TOTALLY GEEKED!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

What actually happens when you take guns away from good people.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

It's only logical common sense.

ed11563 · Guru

From Snopes ...

The article is misleading.

MIXTURE OF TRUE AND FALSE INFORMATION

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

Australian Guns

snopes

updated From the archive

Claim: Statistics demonstrate that crime rates in Australia have increased substantially since the government there instituted a gun buy-back program in 1997.

MIXTURE OF TRUE AND FALSE INFORMATION

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]

From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.

Hi Yanks,

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

Origins: Although the old adage says that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure," those who seek to influence public opinion often employ a variety of means to slant statistical figures into seemingly supporting their point of view:

Percentages by themselves often tell far from a complete story, particularly when they involve small sample sizes which do not adequately mask normal fluctuations or the potential influence of a number of extraneous factors affecting the phenomenon under study. A statement such as "The number of deaths attributable to cancer increased by 2% between 1973 and 1983" is probably much more significant if the number of cancer deaths increased by twenty thousand among a population of one million than if they increased by two among a population of one hundred. (In the latter case, for example, two people who already had cancer could have moved into an otherwise cancer-free small town, but it's far less likely that immigration would completely account for an increase of twenty thousand cancer cases amidst a city of one million.)
Context is especially important, and percentages alone don't provide context. A statement such as "The home run total in the American League jumped by an astounding 50% between 1960 and 1961" sounds misleadingly impressive if you don't know that after 1960, the American League expanded by two teams and increased the length of its schedule, thereby adding two hundred more games to the season.
Most importantly, percentages don't establish cause-and-effect relationships — at best they highlight correlations which may be due to any number of factors. If (to continue our previous example), the total number of home runs hit by all teams increased by 30% from one year to the next while the number of games remained the same, a great many people might claim that the baseballs used in the latter year had obviously been "juiced" (i.e., manufactured in such a way as to cause them to travel farther when hit). But a number of other unconsidered factors (individually or collectively) might be responsible for the increase, such as an abundance of warm weather, or an expansion in the number of teams which brought more inexperienced and ineffective pitchers into the league.

In the specific case offered here, context is the most important factor. The piece quoted above leads the reader to believe that much of the Australian citizenry owned handguns until their ownership was made illegal and all firearms owned by "law-abiding citizens" were collected by the government through a buy-back program in 1997. This is not so. Australian citizens do not (and never did) have a constitutional right to own firearms — even before the 1997 buyback program, handgun ownership in Australia was restricted to certain groups, such as those needing weapons for occupational reasons, members of approved sporting clubs, hunters, and collectors. Moreover, the 1997 buyback program did not take away all the guns owned by these groups; only some types of firearms (primarily semi-automatic and pump-action weapons) were banned. And even with the ban in effect, those who can demonstrate a legitimate need to possess prohibited categories of firearms can petition for exemptions from the law.

Given this context, any claims based on statistics (even accurate ones) which posit a cause-and-effect relationship between the gun buyback program and increased crime rates because "criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed" are automatically suspect, since the average Australian citizen didn't own firearms even before the buyback. But

Report Advertisement

beyond that, most of the statistics offered here are misleading and present only "first year results" where long-term trends need to be considered in order to draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions.

For example, the first entry states that "Homicides are up 3.2%." This statistic is misleading because it reflects only the absolute number of homicides rather than the homicide rate. (A country with a rapidly-growing population, for example, might experience a higher number of crimes even while its overall crime rate decreased.) An examination of statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) reveals that the overall homicide rate in Australia has changed little over the past decade and actually dipped slightly after the 1997 gun buy-back program. (The chart found at this link also demonstrates how easily statistics based on small sample sizes can mislead, as when the homicide rate in Tasmania increased nearly eight-fold in one year based on a single incident in which

35 people were killed.)

