically speaking, blacks commit more crimes than whites, so you can probably infer that they are likelier to commit a gun crime too. And just to point it out, the culture of a good many black people in America is different from the general 'white' cultures of the U.S. or Australia.