Those Canadian gun laws seem to be working perfectly.
-
Well, I'm for education for fixing long term problems. But beatings create other long term problems, although they fix short term problems.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Julien Villers wrote:
But beatings create other long term problems, although they fix short term problems.
Is the short term problem "Max Mosley wants to ejaculate"?
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends. Shed Petition[^]
-
That's true. As the opposite is true, just banning guns/ammo/whatever in the US wouldn't fix all criminality problems either. But it would help. A bit. Depending on how it's done.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Implicit in the whole discussion is that "crime = bad" and working towards a reduction of crime is the goal. But it isn't. The goal is for politicians to stay in power and get richer. Promising to reduce crime without actually doing that works much better - then you can keep making that promise because it's still a problem next time, and it probably doesn't cost as much money or they would already have done it.
-
Implicit in the whole discussion is that "crime = bad" and working towards a reduction of crime is the goal. But it isn't. The goal is for politicians to stay in power and get richer. Promising to reduce crime without actually doing that works much better - then you can keep making that promise because it's still a problem next time, and it probably doesn't cost as much money or they would already have done it.
Thanks for pointing it out :) You left out the part that said that politicians were also board members of weapon manufacturing companies, or other kinds of similar major conflicting goals.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
Thanks for pointing it out :) You left out the part that said that politicians were also board members of weapon manufacturing companies, or other kinds of similar major conflicting goals.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
I doubt anyone claimed that firearm restrictions stop shootings. There's plenty of proof that they reduce them though.
http://gunfacts.info This is a very exhaustively researched/cited paper (roughly 500-600 references) to answer the myths on gun control. What I found interesting is that with a strict police state in China, people actually make their own black market gun factories. Additionally, increasing gun control may have lead to an increase in violent crimes in the UK and Australia. Also, armed private citizen's make less mistakes than off-duty cops. It also points out that guns in the US are used FAR more often to prevent crimes. My best explanation for these findings is the false sense of control that big government types believe laws have over the population, as well as the incorrect assumption about human nature that says people are generally idiots that have no idea how to defend themselves. It also highlights that a bunch of big city police chiefs across the US were shocked at how relaxing concealed carray laws in fact didn't result in city-wide gun battles.
-
Well, I'm for education for fixing long term problems. But beatings create other long term problems, although they fix short term problems.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
Implicit in the whole discussion is that "crime = bad" and working towards a reduction of crime is the goal. But it isn't. The goal is for politicians to stay in power and get richer. Promising to reduce crime without actually doing that works much better - then you can keep making that promise because it's still a problem next time, and it probably doesn't cost as much money or they would already have done it.
harold aptroot wrote:
Implicit in the whole discussion is that "crime = bad" and working towards a reduction of crime is the goal. But it isn't. The goal is for politicians to stay in power and get richer. Promising to reduce crime without actually doing that works much better - then you can keep making that promise because it's still a problem next time, and it probably doesn't cost as much money or they would already have done it.
Implicit within that cynical reply is the assumptions that politicians are somehow smarter than everyone else and somehow above everyone else. And it completely ignores the many politicians that are not in fact rich and on leaving office are no richer and perhaps even poorer. And it certainly ignores the vast sums that the US political process pores into police and prisons. Not to mention the vast prison population. Moreover that unlike other humans that as a group they are somehow united by a single goal. Not to mention that they must be stupider (while still being smarter) than the normal person in not realizing that if one wants to get rich then doing so in business is the way to get a much better rate of return.
-
Thanks for pointing it out :) You left out the part that said that politicians were also board members of weapon manufacturing companies, or other kinds of similar major conflicting goals.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Implicit in the whole discussion is that "crime = bad" and working towards a reduction of crime is the goal. But it isn't. The goal is for politicians to stay in power and get richer. Promising to reduce crime without actually doing that works much better - then you can keep making that promise because it's still a problem next time, and it probably doesn't cost as much money or they would already have done it.