Then we have the claim that "In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent." This is another example of how misleading statistics can be when the underlying numbers are not provided: Victoria, a state with a population of over four-and-a-half million people in 1997, experienced 7 firearm-related homicides in 1996 and 19 firearm-related homicides in 1997 (an increase of 171%, not 300%). An additional twelve homicides amongst a population of 4.5 million is not statistically significant, nor does this single-year statistic adequately reflect long-term trends. Moreover, the opening paragraph mixes two very different types of statistics — number of homicides vs. percentage of homicides committed with firearms. In the latter case, it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. (In the former case, the absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.)

Other claims offered here, such as the statement that "While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months" and "There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly" are even more difficult to evaluate, because they don't offer any figures or standards of measurement at all. Do they deal with absolute numbers, or percentages? Do they reflect all incidents of crime, or only those committed with firearms? How much of an increase constitutes a "dramatic" increase? According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of armed robberies involving firearms has actually declined over the last several years:

1995 - 27.8%
1996 - 25.3%
1997 - 24.1%
1998 - 17.6%
1999 - 15.2%
2000 - 14.0%

The ABS does report that the number of assaults on victims aged 65 and over has increased over the last few years, but hardly in a proportion one would describe as "dramatic":

Number of victims of assault aged 65 and over:

1996 - 1474
1997 - 1662 (12.8% increase from previous year)
1998 - 1663 (0.06% increase from previous year)
1999 - 1793 (7.8% increase from previous year)

The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia.

weltschmerz · Guru

That ban only included certain guns, not all guns. Australians could still own guns, so the article is BS.

Ohfour · Hooker

Blah blah blah...yada yada yada...

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Blah blah blah...yada yada yada...

You must have been in the debate club at school....that's a very lucid argument.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

The point is, when you make a law banning guns, the only ones who follow the law are the law abiding citizens.

I have repeatedly asked how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

There has been no answer.

So to say it makes anyone more safe is false.

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
The point is, when you make a law banning guns, the only ones who follow the law are the law abiding citizens.

I have repeatedly asked how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

There has been no answer.

So to say it makes anyone more safe is false.

But Australia DIDN'T ban guns.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And you're still not answering the question.

weltschmerz · Guru

The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.

www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html

The only guns they banned were pump-action shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic assault rifles. The government didn't send in jack-booted thugs to strip all citizens of all guns. People could still protect home and hearth.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Still deflecting.

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
The point is, when you make a law banning guns, the only ones who follow the law are the law abiding citizens.

I have repeatedly asked how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

There has been no answer.

So to say it makes anyone more safe is false.

There can be no answer because the question is idiotic. Nobody is taking guns away from law-abiding people.

They can still get guns.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

So what you are saying is, if you take guns away from law abiding citizens, the criminals will give theirs up as well.

It isn't an idiotic question. It is a valid question.

You keep saying people don't need guns. That you are safer without them.

So? How does taking away guns from law abiding citizens keep guns away from criminals?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Making good people Helpless will not make bad people Harmless.

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
The oft-cited statistic in Australia is a simple one: There have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago.

www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/world/australia/australia-gun-ban-shooting.html

The only guns they banned were pump-action shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic assault rifles. The government didn't send in jack-booted thugs to strip all citizens of all guns. People could still protect home and hearth.

More than 95% of all homicides committed with guns are done so with handguns, not the type of guns you are talking about. The same holds true for gun crimes such as armed robberies, as well.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

A "buy back" program. Awesome.

Hitler did the same thing in Austria.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Blah blah blah...yada yada yada...
You must have been in the debate club at school....that's a very lucid argument.

I'm amazed by the perceptive argument...

NOT.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

It's a 100x better than what comes out Obama's pie hole.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan

I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan

Then go live there. You want to take away the very freedoms the constitution affords us, maybe you should try lining somewhere else. They would eat you for dinner...

Guarantee in war time, you will be flocking to houses of people with guns. Either that or you would be dead.....but i wont be...

Ohfour · Hooker

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.

Me either. Not in the least...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
Then go live there. You want to take away the very freedoms the constitution affords us, maybe you should try lining somewhere else. They would eat you for dinner...
Guarantee in war time, you will be flocking to houses of people with guns. Either that or you would be dead.....but i wont be...

Even if you are , someone will be coming with you. lol

Ohfour · Hooker

I'll go down in a blaze of glory. I guarantee that...

