Quote:
Originally Posted by f0ca1
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Actually, it did reduce levels of crime...but we digress. The ban clearly dropped the number of gun-deaths.
So, Mission Accomplished.
|
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.
Quote:
|
What other factors? I keep asking. So far we have race.
|
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.
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?
|
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.
Quote:
|
The number of murders went down. The number of gun-murders went way down.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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?
|
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.
Quote:
|
That's all I'm asking: No more than 3 guns per purchase, and all should be licensed.
|
So what I have in my home becomes part of public record? No thanks. What is mine, is mine.
Quote:
|
If you need a license to drive a car, you should need one to own a gun.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Your crime rate is actually higher, 4.8, versus 4.3 here.
|
Total crime which includes non violent is higher here. Violent crime is not.