GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Blindgreed1]

You'd think the Australian papers would be less interested in lecturing America, and more interested in addressing Islamic extremists shooting up police stations.

One 15 year old kid was given one, yes one, handgun by somebody yet to be determined and managed to shoot one guy out the front of a police station.

I'd say we're still winning the whole gun argument.

Just a further to this, it's come out in the press here this morning that the cell who brainwashed and armed this kid had been trying to source weapons since March this year and had hoped to get some kind of semi-automatic rifle. The best they could do was one handgun in six months.

I say we're still winning on guns.

Winning? Here are the stats: 354 homicides in Australia in 1996 when guns were banned. In 1999 there were 385 homicides. At last count (2007) homicides were down to 282, but over that 11 year period the numbers rose and fell consistently averaging about the same rate of homicides as those prior to the ban. I realize that we live in a world where mediocrity is often celebrated, but I personally don't call that winning. It's closer to standardization of homicide numbers without guns in the picture

[crash]

Yet the population grew, therefore homicides per capita fell. Now quote the US numbers if we want to talk mediocrity.

[Blindgreed1]

Yet the population grew, therefore homicides per capita fell. Now quote the US numbers if we want to talk mediocrity.

Your growth rate was 1.2% per year. If it wasn't for the uptick in 1999 you might be onto something, but alas you grew your average 1.2%, had "no guns" and an increase in homicides. Apparently Fosters is Australian for beer and murder without guns is Australian for winning.

[HairOfTheDog]

I think looking at the Australian model and evaluating whether it could be leveraged to help reduce gun violence in the U.S. would be a worthwhile exercise.

Some of the model couldn't be implemented without U.S. Constitutional amendment, but other parts of the model might make sense to adopt.

One thing I like about Australia's system is the ongoing dedicated national monitoring and research in regards to gun violence by The Australia Institute of Criminology and The Australian Crime Commission. There appears to be meaningful data and trends to analyze so current and developing problems can be identified and addressed objectively. I think that kind of focus would be really helpful here.

[crash]

Yet the population grew, therefore homicides per capita fell. Now quote the US numbers if we want to talk mediocrity.

Your growth rate was 1.2% per year. If it wasn't for the uptick in 1999 you might be onto something, but alas you grew your average 1.2%, had "no guns" and an increase in homicides. Apparently Fosters is Australian for beer and murder without guns is Australian for winning.

Apparently you get sucked in by marketing hype and what you see on TV. Fosters is Australian for cats piss that we export to gullible dopes with no taste buds. Hardly anyone in Australua drinks it. I haven't even seen it anywhere for sale lately.

Now on those number again..

The US homicide rate sits at about 5 per 100000 citizens per annum. The Australian rate is 1. Your gun related homicide rate is about 3.5, making your non gun related homicides about 1.6.

So, even your non gun related homocide rate, per capita, is higher than our total?

Still winning!

You better reward your own mediocrity with a Fosters.

[F.U.]

Fosters? They still make and sell that stuff?

[Maggot]

This is the last report I read about gun free zones, Maggot.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...n/2015657/

Is USA today a reliable source? Just wondering. That looks like an opinion piece. I do see Mother jones in there I'm not familiar with that source.

I consider mainstream media a reliable source if it cites/quotes its facts and sources.

Obviously, opinions are just opinions no matter where they originate or get published, and unsubstantiated rumors are too. I wouldn't insist either are facts.

I came across the USA Today article when searching for info about whether Umpqua College was a gun free zone or not last week, so it's the last report on the subject that I've seen. I didn't attest to its veracity or claim that the conclusions drawn by it or USA Today are objective, and I won't now. I don't know.

I used it as an example of how different sources draw different conclusions and why I support federal funding for dedicated/current professional gun violence research.

So the Feds should be creating their own gun violence research then creating laws according to the findings. Got it.

Anyway, Mother Jones is a liberal-leaning site tracking gun-related violence by extracting and compiling it from news source in conjunction with Ted Miller, an economist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, from what I just looked up.

Since there is no government-backed current research, I've seen the data cited in other media sources as well. Whether you consider it reliable is up to you; I personally wouldn't claim their conclusions to be facts.

[color=#1E90FF] As I've said before, I don't care what people post. But, when anyone drags ludicrous rumors with no sources and insists they're true, I think they should expect people who suspect or know better to call them out and not cry about it.

I will have to look at the mother jones thing at some point. I will attempt to post credible information without bias from either side. Check. I liked the Harvard study and I believe I have another one from a place that seems ..........Kosher.

[crash]

Fosters? They still make and sell that stuff?

Not that I have seen around here lately.