Implicit within that cynical reply is the assumptions that politicians are somehow smarter than everyone else and somehow above everyone else. And it completely ignores the many politicians that are not in fact rich and on leaving office are no richer and perhaps even poorer. And it certainly ignores the vast sums that the US political process pores into police and prisons. Not to mention the vast prison population. Moreover that unlike other humans that as a group they are somehow united by a single goal. Not to mention that they must be stupider (while still being smarter) than the normal person in not realizing that if one wants to get rich then doing so in business is the way to get a much better rate of return.
-
Julien Villers wrote:
But beatings create other long term problems, although they fix short term problems.
Which means what exactly? As I already demonstrated Singapore has one of the lowest crime rates in the world - and not a "short" term solution.
You can look up the now well known psychological impacts of being beaten and living in fear of beatings. Or, you can look at history and see how long years of repression breeds violent revolutions later.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
You can look up the now well known psychological impacts of being beaten and living in fear of beatings. Or, you can look at history and see how long years of repression breeds violent revolutions later.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Julien Villers wrote:
You can look up the now well known psychological impacts of being beaten and living in fear of beatings.
Or, you can look at history and see how long years of repression breeds violent revolutions later.Or you can look at the history of Singapore and note that your claim is false. Or alternatively recognize that the human societies are incredibly complex and attempting to apply simplistic statements or fixes to them not only do not work but are always based on incorrect assumptions in the first place.
-
Julien Villers wrote:
You can look up the now well known psychological impacts of being beaten and living in fear of beatings.
Or, you can look at history and see how long years of repression breeds violent revolutions later.Or you can look at the history of Singapore and note that your claim is false. Or alternatively recognize that the human societies are incredibly complex and attempting to apply simplistic statements or fixes to them not only do not work but are always based on incorrect assumptions in the first place.
Well if you want to go that way, your statement that canings = no crime is very simplistic... Let's stop there.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
-
Well if you want to go that way, your statement that canings = no crime is very simplistic... Let's stop there.
'I'm French! Why do you think I've got this outrrrrageous accent?' Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Julien Villers wrote:
Well if you want to go that way, your statement that canings = no crime is very simplistic...
I didn't say no crime. And Singapore does have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. And this sub-thread started with your assertion, no mine.
-
http://gunfacts.info This is a very exhaustively researched/cited paper (roughly 500-600 references) to answer the myths on gun control. What I found interesting is that with a strict police state in China, people actually make their own black market gun factories. Additionally, increasing gun control may have lead to an increase in violent crimes in the UK and Australia. Also, armed private citizen's make less mistakes than off-duty cops. It also points out that guns in the US are used FAR more often to prevent crimes. My best explanation for these findings is the false sense of control that big government types believe laws have over the population, as well as the incorrect assumption about human nature that says people are generally idiots that have no idea how to defend themselves. It also highlights that a bunch of big city police chiefs across the US were shocked at how relaxing concealed carray laws in fact didn't result in city-wide gun battles.
-
Can you explain why a person living in America is more likely to die of a gunshot than someone living in Australia for instance?
Your question is irrelevant and I don't even know if it is true. What we are learning is that gun control is another liberal fantasy measure to reduce crime. This excerp is from page 6 of the gunfacts.info pdf I linked to in my original post. From the inception of firearm confiscation [in Australia] to March 27, 2000, the numbers are: • Firearm-related murders were up 19% • Armed robberies were up 69% • Home invasions were up 21% The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation: • Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% • Firearm-related deaths fell 50%
-
Your question is irrelevant and I don't even know if it is true. What we are learning is that gun control is another liberal fantasy measure to reduce crime. This excerp is from page 6 of the gunfacts.info pdf I linked to in my original post. From the inception of firearm confiscation [in Australia] to March 27, 2000, the numbers are: • Firearm-related murders were up 19% • Armed robberies were up 69% • Home invasions were up 21% The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation: • Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% • Firearm-related deaths fell 50%
Unfortunately those stats are complete rubbish. Have a look here[^] Some more facts[^] - There were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia in 1991 and 333 in 2001 In picture form[^] Now looking here[^] I can see that a person living in the US is about 3 times more likely to die of a gun shot that someone living in Australia Can you not see that you are being manipulated?
