Australia whats up with this?

And yet you're more likely to survive the average knife wound than the average gun wound...

Not sure if your straw man had a point?

 

It didn't those stats from Australia included ANY sort of knife from a 2 inch pocket knife to a butter knife (yeah we have some criminals that are THAT dumb) through to a Machete

And you do not have to have used the knife only brandished it with menace


Still this is where undoubtedly they will trot out "research" showing that knife wounds are as deadly as gunshot wounds - and watch for the hidden pea in the shell game with those "research papers" because the data has been carefully chosen and cherry picked to get the results the researchers wanted

 

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010.2

Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents.
well, I guess you can survive gunshot wounds. knife wounds subject people to debilitating lives afterwards as well as guns. You are more likely to be torn apart by your dog than a gun particularly at 5,000, 000 dog attacks a year with most of them occurring in the home. A dog is a loaded weapon with a mind of its own.
the cost of treating dog bites is:
Dog bite losses exceed $1 billion per year. In the past several years, there have been 30 to 35 fatal dog attacks in the USA annually. Each year, more than 350,000 dog bite victims are seen in emergency rooms, and approximately 850,000 victims receive some form of medical attention. Based on data collected in the USA between 2001 and 2003, the CDC concluded that there were 4.5 million dog bite victims per year, but that figure appears to be rising.
I don't see anyone up in arms about dog bites or baby's faces torn off by the family pet.

Despite the number of victims, only 15,000 to 16,000 of them per year receive money from homeowners insurance companies and renters insurance companies. This equals one-third of one percent of the victims at most - just 3 to 4 out of every 1,000. Although these insurers pay over $350 million to all victims, the average insurance payment for a dog bite case is only $21,875.
it is a dangerous world we live in and not all of it comes from the US. Hate America, then either leave or arm yourself. it's only going to get worse
I hate statistic because it reduces the human importance of the soul, but here ya go
Cost of Auto accidents:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says in 2010 that the cost of medical care and productivity losses associated with motor vehicle crash injuries was over $99 billion, or nearly $500, for each licensed driver in the United States. In addition, every 10 seconds an American is treated in an emergency department for crash-related injuries, based on data from 2005. http://www.rmiia.org/auto/traffic_safety/Cost_of_crashes.asp
poisoning:
Foodborne illness poses a $77.7 billion economic burden in the United States annually, according to a new study published in the Journal of Food Protection. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/...77-billion-annually-study-finds/#.UzKohXmPIdU
accidental poisonings: Child poisoning fact #1: Across the United States, around 800,000 kids are rushed to the emergency room each year because of accidental poisoning. Of these, around 30 children will die, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/child-safety-book/child-poisoning-facts-and-statistics.html
whoosh, talk about cost...seems guns are low on a long list.

 

Some aussie stats for you .....eh
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...12~Main Features~National crime statistics~63

Aussies will be banning knives next...yes

Oh wait there is more...What's up with this Australia?

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

StJames your point is duly noted and I might add a point that many pro-gun folks have been promoting from the beginning.....it ain't the instrument, evil is as evil does.

 

I find this report interesting....violent crime is increasing???????? So the question remains...Australia what's up with this. Are you trying to reduce crime or just guns?

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/{0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA}facts11.pdf

 

You're doing a great job of supporting my position here...
After all, how many times did Americans drive cars or eat food during 2010? What percentage of people fired firearms?

So if a knife is just as effective as a gun, why do you need a gun?

What percentage of these "attacks" resulted in death or even required medical treatment? Compare that to the percentage of gunshot injuries that needed treatment (or a coroner).

I notice you didn't put up any comparative numbers for firearms-related injuries... I wonder why not?

Does this have a point?

I've been told something similar by a guy on the streetcorner near work. He wears a sandwich board that says "the end is nigh".

There are more drivers than shooters. Americans spend far more time driving than shooting. Duh.

There are more people who eat than there are people who shoot. Americans spend far more time eating than shooting. Duh.

Seems your entire perspective boils down to a fallacy of relative privation. Nice try.

 

That's funny.
You point out that the majority of their murders, attempted murders and robberies are now committed with a knife, but fail to mention that they have a lower per-capita rate of these offences than we do in the US, and that their rates are also declining (according to your source).
Seriously, are you trying to make my point for me?

Yup, the proportion of crimes committed using a knife has increased, but this is a ridiculous point since their total crime rate has also dropped.

Let me try to explain this in terms even you can understand:
- If you've got 100 murders in one year and 20 are committed with a knife... Then you compare another year where you had only 80 murders and 25% of them were committed with a knife... You've got the same total number of knife murders even though the percentage of total murders committed increases by 5%.

Sure, bad people will do bad things when given the opportunity... Why should we make it easy for them by giving "bad guys" easy access to tools that make it easy to commit those "evil" acts?

 

Did you even read your own document?
Page 6, which is the first page that gives any information, clearly outlines in the executive summary that both "violent crime" and "property crime" had decreased.

I took a look to see where you might have gotten any other impression, and found that there is a chart on page 14 that details the number of offences each year since 1996 (which happens to be when Australia's gun control was put in place)...
Given that Australia's population has grown about 20% since '96, you'd expect a corresponding growth across all crimes (keeping the same per-capita rate). Instead, you see a reduction in homocide and robbery - which are the only two that have anything to do with firearms.

