What are you talking about? It talks about rates of ALL TYPES of firarm deaths.

The finding:

The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

Actually, it did reduce levels of crime...but we digress. The ban clearly dropped the number of gun-deaths.

So, Mission Accomplished.


What other factors? I keep asking. So far we have race.

[/quote]
Mass shootings. But as they only had them that few years, you could not establish a pattern. Sure they havent had one in 10 years. But how long had it been before? This logic worked for you and terrorist attacks. Guess it will work here too. [/quote]

What? The rate is what makes it comparable. Mass shootings are also down. The rate is down, mass shootings are non existent.

And you're telling me the ban did nothing?

The number of murders went down. The number of gun-murders went way down.

A tool to kill people.

No problem: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...f+state&st=nyt

How would a license, and a reasonable limit on the number of guns a person can purchase in a given span take guns away from law-abiding citizens?

That's all I'm asking: No more than 3 guns per purchase, and all should be licensed.

If you need a license to drive a car, you should need one to own a gun.

LoL.

Your crime rate is actually higher, 4.8, versus 4.3 here.d

When you compare two places with different populations, it's the rate that matters.

Really. Other sources say different. For example.

http://www.2asisters.org/news/australia.htm

"Dear Mr Owen

The 1996 national gun laws have been shown in research to have significantly reduced the level of gun related crime in this country."

Owen's response.

"Dear Mr Olsen

Reading your letter and considering the amount of well researched information that has already been dispatched to your office, and the breadth, of the research information within the Parliamentary libraries in Australia, the only conclusions I can deduce from your correspondence is that you are either an ignoramus or a charlatan. You either cannot read or cannot be bothered to read or really know the truth and still ignore it."

And the facts to back Owen's claims have been posted time and time again.

So you don't care that only the numbers of suicides by firearm dropped, but the total number of suicides did not? You only care if someone kills themselves with a gun? That is pretty ignorant.




It does not take a genius to figure this one out. It is not somuch race as it is racial divide, demographics and many more. I do not have time to explain everything to you.

Once again you missed my point. In the past you used the argument that the last terrorist attack on the US had been more than 8 years before 911 so the 8 years without one meant nothing. As it had been more than 10 years before the rush of mass shootings 10 years means nothing.



The statistics do not match your claim sir.



I like to see it as a tool to protect. But I actually understand weapons.

Thanks for the link, but it is pretty dated (Published: April 9, 1997, actually). There are more restrictions. If you can not legally purchase a weapon in one state, you can not do so in another state.

So you say it is ok that I own guns just so long as I do not collect them? Doesn't make much sense. The only people that will be abiding by that law are the lawful. It does nothing for criminals.

So what I have in my home becomes part of public record? No thanks. What is mine, is mine.

You do not need a license to own a car. Driving a car is a privilege. Owning and using firearms is a right.

But anyway. Does having a license to drive a car lower the number of deaths by DUI? Nope. Because criminals do not obey the law.

Total crime which includes non violent is higher here. Violent crime is not.

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

He goes on:

In the face of the facts, Owen begins the name calling you highlighted.

Some debate there.


Prove that this is the case.

No. I haven't said that. Prove that suicides haven't gone down.



You don't have time? You're saying it's other factors than the massive availability of guns. I'm merely asking your actual factors beyond racist's rhetoric.



What? I never argued that.

It's not just the 10 years. They've always had stricter gun laws. They've always had less gun deaths.



[qupte]
The statistics do not match your claim sir.
[/quote]

You make a lot of claims that you never "have time" to back up with facts.



hahaha... I understand that country's with stricter gun laws have less crime, and accidents, involving guns.

It doesn't take a genius to understand if criminals can easily purchase weapons, they will use them.

If it is harder for them to get them, it will be harder for them to commit crime.


I just googled very quickly.

Here's an atf study. Check page 12

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...80227_GUNS.pdf

No. I'm saying if you want to collect guns, it's not unreasonable to limit the number of guns you can purchase at one time.

Gun smugglers are often those without criminal records, and they simply go to gun shows and corrupt dealers, where they buy in bulk and sell individually.

It's really a minor inconvenience, and it would stop the gun trade.