-
Unfortunately those stats are complete rubbish. Have a look here[^] Some more facts[^] - There were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia in 1991 and 333 in 2001 In picture form[^] Now looking here[^] I can see that a person living in the US is about 3 times more likely to die of a gun shot that someone living in Australia Can you not see that you are being manipulated?
I read the first two articles. The first link is weak in that it doesn't actually address the underlying issue raised by gunfacts.info which is gun control doesn't reduce crime and that empirical numbers don't validate increasing gun control. The article at snopes.com makes the straw-man argument about absolute number percentage versus per capita in response to Ed Chenel (some police officer who clearly isn't a statistician). Big deal. We shouldn't require a super-sleuth analyst to discern whether removing private citizens' ability to protect themselves is a good idea or not. The second link is actually pretty off topic, and also relevant only to ancillary health issues--such as what procedures must mental health professionals follow in response to at risk patients. This article fixates on guns and which types HAPPEN to be used in deaths, albeit in very academic and intelligent terms. It sheds absolutely no light on whether or not crime is affected by gun laws. And, as a matter of fact, the Figure 1 doesn't indicate that homicides by guns were reduced by gun control. There is a LOT that is automatically assumed by liberals about society with not a shred of evidence in support of it. A great big assumption is the idea that gun control works. I say, the burden of proof is on them, not me, in the first place. Especially, if you read through the whole gunfacts.info and see the, yes, sometimes anecdotal evidence, and in other cases, pure statistical proofs, which debunk or elicit concern about every myth of gun control.
-
I read the first two articles. The first link is weak in that it doesn't actually address the underlying issue raised by gunfacts.info which is gun control doesn't reduce crime and that empirical numbers don't validate increasing gun control. The article at snopes.com makes the straw-man argument about absolute number percentage versus per capita in response to Ed Chenel (some police officer who clearly isn't a statistician). Big deal. We shouldn't require a super-sleuth analyst to discern whether removing private citizens' ability to protect themselves is a good idea or not. The second link is actually pretty off topic, and also relevant only to ancillary health issues--such as what procedures must mental health professionals follow in response to at risk patients. This article fixates on guns and which types HAPPEN to be used in deaths, albeit in very academic and intelligent terms. It sheds absolutely no light on whether or not crime is affected by gun laws. And, as a matter of fact, the Figure 1 doesn't indicate that homicides by guns were reduced by gun control. There is a LOT that is automatically assumed by liberals about society with not a shred of evidence in support of it. A great big assumption is the idea that gun control works. I say, the burden of proof is on them, not me, in the first place. Especially, if you read through the whole gunfacts.info and see the, yes, sometimes anecdotal evidence, and in other cases, pure statistical proofs, which debunk or elicit concern about every myth of gun control.
This is just silly. Let me be clear - your lovely pdf is a pile of crap. It was put together by the NRA as a marketing tool and is based on lies. It has been around for a long time and you can find many articles debunking it. Your repeated attempts to link gun control to 'evil liberals' and 'big government types' is further evidence of your inability to think critically about the topic. It may interest you to know that Australia's gun control laws, which the NRA love to misrepresent, were introduced by the most conservative government Australia has seen in the last 25 years. And you avoided my question, why is someone in the US 3 times more likely to die of a gun shot wound than someone in Australia? This[^] is an interesting article written by John Howard, our ex-prime minister who introduced the gun laws here, talking about the cultural differences between Australia and America regarding gun ownership. Here's an interesting exert These national gun laws have proven beneficial. Research published in 2010 in the American Journal of Law and Economics found that firearm homicides, in Australia, dropped 59 per cent between 1995 and 2006. There was no offsetting increase in non-firearm-related murders. Researchers at Harvard University in 2011 revealed that in the 18 years prior to the 1996 Australian laws, there were 13 gun massacres (four or more fatalities) in Australia, resulting in 102 deaths. There have been none in that category since the Port Arthur laws. You really can't argue against fact.