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
I'll go down in a blaze of glory. I guarantee that...

Yeah, after you destroy Hillary...

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.
Me either. Not in the least...

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

Trump is gonna take care of that for me...

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.
Me either. Not in the least...
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
flan

You're the one that has a hard on for all these other countries.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.
Me either. Not in the least...
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
flan
You're the one that has a hard on for all these other countries.

I have a "hard on" for my husband. PERIOD.

I can't believe the egocentricity here.

Other countries have better schools, maternity leave, less mass shootings...but let's ignore that.

flan

WYSIWYG · Guru

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only makes them easier targets of the people that don't abide by the law.

No one should be forced to carry a gun or even own one (there are exceptions built into the "every home must possess" law in Kennesaw, Georgia), but no one, who hasn't lost that right through lawful means, such as being a proven criminal or being proven incompetent, should be barred from having them for self protection and protection of their families, friends, and property.

Tinydancer · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.
Me either. Not in the least...
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
flan
You're the one that has a hard on for all these other countries.
I have a "hard on" for my husband. PERIOD.
I can't believe the egocentricity here.
Other countries have better schools, maternity leave, less mass shootings...but let's ignore that.
flan

An America hating American. Obama indoctrination at it's best. I thought it was bad enough when people who didn't live here talked like this but for someone who gets all the privileges this country brings it's just sounds petulant when you whine like this. If these other countries are so much better what the hell are you doing here?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Egocentricity! Xenophobia! Colonialism! Wah, wah! Let's dig up some new Buzz Words of the Moment.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

lilyofcourse wrote:
So what you are saying is, if you take guns away from law abiding citizens, the criminals will give theirs up as well.

It isn't an idiotic question. It is a valid question.

You keep saying people don't need guns. That you are safer without them.

So? How does taking away guns from law abiding citizens keep guns away from criminals?

Still waiting for your answer Weltz.

Still waiting.....

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.
Me either. Not in the least...
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
flan
You're the one that has a hard on for all these other countries.
I have a "hard on" for my husband. PERIOD.
I can't believe the egocentricity here.
Other countries have better schools, maternity leave, less mass shootings...but let's ignore that.
flan

Then go live there.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

We have some sincerely ungrateful, unpatriotic people that need to leave this country and never look back. People DIED to give us the freedoms we have. They fled from the countries you think are better to establish a country that is different and celebrates individual freedoms. People that understood the dangers and hardships of an overbearing government and wanted to assure that we would not suffer from such tyranny again. So take your ungrateful and dishonorable opinions of what those men died for and shove it up your ass.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bravo!!!!

The same people don't seem to get that in those "better" countries, they could be arrested and or killed for saying such things.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.
Me either. Not in the least...
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
flan
You're the one that has a hard on for all these other countries.
I have a "hard on" for my husband. PERIOD.
I can't believe the egocentricity here.
Other countries have better schools, maternity leave, less mass shootings...but let's ignore that.
flan

Then go live there.

My kids are here. Family, for me, trumps everything else.

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
We have some sincerely ungrateful, unpatriotic people that need to leave this country and never look back. People DIED to give us the freedoms we have. They fled from the countries you think are better to establish a country that is different and celebrates individual freedoms. People that understood the dangers and hardships of an overbearing government and wanted to assure that we would not suffer from such tyranny again. So take your ungrateful and dishonorable opinions of what those men died for and shove it up your ass.

Thank God you are NOT in charge.

If I typed what was on my mind, I would be banned...

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Bravo!!!!

The same people don't seem to get that in those "better" countries, they could be arrested and or killed for saying such things.

I "get" it, tyvm.

I don't think you have any idea what countries I was referring to. If you think America is perfect, that's your right. But even a GREAT country could stand improvement.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Bravo!!!!

The same people don't seem to get that in those "better" countries, they could be arrested and or killed for saying such things.