What you have in your driveway is a part of public record.

Only for the purpose of a well-regulated militia.

What it would do would allow North Carolina to enjoy it's violent crime rate, while not being a stop for gun smugglers who want to sell them in my city.



Those are violent crime rates. North Carolina's is higher.

Can I throw something out there and see if it sticks?

I think that most politicians DO actually get it. We are seeing the minute minority that like face time in front of the camera, and because we don't see many, if any, "counterspeeches," we assume that none of the politicians get it.

__________________
I think America is finally ready for another president with polio.

The only debate is that Olsen intentionally uses false numbers.




http://www.wesleymission.org.au/publ...&d/suicide.htm

Owning a gun does not make one commit suicide.





Are you calling me a racist? That is far from true. What I said is racial divide. Not race itself.





Could swear that you have. But anyway. K.

And yet gun crime continues to rise in that country even though they got rid of the guns.


I am sorry. I have posted it so many times that I figured it was common knowledge now. Ok.

Gun related crime is on the increase in Australia even though they have very strict gun laws.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factshe...d=30&issue=015

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...006009,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...816939675.html

Rifles are only used in 2% of crimes.

[qutoe]hahaha... I understand that country's with stricter gun laws have less crime, and accidents, involving guns.[/quote]

So once again, you only care if the crime involves guns?

No matter the restrictions you place, they will always be able to get them easier than honest people.

You can't stop a criminal from getting a gun. If he wants one, he will get it. Even in countries where there are very strict gun laws, it is still fairly easy for them to get them.

What is special about page 12? All it has is the address and floor number.

But maybe you should have read the disclaimer.

"Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for purposes of determining which types, makes or models of firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which in general are acquired for use in crime."

That is not constitutional. That is my problem with it.

Gun smugglers are criminals. Focus on them not the honest citizen.

That is an opinion.

Hardly.



Not until I get a license for it is not.



You need to take some comprehension classes. This has been explained many times in the various gun threads. Would you like me to point you to which ones?



Once again. Deal with the gun smugglers. Not the honest citizens.

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?

Unfortunately F0ca is right on this one, although not for the reasons he believes. A year or so ago NY completely changed their view on law enforcement. Their new tactics and early intervention has worked wonders. If it were because of fewer guns, then you would have seen the drop coincide with the bans. Not with the changes in tactics.

Some states have followed suit with these new tactics and done just as well if not better, while still being fairly open with their gun laws.

__________________
“It is anomalous to hold that in order to convict a man the police cannot extract by force what is in his mind, but can extract what is in his stomach.”

*yawn* and the official study I cited earlier.

It's a big left-wing conspiracy...




I never claimed that they did.



That would make sense if we were in some sort of sectarian race war, which we're not.

You said factors.

We have race, and "racial divisions"

What else?

It's not like our rates are just a little higher, they're A LOT higher...



As usual, you're claiming things without proof.


I am sorry. I have posted it so many times that I figured it was common knowledge now. Ok.

Gun related crime is on the increase in Australia even though they have very strict gun laws.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factshe...d=30&issue=015
[/quote]

The NRA doesn't cite their sources with links. Imagine that.



The article concedes the argument they're pushing contradicts the state departments stats.

If that sounds familiar, it's because it's just Rupert Murdoch in another country.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...816939675.html

Reads:
hahaha

So what? What percent of crimes were they used in before the stricter laws??

No, but we have higher rates of violent crimes, particularly gun crimes. Guns make crimes easier. You claim to understand bad guys, but, I think it's pretty clear to anybody that's played Grand Theft Auto that you can rob a bank a lot easier with a QBZ95 than a molotov cocktail.

I would respect your position, one of a responsible person who simply enjoys guns, if you would just concede there is clearly a correlation between gun-availability and gun crime.

The consequence unwaivering, unlistening gun-lust is higher gun deaths.

That's the fact.

I'm not saying YOU should give up your guns. I'm saying if you have the government can make you take a test to drive, it should make you take a test to own guns.

And, people should be limited in the number of guns they can purchase at a time.

If a person can only by, I dunno, 5 guns a month, in a year, the foxhole you dug is gonna be pretty well stocked for rapture.