 

Naw just trying to point to the ignorance of saying gun control works, crime still exists...check and mate and thanks for playing

 

Wait, so legislation doesn't work unless it completely negates all crime? Nirvana fallacy much?
I guess no laws work then, and we should ditch our entire legal system to live in absolute anarchy; right?

 

Australia, what's up with this?
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...130118_1_gun-control-mandatory-gun-gun-deaths

Or dang....Bryant obtained his firearms illegally....NO WAY!!!!
http://www.btfh.net/shoot/aus_gun_control/

Yeah them laws are working just fine

 

We did not expect it to diminish gun deaths - that was never the intention - the fact that it DID was a bonus - even if only a couple of lives per year then we have won and it has been worth the cost

But the real question is why our gun death rate is so much lower than Americas

 

that's a load of crap. You've always touted that program from the first, that "less guns saves lives" .....do I need to go back into your posts and prove your own words to you? American stats prove you WRONG......
and just what is it you've "won'? more violent home invasions, rampant murder in your streets against unarmed individuals?
yeah, it's working just fine...roflmmfao

 

lol, your kidding right? Of course it reduced gun deaths. I think it would be fairly logical, and obvious, why the US has a higher rate of gun deaths, there are guns. No guns no gun deaths, death still remains however. But seriously this only really applies with gun related deaths and seems a very narrow mindset to apply to the loss of life. It's like saying you only care when people die if they are killed by a gun, seems hypocritical to advocate reducing deaths and then simply worry about those attributed to gun violence, please. The death of people isn't important, otherwise this would be about control of violent crime, no, it's peoples views of guns as big, bad and scary, oh my. You want to reduce the death rate stop focusing on the tools people use ("gun" deaths) and start focusing on preventing the need for people to resort to such drastic acts. Here is a stupid example and that's the point. If a kid is stealing food we don't go and chop of his hands anymore, I hope. No we try to understand why a child feels the need to steal food, could be that the child is hungry. See how stupid this gun control argument is when it is put in a different context. just to clarify, the child's hands are the tool.

Second, and sadly continuing with the hypocrisy. The goal in Australia was to prevent another mass shooting, which you say worked, fine it works for now. Can you say 100% that it will never happen again? However why don't all the other people who die due to violence get the same outcry? No, everyone is up in arms when a lot of people die at once. This idea that if we remove guns people wont go into schools and kill other people. Common society give people some credit. People who want to inflict violence on others will find a way regardless of availability of guns or not. The most recent was the stabbing of 21 people, where are all the knife control advocates who want to protect the children. The point with this is he had no gun yet he CHOOSE to do what he did, he found other means. I know someone is going to mention that no one has died yet and that may be so, we got lucky that no one was killed. However what prevents someone from dying in the future. What about in china 29 people are dead because of a mass stabbing, no guns. Seems like people are still capable killing many people at once even without the use of gun. But that is the whole point I'm getting at is gun control isn't about death or violence it's about guns. Those students are just as deserving of safety from knives and violence as those victims of mass shootings regardless of death or not. People die every day but society doesn't care about them, the stabbing victim is unimportant, nor is the victim of vehicular homicide, nor that of domestic abuse, nor that of the random assault that resulted in death. Seems like society is only interested in the high profile case. It cares little about the deaths of people but simply the means by which those deaths occurred. No it was never about saving lives, if it was, society would go to the root of the problem and not the tool. It's all about fear, people don't want to be reminded that the world is violent, and guns are a reminder of the violence and powerlessness that people push aside to live their perfect little lives. The violence remains but the reminder is gone, the stabbing victim is just a statistic of criminal activity it happens people move on so is the vehicular manslaughter, the random assault is wrong place at the wrong time. And hey the victim of domestic abuse should have gotten out of the situation sooner. Add a gun into the mix and suddenly people are trying to prevent needless and senseless deaths.

 

I have only skimmed over this rant and am not interested in reading more because that is what it is a baseless accusatory rant with no real purpose

Australia was one of the first countries in the world to introduce compulsory seat belt laws - to reduce the road toll. It did not stop all road deaths but it did save lives

Same intent for our gun laws

 

Let me get this straight, you provide links that have conflicting positions on whether or not the gun deaths in Australia went down (one says they definately did, the other says they can't tell), and expect this disparity to lend credibility to your position?!

BTW, you understand that there's a difference between gradually slowing down and slamming on the brakes, right?
Australia had about 1 mass shooting every year prior to taking action, and have had none since. Enough said.

 

WHAT???? you mean the laws didn't stop nor slow some of the gun deaths or suicides or crime rates...do tell how effective the law was I understand gradually slowing down and slamming the brakes just fine...all the reports I've posted say that basically you have neutral results on some and no effect on others...you do understand the difference between neutral and park...yes.

 

Who said they didn't have any impact on gun deaths?
It's already been established - by links you provided - that gun crimes have reduced... and the fact that there are more gun owners in Aus now than there were before the gun control laws were established proves that gun control doesn't have to take the form of a total ban on guns.

Do you think that continually repeating the same debunked nonsense actually lends credibility to your position?
If you have to lie to make your points, you're on the wrong side.