I "get" it, tyvm.
I don't think you have any idea what countries I was referring to. If you think America is perfect, that's your right. But even a GREAT country could stand improvement.
flan

Stripping peoples rights is not an improvement. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, right to bears arms, protection from unlawful search and seizure, those are just some of the things thought important enough to be included in our Bill of Rights. So important, that the founding fathers wouldn't sign off on the Constitution without them. And you just want to keep the ones "you" think are important. News flash - it's not all about you and what you think. This country was founded on those rights and if you don't like them - LEAVE. Get the hell out. That would be a great improvement. And take your mamby pamby Constitution hating president with you.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
The problem is the American MINDSET...MUST.HAVE.ALL.THE.GUNS.

Other countries do NOT think the same way, thank goodness.

flan
I dont give a flying rip what other countries think.
Me either. Not in the least...
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
flan
You're the one that has a hard on for all these other countries.
I have a "hard on" for my husband. PERIOD.
I can't believe the egocentricity here.
Other countries have better schools, maternity leave, less mass shootings...but let's ignore that.
flan

Then go live there.
My kids are here. Family, for me, trumps everything else.
flan

You "raised them right" so that means they agree with you, right? Take them with you. I mean, those other countries are so much better, that's where you should be.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Guess who is having a bad day?

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Guess who is having a bad day?

flan

Nope. I'm just tired of Americans who piss all over the rights that thousands of men died to ensure and protect. Liberal thinking like yours is a disgrace to this nation and I'm just past sick of it. This is the greatest nation on earth, even with it's faults, and all people like you want to do is change it into something weaker. If that's what you like - there are weaker nations out there with all the policies you profess to love. That is where you belong, not here.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Guess who is having a bad day?

flan

Nope. I'm just tired of Americans who piss all over the rights that thousands of men died to ensure and protect. Liberal thinking like yours is a disgrace to this nation and I'm just past sick of it. This is the greatest nation on earth, even with it's faults, and all people like you want to do is change it into something weaker. If that's what you like - there are weaker nations out there with all the policies you profess to love. That is where you belong, not here.

So how exactly would improving maternity, as well as paternity leave, make us weaker?

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Guess who is having a bad day?

flan

Nope. I'm just tired of Americans who piss all over the rights that thousands of men died to ensure and protect. Liberal thinking like yours is a disgrace to this nation and I'm just past sick of it. This is the greatest nation on earth, even with it's faults, and all people like you want to do is change it into something weaker. If that's what you like - there are weaker nations out there with all the policies you profess to love. That is where you belong, not here.
So how exactly would improving maternity, as well as paternity leave, make us weaker?
flan

Who is going to pay these people? More welfare I suppose...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Guess who is having a bad day?

flan

Nope. I'm just tired of Americans who piss all over the rights that thousands of men died to ensure and protect. Liberal thinking like yours is a disgrace to this nation and I'm just past sick of it. This is the greatest nation on earth, even with it's faults, and all people like you want to do is change it into something weaker. If that's what you like - there are weaker nations out there with all the policies you profess to love. That is where you belong, not here.
So how exactly would improving maternity, as well as paternity leave, make us weaker?
flan

Nice deflection - you know damn well this thread is about gun control. Furthermore, you know why our schools suck? Because even when we try to emulate more successful country's system, we can't stand to teach to the best and brightest, instead, we ignore their brightness and put them in classrooms where the teachers are only able to focus on the neediest. Other countries understand that you can't do both at the same time and you need to separate the lowest students and the highest students so that each class can be given the proper level of instruction for their abilities. And maternity leave and paternity leave - you really think that should be a welfare issue? This is a free market - that is how this country has grown and become great in the last century and a half. The government needs to stay out of private matters.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Yeah, threads ALWAYS stay 100% on topic...

flan

p.s. Leave should be an employer issue.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Yeah, threads ALWAYS stay 100% on topic...

flan

p.s. Leave should be an employer issue.

Yes, it should.

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
Yeah, threads ALWAYS stay 100% on topic...

flan

p.s. Leave should be an employer issue.

So much for capitalism! Let just mandate all companies out of business. Wouldn't that make the libs happy!

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Yeah, threads ALWAYS stay 100% on topic...

flan

p.s. Leave should be an employer issue.
Yes, it should.

And not mandated by the government.