Untrue. These people aren't typically aren't that smart. The easier it is to get the weapons, the more people will try.

That's like saying "you can't stop crime" because their will always be crime.

You can't stop every criminal from getting a gun. You can stop most.

By magic?

Another claim you cannot, or at least, won't prove.

What is special about page 12? All it has is the address and floor number.

Focus on the disclaimer, which doesn't change the findings.

It's certainly constitutional. If the government can ban you from bearing nuclear arms, it can certainly slow down your gun purchases, to prevent gun running.

I'm not affecting any reasonable law abiding citizen; only crazy cooks who think people should allowed to buy and sells as many guns as they want at at anytime: you, sir, are complacent in gun smuggling

So is thinking a gun is a right.

Works in other countries.

Which you have to do...

I'd like you to debate with facts, instead of declaring, and repeating claims that you cannot, or have not proven.

Gun rates are lower where gun laws are stricter. I have shown you evidence of this.

I'm a moderate on the issue; I'm not trying to take your precious guns away from you.

But, I can't stop the flood of illegal guns into my town, unless you weigh your precieved right to again, to the rights of those who exploit the lax laws you support.

Why do you want to make it easier for criminals to get guns? Isn't it worth a little inconvenience for that?


[/quote]
Once again. Deal with the gun smugglers. Not the honest citizens.[/quote]

You keep helping the gun smugglers. I'll be trying to stop them.

One is more likely to shoot themselves, or somebody they love than an intruder.

Good luck with that.

No I see someone who's carreer has pretty much hedged on gun control picking and choosing what he uses.



Population, higher density living situations. I honestly can not name them all. There are so many factors that differentiate us from them that you can not attribute something to one thing. That is why I say you can not compare crime rates country to country, only how similar methods have affected both countries.

Saying that we have more violent crime because we have more guns is like saying that they have more rapes than us because we have more women.





As usual, you're claiming things without proof.

Many do not. You ignored the rest? Is this one of those things where you ask for something, I give it to you, then you ask for more?





Yup. For every article and report that says it is declining, there is another one that says the opposite.



It varried between .7 and 2.something for many years. No major change before, during, or after. Criminals just do not like big weapons that cost a lot.



Guns make crimes easier when the citizens have guns. If the citizens do not have guns, then any advantage makes the crime easier. As I have said a thousand times before. Make it hard on the criminal, not on the citizen.

You are basing life on a video game where you can enter a cheat code and get rid of the cops?

I will say that if there were no way for criminals to get guns, that gun crime would go down. But that is something that can not happen. Look at the UK, they have very strict gun control. Yet they find ways to get or make firearms. The problem is gun control does not affect criminals as it does citizens.

That is an opinion that has not been proven to be fact. What is fact that has been proven is that the "assault weapon" ban did not reduce crime in any way shape or form.

You can't stop every criminal from getting a gun. You can stop most.[/quote]

Not really.

Supply and demand my friend. You can no more control the illegal supply of firearms than you can the supply of illegal drugs.



Son, I have already proved it.

What findings? All that said is that many weapons purchased were origonally purchased in other states. The disclaimer said. "should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals,"

Which says more than the rest of the report.

Who says that banning Nuclear weapons is constitutional?

This does not mean that I see a need for anyone to privately own one. But that does not mean it is constitutional to ban them.

But as I have explained, these laws do not affect gun runners.



Actually, this is a fact, as set out in constitutional rights, and basic god given human rights to self defense.


Prove it. From what I have read, gun control has not stopped criminals from being criminals.

No I do not. I do not have to have a license, nor register a car to own one.



So that means you want to be pointed to those threads. Ok. I will be heading out to a work dinner in a few. When I get the chance I will post links.

Gun rates were lower there before gun laws.

Maybe not. But you are trying to take my liberties, which opens the door to more laws down the road which do take them from me.

I will hit the rest of your post when I get back.

__________________
Jones:- We're going to teach them climbing, abseiling, canoeing, archery, shooting...

Interviewer:- Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible isn't it?

Jones:- I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the range.

Interviewer:- Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
You're equipping them to become violent killers.

Jones:- Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute but you're not one are you?