[F.U.]

I haven't seen it for years. The last time I did see it was in the 80's back in Oklahoma. People were really into anything that was foreign. Fosters, Moose Head, Sapporo, were all big sellers then.

[HairOfTheDog]

I will attempt to post credible information without bias from either side.

Let it go Mags.

People can post whatever they want here. This isn't an academic site.

I just don't think anyone should get their feathers ruffled if their credibility is challenged when they post ridiculous unsourced rumor from conservative racial-conspiracy blogs/chat boards or something like that and defend it as fact.

Attempting to compare that to cited sources, specified opinions, dated research, subjective media articles, and such is apples to oranges.

And, you're reminding of CN with those colored responses inside the original quote box. Very hard to follow.

[F.U.]

I just realized how far off topic my last post was soooooo . . . in a attempt to put the train back on the track . . .
I think suiting every school aged person in body armor would be a big help. I mean if a broke old biker like me can afford 4 different types covering everything from a simple knife attack to a hand grenade assault, we should be able to afford it to protect our children. I mean think of the children.




OK ok, I hope everyone can see that I was attempting a funny there.

[HairOfTheDog]

[color=#32CD32]So the Feds should be creating their own gun violence research then creating laws according to the findings. Got it.

I think there should be funding for professional, unbiased, current research on gun violence.

Conclusions drawn from that solid research could result in proposing some new laws, revising some existing laws, abolishing some existing laws, correcting misconceptions, etc...

Right now, it's hard to say what would have a meaningful impact and there's a lot of debate around the topic. Part of the reason, in my opinion, is because there's not a lot of current comprehensive research or validated facts to back up the assertions of those on either side or up the middle.

[F.U.]

Since we have brought up credible sources, does anyone use snopes at all? Just wondering how reliable they are.

[HairOfTheDog]

I've used Snopes a couple of times, F.U.

I don't know how reliable it is in general.

But, for the two topics I remember checking out there, it provided the clear evidence and source to debunk one circulating rumor and couldn't rate the other rumor as either true or false because there was no evidence either way.

[Maggot]

I will attempt to post credible information without bias from either side.

Let it go Mags.

People can post whatever they want here. This isn't an academic site.

I just don't think anyone should get their feathers ruffled if their credibility is challenged when they post ridiculous unsourced rumor from conservative racial-conspiracy blogs/chat boards or something like that and defend it as fact.

Attempting to compare that to cited sources, specified opinions, dated research, subjective media articles, and such is apples to oranges.

And, you're reminding of CN with those colored responses inside the original quote box. Very hard to follow.

I know I messed with the colors 5 times before I gave up.

I was just shoveling it back at ya.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I just realized how far off topic my last post was soooooo . . . in a attempt to put the train back on the track . . .
I think suiting every school aged person in body armor would be a big help. I mean if a broke old biker like me can afford 4 different types covering everything from a simple knife attack to a hand grenade assault, we should be able to afford it to protect our children. I mean think of the children.




OK ok, I hope everyone can see that I was attempting a funny there.

Never really considered body armor, too hot down here.
Black leather vest was bad enough when I ran with the clubs.

[HairOfTheDog]

I was just shoveling it back at ya.

Bring it on baby!

[Duchess]

I think suiting every school aged person in body armor would be a big help.

After one of the school shootings I saw bullet proof backpacks being suggested (and sold). I guess the kids were supposed to use it like a shield.

[F.U.]

I think suiting every school aged person in body armor would be a big help.

After one of the school shootings I saw bullet proof backpacks being suggested (and sold). I guess the kids were supposed to use it like a shield.

I remember those. I wonder if they come in adult sizes

[F.U.]

I just realized how far off topic my last post was soooooo . . . in a attempt to put the train back on the track . . .
I think suiting every school aged person in body armor would be a big help. I mean if a broke old biker like me can afford 4 different types covering everything from a simple knife attack to a hand grenade assault, we should be able to afford it to protect our children. I mean think of the children.




OK ok, I hope everyone can see that I was attempting a funny there.

Never really considered body armor, too hot down here.
Black leather vest was bad enough when I ran with the clubs.

I hear ya on the heat of a cut, but I figure this armour might save my life so a little sweat would be well worth it. In fact a bigger concern to me is the weight. My condor [tan one] with both front and back plates in it is one HEAVY SOB ! Its even heavier than the military grenade rated vest [green]. The most comfortable is the Safariland [blue], but with just a 6x9 plate covering your heart it is the least protecting of the 3 firearm rated vests.


Yea I know, WTF do you need that many bullet proof vests for? One never knows. insert evil laugh. . . . I kid, I kid.